Lee Harmon's Blog, page 98

Deuteronomy 23:2, No Bastards Allowed

A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
//Maybe the most famous bastard of all time is the offspring of Tamar and Judah. Judah, hoping to find a little action, is one day deceived by his daughter-in-law Tamar, who pretends to be a temple prostitute. They do the deed. Then, in Genesis 38:24, About three months later Judah was told, "Your daughter-in-law Tamar is guilty of prostitution, and as a result she is now pregnant."
They have a child named Perez. We turn now to the book of Matthew, and the genealogy listed there:
Judah begat PerezPerez begat HezronHezron begat RamRam begat AmminadabAmminadab begat NahshonNahshon begat SalmonSalmon begat BoazBoaz begat ObedObed begat JesseJesse begat David
Thus, after only nine generations of begatting (from Perez forward), we come to King David. Didn't today's verse promise ten generations of excommunication? Apparently, God relented.

1 Kings 22:43, Did Jehoshaphat remove the high places?

In everything he walked in the ways of his father Asa and did not stray from them; he did what was right in the eyes of the LORD. The high places, however, were not removed, and the people continued to offer sacrifices and burn incense there.
//There are many contradictions in the Bible—I can quote several—and here's another apparent one. Doesn't the parallel verse in Chronicles say just the opposite?
2 Chronicles 17:6, His heart was devoted to the ways of the LORD; furthermore, he removed the high places and the Asherah poles from Judah.
I've seen this topic quoted multiple times as a biblical contradiction. But, in fact, it is not. Anyone who quotes these verses to discredit the Bible is doing some sloppy homework. Three chapters later in Chronicles comes the true parallel passage, including this verse:
2 Chronicles 20:33 The high places, however, were not removed, and the people still had not set their hearts on the God of their fathers.
It appears Jehoshaphat started out on the straight and narrow, but the idolatry of the people crept back over the course of his 25-year reign.

Romans 1:3-4, Jesus Becomes God's Son

[C]oncerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.  
//Here's a question that intrigued early Christians. At what point did Jesus become God's son?
We all know the birth stories in Matthew and Luke, and their claim that God impregnated Mary and conceived a son. Surely that is the moment Jesus became the Son of God?
Another, probably earlier, tradition comes from the book of John. John mentions nothing at all about a virgin birth, and instead tells how Jesus was anointed as the Son of God at his baptism. (Technically, John doesn't mention the baptism itself, but we may infer the event.) So could this be the day? Many early Christians accepted this "adoptionist" explanation and saw nothing heretical in it.
An even earlier tradition is found in Paul's letter to the Romans. In today's verse, Paul cites a probable creed that Jesus was born of the flesh (of the lineage of King David) and became the Son of God only after the resurrection! Surprisingly, the book of Acts, which was authored by the same person as the Gospel of Luke and its virgin birth story, appears to side with Paul! 
"God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: 'You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.' And that He raised Him from the dead ..." - Acts 13:32-33
Scholars generally consider this passage in Acts to be a primitive tradition that long predated the day it was copied by Luke. Most likely, the understanding was that Jesus rose from the dead and immediately ascended to heaven, having been adopted by God. So we have several traditions that show a bit of a progression:
[1] The earliest: Jesus became God's son when resurrected.
[2] A bit later: Jesus became God's son when anointed by the Spirit at his baptism.
[3] Later still: Jesus is the literal offspring of God and a human woman, and became God's son at conception.
[4] As doctrines merged, church fathers began to entangle the incarnating (anointing) Spirit with its human host, and decided Jesus had been the Son of God since before time.

Book review: The Pilgrim Church

by E. H. Broadbent

★★★★★
Broadbent writes with the dramatic flair of an apologist, but with the atonal precision of an historian. This is obviously a topic dear to his heart. It's not an exciting read, but an awful lot of data is presented, and if you're seriously interested in the topic, you'll find it captivating. I did, so much so that I was able to forgive Broadbent's bias (he tends to classify everyone into three divisions: Catholic, heathen and Christian).
Broadbent was born in England in 1861, and this is a reprint of a 1935 book. Broadbent's thesis is that God has preserved a remnant of faithful underground believers through the ages, who depended solely upon the Spirit and strict Biblical teachings, and who resisted the institutionalization of the Catholic Church. He treks methodically through the centuries from Christ to about the year 1900, highlighting individuals and groups that appear to fit the mold of true Christianity. This means meeting in inauspicious groups (usually private homes), identifying by no name except perhaps that of Christian or Brethen, and denying any reliance upon authoritative structure with the exception of local guiding elders (Christ alone is the "head" of the church). These tiny Christian gatherings objected to taking the name of anyone as their founder. Seeking to mimic only Bible teachings, they refused to venerate the cross, denied transubstantiation, discouraged infant baptism and sprinkling, and most important of all, displayed a willingness to stand true in the face of great persecution. So many thousands of believers died for their convictions that I quit counting. Broadbent is particularly appreciative of Christian martyrs, so much so that he seems to consider it a primary identifying mark of the "Pilgrim Church." Constantine's conversion afforded no relief, since persecution only intensified under the Catholic Church. Systematic beheading, burning, and drowning persisted throughout church history.
The rest of my review will give you a run-down of Broadbent's favored selections. In the first couple centuries of Christian development, Broadbent praises Origin and appears sympathetic to the Montanist movement, perhaps because of their emphasis on direction by the Spirit. He uncovers an anonymous letter sent to Diognetus which provides not a word of doctrine, but mimics the tone of the earliest believers. The letter indicates that Christians "pass their days on earth, but are citizens of heaven," enduring all things as if foreigners even in their own land.
Broadbent denounces Arianism, but praises Athanaius for "maintaining a valiant witness to the true divinity of the Savior." Priscillian kept true, but Augustine was a man of good intentions with "strong affections and quick and tender sympathies" who nevertheless departed from principles of Scripture. In particular, Augustine was unable to embrace the Donatists. From the third to the fifth centuries, true Christians kept their distance from four false teachings: Manichaeism (attributing the natural world to an evil creator), Arianism (which taught that Jesus is not God manifest in the flesh), Pelagianism (which denies the sinful state of man), and Sacerdotalism (dependency upon the Church for salvation).
Several early movements do display evidence of the Spirit's leading, though. Broadbent approves of the Paulicians, Bogomils, Waldenses (Vaudois), Albigenses, Lollards, and others. Broadbent explains: "No authority of any man was allowed to set aside the authority of Scripture. Yet, throughout the centuries, and in all countries, they confessed the same truths and had the same practices." The Waldenses in the Alpine valleys especially earned Broadbent's praise. Waldensian "apostles" (a travelling ministry) left property, goods, home and family to travel in simplicity, without money, their needs being supplied by the believers among whom they ministered. They always went two and two, an elder with a younger man. The name "Friends of God" was often given to them.
These collections of believers rarely named themselves, but were named by their opponents. One exception is a period in the seventh, eighth and ninth centuries when some were wont to name their elders after men of the Bible, and their gatherings after churches of the Bible (Achaia, Philip, Colosse, etc.) All claimed apostolic tradition, some believed in apostolic succession through the laying on of hands. Yet one must be very careful in rightly divining which groups are Godly, because such groups are invariably slandered, and one must read between the lines of the smears. As with martyrdom, a prime determinant of a Spirit-led church is one whom the Catholic church denounces.
Around the time of the Reformation, the Pilgrim Church blossomed. This is not due to Luther's influence, for though Luther began on the straight and narrow, he didn't fully return to the Scriptures. Perhaps the growth of the Pilgrim Church can be attributed to a period of little persecution, or perhaps to the printing press and the ready availability of translated Bibles. Even so, they never used written prayers; instead, an elder among them would "begin to pray and continue for a longer or shorter time as it may seem suitable to him." They memorized the scripture in their mother tongue from much reading. They held seven points of faith, including a Triune God and that this God chose for Himself a spotless church. Among this resurgence was found the Anabaptists, Mennonites, Puritans, and Lollards. Clusters of believers sprang up in place after place, known among themselves as "the Friends," but derisively called Quakers. Relief from persecution was again short-lived; Anabaptists were tortured or banished from their homelands, and seldom were there less than a thousand Friends in prison at a time.
These groups were not of one mind on all points, such as whether it was appropriate to bear arms, but they were of like character and appreciation for the Bible's primitive teachings. John Wesley, an influential Christian figure, nearly adopted the righteous teachings of a group named the Moravians. A Methodist group in North Carolina took the name of "Republican Methodists" but soon rightfully abandoned the name, acknowledging no head of the Church but Christ, and no creed or rules, but accepted the Scripture alone for their guidance. Soon after, a similar movement originated among Baptists. The "Christian Connection" formed. These movements, although arising independently and only discovering each other later, held much in common. Even in Russia, a group began to form, forsaking their church for "meetings," calling each other brethren. They were reproachfully labeled "Stundists." In Hungary, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Romania numerous congregations sprang up calling themselves Nazarenes, and living quietly below the radar.
As groups proliferated, a new danger surfaced; that of the ease in which any particular spiritual movement could crystallize into a sect. In the 19th century, John Nelson Darby was influential in teaching a humble Spirit-led church, encouraging the independence of each congregation, though he later shifted from that ground and adopted the Catholic position of an organized body of churches. Many churches followed Darby into error, condemning others and excluding all churches outside their own circle subject to central authority, but others endeavored to carry out the principles of Scripture, refusing to cut off one another but recognizing that minute differences—particularly non-scriptural differences—did not necessitate division. Broadbent concludes his research with a plea to recognize the Church as One, members of one Pilgrim Church, acknowledging as our fellow-pilgrims all who tread the Way of Life.

1 Kings 11:3 How many wives did Solomon have?

And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines.
//According to this verse, Solomon kept a thousand wives and concubines. But when Solomon himself tells the story, it becomes a much more manageable number.
There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins without number (Song of Solomon 6:8).
Oh, thank Goodness! 140 women in the rotation sounds lots easier to handle. Nice to have all those virgins available, too. Question is, why did Solomon fudge the number? Was it just kingly humility?
Turns out Solomon was speaking to his "one and only," his "beloved one," his "dove." He couldn't hardly admit to having 999 more girlfriends, could he? 140 is about as much as one man can get away with.

Book review: The Good Heart: A Buddhist Perspective on the Teachings of Jesus

A discussion led by The Dalai Lama

★★★★
The premise for this book is fantastic! Talk His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, into speaking before a Christian audience in Middlesex University, London. Call it The Good Heart, emphasizing the humanitarian aspects of both Christianity and Buddhism. Give him eight passages of Gospel scripture to read in preparation for the seminar, and hear what he has to say.
The eight chosen passages are:
Matthew 5:38-48, Love Your EnemyMatthew 5:1-10, The BeatitudesMark 3:31-35, EquanimityMark 4:36-24, The Kingdom of GodLuke 9:28-36, The TransfigurationLuke 9:1-6, The MissionJohn 12:44-50, FaithJohn 20:10-18, The Resurrection
From the outset, The Dalai Lama assured his listeners that he had no intention of sowing seeds of doubt, and instead encouraged listeners to "experience the value of one's own religious tradition." He taught that the authentication of all religion is the realization of a good heart. He acknowledged similarities between Christianity and Buddhism, especially in regards to compassion, brotherhood and forgiveness, and strongly encouraged meetings between people from different religious traditions (not scholars but "genuine practitioners" interested in "sharing insights"). Yet he feels it does a disservice to both religions not to acknowledge their uniqueness. The Dalai Lama would rather we remain Christian than try to "put a yak's head on a sheep's body" and call ourselves Buddhist-Christians.
He spoke, as always, with insight and humility, and his take on Christian scriptures was wonderfully fresh and simple. My respect for the Dalai Lama increased even more. Yet I was a little disappointed; invariably, the discussion of Christian scriptures steered into comparisons with Buddhism—to be expected, I'm sure—but Buddhist thought is so ingrained in the Dalai Lama that much of the discussion felt foreign to me. Not that I couldn't follow his thinking, and not that I don't appreciate the similarities between Christianity and Buddhism and their common goal of compassion, but Eastern thinking is just ... well ... different.

Revelation 11:8, Who is Babylon? Part IV of IV

Their bodies will lie in the street of the great city, which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified.
//We're discussing the identification of Babylon in the book of Revelation, and why it should be recognized not as Rome but as Jerusalem. Yesterday, I pointed out how Babylon is called "the great city." A few more verses should settle the argument once and for all that Babylon, the "great city," equates to Jerusalem.
Today's verse speaks of the death of two witnesses in the city of Jerusalem. They are killed and left in the streets of the "great city," where also their Lord was crucified. How could any identification be more clear than this? So let's nail this down tight, by discussing every verse in Revelation that refers to "the great city."
[1] Today's verse explicitly identifies the great city as Jerusalem.
[2] Yesterday's verse, 16:19, tells of the destruction of the great city. I propose that this happened in 70 CE, during the Jerusalem war.
[3] Verses 14:8 and 18:10 label the great city as Babylon.
[4] Verse 17:18 says BABYLON THE GREAT, MOTHER OF HARLOTS is that great city. This leads to a tirade against the harlot, and closely parallels Ezekiel chapter 16 about Jerusalem.
[5] The only other reference in Revelation to "the great city," verse 21:10, refers to her replacement: The New Jerusalem.
Revelation depicts a great city gone wrong, who flirts with the Beast (Rome), and who is destroyed for her iniquities. Unquestionably, this city is Jerusalem itself. John of Patmos witnessed that destruction, and wrote about it in his famous apocalypse. This is the single most important insight to understanding Revelation.
You can read more about Revelation's historical connections in my book: http://www.thewayithappened.com

Revelation 16:19, Who is Babylon? Part III of IV

The great city split into three parts, and the cities of the nations collapsed. God remembered Babylon the Great and gave her the cup filled with the wine of the fury of his wrath.
//We're still talking about the identification of the Whore of Babylon, and why we should recognize her as Jerusalem, not the city of Rome.
In today's verse, God "remembers" Babylon, a very covenantal phrase, adding evidence that Revelation meant its Babylon to be Jerusalem, not Rome or some current-day city. In the Old Testament, whenever God "remembers" the sins of a nation, he refers to a covenantal promise. Of course, no such covenant ever existed with any nation except Israel. Moreover, Revelation is nearly a chapter-by-chapter rewrite of the book of Ezekiel, and if you read Revelation chapters 17 and 18 about Babylon carefully, you'll note many parallels with Ezekiel chapter 16, which concerns Jerusalem. I won't bore you with details; feel free to study this on your own, if interested. This allusion to Jerusalem could not have gone unnoticed by Revelation's intended first-century audience.
But can we really label Jerusalem a "great city," as today's verse reads? Pliny the Elder describes Jerusalem as "by far the most famous city of the ancient Orient," but had its dreams shriveled to a fretful reminiscence of Solomon's day? Josephus, when describing the utter desolation of Jerusalem after the war of 70 CE writes, "Where is that great city, the metropolis of the Jewish nation, which was fortified by so many walls round about, which had so many fortresses and large towers to defend it, which could hardly contain the instruments prepared for war, and which had so many tens of thousands of men to fight for it? Where is this city that was believed to have God himself inhabiting therein? It is now demolished to its very foundation."
If you read my book about Revelation, you'll recognize that John of Patmos echoes a lot of the same language as Josephus in his book, The War of the Jews. Here is one more instance, discussing the "great city" and her destruction, as prophesied by Revelation.
God was required by his covenant to destroy the "great city" of Jerusalem, and in 70 CE he does so. More tomorrow, when I'll  bring up some verses that leave little doubt about this interpretation.

Revelation 18:24, Who is Babylon? Part II of IV

In [Babylon] was found the blood of the prophets and of the saints.
//Yesterday, I described Babylon, Revelation's mystery whore, and promised her unveiling today. Most scholars lean toward Rome as Babylon's identification. I listed several of her qualities, and a couple of them do sound an awful lot like Rome. But at least one seems like it can't possibly match Rome (all the prophets and saints shed their blood there). Yet there is one identification—again, a city—that matches all the qualifications ... if you think like a first-century prophet.
Babylon, I'm absolutely certain, refers to Jerusalem. Remember, we are not at all concerned with modern day Rome or Jerusalem, but what was in John's mind as he penned the book of Revelation, and how his first-century audience would have interpreted the role of Babylon.
Throughout scripture, the prophets repeatedly condemn Israel as a harlot and end up stoned in Jerusalem. No, not in a good way. To Revelation's first readers, the image of a harlot would have automatically brought to mind a myriad of prophetic pronouncements against Jerusalem in the Old Testament. Certainly, Matthew would agree: in 23:34-38, Jesus bemoans the desolate state of Jerusalem because she killed the prophets and stoned those sent to her, and declares that upon Jerusalem will come "all the righteous blood that has been shed on the earth."
Perhaps we need to view the two cities, Jerusalem and Rome, from an early Christian perspective: as hopelessly entwined, in rule and custom, and inseparable. Jerusalem had lived under the occupation and rule of Rome for 100 years, and just as the original Babylon 600 years earlier swallowed up God's people, the Jews again could not avoid integration.
Roman and Jewish leaders conspired to crucify Jesus, to raise abominable pagan idols and places of worship, to build seaports for trade, and reportedly even conspired with Nero Caesar to bring about the great persecution of the Christians that Revelation talks about. As Babylon rides upon the Beast, so does Jerusalem throw in her lot with Rome. "Babylon" denotes the city of Jerusalem as a city polluted with the influence of Rome.
What makes me so certain of this identification? More tomorrow.

Revelation 17:5, Who is Babylon? Part I of IV

This title was written on her forehead: Mystery Babylon the Great The Mother of Prostitutes And of the Abominations of the Earth. 
//Is it possible to solve the great mystery of Revelation's Babylon? Around the turn of the first century, Christians began to equate Babylon in Revelation (and other contemporary apocalyptic writings) with Rome, by associating Babylon with the Beast. But a few centuries later, with Constantine's help, Rome redeemed itself, and Christians began thinking of Babylon as merely all apostates, even competing Christian sects. It helped Rome's reputation, of course, that Christianity had established a solid foundation in Rome. Then a thousand years later, with the Reformation, many Christians reversed course and again decided Babylon must be Rome, perhaps because this aided in denouncing the Catholic church. But all this begs the question. Who did John of Patmos mean by Babylon in the first place?
Over and over, it's called a city. It's still quite common today for Bible scholars to link Babylon with the Beast, and thus with Rome. There's little question that, at least in certain passages, the Beast can be identified as Rome. And it's also true that Babylon and the Beast are forever entwined, because Babylon rides upon the Beast. This doesn't quite mean Babylon is the Beast ... in fact, it probably means just the opposite ... but they are clearly allies.
Let's list some of the qualities of Babylon and see if you reach the same conclusion that most scholars reach.
[1] The Whore of Babylon sits upon seven mountains, just like Babylon rides the Beast. (There are seven famous hills in Rome).
[2] This great city rules over the kings of the earth.
[3] The kings of the earth fornicate with her and weep over her destruction. 
[4] Merchants grow rich buying and selling there and also lament her destruction.
[5] All the prophets and saints shed their blood there.
[6] God calls his people out of Babylon before its destruction.
[7] When she falls, so do the cities of the nations.
[8] Heaven rejoices over her downfall.
Does it still sound like Rome? Except to first-century readers, Babylon's identity veils itself well. Tomorrow we'll unveil her.[image error]