Monday, October 20, 2014

Yes, don't forget older scholarship--like this collection of essays. . .

Anthony Le Donne just had a great post up relating how New Testament scholar Dale Allison apparently encourages students to familiarize themselves with the work of older scholars.

My doktorvater, Colin Brown, felt the same way. He always encouraged me to read the works of scholars such as C.H. Dodd, T. W. Mason (far too often overlooked, in my mind!), and Vincent Taylor.

Well, in that spirit, I thought I'd post about a book I just received a book in the mail that I'm really looking forward to reading:
Robert Banks, editor, Reconciliation and Hope: New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1974).
The book is a Festchrift presented to Leon Morris on the occasion of his 60th birthday. (Yes, the scholars here are somewhat more recent than some of those mentioned above--but the book is 40 years old now!)

I ordered the book because it features an essay on "priesthood" in Paul--a topic I am researching--but looking through the table of contents more carefully, there seems to be a number of interesting pieces.

Anyways, to Allison's insistence on remembering the contribution of scholars from earlier period, I say a hearty, "Amen!"

Friday, October 17, 2014

Ratzinger on the Abuse of Ecclesiastical Power

"Those who talk nowadays of the abuse of power connected with doctrinal discipline in the Church generally have in mind only the misuse of authority on the part of the Church’s ministerial office, which doubtless can occur. But it is entirely forgotten that there is also a misemployment of the authority conferred by one’s mission: the exploitation of the readiness to listen and to trust, which even today men still manifest toward the pronouncements of the Church, for a purely private utterance. Ecclesiastical authority actively serves this misappropriation of power when, by giving it free reign, it makes its own prestige available where it has absolutely no right to do so. The solicitude for the faith of the little ones must be more important in its eyes than the opposition of the great."

--Joseph Ratzinger, The Nature and Mission of Theology: Essays to Orient Theology in Today’s Debates (trans. Adrian Walker; San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1995), 62–63, 64.

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

Join Us Friday: Catholic Answers Radio Live from JP Catholic

This Friday Catholic Answers' Radio Program, hosted by the irrepressible Patrick Coffin, will be doing a special broadcast live from JP Catholic.  In the first hour (from 3-4pm Pacific), my colleague John Kincaid will be addressing the question, "Was Paul a Christian?" I will be up in the second hour answering the question, "Are the Gospels Historical?"

If you're in the southern California area, I hope you can join us and be part of the live audience.

What makes Ratzinger uneasy about going to church

"Today, many Christians, myself included, experience a quiet uneasiness about attending divine services in a strange church; they are appalled at the thought of the half-understood theories, the amazing and tasteless personal opinions of this or that priest that they will have to endure during the homily--to say nothing of the personal liturgical inventions to which they will be subjected. No one goes to church to hear someone else's personal opinions. I am simply not interested in what fantasies this or that individual priest may have spun for himself regarding questions of Christian faith. They may be appropriate for an evening's conversation but not for that obligation that brings me to church Sunday after Sunday. Anyone who preaches himself in this way overrates himself and attributes to himself an importance he does not have. When I go to church, it is not to find there my own or anyone else's innovations but what we have all received as the faith of the Church--the faith that spans the centuries and can support us all."

--Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology (trans. M. F. McCarthy; San Francisco: Ignatius, 1987), 283.

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

The "Trans-political" Kingdom of God: The Twenty-Ninth Sunday of Ordinary Time

Human beings are political animals, Aristotle famously suggested, and Jesus would agree. However, the readings for this week reveal that the political nature of the Kingdom of God transcends the regimes of this age and those who rule them. This is seen immediately in the first reading from Isaiah 45.

First Reading: Isaiah 45:1, 4–6
Thus says the LORD to his anointed, Cyrus,
whose right hand I grasp,
subduing nations before him,
and making kings run in his service,
opening doors before him
and leaving the gates unbarred:
For the sake of Jacob, my servant,
of Israel, my chosen one,
I have called you by your name,
giving you a title, though you knew me not.
I am the LORD and there is no other,
there is no God besides me.
It is I who arm you, though you know me not,
so that toward the rising and the setting of the sun
people may know that there is none besides me.
I am the LORD, there is no other.
In this first reading we encounter the figure of Cyrus, King of Persia, who famously liberated Judah from Babylon and allowed them to return to Palestine in the latter part of the sixth century B.C. It is impossible to doubt the strength of Cyrus and his empire. Yet the prophet is clear that Cyrus’s success was ultimately due to God’s deeper providential purposes in human history, purposes that are here described as his covenantal fidelity to his chosen people of Israel.

In particular, it is clear that God has chosen both Israel and Cyrus in order to make clear that he alone is the true God and King of the nations, for beyond the rise of Cyrus and the fall of Babylon is the Lord of history and the true King of the nations. This leads nicely to the responsorial psalm, for in her worship the covenantal people of God gather to acknowledge the true King of the nations, thereby uniting liturgy and politics in a rather public manner that at first blush should strike us moderns as quite alien.

Monday, October 13, 2014

Would the Real Pharisees Please Step Forward? The Debates on Marriage

I posted on this issue already, and took the post down because it was not stated with enough precision.  But upon further consideration, I believe my essential contribution was correct, and wish to restate it more accurately.

In the context of the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops on the Family, there has been an attempt by some to characterize the position of those who support current Church teaching and practice on divorce and remarriage as “Pharisaical,” while associating those who wish to accommodate some form of ecclesiastical blessing of second marriages within the Church with the evangelical mercy and love of Jesus.

This is extremely ironic, because in point of fact, it was the Pharisees who were very open to divorce and remarriage, but Jesus who opposed it. 

Let’s review the relevant texts:

Gathercole on the Titles of the Gospels

The titles of the gospels were not originally placed there by the evangelists but were added at a later point in the manuscript tradition.

Actually, it may not be that simple. This article by Simon Gathercole shows that the received scholarly "tradition" on this cannot be supported by the manuscript evidence.

Why aren't more people talking about this?

Friday, October 10, 2014

Thomas Oden's "Change of Heart"

InterVarsity Press is advertising a new book by the well-known Protestant theologian Thomas C. Oden, who transitioned from 1960's style Protestant liberalism to a kind of Patristic "mere Christianity." Oden offers the following anecdote about the pivotal moment in his "conversion," which came about through a fraternal correction from a colleague, Jewish scholar Will Herberg:

"Will was trying to show me that the errors I was making were much deeper than I had realized.  I tried to defend myself.  Suddenly, my irascible, endearing Jewish friend leaned into my face and told me that I was densely ignorant of Christianity, and he simply couldn't permit me to throw my life away.  Holding one finger up, looking straight at me with fury in his eyes, he said, 'You will remain theologically uneducated until you study carefully Athanasius, Augustine, and Aquinas ... If you are ever going to become a credible theologian instead of a know-it-all pundit, you had best restart your life on firmer ground.  You are not a theologian except in name only, even if you are paid to be one."
Yes, Dr. Oden, and Athanasius, Augustine, and Aquinas had another thing in common: they were all Catholics in communion with Rome.  We would love you to consider their ecclesiology!

Thursday, October 09, 2014

Ratzinger's Ever-Relevant Erasmus Lecture

In my class Philosophy and Biblical Interpretation, I had the privilege of introducing our first quarter MA students in biblical theology to Cardinal Ratzinger's (Benedict XVI) Erasmus Lecture (January 27, 1988). Among the many remarkable features of this lecture, one section stands out in my mind for its definitive relevance for the future of exegesis and theology.

After broadly discussing the basis for Dibelius's and Butltmann's exegetical method, Ratzinger then continues:

  "But I think we must go a step further in order to appreciate the fundamental decision of the system which generated these particular categories for judgment (i.e., of Dibelius and Bultmann). The real philosophic presupposition of the whole system seems to me to lie in the philosophic turning point proposed by Immanuel Kant.

According to him, the voice of being-in-itself cannot be heard by human beings. Man can hear it only indirectly in the postulates of practical reason, which have remained, as it were, the small opening through which he can make contact with the real, that is, his eternal destiny. For the rest, as far as the content of his intellectual life is concerned, he must limit himself to the realm of the categories.

Thence comes the restriction to the positive, to the empirical, to the "exact" science, which by definition excludes the appearance of what is "wholly other," or the one who is wholly other, or a new initiative from another plane.

In theological terms, this means that revelation must recede into the pure formality of the eschatological stance, which corresponds to the Kantian split. As far as everything else is concerned, it all needs to be "explained."

What might otherwise seem like a direct proclamation of the divine can only be myth, whose laws of development  can be discovered. It is with this basic conviction that Bultmann, with the majority of modern exegetes, read the Bible.

He is certain that it cannot be the way it is depicted in the Bible, and he looks for methods to prove the way it really had to be. To that extent there lies in modern exegesis a reduction of history into philosophy, a revision of history by means of philosophy.

The real question before us then is, can one read the Bible any other way? Or perhaps better, must one agree with the philosophy which requires this kind of reading?

At its core, the debate about modern exegesis is not a dispute among historians: it is rather a philosophical debate. Only in this way can it be carried on correctly. Otherwise it is like swordplay in a mist.

The exegetical problem is identical in the main with the struggle for the foundations of our time. Such a struggle cannot be conducted casually, nor can it be won with a few suggestions. It will demand, as I have already intimated, the attentive and critical commitment of an entire generation."

Sola Scriptura or Sola Revelatio?

Here is another stunningly insightful passage from Joseph Ratzinger's book, 
God’s Word: Scripture—Tradition—Office (eds. P. Hünermann and T. Söding; trans. H. Taylor; San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2008), 51-53.
Really, if you aren't familiar with this book, you need to get it. 

The following is taken from a section with the subheading, "Revelation and Scripture".


A first thesis concerning our problem area, starting from the patristic understanding of Scripture and revelation, might sound something like this:

The fact that there is “tradition” rests first of all on the incongruence between the two entities “revelation” and “Scripture”. For revelation signifies all God’s acts and utterances directed to man; it signifies a reality of which Scripture gives us information but that is not simply Scripture itself. Revelation goes beyond Scripture, then, to the same extent as reality goes beyond information about it.[12] We could also say that Scripture is the material principle of revelation (perhaps the only one, perhaps one of a number—we may leave that point open for the moment) but is not that revelation itself. The Reformers were still quite aware of that; only in the subsequent disputes between post-Tridentine Catholic theology and Protestant orthodoxy was it noticeably blurred.[13] In our own [twentieth] century, Protestant theologians themselves, like Barth and Brunner, have rediscovered this fact, which was entirely self-evident to both patristic and medieval theology.[14]  
What we are saying can also be made clear from a different starting point: you can have Scripture without having revelation. For revelation always and only becomes a reality where there is faith. The nonbeliever remains under the veil of which Paul speaks in the third chapter of his Second Letter to the Corinthians.[15] He can read Scripture and know what is in it, can even understand at a purely intellectual level, what is meant and how what is said hangs together—and yet he has not shared in the revelation. Rather, revelation has only arrived where, in addition to the material assertions witnessing to it, its inner reality has itself become effective after the manner of faith. Consequently, the person who receives it also is a part of the revelation to a certain degree, for without him it does not exist. You cannot put revelation in your pocket like a book you carry around with you. It is a living reality that requires a living person as the locus of its presence.

In view of the foregoing, we could say that revelation goes beyond the fact of Scripture in two directions:

a. As a reality that has its basis in God, it always extends upward into God’s action.

b. As a reality that happens to man in faith, it extends, as it were, beyond the mediating fact of Scripture, too.

It becomes clear, from this incongruence between Scripture and revelation, that quite independently of the question of whether Scripture is the sole material source or not, there can never be an actual principle of sola scriptura in Christianity (something that, as we said, was still clear in principle to the great Reformers and was only forgotten later, in so-called Protestant orthodoxy). Scripture is not revelation but, in any case, is only a part of this greater reality. 
[12] This statement is not intended to mean that Scripture is merely an account, without any substance, of facts that remain entirely outside of it. Rather (as, hopefully, what follows will show), the view that the reality of revelation is a reality of the word—that in the word, the proclamation of the reality of revelation comes to me—should remain fully valid. It nonetheless remains true that the mere word before us, available to us, is not yet itself the reality of revelation, which is never just “available” to us. What is said here is simply intended to point to the difference between the word and the reality that occurs within it, a difference not abolished by the nature of revelation as word. 
[13] See G. Gloege, “Schriftprinzip”, in RGG, 3rd ed., V, 1540–43. Further bibliography there. LThK VII, 1104–15; J. R. Geiselmann, “Offenbarung”, in H. Fries, Handbuch zum Begriff der Offenbarung; see M. Vereno, R. Schnackenburg, and H. Fries, in Theologische Grundbegriffe II (Munich, 1963), 242–50, and the bibliographical material offered in each case. 
[14] See W. H. van de Pol, Das reformatorische Christentum (Einsiedeln, 1956), 117–92. 
[15] See on these ideas A. Oepke’s important article “ἀποκαλύπτω”, in ThWNT III, 565–97.

Wednesday, October 08, 2014

Food and Clothing at God's Banquet: The 28th Sunday of OT


Food and clothing are necessary for life, and they are both themes in the Readings for this weekend.  Food and clothing go together sometimes: for example, we still dress up for a formal banquet or a fancy date night.  Some people still try to dress well for mass, and that’s a good custom, because how we dress shows the importance that we place on the event.  No one shows up for a job interview in a tank top and cut-offs, for example.  Is Mass as important as a job interview? 

But our external dress is not the point of this Sunday’s Readings.  Instead, they focus on the idea of a spiritual supper, and the spiritual preparation or “dress” that is necessary to participate in God’s ultimate wedding banquet. 

Our readings for this week begin with Isaiah’s famous prophecy of a feast on Mount Zion:

Wednesday, October 01, 2014

Level-headed advice from Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.

Time for a "gut check". 

Whatever is "new" is not necessarily true. At the same time, however, that does not mean that real advances are never made. 

An authentic Catholic approach to theology can never claim that all that can be said has been said but it should also avoid the trap of simply paying attention to the "latest trends".  

Or as the great twentieth-century Catholic theologian, Garrigou-Lagrange, said. . . 
"The desire of the true philosopher is, indeed, to acquire an accurate knowledge of philosophy, but he does not consider the temporal sequence of doctrines, as if these were the criterion or sign of their relative truth, and as if this sequence of doctrines were always and necessarily an evolution in the ascendant order, but never a regression and senile decline. From the fact that Scotus came after St. Thomas [Aquinas], it does not follow that his doctrine is truer, and that later on there is greater perfection in the eclecticism of Suarez.  
We must use the historical method in the history of doctrines, and this is indeed of great help in understanding the state and difficulty of the question, so as to give us, as it were, a panorama of the solutions of any great problem. But in philosophy we must employ the analytic and synthetic method proportionate to it. In theology, however, we rely first upon proofs taken from the authority of Holy Scripture or divine tradition, or even the writings of the holy Fathers, and in the second place on arguments drawn from reason, while, of course, not neglecting the history of problems and their solution."  
--Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, The One God: Commentary on the First Part of St. Thomas' Theological Summa (trans. B. Rose; St. Louis: Herder Book Co., 1943), 13.

Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Ratzinger and the "inner logic" of the New Testament

I never grow weary of reminding my students of the importance of studying the Old Testament.

Here's a couple of lines from one of the most important pieces I ever read on biblical interpretation to that effect. It was originally delivered in 1989 by Joseph Ratzinger, the future "Benedict XVI".
"A constitutive element of the [New Testament] is the awareness of being in unity with the entire witness of the Old Testament, which only now can be understood as a unity and as a meaningful whole. And indeed, any interpretation of the New Testament has to let itself be measured by the question of whether it can be consistent with this fundamental conviction. When this cannot be done, any possibility of understanding the inner logic of the New Testament writings has been excluded from the outset."

--Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, "Biblical Interpretation in Conflict: The Question of the Basic Principles and Path of Exegesis Today", reprinted in God’s Word: Scripture—Tradition—Office (ed. P. Hünermann and T. Söding; trans. H. Taylor; San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2008), 105.

"The stone rejected by the builders": Readings for the Twenty-Seventh Sunday of Ordinary Time

Judgment, mercy, and mystery. As I prepare for this Sunday's liturgy, I keep returning to these three words, which seem to sum up the major message of the readings.

Let me explain. . .

FIRST READING: Isaiah 5:1-7
Let me now sing of my friend,
my friend's song concerning his vineyard.
My friend had a vineyard
on a fertile hillside;
he spaded it, cleared it of stones,
and planted the choicest vines;
within it he built a watchtower,
and hewed out a wine press.
Then he looked for the crop of grapes,
but what it yielded was wild grapes.
Now, inhabitants of Jerusalem and people of Judah,
judge between me and my vineyard:
What more was there to do for my vineyard
that I had not done?
Why, when I looked for the crop of grapes,
did it bring forth wild grapes?
Now, I will let you know
what I mean to do with my vineyard:
take away its hedge, give it to grazing,
break through its wall, let it be trampled!
Yes, I will make it a ruin:
it shall not be pruned or hoed,
but overgrown with thorns and briers;
I will command the clouds
not to send rain upon it.
The vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel,
and the people of Judah are his cherished plant;
he looked for judgment, but see, bloodshed!
for justice, but hark, the outcry!
In the first reading, the Lord describes Israel as a vineyard that he has built (cf. Isa 5:1–2, 7). This is an image that is often associated with Israel in both Old Testament texts as well as non-biblical works from the Second Temple and later rabbinic period.[1]

The final verses of the reading make it clear such a metaphor is in view; “the vineyard” is “the house of Israel” and the “people of Judah are his cherished plant”.

To be more specific, the “song of the vineyard” could be described as teaching three specific lessons.

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

"The Faithfulness of God— Where Justice and Mercy Meet": The Twenty-Sixth Sunday in Ordinary Time

One of the perennial questions of humanity is as follows: Is God just? In the readings for the Twenty-Sixth Sunday of Ordinary Time, we find a series of passages that address the question of God’s justice, beginning with the first reading from the prophet Ezekiel.

First Reading: Ezekiel 18:25–28
Thus says the LORD:
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 he turns from the wickedness he has committed,
he does what is right and just,
he shall preserve his life;
since he has turned away from all the sins that he has committed,
he shall surely live, he shall not die.

In order to understand the nature of the prophet’s declaration, it is helpful to view it in context, for throughout the first 17 chapters of Ezekiel, the prophet has repeatedly declared that Judah is about to be sent into exile in Babylon as punishment for their sins.

In fact, one of the primary reasons that Judah was to be sent into exile was due to their corporate “heart problem” described by Ezekiel and Jeremiah at length, a problem that centers on failing to circumcise their hearts not just their bodies. As a result, Deut 30:1 states that the exile is the inevitable covenant curse for this inability to follow the law. 

Theōsis in the West and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church

This weekend I will be presenting a paper at the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars in Pittsburgh, entitled, "Temple Liturgy, Eschatology, and Theōsis: The Jewish Context of Paul's Teaching on the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians 11".

Suffice it to say, I'm very excited about the paper.

One of the things that struck me in preparing it was the statement on what the fathers called theōsis in paragraph 460 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: 

The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature” [2 Pet 1:4]. . . “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.”[1] “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”[2]

The first quotation comes from St. Athanasius, a figure who is often cited in discussions of theōsis in patristic theology. 

The second, however, comes from a figure who is rarely associated with theōsis theology: Thomas Aquinas. 

In fact, recent scholarship is now demonstrating that the commonly held view that theōsis is a uniquely--or primarily--Eastern emphasis is problematic. One key book in this regard is David Meconi, S.J., The One Christ: St. Augustine’s Theology of Deification (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University Press, 2013).

That Aquinas often speaks of deification should therefore be no surprise. Indeed, some key works are now highlighting this theme in Thomas. Here I have to mention the fine work of Daniel Keating. See his book, Deification and Grace (Naples: Sapientia Press, 2007) as well as his article, “Justiication, Sanctification, and Divinization in Thomas,” in Aquinas on Doctrine: A Critical Introduction (eds. T. Weinandy, D. Keating , J. Yocum; London: T & T Clark, 2004), 139–58. 

Our new contributor to this blog, John Kincaid has also turned me on to a great dissertation by Daria E. Spezzano, “The Grace of the Holy Spirit, the Virtue of Charity and the Gift of Wisdom: Deification in Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae, Volumes One and Two (Ph.D. diss., University of Notre Dame, 2011).

In fact, as a growing number of scholars are now recognizing Aquinas is far more Augustinian than most realize. See Michael Dauphinais, Barry David, and Matthew Levering, eds., Aquinas the Augustinian (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2007).  So it should be no surprise that, as in Augustine, theōsis soteriology is found in Aquinas. 

All that said, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which was published well before this resurgence of interest in theōsis traditions in the West in scholarship, highlights both Athanasius and Aquinas as representatives of such views. 

I think you have to say it was pretty much ahead of the curve here. Just another reason I love the Catechism of the Catholic Church. What a masterpiece of theological research! 


[1] St. Athanasius, De inc., 54, 3: PG 25, 192B.
[2] St. Thomas Aquinas, Opusc. 57: 1–4.

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

Introducing John Kincaid, a new contributor to The Sacred Page blog

John Bergmsa, Brant Pitre, and I are pleased to welcome a fourth contributor to The Sacred Page: John Kincaid.

John is a great fit for this blog. Like the rest of us who write here, John is deeply committed to integrating biblical exegesis and theological reflection.

A doctoral candidate at Ave Maria University, John is writing a thesis under Michael Waldstein, entitled, "Recovering the Ancient Perspective on Paul: Augustine, Aquinas, and the Question of Participation in Christ in Recent Scholarship."

This is an exciting project. John knows contemporary Pauline scholarship very well. . . but he also has an expertise in the Church Fathers and in the works of Thomas Aquinas. In fact, he has found some obscure texts in writers such as Augustine that I think are going to really surprise people.

In short, John demonstrates that ancient readers were no less subtle than contemporary scholars. What many will find surprising is that many of the same issues debated today in Pauline scholarship were addressed by these theological giants long ago. Indeed, they were truly ahead of their time.

Specifically, John's thesis looks at their account of the nature of Paul's understanding of participation in Christ. Trust me, his work is going to turn a lot of heads.

If you want a sneak peak at some of what he is doing, John has also co-authored an article with Scott W. Hahn, entitled, 'The Multiple Literal Sense in Thomas Aquinas's Commentary on Romans and Modern Pauline Hermeneutics,' which was published in 2012 by CUA Press in Reading Romans with St. Thomas Aquinas, edited by Matthew Levering and Michael Dauphinais. I highly recommend it.  Among other things, they look at Thomas' explanation of the "righteousness of God" in Romans 1:16-17.

Like me, John is a professor at John Paul the Great Catholic University, teaching graduate and undergraduate courses in Scripture and Theology. John is also co-author of the paper that we are presenting at this upcoming Society of Biblical Literature Conference: "Cultic Theosis in Paul and Second Temple Judaism: A Fresh Reading of the Corinthian Correspondence". Of course, N.T. Wright, Pamela Eisenbaum, and Ward Blanton will be responding to the paper.

In addition to the theological projects of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas and contemporary Pauline studies, John's research interests also include the relationship between modernity and contemporary biblical studies. He received a Th.M. in systematic theology (under Reinhard Hütter) from Duke Divinity School and a M.A. in Theology from Covenant Theological Seminary. As you might suspect from his curriculum vitae, John is a convert to the Catholic faith.

Welcome aboard, John Kincaid! Stay tuned for his first post, which will explore this Sunday's readings.

Saturday, September 20, 2014

Bible Trivia for the Day

At 66 chapters, Isaiah is the longest prophet, followed by Jeremiah with 52, and Ezekiel with 48, right?

Wrong.  In Hebrew word count, Jeremiah clocks in at almost 30,000 words, followed by Ezekiel's ~26,000 and Isaiah's ~23,000.  Isaiah is the shortest major prophet.

At 28 chapters, Matthew and Acts are the longest book of the New Testament, followed by Luke with 24, right? 

Wrong.  Luke is longest with ~16,800 Greek words, followed by Acts at ~15,800 and Matthew with ~15,600.

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Does God Reward His Workers? The 25th Sunday in OT

The Gospel Reading for this Lord’s Day raises the issue of the fairness of God.  Jesus, being a good teacher, wants his students to think.  He teaches in parables that—on the one hand—do indeed communicate truth and answer questions, but—on the other—do raise new, puzzling questions that require the student (discipulus means student, after all) to think. 

1.  Our First Reading emphasizes the distance between God’s perspective and ours:

Thursday, September 11, 2014

Speaking Saturday at the Summit on Today's Marriage and Family Life

For those of you in Southern California, I will be speaking at a great event this weekend: The Wine has Run Out. . . Do Whatever He Tells You: A Summit on Today's Marriage and Family Life. 

The event is being held at St. Lorenzo Ruiz Parish in Walnut, CA. My talk will be on Saturday, 9/13.

I'm thrilled at how many people have signed up for this big event. Hope to see you there!

Here's some more information:
Summit on Today’s Marriage and Family Life on Sept. 12-14. 
A free Praise Concert will open the summit on Friday night from 5pm to 11pm. 
The Summit Proper on Saturday, from 7am to 10pm, will be highlighted by talks and open forums with Bishop Emeritus Ted Bacani from the Philippines as keynote speaker. A group wedding at 3:30 pm culminates the weekend followed by closing ceremonies from 5pm to 6pm. 
Tickets for Saturday’s activities are priced at only $25 each, meals and snacks included. For tickets and information, please call the St. Lorenzo Ruiz Parish Office at (909) 595-9545 or Honchee Natividad at (909) 576-4991

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

"For God So Loved the World": Readings for the Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross

This Sunday we celebrate the wonderful Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross. Appropriately, the readings highlight the healing and redemptive work of Christ crucified. Though much could be said about them, here are some brief thoughts, including why the lectionary has us read the strange story of the bronze serpent fashioned by Moses in the wilderness in connection with this celebration. 

Please give us your feedback in the comment box below. 

FIRST READING: Numbers 21:4b-9
With their patience worn out by the journey,the people complained against God and Moses,“Why have you brought us up from Egypt to die in this desert,where there is no food or water?We are disgusted with this wretched food!” 
In punishment the LORD sent among the people saraph serpents,which bit the people so that many of them died.Then the people came to Moses and said,“We have sinned in complaining against the LORD and you.Pray the LORD to take the serpents from us.”So Moses prayed for the people, and the LORD said to Moses,“Make a saraph and mount it on a pole,and if any who have been bitten look at it, they will live.”Moses accordingly made a bronze serpent and mounted it on a pole,and whenever anyone who had been bitten by a serpent looked at the bronze serpent, he lived.
The story in Numbers 21 is rich in meaning. Here let me highlight a few elements.

Plagues on Israel. The story alludes to the Exodus, which, of course, was accomplished through the Passover, the last of the ten plagues that fell upon the Egyptians. Notably, here the tables have been somewhat turned - the plagues are now falling on Israel. Here we have a warning against spiritual pride - even the chosen people, Israel, can become Egyptians. 

In the liturgy we should contemplate the times God has delivered us in our lives and yet we have proven to be unfaithful to him in response.

The fiery serpents. The term "seraph" serpents is often translated in other English Bibles, "fiery serpents" (e.g., RSV). In the original Hebrew, the reference to the idea of "fiery" or "burning" probably related to the sensation those who suffered their bites experienced.

A graven image that saves. To heal the people, God instructs Moses to make a graven image, specifically, an image of a serpent. This is the origin of the famous medical image of a serpent on a pole.

Here we see that graven images are not in and of themselves evil. Here a brief word is in order about the Ten Commandments. Of course, Jews and Protestants number the Ten Commandments differently from Catholics, identifying as the second commandment as the prohibition of graven images. Catholics, with some Anglicans and Lutherans, follow Augustine's enumeration, which lists the prohibition against idols as part of the first commandment.

By the way, the Augustinian enumeration thus sees the commandments against coveting one's neighbor's wife and coveting one's neighbors goods as two separate commandments, not as a single one as others do. This way of numbering the commandments can also be supported by looking at the list of the commandments given in Deuteronomy. There the prohibition against worshipping other gods is closely linked with idolatry (Deut. 5:7-10). Moreover, the Hebrew uses different terms for coveting ones neighbor's wife [hamad] and his goods ['awa], suggesting these two commandments could be distinguished from one another.

In short, for Catholics, statues are not evil things--worshipping them as gods is. 

Of course, one could also point out that God also commanded Moses to place two statues on the most prominent item in the sanctuary--two golden angels sit atop the ark of the covenant, the holiest vessel in Israel's worship.

In short, far from condemning graven images as of themselves evil, Numbers 21 points to what we might describe as the "sacramental" power of sacred images; the sign of the bronze serpent is an instrument of salvation in the story!

RESPONSORIAL PSALM: Psalm 78:1b-c-2, 34-35, 36-37, 38 
R. (see 7b) Do not forget the works of the Lord!
Hearken, my people, to my teaching;
incline your ears to the words of my mouth.
I will open my mouth in a parable,
I will utter mysteries from of old.
R. Do not forget the works of the Lord!
While he slew them they sought him
and inquired after God again,
Remembering that God was their rock
and the Most High God, their redeemer.
R. Do not forget the works of the Lord!
But they flattered him with their mouths
and lied to him with their tongues,
Though their hearts were not steadfast toward him,
nor were they faithful to his covenant.
R. Do not forget the works of the Lord!
But he, being merciful, forgave their sin
and destroyed them not;
Often he turned back his anger
and let none of his wrath be roused.
R. Do not forget the works of the Lord!
Psalm 78 recalls God's dealings with Israel in the wilderness ("mysteries from of old"). The line in verse 34 is especially significant: "While he slew them they sought him and inquired after God again."

In other words, the psalmist seems to be relating what through the minds of the people of Israel who were killed in the wilderness after rebelling against the Lord: they "sought him".

The fathers thus read this psalm as revealing how God's wrath is actually a mercy. God smites but not out of hatred but out of love. Death was dealt by God as means of bringing his people to repentance! In other words, God punishes not because he stops loving his people but precisely because he cannot stop loving them. Here's a sampling from the fathers (including two quotes from John Chrysostom, whose feast day is Saturday):

And of those also who fell in the desert, let them hear what is related in the seventy-eighth Psalm, which bears the superscription of Asaph; for he says, “When He slew them, then they sought Him.” (Ps 78:34) He does not say that some sought Him after others had been slain, but he says that the destruction of those who were killed was of such a nature that, when put to death, they sought God.—Origen, De princ., 2.5.3 
 Those [afflictions] draw down mercy, they draw down kindness: while these on the other hand lift up even to an insane pride, and lead also to slothfulness, and dispose a man to fancy great things concerning himself; they puff up. Therefore the prophet also said, “It is good for me, Lord, that Thou hast afflicted me, that I may learn Thy statutes.” (Ps. 119:71.) When Hezekiah had received blessings and been freed from calamities, his heart was lifted up on high; when he fell sick, then was he humbled, then he became near to God. “When He slew them,” it says, “then they sought Him diligently, and turned, and were early in coming to God.” (Ps. 78:34.) And again, “When the beloved waxed gross and fat, then he kicked.” (Deut. 32:15.) For “the Lord is known when He executeth judgments.” (Ps. 9:16.)—John Chrysostom, Homily XXXIII (on Heb. 13:16)  
For at that time the very nature of our tribulation restrained us, however unwillingly, and disposed us to sobriety; and led us to become more religious; but now when the bridle is removed, and the cloud has passed away, there is fear lest we should fall back again into sloth, or become relaxed by this respite; and lest one should have reason to say of us too, “When He slew them, then they sought Him, and returned, and enquired early after God.”—John Chrysostom, De stat. 17.2
SECOND READING: Philippians 2:6-11
Brothers and sisters:
Christ Jesus, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God something to be grasped.
Rather, he emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
coming in human likeness;
and found human in appearance,
he humbled himself,
becoming obedient to death,
even death on a cross.
Because of this, God greatly exalted him
and bestowed on him the name
that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus
every knee should bend,
of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that
Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
Traditionally this passage has been referred to by scholars as a "Christ-hymn" because many have argued that Paul is here drawing on some kind of early Christian hymn. Whether that is the case or not (whether it was a hymn or not seems increasingly unlikely) is not an argument we can venture into here. While much (MUCH!) could be said about this passage, again, let me highlight just a couple of key ideas that seem present here. 

1. Christ's divinity and pre-existence. It seems difficult to deny that Paul is here affirming both the pre-existence and divinity of Jesus. Prior to becoming man Christ is said to have been "in the form of God". Later, Paul affirms that Christ was "in the form of man", i.e., human. That Paul believed Jesus was a man and didn't simply "appear" as a human is clear from other passages (e.g., Rom. 1:3). In short, while many will debate the precise nuance of Paul's meaning, I think the early Church's reading makes the most sense out of the passage: Jesus, who is divine, became human. 

2. Self-emptying. As Methodist scholar Michael Gorman has beautifully demonstrated, there is a  progressive descent envisioned in the first part of the passage: Jesus "emptied" himself in becoming human and then, as man, further humbled himself by dying on a cross. 

Here we have to mention that the full impact of Paul's discussion is often lost on us in the twentieth century, where the image of the cross has largely been sanitized. For people in Paul's world, crucifixion was nothing less than an abomination. For more on the horror of crucifixion, go see this post. To put it briefly, Christ humbled himself by becoming man, but the crucifixion is also seen as a kind of unimaginable humiliation. 

There is a bit of debate about how to translate the line "though he was in the form of God". It could be translated, "because he was in the form of God"--in other words, what Christ does in his humanity (i.e., suffering on the cross), mirrors what he does in his divine life. On this reading, what Christ shows the world on the cross is nothing less than the life-giving love of the Triune God. Jesus' self-giving on the cross is done "because he was in the form of God"--i.e., self-giving is what God does! 

It should be mentioned that there is even more controversy about how to properly translate 2:6: "[he] did not regard equality with God something to be grasped (harpagmos)." The term is a hapax legomenon, that is, a term that only appears once in the New Testament. Perhaps the best translation is "something at his disposal but not exploited for personal gain".[1]

3. Old Testament allusions. Some scholars see in the imagery an allusion to Adam who fell because he sought to be "equal to God". A case for allusions to the Suffering Servant figure of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 has also been made by scholars. Since Paul elsewhere makes use of both Adamic imagery (e.g., Rom. 5; 1 Cor. 15) and Suffering Servant imagery (the reference is likely in Rom. 4:25), it at least seems plausible that such echoes are intended here. (I cannot examine the arguments in detail here.)

4. Glorified through suffering. The take-away of the passage is this: Christ was glorified because he humbled himself. If we wish to be glorified with Christ we must, therefore, embrace our crosses and follow after him. 

GOSPEL: John 3:13-17
Jesus said to Nicodemus:
“No one has gone up to heaven
except the one who has come down from heaven, the Son of Man.
And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert,
so must the Son of Man be lifted up,
so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.” 
For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son,
so that everyone who believes in him might not perish
but might have eternal life.
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world,
but that the world might be saved through him.
Perhaps no biblical passage is more familiar than John 3:16. While its meaning is obviously pretty straightforward, let me make three observations.

1. Lifted up like the serpent.  We can note that the famous statement about Jesus' death is specifically linked to the Old Testament account of the plague of fiery serpents of our first reading. The language of being "lifted up", however, has a double meaning--yes, Moses raised up the image of the serpent, but Christ will be "lifted up" on the cross, from death, and into heaven (cf. John 8:28; 12:32). 

We might also observe that in Numbers, the punishment for sin--the fiery serpents--becomes the means of healing via the image made by Moses. Likewise, as death is recognized as a punishment for sin, Christ reveals that the punishment is also in some way related to redemption--the very penalty given as a result of sin becomes the means by which we are saved from perishing. 

2. Eternal life. That Jesus promises "eternal life" is significant. Of course, it is not simply the "duration" of the new life that Christ brings that is important. "Eternal life" also speaks to the nature of the life that Christ shares with believers, i.e., a share in his divine life. 

3. The condemned does not condemn. Notice that the passage ends by emphasizing that Christ did not come into the world to "condemn it" but to "save" it. The point is ironic: Christ did not come to condemn the world--even though it deserved to be condemned! Yet Christ who did not deserve to be condemned was executed as a criminal! 

But in the end, while it seems like divine justice has failed, Jesus triumphs because the love of God is victorious--it saves those who should have been judged... like you and me. And God does this through the cross. Suffering may seem like a sign of God's absence, but God reveals that suffering is redemptive. Suffering is linked to repentance (Ps 78:34). Let us take up our cross and follow after Christ! 

[1] See Roy W. Hoover, “The Harpagmos Enigma: A Philological Solution,” HTR 64 (1971): 95–119; Gerald F. Hawthorne, “In the Form of God,” in Where Christology Began: Essays on Philippians 2 (R. P. Martin and B. J. Dodd, eds.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998), 96–110.

Finally, a Bible for hipsters

This is hilarious. Go here to read Michael Bird's explanation of the parody.