Living Together Before Marriage: What the Studies Really Show

Normally, I wouldn't touch this stuff on the blog, but since I am teaching a class on Christian Marriage next quarter, I had to highlight this. . .

CBS News, whose ridiculously liberal bias has been long known ever since Bernard Goldberg's famous whistle-blower book (though I realize all outlets have some bias or another. . . "fair and balanced" ain't what it's cracked up to be!), is highlighting a study which tries to make a case that living together before getting married won't negatively impact your marriage. Newsbusters tackles the distortion.

Of course, what they mean by "won't negatively impact your marriage" is this: you won't get divorced.

Okay. . . let's just take that at face value (though other studies clearly dispute that finding!). Just because a couple does not get divorced does not mean that they have a happy marriage. A couple that has separated but is not technically divorced is not, I think by anyone's standards, experiencing a happy marriage. In fact, as Newsbusters reports, studies show that domestic abuse and child abuse are far more likely to take place in relationships where the couples had lived together before getting married.

In sum, the data indicates that living together will greatly harm your relationship.

Newsbusters cites psychologist Nancy Wartik, who in Psychology Today, explains:

"We move in together, we get comfortable, and pretty soon marriage starts to seem like the path of least resistance. Even if the relationship is only tolerable, the next stage starts to seem inevitable," she wrote. " Because we have different standards for living partners than for life partners, we may end up married to someone we never would have originally considered for the long haul."

We could cite other studies but, suffice it to say, it's no big mystery why the odds are strongly against finding happiness through "shacking up". When there's no commitment, there's a fear of break-up, which causes couples to do their best to hide their weaknesses and bad habits. But once married, all those tendencies which were carefully avoided begin to rise to the surface and it quickly becomes apparent to the persons involved: "This is not the same person I thought he/she was."

So, do you want to destroy the relationship with the person you love? There's an easy way to do it. You can happily wreck your perfect relationship by moving in together before marriage.

Once again what do we find? Do it God's way, and you'll find happiness; go another way and, well, just read this MSNBC story from last year. It's an iron-clad law: if you want to be happy, follow the Lord's design; if you want to be sad, ignore it. In short, God knows how to make us happy better than we think we do. The world may suggest a "trial" marriage will help you find happiness--in reality, though, it's not. The wisdom of the world is folly.

Of course, this is inconvenient for some and so they will try to fool themselves into thinking that they will somehow be exceptions--they still know best. I believe St. Paul said it better than I ever could: "for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. ^22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools" (Rom 1:21-22).

Series About Abortion Opens Thoughtful Dialogue--Something Truly Needed!

Bringing Both Sides Together to Talk

For the first time, perhaps ever, people from both sides of the abortion debate entered into an international conversation about the issue that was truly honest, thoughtful and civil. I've never seen anything like it. The web series, Bump+, a fake reality show, which followed three women facing unplanned pregnancies, has received endorsements from numerous pro-choice and pro-life groups. Perez Hilton praised it--and so did Fr. Frank Pavonne, the head of Priests for Life, probably the most well-respected Catholic pro-life organization. When has an attempt to bring people together to discuss the issue been so successful? When has such a thing ever happened?!

The show has easily been the most talked about web series ever. This has been by far the most amazing development in the conversation about abortion I have ever witnessed. Anyone who watched the show and participated in the conversation knows that something really remarkable took place here. Here's the retrospective, but if you did not follow the show as it aired live, you really need to check out the brief episodes (go here) the conversations revolve around. The message boards are only going to remain open for another 72 hours! "Join the conversation!", as they say.



The Need for Dialogue

Some might be surprised by my support for this show. Readers of this blog know how much the experience of becoming a father has reinforced my belief that abortion is evil. In my mind, you can't look at an ultrasound and not be transformed--it certainly looks like a human life to me! So it might seem odd to some that I have supported this show, which fosters open dialogue.

In fact, I'm always a big proponent of honest dialogue--whether that be about theological issues, biblical issues, philosophical issues, moral issues--etc. Having, as a Catholic, received most of my education at non-Catholic institutions, I can testify first hand to the fact that much fruit comes from open and honest conversation. I would submit that most, though admittedly not all, of the theological and biblical disagreements stem from misunderstandings and knowledge of only straw-man arguments in support of various positions.

Yet some clearly have a mistaken view of what dialogue entails, claiming that it should be avoided because it necessarily involves compromising principles. Laura Ingraham, a conservative talk show host, slammed the Bump+ show. As a Catholic, she claimed, it is wrong to open up dialogue--Catholics are called to "take a stand" she stated, "not dialogue".

Ingraham's thinking is flawed on many levels--I can't possible enter into a full discussion here. But, fundamentally, her view seems to illustrate the problem: people have given up talking to each other in favor of talking at each other.

Moreover, Laura's Ingraham's position reveals her own ignorance of Catholic teaching, which has repeatedly called for dialogue. Engaging in honest conversation is not antithetical taking a stand. In fact, Bump+ is about initiating the kind of charitable, intelligent conversation the Second Vatican Council called for:

Respect and love ought to be extended also to those who think or act differently than we do in social, political and even religious matters. In fact, the more deeply we come to understand their ways of thinking through such courtesy and love, the more easily will we be able to enter into dialogue with them.

This love and good will, to be sure, must in no way render us indifferent to truth and goodness. Indeed love itself impels the disciples of Christ to speak the saving truth to all men. But it is necessary to distinguish between error, which always merits repudiation, and the person in error, who never loses the dignity of being a person even when he is flawed by false or inadequate religious notions.(10) God alone is the judge and searcher of hearts, for that reason He forbids us to make judgments about the internal guilt of anyone [Cf. Luke 6:37-38; Matt. 7:1-2; Rom. 2:1-11; 14:10, 14:10-12].

The teaching of Christ even requires that we forgive injuries [Matt. 5:43-47], and extends the law of love to include every enemy, according to the command of the New Law: "You have heard that it was said: Thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thy enemy. But I say to you: love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who persecute and calumniate you (Matt. 5:43-44).

--Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes, 28.

If Catholics and Christians seriously took these words to heart and put winning friends over simply winning debates in the abstract, the world would be in a much better place.

The way people talk at each other--oftentimes ignoring the women most especially involved--was in fact illustrated in this, my favorite episode of the series. If you haven't seen it, here it is--and seriously, you've got to see the whole show to really understand this in context. Again, you've got 72 hours--go add your voice now!

The Prodigal Son, New Life and Sacramental Imagery

This Sunday the Church reads the story of the Prodigal Son in the Liturgy (unless you’re doing the RCIA cycle, in which case you will read from John 9). Here I thought I’d offer a few thoughts on the story.

You’re Dead to Me

Jesus begins by telling the story of a man who had two sons. The parable begins with the younger brother going to the father and asking for his inheritance.

Of course, an inheritance is usually bestowed upon offspring after the death of the one bequeathing it. Essentially, by demanding his inheritance while his father is still alive the younger brother basically says, “Dad, you’re dead to me.”

We might note how incredible it is that the father actually honors his request―the father gives his son of his own estate while he is still living. In effect, the father impoverishes himself. Notably, the son has not told his father what he is going to do with it. Ostensibly, one could think that the son was looking to simply take responsibility of the family’s goods he would one day receive. (Though, given the fact that son has basically declared the death of his father, his next actions are not at all surprising). Yet, instead of sticking around and managing the family estate he has been entrusted with, he takes off with it!

The Son’s Loose Living and His Eventual State of Destitution

Not only does he abandon the family, he squanders what he received from his father on debauchery―i.e., “loose living” (Luke 15:13) and harlots (Luke 15:30). It is interesting that here sexual immorality is linked with the lack of responsibility to family, but here we need to resist an interesting tangent.

Ultimately, the son finds himself without any money in a foreign land. To make matters, there’s a famine. He ends up with nothing. He joins himself to one of the citizens of the country he is in (Luke 15:15) and ends up feeding his swine (Luke 15:16)―which were of course known as unclean animals (Lev 11:7; Deut 14:8; 1 Macc 1:47; b. B. Qam. 82b). Even the food of the pigs looks good to him (cf. Luke 15:16). The man has, in a sense, been reduced to the level of the swine―he is among them, one of the “unclean”. By working for a foreigner, who in all likelihood does not honor the Sabbath command given to Israel, he is essentially completely cut off from his God, his family and reduced to servitude.

It is important to point out that when the famine comes “no one gave him anything” (Luke 15:16). In fact, the only person who ever gave him anything was his father―the very person he has rejected. The son opted for the people in this distant land over him, but now that he has run out of money, they have kicked him to the side of the road―or at least, to serve alongside the pigs.

Also worth noting is the word used to describe how the prodigal “joined” himself to a citizen in the country. The word in Greek, kollaomai, is used by Paul , who used the term to describe those who are “joined” to prostitutes (1 Cor 6:16). It is also used by Paul to describe how believers ought to “hold fast” to what is good (Rom 12:9) and be “joined” to the Lord (1 Cor 6:17). Of course, this man is not holding fast to God, but to some random citizen who ultimately does little for him.

At this point we hear that the man “comes to himself” (eis heauton erchosthai). Here Jesus uses an idiom that is found in non-biblical literature. The phrase here does not quite mean “repentance”. In sum, the man has simply “come to his senses” by realizing that his fathers’ servants are better treated than he is. He therefore comes up with a plan. He will go back and beg his father to take him back, not as a son but as one of his hired hands.

We should note this dichotomy between sonship and servanthood, because, as we shall see, it is key in the story. The son realizes that he has renounced his sonship. But even the servants of his father are better than he is in his present state.

You Can Go Home Again

He thus comes up with a good spiel, which he hopes will allow him to return to his father’s house. He plans to go to his father and say: “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me as one of your hired servants” (Luke 15:18–19). He sets off for home.

His father, however, sees his son “while he was yet at a distance” (Luke 15:20). It seems the father has been looking off into the horizon. The sense one gets is that he was looking, just waiting, to see his son return. One is reminded of the story in Tobit: “Now Anna sat looking intently down the road for her son. 6 And she caught sight of him coming, and said to his father, ‘Behold, your son is coming, and so is the man who went with him!’” (Tob 11:5–6).

His father’s joy at seeing his son returning is immediately apparent. His acceptance of his son precedes his son’s request for reconciliation―a reminder that we do not need to somehow impress our heavenly Father in order to turn his attention towards us. God is always waiting for us to return to him―He loves us far more than we could ever ask him to love us!

In fact, the son isn’t even able to complete the carefully rehearsed speech he has prepared for his father. He says, “I am no longer worthy to be called your son” (Luke 15:21). Yet before he can finish the last lines of his prepared speech (i.e., “treat me as one of your hired servants”), his father exclaims, “‘Bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet; 23 and bring the fatted calf and kill it, and let us eat and make merry; 24 for this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found’” (Luke 15:22–24).

The son is not welcomed back into the family because of his own clever speech―in fact, the father takes him back even before he can fully get through it. This is a reminder that salvation is a grace. As St. Paul says, “. . . no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor 12:3).

The Older Son

Now we get to the older son. Upon hearing that his brother has returned, the elder son refuses to go into the feast and welcome his brother back. His speech to his father is revealing: “‘Lo, these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed your command; yet you never gave me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours came, who has devoured your living with harlots, you killed for him the fatted calf!’” (Luke 15:29–30).

Notice that elder son describes his relationship with his father in terms of a servant--he, in effect, does not relate to him as a son but as a slave. He “serves”, and “obeys his father’s commandments”. Moreover, the reason for his service is not love but self-interest; he resents his father for not giving him anything. In a sense, the elder son, like the younger son, renounces his sonship for slavery. He even refuses to identify his brother as his brother (i.e., “this son of yours”)―he cuts himself off from the family. He does not want to feast with his family but with “my friends”.

The father however refuses to cut his son off― ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. 32 It was fitting to make merry and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found.’” Just as the father is eager to reconcile with the younger brother, so too he continues to reach out in love to his other son, reminding him of his place in his house. The elder son may cease to identify himself as a member of the family; the father, however, never ceases to call him “son”.

Resurrection Language and Baptism

We might highlight the fact that the son’s return is described in terms of resurrection. The son announces when he comes to himself in the foreign land, “I will arise and go to my father” (Luke 15:18). The Greek word used for “arise,” anistamai, is the same word used for “resurrection” elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., Luke 9:8; John 6:39; Mark 16:9; etc.). In fact, the father explains in no uncertain terms to the elder brother, “your brother was dead, and is alive” (Luke 15:32).

In turning to God from our sin we are, by his grace, “raised to new life”. St. Paul explains, “We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life” (Rom 6:4). A few passages here will suffice:

Acts 2:37–39:  Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.”

1 Peter 3:21: Baptism, which corresponds to [the Flood of Noah], now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. . .

Colossians 2:11–12: In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

The “Robe” as Baptismal Imagery

In fact, the Fathers of the Church saw the father's act of putting a robe (stolē) on the prodigal son as a reference to the baptismal practice of the early church. As mentioned above, for the early Christians, the grace one received in Christ was understood as coming through baptism. Yet, receiving God's grace in Christ is also linked to the action of "putting on" Christ as in putting on a garment (cf. e.g. Eph 4:23-24; Col 3:9-10). This is explicitly linked with baptism in Galatians: "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ" (Gal 3:27).

Moreover, in the early church baptism was typically carried out by immersion. After baptism the person came out of the waters they were typically given a new garment. In fact, the garment, specifically the robe (stolē), is linked with the saints in other places in the New Testament (Rev 6:11; 7:9, 13, 14). In Revelation it is even linked with the image of washing: “Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates” (Rev 22:14). The language is also linked with martyrdom (cf. Rev 3:4: “Yet you have still a few names in Sardis, people who have not soiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white, for they are worthy”), which, of course, was closely linked to baptismal theology (e.g., Mark 10:39: “The cup that I drink you will drink; and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized”).

The baptismal significance of the robe is recognized by patristic writers. For example, Theophylact writes, “By the servants (or angels) you may understand administering spirits, or priests, who by baptism and the word of teaching clothe the soul with Christ himself” (cited in Thomas Aquinas, Cantena Aurea on Luke 15:22).

The Feast and Eschatological Banquet Traditions

Finally, we might say a few things about the feast which is celebrated. First, let us note that, as many scholars have noted, in Luke’s Gospel Jesus constantly links table-fellowship to his ministry to sinners. Scholars have noted that such actions are likely linked to the Jewish expectation of an eschatological banquet, to be celebrated in the future age in which God would send the Messiah and redeem his people.[1] The tradition appears most explicitly in Isaiah 25:6–8:

“On this mountain the Lord of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of fat things, a feast of wine on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wine on the lees well refined. 7 And he will destroy on this mountain the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations. 8 He will swallow up death for ever, and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth; for the Lord has spoken” (Isa 25:6–8).

Jesus specifically links Israel’s restoration with meal imagery, evoking the hope of the eschatological banquet (e.g., Luke 22:30; cf. also Matt 8:11–12//Luke 13:28–29).[2] Yet, it is not simply Jesus’ words that lead scholars to believe that this hope played a role in his ministry. Jesus’ very practice of table-fellowship with sinners in connection with his eschatological teaching would likely have been understood as evoking traditions relating to this future feast.[3]

One especially important passage here is found in Luke 13 where Jesus speaks of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of God and then goes on to relate “banquet” imagery. In speaking to those who receive divine judgment on the last day, Jesus explains:  “But he will say, ‘I tell you, I do not know where you come from; depart from me, all you workers of iniquity!’ 28 There you will weep and gnash your teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God and you yourselves thrust out. 29 And men will come from east and west, and from north and south, and sit at table in the kingdom of God.”

What is implied in this is a feast at which the saints will be joined by Abraham, Isaac and Jacob―something Matthew makes more explicit: “ I tell you, many will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 8:11).

At first glance it may seem that this imagery is irrelevant to the story of the prodigal son, which really only speaks of the father celebrating a banquet to welcome back his wayward boy. Yet one must look more closely at the way the story is situated.

The reference to eating in the Kingdom is found in Luke 13, but the imagery of eschatological dining does not end there.

Feasting Imagery in Luke 14

In chapter previous to the one in which the prodigal son story is narrated, Luke sets the context for this important story―attention to the details is required.

The context for the teachings in chapter 14 is a meal―Jesus has been invited to a Pharisee’s house to dine (cf. Luke 14:1). While at the feast, in 14:7–11, Jesus gives a parable about a marriage banquet. The parable is clearly an allegory for invitation to the kingdom. But note: the invitation to the kingdom is linked with a feast.

Jesus goes on to speak of banquet imagery some more, saying that in giving a feast one ought to invite those who cannot pay you back, e.g., the blind, the lame, etc. (Luke 14:12–14).

Upon hearing the teaching, someone at the feast, clearly evoking hopes for the eschatological banquet, exclaims: “Blessed is he who shall eat bread in the kingdom of God!” (Luke 14:15).

Jesus responds to this by speaking―yet again―about a banquet. Specifically, Jesus tells the story of a man who gave a feast to which none of the people he invited came, all providing excuses (cf. Luke 14:15–20). The man then sent his servant to invite the outcasts to the feast in the place of those who did not accept the invitation (cf. Luke 14:21–23). He concludes, “For I tell you, none of those men who were invited shall taste my banquet’” (Luke 14:24). Again, Jesus speaks of salvation in terms of dining.

Luke 14 ends with Jesus applying the message of the parable―in order to be a disciple of Christ one must put aside everything. In effect, the disciple must not be like those in the preceding parable who made excuses for not coming to the banquet.

The Banquet and Rejoicing in Heaven

And so begins chapter 15: “Now the tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to hear him. 2 And the Pharisees and the scribes murmured, saying, “This man receives sinners and eats with them” (Luke 15:1–2). Notice, once again, the imagery returns to the motif of dining.

Jesus, responding to the Jewish leaders’ expressed disdain for sinners, explains tells two stories which emphasize that he has come to seek the lost: (1) the shepherd who leaves the ninety-nine to find the one sheep that has gone astray; and (2) the woman who rejoices over a lost coin.

Then comes a key saying: “Just so, I tell you, there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents” (Luke 15:10). Jesus links the return of the sinner to a heavenly celebration.
This is immediately followed by the story of the prodigal son, which recounts the return of the sinner which climaxes in a banquet. In a sense, the banquet of the father in the prodigal son story is, within the narrative of Luke, linked with the heavenly celebration of the reconciliation of the sinner to God.

The Eucharist as the Heavenly Feast

We have already mentioned that the fathers found baptismal imagery in the story of the Prodigal Son. Yet we might also note the Eucharistic imagery here tied to the feast.

In fact, the Last Supper appears as the climactic meal in Luke’s long narrative of Jesus’ table-fellowship. Indeed, scholars recognize eschatological banquet traditions in Luke's account of the Last Supper. In particular, Jesus states at the Last Supper, “I have earnestly desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer; 16 for I tell you I shall not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God” (Luke 22:15). Jesus then goes on to eat the Passover, which seems to link the Last Supper to the eschatological banquet of the kingdom of God.

The Eucharistic tie-in to Jesus' table-fellowship is most especially clear in the account of two other important banquets: (1) the feeding of the five thousand (Luke 9:10–17) and (2) the meal at Emmaus (Luke 24:28–35). In both stories Jesus’ actions over the bread―“he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them”―evoke the Last Supper story.

In the Eucharistic feast we enter into that banquet at which we, repentant sinners, are brought into communion with God. It is not just a earthly meal―heaven rejoices with the earthly community and the sinner sits at table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the presence of all the angels who rejoice over the salvation of the repentant believer.

NOTES
[1] See especially John Priest, “On Note on the Messianic Banquet,” in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity (J. H. Charlesworth, ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 222–38; Dennis E. Smith, “The Messianic Banquet Reconsidered,” in The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester (ed. B. A. Pearson; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 64–73. Aside from Isa 25:6–8 also see Isa 30:29; Ezek 39:17–20; Zech 8:18–29; 1Q28a (1QRule of the Congregation) II; 1 En. 62:14. In connection with this, the restoration is connected with the Lord feeding his people (cf. Isa 40:11; 49:10; 58:12–14; Jer 50:19; Ezek 34:13–16, 23; Mic 5:4; 7:14). In addition, this concept is also probably present in other texts where the restoration is linked to the Lord providing Israel with an abundance of grain and wine (cf. Isa 23:18; 62:8; Jer 31:10–14; Ezek 36:29; Joel 2:19; 2 Bar. 29:3–30:1). In Ezekiel and 1 Enoch those in the renewed Jerusalem are to eat fruit from trees evoking the tree of life in Eden (cf. Ezek 47:12; 48:18–19; 1 En. 25:4–5; cf. 4 Ezra 7:123). See Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 394. Dunn also explains, “The theme of a messianic/eschatological banquet was well known in Jewish and Christian apocalyptic thought. Although it is found in its developed form in only a surprisingly few texts, its pervasiveness is attested by allusions to it which can be given without explanation or comment” (237).
[2] Jesus also links the eschatological kingdom with the banquet imagery in Matthew 22:1–10//Luke 14:16–24//Gos. Thos. 64. Other passages such as Jesus’ beatitude about the hungry being filled (cf. Matt 5:6//Luke 6:21) have also been linked to the hope for the eschatological feast. See, e.g., Smith, “The Messianic Banquet Reconsidered,” 68; Bryan, Jesus and Israel’s Traditions of Judgement and Restoration, 76–81; Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, 103.
[3] See, e.g., Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:966: “[Jesus’] offer of table fellowship to all, including social and religious ‘lowlifes’ like toll collectors and ‘sinners,’ was meant to foreshadow the final eschatological banquet and to give a foretaste of that banquet even during his public ministry (cf. Matt 8:11–12//Luke 13:28–29; Mark 14:25 parr.).” Likewise, Robert L. Brawley (“Table Fellowship: Bane and Blessing of the Historical Jesus,” Perspectives in Religious Studies 22 [1995]: 19), explains, “. . . Jesus transforms ordinary meals into celebrations of participating in God’s eschatological promises.” Still also see Bryan (Jesus and Israel’s Traditions of Judgement and Restoration, 80), who states, “By engaging in table fellowship with tax collectors and sinners, Jesus implied that those who were regarded as certainly among those to be judged with the enemies of Israel in conjunction with the eschatological feast would in fact be the ones who enjoyed the feast. Viewed against this background, Jesus’ table fellowship may be regarded as an enacted parable whose meaning is captured in the parable of the great banquet. Jesus’ parable implies that the eschatological banquet will not be enjoyed by those widely regarded as the elect in celebration of God’s destruction of their enemies. Rather, the banquet will be enjoyed by outsiders while those thought to be the elect are excluded as the objects of God’s anger.” Numerous other scholars could also be mentioned here. See, e.g., Becker, Jesus of Nazaret, 194–211; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 208–9; Trautmann, Zeichenhafte Handlungen Jesu, 160–64.

Lent: The Romance of the Wilderness

I've recently been intrigued by two themes which seem to run through Lent: the desert and nuptiality. On the one hand, Lent is a "desert" experience, in which our forty days of self-denial are meant to bring us into closer communion with Christ who fasted forty days in the desert (or "wilderness"). On the other hand, Lent is a preparatory time in the Church as catechumens prepare for their Nuptial Bath (Baptism) and the Wedding Feast of the Lamb (the Eucharist). So, for catechumens and, to a lesser extant, the rest of the Church that spiritually accompanies them on this journey, Lent has the aspect of the final days of courtship and preparation for a spiritual marriage. Nuptial themes run through some of the readings from the Gospel of John used during Lent and the Holy Triduum (Good Friday, Holy Saturday, and Easter).

But the juxtaposition of desert imagery with the joy of wedding preparation seems incongruous; except that they are conjoined in a beautiful passage of Scripture:

Hos. 2:14 “Therefore, behold, I will allure her, and bring her into the wilderness, and speak tenderly to her. 15 And there I will give her her vineyards, and make the Valley of Achor a door of hope. And there she shall answer as in the days of her youth, as at the time when she came out of the land of Egypt. 16 “And in that day, says the LORD, you will call me, ‘My husband,’ and no longer will you call me, ‘My Baal.’

In this passage, the prophet Hosea speaks to Northern Israel and promises a resumption, at some future date, of the nuptial (spousal, covenantal) relationship between the LORD and his wayward people. The place of the nuptial tryst between the LORD and Israel is described as "the wilderness"--in part because it was in the wilderness that Israel first entered into a covenant relationship with the LORD (at Sinai, Exodus 24). But what does this mean for us?

Lent, when lived well, is a desert experience in which we deny ourselves many of the comforts that usually pad our existence, and the addictive crutches we turn to when stressed. We practice, to greater or lesser extents, sensory deprivation that recalls the barren wilderness of Judea, which offers little to comfort the senses. The advantage of sensory deprivation, however, is that there is less to distract. The wilderness does not have the flashing lights and allurements of Times Square. In the wilderness, one can focus. One can concentrate. And that may be another reason that the LORD leads his people into the wilderness to allure her. In the desert she will not be distracted. In the desert she can focus once more on her beloved. The intent of the Church is that in the desert of Lent we would deny ourselves some of our more common distractions and learn to be alone, and to fall in love once again, with our Bridegroom.

New Papal Document On Scripture Coming After Easter

Pope Benedict XVI will be releasing a new document, an Apostolic Exhortation, on Scripture. The document is a follow-up to the recent Synod on Scripture. For those unfamiliar with how these sort of things work, my friend Mark Giszczak over at the blog www.CatholicBibleStudent.com wrote on the expectation of the document a while back, speculating about whether or not the Pope would also release an encyclical, the most authoritative type of papal writing.

Here's more information on the new document from Rome Reports:



H/T: www.NewAdvent.org.

Wooing the Woman at the Well: Gospel for the Third Sunday of Lent

The Gospel reading for this Sunday, if your local parish is following the readings for RCIA, is the "Woman at the Well" (John 4).

This is one of the key texts in the Gospel of John that present to us Jesus as the Bridegroom Messiah.

Recall that the Gospel of John begins with an enumeration of seven days, with a wedding on the seventh (the Wedding at Cana, John 2:1-11). There is probably an intentional parallel here to the creation story, in which Adam is created on the sixth day, falls asleep, and wakes up (on the seventh day?) and, seeing Eve, pronounces the covenant words ("bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh") with establishes the first marital covenant. The only identified characters at the Wedding at Cana are Jesus and Mary, whom the Church recognizes as the New Adam and New Eve.

In the following chapter (John 3), John the Baptist explicitly identifies Jesus as the Bridegroom.

Now in chapter 4, Jesus is traveling through Samaria and sits down by a well.

The minute Jesus sits down by the well, the reader familiar with the Old Testament expects a woman to show up. The reader is not disappointed: here she comes (John 4:7). Recall that Jacob and Moses both met their wives at a well, and that Abraham's servant found Rebecca for Isaac at a well. Moreover, the well in John 4 is identified as "Jacob's Well". Although it was clearly not the same well where Jacob met Rachel (which would have been in Northwest Mesopotamia), there was a tradition that this well near Sychar was in fact that very same well, which had now moved to the Land of Israel. In light of all this, it seems like John is telling this story in such a way as to evoke a betrothal scene in the style of the Old Testament.

Jesus' request of the woman, "Give me a drink," (4:7) recalls the request of Eliezer (Abraham's steward) to Rebecca when he was seeking to determine if she was the Lord's intended bride for Isaac. This serves to heighten the nuptial atmosphere of the whole passage.

Jesus and the woman begin to discuss water, living water in particular. At one point, Jesus implies that anyone who drinks of the water he provides will him- or herself become a well of living water (John 4:14), which calls to mind one of the images that the Bridegroom uses to describe the Bride in the Song of Songs (Song 4:15).

Finally, the conversation turns explicitly to marriage (4:16): "Go, call your husband, and come here." We discover that the woman has had five husbands, and the man she is living with now is not properly her husband.

It is probably not coincidental that the Samaritans were the ethnically-mixed descendants of poor Israelites left behind by the conquering Assyrians (8th cent. BC), and FIVE other ethnic groups (each with their own male patron deity) brought in by the Assyrian to repopulate northern Israel (2 Kings 17:24). Apparently, the Israelites left behind intermarried with the five immigrant peoples and worshipped their gods, until some point in history, perhaps after the return of the Judeans from Babylon, when they quit the paganism and returned to the worship of the God of Israel--but not in the authorized way or place! Instead of going down to the legitimate temple in Jerusalem, they built their own sanctuary on Mt. Gerizim and altered the text of Deuteronomy to make it appear that Gerizim was the LORD's intended site for a central sanctuary. So the Samaritan people, after having participated in five different foreign cults, were now back "living with" the LORD, but not in a proper covenant relationship. The experience of this woman of Samaria mirrors the spiritual history of her people.

Trying to change the subject of conversation to something else besides her personal life, the woman tries to distract Jesus with a theological question (v. 19). Jesus responds, speaking about the true manner of worship, but his answer goes over the woman's head. All she can say in response is to make a profession of faith in the coming Messiah, whom she hopes will be able to explain everything. Jesus answers: "He who speaks to you, I AM!"

At this point the woman drops her water jar in amazement and wanders dazed back into town, telling everyone to come out and see this man who has told her everything she did. Can this really be the Messiah? Jesus stays with the villagers two days and many come to place their faith in him.

So what has happened in this story? Jesus, who is the LORD, the God of Israel, has come to woo these descendants of northern Israel (the Samaritans) back to himself, as he promised to do in many prophecies, notably those of Hosea:

Hos. 2:14 “Therefore, behold, I will allure her, and bring her into the wilderness, and speak tenderly to her. 15 ... And ... she shall answer as in the days of her youth, as at the time when she came out of the land of Egypt. 16 “And in that day, says the LORD, you will call me, ‘My husband,’ and no longer will you call me, ‘My Baal.’ 17 For I will remove the names of the Baals from her mouth, and they shall be mentioned by name no more. 18 And I will make for you a covenant on that day ... 19 And I will betroth you to me for ever; I will betroth you to me in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love, and in mercy. 20 I will betroth you to me in faithfulness; and you shall know the LORD."

The woman is a type and image of her people, the people of Samaria, whom the LORD did not forget, but return to woo them to himself.

Christ the LORD, the Bridegroom Messiah, comes to woo each one of us at the Eucharistic Liturgy (Mass). Despite our sins, shames, and checkered histories, he comes suddenly under the images of bread and wine, offering himself to us, calling himself to us, to be his spotless bride (Eph 5:25-27; Rev 21:9-11).

Defintive Biblical Evidence AGAINST Dogs Going to Heaven

Anyone who's ever taught a High School Religion course knows that at some point, that perennial question that has troubled theologians for centuries and continues to plague modern and post-modern young people will arise: "Do Dogs go to heaven when they die?" To answer this question positively is to give comfort and consolation to the fearful souls of students.

But God forbid you answer this question negatively. As one of my former students learned in his first year of teaching, to even suggest the possibility that dogs might not go to heaven (e.g., because they do not have immortal souls, or that they are not persons, or for some other reason)--much less to unequivocally declare that they do not--will arouse the wrath of students and the ire of their pet-loving parents (not to mention a potential trip to your supervisor's office for teaching such 'rigid' and 'disturbing' doctrines).

Up until now, when asked how to deal with this situation by students, I've simply suggested that they use reason (Hah!) and philosophy (double Hah!) to attempt to persuade the students that the longing to be with 'Fluffy' forever in the heavenly Jerusalem may in fact go unfulfilled.

However, I recently discovered that there is actual biblical evidence against dogs going to heaven. Well, this is entirely different. It's one thing to make a philosophical argument, but quite another to have Sacred Scripture on your side. So here it is. In the final chapter of the Bible, the Book of Revelation is describing the heavenly Jerusalem come down to earth, and in this context explicitly states:

Then he showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb through the middle of the street of the city [the new Jerusalem]; also, on either side of the river, the Tree of Life... Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the Tree of Life and that they may enter the city by the gates. Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and every one who loves and practices falsehood (Revelation 22:1-2, 14-15)

There you have it, in black and white! Even the Greek is clear: Outside are "the dogs" (kunes). The Heavenly Jerusalem has a sign, and it reads: "No Dogs allowed." So, for all you dog-lovers, sorry. Dog's don't go to heaven; the Bible says so; that settles it. Whatever you may hope for, you won't be seeing Rover in the New Jerusalem.

P.S. I might note in closing that this brings me no particular grief. I'm a cat person, and of cats being excluded from heaven the Bible says nothing.

P.P.S. It might have helped the now-famous church sign debate over the issue for somebody to actually proof-text Scripture. That is, after all, the usual exegetical method of such signs.

On the Radio Tomorrow!

Tune in tomorrow (Friday), when, as on every Friday, I will be doing my radio show Reasons for Faith Live from 2-3pm Eastern Time (11am-12pm Pacific).

How to hear the show:
Listen on-line: Click here and go to the "Radio" tab (you'll figure it out from there).

Listen on a local AM/FM station: To find a radio station in your area go here.

Listen on SIRIUS Satellite Radio [channel 160]

Listen on shortwave.

Be a part of the show:
To call in to the show dial 1-888-526-2151.

The Chief Rabbi Who Became A Catholic and His Book on Jesus

L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, has just run a review praising a new edition of a book that is often overlooked. The book is Il Nazareno and it was written more than seventy years ago by Israel Zoller, the former chief rabbi of Rome who shocked the world by becoming Catholic in 1945. Significantly, the book was written before the rabbi's controversial conversion.

Incidentally, Zoller was baptized with the name "Eugenio". Eugenio, of course, was the name of Pope Pius XII. Zoller took the name to express his admiration for the pope.

The book by Zoller is reviewed by Anna Foa, a Jewish scholar, who is professor of history at the University of Rome "La Sapienza." The review is largely positive.

For more, go here.

It's nice to see this book getting republished. I always enjoy reading the works of Jewish scholars about Jesus. In fact, one of the clear shifts in emphasis in recent historical Jesus scholarship has been the attempt to understand Jesus within the historical context of Second Temple Judaism.[1]

In light of this it is sort of ironic that the works of many important Jewish scholars of the past are often overlooked. Among them all I must highlight the scholarship of Zionist scholar Joseph Klausner, whose work offers some insightful observations[2]. Other important Jewish scholars include Hans-Joachim Schoeps,[3] and David Flusser.[4] While such works were exceptional in their day,[5] Craig Evans is right in assessing the present state of scholarship: “The fruitful progress of the rediscovery of the Judaic character and setting of Jesus is now everywhere seen.”[6] Of course, the major difference between older scholarship and more recent research is that older scholars were a bit less critical in their use of the later rabbinic traditions in reconstructing the Judaism of the first century.

Of course, Israel Zoller's work stands out as unique among these works: none of the other Jewish scholars mentioned here ended up converting to Catholicism.

NOTES
[1] Colin Brown, “Historical Jesus, Quest of,” 337: “If there is a common theme [of "Third Quest" Jesus scholarship], it lies in the belief that Jesus was not the Jesus of liberal Protestantism or of the New Quest, but a historical figure whose life and actions were rooted in first-century Judaism with its particular religious, social, economic and political conditions.” This emphasis in recent scholarship has been noted by numerous other scholars (see, e.g., Tom Holmén, “The Jewishness of Jesus in the ‘Third Quest,’” in Jesus, Mark and Q: The Teaching of Jesus and its Earliest Records (eds. M. Labahn and A. Schmidt; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 149–50. Indeed, this is part of a larger trend in New Testament scholarship, which emphasizes greater continuity between early Christianity and Judaism. Thus, for example, in Pauline studies the Jewish backdrop of Paul’s letters is increasingly coming into focus. See, to name only a few, E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1977); Mark Nanos, The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul's Letter (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996); Chris VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul (Peabody: Hendricksen, 2006).
[2] Joseph Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth: His Life, Times and Teaching (trans. H. Danby; New York: Macmillan Co., 1925; repr., New York: Bloch, 1989), trans. of Yeshu ha-Notzri (Jerusalem: Stybel, 1922). Particularly useful is Klausner’s survey of the history of Jewish scholarship. For our purposes here it is worth mentioning that Klausner highlights the work of a number of Jewish scholars largely ignored by contemporary writers. For example, Klausner discusses the way Albert Schweitzer’s seminal survey of the history of Jesus research pays hardly any notice to the work of Joseph Salvador, Jésus Christ et sa doctrine: histoire de la naissance de l’église, de son organisation et de ses progrès pendant le premier siecle (2 vols.; 2d. ed.; Paris: M. Lévy Frères, 1864–65). As Klausner observes, that this work was overlooked cannot simply be chalked up to the fact that the work was originally written in French since Salvador’s work had been translated into German by the time of Schweitzer’s writing. Strikingly, not only is Salvador’s work badly mischaracterized and mentioned only in passing, but Schweitzer even misspells his name (“Salvator”)! See Schweitzer, Von Reimarus zu Wrede: Eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung, 161. See also Craig A. Evans, “Assessing Progress in the Third Quest of the Historical Jesus,” JSHJ (2006): 36 n. 3.
[3] See Hans Joachim Schoeps, Das Leben Jesu: Versuch einer historischen Darstellung (Frankfurt: Eremiten, 1954). Schoeps own work on Jesus followed his own comprehensive study of ancient Judaism. See Hans-Joachim Schoeps, Jüdisch-christliches Religionsgespräch in 19. Jahrhunderten; Geschichte einer theologischen Auseinandersetzung (Berlin: Vortrupp, 1937).
[4] David Flusser, Jesus in Selbstzeugnissen und Bilddokumenten (Rowohlts monographien; Hamburg: Rowohlt, 1968). With the current climate of scholarship warming towards such approaches, Eerdmans recently republished two of Flusser’s works into English. See David Flusser, Judaism of the Second Temple Period: Qumran and Apocalypticsm (vol. 1; trans. A. Yadin with D. Bivin; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007); trans. of Yahadut Bayit Sheni: Qumran ve Apocalyptica (Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press and Yad Ishax Ben-Zvi Press, 2002); and The Sage from Galilee: Rediscovering Jesus’ Genius (trans. R. S. Notley, with J. H. Charlesworth; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007); trans. of Jesus in Selbstzeugnissen und Bilddokumenten (Hamburg: Rowohlt, 1968). For a fuller survey of Jewish scholarship see Donald A. Hagner, The Jewish Reclamation of Jesus: An Analysis and Critique of Modern Jewish Study of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984). Another scholar who was clearly ahead of his time in calling for an approach that rooted Jesus in first-century Judaism was Joachim Jeremias (e.g., Neutestamentliche Theologie: I. Die Verkündigung Jesu [Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971] and other works cited above).
[5] For a fuller treatment of the neglect and retrieval of the Jewishness of Jesus in the history of research see Keck, Who is Jesus, 22–47.
[6] Evans, “Assessing Progress in the Third Quest of the Historical Jesus,” 39. Scot McKnight (“Jesus of Nazareth,” in The Face of New Testament Studies: A Survey of Recent Research [eds. S. McKnight and G. R. Osborne; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 170], citing words spoken by John Dominic Crossan in public settings, describes how “modern scholarship is in a contest to see who can find the most Jewish Jesus.”

New Discovery in Jerusalem

The AP is reporting some big news about important new find in Jerusalem:

JERUSALEM – An Israeli archaeologist said Monday that ancient fortifications recently excavated in Jerusalem date back 3,000 years to the time of King Solomon and support the biblical narrative about the era.

If the age of the wall is correct, the finding would be an indication that Jerusalem was home to a strong central government that had the resources and manpower needed to build massive fortifications in the 10th century B.C.

That's a key point of dispute among scholars, because it would match the Bible's account that the Hebrew kings David and Solomon ruled from Jerusalem around that time.

Read the rest here.

The Temptation, Kings, Nuns and Priests

The Gospel reading for the first Sunday of Lent is the temptation of Christ in the desert according to Luke.

Christ is tempted in three ways: through his physical desires (hunger for food), through his eyes (being shown all the glory of the kingdoms of the world), and through the temptation to pride (to stage a magnificent stunt that would win him fame throughout the nation).

This threefold temptation of Christ corresponds to St. John’s warning about the “lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and the pride of life” in 1 John 2:15. This threefold categorization has been known in the Church as the “threefold concupiscence,” the unholy Trinity of temptation.

Eve was tempted in the same way. She saw that the fruit was “good for food, pleasing to the eye, and to be desired to make one wise.” “Good for food” is lust of the flesh. “Pleasing to the eye” is lust of the eye. “Desired to make one wise” is a temptation to pride—Eve wants to be wise like God.

Thousands of years later, the king of Israel was commanded by Moses to restrain himself from the temptations of the threefold concupiscence. Deut 17:16-17 forbids the Israelite king from multiplying horses (military might), women (sensual pleasure), and gold/silver (greed/avarice) for himself. These three items correspond to lust of the flesh (women), lust of the eyes (gold), and pride (self-aggrandizing military build-up).

First Kings 10–11 describe how, in his latter years, Solomon, the first Son of David to sit on his father’s throne and a kind of “New Adam” figure in the biblical story line, egregiously fell prey to the threefold concupiscence by multiplying for himself everything Deuteronomy 17 forbids.

In today’s Gospel, we see Jesus, the New Adam, overcoming the threefold concupiscence, and so undoing the sin of Eve, and overcoming the failings of the first Son of David, Solomon. “One greater than Solomon is here” (Luke 11:31).

All Christians share in Christ’s royal anointing and therefore must take steps to overcome lust, avarice, and pride. In particular, in the Catholic tradition, those who enter the religious life take vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. These vows are radicalized ways to mortify the threefold concupiscence: lust of the flesh (chastity), lust of the eyes (poverty), and pride (obedience). We should view these “evangelical counsels” as means toward a profound conformity to Christ and his power to overcome temptation. Even Catholic diocesan clergy, who do not take formal vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, nonetheless de facto commit themselves to this lifestyle. It seems fitting that they should, since they are in a sense the viceroys of the New Israel (Gal 6:16), and therefore should commit themselves more radically to the self-denials required of anyone who would rule over the people of God (Deut 17:16-17).

Back from St. Michael's Parish Houston

While Brant, Michael, and Dr. Hahn are partying in Lubbock, I've been down to Houston to a wonderful parish there, St. Michaels. I gave my conversion story on Thursday night, and spoke to a women's retreat on Friday morning about the Cross as both a priestly and nuptial act on the part of Jesus the Christ. I can't say enough good things about the people and hospitality at St. Michael's parish. I think we all had a great time.

The talks I gave, although in different versions, are available on CD at www.catholic-productions.com.

Tweeting Catholic Bible Conference in Texas

As I mentioned in a previous post, I will be in Lubbock, TX, this weekend with my co-blogger Brant Pitre and our good friend Scott Hahn for a Catholic Bible Conference. Specifically, we will be looking at the biblical roots of the Sacraments. I will be tweeting the conference on Twitter.

I am always excited to head out to Lubbock. This the third year in a row Brant and I have been invited to do a Biblical conference there (this is the second year Dr. Hahn will join us). Over that time we have come to know and love Bishop Placido Rodriguez, who always comes out to be part of the event and generously lend his support. He is an inspiring example to us of Christian leadership. He is a shepherd who truly loves the Lord--and we always have fascinating conversations with him! In addition, the people are absolutely on fire to study Scripture. It's great being there with people who love Jesus! I might also add that the conferences in Lubbock are always especially well-organized (despite my usual efforts to muck this up!).

Here are the talk titles for the weekend:

Scott Hahn:
"So help me God: An Overview of the Seven Sacraments"
"Lord, Have Mercy: The Healing Power of Confession"

Brant Pitre:
"Confirmation: The Sacrament of Martyrdom"
"Ephesians 5 and St. Paul's Life-Changing Vision of the Christian Family"

Michael Barber:
"Born from Above: Baptism and the New Creation"
"'A Priest Forever': Priesthood in Scripture"

Brant Pitre and Michael Barber:
"Tag Team Talk on John 6 and the Eucharist"

I'm especially excited about the last talk. Brant and I have never done a "tag-team" presentation before, but I think it will be fun. During Q&A sessions at these sorts of conferences we always have fun interacting with each other. People often come up to me saying that we are really funny as a team. I'll let you know how it goes.

Finally, I ought to add that we'd love to get comments here from anyone who actually attends the event. Feel free to drop us a hello in the comment box.

"When you fast. . .": An Ash Wednesday Post

Today is Ash Wednesday, the beginning of the traditional period of "Lent". "Lent" is an old English word for "Spring", but of course for Christians it is more than a recognition of the changing of seasons, it is a call for a change of heart.

I recently did an hour-long radio interview on the practice of Lent on Catholic Answers radio, the podcast of which can be heard here. I'm not going to try to reproduce all I said there in this post.

In addition, to that interview I can also mention some helpful resources. For a great overview of some of the issues relating to Lent, see this fine piece by Jimmy Akin. I'd also highly recommend the excellent article from the Catholic Encyclopedia which is available for free over at inimitable NewAdvent.org. In addition, my good friend Taylor Marshall has a helpful overview of the day's fast prescriptions on his site.

Here I wanted to just touch on a few issues.

The Antiquity of the Pre-Easter Fast

One thing that should be underscored is that the observance of a pre-Easter period of penance has deep roots in the early Church. Eusebius records a letter written by Irenaeus (2nd cent.) to the bishop of Rome, Victor I, in which he talks about the fact that there was controversy in the early Church as to how "the fast" should be celebrated. Note that while there was a debate about how long exactly "the fast" should be practiced, there was apparently no question in any one's mind that there should be some sort of period of penance prior to the annual celebration of the Lord's death and resurrection. Irenaeus also testifies to the antiquity of this practice.

"For the controversy is not only concerning the day, but also concerning the very manner of the fast. For some think that they should fast one day, others two, yet others more; some, moreover, count their day as consisting of forty hours day and night. 13. And this variety in its observance has not originated in our time; but long before in that of our ancestors. It is likely that they did not hold to strict accuracy, and thus formed a custom for their posterity according to their own simplicity and peculiar mode. Yet all of these lived none the less in peace, and we also live in peace with one another; and the disagreement in regard to the fast confirms the agreement in the faith" (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 5, 24, 12).

Jesus' Expectation that His Disciples Would Fast

Why did the practice emerge? Well, I explain the logic of penance in greater detail in my interview, but suffice it to say, it is important to point out that according to the Gospels Jesus himself clearly expected his own followers to fast:

And when you fast, do not look dismal, like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces that their fasting may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. ^17 But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, ^18 that your fasting may not be seen by men but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. (Matt 6:16-18)

Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting; and people came and said to him, “Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?” ^19 And Jesus said to them, “Can the wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. ^20 The days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day. (Mark 2:18-20)

Notice that Jesus assumes that his followers would fast. In fact, as the second episode recounted above indicates, the idea that someone would not fast would have been unthinkable to an ancient Jew.

The Torah's Command to "Afflict Yourselves"

Indeed, the practice of fasting and of "afflicting oneself" in penance has deep roots in the Old Testament and Judaism.

Such practices were especially associated with Yom Kippur:

And it shall be a statute to you for ever that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall afflict yourselves, and shall do no work, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you; ^30 for on this day shall atonement be made for you, to cleanse you; from all your sins you shall be clean before the Lord. ^31 It is a sabbath of solemn rest to you, and you shall afflict yourselves; it is a statute for ever. (Lev 16:29-30)

The reference here is obviously to penitential self-denial, especially abstinence from food, e.g., fasting. That this is how this passage was understood is abundantly clear when one reads the Mishna. The rabbis explain: "On the Day of Atonement, eating, drinking, washing, anointing, putting on sandals, and marital intercourse are forbidden" (m. Yoma 8:1).

Not a "No" but a "Yes"

Finally, as I explained in the interview I linked to above, Lent is NOT about simply saying "No"--it's about saying "Yes". If Lent is simply understood in terms of a dour season or as a kind of spiritual "ultimate challenge" (e.g., an attempt at some ridiculously difficult penance for the sake of accomplishment), one would miss the whole point of the season.

Lent is about saying "Yes"--yes to loving God with all that we have and all that we are. True, this does involve saying "no" to certain things we may be attached to, but more than anything else, it is a "yes"--a yes to refusing to "gratify the desires of the flesh" (cf. Gal 5:15), in order to live a life more devoted to Christ our Lord.

I always turn to the story of Jesus and the rich young man as an example of the need for us to learn self-denial. I'll leave you with these thoughts:

Sunday, October 11, 2009: Liturgy Reflection from JP Catholic University on Vimeo.

Original Sin Abolishes Fatherhood

One of my students at JP Catholic, Sr. Mary Agnes, has a post up on her new blog about the absentee and abusive fatherhood she has witnessed in her work. She is part of a religious community which is devoted to caring for abused children. She knows what she is talking about. Her order runs an orphanage in New Hampshire, St. Charles,--and, as CBS news explained in a story they did on them, they really do "run" it.



Her post reminded me of this quote which I've pulled out of the file entitled, "the Profound Wisdom of John Paul II":

"Original sin attempts, then, to abolish fatherhood, destroying its rays which permeate the created world, placing in doubt the truth about God who is Love and leaving man only with a sense of the master-slave relationship."

--John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope (Toronto: Knopf, 1994), 228 (emphasis in the original).

The Popes on "the Great Washington"

Given that today is George Washington's birthday--Happy Presidents Day!--I thought I'd say something about the man.

In fact, since turning in my doctoral thesis (please pray for me!) I've been resisting the urge to read much biblical theology out of fear that I might discover something that might make me regret something I said in the dissertation. . . or for that matter, failed to include (too late to change it now!). Thus, in my free time I've turned my attention to a different topic: the American revolution.

In particular, I've become fascinated with George Washington, whom we Americans celebrate today. Even apart from the myths, the man was truly remarkable.

First and foremost, there was his enormous size. Washington stood at a looming 6 feet, 3 inches--much taller than the average height of an 18th century American (5' 7").

This of course made him an easy target on the battle field. Military commanders of the period were typically shorter--men of smaller stature were far more likely to survive battles and advance in rank (e.g., think of Napolean!). However, despite the fact that he frequently rode to the front of the lines during combat, he was astonishingly never wounded in battle. In fact, reports of his heroics on the battlefield--and his seeming invincibility--read more like an account in a comic book of a superhero able to dodge bullets than historical records. And yet, so it was. Of course, Washington attributed it all to Providence.

Notably, Washington was very open to Catholicism and urged his compatriots to resist the deep anti-Catholic bigotry that was common in America at the time. Above all, he was grateful to Catholic France for the aid they gave to America in their struggle with the British. In addition, he was apparently rather close to the first American Catholic prelate, Archbishop John Carrol of Baltimore.

In his "Letter to Roman Catholics" (March 15th, 1790), President Washington wrote the following:

Gentlemen:

While I now receive with much satisfaction your congratulations on my being called, by an unanimous vote, to the first station in my country; I cannot but duly notice your politeness in offering an apology for the unavoidable delay. As that delay has given you an opportunity of realizing, instead of anticipating, the benefits of the general government, you will do me the justice to believe, that your testimony of the increase of the public prosperity, enhances the pleasure which I should otherwise have experienced from your affectionate address.

I feel that my conduct, in war and in peace, has met with more general approbation than could reasonably have been expected and I find myself disposed to consider that fortunate circumstance, in a great degree, resulting from the able support and extraordinary candor of my fellow-citizens of all denominations.

The prospect of national prosperity now before us is truly animating, and ought to excite the exertions of all good men to establish and secure the happiness of their country, in the permanent duration of its freedom and independence. America, under the smiles of a Divine Providence, the protection of a good government, and the cultivation of manners, morals, and piety, cannot fail of attaining an uncommon degree of eminence, in literature, commerce, agriculture, improvements at home and respectability abroad.

As mankind become more liberal they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protection of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations in examples of justice and liberality. And I presume that your fellow-citizens will not forget the patriotic part which you took in the accomplishment of their Revolution, and the establishment of their government; or the important assistance which they received from a nation in which the Roman Catholic faith is professed.

I thank you, gentlemen, for your kind concern for me. While my life and my health shall continue, in whatever situation I may be, it shall be my constant endeavor to justify the favorable sentiments which you are pleased to express of my conduct. And may the members of your society in America, animated alone by the pure spirit of Christianity, and still conducting themselves as the faithful subjects of our free government, enjoy every temporal and spiritual felicity"

I could write much more, but I will leave that for historian bloggers.

Here I thought I'd honor Washington's memory today by quoting two papal documents which speak glowingly of the man. Suffice it to say, such high papal praise for a political figure is rarely found in the writings of the modern day popes:

Pope Leo XIII, Longinqua (Encyclical Letter, January 6, 1895):
"Precisely at the epoch when the American colonies, having, with Catholic aid, achieved liberty and independence, coalesced into a constitutional Republic the ecclesiastical hierarchy was happily established amongst you; and at the very time when the popular suffrage placed the great Washington at the helm of the Republic, the first bishop was set by apostolic authority over the American Church. The well-known friendship and familiar intercourse which subsisted between these two men seems to be an evidence that the United States ought to be conjoined in concord and amity with the Catholic Church. And not without cause; for without morality the State cannot endure-a truth which that illustrious citizen of yours, whom We have just mentioned, with a keenness of insight worthy of his genius and statesmanship perceived and proclaimed. But the best and strongest support of morality is religion. She, by her very nature, guards and defends all the principles on which duties are founded, and setting before us the motives most powerful to influence us, commands us to live virtuously and forbids us to transgress."

Pope Pius XII, Sertum Laetitiae, 3 (Encyclical Letter, November 1, 1939):
"When Pope Pius VI gave you your first Bishop in the person of the American John Carroll and set him over the See of Baltimore, small and of slight importance was the Catholic population of your land. At that time, too, the condition of the United States was so perilous that its structure and its very political unity were threatened by grave crisis. Because of the long and exhausting war the public treasury was burdened with debt, industry languished and the citizenry wearied by misfortunes was split into contending parties. This ruinous and critical state of affairs was put aright by the celebrated George Washington, famed for his courage and keen intelligence. He was a close friend of the Bishop of Baltimore. Thus the Father of His Country and the pioneer pastor of the Church in that land so dear to Us, bound together by the ties of friendship and clasping, so to speak, each the other's hand, form a picture for their descendants, a lesson to all future generations, and a proof that reverence for the Faith of Christ is a holy and established principle of the American people, seeing that it is the foundation of morality and decency, consequently the source of prosperity and progress."

Happy President's Day!

Phoenix Rising to L.A.: Will it be Bishop Olmsted?

Apparently, I'm not the only one thinking Bishop Olmsted may get the papal nod. Thomas Peters, a.k.a., the American Papist, is likewise discussing the prospect of a "Phoenix-Rising to L.A." I am grateful that he mentioned my posts on the potential papal picks (part one, part two), which he kindly described as providing "a withering amount of information".

Of course, we welcome all of you "Papist" readers!. We hope you'll give this site a good look and maybe even "bookmark" it. :)

In the end, only time will tell if Bishop Olmsted becomes the successor to Cardinal Mahony. It's really anyone's guess who the next archbishop of L.A. will be.

However, I hasten to add that my speculation wasn't simply based on flights of fancy. What I tried to do is offer an "educated" guess, devising a careful methodology with criteria for my speculation. Instead of simply looking at high profile ecclesiastical figures I tried to focus my attention on those already identified as likely candidates. I also noted that Rocco apparently has some inside information that the list of the final three names is split between Anglo and Hispanic names.

My speculation was based on this and proceeded as follows. First, I looked at the leading Hispanic prelates in America who have all been rumored to be under consideration for the job.

Second, I tried to offer an in-depth analysis of the Holy Father's latest episcopal appointments in the hopes of identifying the characteristics of a Benedict large-see Ordinary. As I explained, unless the pope picks a Latino, it seems to me Bishop Olmsted emerges as the likely candidate. Not only has he had experience running a major diocese with a large Hispanic population, he also seems to possess the kind of curriculum vitae Pope Benedict looks for in his major appointments: (1) experience in priestly formation, (2) a Roman background, (3) an academic background, etc. Other names might be mentioned, but if we limit our speculation by focusing on the pope's recent track record, it seems to me--and I wish someone else would do a similar analysis--Bishop Olmsted emerges as the front runner.

Still, again, it's anyone's guess. And I'm confident that the Holy Father will do a better job picking a shepherd than I would!

Finally, I might add that if Bishop Olmsted does get the job, I'll be curious to see how many writers (if any) use my "Phoenix-Rising" blog heading to announce the news. Note the time stamp here: February 15, 2010--it was used here first!

Scenes from the 7th Annual Biblical Studies Conference

The conference was a blast. My friend Matt Arnold put together this "behind the scenes" video. Next up: Lubbock, TX (check out the post below!).

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Beatitudes of Jesus

Tomorrow’s Gospel reading at Mass is taken from Jesus’ sermon in Luke 6, a passage with many similarities to the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew. Specifically, in the reading of Luke we hear Jesus issue four Beatitudes.

Much has been written about the Beatitudes and I can hardly summarize it all here. However, I thought I’d draw attention to a particular Dead Sea Scroll fragment some scholars think has significance for understanding Jesus’ teaching.

In 4Q525 Frags. 2 col. ii + 3 we read:

1 with a pure heart, and does not slander with his tongue. Blank Blessed are those who adhere to her laws, and do not adhere 2 to perverted paths. Blank Bles[sed] are those who rejoice in her, and do not burst out in paths of folly. Blank Blessed are those who search for her 3 with pure hands, and do not pursue her with a treacherous [heart.]Blank Blessed is the man who attains Wisdom, Blank and walks 4 in the law of the Most High, and directs his heart to her ways, Blank and is constrained by her discipline and alwa[ys] takes pleasure in her punishments; 5 and does not forsake her in the hardship of [his] wrong[s,] and in the time of anguish does not abandon her, and does not forget her [in the days of] terror, 6 and in the distress of his soul does not loathe [her. Blank] For he always thinks of her, and in his distress he meditates [on her, and in all 7 his life [he thinks] of her, [and places her] in front of his eyes in order not to walk on paths […] 8 […] together, and on her account eats away his heart […] 9 […] … and with kings it shall make [him s]it […] 10 [with] his [sc]eptre over … […] brothers … […] 11 […] Blank […] 12 [And] now, sons, lis[ten to … and do] not reject […] 13 […] … the evil of […]

What is striking here is that not only do we find Beatitudes, but that we find some that are in many ways similar to the ones pronounced by Jesus. Evans highlights some of the parallels:

“[Blessed is he who walks] with a pure heart” (4Q525 2:1).
“Blessed are the pure in heart” (Matt 5:8)

“Bles[sed] are those who rejoice in her” (4Q525 2:2)
“Blessed are you when men revile you . . . rejoice and be glad” (Matt 5:11–12)

Blessed is the man who . . . in the distress [or ‘meekness’] of his soul, does not despise her” (4Q525 2:3–6)
“In the meekness [or ‘meekness’] of righteousness bring forth [your] words. . .” (4Q525 4:20)
“Blessed are the meek” (Matt 5:5).[1]

Moreover, Puech has argued that the fragment originally contained 8 + 1, mirroring what we find in Matthew 5, a view picked up by Evans[2] as well as VanderKam and Flint.[3]

Furthermore, as one continues to read, it seems apparent that 4Q525 is linked with eschatological terminology used in other sectarian texts. This has led some to see the fragment as relating an eschatological vision,[4] something also suggested by the references to affliction, e.g., the eschatological tribulation, a theme my co-blogger Brant Pitre has examined a great deal.[5]

All of this is interesting and leads to a broader backdrop which potentially shines more light on the implications of Jesus’ Beatitudes. As Flint writes, “One contribution of 4Q525 is . . . to show that the structure of the Beatitudes in Matthew 5 most likely was familiar to many Jews in the first century b.c.e.”[6]

NOTES
[1] Craig Evans, “Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran Cave 4,” in Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature; eds. C. A. Evans and P. W. Flint; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 95.
[2] Craig Evans, Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 142.
[3] See É. Puech, “4Q525 et les péricopes des Béatitudes en Ben Sira et Matthieu,” Revue biblique 138 (1991): 90-106; James VanderKam and Peter Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance for Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus and Christianity (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2002), 336-338; Peter Flint, “Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Historical Jesus in Context (eds. A.J. Levine, D. C. Allison, and J.D. Crossan; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006), 124–25.
[4] Jacqueline C. R. de Roo, “Is 4Q525 a Qumran Sectarian Document?,” in The Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years Later (eds. S. Porter and C. A. Evans; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997), 338–367.
[5] Jesus, the Tribulation and the End of the Exile (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005).
[6] Flint, “Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 124.