Category: Bible

Posted on

The Bible is Not Just a Book, It is a Library. And this is Key to Interpreting Scripture

Fr. Robert Barron is famous for the insight that the Bible is not a Book, it is a library of many books from different periods and using different genres. Christians sometimes get asked, “Do you read the Bible literally?” But this is like asking, “Do you read the Library literally?” Well, of course that would depend on what section I was in. If I were in the science section I might read rather literally and technically. But if I were in the poetry section I would read rather differently with an openness to allegory, hyperbole, and the like. Other interpretive modes would be operative in the history section, the computer and technical manual section, the science fiction section, philosophy, religion and so forth. When walking into a library we have enough sophistication to make distinctions as to the genre of a book, its historical period, its purpose and so forth.

In reading Scripture we need a similar sophistication. Some of the Bible is straight forward history. But other sections are poetry, saga, Biography or exhortation. Still other sections use literary techniques such as parables, analogy, simile, metaphor, hyperbole, and expressions of the day.

In order to understand and sort all this out, some knowledge of the period when the text was written is helpful. Knowing something of the people involved and their circumstances is also essential. This is the kind of sophistication we bring to any other ancient writing we might encounter.

But one of the problems many bring to scripture is the tendency to read it in a crudely literalistic and mechanistic manner that does not respect the genre and purpose of a particular part of the Bible. To be sure there are passages we do read and understand in a literalistic manner. For example, “this is my Body.” Further we accept that the Scriptures record the things that Jesus actually said and did. But where many get lost is by taking literally what are figures of speech. Now we use figures of speech all the time. For example, We might say “It’s raining cats and dogs.” or “The world is turned upside-down.” Now we know what these expressions mean and that we do not mean them in a literalistic way. And so, we need some sophistication when we read in scripture that we are to gouge our our eye, or cut off our hand. When we are told not to cast our pearls before swine, nor give what is holy to dogs. When we are told by Jesus that we must love him and hate our father and mother, son and daughter, even our very self. These were expressions of the day which have a true meaning but which require a little sophistication to properly understand.

Again, the Bible is a library, not a book and we need to take heed of what “section” we are in. That said, The Scriptures have within them an internal unity where all the many individual books announce God’s plan and sets forth the ultimate destiny of man which is caught up in God’s redeeming love.

The Catechism gives some rules when it comes to interpreting Scripture:

  1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”. Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover. (CCC # 112) It is for this reason that we read the Old Testament in light of the New. For ultimately, everything there points to Christ, and to the life of Grace he would bring forth.
  2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture. (CCC # 113). Scripture emerges from and is a part of the living Tradition of the Church. Hence it must be understood within that context.
  3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith. By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation. (CCC # 114). For the truths of faith must be held in a balance. When we allow one truth to eclipse others this is heresy. Further, one text of the Scripture does not the whole bible make. Texts have to be understood with the balance of the whole, and of the faith in general. There is a danger in “proof-texting” because it often removes a certain passage from the whole of Scripture which can help to balance and nuance it. Further, proof-texting may also take a text out of the wider context of the faith as a whole which may also help to balance and nuance it.
  4. According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church. (CCC # 115)
  5. The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.” (CCC # 116) Be careful here, “literal does not mean “literalistic” but, rather, what is the literary meaning of a text. That is, “What is the text actually saying.”
  6. The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs. (CCC # 117) Scripture is always more than historical occurrences. It is also about you spiritual journey and mine. Scripture is not spectator sport. You and I are in the story. I am Peter, Mary, Pilate, Joseph and so forth. The events and words of scripture transcend time and have spiritual meaning now as well. The crossing of the Red Sea was more than an historical event. It is baptism, it is salvation. And so forth.
  7. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism. The word allegory comes from the Greek  allēgoría,  meaning to speak so as to imply something other. In other words, the events and deeds of the Bible point beyond themselves to something greater and other.
  8. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.
  9. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem. Another example might be that the journey of the Jewish people for forty years in the desert is a sign of our pilgrimage trough the desert of this life to the Promised Land of Heaven.
  10. A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses: The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith; The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.

Here are a couple of very good videos that make rather plain the Catholic approach to Biblical interpretation. The first  video is from Fr. Robert Barron and details two key Catholic interpretive principles: the importance of Genre and that Jesus Christ is the interpretive key to to understanding the whole Bible.The second video is from John Martignoni and is a very brief description of the Literal vs. Literalist interpretation.

Posted on

And We Shall Behold Him, Then Face to Face – A Meditation on the Look of the Lord

I have a large Icon of Christ in my room (see photo at right). What icons from the Eastern tradition do best is to capture “the Look.” No matter where I move in the room Christ is looking right at me. His look is intense, though not severe. In the Eastern spirituality Icons are windows into heaven. Hence this icon is no mere portrait that reminds one of Christ, it is an image which mediates his presence. When I look upon him, I experience that he knows me. It is a knowing look and a comprehensive look.

The Book of Hebrews says of Jesus, No creature is concealed from him, but everything is naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must render an account. (Heb 4:13).

But his look in the Icon is not fearsome, it is serene and confident. Hence the text from Hebrews goes on to say, Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast to our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has similarly been tested in every way, yet without sin. So let us confidently approach the throne of grace to receive mercy and to find grace for timely help. (Heb 4:14-16)

Particularly in Mark’s Gospel there is great emphasis on the eyes and the look of Jesus. A frequent expression in that Gospel is “And looking at them He said….” Such a phrase or version like it occurs over 25 times in Mark’s Gospel referring to Jesus.

Looking on Christ, and allowing him to look on you is a powerful moment of conversion. Jesus himself said, For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” (Jn 6:40) and the First Letter of John says, What we shall later be has not yet been revealed. We do know that when it is revealed we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is (1 Jn 3:2).

There is just something in us that seeks the face of God and desires that look of love that alone can heal and perfect us. I often think of this verse from Scripture when I am at Eucharistic Adoration: Look! There he stands behind our wall, gazing through the windows, peering through the lattice. (Song 2:9). Yes, I long to see the Lord, and the Scripture also speaks of his longing to “see” us.

Here are some scriptures that remind us to seek the face of the Lord and to look to him:

  1. Seek the LORD and his strength; seek his presence continually! (1 Chron 16:11)
  2. If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land. (2 Chron 7:14)
  3. You have said, “Seek my face.” My heart says to you, “Your face, LORD, do I seek.” (Ps 27:8)
  4. Look to the LORD and his strength; seek his face always. (Ps 105:4)
  5. I [the Lord] will return again to my place, until they acknowledge their guilt and seek my face, and in their distress earnestly seek me. (Hosea 5:15)
  6. Everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:40)
  7. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him. (John 14:21)
  8. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. (Matt 5:8)
  9. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. (1 Cor 13:12)
  10. For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. (2 Cor 4:6)

An old song says: We shall behold Him, Face to face in all of His glory….The angel will sound, the shout of His coming, And the sleeping shall rise, from their  slumbering place. And those remaining, shall be changed in a moment. And we shall behold him, then face to face.

Allow Christ to look on you.

This video is a wonderful collection of many of the looks of Jesus and the reaction of the people that follows that look. Pay special attention to it. The video also features a lot of “looks” that come from us. Notice how people look upon Jesus, and how they, as human beings react, as they look on Jesus. Look for the “looks” in this video. The final looks are especially moving.


*

* Image Credit: From Aquinasandmore.com
*

Posted on

Asking God to Be "Fair" Is Very Dangerous – Better Try Mercy!

In the first reading from Mass on Friday of this week God answers the question of his “fairness” in dealing with us:

You say, “The LORD’s way is not fair!” Hear now, house of Israel: Is it my way that is unfair, or rather, are not your ways unfair? When someone virtuous turns away from virtue to commit iniquity, and dies, it is because of the iniquity he committed that he must die. But if the wicked, turning from the wickedness he has committed, does what is right and just, he shall preserve his life; since he has turned away from all the sins that he committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die. (Ezekiel 18:25-28)

It is a rather dangerous thing demand that God be fair. How easily we can declare of many circumstances. “That’s not fair!”  But when it comes to the Lord, a little friendly advice is helpful: Be VERY careful before you ask God to be fair. If God were fair we’d all be in Hell right now. As it is, God is merciful and none of us have ever really gotten the punishment we deserved. Notice that God answers the accusation that it is unfair for him to punish the sinner in a twofold way:

1. Your Choice – If a person sins and does not repent of it he will die (i.e. descend to hell). But that is his choice to stay in sin and thus incur the cosequence that he dies spiritually and cannot see eternal life. It is our choice that is determinative of this.

2. Choose Mercy! God also answers with a sort of plea that we call on his mercy instead. God is a God of the second chance. And, rather than give us the fairness we seek in a misguided way, we bids us call on his mercy, repent and he will hear and save us. For if a person repent he will live! Scripture says elsewhere: As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, O house of Israel?‘ (Ezekiel 33:11). Again, God our savior wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4). And again, The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)

If you want God to be “fair,” that is, to use strict justice,  cannot you see that we are all in very serious trouble?  In the end it is only his grace and mercy that will ever see us through. We ought to have enough humility to banish notions of fairness in our relations with God. Mercy is the only way we stand a chance. Kyrie Eleison!

Picture above from goodsalt.com (right click on photo for URL)

This song says, “You’re the God of the Second Chance.”

Posted on

Reflections on the Soon to Be Released New American Bible (Revised Edition)

We have talked before here about some concerns in regard to the New American Bible. Both the translations, and especially the footnotes, are matters of concern. Now comes the news that a revised version is being issued March 9. Here are excerpts of  the press release:

The New American Bible, revised edition (NABRE), the first major update to the New American Bible (NAB) translation in 20 years, has been approved for publication…..The NABRE will be available in a variety of print, audio and electronic formats on March 9, Ash Wednesday.

            The new translation takes into account advances in linguistics of the biblical languages, as well as changes in vocabulary and the cultural background of English, in order to ensure a more accurate translation. This issue is addressed in the apostolic exhortation of Pope Benedict XVI, Verbum Domini, in which the pope says, “The inculturation of God’s word is an integral part of the Church’s mission in the world, and a  decisive moment in this process is the diffusion of the Bible through the precious work of translation into different languages.”

            The new translation also takes into account the discovery of new and better ancient manuscripts so that the best possible textual tradition is followed. The NABRE includes the first revised translation of the Old Testament since 1970 and a complete revision of the Psalter. It retains the 1986 edition of the New Testament. Work on most books of the Old Testament began in 1994 and was completed in 2001. The 1991 revision of the Psalter was further revised between 2009 and 2010.

More here: http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2011/11-003.shtml

I have seen a few samples of the text and there are things to affirm.

1.  The dreadful 1991 Psalter is gone. So significant were the problems with the 1991 Psalter that the Vatican rescinded approval for its use in the liturgy. Among the problems with the older Psalter was  an excessive use of “inclusive” language. One of the main problems with this is approach is that it shreds the messianic psalms of their reference directly to Christ. For example, in certain Psalms the text, “Blessed is the man” is often a reference to Christ who alone fulfills the psalm perfectly. Man,  in such cases, does not merely mean, “the person who.”  However, the 1991 Psalter in current NAB versions renders this phrase,  Blessed is the Man as Happy those. In so doing, they  lose, not only the gender, (for Christ is male), but they also make the reference plural. Hence a reference to Christ is wholly obscured.

The new Psalter looks to have resolved this problem. I do not have access to the whole new Psalter so I cannot say if it will wholly resolve things. However, one psalm in the sample set  is psalm 8. The 1991 version crudely rendered verse 5-6 as What are humans that you are mindful of them, mere mortals that you care for them? Yet you have made them little less than a god, crowned them with glory and honor. The new text says, What is man that you are mindful of him, and a son of man that you care for him? Yet you have made him little less than a god, crowned him with glory and honor.

2.  As for inclusive language in general the press backgrounder (found HERE) states the following:

Does this Bible use inclusive language?  This edition reflects the original meaning of the texts. Much of the original material, especially in thee narrative books, was gender specific and remains so. All references to God retain the traditional use of masculine pronouns. Where the original reference was gender neutral, the translation reflects that.

This is hopeful, for although some support “inclusive” language, we must remember that we are dealing with a sacred text. It is dangerous to claim to be “more enlightened” than the sacred texts, and then set about editing the text. Hebrew and Greek make greater use of nuance in grammatical gender than English and we ought to respect that fact since,  it was in these languages that God chose to set forth his relevation. We conform to the text, we do not merely conform it to us.

3.  It’s time for a new translation. A lot has happened since 1970, to which most of the current NAB Old Testament translation dates. Biblical scholarship has clarified texts. In English usage certain usages have change.  Of this last point the press release gives a few examples:

Samples of longer text changes are at the end of this document, but some words that no longer appear include “booty” (replaced with “plunder”), “cereal” (replaced with “grain”), and “holocaust” (replaced with “burnt offering”). That is because they have taken on new meanings for modern readers and could distract from the original intent of the Scripture. [1]

All this said, there remain some on-going concerns remain.

1.  The 1986 New Testament remains unchanged. There are significant issues in regard to that translation. For example, it renders Gabriel’s salutation to Mary as Hail favored one! (Lk  1:26) instead of the usual and traditional (and probably more accurate) Hail full of grace!  There is also the tendency to render the Greek word porneia (sexual immorality) as merely “immorality” (which could mean anything). This is a consistent problem in the Pauline corpus. We have discussed more on these issues here:  http://blog.adw.org/2010/08/puzzlement-over-porneia-and-a-pet-peeve/

2. There may be an interpretive key in the new translation of the Old Testament that many do not favor. In a text I was not given access to it would appear that a historicist approach is being taken. Here is an excerpt from the USA Today article that describes the problem:

One change may set off alarms with traditionalists, in a passage many Christians believe foreshadows the coming of Christ and his birth to a virgin. The 1970 version of Isaiah 7:14 says “the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.” The 2011 text refers to “the young woman” instead. It elaborates that the original Hebrew word, almah, may, or may not, signify a virgin.[2]

Now what this seems to indicate is what I call here a historicist approach. In this approach the interpretive key seeks to answer the question “How would a Jew of the 8th Century BC (in this case) understand this verse?” It is possible, and even probable, that a Jew of that era would think merely that a young girl would grow up, get married and have a baby.

But, frankly, I am not all that concerned with how a Jew of the 8th Century BC would understand it. For, as a Christian, I read the Old Testament in the light of the New Testament. And this text is clearly a reference to Mary and Christ. Almah signifies virgin, or young woman in Hebrew because, in that culture, young women were virgins (imagine that!).

New Testament Christians have rightly translated this verse as virgin because its reference to Mary is clearer and virgin is a perfectly acceptable way to translate Almah. But it looks like the editors of the NABRE want us to see it more as a Jew of the 8th Century BC would see it.

Catholic principles allow this interpretation but many do not prefer it since allusions are lost. St. Paul said regarding the Old Testament, these things were written for our instruction (Rom 15:4; cf 1 Cor 10:11). Jesus told the Jewish people of his day regarding the Old Testament: You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me (Jn 5:39).

Hence it seems more proper to read the scriptures not in an historicist sense, but as historical texts fulfilled in the New Testament, and understood in the light of the New Testament. I wish the NABRE would have used this approach which, at least according to this text, it did not.

3. The Footnotes of the New Testament are extremely problematic in places. At times they seem to directly question Catholic doctrine and the scriptural roots of it. We have talked more about that here: http://blog.adw.org/2010/09/new-american-bible-problems-on-purgatory/  I raised one problem, and commenters raised many other issues in the footnotes of the NAB New Testament.

It is my presumption that these bad footnotes will remain in the NT, even though the OT has been revised. Let us hope that the bishops will choose to pull the bad notes and replace them with better ones. Then the NAB will be “safer” for use by the inquiring faithful. Frankly, I struggle to hand it to the faithful with those footnotes. I have not seen the footnotes for the Old Testament in the NABRE and hope they will better annunciate the roots of Catholic teaching.

In the end, there is hope for this new translation. More will be known to us of this new translation next Wednesday when it goes live at the USCCCB website: http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/index.shtml

The NAB remains the most widely used Catholic Bible and is tied to the liturgy. This new version will require further review at the Vatican before it is approved for liturgical use,  but it is likely to take its place in the Catholic liturgy in the next few years. I look forward with hope to on-going improvements in the New Testament sections and will receive the revised Old Testament with great and hopeful expectation this Wednesday.

Photo Credit: USCCB (right click for poperties)

 

Posted on

When Words Get in the Way – A Meditation on the Value and Limits of Language

Language is one our greatest gifts. Our capacity to symbolize reality by sounds and words is nothing short of astonishing. The fact that you are able to decode these letters, words and sentences, and have an echo in your mind of what I am thinking, is a miraculous gift. It is a gift that we often take for granted.

But, I have often wondered if one of our greatest gifts also imposes on us a significant limitation. For, words distinguish as they must:  a tree is not a horse, is not a star. And yet, even while we distinguish, as we must, it is possible for us to miss the great and mystical unity of all things. Perhaps a tree, a horse and a star have more in common than we might imagine. As we use words and make necessary distinctions, it is possible that we stop reflecting on the ultimate mystery of all things. We learn early on to call this a “tree,” that a “horse,” and the points of light above “stars.”  But then, the danger is,  we just file these notions away and stop reflecting on “star-ness” and how it relates to “tree-ness” and so forth.

You may think I am being absurd but I’d like to illustrate how words can sometimes get in the way and that silence can have an important value. Consider some examples:

1. It is widely attested that Albert Einstein did not talk until he was three or four years of age. Thomas Sowell even wrote a book called The Einstein Syndrome: Bright Children Who Talk Late.   Some biographers think it was just that he was shy and thoughtful, others wonder at a mild autism. But in the end, Einstein spent a longer period observing the “is-ness” of things before “reducing” them to words.

I have often wondered if this is how he was able to think past the usual categories and see the ultimate inter-relatedness of things. Who would have thought that matter is really frozen energy and also be able to relate its quantity to the speed of light!?  E=MC2 is a bolt out of the blue! The amount of energy in something is its mass, multiplied by the speed of light squared?!?  Who would have thunk it? And yet, there it is. It is almost as though an angel must have whispered this great secret to Einstein. And yet again, how could he grasp that time and space were really a continuum?  How could he abstract that, as we approach the speed of light, time would slow down?  Where did he get this insight which is far from obvious or easily tested by experience?

My own theory is that Einstein, in addition to his intellectual gifts, had spent more time in silence than most of us. Words didn’t “get in the way” too soon for him and he thus spent more time in an enchanted world where things were all aspects of some “One great thing” that caused them all to be inter-related and, ultimately one. I am not saying it was necessarily a conscious awareness he had as an adult. Perhaps it was just that this intuition of the oneness of things had deeper roots in him because he did not “too early” sort things out and file them all away in separate boxes.

2. In terms of our faith, it makes sense that, ultimately all things are one. Scripture says that Jesus holds all creation together within himself (Col 1:17). Scripture also asserts that God spoke all creation into existence through his WORD. Notice it is “Word” not “Words.” The Gospel of John says it is though this one Word, (Jesus), that all things are: Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. (John 1:3). Hence there is a unity at the heart of all things, Jesus. St. Augustine says, that in the end there will be unus Christus, amans seipsum (one Christ, loving himself).

3. Hence, our many words, necessary though they be for us, ultimately lead to one Word, Jesus, through who all things are and are held together. For me, as a man of faith, it would seem clear that the enchanted world Einstein experienced before “words got in the way,” the world where all things were aspects ultimately of one great thing, was ultimately a glimpse into Christ, the mystical unifier and cause of all things. The one Word uttered by the Father.

4. St. Thomas Aquinas had and “Einstein moment” at the opposite end of his life. Aquinas was the great distinguisher and no one could articulate and classify like he could. His work is beyond compare and has been an enormous gift to the Church and mankind. And yet, at the end of his life he seems to have had a mystical experience which confirmed powerfully what he already knew, that words were inadequate to express the true mystery of things. It is reported that he said to his secretary: ‘Reginald, my son, I will tell you a secret which you must not repeat to anyone while I remain alive.  All my writing is now at an end; for such things have been revealed to me that all I have taught and written seems quite trivial to me now.  The only thing I want now is that as God has put an end to my writing, He may quickly end my life also’ (Bernard Gui, Vita 27, trans. Foster (p. 46)). Aquinas died three months later.

The apostrophe of silence at the end of his life is probably the most important thing he ever “said.” God is other, and our words, necessary though they are fall far short of the glory of God and the mystery of his creation. Unless we grasp this, as Aquinas always did, words get in the way and cause us to over-simplify. Words necessarily distinguish, but reality is ultimately more mystical than we can ever express.

5. A parable- Abba Moses stood before his students in the desert one day and gave this teaching: “Every word or image of God is more a distortion than a description!”  The students were shocked and said, “But Abba, when you teach us of God you use words!” At this he laughed and said, “When I speak of God, listen less to the words, and ponder more the silence between the words.”  Now this parable exaggerates to make a point. Namely that words are necessary, but silence is even more necessary because of the limits of words.

6. The Gift of contemplative prayer as St. Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross describe it is the gift to pray and experience God beyond words, or images. It is the experience of God as other, as beyond. Those gifted with this prayer cannot reduce it to words, it is ineffable, unsayable, beyond words.

In the end, words do fall short. They are our greatest blessings, but if we do not understand their limits they also curse us to a reductionist understanding of the world. A tree is not a horse, and neither is a star, but mystically they all come from one Word and have a unity far greater than we know.

(Image above  taken from http://www.britannica.com/blogs )

OK, this post has been a little heavy. Time for some humor. Imagine you and I are having a conversation. Here is what my cat hears:

Posted on

Prayer – "Hand to Hand" Combat

Peace be with you!

After a prayer service for peace in the troubled neighborhood in which I teach, I was asked, if it were legal, would I carry a weapon for protection. I pulled out a rosary and said, “I already do!”

Armed and dangerous

Ok, I was being a little factitious. But, I really meant it. I try to pray the rosary each day on my way to work. I think often about the 15 promises of the rosary and realize that it is indeed a powerful weapon. In fact, any prayer in the name of Christ is a powerful weapon. But, unlike a firearm, it cannot backfire, there is no moral question that needs resolved before its use, it cannot be turned around and used against me, it will never fail and the only training I need is found in my faith.

Furthermore, it is weapon that can effectively defend me against evil but unlike a firearm, it cannot be used to harm anyone else or used in a vengeful manner.

Is it proper to refer to a pious devotion as a weapon?

The Holy Father spoke of the Rosary as “a particular prayer of the Church and a spiritual weapon for each of us.”

Ephesians teaches us — “Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, so that you are able to stand against the wiles of the devil. Therefore take unto you the whole armor of God, so that you are able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girded about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness, and your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace. Above all, take the shield of faith, wherewith you shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” -Ephesians 6:10-11, 13-17

Earthly vs. Spiritual Weapons

The word “weapon” is often associated with pain, destruction and death. Unfortunately, Earthly weapons are often used unwisely for these purposes. However, when we are talking about the use of spiritual weapons for the destruction of death and sin, we should all seek to be armed and dangerous.

Brothers and sisters, as Lent approaches, don’t forget to arm yourself!

Posted on

Does God Love the Souls in Hell? Then Why Do They Suffer?

Every now and then an older post of mine lights up again with a new bevy of comments. Such is the case with a post I wrote over a year ago entitled, Is God’s Love Really Unconditional?.  This sometimes happens because a link is picked up and posted somewhere and people click through. This recent bevy of comments was mostly hostile toward God and faith so I suspect that an agnostic or atheist site posted my article as an example of how naïve believers are etc. That’s OK. I am happy to be a fool for Christ.

One of the comments was rather interesting to me though, and I’d like to see what you think as well. For a little background let me print a paragraph I wrote a year ago and then give you the reader’s comment in response:

MSGR POPE: God’s love never fails. I will go so far as to say that even the souls in hell are loved by God. How could they continue to exist if He did not love them, sustain them and provide for them? God loves because God IS love and that is what Love does, it loves. We may fail to be able to experience or accept that love, and that inability may at some time become permanent for us. But God never stops loving. How could he? God does not merely have love, He IS love. And love cannot NOT  LOVE for it pertains to love that it love. God has not stopped loving the souls in Hell. How could He? They surely refused to empty their arms to receive his embrace but God’s love for them has never been withdrawn. How could God not be love?

COMMENTER:  Are you trolling Msgr? Where is the love in keeping you alive in hell? It is a lot better to just cease existing than suffer eternal torment. Is that his way of showing love? Let me put a good example. I will let some bad people torture you and your family for your mistakes. They will rape your children, slice them up, but since I LOVE YOU, I will keep them alive, to be tortured again. And you can multiply this example to a trillion, zillion, quantillion whatever illion times and it still doesn’t fit eternity. Do you think I love you?

God a monster?  Now, the likely point of our commenter is common to a lot of atheist comments I get. Namely, that our God, the Christian God of the Bible, is a monster, that he is vengeful, punitive and hateful. The point is to make God, and the whole notion of faith, seem unreasonable and untenable, cruel and despotic, especially when squared with the far more “reasonable” and “civilized” notions of humanism.

And yet our commenter has effectively presented a conundrum that can really only be resolved by a kind of nihilism. For, if God keeps the souls in hell alive, then he is vengeful and hateful. But if he slays the wicked, then it would also seem, to most observers, that  he is vengeful and hateful. So no matter what he does, God is vengeful and hateful. The only solution would seem to be a kind of nihilism in which we remove all ultimate notions of right and wrong, all notions of consequences, all notions of reward and ultimate justice. This in turn requires that we remove human freedom as well since, no matter what we did, the result would be the same.

This would seem the only way our commenter could envision a God who is not vengeful and hateful. It’s very all or nothing. Either God is vengeful and hateful or he completely removes our freedom and everything associated with it, thereby forcing one solution.

Questions to ponder – Beyond this though there are other questions to ponder, based not only on what the commenter says, but also what I have said. I want to say that I do not write these questions glibly or merely to tweak. They are not rhetorical (merely argumentative) either. What I am trying to do is take up the voice of a questioner who is authentically trying to wrestle with a difficult topic. I think many of the questions I raise have a clear answer, and propose one at the end. But I merely raise them to paint a picture of what might go through the mind of one pondering the matter. So here are some questions that might occur in terms of God and the souls in Hell:

  1. Is it really a sign of hate or vengeance, rather than love, that God sustains the souls in Hell?
  2. Does he really keep them alive merely to torment them?
  3. What is more loving, to sustain them or to slay them?
  4. Is the description of hell advanced by our commenter over the top or is it accurate? Granted, the torture of my family for “my mistakes” would be wrong since, theoretically they are innocent of my mistakes and would not be in hell.
  5. But what of the torture of guilty in hell? Is our commenter’s description accurate in this sense? Jesus after all, uses some pretty vivid descriptors of hell where the fire is never extinguished and the worm dies not (Mk 9:48). Where there is wailing and grinding of teeth (Matt 13:42) and where there is torment and thirst (Lk 16:24).
  6. Are these images of Jesus just allegory (figurative)?
  7. Are they Jewish hyperbole (exaggeration)?
  8. Or are they to be interpreted in a literalistic way?
  9. In other words, is Hell really this bad?
  10. Are the Biblical descriptions as understood literally the only way to see Hell?
  11. And if it is, is our commenter right that it would be better for God to slay the wicked?
  12. If it IS better, is God despotic and vengeful in keeping them alive in this condition?
  13. Is “killing the patient” ever good therapy?
  14. Should God just cancel the reality of hell and bring them to heaven?
  15. If He did, would this also cancel justice?
  16. If He did, would this violate the freedom and the choice of those who preferred not to live in his Kingdom?
  17. If it does violate their freedom, is killing them only thing left?
  18. Is THAT just?

In striving to resolve these sorts of questions we might start by saying that Hell is not unjust. In a way, hell has to be since God ultimately respects our freedom to choose him and his kingdom or not. That hell is eternal would seem caught up in the mystery of who we are, and that, at some point, our choice becomes forever fixed and definitive.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him….. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.” (CCC #1033). Note that we “self-exclude” ourselves in some definitive way. Mysteriously, Hell is the final choice of some who finally reject God and the values of his Kingdom, such as mercy, love of the poor, chastity, worship and so forth. It is we who do this, not God who wants no one to perish but all to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9).

But what of the sufferings of Hell? Could God not at least turn down the temperature a bit?  Our commenter has surely honed in one of the great mysteries of hell: its sufferings and why God seems content to allow it. Here too the Catechism may be of some help in sorting through the problem. While acknowledging the fiery descriptions of hell in the Scriptures, the Catechism finally states: The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs. (CCC # 1035)

Note that the chief punishment is not the fire etc., but eternal separation from God, who alone can be the true fulfillment for what we long. As fleshly creatures we tend to want to focus on fire, and worms not dying, on tormenting thirst etc. But all of that is secondary, and may well flow from the primary suffering, which is the self-imposed and adamant desire of the soul to permanently live apart from God. The fire may not be literal fire and the worms etc.,  may be descriptive of a kind of fiery anger, a self consuming hatred that knows no depth. The thirst may describe the longing that results from having eternally rejected the medicine of God who alone is true and living water. The gnashing of teeth may be a symbol of the anger of the souls in Hell. But all of this results from the primary suffering the self-imposed exile of the soul from God.

The vivid descriptions of hell in Scripture are surely meant to get our attention. Here too the Catechism is helpful:

The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: “Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few (Mt 7:13).” (CCC # 1036)

In the end the only ways for God to resolve the situation of hell would be to disregard the free choice of the damned and force them into his presence, or to kill them.

As for killing them, we live in strange times and in the culture of death wherein Death is an oft recommended “therapy.” Inconvenient children, unborn children with prenatal diagnosis of handicaps,   the suffering and the seriously sick, are all to be “treated” by death, according to many in our culture. A strange and sick therapy indeed.

And in the end if God were to kill the souls in Hell  He would be saying to them, and to us, you really only DO have one choice. Love me, choose me,  or die, cease to exist. Is that really a choice? Is that really to love God if, in the end we there is only one lasting choice?

We are left ultimately with the mysterious reality of hell and can only conclude that, in the end hell has to be.

Here’s an interesting take on similar question:

Posted on

A Dramatic Moment That Almost Everyone Missed

Joseph and Mary have ascended to Jerusalem to fulfill two ancient mandates: the Rite of Purification for a woman after childbirth and the Rite of Presentation of their firstborn male child, Jesus. These rites set the stage for a dramatic moment in Biblical history, a moment missed by almost everyone. We shall explore this dramatic moment shortly but first a little background.

Jewish law considered that, after a woman gave birth she became ritually impure for a period. While this seems unjust to us, the Jewish notion was rooted in the flow of blood that occurred in childbirth and just about anyone who came in contact with blood incurred a ritual uncleanness for a period of time. The Book of Leviticus has this to say regarding a woman who has given birth:

The LORD said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites: ‘A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over.  If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding. ” ‘When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering. He shall offer them before the LORD to make atonement for her, and then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood.” ‘These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl. If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’ ” (Lev 12:1-8).

As you can see, there is a fairly negative concept at work here from a modern viewpoint. A woman becomes ritually unclean by giving birth. This was due not to birth per se but  to the flow of blood and/or other fluids at birth. Even more distressing to modern notions is that a woman who gave birth to a daughter was considered ritually unclean for even longer! Alas, it is well that the power of the Church to bind and loose has freed us from this thinking. Keep in mind that this was ceremonial law, not moral law and, hence, the Church is not setting aside immutable moral law in abrogating such notions of ritual impurity.

Obedient to the Law – Nevertheless Joseph and Mary, obedient to law make the dramatic ascent to the Temple, the Son of God carried in Mary’s arms. It is forty days since the birth of the Lord in fulfillment of the Law. As they ascend the glorious steps to the Temple Mount they also fulfil another requirement of the Law:

You are to give over to the LORD the first offspring of every womb. All the firstborn males of your livestock belong to the LORD.  Redeem with a lamb every firstborn donkey, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem every firstborn among your sons.   “In days to come, when your son asks you, ‘What does this mean?’ say to him, ‘With a mighty hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.  When Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the LORD killed the firstborn of both people and animals in Egypt. This is why I sacrifice to the LORD the first male offspring of every womb and redeem each of my firstborn sons.’ (Ex 13:12-15)

Hence we have two simultaneous feasts commemorated today: the Feast of the Purification of Mary, and the Feast of the Presentation of Jesus. As Scripture records:

When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord”and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.” (Luke 2:22-24)

But something even more dramatic takes place here.  To understand what it is,  let’s look back to 587 BC.

The Babylonians had invaded Jerusalem and the unthinkable had happened. The Holy City was destroyed and, along with it, the Temple of God. Inside the Temple something even more precious than the building had been housed: the Ark of the Covenant.

Recall what the Ark of Covenant was in the Old Testament. It was a box of Acacia wood, covered  in gold. Inside it were placed: the two tablets on which God inscribed the Ten Commandments. Also in it was the staff of Aaron, and a vile of the Manna. More importantly, in this box, this ark, dwelt the very Presence of God in Israel. God mysteriously dwelt within, much as is the case today in our understanding of the tabernacle in our Catholic Churches.

The Lost Ark – Incredibly however, the Ark was lost when the Babylonians destroyed the temple and Jerusalem in 587 BC. It was never found again. Some thought Jeremiah had hid it in the Mountains, others that the priests had hastily hid it in the maze of caves beneath the Temple Mount. Others argue it was taken to Ethiopia. But in the end, the Ark had gone missing.

Empty Temple – When the Temple was rebuilt some eighty years later, the Holy of Holies was restored but the Ark was missing. The High Priest still performed the yearly ritual and entered the Holy of Holies, but the room was empty. Some argued for a spiritual presence in the Temple, but in fact the Ark and the certain presence of God were missing in the Temple after 587 BC. The Ark was never found and returned there. Something, someone, was missing. The very Holy of Holies was an empty room, the Ark, and the presence of God it carried were missing: the Ark, the mercy seat, gone. Would it ever be found? Would it ever be returned to the Temple? Would the Holy Presence of God ever find its way to the Temple again?

The ascent to Jerusalem is a steep one. The mountains surround Jerusalem and the City sits up at a higher altitude than the area around it. As the ancient Jews made the climb they sang the psalms of ascent: Psalms 120-134. As Joseph and Mary ascended they too sang the words that instilled joy: I Lift up mine eye to the mountains from whence cometh my help (121)…..I rejoiced when they said to me let us go up to the House of the Lord (122)…..To you O Lord I have lifted my eyes (123)….Like Mount Zion are those who trust in the Lord (125)….Out of the depths I call unto you O Lord! (130)…..Let us enter God’s dwelling, let us worship at the Lord’s footstool. Arise O Lord and enter your dwelling place, You and the Ark of your strength! (132)….Come and bless the Lord, You who stand in the House of the Lord Lift your hands to the Sanctuary and bless the Lord. The Lord bless you from Zion (134).

Singing these songs, Mary carried Jesus. The climb was even more difficult carrying a newborn babe. But the burden was sweet. A final ascent up the stairs to the Temple Mount. Likely they entered on the southern side through the Huldah gates. Going up the steep stairs, through the tunnel in the walls and emerging on to the bright Temple platform above.

God had returned to His Temple. He, and the Ark who carried him, were found. Mary the Ark, carrying  Jesus in her arms. Jesus, very God, true God from True God. Yes, God and the Ark had been found and God was once again present among His people on the Temple Mount. Scripture says:

And the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his Temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts. But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? (Mal 3:1-2)

What a dramatic moment. And yet what a remarkable understatement by God! If I were to direct the moment I would have called for trumpet blasts, peals of thunder and multitudes of angels! And everyone would fall to their knees in recognition of the great fulfillment and the great return of God to his Temple.

Yet, it would seem only an elderly Man and woman took any note at all: Simeon and Anna. They alone understood they were in the presence of greatness and beheld the drama of the moment:

Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout. He was waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. Moved by the Spirit, he went into the temple courts. When the parents brought in the child Jesus to do for him what the custom of the Law required, Simeon took him in his arms and praised God, saying:  “Sovereign Lord, as you have promised, you now dismiss your servant in peace. For my eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared in the sight of all people, a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to your people Israel.” The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him.  Then Simeon blessed them and said to Mary, his mother: “This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against,  so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too.”  There was also a prophetess, Anna…Coming up to them at that very moment, she gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem. (Luke 2)

Yes, here was the dramatic moment awaited for centuries. The ark of God was found (Mary), and God (Jesus) returned to his temple. But only a few noticed. Just a few understood and celebrated.

And what of us?  At every Mass Jesus, God himself is present. Yet how many notice? Do they really see him? Or do they see only the human priest and the human elements of the Mass. Do you see? Do you notice? Are you Simeon? Anna? Mary? Joseph? Or are you just among those on the Temple Mount who miss the dramatic moment of God with us?