If
there is anything wrong with this world, it is surely the
prevalence of religion, a human frailty that virtually paralyzes
the minds of multitudes. We do not advance along the path of religious
beliefs nearly so much as we stagnate.
It is nigh impossible to be rational
with a man who embraces a faith. Hence, the works of so-called biblical
scholars are too often ignored by the masses of the faithful. The
non-believers don't care enough to bother reading them, while the
believers scoff at them, especially if the scholarship does not
toe the line with their adopted creed.
The most effective way by far to "get"
to a believer is by appealing to their primary source document,
the Bible. And when you cite it, do so without too many references
to outside commentators or other expositors.
The fundamentalist, the most hopeless
species of believer, usually prefers his scripture at face value.
This is exactly what I have attempted to do with Jesus, A Likely
Story. Not a lot of scholarship here. No way. I took the words
right from the page and appraised them for what they were literally
worth. A biblical "scholar" might say that I subjected
the gospel to what they like to call a "critical" reading.
But I would never want to use such a phrase while dealing with a
fundy.
From the book (complete chapters) ...
Introduction
Like nearly everyone else on the planet, I read
The Da Vinci Code and was very impressed by it. I had
graduated (many years before) from a church college where I earned
a B.A. in Biblical Studies. While attending there, I began to
entertain serious doubts about the beliefs that I had undertaken
to study in depth. Eventually (and inevitably), this resulted
in my total disaffection for, and abandonment of, the sacred tenets
that were bequeathed to me as an adolescent. Today, I am one of
those increasingly-notorious recovering “fundies.”
It had been awhile since I had even thought very
much about the nonsense I picked up in the Church of God, and
then later at the Assemblies of God college (Southeastern) I attended.
But Dan Brown’s highly popular book got me to thinking about
it all over again.
I was more or less playing around with publishing
a website (wayneholland.org) wherein I posted essays nearly every
week on a variety of subjects, many of which touched upon my rejection
of past beliefs. The Da Vinci Code (as well as The
Messianic Legacy) goaded me into taking another look at the
gospels, with the result that I decided to start writing a book
on the Gospel of Matthew, posting each chapter to the website
as it was completed. It was originally called Matthew, A Personal
Critique of the Gospel. As it developed, and (as books are
prone to do) took on a life of its own, I changed the title accordingly.
Believers (the really strong ones) don’t
much care about the opinions of scholars, or even popular writers
like Dan Brown. But they most certainly do care about the Bible
itself. This rather recalcitrant attitude of theirs has had its
effect on shaping my own approach. I take the text pretty much
as it stands. There is really no other way to effectively argue
with adamant believers.
If you have no doubts about the Bible’s
credibility, all you have to do is read it. Stop listening to
others talk about it, especially the preacher/evangelist types,
and simply read it for yourself. If you do so with an open mind,
you can’t help but pick up on a lot of stuff that just doesn’t
wash.
This method is especially effective if you take
a somewhat legalistic stance. Hold the writer to his precise words.
For example, the Gospel of Matthew begins as follows:
The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ,
the son of David, the son of Abraham.
Since these are the very opening words of the
book, I take them as a sort of title/thesis. The writer is telling
us what his work is about, in this case the genealogy of Jesus.
To underscore what I’m really getting at
though, notice what it does not say. For example, it doesn’t
say that it is a record of all that Jesus did, or spoke on, or
all the miracles he performed. It does not claim to be a more
or less comprehensive bio. It simply says that it is a “genealogy.”
Therefore, when we get past the genealogy (which takes up only
the first 17 verses), we have every right to conclude (if the
writing is no longer addressing itself to matters genealogical)
that the writer has either taken up a different subject, or that
an altogether different writer has taken up the pen.
Since the inceptual writer so clearly and unequivocally
stated his intent, that he was putting together a genealogy, once
finished with it (in only 17 verses, remember), it seems fair
to conclude that, if the same writer is continuing to hold the
pen and so obviously writing about something else (the actual
birth of Jesus), he would indicate at that point that he was indeed
writing on a different subject.
At first glance it may indeed appear that this
is the case, because at verse 18 we have this:
Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place
in this way.
Normally, it would be fair to conclude from this
that the same writer has indeed taken up a different subject,
one which seems (we must admit) naturally to follow a genealogy.
There is only one problem with it, however. The very opening words
of the book (“The book”) clearly radiate with an aura
that is, if nothing else, somewhat peremptory, almost as if the
author were saying, “This is a book of the genealogy of
Jesus, period.”
The very fact that, at verse 18, it takes a different
course, seems a clear indication that either the same writer (at
a later time perhaps) decided to add to his previously completed
genealogy, or that someone else added to it.
Based upon the details of the story that follows
the genealogy, we are well within the bounds of credibility to
conclude that it is undeniably the work of a completely different
author. We have a right to make this conclusion for a very good
reason, because the narrative that immediately follows the genealogy
renders that genealogy completely ineffectual! The genealogy is
completey undone by the tale of the birth of Jesus.
A genealogy is a bloodline, a carefully preserved
record of family ancestry, traced through (in Hebrew society)
the fathers. The importance of family history in Jewish culture
is surely no more evident than by the fact that the commission
of adultery was a capital crime, punishable by death. The several
appearances of genealogies in the Old Testament is certain testimony
to the importance of marital fidelity in the Semitic mind.
The author of the genealogy of Jesus undoubtedly
shared this belief. It is therefore unthinkable that he would
so painstakingly put together the ancestral bloodline of Jesus,
and then, at a later date, return to it and tack on another story
which completely undoes it. It makes no sense whatsoever.
What does make sense is that an altogether different writer, with
a different agenda, namely the conference of deity upon Jesus
(which the writer of the genealogy in no way suggests), appended
the unlikely story of Jesus’ birth.
Christians are completely misguided about the
whole “Messiah” concept. It is, to be perfectly candid
about it, their concept, not the Bible’s. The Messiah
they envisage is, in point of fact, nowhere to be found
in the Old Testament, despite their many claims of its prophetic
promise.
If we truly want to understand the OT, a Christian
is the last person we should consult. The Old Testament falls
under the rightful - and sacred - purview of Jewish culture. Christians
display blatant arrogancy in their unconcealed presumption to
understand the written record of Jewish history better than the
descendants of those who wrote it.
The following is an excerpt from a very informative
Jewish website, titled MessiahTruth (messiahtruth.com):
“In Judaic texts, the term messiah was used
for all kings, high priests, certain warriors, but never eschatological
figures. In the Tanach, moshiach is used 38 times: two patriarchs,
six high priests, once for Cyrus, 29 Israelite kings such as Saul
and David. Not once is the word moshiach used in reference to
the awaited Messiah. Even in the apocalyptic book of Daniel, the
only time moshiach is mentioned is in connection to a murdered
high priest.”
If Jewish scholars are correct, and I have no
reason to doubt that they are, the very concept of “Christ”
( merely the Greek word for Messiah), is bogus, making one of
the planet’s most popular religions nothing more than a
sham.
If you take a close look at the OT, it is easy
to see that the very idea of a human king ruling over
the nation of Israel was never the idea of God, but of the people:
The elders of Israel all assembled, went
back to Samuel at Ramah, and said, "Look, you are old, and
your sons are not following your example. So give us a king to
judge us, like the other nations."
Samuel thought that it was wrong of them
to say "Let us have a king to judge us," so he prayed
to Yahweh.
But Yahweh said to Samuel, "Obey
the voice of the people in all that they say to you: it is not
you they have rejected but me, not wishing me to reign over them
any more. They are now doing to you exactly what they have done
to me since the day I brought them out of Egypt until now, deserting
me and serving other gods. So, do what they ask; only, you must
give them a solemn warning, and must tell them what the king who
is to reign over them will do."
(I Samuel 8:5-10 New Jerusalem Bible)
It was “the people” who wanted a
human king. It was never Yahweh’s idea. We may
fairly conclude the same of Christianity. It is merely an idea
conceived of, and propagated by, a group of miserable, and misguided,
human beings.
Chapter 3: Mentor
In those days
came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, "Repent,
for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
(For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah when he
said, "The voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare
the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.")
(1-3)
Matthew begins chapter three with a rather lengthy
(eleven-verse) introduction to the fiery figure of John "the
Baptist."
True to form, immediately after we are given a brief portrait
of the intrepid Baptist, a parenthetical insertion assures us
that this dynamic personage represents a fulfillment of prophecy.
All parenthetical insertions should be viewed with the
highest suspicion. They literally scream to us that another hand
has been stirring the pot, most likely an overzealous church official.
The prophecy that Matthew (or someone, perhaps an editor) tries
to adapt to John’s voluble emergence looks a little different
when you read it in context (and use the New Jerusalem Bible
translation):
Comfort you,
comfort you my people, says your God. Speak comfortably to Jerusalem;
and cry to her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity
is pardoned, that she has received of Yahweh's hand double for
all her sins. The voice of one who cries, Prepare you in the wilderness
the way of Yahweh; make level in the desert a highway for our
God. Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill
shall be made low; and the uneven shall be made level, and the
rough places a plain: and the glory of Yahweh shall be revealed,
and all flesh shall see it together; for the mouth of Yahweh has
spoken it.
(Isaiah 40:1-5)
It seems that Matthew is batting a thousand with
his prophetic references. None of them work. He is doing little
more than making unjustifiable claims. He wants the Messiah to
come so fervently that he’s willing to force the issue.
And his staunchly Semitic disposition is clearly evident by his
predilection for the phrase, "kingdom of heaven"
(as opposed to "kingdom of God"). The Jews
were sensitive about using God’s name, although, technically,
"God" is not so much His name as title. Whatever. I
guess he didn’t want to take any chances.
Now John
wore a garment of camel's hair, and a leather girdle around his
waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey.
(4-5)
As with Mary, John is not properly introduced.
Matthew simply begins to talk about him as if we already know
who he is, and most likely the readers of his time were indeed
familiar with the fiery Baptist. But, strangely, he makes up for
omitting a proper introduction by giving us a rather colorful
description of John’s attire and his eating habits, no doubt
intended to associate him with Elijah.
According to Mark Gaffney, author of Gnostic Secrets of the
Naassenes, there is a highly interesting parallel between
Elijah and Elisha in the Old Testament, and John the Baptist and
Jesus in the New. In essence, John and Jesus are Elijah and Elisha,
respectively, reincarnated!
As sensational as this may sound, there are some amazing parallels
when you take a close look at the two stories:
The king
asked them, "What kind of man was it who came to meet you
and told you this?"
They replied, "He was a man with a garment of hair and with
a leather belt around his waist."
The king said, "That was Elijah the Tishbite."
(II Kings 1:7-8)
In the 11th chapter, Matthew puts some rather
startling words into the mouth of Jesus:
And if you
are willing to receive it, he (John)
is Elijah who is to come.
(14)
And in chapter seventeen, notice who appears
to Jesus at the transfiguration:
Now after
six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, led them
up on a high mountain by themselves; and He was transfigured before
them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white
as the light. And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking
with Him.
(1-4)
Elijah was Elisha’s mentor and teacher.
It is highly interesting that he should appear to Jesus, along
with Moses. Is Jesus then indeed presented to us as Elisha reincarnated?
Remember, the transfiguration occurred after John’s
death, i.e., his disappearance in the flesh, making his (Elijah’s)
spirit available for the appearance in the transfiguration.
This is, we must admit, a highly intriguing hypothesis. There
are even more parallels in this “double dyad” as Gaffney
calls it. Although Elisha was not resurrected, there is nevertheless
a resurrection of sorts associated with his remains:
Elisha died
and was buried. Now Moabite raiders used to enter the country
every spring. Once, while some Israelites were burying a man,
suddenly they saw a band of raiders; so they threw the man's body
into Elisha's tomb. When the body touched Elisha's bones, the
man came to life and stood up on his feet.
(II Kings 13:20-21)
But without question, the most compelling incident
occurs at the cross:
From the
sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land.
About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi,
Eloi lama sabachthani?"–which means, "My God,
my God, why have you forsaken me?"
When some of those standing there heard this, they said, "He's
calling Elijah."
Immediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with
wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink.
The rest said, "Now leave him alone. Let's see if Elijah
comes to save him."
(Matthew 27:45-49)
If we remove the obvious parenthetical insertion
(usually indicated by words like, "which means," and
no doubt the work of another writer, or editor), we have something
much closer to what actually occurred:
From the
sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land.
About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi,
Eloi lama sabachthani.
When some of those standing there heard this, they said, "He's
calling Elijah."
Immediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with
wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink.
The rest said, "Now leave him alone. Let's see if Elijah
comes to save him."
Was the disciple (Jesus) calling his master (Elijah)?
The bystanders seemed to think so. Jesus’ words are a direct
quote from Psalms 22:1, which are clearly rendered as, "My
God, My God, why have you forsaken me."
There are two questions about this passage that very strongly
present themselves:
1. Why did the onlookers think that Jesus was
calling Elijah (not God)?
2. Why does the author even mention it?
The Bible wastes not so much as a single word.
If something is put on the paper, it has significance. And especially
so in the matter of the crucifixion, no frivolous thing, to be
sure. Along with the obligatory resurrection, it forms the very
centerpiece of Christianity. If the author (and the oral tradition)
goes to the trouble to record that bystanders had a certain opinion
about something that Jesus said (especially on the cross), it
means something, and something important. What could it have been?
I am a firm believer that if something doesn’t make sense,
then it doesn’t. Something is missing. Indeed, something
is very missing.
I said that two questions irresistibly present themselves. Actually,
there is a third: Why does the author, who has till this point
in his narrative, written solely in Greek, suddenly insert an
Aramaic phrase, a phrase that either he or a later editor felt
the need to translate?
Whatever the answers to these questions might be (and indeed they
may be unanswerable), I feel strongly that they have a definite
connection to John the Baptist, specifically to the perception
of him - by Jesus himself - as the prophet Elijah reincarnated.
The very name, Elijah, contains the prefix "Eli," a
name for God. In fact, the Greek in Matthew’s account, transliterated,
is Eli (hli), not Eloi as translated.
For a work that begins with the words, "The book of the genealogy
of Jesus," the amount of space given to John is indeed puzzling.
But the reason is given in verse five:
Then went out to him (John) Jerusalem and all
Judea and all the region about the Jordan.
In a word, John was a highly popular figure.
All Judea and all the region about Jordan went to him for baptism.
Since Matthew is trying to make a case for Jesus, it is certainly
not out of any disrespect for John that he gives him so much press.
Quite the contrary. Matthew uses John as another stamp of authority
for Jesus.
If John is indeed Elijah reincarnated, and if Elijah and Elisha
go together (a sort of matching set, if you will), then Jesus,
who is Elisha reincarnated, has little choice about going to John,
and receiving his baptism - at the Jordan river, the same spot
where Elisha received Elijah’s mantle, and proceeded to
embark upon his own prophetic career:
Fifty men
of the company of the prophets went and stood at a distance, facing
the place where Elijah and Elisha had stopped at the Jordan. Elijah
took his cloak, rolled it up and struck the water with it. The
water divided to the right and to the left, and the two of them
crossed over on dry ground.
When they had crossed, Elijah said to Elisha, "Tell me, what
can I do for you before I am taken from you?"
(II Kings 2:7-9)
There seems little doubt that Jesus was a disciple
of John in much the same way that Elisha had been of Elijah. Not
only did he receive John’s baptism at the Jordan river,
he took up John’s cloak (so to speak) and carried on his
ministry:
From that
time (after John’s arrest) Jesus began to preach, saying,
"Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
(Matthew 4:17)
This is, word for word, the description of John’s
ministry given in chapter three, verse one.
And on more than one occasion Matthew records that Jesus repeated
John’s very words (such as “brood of vipers”)
treating them as if they were some sort of formula:
But when
he (John) saw many of the Pharisees and Sad'ducees coming for
baptism, he said to them, "You brood of vipers! Who warned
you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruit that befits repentance."
(7-8)
You brood
of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out
of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks.
(Matthew 12:34)
You snakes!
You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?
(Matthew 23:33)
John’s admonition, in the same verse, to
bear "fruit" is a veritable theme taken up by his chief
disciple (Jesus):
By their
fruit you will recognize them.
Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears
bad fruit
A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear
good fruit.
Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown
into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
(Matthew 7:16-20)
Make a tree
good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit
will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit.
(Matthew 12:33)
Therefore
I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you
and given to a people who will produce its fruit.
(Matthew 21:43)
At the Jordan river, when Elijah is "taken"
from Elisha, at the time when the disciple is about to take over,
the master offers his disciple a final request:
"Tell
me, what can I do for you before I am taken from you?"
(II Kings 2:9)
Elisha’s answer (if the reincarnation hypothesis
is valid) is prophetic:
"Let
me inherit a double portion of your spirit."
(II Kings 2:10)
Compare this to John’s statement about
his own disciple, Jesus:
"I baptize you
with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier
than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; he will baptize
you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."
(Matthew 3:11)
Once again, the primal elements are employed.
John essentially says, "I baptize you with the (single) element
of water, but he will baptize you with (two elements) holy wind
and fire. Just as Elisha surpassed his master Elijah by performing
exactly twice the number of miracles, so Jesus will surpass his
master John by baptizing with two elements instead of one.
There is yet another way in which the Elijah/Elisha scene at the
Jordan river is repeated (or reincarnated, if you will), by the
manifestation of something from above:
... a chariot
of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them,
and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind.
(II Kings 2:11)
The John/Jesus reincarnation at the Jordan river
has its own heavenly apparition:
As soon as
Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment
heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like
a dove and lighting on him.
And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love;
with him I am well pleased."
(Matthew 3:16-17)
To maintain the consistency of the primal element
theme, which seems clearly evident in this story, I would translate
verse sixteen a little differently:
As soon as Jesus was baptized, he
went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and
he saw the wind of God descending like a dove and lighting on him.
|
