Thomas Cahill's The Desire Of The Everlasting Hills

The meaning Thomas Cahill attributes to the title of the book he wrote: The Desire of the Everlasting Hills isn’t what I expected. Having taken this phrase from Jacob’s blessing for Joseph, Cahill elaborates his thoughts “Is not the desire of the everlasting hills that they be saved from their everlastingness, that something new happen, that the everlasting cycle of human cruelty, of man’s inhumanity to man, be brought to an end?”(8) I would imagine that the Everlasting Hills could also represent Heaven and the desire for them representative of the desperate need to experience never-ending perfect second life. Beyond the meaning of the title, Cahill’s foremost concern is to ask and thoroughly examine the question: Does the life and death of
Jesus make a difference, not only for Christians, but also in our entire world. Whether he believes Jesus is God and is our savior or not, he doesn’t try to explain. The conclusion he does reach is that Jesus is the cause of everything we believe about right and wrong, and therefore is involved in every decision made and woven into our lives regardless of our beliefs.
It seems appropriate for Cahill to spend so much time telling the history of the Greeks, Jews, and Romans because there is no doubt how connected and influenced they are by each other.
Cahill begins with the story of Alexander the Great. In detail he explains how Alexander came into power. He also emphasizes the relationship between Alexander and his mother. This reminded me of how important Jesus’ relationship with Mary was. Cahill address Mary’s relationship with Jesus more, later in the book. In giving a rather brief history lesson, Cahill describes the beginning of Hellenizing. After telling the rise and fall of Alexander the Great Cahill writes about a familiar player in the Jewish and Roman history: Judas Maccabeus. I didn’t know the full extent of the revolt led by Judas before reading the book. The story somewhat reminded me of the movie 300. Cahill does a good job of touching on both of the religious extremes, the Zealots and the Essenes. After the Greek occupation came the Roman occupation and so the cycle of occupation continued, as I had already learned. However Cahill’s detailed description of the way each nation ruled helped me understand how impossible life must have felt for the devout Jew and how much they wanted a savior, a true Jewish
King.
After giving his readers a sufficient history lesson Cahill begins to address Jesus from several different perspectives. The first he uses is that of the Apostles to begin addressing the question of what made Jesus think he could get away with teaching things so against the “grain of ancient society?”(71) He follows this question with a reference to John the Baptist, who is an example of extremes. All of this leads to the Cahill’s opinion that a if Jesus were just a crazy man, he couldn’t have convinced Simon, Andrew, James, and John to drop everything, all their responsibilities and just follow him. Cahill infers that he must have been a talented teacher who commanded attention. He doesn’t ignore the other theories about who Jesus might have been, he just questions their credibility and explains that scholars have become reasonably sure of what Jesus taught over the years.
Having said this, he moves onto the meanings behind Jesus’ radical teachings. How most of the time his message was simple, and was not as much about rules as it was about intentions. Cahill writes about Jesus’ seemingly higher standards. He believes that Jesus is speaking in metaphors in Matthew (You have heard.. but I say to you”. Through this idea Cahill pushes that the meaning of it all is that the illusion of power and the misuse of it against those without is what makes life unlivable. (83) I like the idea of Jesus constantly trying to simplify things. Everyone kept trying to create more impossible rules and Jesus is the radical because he simplifies things. Cahill points out that Jesus even had to remind the apostles that they weren’t as self-important as they felt. At times Cahill may be been taking liberties in describing Jesus’ feelings, but much of the time it helped me to understand how it must have been to try to explain something so difficult for people to wrap their minds around.
Cahill moves on to expand on how stories of Jesus spread. He tells the story of Saul who became known as Paul. I never gave much thought to how the stories of Jesus must have traveled. So when Cahill gives credit to Paul for actively spreading word of Jesus it made me think about how information must have traveled in his day. People relied on word of mouth and hand written accounts being passed from person to person. Cahill speaks about Paul’s message being highly influenced by the way in which he encountered Jesus. He was knocked flat and blinded in a sort of wakeup call. So it would follow that Paul’s preaching style would be like a loud wake-up call. Conversely, Cahill uses Luke as an example of the softened version of Jesus’ purpose. Luke is all about the deliverance of the poor, undesirable, and needy. This is why the Good Samaritan parable fits so nicely into Luke.
Beyond Cahill’s examination of the differing views of Jesus, he offers some insight into what it must have been like for the different people who saw him after he had been crucified and buried. Cahill notes that the people who met with Jesus were not prone to hysteria; rather they were the literal type. He doesn’t try to argue one way or another as to whether Jesus was raised from the dead or not, rather he explains the influence the disciples who believed Jesus had risen had over the people they told. Cahill examines the differences between what we know about the disciples differing personalities, and what they are able to accomplish through the Spirit. I think the main thing Cahill wants to address in his research about the disciples is that the first Christians were ordinary people, not the cream of the crop, and they dealt with ordinary problems. (240) This makes them relatable to all people and in some ways, more influential than if they were scholars or held positions of power. In the end, Cahill points out that Jesus is in everything within our civilization. He guides our moral codes of right and wrong whether or not we realize it. Even those who aren’t interested in religion seem to have knowledge of Jesus, may even trust him or rely on him in their own way. What Cahill doesn’t tell us, is if he thinks Jesus was who he claimed to be. In the end, and for the purpose of this book, I don’t think it should matter what Cahill believes about Jesus as Savior. He does believe he existed and he does believe that he has a hand in everything today, in all nations and in all beliefs