Lee Harmon's Blog, page 95
May 3, 2012
Deuteronomy 22:28-29, Be careful who you rape!
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
//In a patriarchal society, where most women (married or not) are the property of men, what happens to you if you defile another man’s property?
Answer: It depends.
[1] Today’s verse explains that if she isn’t yet married, then you pay a fee to the father (fifty shekels of silver) and marry her.
[2] If the woman turns out to be already married, you and she must both die.
[3] If she is unmarried but betrothed to another, it gets a little more complicated. If you rape her in the country, you die and she lives. If you rape her in the city, and she goes along with it quietly, you both die. But if she screams, she lives and you die.
[4] Finally, if you’re not a Jew, it doesn’t much matter whether the girl cooperates; the laws of Israel don’t apply. You’ll probably be lynched.
So, do your homework first.
//In a patriarchal society, where most women (married or not) are the property of men, what happens to you if you defile another man’s property?
Answer: It depends.
[1] Today’s verse explains that if she isn’t yet married, then you pay a fee to the father (fifty shekels of silver) and marry her.
[2] If the woman turns out to be already married, you and she must both die.
[3] If she is unmarried but betrothed to another, it gets a little more complicated. If you rape her in the country, you die and she lives. If you rape her in the city, and she goes along with it quietly, you both die. But if she screams, she lives and you die.
[4] Finally, if you’re not a Jew, it doesn’t much matter whether the girl cooperates; the laws of Israel don’t apply. You’ll probably be lynched.
So, do your homework first.
May 2, 2012
Book review: The Reality Bible
by Ash Vaz
★★★
Too much! Far too much is covered in this book to provide even a basic grasp of the concepts presented. Ash’s intent seems to be not to explain, but to mystify and bewilder, as he carries us on a journey into the science of the world around us … and of worlds far away. Ash isn’t a scientist, he is a “metaphysics thinker and phenomenologist” who isn’t shy about contradicting scientific theory. There was no big bang; a steady-state universe is more consistent with the facts. Relativity is unhelpful as a theory because light dwindles over distances. Forget about e=mc2. The moon doesn’t cause tides. Gravitational forces don’t exist (at least not as expected) because the earth doesn’t crash into the sun.
Instead, all is explained by forms of energy. Other planets can produce biological cells, but only earth produces multi-cellular life, and this is important … we are the key. Everything exists because we can think. Through our thoughts, we conceptualize God, energy, everything.
The book’s most frustrating flaw is its difficult readability. Sentences read like clusters of big words with few relative pronouns. “Astronomy informs star centers with cores of helium atoms exhaust protons over billion years.” “The postulated colossal universe appearing from a point, terminating everything inside, and simultaneously abetting the creation of existences outside is preposterous thinking.” You’ll get used to the writing style about the time the book ends.
★★★
Too much! Far too much is covered in this book to provide even a basic grasp of the concepts presented. Ash’s intent seems to be not to explain, but to mystify and bewilder, as he carries us on a journey into the science of the world around us … and of worlds far away. Ash isn’t a scientist, he is a “metaphysics thinker and phenomenologist” who isn’t shy about contradicting scientific theory. There was no big bang; a steady-state universe is more consistent with the facts. Relativity is unhelpful as a theory because light dwindles over distances. Forget about e=mc2. The moon doesn’t cause tides. Gravitational forces don’t exist (at least not as expected) because the earth doesn’t crash into the sun.
Instead, all is explained by forms of energy. Other planets can produce biological cells, but only earth produces multi-cellular life, and this is important … we are the key. Everything exists because we can think. Through our thoughts, we conceptualize God, energy, everything.
The book’s most frustrating flaw is its difficult readability. Sentences read like clusters of big words with few relative pronouns. “Astronomy informs star centers with cores of helium atoms exhaust protons over billion years.” “The postulated colossal universe appearing from a point, terminating everything inside, and simultaneously abetting the creation of existences outside is preposterous thinking.” You’ll get used to the writing style about the time the book ends.
May 1, 2012
1 Samuel 18:9-10, Saul brings about his own death
So Saul disguised himself, putting on other clothes, and at night he and two men went to the woman. "Consult a spirit for me," he said, "and bring up for me the one I name." But the woman said to him, "Surely you know what Saul has done. He has cut off the mediums and spiritists from the land. Why have you set a trap for my life to bring about my death?"
//In a bizarre series of events, Saul, the first king of Israel, finds himself in a close battle with the Philistines. Terrified, Saul “inquires of the Lord” to find out what to do, but none of the prophets step forward to answer for God. Samuel, Israel’s primary prophet, had died.
So Saul goes in search of a witch to bring Samuel up from the dead, hoping to ask Samuel for advice. But Saul himself had outlawed necromancy just a few verses before this, under penalty of death. So, he finds himself breaking his own law, punishable by death, in hopes of saving his life.
Samuel “comes up” at the witch’s bidding, but he isn’t amused. He says to Saul, “tomorrow you and your sons will be with me.” Meaning, they’ll be dead, residing in Sheol, the underworld.
Oops! Should have obeyed your own law, Saul.
[image error]
//In a bizarre series of events, Saul, the first king of Israel, finds himself in a close battle with the Philistines. Terrified, Saul “inquires of the Lord” to find out what to do, but none of the prophets step forward to answer for God. Samuel, Israel’s primary prophet, had died.
So Saul goes in search of a witch to bring Samuel up from the dead, hoping to ask Samuel for advice. But Saul himself had outlawed necromancy just a few verses before this, under penalty of death. So, he finds himself breaking his own law, punishable by death, in hopes of saving his life.
Samuel “comes up” at the witch’s bidding, but he isn’t amused. He says to Saul, “tomorrow you and your sons will be with me.” Meaning, they’ll be dead, residing in Sheol, the underworld.
Oops! Should have obeyed your own law, Saul.
[image error]
April 29, 2012
2 Chronicles 26:33, The Ending of the Hebrew Bible
"This is what Cyrus king of Persia says: "'The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and he has appointed me to build a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah. Anyone of his people among you--may the LORD his God be with him, and let him go up.'"
//It’s fascinating to note the difference between the Jewish ordering of the Old Testament and the Christian ordering. The Hebrew Bible ends with the book of Chronicles. King Cyrus of Persia, you may note, was considered by one of the authors of the book of Isaiah to be the Messiah, the Jewish savior: This is what the Lord says to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I take hold of to subdue nations before him and to strip kings of their armor. “Messiah” means “anointed.” Thus, the final verse of the Bible is a wrap-up; the Messiah has arrived, and the Jews are called to return to their nation and rebuild it as God intends.
Of course, this won’t do for Christians. In the Christian reordering of the Bible, the final book is Malachi, and the final verses read like this:
"See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse."
This, of course, leads smoothly into the New Testament, when John the Baptist (Elijah redivivus) introduces the true Messiah, and the day of the Lord.
[image error]
//It’s fascinating to note the difference between the Jewish ordering of the Old Testament and the Christian ordering. The Hebrew Bible ends with the book of Chronicles. King Cyrus of Persia, you may note, was considered by one of the authors of the book of Isaiah to be the Messiah, the Jewish savior: This is what the Lord says to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I take hold of to subdue nations before him and to strip kings of their armor. “Messiah” means “anointed.” Thus, the final verse of the Bible is a wrap-up; the Messiah has arrived, and the Jews are called to return to their nation and rebuild it as God intends.
Of course, this won’t do for Christians. In the Christian reordering of the Bible, the final book is Malachi, and the final verses read like this:
"See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse."
This, of course, leads smoothly into the New Testament, when John the Baptist (Elijah redivivus) introduces the true Messiah, and the day of the Lord.
[image error]
April 28, 2012
Book review: From Adam to Noah: The Numbers Game
by Leonard Timmons
★★★
What do the ages of the first humans in the Bible mean? Could people really have lived that long? Leonard Timmons has found an ancient calendar hidden in these numbers, and feels this discovery is key to understanding the Bible.
Timmons’s calendar is constructed by charting, on a timeline, the births and deaths of the men between Adam and Noah, fudging a little here and there to create a few more meaningful points on the timeline, and then discovering that it breaks down into four portions of 364 years plus one 5-year portion. Turn that into days, and you have a 364-day year, plus a 5-day seasonal correction after four years (think of our leap day). 364, for calendar aficionados, is the Jubilees calendar from the Qumran texts, so-liked because it plays nice, dividing neatly into 52 seven-day weeks.
Timmons’s analysis is founded on arithmetic combinations of round numbers (such as 500 or 1000) and of the number seven. Lamech’s age at his death, 777 years, appears to be a clue. For example, 56 is a nice number because it is 7x7+7. 84 is an excellent number because it is 77+7. Seven is recognized as God’s number, a perfect number, the number of days in the week. Readers of Revelation are quite aware of how important seven, and in particular three sevens (777), are in Biblical thinking.
Timmons is correct that numerology was important to the ancients, often used as a means of Biblical enlightenment. Consider the 666 of Revelation, and the miraculous catch of 153 fish by Jesus’ disciples. Timmons takes a stab at solving both of these riddles, which might be a mistake on his part; while no convincing solutions to the second puzzle have been offered, making the 153 puzzle fair game for speculation, scholars are nearly unanimous and surely correct in solving the 666 puzzle. (See http://www.dubiousdisciple.com/2011/01/revelation-1318.html and http://www.dubiousdisciple.com/2011/01/revelation-1318_27.html ) In any case, I would not be surprised at all to discover that there is meaning in the ages of the earliest humans in the Bible. It’s far more likely that the numbers have some sort of meaning to the authors than that people actually lived that long! However, even after reading Timmons’s book, a hidden calendar code seems a bit too conspiratorial for my taste. Timmons may be on the right track with his “meaningful numbers,” but attributing the whole thing to a hidden calendar doesn’t feel right to me.
That is, however, the book’s premise: Not only is there a calendar hiding within the ages of the earliest humans, but it has been purposefully hidden. This is not just numerology, it’s a devised puzzle, and (in my opinion) an inelegant one. The authors were not content just to lay out a calendar; they carefully hid the calendar, purposefully confusing us, swapping the meaningful number 56 here and there with 65 (the reverse of its digits) to confuse us, doubling and halving numbers here and there to bewilder us.
So who imbedded these puzzles? Perhaps collators of the Bible while in Babylonian captivity, or shortly after they returned to Jerusalem? That sounds somewhat believable, but Timmons thinks not; he argues instead that the Bible should be thought of as an ancient educational textbook for the enlightened, a sort of test to divide good puzzle-readers from bad. The Bible is a book of riddles to help the initiate develop his talent for insight. We’re not just talking about the creation stories; the Bible’s authors have encapsulated hidden knowledge in its texts from Genesis to Revelation! An “insight school” that lasted a thousand years! (Timmons actually suggests thousands).
Timmons rejects the Documentary Hypothesis (which proposes that the Torah was written by at least four distinct authors, none of them Moses). I cannot help but think he commits another error by pitting his puzzle theory against the Documentary Hypothesis; it seems far more reasonable to me that the Documentary Hypothesis disproves the ancient textbook idea rather than vice-versa.
Anyway, the hidden calendar is not really the important thing. It’s just a discovery that should prompt us to read the Bible differently; to reveal to us the surprising intellect and understanding of its authors. Free now to explore a deeper meaning in the scriptures than a literal reading, Timmons next launches into his interpretation of the Bible’s themes; how the ancients thought of demons, angels, soul, spirit, faith, even God … and it’s nothing like what we thought they meant. This insight helps Timmons decode stories like the Flood and the Garden of Eden, and he provides two creative and fascinating interpretations. Even Jesus’ parables and Revelation’s mysteries are revealed.
I found the book to be an interesting fringe theory, and fun with numbers (right up my alley), but not something I found convincing. However, my feeling is that there is surely a 4- or even 5-star book idea here, that Timmons’s interpretations are ingenious, but that he overreaches by claiming them to be the correct interpretation … as if the Bible writers actually meant their stories to be read this way.
★★★
What do the ages of the first humans in the Bible mean? Could people really have lived that long? Leonard Timmons has found an ancient calendar hidden in these numbers, and feels this discovery is key to understanding the Bible.
Timmons’s calendar is constructed by charting, on a timeline, the births and deaths of the men between Adam and Noah, fudging a little here and there to create a few more meaningful points on the timeline, and then discovering that it breaks down into four portions of 364 years plus one 5-year portion. Turn that into days, and you have a 364-day year, plus a 5-day seasonal correction after four years (think of our leap day). 364, for calendar aficionados, is the Jubilees calendar from the Qumran texts, so-liked because it plays nice, dividing neatly into 52 seven-day weeks.
Timmons’s analysis is founded on arithmetic combinations of round numbers (such as 500 or 1000) and of the number seven. Lamech’s age at his death, 777 years, appears to be a clue. For example, 56 is a nice number because it is 7x7+7. 84 is an excellent number because it is 77+7. Seven is recognized as God’s number, a perfect number, the number of days in the week. Readers of Revelation are quite aware of how important seven, and in particular three sevens (777), are in Biblical thinking.
Timmons is correct that numerology was important to the ancients, often used as a means of Biblical enlightenment. Consider the 666 of Revelation, and the miraculous catch of 153 fish by Jesus’ disciples. Timmons takes a stab at solving both of these riddles, which might be a mistake on his part; while no convincing solutions to the second puzzle have been offered, making the 153 puzzle fair game for speculation, scholars are nearly unanimous and surely correct in solving the 666 puzzle. (See http://www.dubiousdisciple.com/2011/01/revelation-1318.html and http://www.dubiousdisciple.com/2011/01/revelation-1318_27.html ) In any case, I would not be surprised at all to discover that there is meaning in the ages of the earliest humans in the Bible. It’s far more likely that the numbers have some sort of meaning to the authors than that people actually lived that long! However, even after reading Timmons’s book, a hidden calendar code seems a bit too conspiratorial for my taste. Timmons may be on the right track with his “meaningful numbers,” but attributing the whole thing to a hidden calendar doesn’t feel right to me.
That is, however, the book’s premise: Not only is there a calendar hiding within the ages of the earliest humans, but it has been purposefully hidden. This is not just numerology, it’s a devised puzzle, and (in my opinion) an inelegant one. The authors were not content just to lay out a calendar; they carefully hid the calendar, purposefully confusing us, swapping the meaningful number 56 here and there with 65 (the reverse of its digits) to confuse us, doubling and halving numbers here and there to bewilder us.
So who imbedded these puzzles? Perhaps collators of the Bible while in Babylonian captivity, or shortly after they returned to Jerusalem? That sounds somewhat believable, but Timmons thinks not; he argues instead that the Bible should be thought of as an ancient educational textbook for the enlightened, a sort of test to divide good puzzle-readers from bad. The Bible is a book of riddles to help the initiate develop his talent for insight. We’re not just talking about the creation stories; the Bible’s authors have encapsulated hidden knowledge in its texts from Genesis to Revelation! An “insight school” that lasted a thousand years! (Timmons actually suggests thousands).
Timmons rejects the Documentary Hypothesis (which proposes that the Torah was written by at least four distinct authors, none of them Moses). I cannot help but think he commits another error by pitting his puzzle theory against the Documentary Hypothesis; it seems far more reasonable to me that the Documentary Hypothesis disproves the ancient textbook idea rather than vice-versa.
Anyway, the hidden calendar is not really the important thing. It’s just a discovery that should prompt us to read the Bible differently; to reveal to us the surprising intellect and understanding of its authors. Free now to explore a deeper meaning in the scriptures than a literal reading, Timmons next launches into his interpretation of the Bible’s themes; how the ancients thought of demons, angels, soul, spirit, faith, even God … and it’s nothing like what we thought they meant. This insight helps Timmons decode stories like the Flood and the Garden of Eden, and he provides two creative and fascinating interpretations. Even Jesus’ parables and Revelation’s mysteries are revealed.
I found the book to be an interesting fringe theory, and fun with numbers (right up my alley), but not something I found convincing. However, my feeling is that there is surely a 4- or even 5-star book idea here, that Timmons’s interpretations are ingenious, but that he overreaches by claiming them to be the correct interpretation … as if the Bible writers actually meant their stories to be read this way.
April 27, 2012
Exodus 3:14, the Divine Name of God
And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
//Moses, worried that Israel won't accept his authority if he returns to Egypt to try and rescue the children of Israel, asks God for God's name. God identifies himself as I AM, in what became recognized as a Divine Formula. For example, John's Gospel seven times presents Jesus as the I AM in a claim of divinity. In John, the Jews recognize this claim, and wish to stone him for impersonating God.
But what does the phrase really mean? Other suggested translations include "I will be who I will be," or "I cause to be what I cause to be." In each case, the answer isn't an answer at all for poor Moses. Karen Armstrong believes it was a Hebrew idiomatic expression to denote deliberate vagueness. God will be whatever or whomever he wishes!
This vagueness may have contributed to the understanding that God's name was to be revered, not dissected. The two most common names for God in the original Hebrew are Elohim and YHWH, and the latter became so sacred that it was never spoken aloud. Readers of the scriptures would substitute the name Adonai, meaning "my Lord." YHWH is usually written and pronounced Yahweh by today's scholars (some references read Jehovah), but in truth, the pronunciation of God's holy name has been forever forgotten through lack of use. We no longer even know the name of God.
[image error]
//Moses, worried that Israel won't accept his authority if he returns to Egypt to try and rescue the children of Israel, asks God for God's name. God identifies himself as I AM, in what became recognized as a Divine Formula. For example, John's Gospel seven times presents Jesus as the I AM in a claim of divinity. In John, the Jews recognize this claim, and wish to stone him for impersonating God.
But what does the phrase really mean? Other suggested translations include "I will be who I will be," or "I cause to be what I cause to be." In each case, the answer isn't an answer at all for poor Moses. Karen Armstrong believes it was a Hebrew idiomatic expression to denote deliberate vagueness. God will be whatever or whomever he wishes!
This vagueness may have contributed to the understanding that God's name was to be revered, not dissected. The two most common names for God in the original Hebrew are Elohim and YHWH, and the latter became so sacred that it was never spoken aloud. Readers of the scriptures would substitute the name Adonai, meaning "my Lord." YHWH is usually written and pronounced Yahweh by today's scholars (some references read Jehovah), but in truth, the pronunciation of God's holy name has been forever forgotten through lack of use. We no longer even know the name of God.
[image error]
April 26, 2012
2 Peter 1:20 No private interpretation
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
//This verse is often brought up as a sort of shoulder-shrug dismissal of new insights in scripture; a way of saying the only correct interpretation must be the one that has survived for 2,000 years. As if any one interpretation has survived! Theologians have wrestled with the Bible for as long as its words have been considered scripture.
Admittedly, there is something to this line of thinking. One should humbly admit that other interpretations are just as carefully thought-out. But the verse should never be used to categorically silence alternate opinions, as it once was!
For example, we had a terrible time getting our scriptures translated from the Latin Vulgate into a modern language. Making the scriptures readable to the masses would severely undermine the Church's authority. Consequently, when John Wycliffe (1328-1384) translated the Bible into English, this verse came into play. Wycliffe's work was considered a form of heterodoxy and quickly outlawed. Anyone found with an English Bible was subject to execution. Wycliffe died as a heretic and traitor, and 44 years after his death, under papal decree, his body was exhumed and burned. But for many, reading the Word of God was worth the risk, and black market Bibles were common, until the time of King Henry VIII in the 16th century.
So, how many of you can read Latin? Thank God for our right to private interpretation today, or most of us wouldn't have any interpretation at all.
[image error]
//This verse is often brought up as a sort of shoulder-shrug dismissal of new insights in scripture; a way of saying the only correct interpretation must be the one that has survived for 2,000 years. As if any one interpretation has survived! Theologians have wrestled with the Bible for as long as its words have been considered scripture.
Admittedly, there is something to this line of thinking. One should humbly admit that other interpretations are just as carefully thought-out. But the verse should never be used to categorically silence alternate opinions, as it once was!
For example, we had a terrible time getting our scriptures translated from the Latin Vulgate into a modern language. Making the scriptures readable to the masses would severely undermine the Church's authority. Consequently, when John Wycliffe (1328-1384) translated the Bible into English, this verse came into play. Wycliffe's work was considered a form of heterodoxy and quickly outlawed. Anyone found with an English Bible was subject to execution. Wycliffe died as a heretic and traitor, and 44 years after his death, under papal decree, his body was exhumed and burned. But for many, reading the Word of God was worth the risk, and black market Bibles were common, until the time of King Henry VIII in the 16th century.
So, how many of you can read Latin? Thank God for our right to private interpretation today, or most of us wouldn't have any interpretation at all.
[image error]
April 25, 2012
Book review: How God Became King
by N. T. Wright
★★★★
Wright begins with the creeds, about Jesus being born of a virgin and dying for our sins, and bemoans the “missing middle.” Christianity today has become too focused on the beginning and end of the Jesus story, and has ignored a primary message of all four Gospels: that God has come back, in the form of Jesus, and reigns today as King.
So who is the Jesus in the middle? A violent revolutionary? A wide-eyed apocalyptic visionary, expecting the end of the world? A mild-mannered teacher of sweet reasonableness? If he was one of the first two, Jesus was deluded. Even if it’s the third case, Jesus was similarly deluded, because most of his followers from that day to this have been anything but sweetly reasonable. Instead, they have busied themselves inventing dogmas (like the virgin birth and the resurrection), writing creeds, and establishing the church.
Thankfully, none of these Jesuses match the Gospels. Wright is sick of scholars and books which portray Jesus as a good Jewish boy who would have been horrified to see a church spring up in his name. He wants us to see Jesus the way the Gospels tell the story, as God coming down to be King of the earth. Wright’s guns are blazing in this book (his passion took me rather by surprise), firing at liberals and feel-gooders. God is no doddering old boss who used to run the company but has since been banished to a cozy upstairs office where he can sit and imagine he’s still in charge. God is king. The story of Jesus is the story of how Israel’s God became king.
Wright’s approach this time is not at all objective. He is a believing Trinitarian, and speaks out against the popular opinion that the high Christology of John is a later development. From the beginning, the Gospel story has been about the divine Jesus, Son of God, God Himself. On Mark’s very first page, the story of Jesus’ baptism, we find “every bit as high a Christology as John’s, though it is a high Jewish Christology.” Wright also discusses Matthew’s viewpoint and Luke’s viewpoint, in each case pointing out the evidence that they considered Jesus divine. Wright never quite nails down his definition of Christ’s divinity … none of this “Jesus is God” direct approach, just as no such claim exists in the scriptures … but we should make the association in some mystical way. For Wright, this verse in Luke says it all:
“Go back to your home,” said Jesus, “and tell them what God has done for you.” And he went off around every town, declaring what Jesus had done for him.
In the end, I am fully behind Wright’s view that the Gospels present Jesus as the fulfillment of God’s return to earth as King, and in my own mystical way I confess to be sort of a Trinitarian, but I simply can’t buy the argument that all of the Gospels contain the same high Christology as John’s Gospel. There are too many opposing arguments that Wright fails to address.
[image error]
★★★★
Wright begins with the creeds, about Jesus being born of a virgin and dying for our sins, and bemoans the “missing middle.” Christianity today has become too focused on the beginning and end of the Jesus story, and has ignored a primary message of all four Gospels: that God has come back, in the form of Jesus, and reigns today as King.
So who is the Jesus in the middle? A violent revolutionary? A wide-eyed apocalyptic visionary, expecting the end of the world? A mild-mannered teacher of sweet reasonableness? If he was one of the first two, Jesus was deluded. Even if it’s the third case, Jesus was similarly deluded, because most of his followers from that day to this have been anything but sweetly reasonable. Instead, they have busied themselves inventing dogmas (like the virgin birth and the resurrection), writing creeds, and establishing the church.
Thankfully, none of these Jesuses match the Gospels. Wright is sick of scholars and books which portray Jesus as a good Jewish boy who would have been horrified to see a church spring up in his name. He wants us to see Jesus the way the Gospels tell the story, as God coming down to be King of the earth. Wright’s guns are blazing in this book (his passion took me rather by surprise), firing at liberals and feel-gooders. God is no doddering old boss who used to run the company but has since been banished to a cozy upstairs office where he can sit and imagine he’s still in charge. God is king. The story of Jesus is the story of how Israel’s God became king.
Wright’s approach this time is not at all objective. He is a believing Trinitarian, and speaks out against the popular opinion that the high Christology of John is a later development. From the beginning, the Gospel story has been about the divine Jesus, Son of God, God Himself. On Mark’s very first page, the story of Jesus’ baptism, we find “every bit as high a Christology as John’s, though it is a high Jewish Christology.” Wright also discusses Matthew’s viewpoint and Luke’s viewpoint, in each case pointing out the evidence that they considered Jesus divine. Wright never quite nails down his definition of Christ’s divinity … none of this “Jesus is God” direct approach, just as no such claim exists in the scriptures … but we should make the association in some mystical way. For Wright, this verse in Luke says it all:
“Go back to your home,” said Jesus, “and tell them what God has done for you.” And he went off around every town, declaring what Jesus had done for him.
In the end, I am fully behind Wright’s view that the Gospels present Jesus as the fulfillment of God’s return to earth as King, and in my own mystical way I confess to be sort of a Trinitarian, but I simply can’t buy the argument that all of the Gospels contain the same high Christology as John’s Gospel. There are too many opposing arguments that Wright fails to address.
[image error]
April 23, 2012
Acts 8:5, Was the Gospel Given to the Samaritans?
Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them.
//One confusing aspect of the Gospel story is the relationship between the Jesus movement and the Samaritans. We all know the story of the Good Samaritan, and many have heard about Jesus meeting the Samaritan woman at the well. You can probably quote other verses that hint that Jesus respected and cared about them, including today's verse, where Philip preaches directly to them.
Yet it must not have been easy. The Samaritans were in general despised and distrusted, even feared, and looked down upon because of their intermarriage with gentiles. Samaritans had their own version of the scriptures, and their own holy places, which most definitely did not include Jerusalem!
In Luke 9, Jesus has a bad experience with Samaritans, who will not welcome him. In Matthew 10, when Jesus sends his disciples out to preach, he directs them to stay away from Samaria. But John's Gospel is quite sympathetic to the Samaritans, telling of a time when they did welcome Jesus, and when Jesus did preach to them (see John, chapter 4). Jesus is so sympathetic, in fact, that in John, the Jews accuse Jesus of being a Samaritan!
While the evidence is a bit hazy, it does appear that one of the more controversial aspects of Jesus' ministry is his acceptance of Samaritans.
[image error]
April 22, 2012
Book review: Bullheaded Black Remembers Alexander
by J. L. Taylor
★★★★
This didn't have the focus on ancient beliefs that I was anticipating, but it addresses runaway religion in a roundabout way. Alexander the Great's loyal horse, Bullheaded Black, dies in the war against India, and from a winged vantage point up in heaven narrates his version of Alexander's dreams and victories. We hear straight from the horse's mouth what Alexander was thinking and what was behind his great drive for conquest.
Alexander's personal tutor, Aristotle, teaches him an appreciation for natural sciences and inquisitive learning. Alexander loves the writings of Homer and its wonderful stories of heroes and gods, but Aristotle cautions against unwarranted belief. "The written word is valuable and it is ancient and it is powerful, but that doesn't make a book completely true. Let no book and no person ever close your mind to reality, not even the epics, not even Homer."
Yet Alexander was born a warrior. Horses are not real big on war, but B.B. reigns in his criticism, instead focusing on the positive side of world domination. Alexander becomes a proponent of religious tolerance, much to the frustration of his comrades. Much of the story centers around his personal quest to understand his anointed place among men and gods ... and which gods. Is he really the son of Zeus? In Egypt, he seeks out the oracle of Siwah, and though he's closed-mouthed about what he learned there, he returns from this personal pilgrimage even more confident of his destiny. It turns out he is not only the son of Zeus, but of Amon and of Ra. Says Alexander within earshot of his horse, "It seems the principal gods are one.God is one. It matters not the name."
A cute story-book read, and I enjoyed it.
[image error]
★★★★
This didn't have the focus on ancient beliefs that I was anticipating, but it addresses runaway religion in a roundabout way. Alexander the Great's loyal horse, Bullheaded Black, dies in the war against India, and from a winged vantage point up in heaven narrates his version of Alexander's dreams and victories. We hear straight from the horse's mouth what Alexander was thinking and what was behind his great drive for conquest.
Alexander's personal tutor, Aristotle, teaches him an appreciation for natural sciences and inquisitive learning. Alexander loves the writings of Homer and its wonderful stories of heroes and gods, but Aristotle cautions against unwarranted belief. "The written word is valuable and it is ancient and it is powerful, but that doesn't make a book completely true. Let no book and no person ever close your mind to reality, not even the epics, not even Homer."
Yet Alexander was born a warrior. Horses are not real big on war, but B.B. reigns in his criticism, instead focusing on the positive side of world domination. Alexander becomes a proponent of religious tolerance, much to the frustration of his comrades. Much of the story centers around his personal quest to understand his anointed place among men and gods ... and which gods. Is he really the son of Zeus? In Egypt, he seeks out the oracle of Siwah, and though he's closed-mouthed about what he learned there, he returns from this personal pilgrimage even more confident of his destiny. It turns out he is not only the son of Zeus, but of Amon and of Ra. Says Alexander within earshot of his horse, "It seems the principal gods are one.God is one. It matters not the name."
A cute story-book read, and I enjoyed it.
[image error]
