Lee Harmon's Blog, page 93
May 25, 2012
Nehemiah 13:1, No Ammonites forever
On that day they read in the book of Moses in the audience of the people; and therein was found written, that the Ammonite and the Moabite should not come into the congregation of God for ever.
//Today's verse was written about a time of ethnic purging. The Jews were returning in waves from their captivity in Babylon, back to Jerusalem, and trying to reestablish its holiness. They decreed that all gentiles must be banished from the city of Jerusalem, and today's verse provided scriptural backing.
But if today’s verse quotes from Deuteronomy, it’s a misquote. There, in verse 23:3, the wording is: No Ammonite or Moabite or any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, even down to the tenth generation. (NIV) Not “forever,” but only “ten generations.”
So, which is God’s command? Forever excluded, even down to the 6th century B.C. and the ethnic purge of Jerusalem, or just ten generations? Maybe neither. Consider this verse:
1 Kings 14:31, And Rehoboam slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David. And his mother's name was Naamah an Ammonitess.
Who was this man Rehoboam, son of an Ammonitess woman, buried in Jerusalem? Turns out his father was king Solomon. We're back in the tenth century, 400 years before Nehemiah, when a second-generation Ammonite is welcome in Jerusalem.
//Today's verse was written about a time of ethnic purging. The Jews were returning in waves from their captivity in Babylon, back to Jerusalem, and trying to reestablish its holiness. They decreed that all gentiles must be banished from the city of Jerusalem, and today's verse provided scriptural backing.
But if today’s verse quotes from Deuteronomy, it’s a misquote. There, in verse 23:3, the wording is: No Ammonite or Moabite or any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, even down to the tenth generation. (NIV) Not “forever,” but only “ten generations.”
So, which is God’s command? Forever excluded, even down to the 6th century B.C. and the ethnic purge of Jerusalem, or just ten generations? Maybe neither. Consider this verse:
1 Kings 14:31, And Rehoboam slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David. And his mother's name was Naamah an Ammonitess.
Who was this man Rehoboam, son of an Ammonitess woman, buried in Jerusalem? Turns out his father was king Solomon. We're back in the tenth century, 400 years before Nehemiah, when a second-generation Ammonite is welcome in Jerusalem.
May 24, 2012
John 19:30-31, Casting Lots for Jesus' Clothes
When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining. This garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom. "Let's not tear it," they said to one another. "Let's decide by lot who will get it." This happened that the scripture might be fulfilled which said, "They divided my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing." So this is what the soldiers did.
//New Testament writers had a penchant for searching the scriptures for an explanation for what happened to Jesus. Here, John reports that the soldiers crucifying Jesus cast lots for his clothes. This, they did, so that "scripture would be fulfilled."
So let's look at the scripture being fulfilled. It comes from Psalm 22:18: They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.
What is happening in this psalm? A man feels abandoned by God because a gang of evil men has surrounded him. They have bound his hands and feet and left him lying on the ground, where he appears to be attacked by a pack of dogs. The villains divide his stolen clothes by casting lots, and the man prays to God for help, promising that if God will come to his aid, he will praise God to all his brethren. The text isn't clear, but it appears God rescues the man and the rest of the psalm is a song of praise.
This type of "fulfillment" (which actuality bears little resemblance to the circumstances of Jesus) is quite common in New Testament writing. I don't mean to ridicule the prophecies, but I do want to point out that they aren't prophecies! The Old Testament authors had no clue their writings would be used in such a way ... or did they?
Yes, I think they did. The psalmists speak to the human experience. Psalm 22 (a favorite among the Gospel writers) was "fulfilled" in Jesus, and by thousands of others, thousands of times over.
//New Testament writers had a penchant for searching the scriptures for an explanation for what happened to Jesus. Here, John reports that the soldiers crucifying Jesus cast lots for his clothes. This, they did, so that "scripture would be fulfilled."
So let's look at the scripture being fulfilled. It comes from Psalm 22:18: They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.
What is happening in this psalm? A man feels abandoned by God because a gang of evil men has surrounded him. They have bound his hands and feet and left him lying on the ground, where he appears to be attacked by a pack of dogs. The villains divide his stolen clothes by casting lots, and the man prays to God for help, promising that if God will come to his aid, he will praise God to all his brethren. The text isn't clear, but it appears God rescues the man and the rest of the psalm is a song of praise.
This type of "fulfillment" (which actuality bears little resemblance to the circumstances of Jesus) is quite common in New Testament writing. I don't mean to ridicule the prophecies, but I do want to point out that they aren't prophecies! The Old Testament authors had no clue their writings would be used in such a way ... or did they?
Yes, I think they did. The psalmists speak to the human experience. Psalm 22 (a favorite among the Gospel writers) was "fulfilled" in Jesus, and by thousands of others, thousands of times over.
May 23, 2012
Book review: And God Said, Let There Be Evolution!
Edited by Charles M. Wynn, Sr. and Arthur W. Wiggins
★★★★★
This is a fantastic book idea! Nearly half of America’s scientists believe science and religion are compatible. So, let’s take believing scientists from the three major monotheistic religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—and get them to talk about evolution. Why the evidence forces them to acknowledge a 13.7 billion year old universe and a human race that evolved over nearly 4 billion years, and then how they reconcile this scientific evidence with the Bible.
The first half of the book, which discusses the evidence for planetary and biological evolution, is interesting but not as strong. All readers will presumably be interested in religion, but not all will be interested in science, and I think this section could have been summed up more succinctly. Ten pages for each of the three writers would have been sufficient.
The second half, however, is superb. Let me give you a sampling of each writer.
Christian scientist Howard Van Till: Howard has learned to respect scripture in a new way. Claims of divine inspiration and infallibility are unwarranted. Many people, he surmises, will find this disappointing. But for him, it “feels like a load has been taken off my shoulders.” He now recognizes the Bible as “storied theology,” creatively crafted stories shaped by a deeply theological agenda.
Trying to reconcile Genesis with what we now know about our origins is “wrong, wrong, wrong. This wonderful bit of dramatized theology should never be mistaken for some primitive version of Big Bang cosmology.” Concordism, says Howard, is a failed strategy.
Jewish scientist David Kay: We are wrong to dismiss our ancient ancestors as primitives. These guys knew the rains came (or didn’t) regardless of the faithfulness of their fellow Hebrews. Readers of the Torah back in the day knew better than to take it literally, but rather sought in its pages a deeper lesson.
“If reality doesn’t conform to Scripture, don’t assume either is wrong: the problem isn’t reality or Scripture; the problem is your own understanding of one, the other, or most likely both.” Rabbinic interpretation finds ways to understand sacred text that are both reverent and relevant.
Muslim scientist T. O. Shanavas: Thankfully for more conservative readers, they may find more of a kindred spirit in Shanavas, who definitely believes in the Genesis story. Not that Shanavas disagrees with evolution; on the contrary, he argues convincingly that the Qur’an describes our evolutionary beginnings much more directly than the Hebrew Bible. Genesis is accurate, but Adam and Eve should be understood not as a story of biological origin. Adam was the first spiritual man.
Prepare to be astounded as Shanavas digs up ancient Muslim thinker after thinker who describes natural selection and the creation of man in evolutionary terms. These guys pre-dated Darwin by as much as a thousand years! Yikes, while we Christians were fumbling around in the dark ages, were the Muslims beating us to the punch? Many of us still remain in the dark, and it’s time we realized that, in a number of ways, we can remain Muslims/Christians/Jews without rejecting the scientific discoveries which should leave us in awe of our world.
★★★★★
This is a fantastic book idea! Nearly half of America’s scientists believe science and religion are compatible. So, let’s take believing scientists from the three major monotheistic religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—and get them to talk about evolution. Why the evidence forces them to acknowledge a 13.7 billion year old universe and a human race that evolved over nearly 4 billion years, and then how they reconcile this scientific evidence with the Bible.
The first half of the book, which discusses the evidence for planetary and biological evolution, is interesting but not as strong. All readers will presumably be interested in religion, but not all will be interested in science, and I think this section could have been summed up more succinctly. Ten pages for each of the three writers would have been sufficient.
The second half, however, is superb. Let me give you a sampling of each writer.
Christian scientist Howard Van Till: Howard has learned to respect scripture in a new way. Claims of divine inspiration and infallibility are unwarranted. Many people, he surmises, will find this disappointing. But for him, it “feels like a load has been taken off my shoulders.” He now recognizes the Bible as “storied theology,” creatively crafted stories shaped by a deeply theological agenda.
Trying to reconcile Genesis with what we now know about our origins is “wrong, wrong, wrong. This wonderful bit of dramatized theology should never be mistaken for some primitive version of Big Bang cosmology.” Concordism, says Howard, is a failed strategy.
Jewish scientist David Kay: We are wrong to dismiss our ancient ancestors as primitives. These guys knew the rains came (or didn’t) regardless of the faithfulness of their fellow Hebrews. Readers of the Torah back in the day knew better than to take it literally, but rather sought in its pages a deeper lesson.
“If reality doesn’t conform to Scripture, don’t assume either is wrong: the problem isn’t reality or Scripture; the problem is your own understanding of one, the other, or most likely both.” Rabbinic interpretation finds ways to understand sacred text that are both reverent and relevant.
Muslim scientist T. O. Shanavas: Thankfully for more conservative readers, they may find more of a kindred spirit in Shanavas, who definitely believes in the Genesis story. Not that Shanavas disagrees with evolution; on the contrary, he argues convincingly that the Qur’an describes our evolutionary beginnings much more directly than the Hebrew Bible. Genesis is accurate, but Adam and Eve should be understood not as a story of biological origin. Adam was the first spiritual man.
Prepare to be astounded as Shanavas digs up ancient Muslim thinker after thinker who describes natural selection and the creation of man in evolutionary terms. These guys pre-dated Darwin by as much as a thousand years! Yikes, while we Christians were fumbling around in the dark ages, were the Muslims beating us to the punch? Many of us still remain in the dark, and it’s time we realized that, in a number of ways, we can remain Muslims/Christians/Jews without rejecting the scientific discoveries which should leave us in awe of our world.
May 22, 2012
Revelation 20:12, The Book of Life
And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.
//Here's a fascinating topic. Everybody has heard about the Book of Life up in heaven. If your name is in it, you get through the Pearly Gates. If not, tough luck, down you go to the flames.
Many people who have near-death experiences recall seeing a big book, sometimes sitting on a pedestal, describing their deeds. Undoubtedly the image derives from the book of Revelation in the Bible.
John, in writing Revelation, relies heavily upon the Old Testament book of Daniel, and there is a heavenly scene in that book which looks like a court of law. But when God "opens the books" in Daniel's court of law, it is to decide upon and impose a sentence. It is never to determine guilt or innocence; the party's guilt has been established before the book is opened. The guilty pronouncement has already been made. In Revelation, the sentence of evil men is to die a second time in the Lake of Fire.
But is this book in Daniel supposed to be the Book of Life? Elsewhere in the Old Testament, the "book of life" is better explained as the "book of the living." It is a book full of names of people who are still alive. When it's your turn to die, your name is blotted out of the book. Picture the gods keeping the book handy, and when they've had enough of you, they open it up to your name and blot you out with their thumb.
John seems to have taken these two themes--Daniel's book of sentences and the Old Testament's book of the living--and combined them into one. The book changes from diabolical to wonderful, and becomes a list of people who will inherit eternal life.
Much better, don’t you think?
//Here's a fascinating topic. Everybody has heard about the Book of Life up in heaven. If your name is in it, you get through the Pearly Gates. If not, tough luck, down you go to the flames.
Many people who have near-death experiences recall seeing a big book, sometimes sitting on a pedestal, describing their deeds. Undoubtedly the image derives from the book of Revelation in the Bible.
John, in writing Revelation, relies heavily upon the Old Testament book of Daniel, and there is a heavenly scene in that book which looks like a court of law. But when God "opens the books" in Daniel's court of law, it is to decide upon and impose a sentence. It is never to determine guilt or innocence; the party's guilt has been established before the book is opened. The guilty pronouncement has already been made. In Revelation, the sentence of evil men is to die a second time in the Lake of Fire.
But is this book in Daniel supposed to be the Book of Life? Elsewhere in the Old Testament, the "book of life" is better explained as the "book of the living." It is a book full of names of people who are still alive. When it's your turn to die, your name is blotted out of the book. Picture the gods keeping the book handy, and when they've had enough of you, they open it up to your name and blot you out with their thumb.
John seems to have taken these two themes--Daniel's book of sentences and the Old Testament's book of the living--and combined them into one. The book changes from diabolical to wonderful, and becomes a list of people who will inherit eternal life.
Much better, don’t you think?
May 21, 2012
1 Corinthians 14:34-35, Gals, you gotta be quiet in here!
For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged. And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. [Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.] Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached? If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant.
//I apologize for the length of today's passage, but it really needs to be quoted in full. See the section enclosed in brackets? Verses 34 and 35? Textual scholars are all but certain that this passage was not written by Paul's own hand but was added later. Read the passage again, omitting the bracketed section. Now it reads seamlessly.
These two verses, inserted in to an authentic Pauline letter, radically contradict Paul's stance about women in the church. Isn't it Paul who wrote "there are no more distinctions between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female?" In fact, Paul established many female leaders in his churches: Junia, Phoebe, Prisca, Tryphaena and Tryphosa.
//I apologize for the length of today's passage, but it really needs to be quoted in full. See the section enclosed in brackets? Verses 34 and 35? Textual scholars are all but certain that this passage was not written by Paul's own hand but was added later. Read the passage again, omitting the bracketed section. Now it reads seamlessly.
These two verses, inserted in to an authentic Pauline letter, radically contradict Paul's stance about women in the church. Isn't it Paul who wrote "there are no more distinctions between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female?" In fact, Paul established many female leaders in his churches: Junia, Phoebe, Prisca, Tryphaena and Tryphosa.
May 20, 2012
Book review: Revelation: The Way it Happened
I thought it would be fun to present a review of my own book that I received while it was still in the galley stage. I think Fran Lewis was the very first to read the published version.
Fran is a sweetie who probably reads about a book a day, and who takes her commitment to provide positive exposure seriously. Authors, she should be on your list for sure!
As this was my first book about religion (I had published a couple of poker books before this), Fran's review was fun to read, opening my eyes to how differently readers perceive a book from the way the author imagines it. :) Unfortunately, the review is very long for a reprint, so I'll limit my post to a few words. Fran gives a synopsis of the book and its themes, and then she closes with this paragraph:
"Author Lee Harmon provides an accurate detailed account of the events in the Book of Revelation through the words of Samuel, the questions of Matthew and the many explanations both from the book and his own commentaries. Taking the reader through the many sections and verses of the Book of Revelation itself, the reader can visualize, experience and understand the time, the people, the culture and the writings of John and its message. I can truly say that I have a better understanding of many of the events than I did before reading this book and the hardships, wars, sacrifices and more that both the Jewish people and Christians endured. Although this book is geared for adults only, I think that children will understand the discussion between father and son and would definitely read and understand it."
Fran can be found in a multitude of places, but here's her blog: http://gabina49.webs.com/home.htm
Fran is a sweetie who probably reads about a book a day, and who takes her commitment to provide positive exposure seriously. Authors, she should be on your list for sure!
As this was my first book about religion (I had published a couple of poker books before this), Fran's review was fun to read, opening my eyes to how differently readers perceive a book from the way the author imagines it. :) Unfortunately, the review is very long for a reprint, so I'll limit my post to a few words. Fran gives a synopsis of the book and its themes, and then she closes with this paragraph:
"Author Lee Harmon provides an accurate detailed account of the events in the Book of Revelation through the words of Samuel, the questions of Matthew and the many explanations both from the book and his own commentaries. Taking the reader through the many sections and verses of the Book of Revelation itself, the reader can visualize, experience and understand the time, the people, the culture and the writings of John and its message. I can truly say that I have a better understanding of many of the events than I did before reading this book and the hardships, wars, sacrifices and more that both the Jewish people and Christians endured. Although this book is geared for adults only, I think that children will understand the discussion between father and son and would definitely read and understand it."
Fran can be found in a multitude of places, but here's her blog: http://gabina49.webs.com/home.htm
May 18, 2012
Matthew 28:16-18, Where did the Twelve first encounter the risen Jesus?
Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. ... Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
//Nowhere does the Bible contain more contradicting stories than in the resurrection appearances. Take, for example, the question of where Jesus first appears to the Twelve.
For Matthew, it happens on a mountain in Galilee. Jesus, after rising from the dead, instructs the women who first encounter him to tell the disciples he will meet them in Galilee. Immediately, they head for the hills, and Jesus meets up with them there.
For Luke and John, the meeting takes place in Jerusalem. There, according to John, Jesus dispenses the Holy Spirit when he greets them. Luke's version differs a little: When Jesus meets the Twelve, he explains the Spirit will come along shortly ... actually, forty days later at Pentecost. Jesus tells them, "I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high." Note the command to remain in Jerusalem, a direct contradiction of Matthew.
Can Mark settle the argument of where they met? No, sorry, in Mark there is no meeting at all! Mark's resurrection chapter originally ended with verse eight (the margin comments in your Bible may confirm this), with the women who discovered the empty tomb running away afraid, telling no one. Nobody sees Jesus; he’s just gone. Before you discount Mark's version out of hand, remember that all throughout Mark, the disciples just don't catch on; they never do grasp the significance of Jesus. Mark’s mysterious ending fits the story he tells, leaving it up to us to see if we understand.
Little wonder there is so much argument between Bible scholars about the nature of the resurrection!
[image error]
//Nowhere does the Bible contain more contradicting stories than in the resurrection appearances. Take, for example, the question of where Jesus first appears to the Twelve.
For Matthew, it happens on a mountain in Galilee. Jesus, after rising from the dead, instructs the women who first encounter him to tell the disciples he will meet them in Galilee. Immediately, they head for the hills, and Jesus meets up with them there.
For Luke and John, the meeting takes place in Jerusalem. There, according to John, Jesus dispenses the Holy Spirit when he greets them. Luke's version differs a little: When Jesus meets the Twelve, he explains the Spirit will come along shortly ... actually, forty days later at Pentecost. Jesus tells them, "I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high." Note the command to remain in Jerusalem, a direct contradiction of Matthew.
Can Mark settle the argument of where they met? No, sorry, in Mark there is no meeting at all! Mark's resurrection chapter originally ended with verse eight (the margin comments in your Bible may confirm this), with the women who discovered the empty tomb running away afraid, telling no one. Nobody sees Jesus; he’s just gone. Before you discount Mark's version out of hand, remember that all throughout Mark, the disciples just don't catch on; they never do grasp the significance of Jesus. Mark’s mysterious ending fits the story he tells, leaving it up to us to see if we understand.
Little wonder there is so much argument between Bible scholars about the nature of the resurrection!
[image error]
May 17, 2012
Book review: Seeing the Good in Unfamiliar Spiritualities
by Gethin Abraham-Williams
★★★★★
If Gethin is not a poet, then certainly his love of poetry shines. Verse mixes with prose to lend richness throughout. I think this is a book which should be read outdoors, in the squares of our busiest cities or beside the brooks of our remotest parks.
It's about God, our perception and experience. It meanders thoughtfully around the topics of faith, mercy, sexism, and hell, on its journey to "reaching middle ground" between the various world religions. The stability of our society rests on "mutual respect, and a genuine attempt to understand and to appreciate the other, to detect the voice of God in the other, and to pursue a thoughtful, caring life with the other."
Religious thought is evolving, but the evolution of our understanding of God has been a gradual process, and we are by no means at the end of it. Enchantment is coming back into vogue, and society may be experiencing sacralization rather than secularization. Many of us yearn to "feel the Greatness and the Glory, and all those things that begin with a Capital Letter," but we're unsure how to proceed. The closer we approach the mystical (though not the magical, that stuff is evil, right?) the further away we appear.
Gethin's gimmick of threading the story of Ezekiel throughout the discussion is what makes the book real. I laugh out loud as I write this, but it is so; Gethin doesn't feed us the wild-eyed, theatrical Ezekiel most of us avoid, but the human, struggling-to-understand-it-all Ezekiel. The Ezekiel strolling mournfully beside Babylon's Tigris, dreaming of Israel's Jordan. For all his extraordinary visions, Ezekiel never actually gets to see God.
This book is a joy to read, and one to fill our dreams with hope.
[image error]
★★★★★
If Gethin is not a poet, then certainly his love of poetry shines. Verse mixes with prose to lend richness throughout. I think this is a book which should be read outdoors, in the squares of our busiest cities or beside the brooks of our remotest parks.
It's about God, our perception and experience. It meanders thoughtfully around the topics of faith, mercy, sexism, and hell, on its journey to "reaching middle ground" between the various world religions. The stability of our society rests on "mutual respect, and a genuine attempt to understand and to appreciate the other, to detect the voice of God in the other, and to pursue a thoughtful, caring life with the other."
Religious thought is evolving, but the evolution of our understanding of God has been a gradual process, and we are by no means at the end of it. Enchantment is coming back into vogue, and society may be experiencing sacralization rather than secularization. Many of us yearn to "feel the Greatness and the Glory, and all those things that begin with a Capital Letter," but we're unsure how to proceed. The closer we approach the mystical (though not the magical, that stuff is evil, right?) the further away we appear.
Gethin's gimmick of threading the story of Ezekiel throughout the discussion is what makes the book real. I laugh out loud as I write this, but it is so; Gethin doesn't feed us the wild-eyed, theatrical Ezekiel most of us avoid, but the human, struggling-to-understand-it-all Ezekiel. The Ezekiel strolling mournfully beside Babylon's Tigris, dreaming of Israel's Jordan. For all his extraordinary visions, Ezekiel never actually gets to see God.
This book is a joy to read, and one to fill our dreams with hope.
[image error]
May 16, 2012
Matthew 6:13, For Thine is the Kingdom
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
//Today's verse concludes the Lord's Prayer as recorded in the book of Matthew. But this final stanza, beginning with For thine is the kingdom, isn't original to the prayer. You won't find it in Luke's rendition, and you won't find it in our earliest copies of Matthew. It was added sometime later.
Why did it get added? I can offer an opinion, but it’s only an opinion.
First, it must be recognized that this is an eschatological prayer. That is, it anticipates the arrival of God's kingdom on earth; presumably with the return of Jesus. So, likewise, the final pre-edited stanza: Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Many scholars recognize this as a plea for rescue from the trying times that must precede the Lord's arrival. Readers of Paul's letters and the book of Revelation will know what I mean: Jews and Christians both anticipated a period of suffering, sometimes called the Woes of the Messiah, before the inauguration of God's kingdom, God's era of righteous rule on the earth.
But the prayer ends rather abruptly, and on a dark note. Evil. Something like, Please, God, guide us safely through that awful time, so that we might participate in the coming age of plenty ... when debts will all be forgiven, and there will be bread to eat every day, and your righteous rule will extend your kingdom over the entire earth.
Then comes the new addition to the prayer, speaking of power and glory forever. Gently redirecting us away from our fears and dreams of the future, with one very important word: is. While all of the rest of the prayer is futuristic, looking ahead to a better time, this little word "is" suddenly invites participation in the glorious kingdom of God now. Perhaps it was added by someone who recognized the silliness of living entirely in anticipation of a future day, encouraging us instead to grasp what is ours now through the goodness of God. It is a shift in understanding of what the Kingdom of God is ... from a future arrival of a Messiah to a living, worldwide Christian movement, already under the reign of Jesus.
[image error]
//Today's verse concludes the Lord's Prayer as recorded in the book of Matthew. But this final stanza, beginning with For thine is the kingdom, isn't original to the prayer. You won't find it in Luke's rendition, and you won't find it in our earliest copies of Matthew. It was added sometime later.
Why did it get added? I can offer an opinion, but it’s only an opinion.
First, it must be recognized that this is an eschatological prayer. That is, it anticipates the arrival of God's kingdom on earth; presumably with the return of Jesus. So, likewise, the final pre-edited stanza: Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Many scholars recognize this as a plea for rescue from the trying times that must precede the Lord's arrival. Readers of Paul's letters and the book of Revelation will know what I mean: Jews and Christians both anticipated a period of suffering, sometimes called the Woes of the Messiah, before the inauguration of God's kingdom, God's era of righteous rule on the earth.
But the prayer ends rather abruptly, and on a dark note. Evil. Something like, Please, God, guide us safely through that awful time, so that we might participate in the coming age of plenty ... when debts will all be forgiven, and there will be bread to eat every day, and your righteous rule will extend your kingdom over the entire earth.
Then comes the new addition to the prayer, speaking of power and glory forever. Gently redirecting us away from our fears and dreams of the future, with one very important word: is. While all of the rest of the prayer is futuristic, looking ahead to a better time, this little word "is" suddenly invites participation in the glorious kingdom of God now. Perhaps it was added by someone who recognized the silliness of living entirely in anticipation of a future day, encouraging us instead to grasp what is ours now through the goodness of God. It is a shift in understanding of what the Kingdom of God is ... from a future arrival of a Messiah to a living, worldwide Christian movement, already under the reign of Jesus.
[image error]
May 15, 2012
Book review: Why Four Gospels? The Historical Origins of the Gospels
by David Alan Black
★★★★★
Very good. This is a concise, well-organized explanation of the historical and textual arguments for David Black’s Fourfold-Gospel Hypothesis and an early writing of the Gospels. It’s a conservative treatment; David’s purpose in writing is to “renew, restore, and strengthen faith in the truth of the Gospels by providing scientific support for the church’s continuous teaching on their apostolicity and historicity.
I have been looking for a simple guide to the argument for apostolic authority and the traditional ordering of the Gospels, and this one does the trick. Relying heavily on the testimony of the early church fathers, David presents a reasonable scenario for the development of the Gospels. It is not David’s claim that the fathers of the church solve the synoptic problem; it is that any approach that rejects their testimony is lacking. A hypothesis is needed that does justice both to critical scholarship and to the integrity of the church fathers.
Matthew’s Gospel came first, written in Greek. It was a response to a need within the early church (years 33-44) to preserve the story of Jesus. But Matthew’s version, while highly respected in Jerusalem circles, didn’t fit the bill for Gentile readers, and Paul commissioned Luke to rework the Gospel message for the benefit of his own Greek churches. Luke was able to “change the whole emphasis of the Gospel into a demonstration of the good fortune of the Gentiles in being given equality by Jesus with the original chosen people.”
Peter happened to be in Rome at the time of Paul’s captivity, so Paul met with Peter and asked his advice about Luke’s new gospel. Peter was happy to compare the two (Luke and Matthew), and since it was his plan to give a series of speeches in Rome, he took both together and, with Mark in attendance, fitted them into five lectures which Mark preserved in writing. These lectures are recorded in Mark 1:2-3:19, 3:20-6:13, 6:14-10:1, 10:2-13:37, and 14:1-16:8. Peter’s intent was to refer only to those portions of Jesus’ life of which he had been an eyewitness and could personally vouch for. Thus, there exists no birth stories or resurrection narratives in Mark.
Those who listened to Peter were delighted with what they heard, and requested from Mark copies of what Peter said. Peter allowed this, and Mark’s Gospel was birthed. The final twelve verses of the gospel (which are not in the earliest manuscripts) were surely added by Mark at a later date, when he decided to publish the gospel as an act of piety to the memory of Peter.
That’s the way David fits the puzzle pieces together, relying heavily upon the patristic evidence, and it explains the internal data “at least as well as the Markan priority hypothesis, and often much better.” It also explains the need for three Synoptic Gospels. David then goes pericope-by-pericope through the Gospels explaining how Mark was pieced together from Matthew and Luke, and while I didn’t take time to study his analysis, it’s nice to know he did his homework.
While I’m not a conservative believer and have no issue with Markan priority (as proposed by the popular solution to the synoptic problem), and while a number of issues remain unresolved (such as Matthew’s apparent familiarity with the events of 70 CE), I found this a very helpful review of the patristic evidence for traditional beliefs.
★★★★★
Very good. This is a concise, well-organized explanation of the historical and textual arguments for David Black’s Fourfold-Gospel Hypothesis and an early writing of the Gospels. It’s a conservative treatment; David’s purpose in writing is to “renew, restore, and strengthen faith in the truth of the Gospels by providing scientific support for the church’s continuous teaching on their apostolicity and historicity.
I have been looking for a simple guide to the argument for apostolic authority and the traditional ordering of the Gospels, and this one does the trick. Relying heavily on the testimony of the early church fathers, David presents a reasonable scenario for the development of the Gospels. It is not David’s claim that the fathers of the church solve the synoptic problem; it is that any approach that rejects their testimony is lacking. A hypothesis is needed that does justice both to critical scholarship and to the integrity of the church fathers.
Matthew’s Gospel came first, written in Greek. It was a response to a need within the early church (years 33-44) to preserve the story of Jesus. But Matthew’s version, while highly respected in Jerusalem circles, didn’t fit the bill for Gentile readers, and Paul commissioned Luke to rework the Gospel message for the benefit of his own Greek churches. Luke was able to “change the whole emphasis of the Gospel into a demonstration of the good fortune of the Gentiles in being given equality by Jesus with the original chosen people.”
Peter happened to be in Rome at the time of Paul’s captivity, so Paul met with Peter and asked his advice about Luke’s new gospel. Peter was happy to compare the two (Luke and Matthew), and since it was his plan to give a series of speeches in Rome, he took both together and, with Mark in attendance, fitted them into five lectures which Mark preserved in writing. These lectures are recorded in Mark 1:2-3:19, 3:20-6:13, 6:14-10:1, 10:2-13:37, and 14:1-16:8. Peter’s intent was to refer only to those portions of Jesus’ life of which he had been an eyewitness and could personally vouch for. Thus, there exists no birth stories or resurrection narratives in Mark.
Those who listened to Peter were delighted with what they heard, and requested from Mark copies of what Peter said. Peter allowed this, and Mark’s Gospel was birthed. The final twelve verses of the gospel (which are not in the earliest manuscripts) were surely added by Mark at a later date, when he decided to publish the gospel as an act of piety to the memory of Peter.
That’s the way David fits the puzzle pieces together, relying heavily upon the patristic evidence, and it explains the internal data “at least as well as the Markan priority hypothesis, and often much better.” It also explains the need for three Synoptic Gospels. David then goes pericope-by-pericope through the Gospels explaining how Mark was pieced together from Matthew and Luke, and while I didn’t take time to study his analysis, it’s nice to know he did his homework.
While I’m not a conservative believer and have no issue with Markan priority (as proposed by the popular solution to the synoptic problem), and while a number of issues remain unresolved (such as Matthew’s apparent familiarity with the events of 70 CE), I found this a very helpful review of the patristic evidence for traditional beliefs.
