Category: Bible

Posted on

Love is as Love Does: A Meditation on the Litany of Love In St. Paul’s Letter to the Corinthians

In his great treatise on the Theological Virtue of Love, St. Paul sets forth a kind of symphony in three movements. In yesterday’s post we saw the first movement, wherein he teaches on the primacy and prerequisite of love to inform other virtues, lest they lack either a proper balance or proper object. Indeed, without love many of our excellencies, good though they are can become detached, disordered, and even dangerous.

Today is set forth the second movement wherein St. Paul and the Holy Spirit describe love in a litany-like manner. The litany is both memorable and vivid.

MOVEMENT II. The PORTRAIT of Love – The text says,

Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, it is not pompous, It is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. (1 Cor 13:4-7)

Perhaps what first occurs to us the CHALLENGE of these things. Indeed the list may overwhelm us with its sweeping and perfect contours. We may wonder how we can ever be patient at all times, never brood over injury, and so forth.

But that leads us to the CAUSE of these things- Note that Love causes these things. These things are the result of Love not the cause of it.

It is too easy for us to turn a litany like this into a moralism such that I must somehow accomplish them out of my own flesh power and, having done so, “accomplish” love, or meet the demands of love. But the reality is the opposite. Namely, as I receive love from God and experience it in my life, I begin to see these fruits which Paul lists, in my life. Love as a Theological Virtue is infused (i.e. poured into) the soul and, if we allow it, it has the effects St. Paul describes here.

St. Augustine’s oft quoted maxim comes to mind: Once for all, then, a short precept is given unto you: Love God, and do what you will: whether you hold your peace, through love hold your peace; whether you cry out, through love cry out; whether you correct, through love correct; whether you spare, through love do you spare: In all things, let the root of love be within, for of this root can nothing spring but what is good. [In epistulam Ioannis ad Parthos (Tractatus VII, 8)]

Properly understood this links our will, rightly ordered, to the Love of God. For when I love God, I want what God wants and do not want what he wants.  And I do this not as a mere human work, but as the result of a supernatural virtue, Love.

Thus what St. Paul and the Holy Spirit are about to do is to paint a kind of picture of what the human person, transformed by Grace and Love, is like. The portrait is not an exhaustive list, but uses what we might call “focal instances” which use certain traits to illustrate what is in fact a far greater reality. So, more than a prescription here, we have a description of what happens to the person indwelt by the Holy Spirit and transformed by Love.

So lets look to the description,

1. Love is Patient – The Greek word μακροθυμεῖ (makrothumei)  describes a person who has it easily in his power to avenge himself but does not do so. More literally it means to suffer long or be “long-suffering,” refusing to retaliate with anger. Our translation says love is patient. To be patient is the capacity or willingness to suffer on account of others, or on account of a situation.

Love moderates anger and increases our ability to suffer on account of others by giving us a positive disposition toward them.

Many years ago when I was High School and trying to date a girl, I was delighted when she asked me to carry some heavy books for her, (and they were very heavy). But love lightens every load and I was excited and happy to help. (By the way, I got the date).

While, properly speaking, the “love” described in this example is not the Theological virtue per se, it is like unto it and can serve to illustrate that when we love God and our neighbor, our positive disposition toward the beloved is increased and this makes whatever burdens or hardships seem light, and whatever slights or misunderstandings might arise, they will tend to be interpreted by us in a more benign light. Jesus beautifully illustrates when from the Cross he says, “Father forgive them, they know not what they do.”

2. Love is Kind – The Greek word here is χρηστεύομαι (chresteuomai) and while properly translated as “kind” is also rooted in the Greek word chrestos which describes the capacity to furnish what is suitable, useful, productive, well-fitting or beneficial.

Jesus said, “For my yoke is easy and my burden is light” (Matt 11:30) and the Greek word used is chrestos. Thus what Jesus most clearly means is that the yoke he has for us is “well fitted” to us. The Lord does not impose the cross light some cruel task-master, but rather gives a cross that is well suited to us, that fits our condition and will ultimately benefit us.

Thus, those who love have the capacity to act toward others in ways that are most helpful or beneficial. To be “kind” is not just to please, but is to act in the way most appropriate for the true needs of the other, not merely according to the wants of the other. Even if at times there must be some action the other does not prefer, love empowers us to act benevolently, and with proper gentleness and reserve. This capacity to act with clarity moderated by reserve and gentleness emerges from the serene state love creates since we experience that we are acting out of love and what is truly best, our conscience is clear and we feel no need to be stridently defensive about what we do. This brings serenity, and serenity brings a kindness and gentleness.

3. Love is not Jealous – The Greek word is ζηλοῖ (zeloi) and is better translated as envy. In fact zeloi describes a kind of boiling anger in its root meaning. Envy is sorrow or anger at the goodness or excellence of another because I take it to lessen my own excellence. In other words, seeing some goodness or excellence in someone else makes me mad or sad because I think I look bad by comparison. But rather than seeking to imitate the good I see in another or at least to rejoice in their gift or good fortune, I seek to destroy what is good in them or denigrate it somehow. St. Augustine called envy, THE diabolical sin since it seeks to destroy goodness. At least jealousy and greed seek to possess, but envy seeks to destroy.

But Love is glad of the gifts of others and seeks to imitate them where possible. When we really love others we rejoice in the gifts they have received and delight to praise them. We seek for opportunities to encourage and celebrate with people we love, we look for opportunities to build them up and encourage them. In short, we are happy when those we love are flourishing and blessed.

Again this happens as the result of the good and positive dispositions that love creates in us toward those whom we love.

4. Love is not pompous – The Greek word here is περπερεύεται (perpereuetai) which comes from the Greek word for “braggart.” It describes a “show off” who needs too much attention. But love naturally focuses more on the beloved than on one’s own self. Love is naturally directed outward at the other, and has its attention there rather than inward to the self. Love does not need to brag for it is content to rejoice in the presence and goodness of others.

5. Love is not inflated – The Greek Word φυσιοῦται (physioutai) comes from the word physa, meaning “air-bellows.” Thus the word describes a blustery person, swelled up like a bellows, full of hot air. Thus, an egotistical person blustering arrogant, puffed-up thoughts.But here again, as we see, Love is outward toward the beloved, not inward toward the self. Thus love remedies this tendency by shifting our focus away from our ego and self-aggrandizement toward others and delight in them.

6. Love is not quick tempered – Our given translation here is a bit interpretive but not incorrect. The Greek term is ἀσχημονεῖ (aschemuonei). The Greek root of this is asxḗmōn,  meaning “without proper shape or form.” Thus, by extension it means to act improperly, to lack proper form, to act or be indecent and unbecoming.  But in the presence of those we love acting rudely, and in such manner in unlikely. While we may be relaxed and not need lots of formalities, still we will not be impolite or ill-mannered. We will tend to defer to the needs of others whom we love and seek their comfort and well-being. Again, Love does this naturally, and the theological virtue does this supernaturally. We simply do not want to be rude, impolite or discourteous to those we love.

7. nor does [love] brood over injury – The Greek word translated here as “brood” is λογίζομαι (logizomai) and is actually an accounting term meaning, “to keep books”, compute, “take into account” or reckon. But love gives understanding and accepts the struggles and shortfalls of others. It tends to be forgetful of shortfalls and remember the good.

Neither does love presume the worst motives, and so does not as easily take offense in the first place.

Once again, love supplies us with a positive disposition toward the other which tends to overlook offenses or interpret them in more benign and less vivid ways. Hence we are (super)naturally less likely to brood, to keep books on the other and demand a strict accounting that says, “did this so you have to do that.” Love gives because it wants to, not because it will get something back.

8. Love rejoices over the truth rather than over wrong-doing – The Greek word translated here as “rejoice” is χαίρω (chairo), which, while it does mean rejoice also contains the notion in its root xar, of being favorably disposed, or leaning leaning towards something. Thus, we are dealing with a joy that inclines one toward something.

Now, if you really love God then you will love what and who he loves. The saints say, “If God wants it, I want it. If God doesn’t want it, I don’t want it.” Again, back in High School I dated a girl who liked Square-dancing. I had no interest in that before I met her, but I got to like it because I loved her, besides, it was a steady Saturday date! 🙂 I also began to know and love her family. Love naturally loves what the beloved loves.

Now God loves what is true and good, what is just and merciful, what is chaste and generous, and so forth. Thus, as one who loves him more and more, I too rejoice in and am inclined to these very things. Further, I am averse, increasingly to sin, injustice, greed, unchastity and so forth. Love puts me in sync with the Beloved.

This also shows why love cannot ignore wrong-doing in our relationships but summons us to honestly acknowledge what is in need of reproof and correction and to address it in charity.

9. Love bears  all things, The Greek word here στέγει (stegei) more literally means to put something under a roof. And thus one can endure or bear things because they are shielded, in this case under the Lord’s protection or covering. As was stated above, lightens every load. Love gives us a glad heart, and along with that joy and gladness is the energy, the capacity to endure, to bear with hardships. Covered as we are by the Lord’s love, we can endure.

10. Love endures all things – Here is a related concept. The Greek Word here is ὑπομένει (hypomenei) which means more literally to remain under something, remain behind, or endure, to stand one’s ground, and thus to show endurance. Here again, love supplies the zeal and interest in doing this. When we love someone or something we are will to exert effort to attain what or who we love. We are willing to endure difficulties, even gladly. Love does this willingly, naturally, or in the case of the Theological virtue, supernaturally.

11. Love believes all things. The Greek word here is rooted in the common word used in the Scriptures to faith and belief: πιστεύει (pisteuei). This word mean is derived from peíthō, meaning to “persuade, or be persuaded” and as a consequence to  believe and have confidence. Now again, when we love someone we are going to be more inclined to trust and have confidence in what they tell us. Love opens a door of relationship, and relationship roots us in trust and to communion in thoughts and vision. Thus our love for God helps to deepen our faith and trust in him.

Even at the human level our love for others deepens our faith in them. We usually are more confident, trusting and believe the best and for the best of those we love. Love stirs us to believe that the best is possible for those whom he love and we are will to take risks for them in this regard. Thus Love inspires Faith in God, and even a human faith in others.

12. Love hopes all things – The Greek word here is ἐλπίζει (elpizei) and is from the root word elpomai, meaning to anticipate or expect. Thus note that hope is more than a vague wish for some positive outcome. Hope is the confident expectation of God’s help.

Here too love inspires and causes a deepening hope, for when we love and experience love, we do not doubt God’s favorable disposition, and his will to ultimately save us from this present evil age. Love fuels confidence, and confidence fuels the vigorous expectation of God’s help that we call Hope.

All these things love does. Note again this very important point. The litany of love we have just reflected on speaks of the fruits of Love. We must not understand this litany as a “to do” list, as if to say, “Do these things and you’ll love.” No, no! “Love and you’ll do these things.” Or rather, God will do them in you. It is true that we can look to a list like this and see ways to intentionally act, and practices to foster, but in the end, if these things are going to last, they must be the work of God in us, the fruit of His love.

Tomorrow the Final of the Three Movements of this Symphony on Love.

Posted on

How Rediscovering the“Plot” of Sacred Scripture is Essential to Evangelization

One of the most significant losses in the modern era has been the loss of the Biblical narrative in the hearts and minds of most people. Scripture is the story of the human family, told by God himself. In story form He tells us how we were made and why, what happened why that things are the way they are today. Why do we have infinite longing in a finite world? Why do we struggle with sin so much? How can we be rescued from sin and death and find our hearts true satisfaction? The Biblical narrative answers these sorts of questions and more.

Thus, the Biblical story or narrative, mediates reality to us in a memorable way. God, like any good Father, tells us our story and asks us to tell our own children. To know our story is to understand ourselves in relation to God, the world and others.

And what a story it is! It has more of passion, conflict and drama than any great epic. It is the “greatest story ever told” but most people have lost its details and no longer know the story. Hence they are detached from the reality that the story mediates. Many are adrift in a world of little meaning, or competing “meanings” with no way to sort it all out. They have few explanations as to the most basic questions of the meaning of life, the meaning of suffering, our ultimate destiny and so forth. Without the story, life looses its meaning.

To illustrate the loss of the narrative, I was talking to Catholic seventh graders a couple of years ago and I made reference to Adam and Eve. As our discussion progressed it became evident to me that they did not really know who Adam and Eve were. They had heard the names before but couldn’t say who they really were, or what they had done. About the most erudite statement that came from one of the students was from a young man in the second row who said, “Aren’t they in the Bible or something?” No other specifics emerged from the discussion. I resolved that day to scrap our compartmentalized religious programs and switch every grade level to a “back to basics” program that emphasized the Biblical narrative.

How has this loss of the narrative happened? Some argue that the Church stopped telling the story. Poor preaching, poor catechesis and pretty soon no one knows the story any more. I do not doubt there is substance to this explanation. But the explanation is still too general for it hardly seems likely that “the Church” just decided one day to stop telling the story. What seems more specifically to have happened is that we stopped telling the story effectively. And what I would like to argue is that we lost touch with the “plot” of sacred Scripture and because of this we were no longer able to tell the story in a compelling and interesting way.

What then is a plot? The plot in a story is the focal point to which all the events and characters relate. It is like the center point of a wheel around which everything else revolves. Now a plot, if it is to be successful, always involves some sort of conflict or negative development that must be resolved. This is what holds our interest as the question emerges, “How will this problem be resolved?!” If, in scene one of story, everything is just fine, and scene two everything is fine and in scene three still fine, people start tuning out. It is the conflict or negative development that renders the plot interesting. Plots usually have five stages:

  1. Exposition – where we are introduced to the main characters and elements of the story.
  2. Conflict – where the negative development occurs that must be resolved.
  3. Climax – where the conflict reaches its highest point and the tension is greatest. Here there is often an epic battle, or experience of the conflict. And here the conflict is resolved usually by an heroic figure or striking event.
  4. Falling action – Here is shown the result of the climax, and its effects on the characters, setting, and proceeding events.
  5. Resolution – The Conflict having been resolved, this last stage of the story shows either a return to normality for the characters or an attainment of an even higher state for our characters than the situation than existed before the conflict. This results in a sense of catharsis (or release of tension and anxiety) for the reader.

What then is the plot of sacred scripture? Simply this:

Exposition – God created Man as an act of love and made him to live in union with his God. In the beginning Adam and Eve accepted this love and experienced a garden paradise. The heart of their happiness was to know the Lord and walk with Him in a loving and trusting relationship.

Conflict – But man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his creator die in his heart and he willfully rejected the God who given him everything by listening to an evil tempter who had given him nothing. Adam rebelled against God and refused to be under his loving authority and care. This led to a complete unraveling of everything. Paradise vanished, Adam and Eve experienced a deep and personal disintegration of their inmost being.

Confused, ashamed, angry, accusatory and embarrassed they withdraw into hiding and cover up. They can no longer tolerate the presence and glory of the God who still loved them and must live apart from Him. God makes an initial promise to one day bring healing but when is not clear. So here is the initial conflict or negative development that defines the plot and rivets our attention.

How will this tragic development be resolved? Will Adam and Eve turn back to God? Will they ever be able to experience peace in his presence again? How will Adam and Eve ever recover from the self inflicted wounds they have? A great love story between humanity and God has gone very sour. Will our lovers ever reunite? Will paradise reopen again? When will God act? How?

In continually rising action things go from bad to worse: Adam and Eve’s rebelliousness is passed on to their children as Cain kills Abel. Wickedness multiplies so rapidly that God must take action, first confusing the languages of Man and humbling him at Babel, then practically starting all over again with the flood.

In a sudden development in the plot God chooses the family of Abram and his descendants to set the initial stage for a final conflict with his opponent the devil and to restore Man. Through a series of covenants and actions God prepares a people to receive the great Savior who will resolve this terrible problem. But God must take this chosen people through a series of shocking and powerful purifications so that at least some can be humble enough to receive the cure and be healed. God purifies them through slavery in Egypt, a terrifying but glorious freedom ride through the desert, the giving of the Law, the settlement in a Promised Land.

But they are STILL rebellious and more and escalating purifications are necessary: an invasion by Assyrians, then by Babylonians, then exile, then return to their land. All through God sent prophets to rebuke and console. The conflicts and waiting are been continuously escalating.

Climax – The curtain rises and the scene is unexpected. A small backwater town of perhaps 300 people called Nazareth. An Angel, dispatched from God greets a humble virgin named Mary. God has a plan to save his people, and to begin its unfolding he goes not to any King or army commander, but to Mary of Nazareth. A great paradox but a fitting one as well. Where Eve of old had said, “No’ the new Eve, Mary, says, “Yes.” This “fiat” opens the door to our savior, our God hero, wonderful counselor Father forever and Prince of Peace (Is 9:6). He is named Jesus for he would save his people from their sins! (Matt 1:21).

After thirty hidden years in Nazareth he steps forth in public ministry of three years where he announces the Gospel and summons the human family to faith and trust.

Then in a crucial and epic battle between God and the devil, Jesus mounts a cross and defeats the devil at his own game. By dying he destroys death! The climax is now reached. The devil seems victorious but on the third day our Savior and God Hero Jesus casts off death like a garment. Ascending forty days later he reopens the gates of paradise.

Falling Action- Now that the epic battle is won, Jesus sends out Apostles to announce the Good News of His victory over sin and death. His apostles go forth with the message that the long reign of sin is over and that, through grace it is increasingly possible to live a transformed life, a life no longer dominated by sin, anger, resentment, fear, bitterness, greed, lust, hatred and the like but rather a life dominated by love, mercy, joy, serenity, confidence, holiness, chastity, self control and more. A new world has been opened. Up ahead lie open the gates of paradise.

Resolution – God has resolved the terrible consequences of the rebellion of Adam and Eve just as he promised. But things do not merely return to normal, they return to super-normal for the paradise that God now offers is not an earthly one, it is a heavenly one. It’s happiness is not merely natural, it is supernatural. And we the reader experience the catharsis of knowing that God is faithful and he has saved us from this present evil age.

But the plot has been lost by many – What a story and what a ride. But notice that the plot hinges on a key and negative development: SIN. Without that development there is no plot. And here is where the Church lost the ability to hand on the narrative: we lost the plot, and in particular the negative development that is necessary for a plot and makes it interesting.

About fifty years ago there seems to have been a conscious effort to move away from talking vigorously about sin. It was said that we should be more “positive” and that “honey attracted more bees than vinegar.” Crosses (too negative) were removed from Churches and replaced with “resurrection Jesus.” Thinking our numbers would increase by a “kinder, gentler Church” we set aside the key element of the plot. Suddenly our narrative no longer made a lot sense. Everything is basically OK, everyone is really fine, just about everyone will go to heaven. And all along we thought we would be more relevant and inviting to people. In end all we had to say was “God loves you.”

As a result we in the Church have increasingly become irrelevant. If I’m really OK why go to Church, why receive sacraments, why pray, why call on God at all? If I’m fine, who needs a savior? Who needs Jesus, God or religion? And then comes the most obvious critique: “Church is boring” and “The Bible is boring!” Well sure, every story without a well developed plot IS boring. In fact, if it is poorly developed enough I might just stop reading the story or walk out of the movie. And that is just what people have done. Only 25% of Catholics go to Church anymore.

To over 70% our story is irrelevant and uncompelling. Why? Collectively we jettisoned the “negative development” that makes the plot. Without a rich understanding of sin, salvation makes little sense.

Regarding the story, most people no longer “get it” because the whole point has been lost. People no longer remember a story that makes little sense to them. And so it is that I found myself in a class of Catholic seventh graders who had never heard of Adam and Eve.

It’s time to rediscover the central element of the “plot” of Sacred Scripture, sin. It’s time to speak of it, creatively, in a compelling way. In so doing we will once again set forth a plot that is compelling and interesting and help people rediscover the greatest story ever told.

N.B I originally published this article about two years ago in Homiletic and Pastoral Review

Posted on

Why the Modern View of the Book of Revelation may be Flawed.

Currently in the Liturgies of daily Mass we have been reading the Book of Revelation. It is commonly read at the end of the liturgical year, for it bespeaks the end of, and passing qualities of all things of this world.

It is also a book of glory, depicting the ultimate victory of our Lord Jesus Christ, after a great period of conflict between the doomed kingdom of this world, and the victorious Kingdom of Christ. In this context the Book of Revelation is not a mere tour guide to the last days, but is a book of glory reminding us that Christ has the total victory already wrapped up.

I would like in this post to present a view of the Book of Revelation that, while a minority opinion, I think better articulates the original context of the Book of Revelation and provides important interpretive keys to understanding its fundamental message.

The Majority of modern scholars place the date of the composition of the Book of Revelation between 90-110 AD. There are good reasons for this, not the least of which is the testimony of several Fathers of the Church. Irenaeus places the work at 96 AD. Victorinus places the writing in the context of the persecution of Domitian, and indicates it was thus that John was imprisoned on Patmos. Jerome and Eusebius say the same. This date of composition (90-110) also flows well with modern theories of biblical dating which tend to favor later dates as a general rule.

The Minority view places the date of composition before 70 AD, during the persecution of Nero. (This was the first and to that time, the worst persecution of the Church in the First Century). Although this view is clearly in the minority, it is gaining adherents.

Of course we might wonder if such an early date does not offend against the testimony of the Fathers of the Church just mentioned. But not, the most significant Father to attest to a mid-nineties date is Irenaeus. It is on him that most other Father’s based their conclusion. But it must be said, that in terms of dating, Ireneus is a bit unreliable. For example, he argues that Jesus was 50 when he was crucified. Thus, though Irenaeus gives us a lot of good biblical insight, he is less reliable for testimony referencing dates and time frames. Likewise, the grammar of the Greek sentence wherein Ireneus states the date of 96 AD is unclear. It can be translated two ways:

1- “John had this vision, near the end of his life, during the reign of Domitian” or 2- “John had this vision and lived on to the reign of Domitian“

Thus the minority opinion does not disregard the testimony of the Fathers, but it is understood by these scholars as more vague.

An additional and more central reason for leaning to the earlier date of prior to 70 AD, is that it gives a clearer account of the context for the persecutions being endured by the Christians that flows more from the actual biblical data, wherein the persecution derives more from fellow Jews, than from Romans alone.

Thus, these “minority” scholars seek to integrate the Book of Revelation within the same conflict of other New Testament books such as Acts and the Epistles, namely a dispute between Christians and their Jewish opponents, who then engage the Roman officials for redress, rather than to set Revelation as a conflict merely between Christians and pagan Rome.

To state again, the common modern and majority view is that the context of this book is the persecution against Christians by Domitian (Emperor from 81-96 AD) and the Roman Empire which he headed. John has been arrested and exiled to the Island of Patmos. Thus, the chief context for the majority view is the antagonism of the Roman Empire seeking to force Christians to emperor worship and apostasy from the Christian faith in the one true God. Further, the harlot city is defined in this point of view as Rome.

But the minority view holds that the primary antagonist is not Rome alone, but is a more complex reality of Jews and Romans in concert together against the early Christians.

Recall how Jesus was put to death by Pontius Pilate and the Romans. But, this was also due to the provocation of fellow Jews against Jesus. Peter and John, likewise Paul all suffered from the same collusion of fellow Jews who incited the concern and hostility of Roman officials. The general context of the early New Testament period is that fellow Jews, who did not accept Christ, stirred up trouble for the early Church and provoked the Roman authorities to arrest, punish and even put to death early Christians.

The minority position sees this as the primary historical context of the persecutions described in the Book of Revelation.

Recall too that the Book of Revelation presents the primary antagonist as a horrible Red Dragon. He is clearly the devil. But this Red Dragon gives birth to two beasts which antagonize the Church. This is the double threat experienced by the early Christians.

Historically, at the early stages, Roman authorities were generally indifferent to Christian teachings. However, when Jews, who rejected Christ, entered into open conflict with Christians, they did so in such a way as to involve, often unwillingly, Roman officials. Once provoked, these officials would often be fair, but could also be ruthless.

Later in the Book of Revelation, the double enemy against the Christians is described as a twofold threat, as a “beast” and a “harlot.” The minority view holds that the “harlot city” is really Jerusalem, not Rome.

“Jerusalem” here symbolizes Jews, but not all Jews. Remember that many Jews did in fact become Christians. “Jerusalem” here is understood as those Jews who emphatically rejected the Messiah. It especially represents the leadership centered in the Temple.

Thus the city that is destroyed in the Book of Revelation is, in fact, Jerusalem.

Now, this corresponds to what happened historically in 70 AD to Jerusalem. And thus, the minority view holds that the Book of Revelation dates from the period before 70 AD.

The year 70 was a crucial year for the city of Jerusalem, for it was that year that the war with the Romans was concluded. In this year, Jerusalem was sacked and burned and the Temple destroyed. Not one stone was left on another and the whole area (except for a few dwellings on Mt. Zion) was abandoned. Survivors were carried into slavery or killed. The destruction and abandonment was total and 1.2 million Jews lost their lives, according to Josephus, the Jewish historian.

So, the minority view holds that the book of Revelation was a prophecy of these events and actually served to warn the Christians of the signs that would precede the destruction that they flee before Jerusalem’s doom was sealed. Thus, the historical context of the Book of Revelation is the persecution of Christians by unbelieving Jews in partnership with Roman officials, and the subsequent destruction of the city of Jerusalem in 70 AD by the Lord in Judgment of Israel’s unbelief and persecution of those who did believe.

Although it is a minority view, it is growing in acceptance and, I would argue is compelling for the following reasons:

I. It links the Book of Revelation to the “mini-Apocalypse” which has a clear context: the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Temple. It also links it to similar prophecies of Christ in the Gospels, most notably the Mount Olivet Discourse: For example, (Mat 24:1-44):

Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. {2} But he answered them, “You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down.” {3} As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?” {4} And Jesus answered them, “Take heed that no one leads you astray. {5} For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray. {6} And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars; see that you are not alarmed; for this must take place, but the end is not yet. {7} For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places: {8} all this is but the beginning of the birth-pangs. {9} “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation, and put you to death; and you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake. {10} And then many will fall away, and betray one another, and hate one another. {11} And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. {12} And because wickedness is multiplied, most men’s love will grow cold. {13} But he who endures to the end will be saved. {14} And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world, as a testimony to all nations; and then the end will come. {15} “So when you see the desolating sacrilege spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), {16} then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains; {17} let him who is on the housetop not go down to take what is in his house; {18} and let him who is in the field not turn back to take his mantle. {19} And alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days! {20} Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath. {21} For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be. {22} And if those days had not been shortened, no human being would be saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. {23} Then if any one says to you, ‘Lo, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. {24} For false Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. {25} Lo, I have told you beforehand. {26} So, if they say to you, ‘Lo, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go out; if they say, ‘Lo, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. {27} For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of man. {28} Wherever the body is, there the eagles will be gathered together. {29} “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken; {30} then will appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory; {31} and he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. {32} “From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. {33} So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. {34} Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all these things take place. {35} Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. {36} “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. {37} As were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of man. {38} For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, {39} and they did not know until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of man. {40} Then two men will be in the field; one is taken and one is left. {41} Two women will be grinding at the mill; one is taken and one is left. {42} Watch therefore, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. {43} But know this, that if the householder had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have watched and would not have let his house be broken into. {44} Therefore you also must be ready; for the Son of man is coming at an hour you do not expect.

Note the similarities in passage like this to the prophecies of Revelation. Note too that the context of the Mount Olivet Discourse is the destruction of the Temple and the signs that precede it, not the destruction of Rome or of the world.

Indeed there are striking parallels in the details of Revelation and the Mount Olivet discourse wherein our Lord proclaimed the imminent destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. The parallels are too numerous to detail here, But I have put them in column form here: The Fourth Apocalypse. But in effect, there are many who argue that the Book of Revelation is the Mount Olivet discourse, missing in John’s Gospel but theologically set forth in his second work: The Book of Revelation. And thus its content corresponds to the context of the Mt Olivet discourse, namely, the Destruction of Jerusalem, not Rome.

II. It links the Book of Revelation to prophetic books of the Old Testament and maintains their historical meaning and focus. Most of the Book of Revelation is drawn directly from Old Testament Prophets such as Joel, Daniel and Ezekiel. Since this is done, it is important to learn what their historical context and concerns were.

Most of the O.T. sources from which John and the Holy Spirit draw, have the historical context of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple which took place in 587 BC. If that was the original context of the texts from which John borrows, then it is strongly probable that John is saying, what happened then (in 587 BC) will happen again unless there is Jewish repentance and faith. This is what the passages meant in the Old Testament time and now John borrows them for the current time of 70 AD, wherein the Temple and Jerusalem were prophesied by Jesus to be destroyed again.

Thus parallel events are being described and point to the context in which John writes. The minority view fits nicely with this historical perspective.

III. It maintains the tradition of prophets in terms of the use of the word “harlot”. In the Old Testament, Jerusalem, and the people of Israel are called the “harlot” since they have committed adultery, forsaken the Lord, and are sleeping with false gods. Nowhere in the Old Testament is Rome or any pagan city called a harlot. But Jerusalem repeatedly is.

Thus again it seems unlikely that Revelations would depart so suddenly and steeply from a biblical tradition and assign the title “harlot” to the pagan city, Rome, rather than to its traditional referent in the prophetic school: Jerusalem. Here are some examples of the use of the word from the prophets:

1.(Isa 1:20-21) But if you refuse and rebel [O, Israel], you shall be devoured by the sword; for the mouth of the LORD has spoken.” {21} How the faithful city has become a harlot, she that was full of justice! Righteousness lodged in her, but now murderers.

2.(Jer 2:19-20) Your wickedness will chasten you, and your apostasy will reprove you. Know and see that it is evil and bitter for you to forsake the LORD your God; the fear of me is not in you, says the Lord GOD of hosts. {20} “For long ago you broke your yoke and burst your bonds; and you said, ‘I will not serve.’ Yea, upon every high hill and under every green tree you bowed down as a harlot.

3.(Ezek 23:28-30) For thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I will deliver you into the hands of those whom you hate, into the hands of those from whom you turned in disgust; {29} and they shall deal with you in hatred, and take away all the fruit of your labor, and leave you naked and bare, and the nakedness of your harlotry shall be uncovered. Your lewdness and your harlotry {30} have brought this upon you, because you played the harlot with the nations, and polluted yourself with their idols.

IV. It also fits with the most direct references as to the identity of the persecutors in the Book of Revelation. In Revelation 2 & 3 there is reference to a “synagogue of Satan” and that they consider themselves Jews. Romans would surely not have considered themselves Jews. Hence, we ought to take the text at face value: the primary persecutors are Jews. But the persecutor is not Jews alone, but also the Gentiles, responding to the complaints of Jews against the Christians. ( Thus the enemy is also identified as Caesar Nero: Here are a couple of texts that describe the persecutors of the Christians in very Jewish terms:

1.(Rev 2:8-9) And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: ‘The words of the first and the last, who died and came to life. {9} “‘I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich) and the slander of those who say that they are Jews and are not2, but are a synagogue of Satan.

2.(Rev 3:9) Behold, I will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie — behold, I will make them come and bow down before your feet, and learn that I have loved you.

V. The Minority opinion also takes the clearest identity of the “harlot city” at face value and corresponds to it more exactly. In Revelation 11 the harlot city is identified as Jerusalem (not Rome):

(Rev 11:8) …and their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which is allegorically called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified.

Thus the city is Jerusalem, not Rome as is presupposed by the majority opinion. The city described as the place where their Lord was crucified can be no other place than Jerusalem.

VI. 666= Nero not Domitian. – The famous text identifying the “beast” as having a name that corresponds to the number “666” dates Revelation to 54-68 (Nero’s reign) not Domitian (81-96). Note the texts:

(Rev 13:18) This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man’s number. His number is 666.

There is little dispute today that “666” is a clear reference to Nero. But why would Nero be referenced in a persecution taking place near 90 AD under the reign of Domitian? Thus the minority view of Revelation as a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem (not Rome) in 70 AD seems more plausible.

VII. It will be noted that there are two beasts described in Revelation 13, one from “the land” and one from “the sea.” Hence there are two adversaries: Unbelieving Jews (The beast from the Land, for Land = “Promised Land”) and Rome (the beast from the Sea, for “Sea” is a common symbol of the Gentiles).

Both of these beasts emerged from a “red dragon” that has 7 heads (there were 7 Herods) and ten horns (there were ten Caesars who interacted with the 7 Herods). Thus a complex, double-enemy seems to be described.

These two beasts, both coming from the Red Dragon, seem to comport well with the data of the Book of Revelation and the Historical context of the time leading up to 70 AD wherein the two enemies who conspire against the early Church. Ultimately, as the Book of Revelation also describes, these two beasts turn on one another, and the harlot is destroyed.

This historically happened: In Revelation (Rev 17ff) The complex, two-fold enemy is described as a beast, and a harlot. The harlot city rides upon the beast. The beast later turns and devours the harlot with fire and total destruction. This in fact happened when Rome (which had a partnership with Jerusalem through the Herodian dynasty) turned against Jerusalem and totally destroyed her by fire, killing 1.2 million Jews.

Thus the Book of Revelation seems to describe an enemy of the early Christians that is a complex combination of two enemies who conspire against the early Church, and later turn on each other. This was historically the fact at the time of 70 AD when the Jews and Rome went to war against one another.

VIII. It flows well from the fuller context of the New Testament. through the bulk of the New Testament the antagonists are fellow Jews who do not accept Christ as the Messiah It is they who involve Roman authorities in exacting punishment on Christians. Those these Roman officials are often hesitant to become involved, though they are not thereby absolved of responsibility any more than Pilate can be absolved for his actions. Notice the consistent Biblical context of the double enemy face by Christians:

1.It was fellow Jews who handed Jesus over. In particular it was fellow Jews who had much invested in the Temple and its rituals who were most threatened by him who handed him over. Pilate, though unjust in his final action, was reluctant and it was only when He perceived that the Jewish leaders would lead a riot that he relented and had Jesus put to death.

2.In the Acts of the Apostles, it is always fellow Jews who attack and pursue Paul. The Romans, far from being Paul’s enemy are in fact his protectors on more than a few occasions. Even when he Romans do arrest Paul it is once again due to the insistence of fellow Jews and the threat of civil unrest it Roman officials did not comply. Again, the final arrest of Paul centered on a perceived defilement of the Temple that he supposedly committed. This was not in fact the case but was the pretext by which the Jewish leaders of Jerusalem handed him over.

3.In the Epistles of Paul, once again, it is fellow Jews and Judaizers (So-called Christians who wanted to bring the whole Jewish ceremonial law into the Church and make it binding on all Christians) who are the real enemies. Paul does not preach social unrest against Roman authority (Nor did Jesus). In fact, Paul counsels respect for authority and prayers for all in authority. Likewise, Jesus strongly resists any attempts to draw him into political zealotry and any conception of the Messiah that would understand him as military savior.

4.None of this is to render the New Testament anti Semitic. Remember, most of the early converts were Jews. Jewish Christians made up a sizable percentage of the early Church. The question here is not ethnic hatred but of a clear distinction between those who would accept Jesus as Lord and those who would not. The division was not some mere intellectual debate. It was a volatile clash between absolutely different understanding of the basic questions, who is God? Who is supreme? Who is to be worshiped?

5.It therefore seems unlikely and unusual that, very suddenly, the context changes radically in the final book of the New Testament. All along, the context was of the passing away of the Old Order of the Law and the Temple and the passionate fear and hatred that this caused. It seems more likely that the final book of the Bible would prophesy the conclusion to this clash.

IX. It takes the use of the word “soon” that is often used in the Book of Revelation more at face value. Throughout the Book of Revelation the temporal expectation that the events it describes are to take place “soon.” For example:

1.(Rev 1:1 ) The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must SOON take place; and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,

2.(Rev 1:3 ) Blessed is he who reads aloud the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written therein; for the TIME IS NEAR.

3.(Rev 2:5 ) [To the church at Ephesus] Remember then from what you have fallen, repent and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.

4.(Rev 2:16 ) Repent then. If not, I will come to you SOON and war against them with the sword of my mouth.

5.(Rev 3:11 ) I am coming SOON; hold fast what you have, so that no one may seize your crown. He who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God; never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name.

6.(Rev 22:12 ) Behold, I am coming SOON, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done.

7.(Rev 22:20 ) He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming SOON.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!

Now, it is true, “soon” can be understood from God’s perspective, a perspective that sees a watch in the night (4 hours) as equivalent to “a thousand years.” But we ought not dismiss that the “soon” referenced here might also have had a more denotative meaning and meant that, as Jesus said in the Mount Olivet discourse “There are some standing here today, who will not taste death until they see all these things take place.” For the early Christians “soon” may well have meant 70 AD, rather than the 90+ AD that many moderns presume.

X. If Rome is the harlot city, as the majority opinion presumes, there is a problem in that it was never destroyed. It was sacked many centuries after Biblical times (in the late 4th and early 5th Centuries AD), but it was never burned or destroyed as depicted in Revelation. Jerusalem however was destroyed and burned in 70 AD and thereby correspondent to the prophecies of the Book of Revelation (e.g. Rev 18:18 inter al).

Hence, for these reasons, and other reasons not set forth here, The “minority” view seems quite plausible. Namely, that the Book of Revelation is describing the clash between Jews and Christians (which drew in the Romans) and caused the persecutions against the Church which is described in Revelation. It is not merely a book describing Roman persecutions.

Further, the context of just prior to 70 AD, under Nero seems more plausible, (that the context of 90 AD under Domitian). And the war-like and apocryphal events described are those that lead up to the destruction of the Temple and the full establishment of the Church, as the new locus of the worship of God. Here is the more likely and immediate context of the Book of Revelation.

This does not mean that there is no value in the majority opinion, (namely that the beast (Harlot) is Rome and the context is a Roman persecution of the Church). Since this is the majority view it would be wrong to simply dismiss that view. Hence, what I have presented here is still described as the minority view.

But I have come to appreciate that the minority view enables us to have a far richer understanding of the Book of Revelation, since it sees the Book of Revelation as a part of the whole Bible rather than as merely an apocalyptic work that radically stands apart from the other biblical views.

Consider well the possibilities of the minority view of Revelation. Fundamentally this view roots the Book more solidly in the rest of Biblical tradition, and maintains the focus on the biblical city of Jerusalem and the context of faith, rather than the pagan city of Rome to which the early Church looked with evangelical mission and open doors, rather than with the polemical disdain and gleefully expectant destruction presumed by the majority view.

Surely, as with any minority view, as you ponder it, you may be troubled by the fact that it unsettles what seems more familiar. But I have come to see that it comports better with the actual data of the Book of Revelation. How say you?

************
By the way, David Chilton has written quite thoroughly of this “preterist” theory of the Book of Revelation here: Days of Vengeance
************
More is info is also available: HERE
************

Posted on

"…whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts…" A consideration of how Scripture is History

One of the issues most apologists of the faith, eventually and frequently encounter,  is the reliability of the Scriptures as an historical reference. Does the Bible record history? It surely does. However, the Scriptures do not necessary recount history in the very technical and chronological sense we usually do (or like to think we do) today. And some sophistication is required of those who have recourse to the Scriptures and other ancient documents.

While we want (as apologists) to exercise care in insisting on too much from a text, neither should critics be simply dismissive of the historical veracity of Scripture because it recounts actual historical events in ways not always in conformity with modern and Western notions.

Regarding the historicity of the Biblical accounts, Dei Verbum, (The Dogmatic Constitution on Sacred Scripture) from the Second Vatican Council insists on the historicity of the Gospel texts while also making some importatant observations about the nature of the History involved:

Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1). Indeed, after the Ascension of the Lord the Apostles handed on to their hearers what He had said and done. This they did with that clearer understanding which they enjoyed after they had been instructed by the glorious events of Christ’s life and taught by the light of the Spirit of truth. The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels, selecting some things from the many which had been handed on by word of mouth or in writing, reducing some of them to a synthesis, explaining some things in view of the situation of their churches and preserving the form of proclamation but always in such fashion that they told us the honest truth about Jesus. For their intention in writing was that either from their own memory and recollections, or from the witness of those who “themselves from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word” we might know “the truth” concerning those matters about which we have been instructed (see Luke 1:2-4). (Dei Verbum, 19).

Thus the Scriptures, in this case the Gospels, recount actual history, an actual history vouched for by eyewitnesses.  But it is a history that is inspired, one that is written in such a way that earlier events are seen and depicted in the light of later events. It is a history that involves selected events and wherein many things are synthesized and applied to the listeners and audiences to whom the apostles spoke and wrote at a later time.

As such the Sacred Authors, (beginning with the Holy Spirit), were less concerned with details such as exactly where and when a certain event took place. Was it the Sermon on the Mount, as in Matthew or the Sermon on the Plain, as in Luke?  Does it really matter? Perhaps it was in both places, perhaps the sermon was actually a collection of things Jesus said in many places and synthesized later by him, or his apostles. Did two or three women go to the tomb on Easter Morning? How many angels, one or two appeared? Why are there two very accounts of Creation in Genesis 1 and 2? What exactly happened to Paul when he arrived in Rome and why does Acts suddenly end without telling us? These sorts of details interest us moderns intensely, but the ancients were less concerned about such things.

Our modern, Western notion of history likes to carefully pinpoint dates, times and rather exact accountings of what was said and done. We are, of course, helped in this by our modern capacity to record events in voice and picture.

Indeed, our modern, Western approach to things in general is to control by measuring, whether it is borders, or time, or science or history. Statistics, dates, demographics, etc. not only impress us, but they also act to reassure us that what we say is true, because we have measured it.

To some degree, measuring accurately is related to truth, e.g. a debate between doctor and patient as to whether the patient has actually gained weight or not, is pretty well resolved by recourse to a scale.

But other things, especially those related to history,  are less measurable. For example, what is the meaning of a certain historical event? How important is a certain utterance, or the unfolding of a certain chain of events? When one recounts the history of a people or an era, what relative weight should certain things, people, events, movements, statistics, etc., receive?

So, when it comes to the recounting of history, while recourse to scientific measures of date, time, and high specificity to what is said or do, is helpful, it may not always be possible to render such details, and, even when it is, such specificity may or may not help us in history’s other task of connecting the dots and rendering  coherent the meaning and significance of history. There will always be, and must be, some degree of interpretation, of selectivity and yes, even of bias.

Some who like to be dismissive of  Scripture as history, because it is told from the point of view of faith, are often less willing to accept that all history is told from some point of view.

As a sacred history, Scripture IS history, speaking of things that actually happened and were said. But it is a sacred history, since God prophetically interprets for us the reality that history records. It is history from a point of view inspired by God.

We moderns have liked to think that our way of telling history is largely free of strong or biased interpretation. We like to think that history can be recounted with a “just the facts,” approach. But this is naive. For any time something moves from event to word, there is interpretation.

If, for example, I see a car accident and say, “Jones hit Smith,” I have already interpreted the event and given it from a viewpoint. In this case, I more than suggest that Jones is to blame. Even if I just say, “Two cars collided,” I am placing a passive interpretation on the event that suggests somehow that the cars were the moral agents. Of course cars are not moral agents and do not cause accidents. Thus my interpretive description suggests either that I do not know what really happened, or that I, for many possible reasons, do not want to speculate as to the cause. Thus, my lack of description is an interpretation no matter how I phrase it.

The ancients were more sophisticated in recognizing and accepting that any telling of history would involve interpretation. Recognizing this,  they gave greater latitude to authors and were less concerned that every little detail add up with other accounts they may have read.

In terms of Scripture, therefore, we have a more ancient understanding and telling of history that includes a lot of built-in interpretation.

But it is history. And we, who are apologists can certainly point the Sacred text as historical proof. Yet, at the same time, we ought to be careful to understand that the text does diverge to some degree from modern notions of exactitude in details. We can do violence to the Sacred text and lack sophistication to the degree that we try to make it conform to modern notions by “resolving” details the ancient authors were unconcerned about in the first place.

Trying to resolve, for example, which Gospel account of a certain event or saying is the earliest thus presumably the more “pure” account, may not be possible, and might send an ancient Christian into puzzled laughter. That both accounts are fundamentally the same is usually more than enough to compensate for the variance in details.

To non believers, who like to highlight historical discrepancies as proof of a lack of veracity, two things can also be said. First, very few non-believers doubt the existence or fundamental facts about other ancient people based on discrepancies in other ancient texts. Indeed, a lack of discrepancy might more than suggest the presence of a single author who wrote a “controlled” message to deceive, rather than to many eyewitnesses, who, though in some variance as to exacting details, nevertheless saw, remembered and recounted actual events.

Secondly, our own modern telling of history is far less precise, and free of bias than we would like to think. Even the evening news is riddled with bias and perspective, as well as disagreements as to the details. If that be the case with news less than a day old, even more so our recounting of events decades and centuries later.

In the end, sophistication is needed by all when speaking of things as “history” and “historical.” Accuracy is to be desired, but once something moved from event to word, there is always going to be some interpretation and viewpoint at work. This is the human condition, and both believer and nonbeliever alike do well to recognize and accept  that words, as analogy, never perfectly render what they describe. Assessing all history, not just Biblical History, requires this sobriety and sophistication.

Yet, as those of the household of faith, regarding Scripture, we can at least be sure, by faith,  that the Holy Spirit guided the authors and the magisterial interpreters of the Sacred Page. Thus Scripture is more than a humanly limited description of events and words, it is the divinely inspired interpretation of those events, it is prophetic interpretation of reality.

In this brief video, Fr. Francis Martin ponders the fact that the incident of the cleansing of the Temple is presented ny John at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry and by the synoptic Gospels at the end.

Posted on

Your life is not about you.

I was meditating on John 11, for personal Bible Study earlier today. It is the story of the raising of Lazarus. And I was struck by the following lines:

[Martha and Mary] sent word to Jesus, “Lord, the one you love is sick.” When he heard this, Jesus said, “This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God’s glory so that God’s Son may be glorified through it.” Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. Therefore, when he heard that Lazarus was sick, he stayed where he was two more days…..[Later. Jesus] told [his disciples] plainly, “Lazarus is dead, and for your sake I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him.”

One of the harder truths of life is that our life is not about us. Neither are we the most important thing or person in the world. Rather we exist in and for the glory of God and our ultimate glory in to be caught up in and be part of God’s glory and his Kingdom. Further, we also exist, not only for our own sake but also for the sake of others.

And we see some of this in this story of Lazarus. Jesus speaks of Lazarus’ grave illness as “for the glory of God.” He further indicates that it is also so that He (Jesus) may be glorified. Further, Lazarus’ illness is also for others, that they may come to believe.

And even more stunning than his words are the actions of Jesus, who, hearing of the grave condition of Lazarus, delays his departure to see him for two whole days. His delay means that Lazarus dies! Jesus then says to his disciples that he is “glad for their sakes that he was not there (for Lazarus)!

Now, few of us can failed to be shocked by some or all of this. But our shock is largely based on a premise that this story should be largely about Lazarus and his physical condition. But, it is not, in the first place about Lazarus or about his health. It is about Jesus, it is about God’s glory, and it is about our faith in God.

Jesus’ first concern is not about Lazarus’ physical life, his condition, or about the distress of Mary and Martha who see their brother sick and then die. His first concern is for the faith of all involved and he is willing to allow a crisis to unfold in order to finally strengthen the faith of the many, even if this means the distress of the few.

Your life is not about you. We are each part of a bigger picture, a picture that God sees far better than we. This concept shocks us, I suspect for at least two reasons:

First, we live in an age that strongly emphasizes the dignity, rights and importance of the individual. Of itself this is not bad and is one of the things that distinguishes our age and its concern for human rights. However, the importance and needs of the individual must be balanced against the common good, and the needs of other individuals and groups. It must also be seen in the light of God’s glory, God’s plan and the mysterious interplay of the individual, others and God. God alone knows all this and what is best for all involved, not just me.

Second, we live in an age that strongly emphasizes physical health and comfort, as well as emotional happiness. While these things are truly good, there are greater good. And the greatest good is our spiritual well being, our faith and holiness. God is far more concerned with our eternal destiny that our present comfort. Jesus says for example, it is better to cut off a hand, a foot or pluck out our eye than to sin seriously. And while he may be using hyperbole, the teaching remains that it a more serious thing to sin seriously than to loose even very precious parts of our body. We don’t think this way. We tend to value our bodies and physical well-being more than spiritual matters. Not so with God.

Hence we see that Jesus is willing to rank faith and spiritual well-being above physical and emotional comfort. He is also willing to act for the good of many, even if that means some difficulty for the few or the one. This many rankle our “self-esteem culture,” but, to some extent we are a little to “precious” these days, and it is good to be reminded we are not the only one who is important, and that we don’t exist only for our own sake, but also for others and for the glory of God.

Another example of this whole principle is the surprising and “inconclusive” ending of the Acts of the Apostles.

Fully the last two-thirds of Acts is focused on the Evangelical Mission of St. Paul as he made four journeys into Asia Minor and then into Greece. The final chapters of Acts deal with Paul’s arrest, imprisonment and appearance before Roman officials such as Felix and Festus, as well as Herod Agrippa in Jerusalem and Caesarea.

Paul appeals his case to Rome and is sent there on ill fated journey that shipwrecks at Malta. Finally making it to Rome, Paul is imprisoned and awaits the trial that will either vindicate him or seal his fate. The story seems to be building to a climactic conclusion and we, the readers, are ready to see Paul through his final trial. But then something astonishing happens: the story just ends. Here is the concluding line of the Acts of the Apostles:

[Paul] remained for two full years in his lodgings. He received all who came to him, and with complete assurance and without hindrance he proclaimed the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ. (Acts 28:30-31)

But Luke! Don’t just leave us hanging! Did Paul go on trial? We he acquitted as some traditions assert and then made his way to Spain as he wanted? Or did he loose his appeal and suffer beheading right away? What was the outcome? We have seen Paul so far and now the story just ends?!

How can we answer this exasperating and unsatisfying end?

The simplest answer is that the Acts of the Apostles is not about Paul. It is about the going forth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the nations. Luke has, to be sure, personified this going forth of the Gospel to the nations by focusing on Paul. And once Paul reaches Rome and, though under house arrest, is able to freely preach the Gospel there (for there is chaining the Word of God (2 Tim 2:9)), the story reaches its natural conclusion. From Rome the Gospel will go forth to every part of the Empire, for every road led to Rome and away from it. Now that the Gospel has reached the center hub and is being freely preached, it will radiate outward in all directions by the grace of God.

It never WAS about Paul. It was about the Gospel. Paul himself testified to this when he said, I consider my life worth nothing to me, if only I may finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me–the task of testifying to the gospel of God’s grace. (Acts 20:24)

We are often focused on personalities and frequently we loose track about what is most important. And, frankly the personality we are most focused on is very often ourselves. Acts never really was about Paul. And your life is not about you. It is about what the Lord is doing for you and through you. We often want things to revolve around us, around what we think, and what we want. But, truth be told, you are not that important, neither am I. We must decrease and the Lord must increase (Jn 3:30).

Here’s the classic song about modern vanity couched in very tricky logic.

Posted on

Behold the Prophet! No One Escapes! – A reflection on what prophets are really like.

Vernon JohnsWe often like to read from and quote the prophets. But if you’ve ever met a real prophet you know that being in the presence of a real prophet can be very disturbing. Prophets love God’s people, but they love them too much to gainsay the truth.

Prophets were famous for goring every one’s ox. No one left the presence of a prophet untouched.

So troubling were the prophets of old, including Jesus, that most of them were persecuted, jailed, stoned, exiled and killed. Most of the Biblical prophets were beyond controversial, they were way over the top. Prophets denounced sin and injustice in the strongest language, announcing doom to a nation that refused to repent. Many Israelites thus considered them unpatriotic and downright dangerous. They justified throwing them into prison for their lack of patriotism and for the way their words questioned and upset the status quo and the judgements of those who held power.

To many, these were dangerous men who had to be stopped.

Jesus, though essentially our savior, also adopted the role of a prophet. Listen to these words as he denounces the people of his day for their rejection of his prophetic message. In this they are just like their fore-bearers who rejected the prophets:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the memorials of the righteous, and you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have joined them in shedding the prophets’ blood.’ Thus you bear witness against yourselves that you are the children of those who murdered the prophets; now fill up what your ancestors measured out! You serpents, you brood of vipers, how can you avoid being sentenced to Hell?! (Matt 23:29ff)

Many of us today like to think that, had we lived in Jesus’ time we would surely be on his side. But, truth be told, prophets can be hard to endure and Jesus had “difficult” things to say for everyone.

Honestly, most of us struggle with the truth to some extent. And especially we moderns who prefer a more gentle discourse with large doses of honey, and very little vinegar. We probably would wince as we walked along with Jesus. Jesus was very disconcerting. Jesus was more “plain spoken” than we are usually comfortable with. If we are honest, when we read the prophets and Jesus, we will come away with much to repent of.

A picture is worth a thousand words. Consider this video clip. It is of a modern prophet named Vernon Johns (see photo – upper right). In the early 1950s he was Pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, in Montgomery Alabama. The Black Congregation that hired him was a rather sleepy congregation. In the face of rather awful racial discrimination, they preferred to remain silent and therefore safe. Vernon Johns tried to wake them from their sleep, but to no avail. They were too afraid (yet) to take a prophetic stand. Eventually Vernon Johns was arrested as a trouble maker, and the Board of Deacons fired him.

But Johns had laid a foundation for the next Pastor of Dexter Baptist, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Within a few years Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat and the Bus Boycott was on. The rest is history.

This clip is of Vernon Johns’ final sermon where, in finest prophetic tradition he denounces racism. But NO ONE escapes his vivid denunciations, even his own congregation. Watch this clip and behold what it must have been like with the prophets of old, even Jesus.

Behold the prophet! No one escapes! In the end of the clip, his daughter who had stood against her Father’s zeal sings “Go Down Moses.” The choir director who had also opposed him likewise stands to sing. The seed is planted even as the prophet is led away by the police.

Posted on

The Story of Hosea and What It Says About God

The story of the Prophet Hosea and his troubled marriage are a powerful testimony to us of our own tendency to be unfaithful to God but also of God’s passionate love for us. The precise details of Hosea’s troubled marriage are sketchy and we are left to fill in some of the details with our imagination. But here are the basic facts along with some of the “fill in” required:

  1. Hosea receives an unusual instruction from God: Go, take a harlot wife and harlot’s children, for the land gives itself to harlotry, turning away from the LORD. So he went and took Gomer, the daughter of Diblaim (Hosea 1:2)
  2. Together they have three children each with symbolic names: Jezreel (for God is about to humble Israel in the Jezreel valley), Lo-Ruhama (not pitied), and Lo-Ammi (not my people). It is also possible that these children were not of Hosea but rather of Gomer’s various lovers for, although they are born during the marriage, God later calls them children of harlotry.
  3. At some point, though the text does not specify when or under what circumstances, Hosea’s wife Gomer, leaves him for a lover and enters into an adulterous relationship with him. We can only imagine Hosea’s pain and likely anger at this rejection. The text remains silent as to Hosea, but as we shall see, God’s reaction is well attested.
  4. After some unspecified period of time God instructs Hosea: Give your love to a woman beloved of a paramour, an adulteress; Even as the LORD loves the people of Israel, though they turn to other gods and are fond of raisin cakes (Hosea 3:1) Now, while the quoted text is not clear to specify that this is the same woman he is to love, the overall context of chapters 1-3 of Hosea demand that this is the same unfaithful wife, Gomer. God tells Hosea to redeem, to buy back Gomer and re-establish his marital bonds with her.
  5. Hosea has to pay a rather hefty price indeed to purchase her back from her paramour: So I bought her for fifteen pieces of silver and a homer and a lethech of barley. (Hosea 3:2) The willingness of her paramour to “sell her back” indicates quite poetically that the apparent love of the world and all false lovers, is not a real love at all. It is for sale to the highest bidder.
  6. Prior to restoring her to any intimacy a period of purification and testing will be necessary: Then I said to her: “Many days you shall wait for me; you shall not play the harlot Or belong to any man; I in turn will wait for you.” (Hosea 3:3)

This story is both difficult and beautiful. It’s purpose, as you likely know, is not merely to tell us of the troubled and painful marriage of Hosea. It’s truer purpose is to show forth the troubled marriage of the Lord who has a bride, a people, who are unfaithful to him. We, both collectively and individually, have entered into a (marital) covenant with God. Our vows were pronounced at our baptism and renewed by us on many other occasions. But all too often we casually sleep with other gods and worldly paramours. Perhaps it is money, popularity, possessions, or power. Perhaps we have forsaken God for our careers, politics, philosophies or arts and sciences. Some have outright left God, others keep two or beds, still speaking of their love for God but involved with many other dalliances as well. Yes, this is a troubled marriage, not on God’s part, but surely on ours.

And through it all, what does God decide to do? In the end, as Hosea’s story illustrates, God chooses to redeem, to buy back, his bride and a quite a cost too: For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect (1 Peter 3:19-20). Yes, God paid highly to draw us back to him. Even still we stray and often show little appreciation of his love. An old Gospel song says, “Oh Lord I’ve sinned but you’re still calling my name.”

A deeper look at Hosea also reveals a look into the grieved heart of God. Reading these Old Testament passages requires a bit of sophistication. The text we are about to look at describes God as grieved, angry, and weighing out his options; also as loving and almost romantic. At one level we must remember that these attributes are applied to God in an analogical and metaphorical sense. God is said to be like this. But God is not angry like we are angry. He is not grieved like we are grieved not romantic like we are. Yet though we see these texts in terms of analogy and metaphor we cannot wholly set them aside as having no meaning. In some sense, God is grieved, angry, loving and even “romantic” in response to our wanderings. Exactly how he experiences these is mysterious to us but He does choose to use these metaphors to describe himself to us.

With this balanced caution. Let’s take a look at excerpts from the second Chapter of Hosea wherein God describes his grieved heart to us and also his plan of action to win his lover and Bride back. All of these texts are from the Second Chapter of Hosea.

  1. Thoughts of Divorce! – Protest against your mother, protest! for she is not my wife, and I am not her husband. The text here suggests a God who is weighing his options. But perhaps the better explanation is that this line is for us who read so that we will consider that God could rightfully divorce us. But he will not. For though we break covenant He will not. Though we are unfaithful God will not be unfaithful. If we are unfaithful he remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself. (2 Tim 2:13)
  2. The bitter charge against her – Let her remove her harlotry from before her, her adultery from between her breasts….., “I will go after my lovers,” she said, “who give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, my oil and my drink.” Since she has not known that it was I who gave her the grain, the wine, and the oil, And her abundance of silver, and of gold, which they used for Baal. God’s charge here is not merely that we are unfaithful but also that we are ungrateful. God is the giver of every good thing. But so often we do not thank him. We run after the world, and after the powerful, thinking it is they who provide our wealth. No. It is God. But instead we love the world and forget about God. We sleep with the world. We give credit to medicine, science and human ingenuity, but do not acknowledge or thank God. Our ingratitude contributes to our harlotry for we are enamored of secondary causes and not God who is the cause of all. So we get into bed with the world and its agenda and adulterously unite ourselves with it. God is grieved at our ingratitude and adultery and is presented here as a wounded and jealous lover. Is God this? Remember these things are said by way of analogy and metaphor. God is not grieved or angered in the way were are. And yet, we cannot wholly dismiss these words as having no meaning. God has inspired this text and wants us to understand that, though he is not passionate as we are, neither are we to regard him as indifferent to our infidelity.
  3. Grief-stricken but issuing purifying punishment – I will strip her naked, leaving her as on the day of her birth; I will make her like the desert, reduce her to an arid land, and slay her with thirst. I will have no pity on her children, for they are the children of harlotry. Yes, their mother has played the harlot; she that conceived them has acted shamefully……., I will lay bare her shame before the eyes of her lovers……I will bring an end to all her joy, her feasts, her new moons, her sabbaths, and all her solemnities……I will punish her for the days of the Baals, for whom she burnt incense…..If she runs after her lovers, she shall not overtake them; if she looks for them she shall not find them. This text could be seen as descriptive of God in a jealous rage. But as we shall see, God has a result in mind. He does not punish as some uncontrolled despot cruelly exacting revenge. He punishes as medicine. He punishes as one who loves and seeks to restore. We are not merely sinners in the hands of an angry God we are sinners in the hands of a loving God who seeks reunion.
  4. The hoped for result: Then she shall say, “I will go back to my first husband, for it was better with me then than now.” God’s intent was to bring his bride back to sanity. To bring her to a place where she is ready to seek union once again. For without this union she will perish, but with it she will be united with the only one who ever did love her and can save her.
  5. Passionate lover – So I will allure her; I will lead her into the desert and speak to her heart. From there I will give her the vineyards she had, and the valley of Achor as a door of hope. She shall respond there as in the days of her youth, when she came up from the land of Egypt. On that day, says the LORD, She shall call me “My husband,” and never again “My baal.” Then will I remove from her mouth the names of the Baals, so that they shall no longer be invoked. See how God wants to get alone with his bride and woo her once again! God will speak lovingly to her heart and declare again his love for her in a kind of marriage encounter weekend. She, now repentant and devoted, will renew her love as well. There is also an image of purgatory or purgation here. It is likely that, when we die, we will still have some attachments to “former lovers” in this world, lovers known as creature comforts, power, pride, poor priorities and the like. So as we die, God lures us into the desert of purgatory, speaks to our heart and cleanses us of our final attachments. After this he restores to us the vineyards of paradise that once were ours.
  6. Renewed Covenant – I will make a covenant for them on that day……I will espouse you to me forever: I will espouse you in right and in justice, in love and in mercy; I will espouse you in fidelity, and you shall know the LORD. ….and I will have pity on Lo-ruhama. I will say to Lo-ammi, “You are my people,” and he shall say, “My God!” God renews the marriage bond with us, both corporately in the Church and individually!

Here then is the astonishing, undying and pursuant love of God for his bride the Church and for all of us. After all our whoring and infidelity we do not deserve it. But God is a passionate lover. As he said to Hosea to buy back his adulterous wife, so too did God buy us back at a high price. Now to be sure, he did not pay Satan. Rather, the payment he rendered was an indication of high sacrifice he had to make to win back our hearts. We had wandered far and he had to journey far and carry us back.

This song says, Lord I’ve sinned but you’re still calling my name.

Posted on

A Hidden, Mysterious, and Much Debated Word in the Our Father

It is no doubt the most familiar prayer of all, the “Lord’s Prayer.” It is a prayer shared by and prized by all Christians. Few if any have not committed to memory. Yet hidden within the Lord’s prayer is a mysterious word that both Greek and Biblical scholars have little agreement over, or even a clear understanding of in terms of its precise meaning.

I call it “hidden” only because most Christians do not read Greek and are unaware of the difficulties and debate surrounding the word. They simply accept that the most common English translation of the Our Father as undisputed. To them the problem is hidden.

The mysterious word occurs right in the middle of the prayer: τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον (ton arton hēmōn ton epiousion) which is rendered most usually as “give us this day our daily bread.” The problematic word is epiousion. The difficulty is that the word  seems to exist nowhere else in ancient Greek,  and that no one really knows what it means.

Even the Greek Fathers who spoke and wrote Greek as their mother-tongue were unaware of it’s exact meaning. It occurs no where else in the Bible (with the exception of the parallel passage in Luke’s version of the Our Father in Luke 11:3). It appears nowhere in wider Greek literature, whether Christian or Pagan. The early Church Father Origen, a most learned and well read man, thought that Matthew and Luke, or the early Church had “made up” or coined the term.

So, frankly, we are at a loss as to the exact and original meaning of this word! It’s actually pretty embarrassing when you think of it. Right there in the most memorable text of Christendom is a word whose meaning seems quite uncertain.

Now, to be sure, over the centuries there have been many theories and positions as to what this word is getting at. Let’s look at a  few.

  1. Grammatical Analysis– The Greek word seems to be a compound word from epi+ousios. Now epi means over, above, beyond, in addition to, or some similar superlative. Ousious refers to the substance of something. Hence, to put these words together we have something amounting to supersubstantial, or super-essential.
  2. The Eucharist – Some of the Greek and Latin Fathers thought is clearly referred to the Eucharist, and surely not to ordinary food or bread. Origien for example cites how Jesus rebuked the people in John 6 for seeking bread that perishes rather than the Bread which endures unto eternal life which is Jesus’ flesh and which he will give us. (cf Origen On Prayer 27.2) St. Cyprian too, while admitting that “bread”  can be understood simply, goes on to advance that the bread referred to here is more certainly Christ himself in the Eucharist (cf. Treatise on the Lord’s Prayer, 18).
  3. Ordinary and daily bread – St. John Chrysostom however favors a notion that the bread for which we pray is only “bread for today: Just enough for one day….Here Jesus condescends to the infirmity of our nature….[which] does not permit you to go without food….I require necessary food not a complete freedom from natural necessities….It is not for wastefulness or extravagant clothing that we pray, but only for bread and only for bread on a daily basis so as not to worry about tomorrow (Gospel of Matthew Homily 19.5)
  4. Bread for tomorrow – St. Jerome says, The word used by the Hebrews to denote supersubstantial bread is maar. I found that it means “for tomorrow” so that the meaning here is “give us this day our bread for tomorrow” that is, for the future (Commentary on Matthew 1.6.11). Many modern scholars favor this understanding as well.
  5. Supernatural bread – But St.  Jerome also says in the same place: We can also understand supersubstantial bread in another sense as bread that is above all substances and surpasses all creatures (ibid).  In this sense he also seems to see it linked to the Eucharist. When he translated the text into Latin as the Pope had asked him to do he rendered it rather literally: panem nostrum supersubstantialem da nobis hodie (give us today our supersubstantial bread). If you look up the text of Matthew 6:11 in the Douay Rheims Bible you will see the word “supersubstantial” since that English text renders the Vulgate Latin quite literally.
  6. Every good thing necessary for subsistence – The Catechism of the Catholic Church adopts an inclusive approach: Daily” (epiousios) occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. Taken in a temporal sense, this word is a pedagogical repetition of “this day,” to confirm us in trust “without reservation.” Taken in the qualitative sense, it signifies what is necessary for life, and more broadly every good thing sufficient for subsistence. Taken literally (epi-ousios: “super-essential”), it refers directly to the Bread of Life, the Body of Christ, the “medicine of immortality,” without which we have no life within us. Finally in this connection, its heavenly meaning is evident: “this day” is the Day of the Lord, the day of the feast of the kingdom, anticipated in the Eucharist that is already the foretaste of the kingdom to come. For this reason it is fitting for the Eucharistic liturgy to be celebrated each day. (CCC # 2837) As such the Catechism attempts no resolution to the problem but simply indicates that several interpretations are possible and non-exclusive to one another.

In the end, an unresolved mystery – So when we have a Greek word that is used no where else and when such important and determinative Fathers struggle to understand it and show forth rather significant disagreement,  we are surely left at a loss. It seems clear that we have something of a mystery.

Reverencing the Mystery – But perhaps the Lord intended that we should ponder this text and see a kind of multiple meaning. Surely it is right that we should pray for our worldly food. Likewise we should pray for all that is needed for subsistence, whether just for today or for tomorrow as well. And surely we should ask for the Bread of Life, the Holy Eucharist which is the necessary Bread that draws us to eternal life and which (Who) is over and above all earthly substances.

So there it is, the hidden and mysterious word in the middle of the Our Father. Most modern translations have settled on the word “daily.”  For the record, the Latin Liturgy also uses the word daily (quotidianum). But in truth no one word can capture what is said here. The Lord has left us a mystery to ponder. I know many of you who read here are learned in Greek, Latin, the Fathers, and Scripture scholarship, and I am interested in your thoughts. This article is incomplete and has not covered every possible facet of the argument. I leave that you,  all who wish to comment.