Theolgy 601: The Living God
THE LIVING GOD
(c)Copyright,1993 by William G.Most
I - Revelation
1)Natural Knowledge of God Vatican I defined (DS 3026) defined that the existence of God can be known with certainty through the use of natural reason.
Problem: How can the Church define anything about revelation, when the right of the Church to teach needs first to be established from revelation found in Scripture? Is there not a vicious circle?
Solution: We begin with the Gospels, but do not at first look upon them as sacred or inspired. We treat them as ancient documents, and give them the same sort of checking we give other ancient documents -- transmission of the text shown by textual criticism -- Is it possible to have any reliable history at all (historicism)? -- Can one trust even eyewitnesses? --What is the genre of the Gospels -- Can one distinguish between facts and interpretations,i.e.is there such a thing as a non-interpreted statement? (Distinguish simple physical facts from complex realities, and note that some things are so simply perceived there is no room for interpretation, e.g., if a leper stands before Jesus, asks to be healed, and He says: I will it: be healed.) --Did the authors live at a time when information was to be had -- Did they have motive to report accurately.--
The foregoing are preliminaries. Once we know that the Gospels can give us at least a few simple physically observable facts, we look for and find six of them: (1) There was a man named Jesus; (2) He claimed to be a messenger sent by God; (3) He did enough to prove this, by miracles in contexts such that a connection was established between the claim and the miracle. (On the side: show by modern instances, Lanciano, Lourdes, Guadalupe -- that miracles are possible because science proves they do happen - contrast view of R.Bultmann,who said: "Conclusive knowledge is impossible in any science or philosophy" [Kerygma and Myth ,ed.H.W.Bartsch, tr. R.H.Fuller, N.Y., Harper & Row, Torchbooks, 1961, 2d ed. volume I- hereafter KM -KM 195] and "It is impossible to use electric light and wireless...and at the same time to believe in the New Testament world of spirits and miracles."[KM 5]; (4) As expected, He had an inner circle to whom He spoke more; (5) Also as expected, He told them to continue His work, His teaching; (6)He also - a thing one would expect if the messenger from God had the means to do it - promised God would protect their teaching: "He who hears you,hears me"(Lk 10.16).--- After this point, that body, commissioned to teach by a messenger from God, and promised protection on its teaching, can tell us that Scripture is inspired, and that it contains revelation. There is no other means to know which books are inspired - cf.Luther,Calvin,and Gerald Birney Smith in Biblical World 37 (1910) pp.19-29.Cf. W.Most. Free From All Error hereafter FFAE Cap 2.
So the Epistle to the Romans is inspired, and it tells us in 1.20 that we can know the existence of God by thinking about His works in creation. Hence Vatican I could define that God can be known in this way.
The Council did not specify which proofs are valid - philosophers work on that, but must admit that in some way it can be proved.
Did St.Paul mean formal argumentation - or just thinking in general on creation? Unclear. But the intricate structure of creation, observed by the naked eye, or with the help of modern science, reveals the wonders of design, which suppose a designer. Cf.on complexity of creation:E.S.Ayensu (Smithsonian Institution) and Philip Whitfield (King's College,Univ.of London), Editors, The Rhythms of Life, Crown Publishers,NY.1981.
This does not rule in or out theistic evolution. It of course rules out atheistic evolution. (More on evolution later, in unit III).
Ontological Argument: The most famous form of it comes from St.Anselm in 11th century. In his Proslogium, chapter 2, he argues: "Certainly that than which a greater cannot be thought of cannot exist in the intellect alone. For if it exists in the intellect alone it can be thought of as also existing in the world of reality -- which is greater. If therefore, that than which a greater cannot be thought of, exists solely in the intellect, the very thing than which a greater cannot be thought of, is that than which a greater can be thought of. But this surely cannot be. [It is a direct contradiction]. Without a doubt, therefore, there exists something than which a greater cannot be thought of, both in the world of the intellect and the world of reality". The trouble is that the idea does not guarantee the extramental existence of the Being.
St.Thomas :Specially famous are the five ways of St.Thomas Aquinas, Summa I.2.3.
Aristotelian Proof: Aristotle himself did not develop this argument as we are giving it, but it is based on his own principles: 1.Something has a change -- it rises from Potency to Act.- It cannot rise on its own, for it cannot give itself the extra being it does not yet have.( We call it a rise since at the top of the rise, after the change, more or higher being is present - before the change there was a privation to be filled). 2.So it needs to get its actuality from another being or source that is already in act, i.e, has the added being. But that being earlier had to get up from potency to act - and so on, but not infinitely, or we would never have a solution to the problem. 3.So finally, we need to find a being that does not have the problem of getting up to act, because it simply is Act: That is the First Cause, or Ultimate Mover, or God. (If it had potency, it would still have the problem of getting up to act, and so we would not yet have reached the answer to our problem).
4.What is this Act like: a)It is unmoved - for it has no potency, and potency is needed for anything to be moved. b)It is eternal- (Taking eternity in strict sense of a duration with no change, with everything simultaneously present). Time is a measure of change - no potency = no change.
c) It is Infinite. Potency is not only capacity but limit - a 12 oz.glass has a potency for 12 oz, but it also is limited to 12 oz.
d)It is One - If there were two Infinites, they would coincide. e)It is Spiritual - Matter is potency. This First Cause has no potency, and so, no matter.
f) It is the cause of existence of all else - To reach existence is a rise from potency to act. That rise needs the First Cause. -- So, we see another reason why the First Cause is Infinite -- The rise from zero to something is an infinite rise. NOTE:1.All this reasoning can be made without becoming religious; to be religious we would have to add reverence or worship. We have given a purely intellectual exercise. Hence to say there was creation, is not necessarily religious.-- Further, the translation of Genesis 1.1 is debatable. It could also be:"When God set about to form heaven and earth."
2.Aristotle was uncertain how many unmoved movers there are. He used two starting points (a)From Reason: he said that if a simpler answer will do, it is better, (b) From Astronomy: he said in Meta 12.6.1073b that the number of unmoved movers,"must be investigated by the aid of that branch of mathematical science which is most akin to philosophy, i.e., astronomy." Astronomy in his day held for many spheres in the skies. Unclear how many Aristotle thought, probably either 49 or 55. See G.E.LLoyd, Aristotle,The Growth and Structure of His Thought (Cambridge,1968)pp.148-53.
2)Man's need of revelation: a)Some truths are inaccessible to human knowledge,e.g.,the Holy Trinity.To know these,revelation is indispensable. b)Some truths can be known by reason,but only with difficulty . 1)Plato,Phaedo 85 D: Simmias says, after trying to follow difficult arguments: "I think, as you probably do, that to know clearly about such matters in this present life is either impossible, or altogether difficult...for it is necessary to do one of two things: either to find where truth is, or if that be impossible, to pick the best and hardest to refute of human reasonings, and to sail through life as it were dangerously, on a raft, unless he could make his journey more safely and less dangerously on some more secure conveyance, a divine revelation."
2)Aristotle wrote (Meta 2.1): " The search for truth is in a way hard,in a way easy.A sign of this is the fact that no one gets it fully, but we do not all miss it altogether."
3)History of Philosophy: Shows that no matter what standard we would use to grade a philosopher ,most of them of all times get less than 60% of the truth.-- This does not mean give up - it means be very careful - and, like Simmias, wish for a divine revelation. We have that. We can compare truths reached by reason with revelation - this is like looking up the answers in the back of a mathematics book. In this sense, we can have a Catholic philosophy. Problem: can there be such, since philosophy uses only reason, not authority? Yes, if we work the way we do with a math book. If we are working in philosophy we try to work by reason first, as in the math book, we work problems without looking in the back. If we are in theology, we use revelation first.
4)Eunomius (follower of Arius). He seems to have said that we can completely understand God in this life, in that he insisted divinity consists in being agennetos -- no other designations count. -- Was answered by St.Basil and St.Gregory of Nyssa in their Against Eunomius. Cf.Gregory,Book II: "They maintain that the divine nature is simply being agennetos per se, and declare this to be sovereign and supreme, and they make this word comprehend the whole greatness of divinity."
Note: There are two similar Greek words: agennetos,from gennao to beget; an agenetos from ginomai (= older gignomai) to become,to be born. Both were used alike before the Council of Nicea. Thus the Creed from Nicea has (DS 125) gennethenta ou poiethenta: begotten,not made). Compare Creed of Constantinople DS 130.
The Fathers,in contrast to the errors of Eunomius understood God is inexpressible:
a)Arnobius,Against Nations 1.31:"To understand you, we must be silent, and for fallible conjecture to trace you even vaguely, nothing must even be whispered." b)Pseudo-Dionysius,Mystical Theology 1.2:God is best known by "unknowing". c)St.Gregory of Nyssa,Life of Moses PG 44.376:"The true vision of the One we seek, the true seeing, consists in this: in not seeing. For the One Sought is beyond all knowledge." d)St.Augustine,De Doctrina Christiana 1.6.6:"He must not even be called inexpressible, for when we say that word we say something." e)St.Thomas Aquinas (In:Maritain, Angelic Doctor,S.W.London,1933 p.51): "Such things have been revealed to me that the things I have written and taught seem slight to me." He never went back to his Summa after that revelation. f)Plato,Republic 6.509B:Good (which he probably identifies with God) is "beyond being".
5)St.Thomas Aquinas.Summa I.1.1."It was necessary for human salvation that there be a certain doctrine according to divine revelation, in addition to philosophical disciplines.... First, because man is ordered to God as to a certain end which goes beyond the comprehension of reason...But the end should be known to men in advance, who should order their intentions and actions to the goal... even for those things which can be investigated by human reason it was necessary that man be instructed by divine revelation.For the truth about God which can be investigated by reason would be known by few,and for a long time,with a mixture of many errors." 6)Salvation of Infidels.The above comments of St.Thomas might tempt one to think there is no hope of salvation for those who do not know the Church.We must not take his images like a picture of a material road.The real question on reaching the goal is this:What does God want me to do? God makes this essential known within each one by the moral law known in conscience,as we see from the following: a)St.Justin Martyr in his Apology 1.46 wrote "Christ is the Logos (Divine "Word] of which the whole race of men partake.Those who lived according to Logos are Christians even if they were considered atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus. In Apology 2.10 he ads that the Logos is within each one of us. Now, the Logos,a Spirit,does not take up place. When we say a Spirit is present we say it is producing an effect there.What effect? We turn next to Romans 2: 14-16.
b)Romans 2.14-16:"The gentiles who do not have the law,do by nature the things of the law.They show the work of the law written on their hearts,while their conscience bears witness along with [their good life,or: with the law,in their hearts] and their thoughts will in turn either accuse or even defend them on the day on which God will judge the secret things of men,according to my Gospel,through Jesus Christ."
COMMENT 1:Some commentators refuse to admit Paul teaches gentiles can be saved - they do not see that Paul alternates between de facto and focused views. In a focused view of the law (As if we are loking through a tube,and so see only the things within the circle made by te tube) , for example,Paul would say:The law makes heavy demands -gives no strength - to be under heavy demands without strength makes a fall certain.Hence he can saw dresdful things about the law: no on can keep; it is the ministry of condemnation etc. In the factual view he talks differently: The law makes heavy demands, gives no strength - BUT -- off to the side,in no relation to the law there is grace given even in anticipation of Christ. With it, one need not fall etc. In fact he calls the law a great privilege of the people of God e.g,in Romans 3 and 9 ,and says in Phil 3:6 that he kept it perfectly. Here he uses a de facto view. This is supported by the Magisterium texts we shall shortly quote.
COMMENT 2:Some think Socrates was homosexual.Far from it. PLato frequently quotes Socrates as sayaingathat the manawho seeks the truth,to be a philosopher, must have as litle as possible to do with the things of the body: Phaedo 82-83;66; Republic 485-86,519.
c)Pius IX, Quanto conficiamur moerore,August 10,1862:"God...in His supreme goodness and clemency,by no means allows anyone to be punished with eternal punishments,who does not have the guilt of voluntary fault.But it is also a Catholic dogma that no one outside the Catholic Church can be saved,and that those who are contumacious against the authority of the same Church [and ] definitions and who are obstinately [pertinaciter] separated from the unity of the Church and from the Roman Pontiff...cannot obtain eternal salvation."
COMMENT: Pius IX stresses need of the Church,and at the same time,the truth [in saying that this point "is also a Catholic dogma,he implies that the fact that no one is lost without grave personal fault is also a Catholic dogma.He does not explain HOW this works out.He makes clear that if someone keeps the moral law as he knows it,he will actually be saved- so that somehow-- he does not say how-- this requirement of membership will be fulfilled.He does help,however,by noting that only those who are obstinately and contumaciously rejecting the Church are lost. This implies that those who reject in good faith,without obstinacy,can be saved For full treatment of the solution,cf.the Appendix to W.Most, Our Father's Plan. d) Holy Office,by order of Pius XII,in a letter of August 9,1949, and basing itself on teaching in Mystici Corporis,condemned L.Feeney:"It is not always required that one be actually incorporated as a member of the Church,but this at least is required: that one adhere to it in wish and desire.It is not always necessary that this be explicit...but when a man labors under invincible ignorance,God accepts even an implicit will,called by that name because it is contained in the good disposition of soul in which a man wills to conform his will to the will of God." Pius XII,in Mystici Corporis had taught that a man can be "ordered to the Church by a certain desire and wish of which he is not aware."(DS 3821). e) Vatican II,On the Church #16:"For they who without their own fault do not know of the Gospel of Christ and His Church,but yet seek God with sincere heart,and try,under the influence of grace,to carry out His will in practice, known to them through the dictate of conscience,can attain eternal salvation." f)John Paul II,Redemptoris missio, Dec.7,1990:"The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all,it must be made concretely available to all.But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the Gospel Revelation or to enter the Church.... For such people, salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church,does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation."
NOTE:We compare St.Justin Martyr,Apology 1.46 with the above, and note it carries same ideas as Romans 2.14-16: "Christ is the Logos [Divine Word], of whom the whole race of men partake.Those who lived according to Logos are Christians,even if they were considered atheists,such as,among the Greeks,Socrates and Heraclitus."
The above texts show merely the FACT that some can be saved without formal entry into the Church. As to thee HOW.we will add theological reasoning later, in speaking of the election of Israel.
3)The concept of salvation history;words and deeds of God
In studying any part of Scripture,we must first deterine the literary genre. The case of Genesis 1-11 is special. Starting with chapter 12 man think the genre shifts to epic.
Genre of Genesis 1-11:
(1) Pius XII,Humani generis,DS 3898:"We must deplore a certain way of interpreting the historical books of the Old Testament too freely. The first 11 chapters of Genesis,though they do not strictly conform to the rules of historical writing used by the great Greek and Latin historians or historians of our time, yet pertain to history in a true sense, to be further studied and determined by Scripture scholars." COMMENT: We could satisfy this requirement by saying that these chapters do report, by the vehicle of stories, things that really happened -- in this way they do pertain to history in a true sense. Chiefly the following: God made all things; in some special way He made the first human pair; He gave them some sort of command (we do not know its nature),they violated it,and fell from His favor. (Note that favor even though the word is not used in the text, would be chen in Hebrew, which is the closest word to grace. Hence they lost grace,and did not have it to pass on to their descendants.(Cf. New Catholic Encyclopedia s.v."grace,in the Bible"). So original sin is contained in the narrative. Really, if we said God did no more than smile at a person,and gave him nothing, and the person could do good by his own power - it would be Pelagianism. Hence favor must imply grace. (2) John Paul II,Audience of Sept 19,1979: "The whole archaic form of the narrative...manifests its primitive mythical character." In note 1, he cites at length P.Ricoeur,speaking of "the Adamic myth". However, on Nov 7,1979 the Pope also said:"...the term 'myth' does not designate a fabulous content, but merely an archaic way of expressing a deeper content." Also in note 1 on Sept 19: "If in the language of the rationalism of the 19th century, the term 'myth' indicated what was not contained in reality...the 20th century as modified the concept of myth.... M.Eliade discovers in myth the structure of the reality that is inaccessible to rational and empirical investigation. Myth, in fact, transforms the event into a category and makes us capable of perceiving the transcendental reality."
ADDENDUM: On Sept 12,1979:"...the first account of man's creation is chronologically later than the second.The origin of this latter is much more remote. This more ancient text is defined as 'Yahwist.'" -- In note 1 on Nov.7: "After the creation of the woman, the Bible text continues to call the first man 'adam (with the definite article), thus expressing his 'corporate personality', since he has become the 'father of mankind', its progenitor and representative...." -- God called Adam after the fall and Adam replied: "I was afraid because I was naked, and I hid myself."- It is easy to gather what the inspired writer meant to convey by this narrative. Before the sin, Adam was naked; after the fall, the same. But before the fall it did not bother him, afterwards it did. Clearly, the sex drive, the most rebellious of all, had begun to assert itself. Before the fall Adam must have had some gift that made it easy to keep all drives in proper balance. Each was good in itself, but each would work blindly, without regard for the other drives or for the whole person. So,as we said,a coordinating gift was needed. It used to be called the Gift of Integrity.
History of the term salvation history
1)W.Vatke,a disciple of Hegel,in his The Religion of Israel,1835 spoke of Heilsgeschichte [salvation history]:True religion he said was revealed slowly, going through the stages of simile, allegory, myth, and climaxing in the historical revelation of Jesus Christ. 2) J.T.Beck,1804-78 in reacting against rationalistic biblical interpretation dropped the dictation theory of inspiration, said that the Bible is an organic whole and that the unity and continuity of the OT are to be found in salvation history. 3)J.von Hofmann,1810-77,similarly viewed the OT as a the history of salvation. Stages of salvation history
There are two separate,though related,developments we must follow: (1)The prophecies of eternal salvation for all through the Messiah. (2)The choice of Israel as God's special people--a help to eternal salvation.The word salvation has three meanings in Scripture: (a)rescue from temporal evils; (b)entry into the Church of the NT; (c)Final eternal salvation: heaven.
The promise of the Messiah actually referred to eternal salvation.The Jews,and perhaps the Sacred Writers too,seem not to have understood this fact at first.They tended to think of the Messiah as going to rescue them from temporal evils.And the promises God made at Sinai,choosing them as a special people,literally referred at first to temporal things - the land plus added favor.As the centuries went on, the tendency grew to reinterpret the promise to refer to eternal life,as St.Paul does,for example,in Galatians 3.15ss.Yet the Apostles seem to have taken the Messiah as a temporal savior,and hence did not grasp His prophecies about His death and resurrection. We will consider each current separately.(Choice or election will be later on) (1)Prophecies of the Messiah We will make much use of the Targums here. They are ancient Aramaic versions of th Old Testament,mostly free,and with fill-ins which show how the Jews understood them without seeing them fulfilled in Christ.
Date of the Targums.Many scholars today ignore the Targums,out of ignorance or because they think the dates too uncertain. Some of these same exegetes say the OT prophecies of the Messiah are so vague one can get something out of them only by hindsight,e.g.,R.E.Brown,The Virginal Conception & Bodily Resurrection of Jesus,Paulist,1973,pp.15-16. But we can be sure of an early date of at least the Messianic prophecies in them for the following reasons: a)Jacob Neusner,in Messiah in Context made a complete survey of all Jewish literature after 70 AD up to and including the Babylonian Talmud (completed 500-600 AD).He found that up to,not including that Talmud,there was scant interest in the Messiah.In the Talmud interest revived,but even then,the only one of the great prophecies spoken of was that the Messiah would be of the line of David. It is hardly conceivable that these Targums on the prophecies could have been composed in a period when there was no,or later,little interest in the material they covered. b)Samson Levey, The Messiah,An Aramaic Interpretation, Hebrew Union College,1974, helps us to know that the rabbis even steered clear of some Messianic things in the Targums. Ps.80,15-18 asked God to visit this vine "and the stock which your right hand has planted.... Let your hand be upon the man of your right hand,upon the son of man whom you have strengthened for yourself." Levey comments (pp.119-20):"It would appear that the Targum takes the Messiah to be the son of God,which is much too anthropomorphic and Christological to be acceptable in Jewish exegesis." He notes that neither the earlier nor the later rabbis picked up this interpretation of the Targum.Instead,he says that some of the later rabbis "carefully steer clear of any messianic interpetation" from the Targum for this passage.So the Targum interpretation could hardly have been written at that period. Interestingly,Ps 80,as cited above,even uses the words son of man to refer to the Messiah. Not for certain,but probably,the rabbis would not have written this Targumic line after Jesus began to use the expression to refer to Himself. Similarly Ps 45,7-8 says:"Your throne,God is ever and ever.... God your God has anointed you with the oil of rejoicing." Even though some think that Psalm was occasioned by the marriage of Joram to Athalaia,the Targum saw it as messianic.Levey even remarks (pp.111-12) that the Hebrew word for king, melech "in verses 2,6,12,15 and 16 is understood as God." And the passage in general means the Messiah according to the Targum,Yet:"Rabbinic views of this Psalm are not Messianic." Again,this Targumic passage could not have been written late. In 445 BC,Ezra may have begun the practice of giving an Aramaic paraphrase after the reading of the Hebrew Scriptures. In Nehemiah 8:7-8:[while Ezra read the Law] "...the Levites helped the people to understand the law.... And they read from the book,from the law of God,clearly,and they gave the sense,so that the people understood the reading."-- There must have been period of oral Targums before they were written down.
Regardless of the date of the Targums,they surely show the ancient Jewish understanding made without the use of hindsight,without seeing them fulfilled in Jesus,whom they hated.
We have the following Targums on the Pentateuch: Onkelos,Pseudo- Jonathan,Neofiti,and Fragmentary Targum (also called Jerusalem Targum. For the prophets,we have Targum Jonathan. For the prophets: Targum Jonathan. For the Hagiographa,Aramaic renderings did evolve except for Daniel and Ezra-Nehemiah. We will now examine the chief messianic prophecies,with the help of the Targums and the Magisterium.
Genesis 3:15
(a)Targums: Fragmentary Targum says God will put enmity between the serpent and the woman,and between the offspring of serpent's children and hers. When the woman's children toil at Torah and keep it,they will strike the serpent on the head and kill it; when they refuse to toil, the serpent's offspring will bite their heel. "There will be a remedy for the children of the woman,but for you [serpent], there will be no remedy. They will make peace with one another in the days of the King Messiah." Pseudo-Jonathan is about the same.Neofiti is about same but uses singular: "There will be a remedy [for his wound] for the son of the woman,but for you,serpent,no remedy."--Onkelos,as so often,does not speak of a messianic nature. Neusner, Messiah in Context,p.242:"In the days of the King Messiah,the enmity between the serpent and woman will come to an end Gen 3:15....)" NOTE:The Jews seem on the whole not to have thought of original sin, from this verse or elsewhere. However it is easy to see: God had given our first parents not only human nature,but also grace and the gift of integrity.They lost all but human nature by their fall - so they lost His favor,and therefore did not have grace - and so did not have that to pass on to their children. To arrive in this world without favor/grace is the same as to come with original sin. Cf.A.M.Dubarle,OP,Le Pch Originel dans l'Ecriture,Cerf.1958 edition,pp.39-74.
(b)Pius IX,Ineffabilis Deus:"The Fathers and ecclesiastical writers...in commenting on the words,' I will put enmity between you and the woman,and your seed and her seed', have taught that by this utterance there was clearly and openly foretold the merciful Redeemer of the human race...and that His Most Blessed Mother,the Virgin Mary,was designated,and at the same time,that the enmity of both against the devil was remarkably expressed." -- We notice that PiusIX does not say in his own words that Gen 3:15 is messianic.He says that the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers say that. (c)Pius XII,Munificentissimus Deus: "We must remember especially that,since the 2nd century,the Virgin Mary has been presented by the Holy Fathers as the New Eve,who,although subject to the New Adam,was most closely associated with Him in that struggle against the infernal enemy which,as foretold in the protoevangelium, was to result in that most complete victory over sin and death.Wherefore,just as the glorious resurrection of Christ was an essential part and final sign of this victory,so also that struggle,which was common to the Blessed Virgin and her Son,had to be close by the glorification of her virginal body."
COMMENT: He speaks of the struggle against the infernal enemy as foretold in the protoevanglium, Gen.3.15. Even though he does so in passing, yet he clearly takes it for granted that the protoevangelium does foretell that victory, a victory which is an essential part of his thought. Incidentally we notice the strong language on coredemption -- the "struggle" was a work in common, so much in common that there had to be a common result from a common cause - glorification for both Him and for her. [In passing: John Paul II,in Osservatore Romano, English, March 11,1985 spoke of "Mary's role as co-redemptrix"]. (d)Pius XII,Fulgens corona(1953):"...the foundation of this doctrine [Immaculate Conception] is seen in the very Sacred Scripture in which God...after the wretched fall of Adam,addressed the...serpent in these words,which not a few of the Holy Fathers and doctors of the Church,and most approved interpreters refer to the Virgin Mother of God:"I will put enmity....'"
COMMENT: If the IC is contained in Gen 3:15,then of course she is contained in it. (e)Vatican II,Dei Verbum 3:"After their fall,by promising the redemption,He lifted them up into the hope of salvation (cf.Gen 3,15...)." Yet LG 55,below, indicates we cannot be sure that the original writers of Gen 3:15 and Is 7:14 saw in those texts what the Church now sees. This is possible: at first Adam and Eve did peceive the promise of a Redeemer.Later,by the time Genesis was written,that knowledge had been forgotten. (f)Vatican II,Lumen gentium 55:"These primeval documents,as they are read in the Church and are understood in the light of later and full revelation,gradually bring more clearly to light the figure of the woman,the Mother of the Redeemer. She,in this light,is already prophetically foreshadowed in the promise,given to our first parents,who had fallen into sin,of victory over the serpent (cf.Gen 3,15)." COMMENTS: The council was careful not to say flatly that the original human author of Genesis saw her as the woman - hence the cf. Yet later and full revelation, guided by the Holy Spirit, does see that she is the one. 2) In Dei verbum 12, the Council said: "Since however in Sacred Scripture God has spoken through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, to see what He intended to communicate with us, must investigate attentively what the sacred writers really intended to convey and what it pleased God to manifest by their words." The Theological Commission commented (Cf.A.Grillmeier in H.Vorgrimler, Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, Herder & Herder, 1969, III, p.220)commented on the under lined words "and what": If quidque be written [instead of et quid] the question [on the existence of a fuller sense] would be settled in the affirmative. The expression [actually used] is neutral." "Fuller sense" would be the position that the Holy Spirit, the Chief Author might have in mind and intended to express more than the human author saw. At this point, the Council had a chance to positively endorse the idea of a fuller sense, but instead chose ambiguous language. Quidque, using the enclitic -que to mean and would tie the two clauses more closely than the actual et quid for et is a looser conjunction. So all this means that the Council at this point refused to explicitly approve or disapprove the position of a fuller sense. But yet in its practice, as in LG 55, it did use it on Gen 3.15 and Isa 7.14. Really, it is clearly possible that the Holy Spirit,the chief author, could have in mind more than the human writer saw. Jeremiah 31.31 ff., the prophecy of the New Covenant,seems to be an example. Jeremiah hardly saw that the essential obedience of the New Covenant would be that of Christ. Also, St.Irenaeus, in his knot comparison (3.22.4) implied more than he likely saw. And it seems Vatican II also,in LG chapter 8, said more than it realized. At the start,it said it would not settle debates in Mariology. Yet one can make a fine case that it did: cf.W.Most,"Mary's Cooperation in the Redemption" in Faith and Reason, 1987,pp.28-61. In fact, Msgr.G.Philips of Louvain,chief drafter of that chapter, seems not to have fully understood what he wrote:cf.ibid,pp. 54-55.
COMMENT: Now in spite of the cf.the text says flatly that after the fall God gave them hope of redemption.The only place that could be is Gen 3.15. So that text is clearly called messianic. John Paul II, in Mulieris dignitatem II 11: "At the same time it [Genesis] contains the first foretelling of victory over evil, over sin. This is proved by the words which we read in Genesis 3:15...." Further, in Redemptoris Mater 24 he links together the use of the word "woman" in Genesis 3:15, Cana, the foot of the Cross, and Apocalypse/Revelation 12. The word seems chosen to show she is the same one in each text. 2)Genesis 49.10: "The scepter shall not depart from Juda,nor the ruler's staff from between his feet,until Shiloh comes,and his shall be the obedience of the peoples."
Targums:Neofiti:"Kings shall not be lacking from the house of Judah...until the time at which King Messiah will come." Onkelos (which sees messianism only here and in Numbers 24.17-24 (Balaam) agrees,as do Pseudo- Jonathan,and Fragmentary Targum.
Levey. the Messiah:An Aramaic Interpretation,p.8:"Other rabbinic sources,both Midrashic and Talmudic,also take this passage as Messianic." Genesis Rabbah 98.8 "Until Shiloh comes:he to whom kingship belongs." Sanhedrin 98b:"What is His [Messiah's] name? The school of R.Shila said,'Shiloh" as it is written,until Shiloh come." Lamentations Rabbah I.16.51:"The school of R.Shila said:The Messiah's name is 'Shiloh", as it is stated, Until Shiloh come (Gen xxlix,10),where the word is spelt Shlh." Levey adds in note 23(p.149):"A play on the similarity of the names,thus rendering honor to their teacher.The Talmud continues that the school of R.Jannai claimed the Messiah's name was Jinnon,and the school of R.Hananiah said it was Hananiah,each quoting an appropriate proof-text."Cf.G.F.Moore,Judaism II,pp.348-49 for a similar claim. COMMENT: Levey overlooks the fact that all but the school of Shila have no basis that is solid- The School of Shila does have such a base in the Targumic and Rabbinic view,and in the MT reading,Shiloh.Cf.Moses Aberbach & Bernard Grossfeld,Targum Onkelos on Genesis 49 Scholars Press.Missoula,p.14.
Neusner, Messiah in Context,p.242:"It is difficult to imagine how Gen 49:10 could have been read as other than a messianic prediction." There may be echoes of Gen 49.10 in Ez 21.17:"It will not be restored until he comes to whom it rightly belongs.To him I will give it". and Jer 33.14 :"Behold the days are coming-- Oracle of Yahweh- and I will perform the good word which I spoke to the house of Israel and the house of Judah." The word seems to be that of Gen 49.10.
Modern scholars object that the Hebrew is corrupt because shiloh is feminine while the verb is masculine. Reply: 1)Shiloh stands for a man,agreement by sense. 2)There are some parallels in OT: Jer 49.16 where a feminine noun,tiplaset,your horror, has a masculine verb.Also Ezech 1.5-10 where the noun hayoth is feminine,yet the suffixes in the next verses referring to the living creatures shift between masculine and feminine. This sort of shift was common in Mishnaic Hebrew. Historical fulfillment: The Jews did have some sort of ruler from tribe of Judah until Rome imposed Herod on them as Tetrarch in 41 BC- soon (38 BC) he made self king.Herod was Jewish by religion (Jews had forced it on Idumea),but lived up to it poorly and,most importantly,by birth he was not of the tribe of Judah - half Idumean,half Arab. The fulfillment would have been more glorious had they not been so unfaithful so often. Neusner reports that Messianic expectation was strong at the time of Christ.
3)Isaiah 9.5-6:"For a child is born to us, a son is given to us, and the government shall be upon his shoulder. And his name shall be called:Wonderful Counsellor,Mighty God, Everlasting Father,Prince of Peace." We take up this text before Is 7.14 since it is easier to study,and since it is generally agreed today that both texts belong to the same Book of Emmanuel (6.1- to 12.6).Hence the child is the same in both texts.
The Targum definitely takes 9.5-6 as Messianic.The translation of the Targum is debated. J.F.Stenning of Oxford:"And his name has been called from of old,Wonderful counsellor,Mighty God,He who lives forever,the Anointed one (or,Messiah),in whose days peace shall increase upon us." We note that Stenning does say Mighty God is part of His name. Samson Levey(p.45) renders: "And his name has been called by the One who gives wonderful counsel,the Mighty God,He who lives forever: Messiah,in whose day peace shall abound for us." Levey can so translate because he takes Aramaic min qedem to be mean by.This is linguistically possible.Stenning takes the same words to mean "from of old".That too is linguistically possible. Levey's version has a strain in it,in that it is hard to know which titles belong to the one who calls, which to the one who is named. It is certain that the Jews would have had a hard time digesting the idea that the Messiah was God.-- Yet,we do have the evidence of Psalms 45 and 80, cited above,which seem to say that.We could add also Mal 3.1:"Behold,I send my messenger,and he will prepare the way before my face. And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple,the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight." Even R.H.Fuller observes,speaking of the citation of the text by Jesus in Mt 11.14 (Foundations of NT Christology,p.48): "The starting point for this expectation is Mal 4:5f. (Mt 3:23f).In this passage,an editorial note commenting on Mal 3:1,Elijah appears as the forerunner not of the Messiah but of Yahweh himself...followed by the coming of Yahweh to his temple for the eschatological judgment...." (Fuller uses the numbering 4.5, with some English versions and the Vulgate, for what the Hebrew and most others number as 3.23-24). Jesus in Mt 11.3-10 identifies John with Elijah (multiple fulfillment), which implies that the one for whom John was the forerunner was Yahweh Himself= Jesus.
The Targum,however,does not speak of Mal 3.1 as Messianic.We can gather that as a matter of fact it was messianic,fulfilled when Jesus came to the Temple. El gibbor [Mighty God] occurs also in: Is 10.22; Dt.10.17; Jer 32.18; Neh.9.32. It always means only Mighty God, and Levey so renders it in his versions of the Hebrew and of the Targum.It does not mean God-Hero as the NAB has it. 4)Isaiah 7.14 :"Behold, the almah shall conceive and bear a son,and she shall call his name Immanuel."
The Targum as we have it does not call this verse messianic. Yet the child in it is clearly the same as that of 9.5-6,which is marked as messianic by the Targum. And Neusner, Messiah in Context ,p.174 cites Hillel,great teacher of the time of Christ:" R.Hillel said.There shall be no Messiah for Israel,because they have already enjoyed him in the days of Hezekiah."(Citing from Sanhedrin 99a). Levey, note 33 (found on p.154) cites R.Johanan b.Zakkai: "Prepare a throne for Hezekiah,king of Judah,who is coming". Berakot 28b. Levey adds: "Johanan's statement is especially significant,for it was he who salvaged what little he could in 70 C.E." Levey also gives reference to Bar Kappara in Lamentations Rabbah on 1:16. Neusner on p.190 says:"Since Christian critics of Judaism claimed that the prophetic promises of redemption had all been kept in the times of ancient Israel,so that Israel now awaited nothing at all,it was important to reject the claim that Hezekiah had been the Messiah."
So this is why Targum does not call 7.14 Messianic. Levey, on p.152, in note 10 says that "Christians tended to base their arguments against Judaism on verses of Scripture,and the Targum interpretation of those verses was often deliberately designed to exclude the Christian argument." (Levey is quoting J.Bowker,and agrees substantially. H.J.Schoeps, Paul p.129: "...it was felt to be undesirable to lend support to the Christian interpretation [of Is 53]. Again with the same motive and in order to eliminate the reference of Isaiah 53 to Christ,atoning power was imputed to the death of Moses."
The Septuagint does take Hebrew almah as parthenos [virgin]. Laurentin,in the original French edition of his Les Evangiles de l'Enfance du Christ,argued on p.486 that the Septuagint is loose in use of parthenos - he pointed to case of Gen 34.4 - Dina is called a virgin after being violated. He did not check the Hebrew or the Greek, used only a French translation. LXX has paidisken,which is vague [young women]. Hebrew has yaldah,also vague.In the English translation of the same book, he moved back to Gen 34.3,which is ambiguous -- probably is a case of concentric ring presentation. I have personally checked every instance where LXX uses parthenos,found all are accurate.In fact,the LXX is sometimes more precise than the Hebrew,as judged by the Hebrew context. There are a few doubtful examples of looseness in pagan Greek, but even if they were clear, pagan usage does not prove LXX usage.
Laurentin also says that the LXX in reading "you will call" receded from the Hebrew tradition "she will call". We reply: a) Sometimes the Mother did give the name, when not a virgin: Gen 4.1 & 25; 19.36-38. 29.32 b)The text of the Masoretic Text was not yet stabilized at the time the LXX was made - they could have had a reading different from our MT.
Who was the child of 7.14? Some today say Hezekiah -- the sign should not be something far in the future.A heir to the line of David would be a sign.On other hand,the description of the child in 9.5-6 is too grandiose for Hezekiah.And the solemnity of the scene--offering a sign in the sky or in the depths-- suggests more than just an ordinary heir to the throne. So it is probable this is a case of multiple fulfillment. On that cf.Free From All Error, chapter 5.
5)Isaiah 53.The Hebrew speaks of the Suffering Servant as having no form or comeliness,despised and rejected by men,he has borne our griefs and was wounded for our transgressions.He was oppressed and afflicted,yet did not open his mouth,like a lamb being led to the slaughter.
The Targum recognizes this as messianic,yet distorts it greatly. Hebrew v.3:"He was despised and rejected by men." Targum:"Then the glory of all kingdoms will be despised and cease." Hebrew v.5:"He was wounded for our transgressions,he was bruised for our iniquities." Targum: "He will rebuild the sanctuary, polluted because of our sins,handed over because of our iniquities."
Hebrew v.7:He was "like a lamb being led to the slaughter." Targum: "He will hand over the mighty ones of the peoples,like a lamb to the slaughter."
Why? 1)The belief was common the Messiah would be a conqueror and live forever.This would be strengthened by 2 Sam 7.11-16 where God promised David's line would last forever. 2)This was probably written or revised at time of the revolt of Bar Kokhba (132-35AD),whom many thought was the Messiah. 3)There was probably deliberate distortion to keep Christians from using it.Cf.remarks of Levey and H.J.Shoeps cited above.
This is a case of "the Lady doth protest too much".
6)Micah 5.1-3. When the Magi came,Herod consulted the Jewish scholars,who without hesitation replied (Mt 2.5):"They said to him,in Bethlehem of Juda,for so it is written by the prophet: And you,Bethlehem of the land of Judah are no the least among the rulers of Juda.For out of you shall come forth the captain who shall govern my people Israel." Micah said:"And you,Bethlehem Ephrathah,you are little to be among the thousands of Judah.From you shall come for me one who is to be ruler in Israel,whose origin is from of old,from the days of eternity." Targum Jonathan:"From you will come forth before me the Messiah...whose name was spoken from days of old,from the days of eternity." Levey comments (p.93) that the words "from of old,from the days of eternity" seem to imply a pre-existent Messiah. The Targum could be taken the same way.
B.Talmud,Pesahim 4.4.54a:"Seven things were created before the creation of the world, namely, Torah, repentance, paradise,gehenna,the throne of majesty ,the temple and the name of the Messiah.--Pesikta Rabati (a Midrash from about 8th century AD) Piska 33.6:"You find that at the very beginning of the creation of the world,the king Messiah had already come into being,for he existed in God's thought even before the world was created." E.Isaac,editor of 1 Enoch in J.H.Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha I,p.9:"The Messiah in 1 Enoch,called the Righteous One,and the Son of Man,is depicted as a preexistent heavenly being who is resplendent and majestic,possesses all dominion,and sits on the his throne od glory passing judgment upon all mortals and spiritual beings." The actual text of 1 Enoch 48.1-6 (Charlesworth,p.35):"...even before the creation of the sun and moon,before the creation of the stars,he was given a name in the presence of the Lord of Spirits..he was concealed in the presence (of the Lord of Spirits) prior to the creation of the world and for eternity." Isaac thinks 1 Enoch originated in Judea,and was in use in Qumran before the Christian period.--Levey,p.70 in giving rabbinic parallels to Targum on Jer 23.1-8 says:"'What is the name of the King Messiah? R.Abba b.Kahana said: His name is 'the Lord' as it is stated.And this is the name whereby he shall called.The Lord is our righteousness (Jer 23.6)" Lamentations Rabbah 1.51. Levey's note 83,on p.156 gives the Hebrew of Lord in the above quote as Yahweh.
COMMENTS ON ALL THE ABOVE TEXTS: 1)There are many more texts on the Messiah himself,and on his age.There are also texts where we can see things by hindsight that the Jews did not see. 2)If even the stiff-necked Jews (cf.Ex.33.3 and 5.Dt 9.6 & 12 and 31.27). could see this much without the help of hindsight -- (cf.R.Brown, Virginal Conception, p.15) -- how much more could she who was full of grace would see? Cf.W.Most,"The Knowledge of Our Lady" in Faith & Reason, XI.1985,pp.51-76. 3) Sacred Scripture
a)Revelation compared to inspiration:.Revelation conveys new information. Inspiration as such does not do that.
b)Nature of Inspiration of Scripture
(1)God is principal Author- and so no error of any kind: (a) Vatican I DS 3006:"The Church considers them (books of Scripture) sacred and canonical,not that they were written by mere human diligence and then approved by her authority,nor only that they contain revelation without error,but because,being written with the Holy Spirit inspiring them,they have God as their author and as such were handed down to the Church herself".
(b) Leo XIII,Providentissimus Deus (1893):"It is altogether not permitted to either limit inspiration to only some parts of Sacred Scripture,or to say that the sacred author himself was in error.Nor is the method tolerable which to get out of the difficulties just mentioned,does not hesitate to say that divine inspiration pertains to matters of faith and morals and nothing more.... For all the books,the complete books,which the Church receives as sacred and canonical,were written,with all their parts,at the dictation of the Holy Spirit.It is so far from possible that any error could underlie divine inspiration that it of itself not only excludes all error,but excludes and rejects it as necessarily as it is necessary to say that God,the supreme Truth,is the author of no error."
(c) Pius XII,Divino afflante Spiritu (1943)(EB538) quoted the words of Vatican I cited above and commented:"But when certain Catholic authors,contrary to this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine...dared to restrict the truth of Holy Scripture to matters of faith and morals...our predecessor of immortal memory,Leo XIII,in the Encyclical Providentissimus Deus...rightly and properly refuted those errors."
(d) Vatican II,Dei Verbum 11:"Since,then,everything that the inspired authors or hagiographers assert should be held as asserted by the Holy Spirit,hence the books of Scripture are to be professed as teaching firmly,faithfully and without error,the truth which God for the sake of our salvation willed to be confided to the Sacred Letters."
The Council in note 4 refers us to Leo XIII (EB 121,124,126-27. EB 124 was cited above,excluding errors of every kind) and Pius XII (EB 539 - which cites EB 124- 25 of Leo XIII, insisting we may not limit inspiration to just some parts of Scripture. Rather error is necessarily excluded since God is the Author of all of Scripture).Three notes,1-3, on the previous paragraph refer us also, inter alia, to Vatican I DS 3006,cited above,and to Pius XII EB 556, cited above saying the human writer is the instrument of the Holy Spirit,but the human still,under transcendence,uses his own faculties,and writing style).
NOTES: 1. In spite of the above,Cardinal Koenig at the Council on Oct.2,1964 charged errors in Scripture.(Cf.A Grillmeier,in his commentary on this chapter in H.Vorgrimler,ed.,Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II,Herder & Herder,1969,III pp.205-06).
2.R.Brown, Critical Meaning of the Bible,p.18:"Many of us think that at Vatican II the Catholic Church 'turned the corner' in the inerrancy question by moving from the a priori to the a posteriori in the statement of Dei verbum 11." - cited above. Brown thinks the words we underlined above allow us to say inspiration covers only those things needed for salvation.All else-- matters of natural science,history and religion not needed for salvation-may be in error.He give examples,especially on pp 16.17 of Job 14.13-22,and says to try to explain Job otherwise is "an unmitigated disaster". Realy,it is easy to explain.Cf.Wm.Most, Free From All Error,pp.39-46. Brown ignores the fact that the claims of Cardinal Koenig were not put into the final document.He ignores the references the Council gave,as we noted above,to earlier documents insisting on no error of any kind at all.He ignores fact Pius XII said,cited above,that the words of Vatican I on this were a solemn definition.Brown admits, p.18,that the words in question are ambiguous- then how can be claim the Church contradicted a solemn definition, did so in unclear form,and giving references to texts that reaffirm? Brown in New Jerome Biblical Commentary,p 1169 strongly repeats the same position.
3.Thomas Hoffman,S.J.in CBQ 44(1982) p.451.n.17 says " the term inerrancy is dropped in this paper as having no positive theological contribution to make." He added (p.452) that to try to answer all charges of error is "basically patching holes on a sinking ship". And on p.467 he said if one has real faith he will not want such answers! (Cf.Bultmann saying faith should have no foundation:KM 211).On p.457 he says that what the Apostolic Church meant by an inspired work was one "in which they experienced the power,truth etc., of the Spirit of Christ." -- Sounds like Calvin! 4. New Methods. It is ironic at the very time when we can solve problems formerly insoluble that so many,like Hoffman,are claiming they cannot be solved. Especially the use of literary genres helps,plus some help from form & redaction criticism. (a)Some examples of eye-closing:
(1)J.Fitzmyer,Paul and His theology,Prentice Hall,1978,p.12-- speaks of three problems in accounts of Paul's conversion, comments:"Puzzling ,however,are the variant details in the account....The failure to harmonize such details reflects Luke's lack of concern for consistency."
(2)Joseph a Callaway,"The Settlement in Canaan: in: Ancient Israel, ed.Hershel Shanks,Biblical Archaeology Society,Washington,1988,p.84."...there are two or three traditions in 1 Samuel that give conflicting opinions. In 1 Samuel 8:6-22 Samuel is instructed by Yahweh to oppose the appointment of a king; in 1 Samuel 9:15-24,Samuel is instructed to anoint Saul secretly as king." COMMENT: really:6-22 reports God told Samuel to pick a king even though Samuel did not like it. Here it seems the author is eager to find a contradiction where there is none,instead of resolving real conflicts.--There can be variant traditions and still no error- cf.FFAE chapter 15.
(3)Many more instances in appendix 3 of W.Most, Catholic Apologetics Today.
How Inspiration functions:
Pius XII,Divino afflante Spiritu, EB 556:"The sacred writer,in producing the sacred book,is the organon,that is,the instrument of the Holy Spirit,an instrument living and endowed with reason.... He,working under inspiration,still uses his own faculties and powers in such a way that all can easily gather from the book he produces 'the proper character,and as it were,the individual lines and characteristics'" of the human writer. (Internal quote from Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus EB 448).
As we mentioned in passing above, the Holy Spirit can use the human writer,leave him free as to his style,and yet see that he writes all He wills,and only what He wills,and without error.This can be through transcendence - i.e., God is above and beyond all our categories and classifications. To illustrate: we know either in the active or the passive mode. In the passive, we take on an impression and information we lacked,and we are passive --B ut God cannot lack anything,cannot receive anything,so this is not possible in Him. In the active mode,a blind man knows a chair is moving only because he is pushing it - but we surely cannot limit or reduce God to the level of a blind man. So we say: He works above and beyond our categories.
Some not understanding this,claim He knows only by causing things,i.e,in the active mode. St.Thomas Aquinas many times,e.g,in De veritate 2.12.c explains God's ability to know future contingents by saying that although as future,they are unknowable,yet to Him they are present,by way of eternity.But he stops there - does not say how they are known within eternity.He does not know,nor do we,except that we invoke transcendence. There would be no reason for Thomas to carefully explain how eternity can make a future contingent present, if he believed God knows only by causing things.Then Thomas could have said at once: God know what will be because He intends to cause it.-- So,no need to mention eternity at all. Cf.W.Most, New Answers to Old Questions 463-79.
Still more remarkably,He knows the futuribles, as we can see from Scripture,e.g,1 Sam 23.10-13; Jer 38.17-23; Mt 11.21-23; Lk 10.13. - A futurible is what would be if some conditions would be present. Eternity cannot make a futurible present,but it never will be,it only would be. Further,it is general teaching that if one prays for something that would be harmful if it would be granted,God will not grant it- implying He knows futuribles.But in knowing these, recourse to eternity to make them present does not help-- for they never will be,only would be.Some authors,who think He knows only by way of causality,say He does not know the futuribles- - would require an infinite set of decrees within Him.Cf.P.de Lesdema, De Divinae Gratiae Auxiliis,a.18.
Again,Plato,Republic 6.509B (cf.Plotinus, 6.8.9) speaks of Good,which he seems to identify with God,as beyond being.He means that the word good,as applied to creatures,and as applied to God,has something in common,but far more difference- hence,the only slightly exaggerated statement: He is beyond being. In a parallel way,we can say the Holy Spirit moves the human writer and leaves him free as to style.
Relation of Scripture and Tradition
(a)The debates at Vatican II on Dei verbum were long and bitter. (Cf.H.Vorgrimler,ed., Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, Herder & Herder 1969,vol III -- various authors.).The first draft by the Theological Commission, November 1962, was rejected.The majority wanted it rewritten. The vote was less than 2/3 but John XXIII overrode,called for rewriting. Rewritten version was ready for second session,1963. Brought up for more discussion and votes at 3rd session,1964. More changes. Some last minute changes suggested by Paul VI. Finally approved by almost unanimous vote on Nov.18,1964.
(b)Three questions were especially hot: )Tradition: What is it in itself? Relation of Scripture & Tradition:one or two sources? 2)Inerrancy 3) Historicity of the Gospels.
The preface to DV said that the Council "adhering to the steps of the Councils of Trent and Vatican I,intends to propose the true doctrine about divine revelation and about its transmission." But Joseph Ratzinger (In Vorgrimler,p,167) said:"The brief form of the Preface and the barely concealed illogicalities that it contains betray the confusion from which it has emerged."
(c)Revelation of a Person and of Doctrines:There was a tendency to say (Ratzinger,p.171):"Instead of the legalistic view that sees revelation largely as the issuing of divine decrees,we have a sacramental view." That is,God has revealed Himself in Christ - true - but tends to leave out the fact that He also has revealed specific truths, many by the mouth of Christ.
(d)End of public revelation.It is true however that the Christian economy is definitive. DV 4:"The Christian economy,as the new and definitive covenant,will never pass away,and no new revelation is now to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ." St.Paul expressed this forcefully in Gal.1.8- 9: "Even if we, or an angel from the sky, were to preach to you other than we have preached,let him be cursed." Montanus,a mid-second century heretic, tried this, with his third stage of revelation.So did Joseph Smith,founder of Mormonism. (e)Judaism.The fact that the Christian economy is definitive implies also that Judaism is no longer sufficient.It was a preparation for Christ,is fulfilled in Christ. The Jews who rejected Christ have falllen out of the original olive tree,the People of God,and so are no longer members of the People of God.God still calls them to become members,but they are not accepting:Rom 11:1 and 11:29.To say they could be saved without accepting Christ means they did not need Him, as a Redeemer! It is also true that Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism,of its prophecies of the Messiah and aspirations. Christians are,as St.Paul puts it,engrafted into the tame olive true,which stands for the original People of God: Romans 11.17-21.
(f)Private revelations We notice DV speaks of no new revelation - it means no new public revelations.Public revelation is that which is contained in Scripture and Tradition,and this is complete.The promise of Christ to send the Holy Spirit to lead into all truth (John 16:13 did not mean new public revelations,but a deeper penetration into the original deposit of faith.Hence we have had new definitions and new clarity even in our day.Cf.the case of the Immaculate Conception.The commission of the Church to teach,which we saw in our sketch of Apologetics,refers only to public revelation.Any other revelation is called private,even if addressed to the world,as Fatima was.The Church does not have the commission to interpret private revelation.At most it can do the following - often does nothing: 1)can declare the private revelation does not clash with public revelation.If it did ,that part would have to be rejected. 2)May add that it seems to deserve human acceptance, in contrast to the virtue of faith. As to our response to the Church on private revelations: 1)We are not obliged to believe a decision on authenticity,since Church claims no commission on these.We should be respectful at least 2)If the local Bishop prohibits pilgrimages to the site of an alleged revelation,he has that authority,even if his decision on authenticity might be in error.So we must obey. If there seem to be further apparitions after disobedience on this point,we can be sure they are spurious.God and His Saints will not appear in order to promote disobedience.
g)Ongoing revelation?:Gabriel Moran and Sister Maria Harris,in "Revelation and Religious" ,in National Catholic Reporter,Nov.22,1967,p.6:"...revelation as used here denotes a present happening. .... It is impossible to come to a present,personal,social revelation by building upon a thing that is handed down from the past. .... God reveals himself in the fleshly existence of each man. He reveals himself too ,in the universal drives of a mankind that seeks to improve the cosmos.The one way that God does not speak is in generalities to the general mass."-- Of course,this contradicts DV 4,which we just saw.But the theory of Moran had great influence on catechetics.
h)Interpreting revelation.DV 10:"the task of authentically interpreting the word of God,whether written or handed on,has been entrusted exclusively (soli) to the living Magisterium of the Church,whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."--This is really the conclusion we reached in our sketch of apologetics.Only the magisterium of the Church has been commissioned to teach by Jesus,the Messenger sent from God. No one else has that right.
In studying Scripture there should be two phases:1)Work by the best exegetical methods - this is a human means, 2)Then compare with the statements of the Magisterium,which alone are final. If there are no statements on a given text - and there are such on very few texts-- then we note DV 12:"Since Sacred Scripture is to be read and interpreted by the same Spirit by which it was written,to rightly extract the sense of the sacred texts,one must look not less diligently to the content and unity of all of Scripture,taking into account the living Tradition of the whole Church and the analogy of faith." We gather two things:
(a)Since all Scripture has for its principal Author the Holy Spirit,therefore,there can be no contradiction.We may find differences in scope and presentation in different parts,e.g,in different Gospels.But there will never be a clash. (b)We must see how our proposed interpetation fits with the living Tradition of the Church,i.e.,its ongoing teaching,and with the "analogy of faith." This means that even where there is no explicit statement of the Church on a given text,yet any interpretation that clashes,even by implication,with any of the established truths taught by the Church,must be rejected. In this way we have a means of ruling out in advance many false interpretations.This is largely a negative sort of help - ruling out the false.It may not give us much on the positive side,i.e., what positively is true. Part of this analogy of faith is also found in what LG 12 speaks of:"The entire body of the faithful,anointed as they are by the Holy One,cannot err in matters of faith." This is sometimes called passive infallibility.It means that if the whole Church,people and authorities both,have ever,even for one period of history,believed (accepted as revealed) some truth,that cannot be in error.It is infallible. Four levels of teaching:In regard to the texts of the Magisterium too,we need to notice that there are four levels of teaching,all binding; First level: the solemn definition. LG 25 repeats the fact that the Pope can act alone,without collegiality,even in defining if he so wills.As a matter of fact,practically all major decisions in past history have been collegial. LG 25 adds that his definitions need no assent of the Church or approval of anyone else,nor do they admit room for appeal to any authority at all. Second Level:LG 25:"Although individual bishops do not have the prerogative of infallibility,they can yet teach Christ's doctrine infallibly. This is true even when they are scattered around the world,provided that,while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with the successor of Peter,they concur in a teaching as the one which must be definitively held."
Third Level.Pius XII,in Humani generis,1950, DS 3885:"Nor must it be thought that the things contained in Encyclical letters do not of themselves require assent of the mind on the plea that in them the pontiffs do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. These things are taught with the ordinary magisterium,about which it is also true to say,'He who hears you,hears me'" (Lk 10.16).And Pius XII added:"If the supreme pontiffs in their Acta expressly pass judgment on a matter debated until then,it is obvious to all that the matter,according to the mind and will of the same pontiffs cannot any longer be considered a matter open for discussion among theologians."
So these statements,under the conditions given,come under the promise:"He who hears you,hears me." Now he who hears Christ is never in error- so these teachings are really also infallible.Hence it follows that the matter in question is no longer open for debate among theologians or others.
LG 25 seeming to speak of the same thing specifies only "religious submission",instead of something that depends on faith in the words of Christ. Even so,it remains true that if a Pope intends to make anything definitive,it is infallible. No special form of words is needed.For example,in the familiar form of "si quis dixerit...AS" from Councils sometimes we find only disciplinary matters, not definitions. Yet in Vatican I (DS 3006) we read that the books of Scripture have God as their author. But this,though in a capitulum,not in a canon,was called a "solemn definition" by Pius XII,in Divino afflante Spiritu (EB 538). So all that is required to make something infallible, and coming under the virtue of faith,is the intent to make the item definitive, plus writing in such a way as to make that intent clear. The conditions given by Pius XII in Humani generis, cited above,do make that clear, namely, removing a thing from debate,and bringing it under Lk 10:16.So such things are infallible. LG 25 states that the Pope,without consulting anyone,can define. This is true since he can speak for the whole Church. (Similarly LG 22 speaks of the Pope's supreme authority in giving commands,without consulting anyone else).
Fourth level:Canon 752:"Not indeed an assent of faith,but yet a religious submission of mind and will must be given to the teaching which either the supreme pontiff or the college of bishops pronounces on faith and morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium,even if they do not intend to proclaim it by a definitive act." We notice there are some things not taught by a definitive act- not intended to be completely final.The intention is the critical factor.So these are not infallible,and do not fall under the virtue of faith,hence the assent called for is a religious submission." Vatican II,in LG 25 spoke broadly enough to cover both levels 3 and 4:"Religious submission of mind and of will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman pontiff even when he is not defining,in such a way,namely,that the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to according to his manifested mind and will,which is clear either from the nature of the documents,or from the repeated presentation of the same doctrine or from the manner of speaking."--So again,the intention of the Pope is critical.He may intend to make something definitive,when he explicitly teaches a position on a previously debated matter,or when his teachings form part of a thing taught repeatedly on the ordinary magisterium level (below level 1).Such things are infallible.But he may also not make clear that he wants a thing to be definitive,or may speak in such a way that we at least cannot be sure it is meant that way.Then we have a teaching that comes on level 4. Yet we notice again that LG 25 is not fully clear,since it speaks only of religious assent,not of assent of faith,as explained above.
How can we make an assent to a teaching which is not intended to be infallible? In everyday life we do this - we eat food from a can,without a lab check for botulism. A criminal court may sentence a man to life in prison or death even though the judge has told the jury they should find his guilt proved only "beyond reasonable doubt." Not every tiny doubt need be excluded.This is what is called moral certitude - enough for practical living.
An example of Scriptural work that ignores the fact that the Holy Spirit is author of all of Scripture,and so feels free to claim that one Gospel can contradict another is found in many authors today,e.g, Wilfrid Harrington ( Mark, Glazier,Wilmington,l979,pp. 47-48).He thinks that Mk 3.31-35 speaks of the same group as those in 3.20-21,and concludes His Mother did not believe in Him and so the passage "may be seen to distinguish those who stood outside the sphere of salvation,and those who are within it." She then would be outside the sphere of salvation.This would clash with Luke,who praises her faith from the beginning.It is outrageous!
i)Tradition: In itself it is merely the ongoing teaching of the Church. It is found in Patristic writings,but also in today's teachings.We distinguish Tradition from tradition with a small t-- merely customary things.
It grows as the Holy Spirit leads the Church into ever deeper penetration into the deposit of faith.
There was a striving for unclarity at Vatican II- some wanted to say,to please Protestants,that there is only one source.The final statement is in DV 9:"Both,coming from the one divine source coalesce as it were into one and tend to the same end." This is unfortunate lack of clarity.It really means:There is only one source,God.But what He reveals is found in two places,Scripture and Tradition.For Tradition contains things not found in Scripture. at least not clearly,e.g.,the Immaculate Conception. It is only Tradition that lets us know which books are inspired. Luther,trying to make Scripture stand aside against the Church, tried to find a criterion for inspiration.He said if a book preaches justification by faith strongly,it is inspired. Foolish! He could have written such a book,and I too,but the books would not have been inspired. And he had not proved such was the criterion. Calvin thought a book is inspired if it gives edifying thoughts. Terribly subjective.Many Protestants today give up the attempt,cf.Professor Gerald Burney Smith,who in 1910 gave a paper to the 28th annual Baptist Congress-- published next year in Biblical World 38,pp.19-29. He reviewed all ways of trying to find out,concluded it could be done only if we had a teaching authority to tell us.He did not think we did.Details chapter 2 of FFAE.
j) Historicity of the Gospels. There was intense discussion at Vatican II on this. Behind it was the idea that there are errors in Scripture,as we saw above. DV 18: "The Church always and everywhere has held and still holds that the four Gospels have an Apostolic origin." This is not the same as saying they are all by Apostles-- Mark and Luke surely are not. And even with Matthew and John - the statement is not precise enough to make definite that those Apostles were the authors. Really, a question of authorship is not a matter of revelation.But there is apostolic origin for certain in this: DV 18:"The things which the Apostles,by command of Christ,preached later,they themselves,and apostolic men,handed down to us,the foundation of the faith,namely the four-fold Gospel,according to Matthew,Mark,Luke and John". So the Apostles were the origin,whether or not they were the authors of the writing.
Really,as Form and Redaction Criticism has shown, there are three stages in the genesis of the Gospels: (1)the words and acts of Jesus,with His words adapted to His current audience. (2)The way the Apostles and others reported these-- again,with adaptation in wording to their audience (3)Some individuals within the Church,inspired by the Holy Spirit,put down in writing some part of that original teaching.
DV 19 adds:"Holy Mother Church firmly and most constantly has held and does hold that the four Gospels just mentioned,whose historicity she affirms without hesitation,faithfully hand down what Jesus,the son of God,living among men,really did and taught (reapse fecit et docuit) for their eternal salvation...." We note the word 'historicity." The writers of DV shied away from the word history, since, thanks to confusion in Germany,there is a distinction: Geschichte is not the event in itself,but what the proclamation conjures up in the mind,irrespective of its actual content. Historie is the grasping of the event through reason according to the laws of historical criticism." R.Bultmann had said we can know hardly anything about Jesus in Himself,beyond His existence .We believe the proclamation - and there is a problem of what is the gap between the reality and the proclamation. Paul VI had suggested,not commanded, using "vera seu historica fide digna"= true,worthy of historical belief, instead of what we actually find,"quae reapse fecit et docuit." The problem of the two German words led to not following his suggestion. Bede Rigaux,in his commentary on this passage in Vorgrimler,p.259,wrote: "Throughout all these discussions and misgivings we can see the clear will of the Church to accord to these synoptic Gospels their value as testimony to the reality of the events that they narrate and to the certainty with which they present us with the Person,the words and acts of Jesus."
DV 19 adds that "The Apostles indeed,after the ascension of the Lord,handed on to their hearers what He had said and done, with the fuller understanding which they enjoyed after being instructed by the glorious events of Christ and taught by the light of the Spirit of Truth." - This was not a process of first idealizing,then divinizing. No, rather, they understood more fully that He was really was divine,and this would spur their memories,and make them all the more careful to report things correctly,knowing that their eternity depended on the truth about Jesus.They did not hide their own dullness and lack of understanding that was shown earlier.(Cf.Acts 1:6 shows that even just before His ascension they still did not have the true notion of the Messiah. But they did,then,later,grasp the full meaning of things they had not really seen before,and they understood His prophecies --especially of His death and resurrection-- and probably the OT Prophecies about Him as well.Definitely we can see that the primitive Church saw Him in Isaiah 53-- the Targums also saw the Messiah there,but distorted,as we saw above.Another example: John 2.19-21 ("Destroy this temple,and in three days I will rebuild it.").Pther examles: Jn 3:22; 6:6; 12:16; 20:9.
DV 19 adds:"Moreover,the sacred authors of the four Gospels,selecting certain things out of many things, handed down orally or in writing,putting certain things into a synthesis,or explaining them for the state of the Church,finally,kept the form of preaching in such a way that they always communicated to us the honest truth (vera et sincera) about Jesus." This implies we watch for the genre of the Gospels - but it is such a genre that there are two things in it- facts are reported,with proclamation or presentation designed for faith.But that second point did not lead to any distortion or inaccurate reporting.They told rather "what He really did and said." So it is likely that Matthew grouped sayings into the Sermon on the Mount.And Luke grouped parables.
Also from DV 19:"The fact that the Evangelists report the words or deeds of the Lord in different order does not affect at all the truth of the narrative, for they keep the sense,while reporting His statements,not to the letter but in different ways." This means for one thing,that the order was not always chronological.It also means that in presenting things--as we noted in describing the three stages of the genesis of the Gospels-- they might change the words,to adapt to their audience,and to the special scope of each Gospel.But they would give the truth faithfully even so. k) What is faith,our response? We distinguish the full Pauline sense of the word faith from the narrower sense of intellectual acceptance. As to intellectual acceptance,we explained what is required in speaking of the four levels of teaching.
As to the fuller Pauline sense of faith- DV 5 explains: "The 'obedience of faith ' (Rom 16,26, cf.Rom 1.5; 2 Cor 10,5-6) by which a man commits himself wholly and freely to God,' giving to God who reveals full obedience of mind and will' and voluntarily assenting to the revelation given by Him."(DS 3008). This full sense of faith, or total commitment to God,includes the following things:1)If God speaks a truth,we must believe it in our minds; 2) if He makes a promise,we must be confident He will fulfil it; 3)if He tells us to do something,we do it,the 'obedience of faith" i.e,the obedience that faith is.4)All is to be done in love,for faith works through love (Gal 5.6).(Actually, to love God is to obey Him). With this sense of the word faith,we can hold as St.Paul does,for justification by faith.However,Luther took faith to mean merely confidence that the merits of Christ have been applied to me- giving infallible salvation, for no matter how many sins I have committed,or am committing or will commit- His merits always outweigh them. Hence Luther could write to Melanchthon (Letter 501,Aug.1,1521):"Pecca fortiter,sed crede fortius." Even if you sin greatly,believe more greatly - that it is all paid for. So you cannot help being saved, no matter what sins you will commit. (And they have the nerve to say indulgences are a permission to sin!) .Luther also said (Weimar Edition vol 3,cap 26.p.412): "No sin will separate us from the Lamb even though we commit fornication and murder a thusand times a day."
II. The Nature of God l.Our knowledge of God is entirely analogical: that is,the words we use to apply to Him and to creatures are partly same in sense,partly different. Example:In Mt 19.17 ff a young man asked Jesus:"Good Master, what must I do to attain eternal life?" Jesus answered him dramatically; "Why do you call me good? One is good." God. He meant that the word good,when applied to God,and when applied to all else,has meaning part same,part different - but the differences are much greater than the similarity. Cf.W.Most, Our Father's Plan, Introduction & Cap 1. Cf.also Plato saying that Good is "beyond being", Republic 6.509B and Plotinus, Enneads 6.9. Failure to understand this has led to the foolish, "Death of God" positions of Thomas Altizer and others: "'God is dead' are words that only truly may be spoken by...the radical Christian who speaks in response to an Incarnate Word that empties Itself of Spirit so as to appear and exist as flesh." (Radical Theology and the Death of God, Indianapolis, 1966,p.54). 2.God is a Spirit: Cf.John 4.24 (to Samaritan woman). Here we are using a term that designates an object of which we have no experience. We mean the opposite of material. Yet in early centuries, some thought spirit and matter were not opposite,e.g., cf.A.Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, I.p.119:"By the substance of God, Tertullian understands a light,fine,invisible matter which while being a unity is differentiated within itself." He got the idea from the Stoics. Cf.Tertullian, On the Soul 5.2:"It is the Stoics I am speaking of,who will easily prove that the soul is a body,even though they almost agree with us in saying that the soul is a spirit; for spirit and breath are very nearly the same thing." Tertullian got to this point because he thought body and substance were the same, and wanted to say the soul is substantial. Tertullian was early,and terminology and classifications had not yet developed. We can show from Aristotle's principles that God is not material,since He is Pure Act, and matter is potency. In OT, ruah means basically breath, then can extend to wind,or movement of air.It is also thought of as a power or force that comes from God to do what He wills. It does not seem,in OT to have taken on the meaning of disembodied soul.
2 Cor 3.17-18 speaks of God as the Spirit.
When St.Paul uses the word spirit,we need to watch to see sense from context -- he may use OT sense at times. 3.Attributes of God. As we said,all are identified with His nature.Some of the chief attributes are: Simplicity, immutability, eternity, immensity, infinity, unicity.These are negative -- we will speak of positives when we take up the divine operations. 4.Simplicity of God: Vatican I: "He is one,singular,altogether simple,and unchangeable spiritual substance". DS 3001. As we already said,He is a Spirit.But a spirit has no parts.We also saw above that He is Pure Act,no potency.Hence He is not composed of really distinct essence and existence.In creatures these are really distinct.In Him,they are not really distinct,for His very nature is to exist.Other beings need not exist.If they were necessary,we would say their essence or nature is to exist.The probable meaning of Yahweh: He who is. Some thing it means "causes to exist." But that would have to be a hiphil form of the Hebrew verb to be - not known on that verb. It is probably an (imperfective) verbal form of Hebrew haya,(perhaps originally hwy) to be. The name occurs on the Moabite Stone and may be a part of some names in Egyptian,Ugaritic,Nabatean and Amorite,and also Eblaite. In postexilic times Jews gradually developed such reverence for this name that they did not pronounce it in public reading,but used instead said Adonai, Lord. Only the priests were allowed to say it on Yom Kippur and in blessing the people (Numbers 6.23ff). At Qumran,they wrote the word in ancient Hebrew script,out of reverence. Modern devout Jews often substitute ha shem,the name.Only the consonants were written,of course.The Masoretes used the vowel points for Adonai to remind the reader to say Adonai,not Yahweh. Jehovah is merely a mistake,reading what was never intended to be there. Yet even with this absolute simplicity,God takes care of almost infinite details. Cf.Mt 10;30:"The very hairs of your head are all numbered." And in Mt 10.29 we find that not even a sparrow falls to the ground without His permission. An old Portuguese proverb says that God can write straight with crooked lines. 5.Immutability of God: The text cited above from Vatican I on simplicity also speaks of immutability. He is immutable in Himself,and also in His decrees.When the OT speaks of Him as repenting,it is only an anthropomorphism,meaning human conditions have changed,and so His rules apply differently to the different picture.From this immutability flows the conclusion that He is eternal,in the sense of having a duration that has only present,no past,no future - that would involve change. Of course,His eternal decrees are always there, but He can order them to have their effects at any point on the scale of time He designates. 6.Eternal. Vatican I,DS 3001 teaches this. It is a consequence of immutability .Time is a restless unending succession of future- present-past.But if God is immutable,there is no past,no future for Him. Our poor minds cannot begin to picture this. We say He created the world,a past statement.But to Him it is present.We say Christ will return,a future statement.But to His eye it is present. St.Thomas Aquinas,as we saw above, uses this fact to start to explain how He can know future contingents.But Thomas then stops,and does not say HOW He knows,once they are present to Him. The eternity we speak of here is not what Aristotle had in mind - he meant unending time, unending change. Our eternity really is the simultaneous possession of all of perfect life. Eternity allows for no change at all. Time allows all sorts of changes, and includes constant accidental change.Aristotle says time is a measure of change on a scale of before and after. In between there is aevum - for which we have no English word.It is a kind of duration that allows no substantial change,or constant accidental change,but only accidental change at some points.We say when someone dies he goes to eternity - a loose use of the word. Strictly, it applies only to God. Aevum is the duration for departed souls, and for angels,and for devils. 7.Immensity and ubiquity. Defined by Vatican I in DS 3001,cited above. Hebrews 4.13:"And before Him no creature is hidden,but all are open and laid bare to His eyes." Acts 17.27:"He is not far from each one of us,for in Him we live and move and have our being." 2 Chron.6.18:"Behold,heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain thee; how much less this house which I have built." Isa.40.15:"Behold,the nations are like a drop from a bucket,and are accounted as dust on the scales." A spirit does not need or use space.A spirit is present wherever it produces an effect.So God is present everywhere in that He keeps all things in existence.He is present more or again in a soul in grace,in which He lives,transforming it,making it radically capable of taking part in the life of the Holy Trinity. He can be said to come again when in Confirmation and Holy Orders, He produces additional effects. 8.Infinite in perfection: All perfections seen in creatures come from HIm,.So they are in Him too,after removing all imperfections, and raising them to the highest degree. Through them we know Him, "though a glass in a dark manner" 1 Cor 13.12. 9.Unicity. There is only one God.He is infinite,and so would coincide with any other infinite. 10.Love: 1 John 4.8 says "God is love." Love is a will for the wellbeing and happiness of another for the other's sake. If not for the other's sake, one would be using the other,not loving. The Three Persons love one another,and give selves to one another so fully that the Three are One. As to creatures: God wills all men to be saved - this is willing supreme happiness and wellbeing to creatures.Hence this salvific will is another expression of His love. Hence Ba¤ez and Cajetan who say that the salvific will is only a voluntas signi or eminent will in God, are terribly wrong. One can as it were measure love by what obstacles it can surmount to bring happiness to the other.The obstacle He surmounted was the terrible death of His Son. Hence in Rom 5.8,"God proves His love for us." The Glory of God.Vatican I defined (DS 3025) that God created for His own glory. However the sense intended was explained by Bishop Gasser, President of the Deputatio de Fide (Collectio Lacensis, VII,116): "Nam utique de fine creati et non creantis, sermo est, quia dicitur in canone,'aut mundum ad Dei gloriam conditum....'" this means that God did not create to acquire glory (finis creantis) but that creatures might reach God by glorifying Him (finis creati)." That is, He created to give, not to receive - He cannot receive anything. This love for us is brilliantly explained in the Haurietis aquas Encyclical on the Sacred Heart, of Pius XII. The Heart of Jesus is as it were the organ of divine love for us. He has a threefold love: (1)The love in as much as He is God; (2) The love in His human spiritual will; (3) A love in the sphere of feeling,since He as a real humanity..
Still further, so no one could suspect that His Heart,being divine, has ways that are above our ways as the heavens are above the earth (Isa 55.8-9),and so we could not feel secure about His love - improper suspicion - He has added the love of the Immaculate Heart of Mary for us -- a Heart fully in unison with the Heart of God,yet a heart that is entirely human. Pius XII,ibid, taught that devotion to the Sacred Heart is not a peripheral thing,but part of the mainline of our religion - for it is honor paid to the love of God for us, as found in the Heart of His Son. His love is also expressed in the New Covenant,in which He paid the price of redemption (cf.1 Cor 6.20) and therefore the Father pledged a similarly infinite gift,an inexhaustible treasury (claim to ) of grace and forgiveness.This is not just for the human race in a block, but for each individual human: Gal 2.20. Vatican II, Church in Modern World #22, explained:"Each one of us can say with the Apostle: the Son of God loved me,and gave Himself for me." Hence there is in favor of each one,an infinite objective claim to grace and forgiveness. -- How then could anyone fail? Could someone live it up and pull up short at the end? Reply: Then he would become hardened,and incapable of perceiving the light of grace. Cf.Mt 6.21: "Where your treasure is,there is your heart also" , as explained in Our Father's Plan, cap.19. On the covenants which really are infinity beyond infinity, cf.OFP, chapters 3-11. (More in our treatment of Providence and Predestination). 11.He is identified with His perfections: It is theologically accurate to say God is love,for He is identified with His perfections. Similarly,we must say He does not have intellect or will,but He is intellect and will.And He is justice,He is mercy - therefore justice and mercy are identified in Him. We can only begin to understand how that can be. We think of a man who gets drunk for the first time. Next day,since it was the first time,he will have guilt feelings, from the clash of his faith and his actions. But our nature tries to get rid of clashes, and it will happen: either he will align his acts with his faith,or his beliefs will be pulled into line with his actions. As a result,after some time,he will no longer see anything wrong with getting drunk.And since moral truths,and others too are interconnected,his whole belief structure can be altered over a period of time.We could compare this to a spiral that feeds on itself,getting larger as it goes out. There is a spiral in the good direction too. If someone lives strongly on his faith that this world is of scant worth compared to the next,his ability to see spiritual truth grows,again,in a spiral. Now in both spirals we see simultaneously mercy and justice. In the bad spiral, he deserves to be blinded, yet that blinding is also mercy,for the more we know the greater our responsibility (responsibility at the time of sinning is less --if he foresaw earlier he would become thus,and went ahead,he contracted added guilt then - probably did not foresee it). On the good spiral we see mercy,for the light given,like all gifts of God are in the most basic sense mercy: no one can by his own power establish a claim on God. Yet it is also justice,for his actions have (in a secondary sense) earned greater light. 12.Truths beyond reason.We can learn many things about God by reason- as we saw in our first section,and also now.But to go farther,revelation is needed,especially on truths like the Holy Trinity,which reason alone could never discover,and cannot in this life understand. -- We will study the Holy Trinity more later in this course -- (Some help now:God is love. Love is desire for wellbeing of other,and leads to gift of self -- in Holy Trinity,each Person gives self so fully that all are one,distinguished only by relationships of origin). 13.All works outside the divine nature are common to the Three Persons. Defined by Lateran Council (not general,but held with Pope Martin I, and has an anathema in the canon):DS 501.Also Pius XII,Mystici Corporis, DS 3814. Yet here we encounter transcendence again.For if all are common,how can only the Second Person be Incarnate? (Can we say:relationship is given to the humanity only to the Second Person?) And theological reasoning forces us to say that God does not change in becoming Incarnate - yet that seems to mean that the humanity has a relation to the Second Person,but the Second Person has no relation to the humanity (else would acquire something not had before,have passivity). Yet we appropriate some works to one Person rather than to another - creation to the Father, redemption to Second Person, sanctification to the Holy Spirit. Redemption really is proper to the Second Person alone - other things are common to all three. 13.Providence: The universal preaching of the Church,which is infallible (LG 25) has always taught this providence.It is all over Scripture.
Providence governs nature,e.g,Wisdom 8.1:"[Wisdom] reaches from end to end mightily and governs everything well." Jesus spoke beautifully of God's care for the lilies,the sparrows,sun and rain etc: Mt 6.25-34; 10,28-31. Providence also governs human beings.Prov.21.1:"The heart of the king is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord.He turns it wherever He wills." Wisdom 6.8-9 says man is like the clay of the potter in His hand.
Here we distinguish internal and external economies. External economy: Deals with the question of what position a person will have in the ordering of the world: will he be a doctor,lawyer,shoemaker etc.It also deals with the course of the events of nations - hence Prov.21.1 says the heart of the king is turned wherever God wills. Internal economy : this deals with all that directly or indirectly control the eternal salvation of a man.
As to internal economy: God does not ordinarily move infrustrably in this economy (in such a way that He makes the first decision and the human seconds it freely but infallibly. This would be secondary, not primary freedom):a) If He did, there could be no one lost, for God could not say He wills all to be saved (1 Tim 2.4) and at the same time so move a man that he would not attain salvation. He can,in extraordinary cases, move one infrustrably toward good - this is the case with extraordinary graces (cf.Fatima request to pray and make sacrifices for sinners for many are lost if no one does that for them). b) He has given free will.In infrustrable movement,there is only secondary liberty,i.e.,to second what God was the first to determine.This would be a reduced liberty.As we said,God can do this extraordinarily, for good, of course, not for evil. The conversion of St.Augustine was such a case.It happens when someone puts into the scales of the objective order and extraordinary weight,heroic actions, to call for and as it were balance an extraordinary grace. As to the external economy: the reasons given under (a) with regard to final salvation, do not apply to merely external matters, who will be a doctor or shoemaker etc.Nor does God contradict Himself if He uses such movements here (cf.b) above) for He has not made a commitment here to grant primary liberty (that in which the first decision comes from the human,not from God),since eternal salvation is not at stake.Cf Wm. Most, New Answers to Old Questions 116-44. In the internal economy,since there is primary freedom and salvation is at stake,there arises the question of human interaction with the power or grace of God. St.Paul has two sets of statements: 2 Cor 3.5 and Phil 2.13 speak of our need of Him to have a good thought and to make a good act of will,and to carry it out.On the other hand, 2 Cor 6.1 -- and all of Scripture,exhorting us to turn to God -- imply we control in some way the outcome even when grace comes. To explain the HOW of these truths has brought bitter and long debates. On them cf. New Answers to Old Questions 342 -60. Aristotle's potency/act is helpful here. God can actualize the potency of a man's mind to see something as good - or refrain from doing so, and by this way, affect the outcome. E.g.,Jesus did not at first actualize the potency of the disciples' minds to know Him as they walked to Emmaus - after a bit,He did so.So there was no deception -- just not providing actualization. God brings good out of evil,e.g,Genesis 50.19-20 where Joseph tells his brothers they planned evil,but God brought good out of it. Various Dualisms argue: There are good things in the world,so a good God made them; but there are evils,so some other power (not necessarily a god) made them.- The error is in the notion of evil - they think it a positive, it is really a privative negative. Providence has promised to protect the teaching of the Church - and God has also given free will.Often enough these two go in opposite directions.So He draws a fine line,a sort of brinkmanship. As a result, in reading documents of Magisterium,we must read the text with great care,and study the history of the document to see what senses they attached to the words - for words often shift in meaning. But when we know,historically,that a certain idea was in the mind of the writers, but did not get down on paper,we must hold tightly to only what is put down on paper.Thus the drafters of the teaching on transubstantiation had in mind Thomistic philosophy, but did not canonize it.We take the word substance in the everyday sense,not the technical sense. Again Gregory XVI,Pius IX and Leo XIII may have had in mind more stringent demands against Protestants than they managed to set down on paper. So we draw again the tight line,and there is no contradiction with Vatican II, On Religious Liberty. The strongest text, from Pius IX, Quanta cura, said the state has an obligation to do more than just suppress things where public order demands that. Vatican II said religious liberty -liberty from being coerced by the state-- is only within due limits." But Vatican II also added in 7 that the state must exercise "due custody for public morality" and also in 4 said protestant churches must abstain from any action that would involve "improper persuasion aimed at the less intelligent or the poor." God's knowledge: When we know,we do it either actively,by causing something, or passively,by taking on an impression and information we had lacked. God cannot lack anything,so the passive mode seems wrong for Him. But neither should we say He knows only what He causes - He would then be like a blind man.The Thomists commonly do say He knows only by causing. But St.Thomas, to explain His knowledge of future contingents, has recourse to eternity to make them present. Then Thomas stops short, and does not try to explain HOW He knows them when they are present. If Thomas really had in mind that God knows all by infrustrable causality, then no need to appeal to eternity,for then even as future they would be knowable. He would know them by intending to cause them. So we appeal to transcendence,as we did above in speaking of inspiration: He is above and beyond all our categories.This is especially clear in His knowledge of the futuribles - which eternity cannot make present,since they will not be, but only would be. Yet Scripture shows Him as knowing these. Attempts to explain the knowledge of God have resulted in bizarre errors: Aristotle (Metaphysics 12.9) thought He thought only of thinking,and so did not know other things. Plotinus thought Him unconscious: else a duality, He and His thought.
14.Predestination: This is an arrangement of Divine Providence to see that someone (or some people) gets something.Gets what? Either of two things: full membership in the Church/People of God - or, gets to Heaven. OT never speaks of predestination. NT in a few places,chiefly Rom 8.29ff and Eph.1.4ff,speaks of predestination,but only of predestination to full membership in the Church - failure to notice this context led to the bitter debates starting in 1597 by order of Clement VIII,ended by Paul V in 1607. Cf.Our Father's Plan chapter 12. The "Thomists" have held and do hold that God decides both predestination to heaven and negative reprobation, without taking into account how a person lives, merits and demerits.But this leaves no room for the universal salvific will of 1 Tim 2.4:"God wills all men to be saved". Later Thomists and Thomists today try to say there is room, but the founder of the system,Domingo Ba¤ez OP explicitly wrote that there is no room. He said (Scholastica Commentaria in primam partem...Romae,1584.In 1.19.6.c.col 363) that that will to save all is not in God formally,but only eminently - that is,He Himself does not will all men to be saved -- He causes people to wish that,and so we could attribute it to Him.The eminent Dominican theologian, Cardinal Cajetan, agreed with Ba¤ez (cf.New Answers to Old Questions, p.93 55). And when we know that the whole theory is really a refurbished version of St.Augustine's massa damnata, we can really see the truth. For St.Augustine in at least 5 places insists that God does NOT want all to be saved (cf.New Answers to Old Questions, 206) -- only a small percent,whom He picks blindly - and so does not really care about any individual. He rescues some few, just to make a point,to show mercy. The rest,He deserts to show justice.(New Answers to Old Questions, 209-10). We offer two pieces of evidence for the above: First evidence:we notice how the theory really works.Many Thomists claim that negative reprobation means God decides to permit sins He will not forgive -- and then positively condemns people for those sins.(Some Thomists think reprobation is a positive exclusion from glory as from something not due: John of St.Thomas, Alvarez, Salmanticenses and others: Garrigou- Lagrange,De Deo uno,p.532). But the usual Thomist theory holds there are two kinds of actual graces -- sufficient,and efficacious.If God sends a sufficient grace,it gives the full power to do a good thing - but it is absolutely certain the man will not do good, but will sin.The reason is that he still lacks the application of that sufficient grace,without which it is metaphysically impossible to do good with the grace. (A comparison: fire has the power to cook food, but will never do it unless a cook applies the fire to the food or vice versa. Cf.St.Thomas, Contra Gentiles 3.67). They sometimes add: If a person does not resist a sufficient grace, or prays, then he will get the efficacious grace.-- But this does not solve the problem - for they say he needs an efficacious grace of nonresistance or an efficacious grace of prayer, so they are back at square one. This is not willing all men to be saved -- and further,did not Jesus earn all graces by His death,so that St.Paul could say in joy (Rom.5.9):"But God proves His love for us in that while we were yet sinners,Christ died for us.Since therefore we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God." And similarly (Romans 8.32): "He who did not spare his own Son, but gave Him up for us all, will he not also give us all things with him?"-- In other words:God went so far as to send His Son to a horrible death to save us when we were still enemies -- now that we have been justified, will He withhold anything that His Son has earned for us? Of course not.So He will not, for no fault in a man, withhold the grace that without which it is not possible for a man to do good instead of sinning. Also,St.Paul says in Gal 2.20: "The Son of God loved me,and gave Himself for me." That is, He died for each individual person. Vatican II, Church in Modern World 22 says,"Each one of us can say with the Apostle, the Son of God loved me,and gave Himself for me.So there is an infinite objective title to grace in favor of each individual man. How then could He simply decide not to give what Jesus earned? Would He withhold it so as to permit sin for the purpose of showing justice by punishing? What kind of justice, when the person is metaphysically incapable of not sinning when he gets only a sufficient grace? And, according to them, efficacious grace is not extraordinary, it belongs to the ordinary sphere. Second evidence: Garrigou-Lagrange,a great defender of the Thomist position, gave away the truth when he wrote (De Deo uno,p.525): "This principle of predilection is revealed in these words of St.Paul,1 Cor 4.7:"'Who has distinguished you?'" Hence (p.363):"According to these words of St.Paul,the distinguishing of one from the other ultimately must be sought not in the human will,but in God,who by His grace distinguishes one from the other." So then God will determine the eternal fate of a person without taking into account any condition within the person.How then could He still say He wills all men to be saved? - It is true, we will have no good unless God gives it to us. But Garrigou forgot that God does not give us our resistance to grace - we do that on our own. So there is something in man on which a difference can be made. Further,in 1 Cor 4.7 Paul was really blocking - if one does not ignore the context -- the pride of the Corinthians who were proud they got into the Church and got into a special faction within the Church. To blunt their pride, Paul says (1 Cor 12.26-31): Look at your community: There are not many distinguished people in it, as the world counts things. He was not speaking of predestination or reprobation to heaven or hell. Molinists said God decrees predestination and reprobation only after considering merits and demerits.But He could not decree predestination after merits,since merits are the result of His own gift - it would be a vicious circle. New Answers to Old Questions solution: There are 3 logical moments in God's decisions on this: (1)He wills all to be saved - really and strongly, (2)He sees some resisting His graces gravely and so persistently that they could not be saved - with regret, He reprobates them, (3) All others He predestines - without merits yet being seen, and not even because of the lack of grave and persistent demerits, but because, in stage 1,that is what He wanted from the start,and they are not stopping Him.This is also parallel to the relation of children to parents in a normally good family.It may be seen implied in Rom 6.23:"The wages (what we earn) of sin is death,but the free gift of God (unearned) is eternal life." Hence Paul often speaks of heaven as an inheritance, e.g.,1 Cor 6.9 & 10. We do not earn an inheritance,but we could earn to forfeit it. We will consider later predestination to full membership in the People of God,and the election of Israel and the problem of "No salvation outside the Church". Luther held a blind predestination (The Bondage of the Will,tr.J.L.Packer,& O.R Johnston ,Flemming H.Revell Co.,Old Tappan.N.J.,1957,pp.103-04: "So man's will is like a beast standing between two riders.If God rides,it wills and goes where God wills....If Satan rides,it wills and goes where Satan wills.Nor may it choose to which rider it wil run...the riders themselves fight to decide who shall have and hold it."
St.Thomas Aquinas was not the real author of the system of Ba¤ez.Thomas saw two starting points. In Contra Gentiles 3.159:"...a man by the movement of free will can neither merit nor obtain divine grace,yet he can block himself from receiving it..... But they alone are deprived of grace who set up in themselves an impediment to grace,just as,when the sun shines on the world, he deserves blame who shuts his eyes if any evil comes thererby even though he could not see without having the light of the sun."
Had Thomas followed up this train of thought he might have reached the solution we offered above.
Thomas had a second starting point,namely the errors of Augustine commenting on Romans 8:29ff. But in CG 3.163 Thomas folllowed Augustine: "some by the divine working are directed to their ultimate end...but others ,deserted by the help of grace fail to rreach the ultimate end and because all things that God does are provided and ordained from eternity.According therefore as He directed certain ones from eternity to be sent to their ultimate end,He is said to have predestined them....But those to whom He planned from eternity that He would not give grce,He is said to have reprobated or hated.....'
In 3.159 God is like the sun who offers light to all.But in 3.161 God foreordains not to give light to some.
In his Commentary on Romans 9.2 &3 he has a mixture:" inasmuch that is,as God proposes to punish the wicked for sins,which they have of themselves,not from God,but He proposes to reward the just because of merits which they do not have of themselves.Osee 13,9:"Your ruin is from yourself,Israel,only in me is your help".
III.Creation 1.Philology The word bara could be used broadly,for making. Cf.use in Numbers 16.30; Isaiah 4.5;41.20. Yet even philologically, from context, it is more likely making out of nothing. Notes on the New Translation of The Torah,ed.Harry M.Orlinsky (Jewish Publication Society,Phila.1969) p.51:"The implications of the new translation ["When God began to create"] are clear.The Hebrew text tells us nothing about 'creation out of nothing' ( creatio ex nihilo),or about the beginning of time....the first thing God did when He created the universe,as ancient man knew it,was to create light....light ('or) was the first element to receive a name (that is, official existence) from God." However, the translation given by Orlinsky seems not to have been known earlier than Rashi (Rabbi Shelomoh Ben Yishaq) -- 1040- 1105 AD. The rendering "when...began" which some claim, are justified thus:The Hebrew of the first words is:Bereshith bara.The question turns about that first word: Is it really two words: be reshith, as the usual translation takes it,or is it just one word in what is called a construct state (indicating that there is felt an English of after it in translation? The first vowel, be, not ba indicates construct, not absolute state. Construct state would not have an article,and hence would have be. Absolute state would take an article,which would give its vowel a to the be making it ba. It is also argued that the ending -th points to construct state.-- On the other hand: there are some other words ending in th that are absolute, e.g, esheth,wife.Further,if we want to take bereshith as construct, we would have to amend bara to bero (construct infinitive. But not even Rashi did that. Also, the ancient versions seem to suppose the traditional translation: Targum Onkelos ("In ancient times the Lord created"), and Targum Neofiti ("From the beginning with wisdom the son of the Lord perfected (shaklil) the heavens and the earth"). a)Creation proved by reason alone: (1) When something changes, it rises from potency to act. In this, higher or new being appears. No one gives what he does not have.So where does the extra come from? Perhaps the one who acts has that added being somewhere within himself. But then: where did that part of him get it? So we look for an outside source or cause. We may imagine a long or short chain of such causes, but the problem is not solved as long as we look only at beings that had to get up from potency to act. (3)The problem has no final answer until we reach a mover that does not labor under the problem of getting up from potency to act,because it is simply actuality.That is the Unmoved Mover.If He were compound of potency and act, He would have the problem of getting up from potency to act. (4)Matter too in its very existence, has the same problem of getting up from potential to actual existence. That potency cannot exist alone. So the Mover that caused its existence brought it up from something that did not exist alone to reality. -- Aristotle did not see this himself. He tried in vain to prove that the spheres in the sky always existed and were always in movement (Physics 8.1). But his principles call for creation.
It would be possible for God to have created ab aeterno - since He always has the power to create. We prove that the world did not always exist by Magisterium (below) or from natural science (measurements of decay of radioactivity).
The proof just given for creation is not religious - it does not bring in reverence or worship,it is a purely intellectual exercise. Hence to teach creation in a school, by nature need not be religious - though of course it could be presented in a religious way. b)Magisterium:Defined by IV Lateran in 1215: DS 800: "God... from the beginning of time, made both kinds of creatures, spiritual and bodily, out of nothing." c)Documentary Hypothesis:This is the theory that 4 documents are to be found in the Pentateuch: Elohist 1 (E); Elohist 2 (P -- name changed to Priestly source); Yahwist (J); Deuteronomist (D).
Richard Simon,a priest ( 1638-1712) thought some "public secretaries" gradually added to the Pentateuch up to time of Ezra (5th cent). A Protestant.H.B.Witter,in 1711, was the first to suggest that different names for God could point to different documents. J.Astruc, a Catholic, in 1753, was the first to divide Genesis into documents. Karl Ilgen in 1798 divided Elohist into E l and E 2 (latter now is P). Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918) refined the theories. Thought Pentateuch and Joshua reached present form after Exile, c.450 BC. Earlier, he thought Israel had a naturist religion, then the prophets introduced ethical monotheism. (Wellhausen's interpretation of texts and events was based on pagan Arabic parallels. He, like the 19th century in general, did not have good data on the ancient world And he admitted he was influenced by Hegelian concepts). This theory has been dominant until recently. The Pontifical Biblical Commission,on June 27,1906 while holding Mosaic authorship of Pentateuch, said perhaps Moses entrusted work to one or several men to write, and finally approved it. It also said that there could have been modifications in the Pentateuch after the death of Moses, by an inspired author, and that the language forms could have been updated. John Paul II in his general audience talks on Genesis, e.g., on Sept 12 & 19, 1979, Jan 2,1980, spoke favorably, took for granted the theory is true. But it is now under heavy attack. Yehuda Radday, coordinator of the Technion Institute (Israel) project, fed Genesis into a computer programmed to make a thorough linguistic analysis of words,phrases and passages. His conclusion:It is most probable that the book of Genesis was written by one person. (Newsweek ,Sept 28, 1981, p.59 and Y.T.Radday & H.Shore, Genesis: An Authorship Study in Computer-assisted Statistical Linguistics, in Analecta Biblica 103,1985). Eugene Maly,in Jerome Biblical Commentary (I,p.5, 24,1968 ed.) wrote: "Moses...is at the heart of the Pentateuch and can,in accord with the common acceptance of the ancient period,correctly be called its author." Joseph Blenkinsopp,in his review of R.N.Whybray,The Making of the Pentateuch,JSOT Suppl. 5., Sheffield, 1987, wrote (CBQ Jan,1989, pp.138-39): "It is widely known by now that the documentary hypothesis is in serious trouble, with no viable alternative yet in sight.... He [Whybray] has no difficulty in exposing the fragility of many of the arguments advanced in support of the documentary hypothesis in its classical Wellhausenian form. The criteria for distinguishing one source from another called for an unreasonable level of consistency within the sources, leading the documentary critic to postulate a multitude of subsidiary sources...and thus pointing to the collapse of the hypothesis from within. Curiously, too, the same consistency was not required of the redactors, who left untouched the many inconsistencies and repetitions which called forth the hypothesis in the first place." Whybray proposes that the Pentateuch is the work of a single "controlling genius" (p.235) no earlier than 6th century B.C., who used a wide variety of sources not all of high antiquity. - Problem with that proposal is that it does not seem to take into account the probable long development of the legal tradition of Israel.-- Cf.also Isaac M.Kikawada,& Arthur Quinn, Before Abraham Was, Abingdon, Nashville,1985. (This work tries to find elaborate patterns which would cut across the lines of the supposed sources. The authors think the sin was refusing to fulfill the command, "Increase and Multiply": pp.68 & 81.n.9. But such a refusal would spread over a long period, whereas the Genesis account seems to portray a single occasion sin with a specific temptation. To refuse to have sex so as to multiply -- what sort of temptation would it be to make the refusal?). (For an earlier attack, very thorough, see U.Cassuto, Professor of Hebrew University, Jerusalem, The Documentary Hypothesis, tr.from Hebrew by Israel Abrahams,1961. Jerusalem,Magnes press, Hebrew University. It is distributed in British Commonwealth and Europe by Oxford University Press. Hebrew original was 1941). Cf.also K.A.Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament, InterVarsity Press, Downer's Grove,Il, 1966, for an answer to the reasons proposed for the existence of several sources, by comparison with other Near Eastern literature. d)Enuma Elish?: It is often said today that the author of Genesis used Mesopotamian myths. But the similarity is practically nonexistent. Here are the opening lines of the Enuma Elish: "When on high the heaven had not yet been named [did not exist], firm ground below had not yet been called by name, naught but primordial Apsu [sweet water] their begetter and Mummu-Tiamat [salt water sea], she who bore them all, their waters commingling as a single body; no reed hut had been matted, no marsh land had appeared, when no gods whatever had been brought into being, uncalled by name,their destinies undetermined: then it was that the gods were formed within them...." The only similarity is that all starts with something like a chaos - yet not entirely so, for there are two distinct bodies, sweet water and salt water. Really, this was a generalization from the experience of the Mesopotamians, who saw new land appearing at the point where the two kinds of waters met,i.e., at the point where the Tigris and Euphrates entered the Persian Gulf. This is a crude notion, and has nothing in common with Genesis. The really common feature is one found in many Near Eastern cultures: to name is the same as to bring into existence. [So, when the Messiah is said in many Rabbinic documents to have been named before the world began, it is apt to mean he had a preexistence].- on the Enuma Elish, see, Alexander Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis,Univ.of Chicago,1951. Heidel thinks the poem goes back to the First Dynasty of Babylon, which he dates 1894- 1595 BC, with strands still older going back to Sumer. He gives complete text in translation, and other Mesopotamian variants, and discussion of similarities to OT. He sees too many similarities (p.129), which are too general. Enuma Elish does have the same sequence of creation of light, firmament, dry land, luminaries, man. But most of this is on only one of the 7 tablets,on tablet V. Most of the story is quite other. Heidel admits, p.130: "In fact, the divergences are much more far-reaching and significant than are the resemblances." Even so, he thinks there must be a relation of Genesis and Enuma Elish - but the grounds are insufficient. Further, Heidel did not notice that Enuma Elish is based on observation of the way land formed by the mixing of waters - no such thing in Genesis, no such process.
Heidel also has another work, The Gilgamesh Epic, Univ.of Chicago,1949. There is one part within it,the story of the flood,which really is remarkably similar to the account of the flood in Genesis.
Generalization from experience shows also in a common Egyptian creation myth: The god Atum (meaning: totality - later, Ra-atum) stood on a mud hillock which arose out of the primordial waters (nun). He named the parts of his body,and so produced the first gods. A different version of the myth says since he had no female mate, he produced seed by masturbation. Then the resulting male and female deities took up the task of generation, produced further things. This myth seems to have been one of the oldest in Egypt. When Memphis became dominant, the question came up: where did Atum come from? They replied: Ptah, the god of Memphis, was the heart and tongue of the gods. Through the thought of the heart and the expression of the tongue, Atum himself and all other gods came into being. (Cf.John A.Wilson, The Culture of Ancient Egypt, Univ.of Chicago Press, 1951. esp.pp.58-60). -- The Egyptian myth, like the Mesopotamian, was generalization from Egyptian experience. When the annual flood of the Nile began to recede, the first things to appear were mud hillocks, sticking up through the water. In the heat and moisture, they were very fertile. 2.Angels and Their Fall a)Existence of angels: Lateran IV. DB 428.DS 800: "God...from the beginning of time, made both kinds of creatures, spiritual and bodily, out of nothing, that is angelic and worldly....For the devil and other demons were created good by nature by God, but they of themselves became wicked." - Some claim the definition covers only the fact that God created all, only indirectly the existence of angels. Even so, the doctrine is infallible by repetition on Ordinary Magisterium, and by universal belief (cf.LG 12). Vatican I-- DB 1783.DS 3002 repeated these words of Lateran IV. Some exegetes said that an angel may be only a literary device- cf.Judges, chapter 6, where there is a sort of alternation between the angel speaking and God speaking. It is quite possible that at an early period the inspired author did not know of separate beings, and really did intend to use just a literary device. However, later texts of OT and texts all over NT make clear that angels are separate beings. Since we ought to understand Scripture the way the original readers did, there is no doubt they knew of separate beings. b)Choirs of Angels: St.Paul speaks of angels, and once of an archangel (1 Th 4.16.). Ephesians 1.21 speaks of "every principality, power, virtue and domination". Col 1.16 speaks of "thrones, dominations, principalities or powers." Between Col and Eph we have 5 kinds (not counting angels and archangels). If we add the Cherubim (eg.Gen 3.24) and Seraphim (e.g., Is 6.2) of the OT we get nine classes. However St.Paul seems to regard these beings as evil spirits: Eph 6.12; Col 2.15. In Eph and Col he is fighting against the claims found in those churches that we must worship such spirit powers besides Christ. So he says they are just evil spirits. We are not sure if he is fighting against Gnostic ideas or those of Jewish Apocalyptic. (The imagery of cherubim seems derived from monstrous composite animals with wings found in much Near Eastern art and in Egypt.) It was Pseudo-Dionysius, in his Celestial Hierarchy who first proposed the nine choirs. We conclude: there is no Scriptural basis for the nine choirs of angels. c)Spirituality of angels: (1) Some Fathers thought they might have bodies. Thus, St.Justin Martyr, alluding it seems to Gen.6.1-4, wrote (Apology 2.5): "The angels transgressed this arrangement [taxin] and, captivated by love of women, begot children who are those that are called demons." (Implies some beings could be evil by nature!). And in Dialogue 37.2:"It is evident that they are nourished in the heavens, even though they are not nourished by food similar to what humans use -- for about the food of manna, which nourished our fathers in the desert, Scripture says thus, that men ate the bread of angels." (Ps.77.25 in LXX:"Man ate the bread of angels"). (Justin does not notice the matter of genre).
St.Fulgentius, De Trinitate 9: "Great and learned men assert that they are of two kinds of substance, that is, of incorporeal spirit...and of the body by which at times they appear to men.... So they say that the angels have an ethereal body, that is, of fire, but that the wicked angels...have an airy body." (COMMENT: Does he mean they always have the body,or only take it on to appear?) St.Augustine, City of God 21.10: "Unless that demons have certain bodies of their own, as it seems to learned men, of this crass and humid air whose impulse is felt when the wind blows." St.Bernard, Sermon on Canticles 5.7: "The Fathers seem to have had diverse views...and I admit I do not know." Cajetan,On Ephesians 2.1; "I would believe that the demons are airy spirits.... But by the word air I do not mean the element of air,but a subtle body unknown to our senses." (Elsewhere, commenting on Summa I.q.50) he seems to think them pure spirits. (2) Some Fathers rule out a body: Lactantius (R 646); Eusebius of Caesarea (R 667); St.Gregory of Nyssa (R.1026); St.John Chrysostom (R 1152); Theodoret (R 2156); St.Gregory the Great (R 2307). But the same Gregory also says that compared to us they are spirits, but compared to God they are bodily:R.2303. St.John Damascene (R 2351) and St.Ambrose (2.5.58) seem to say the same as Gregory. (3) Magisterium: As we saw above.Lateran IV defined that God made spiritual and bodily creatures. Some theologians think the Council meant only to reject a crass body - for they were defining against the Albigensians and the Cathari -- and did not rule out a subtle body. Vatican I,DB 1783.DS 3002 quotes Lateran IV. d)Fall of Angels: It is evident that the angels must all have been given sanctifying grace before their fall, for God intended them to reach the vision of God. Had they had that vision, they would have been incapable of sinning. So they did not have the vision, but since God intended them to reach it,He gave the means, grace. They probably received this grace in the very moment of their creation. Some of them fell,and became devils. What sin? St.Thomas and most of the Fathers think it was a sin of pride (ST I.63.2). A few, who thought angels have bodies, thought it was sexual sin: Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian (thinking of Genesis 6.1- 4.The sense of Gen 6.1-4 is debated. Jewish extrabiblical tradition of 2-1 centuries BC thought it told of intercourse of angels with human women.[Thus Philo, De gigantibus,6ss and Josephus, Antiquities 1.3.1]. St.Justin Martyr held this: Apology 2.5. Today some think the lines of Gen 6 1-4 were a myth taken over by the sacred author, understood by him as such, but used to describe the terrible wickedness of humanity before the flood - for the story of the flood follows at once. Targums Pseudo- Jonathan and Onkelos make them magnates or princes, not angels). Why no second chance for devils? Because their intellect does not have the limits ours has. (Our mind is discursive,theirs is intuitive. Ours is limited by the fact that our spiritual intellect, that of the soul, is tied to the material mind in our brain - no matter how fine a material instrument, it is of small power compared to a spiritual intellect without that limit upon it. If a human sins, he can always go back later, see something more clearly and decide: I see I should not have done that. I wish I had not done that, I do not intend to do it any more.But an angel sees at once with the maximum clarity it will ever have. Hence there is no room for reconsideration leading to repentance. (Cf.ST I.64.2). How many angels fell? St.Thomas thinks more remained good than fell (ST I.63.9). He thinks that sin was contrary to their natural inclination, and hence more persevered in good. e)Guardian Angels: It is certain from the Feast of the Guardian Angels,and from universal teaching of the Church,and universal belief (cf LG 12,that there are guardian angels. Is there one for each human being? That seems to be implied in the Feast and universal teaching and belief.Hence the belief is infallible. Angels have great powers that are merely natural to them,going beyond human powers.Hence the Guardian Angels,if we cultivate them,can and will help much in many things. Could one angel be guardian for more than one human?. Yes. We compare the case of the Blessed Mother, Mother of all of us. She has a light of glory in proportion to grace so great that Pius IX said "none greater under God can be thought of,and no one but God can comprehend it." So although humans are numerous,we are not infinite in number,and so not beyond the capacity of so great a soul to attend to and care for. Now an angel's intellect is far below hers of course.Yet it is surely not too much to suppose one angel could care for many. Why an angelic care if the care of the Bl.Mother is so great? For the same reason for which The Father wants to employ her, even though He Himself loves and cares for us. He loves good order,and as ST I.19.5.c. says, He likes to have one thing in place to serve as a title for another,even though the title does not move Him. This also makes all richer for us,and so appeals to His love for us. For more development cf.Our Father's Plan caps.4- 11. We add this: God permits fallen angels to tempt us - once He gave the gift of free will to them, He will not go back on that. But He can and does compensate and more than compensate,by giving each of us the special powerful help of our Guardian Angel. St.Augustine speaks of two kinds of knowledge in angels - morning and evening knowledge (De Genesi ad Litteram.4.23.40). Morning knowledge they have in Verbo -- in the vision of God. Evening knowledge is what they have of creatures in themselves. 3.Evolution and Polygenism: We can approach these questions in two ways,by theology/Scripture, and by natural science.If we work correctly, the answers will not clash, and finally will be the same. a)Theological approach:Magisterium: Pius XII,Humani generis,1950. DB 2327, DS 3896:"The Magisterium of the Church does not prohibit that the doctrine of 'evolution', that is about the origin of the human body from preexistent and living matter - since the Catholic faith orders us to retain that human souls are immediately created by God - be discussed in accord with the present state of human disciplines and sacred theology, by those skilled in both fields." He added some are rash in claiming evolution is proved. But then, about polygenism, in DS 3897: "But when we consider another conjectural opinion, that is, polygenism as it is called, then the sons of the Church do not at all enjoy the same freedom [as on bodily evolution]. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion -- those who hold it say either that after Adam there were real humans who were not descended from him as first parent, or they say that Adam means a multitude of first parents -- because it is by no means clear how a view of this kind could be in agreement with the things which the sources of revealed truth and the actions of the Magisterium of the Church present about original sin, which comes from a sin really committed by one Adam, and which, being transmitted by generation into all, is in each one as his own."
COMMENT: 1.It is implied that the theory of evolution does not contradict Scripture or Magisterium - else the Pope could not have allowed it to be considered even as a possibility.-- The Fathers, in speaking of creation, usually spoke in the allegorical sense. Ecclesiastical preachers in retelling the story in the same or similar words did not thereby give an interpretation. Nor did the Church ever do so. St.Augustine (De Genesi ad litteram 6.12.20.PL 34.347) wrote: "That God made man with bodily hands from the clay is an excessively childish thought, so that if Scripture had said this, we should rather believe that the one who wrote it used a metaphorical term than to suppose God is bounded by such lines of limbs as we see in our bodies."-- Again, in City of God 15.8,he raises the question: How can Genesis 4.17 say Cain built a city and named it for his son Enoch, when there were only 3 or 4 men on earth? He replies: Scripture did not try to name all, it wanted to name only enough for its purpose,to show the line of descent of City of God and of the City of this world. St.John Chrysostom in his Homilies on Genesis, in commenting on Gen 2.12 (PG 53.121) takes the formation of Eve from Adam's rib as a case of synkatabasis - condescension,adaptation to human ways: "See the condescension of divine Scripture, what words it uses because of our weakness. 'And He took, it says, one of his ribs.' Do not take what is said in a human way, but understand that the crassness of the words fits human weakness." John Paul II, in a General Audience of Nov.7,1979 said this rib episode is a way of expressing the unity of humanity: "Man (adam) falls into 'sleep' in order to wake up 'male' and 'female' ....Perhaps therefore, the analogy of sleep indicates here not so much a passing from consciousness to subconsciousness, as a specific return to nonbeing (sleep contains an element of annihilation of man's conscious existence) that is, to the moment preceding the creation, in order that, through God's creative initiative, solitary 'man' may emerge from it again in his double unity as male and female." In his note 4: "It is interesting to note that for the ancient Sumerians, the cuneiform sign to indicate the noun 'rib' coincided with the one used to indicate the word 'life'". 2.Some think that the words of Humani generis on polygenism were framed to leave room for a possibility that sometime it might be discovered how to fit Scripture and Magisterium with polygenism. Others say that such an opening was not left. Paul VI said, speaking to Theologians and Scientists at Symposium on Original Sin, July 11,1966, from Osservatore Romano of July 15: "But even the theory of 'evolutionism' will not seem acceptable to you where it is not decidedly in accord with the immediate creation of each and every human soul by God,and where it does not regard as decisively important for the fate of mankind, the disobedience of Adam, universal protoparent." COMMENT: This does not go beyond Pius XII. From philosophical reason alone we would have to reject atheistic evolution as violating causality - there is need of a source for the added or higher being each time it appears in the process of an evolution, even if that evolution would happen in accord with laws established for the purpose by God Himself. The ultimate source of the higher being would have to be the First Cause, since any cause that had to get up from potency to act would need that power, could not get up by its own power. Cf.our remarks earlier on proving creation by Aristotle's principles. b)Natural science approach: 1. Science magazine, Research News, Nov.21,1980, pp.883-87 reports that the majority of 160 geologists, paleontologists, ecologists, population geneticists, embryologists and molecular biologists who met at Chicago's Field Museum for a conference on Macroevolution decided Darwin was wrong. On p.883:"Evolution,according to the Modern Synthesis [Classic Darwinism] moves at a stately pace, with small changes accumulating over periods of many millions of years yielding a long heritage of steadily advancing lineages as revealed in the fossil record. However the problem is that according to most paleontologists the principle [sic] feature of individual species within the fossil record is stasis[stability], not change....for the most part, the fossils do not document a smooth transition from old morphologies to new ones. 'For millions of years species remain unchanged in the fossil record' said Stephen Jay Gould,of Harvard, 'and they then abruptly disappear to be replaced by something that is substantially different but clearly related.'" On p. 884: "The emerging picture of evolutionary change, therefore,is one of periods during which individual species remain virtually unchanged, punctuated by abrupt events at which a descendant species arises from the original stock....species do indeed have a capacity to undergo minor modifications [microevolution] in their physical and other characteristics, but this is limited, and with a longer perspective it is reflected in an oscillation about a mean: to a paleontologist looking at the fossil record, this shows up as stasis." On p.885: "Russell Lande,from the University of Chicago,tried to persuade his audience of the more traditional view, that substantial morphological changes were usually a consequence of many genetic mutations. Stuart Kaufman of the University of Pennsylvania, countered this by saying that in Drosophila [fruit flies] at least, one did not see intermediate changes between major mutants, implying single gene switches....A fruit fly mutant having no thorax, for instance,looks as if it is the victim of a confined but dramatic misreading of developmental instructions." On p.887: "Many people suggested that the meeting was a turning point in the history of evolutionary theory, 'I know it sounds a little pompous,' Hallam told Science, 'but I think this conference will eventually be acknowledged as an historic event.'" 2.Newsweek, Nov.3, 1980, p.95 summed it up: "In the fossil record, missing links are the rule....Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of shall changes.... Increasingly, scientists now believe that species change little for millions of years and then evolve quickly in a kind of quantum leap -- not necessarily in a direction that represents an obvious improvement in fitness....the majority of 160 of the world's top paleontologists, anatomists, evolutionary geneticists and developmental biologists supported some form of this theory of 'punctuated equilibria.'" 3.Science News: Sept 8,1984,pp.154-55 and 157:"Why is Sex?" On p.155: "'Sex is the queen of problems in evolutionary biology' wrote Graham Bell, an evolutionary biologist at McGill University in Montreal in 1982. Why such a thing exists at all, he says, is 'the largest and least ignorable and most obdurate' of life's fundamental questions. ....Biologists trying to discover how sex first arose have some daunting problems.... Complicating the question is disagreement among biologists about whether the origin of sex in prokaryotes - cells without nuclei - is at all connected with the origin of sex in eukaryotes - higher organisms.... Sex in these two groups of creatures seems so dissimilar that some biologists wonder if the eukaryotes didn't 'reinvent the wheel' (in Halvorson's words) rather than simply elaborate on the prokaryote system....It is also unclear why sex has survived in higher organisms.....Norton Zinder,a molecular geneticist at Rockefeller University in New York, explains the problem this way: 'How could an organism that only passed half of its genes to its offspring [through sexual reproduction] ever have competed with [an asexual progenitor] that passed all of them? It seems unlikely that the offspring produced sexually were 'fitter' than their asexually produced relatives. The question is so disturbing to biologist George C.Williams that he wrote his book Sex and Evolution 'from the conviction that the prevalence of sexual reproduction in higher plants and animals is inconsistent with current evolutionary theory.'" 4.Science News, August 13, 1983,p.101:"'We all go back to one mother living 350,000 years ago,' says Allan C.Wilson of the University of California at Berkeley....Wilson found 110 variations in the mitochondrial DNA of 112 individuals in a worldwide survey....He constructed a human pedigree by finding the simplest pattern of changes to explain the differences observed." Wilson's work met little acceptance for some years.But in January 11,1988, Newsweek (pp.46-52) reported wide acceptance by then. They calculate the mother lived only 200,000 years ago." P.52 of same article reports; "They're already trying to expand the Eve theory by finding Adam. Researchers in England, France and the United States have begun looking at the Y chromosome, which is passed along only on the male side. Tracing it is difficult because it's part of the DNA in the cell's nucleus, where there are many more genes than in the mitochondrion." Also on p.52, a quote from Stephen Jay Gould, noted biologist of Harvard: "This idea is tremendously important.... There is a kind of biological brotherhood that's much more profound than we ever realized." Cf.A.Gibbon,"Looking for the Father of us all" in Science 261 (1991) 378-90. 5.Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species ,Modern Library Edition, p.133: "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances,for admitting different amounts of light,and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration,could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree....Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist,each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated...." 6.Chance Calculations. To figure the chances of parts coming together in the right sequence by chance, we work by factorials. For a thing of only 4 parts, the chances would be one over 1 x 2 x 3 x 4. What would be the figure for even the simplest organism? What of the human brain? For scientists now believe the developments were not the result of accumulation of small changes, but of quantum leaps or flukes (Cf.the Research Reports of Science, Nov.21, 1980, cited above). Frank B.Salisbury,an evolutionary biologist,in "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution " in American Biology Teacher, Sept.1971, p.336: "A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain, one consisting of 1,000 links could 1000 exist in 4 different forms. Using a little algebra 1000 600 (logarithms) we can see that 4 = 10 . Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension." (Cited from Henry Morriss, Scientific Creationism, CLP Publishers, San Diego, 1974, Public School Edition,p.62. Morriss on p.60 gives another example. Consider, for example, an organism composed of only 100 integrated parts. ...each of these parts must fulfill a unique function in the organism and so there is only one way in which these 100 parts can be combined to function effectively. 158 Since there are 10 different ways in which 100 parts can link up, the probability of a successful chance linkage is only one 158 158 out of 10 . (Note that 10 is equal to a number written as 'one' followed by 158 'zeros'). f)Was There an Adam & Eve?: We already saw that at a minimum we need to hold that God, if He used an evolutionary process, working by laws He Himself created, would still need to create the souls of the first human pair. From the Magisterium on original sin we gather that all actual human beings descended from the original pair,whom Scripture calls Adam and Eve.So: Was there an Adam and Eve? Some teachers, trying to seem up to date, say no. They show their ignorance rather than their knowledge. It is clear that there was such a pair - whether or not they called each other by those names is not clear, nor is it essential to our theology. g)Human beings have one soul,which is rational. Defined by IV Council of Constantinople (General - 869-70 - the original Greek acta are lost. We have a Latin version by Anastasius the Librarian, and a Greek summary. DB 338,DS 657: "Even though the Old and New Testament teach that man has one rational and intellectual soul, and even though all the divinely-speaking Fathers and teachers of the Church defend the same point: yet, some have come to such a degree of impiety, that they imprudently teach he has two souls... and they try to defend their own heresy by certain irrational attempts." This at least seems to imply there is no separate sensitive soul. h)One or two parts in man? It has been defined by the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD; DB 148, DS 301) that Christ was "perfect in humanity...consubstantial with the Father in divinity, with us in humanity." Cf.also IV Lateran: DB 428,DS 800. i)The problem of the meaning of nefesh (sometimes translated as soul):
(1)Unitary concept of man in Modern Scholars:
(a) Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible 4.428: "In the OT it never means the immortal soul, but is essentially the life principle of the living being, or the self as the subject of appetite and emotion, occasionally of volition. ....there was no question of two separate, independent entities, except for a possible trace of the 'Greek idea' in Job 4:19: 'those who dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust [is dust?]." (b)John L. McKenzie,Dictionary of the Bible pp.837-38: it is the concrete existing self.... Perhaps the Ego of modern psychology comes closer to a parallel with nepesh than any other word, and nepesh is the Hb word which comes nearest to person in the psychological sense,i.e.,a conscious subject. In the OT the Gk concept of soul (psyche) appears only in Wisdom (cf 3:1...). The immortality of Wisdom is the enduring life of the psyche. ....The NT use of the term [ psyche] is heavily dependent on the OT use and shows little or no effect of Greek philosophical concepts."
(2)Two-part concept in modern scholars:
(a)Mitchell Dahood, Anchor Bible,Psalms 101-150, Vol 17A: pp.xli-lii cites about 40 Psalm lines, in revised translation with help of Ugaritic in favor of the idea that "a deep and steady belief in resurrection and immortality permeates the Psalter". Dahood's ideas were widely rejected, as he reports in the same pages. He cites with approval Nicholas J.Tromp, Primitive Concept of Death and the Nether World in the Old Testament, Rome,1969.-- On p.xlii,n.33 Dahood points out that the Late Bronze Age Canaanites (c.1500-1200 BC) knew of immortality - would the Hebrews be inferior to them? -- we can add: H.W.F.Saggs, The Greatness that was Babylon (Mentor,1968,pp.34,35.41.140) shows that ancient Babylonia,well before 2000 BC shows indications of belief in survival. Hebrew tradition claims they came from Mesopotamia.-- John A.Wilson, The Culture of Ancient Egypt (U.of Chicago,1951) shows the highly developed belief in afterlife among Egyptians, with whom Israelites lived for centuries.-- Mircea Eliade, Patterns in Comparative Religion (Meridian, 1974, pp.19-23, 39, 48, 52, 87, 102-04, 135-38) shows beliefs in afterlife widespread among very many primitive peoples.
(b)E.P.Sanders,in introduction to Testament of Abraham which he dates 1-2 century AD, in Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, I.p.878): "The idea that the souls separate from the body at the time of death and that it is the soul that goes either to salvation or punishment is relatively widespread." (c)J.Fitzmyer, Paul and His Theology,Prentice Hall, 1987, p.82: "A popular, common conception of the human being as made up of two elements is found at times in Paul's writings (2 Cor 5:3; 7;34; 2 Cor 12.2-3)." (d)J.Bonsirven, Palestinian Judaism in the Time of Christ,p.163:"...at the beginning of the first Christian century, many Jewish circles believed that at the time of death,souls are separated from the bodies and brought to judgment. ....[164] a comparative study of the apocryphal books shows that eschatological conceptions are diverse and vague up to the first years of our era. It is probably at this time that the teaching which we find in the rabbinic writings became accepted among the Pharisees. .... There was more and more a conviction that man is composed of body and soul, and that the soul, after leaving the body at death, can enjoy a separate existence......[165] In The Book of Enoch xxii (first or second century B.C.), there is a concept of transition. The angel Raphael shows Enoch four holes where the souls of the dead are shut up while awaiting the day of judgment." Cf.also Valentino Cottini, La Vita Futura nel Libro Dei Proverbi, Franciscan Press,Jerusalem,1984.
(3) Confused positions:
(a)R.E.Brown, Virginal Conception & Bodily Resurrection. On p.87: "...his basic anthropology [Paul's] did not involve a body-soul composite. Yet, if we would do justice to Paul, the concept of bodily resurrection should not be interpreted so vaguely that it loses all corporeal implications. .... On the other hand it is clear that Paul does not conceive of the risen 'body' in a merely physical way. His comments make us wonder whether he would be in agreement with Luke (who was not an eyewitness of the risen Jesus) about the properties of the risen body. Certainly, from Paul's description one would never suspect that a risen body could eat, as Luke reports. Moreover, Paul distinguishes between the risen body that can enter heaven and 'flesh and blood' that cannot enter heaven - a distinction that does not agree with the emphasis in Luke 24:39 on the 'flesh and bones' of the risen Jesus." (emphasis added) (b)W.D.Davies, Paul & Rabbinic Judaism,1962 ed,.311:"What we find in 1 Cor 15 and 2 Cor 5,then,is the juxtaposition of two different views, first, that the Christian waits for the new body till the parousia and, secondly, that immediately at death he acquires the heavenly body....[317] In his pre-Christian days,Paul,like other Rabbis,would have thought of the Age to Come as awaiting him at death and at the same time he could and did conceive of it as a final consummation of all created being.... We have seen what Paul the Pharisee would see beyond death. Death would be for him the advent of the judgment,and then,as he would have hoped,the entry into Paradise -- he would be in the Age to Come. But he would be in the Age to Come only in its first phase,so to speak, he would still be disembodied until the resurrection, although participating in blessedness.... For Paul the Christian, however, things were different. ... Already the resurrection body,the body of the final Age to Come was being formed.Paul had died and risen with Christ and [318] was already being transformed. At death,therefore,despite the decay of his outward body,Paul would already be possessed of another 'body'. The heavenly body was already his. ....there is no room in Paul's theology for an intermediate state of the dead. It agrees with this that Paul in the later passages of his Epistles speaks not of the resurrection of Christians but of their revelation. In Rm 8.19 we read.... .... Thus the Colossians had already risen with Christ.... [139] If the above interpretation be correct,it will be seen that we need not go outside Rabbinic Judaism to account for Paul's thought in 2 Cor 5.1f. ....[320] The twofold conception of the 'olam ha-ba'[the age- to-come] both as a future event in time and as an eternally existing reality...has provided us with a reconciling principle.... both Strack-Billerbeck and Bonsirven have showed that already in the first century A.D. Judaism had been largely influenced and modified by Hellenistic conceptions of immortality."[cites Str.B. IV p.819, and Bonsirven,Le Judaisme... I,p.317,n.3]. (emphasis added) (c)Pierre Benoit,"Resurrection:At the End of Time or Immediately after Death?" in: Concilium,60,1970:107,in 2 Cor 5 "he takes confidence from the belief that even without this body and in a state of 'nakedness' he will already be 'with the Lord.' He does not say very clearly how he understands this life with Christ outside the body....[108]...A similar outlook can be found in the letter...to the Philippians. ....But he does not yet dare to say that the Christian has already risen,though soon he does dare to do so" [In Ephesians and Col 2.12]....[109] His eschatology ,which at the outset was 'futurist', has become increasingly one that has already been effected. .... [112] The first [element of a solution] is that he certainly is not thinking of an 'immortal soul' in the Platonist sense.For him,as thoughout the Bible, the soul,created by God together with the body is mortal as is the body. Actually it dies through sin. If God restores it to life through the forgiveness of redemption,it is not by setting free in it a life that it possessed naturally, but by re-creating that life which it had entirely lost. The agent of the re-creation is the...Spirit. The Holy Spirit...is communicated by him [Christ] to his faithful follower who henceforth lies by him, in him, through him, and for him....For him [Paul], it is a question neither of a soul immortal by nature...nor of a soul necessarily tied to the body and condemned to 'sleep' so long as the latter is dead. It is a question of a 'spirit' placed in man by the new creation and the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ (2 Cor 5.5), and a drawing from this source of all the strength of a new supernatural mysterious but real life. ....We can go further still. It seems indeed that the 'heavenly dwelling' that we possess henceforward in the heavens (2 Cor 5.1) is not an individually resurrected body made ready in advance and which for centuries would await the moment of our 'putting it on'. Rather is it the very body of the risen Christ [113] already established in the glory of heaven,which is waiting to be joined fully and definitely with his chosen ones. ....Can it not be admitted...that the spirit which gives life to the soul...retains after the death of the earthly body a mysterious but vital link with this risen body of Christ,finding in him the source and means of supernatural and blissful activity?" (emphasis added)
COMMENTS:1)We first distinguish two questions: a) Any survival after death? b) Any retribution after death?
The majority today would deny the Hebrews knew of survival after death,and that they had a two part concept of man as body and soul until second century BC - which they learned then under influence of Greek thought (cf.Wisdom 3.1ff.) plus the pressure for reappraisal brought by the terrible death of many under King Antiochus IV. This could have been a providential guidance.
The minority hold that in some way (will explain below) they did know of survival very early, perhaps from the beginning. The authors cited above all deal only with survival, except Dahood, who speaks also of future retribution.
If one holds they knew of survival, in some way, we must notice that it is possible in theology to meet with two conclusions which seem to clash. We should recheck our work,but they may remain in place even after that. Then it is right to hold both conclusions without trimming, hoping that sometime someone may find how to fit them together.
(We must grant that some OT texts seem not to know of survival and retribution: they struggle bravely to say God makes it all right in this life: e.g., the book of Job, and Psalm 73. But this fact can coexist with the vague belief that somehow there was a survival -- these texts may merely not know of retribution ,without ruling out survival).
It is entirely clear from many things in the OT that they held for some sort of survival:
Necromancy and divination were prohibited: Lev 19.31; 20.6; Dt 8.11. But these definitely imply some sort of survival.Even if we say the mediums were mostly fakers, yet the fact people consulted them shows clearly a determined belief, which persisted in spite of repeated prohibitions in the OT.
A special case of this appears in 1 Sam.28.12-19: Saul has the woman of Endor call up the spirit of Samuel, which she does. She says she saw elohim (apparently something like divine beings) ascending from the earth. Psalm 17.15: seems to speak not only of survival but of reward in the future life: "I shall behold your face in righteousness. When I awake I shall be satisfied with beholding your form." "Awake" seems to mean after death. Psalm 49.15: "But God will ransom my soul from the power of Sheol, for He will receive me." Two possible interpretations: (1)God will rescue me from death - no evidence of that here; (2)God will receive the writer into His own presence. - This is more likely, considering the use of Hebrew laqah which probably alludes to the case of Enoch (Gen 5.24 ) or Elijah (2 Kgs 2.9-10) both of which texts use laqah.
Again,73.24: "You guide me with your counsel,and afterwards will receive me to glory [kabod]." Again laqah is used. But kabod could mean merely honor - however, that would hardly fit the context here. 2 Macc 12.43-46 reports Judas after a battle found amulets on bodies of some of his men. He took up a collection to have sacrifices offered: "Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin." Seems to have had in mind resurrection - did he also believe in retribution in interval between death and resurrection? Seems likely. (Purgatory is also implied in such texts as Mal 3:2: "Who can stand when He appears? For He is like the refiner's fire." Now 1 Cor 13:12 says that the soul in heaven sees God face to face. God has no face, but it means it knows Him directly. When I see an ordinary person directly,I do not take him into my head,I take in an image.But no image could represent the infinite God.So it must be this: God joins Himself directly to that soul,so as to be known.but He will not join Himself to a soul that is at all defiled, still less to one that is totally corrupt as Luther insisted.
There are many texts in the New Testament that know both survival and retribution: Mt 10.28: "Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul: rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell." COMMENT: Some try to say the two terms merely are to stress the whole person. But note the distinction - can kill one, but not the other. Lk 16.23-31:the parable of the rich man and Lazarus shows both surviving death, one in punishment, one in reward. Mt.22.32: Sadducees tried to trap Jesus.He quotes Ex 3.6: "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob." Then Jesus added: "He is the God of the living,not of the dead." COMMENT: This proves that objectively the OT did contain or imply survival after death. It does not prove that the Jews at the time when the text of Exodus was written caught the implication. St.Paul in Acts 23.6 calls himself a Pharisee,a son of the Pharisees. In Phil 3.6 he says he used to keep the law perfectly. But we know from Josephus (Jewish War 2.8.4) that the Pharisees believed, "Every soul... is imperishable, but the soul of the good alone passes into another body, while the souls of the wicked suffer eternal punishment." In regard to Sadducees: "As to the persistence of the soul after death, penalties in the underworld, and rewards, they will have none of them.." -- St.Paul in Phil 1.23: "I am caught between the two:having my desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ -- much better; but to remain in the flesh: more necessary for your sake." So he knew he could be with Christ in the interval between death and resurrection. Also 2 Cor 5.6: "Therefore, always being confident, and knowing that while we are dwelling in the body, we are away from the Lord...we are confident and we decide [we want] instead to be away from the body and to be with the Lord."
COMMENT: Some hold there is a resurrection body at once. Strangely,they seem to ignore the fact that Paul was a Pharisee, and Pharisees did believe in survival between death and resurrection.
3)As to the confused positions: (a) R.Brown clings to the unitary concept of man. The risen body is not really flesh, says Brown -- though Luke thought it was -- for flesh and blood cannot enter heaven (1 Cor 15:50). Brown misunderstands Paul and Luke. First he assumes they can contradict each other:impossible, since the Holy Spirit is the author of both. Second he does not see what Paul means in 1 Cor 15 by a spiritual body. It has to be flesh, otherwise Paul would not need to write that chapter. For the Corinthians would not object to a merely spiritual body - they objected to continuing in a body of flesh: they hoped to escape reincarnation or anything like it. When Paul says flesh and blood cannot enter heaven he means flesh and blood without a transformation. When transformed, so as to be spiritual, they can. But "spiritual" means not lacking flesh, but that the flesh is totally dominated by the spirit, and hence operates according to the laws of spirits, while remaining flesh. {Cf the risen body of Jesus passing through a closed door without opening it).
(b)W.D.Davies: Also thinks one part of Scripture can contradict another - 1 Cor says the resurrection will come at the end - while 2 Cor thinks at once at death there is a heavenly body. But in 2 Cor 5:8 Paul says he will get up his confidence or nerve and wish to be away from the body and to be with the Lord. - this does not fit with a resurrection body. And especially,why the need to get up nerve if he will never be without a body? Also, In Phil 1:23 Paul says he wishes to be "dissolved" [analysai] to be with Christ. But to have a resurrection body at once is not to "be dissolved."
(c) Pierre Benoit: Takes Paul's remarks of our doing all with Christ in a crude way. There is indeed a syn Christo theme - it means that the Christian is saved and made holy if and to the extent that he is not only a member of Christ but like Him. We are to be like Him sacramentally, by being buried [Rom 6:3-11] and rising with Him in baptism. But we should also be like Him even now in living our lives with the outlook of Christ, with the same outlook we will have when we really do emerge from the grave,[cf.Col 3:1-4, and Ephesians 2:5-6]. Benoit also takes crudely the idea that sin is death. Yes, it is death for the soul in that it loses grace, the divine life. But it is not death in the sense that the soul goes out of existence, so that God would need to create it all over again. Conclusion: The fact that the sense and usage of nefesh is vague and varied and could imply a unitary concept of man does not prevent us from holding that the Hebrews may have perceived two truths: (1)Man is, and appears to be a unity; (2) yet there is a survival at least (and retribution?). Item #1 was evident at once; item #2 seems to have been at least implicit early - cf. the argument of Jesus from "I am the God of Abraham."
So the inspired writers, under inspiration, expressed both points, and only late in history learned how to fit the two together. (For specific answers to problems from Job,Sirach and Qoholeth see Free From All Error chapters 7 & 8. The chief point to keep in mind is that the afterlife was very different before the death of Christ: it was the drab limbo of the fathers, for not even the just then were admitted to the vision of God. j)Patristic data on intermediate state (1) S.Justin,Dialogue 5.3: "I do not say that any souls perish. That would be luck for the wicked. I say that the souls of the pious wait in a better place, those of the wicked and evil in a worse place,waiting for the time of judgment." (2) S.Irenaeus.Against Heresies 1.5.3l: "Souls will go to an invisible place, set for them by God, and there they will stay until the resurrection." (3) Tertullian, De Resurrectione carnis 43: "For no one who departs from the body will at once stay with the Lord, except by the prerogative of martyrdom." (4) Origen, On Leviticus,Hom.7: "Not even the Apostles have yet received their happiness, but even they are waiting that I may be a partaker of their joy." (5) Lactantius, Institutes 7.21:"No one should think that souls are judged right after death. For all are kept in one common custody until the time comes at which the Supreme Judge will examine their merits." (6) St.Augustine, Enchiridion 109: "The time that is between a man's death and the final resurrection holds souls in hidden receptacles, as each one deserves, in rest or in distress, according to what it obtained when living in the flesh." (Elsewhere, in Retractations l.14.2,is uncertain).
COMMENTS: We see here a common belief that even after the death of Christ, the just would not reach heaven until the end of time, except for martyrs. This is false,as we know from a definition of Pope Benedict XII in DS 1000. The belief was never universal among the Fathers. However,the just who died before the death of Christ did not reach heaven until after His death: DS 780. 4.Immortality of the Soul: a)It follows from many Scripture texts cited above.It is universal teaching of the Church. We have a definition from the Fifth Lateran Council (18th General Council) in 1513:DS 1440. b)It can be proved from reason: I have in mind a dog - he is neither long nor short, high nor low, shaggy haired nor smooth, pointed nose, nor pushed in nose, black, white, brown, or spotted, loud barking, soft barking. - I have this mental concept by taking away everything individual from every physical dog I see. The result is a concept of just plain dog. If I hired the greatest artist, gave him his choice of media to work in, told him to make an image of this dog - it would be impossible - since no material could hold such a concept. So that in me which does hold it is not material, is spiritual. In the present life, my intelligence has two components, the spirit intellect natural to a spiritual soul,and the material brain. Scientific American, special issue on the brain, September,1979 said the number of neurons is on the order of a hundred billion, and there are about 100 trillion synapses, connections between two neurons. No two neurons are identical in form. A typical neuron may have anywhere from 1000 to 10,000 synapses. Before birth,the brain gains neurons at the rate of hundreds of thousands a minute.-- The fact that my spiritual intellect is tied in this life to a material brain limits the spiritual. But once the connection is severed by death,the natural power of the spirit asserts itself,so the lights go on, not out. Aristotle thought (Psychology 2.1) the soul was the form of the body, the body being first matter. There are some Magisterium texts that seem to have this in mind,without asserting it:Council of Ephesus DB 111a,DS 250; Council of Constantinople II,DB 216,DS 424.-- But Aristotle's thought must be modified. For each component, sperm and ovum, before union,have a formed matter,not just prime matter without any form. 5.Origin of each soul: It is immediately created by God: Pius XII,Humani generis, AAS 42.575: "The Catholic faith orders us to hold that souls are immediately created by God." 6.Time of creation of each soul: There is no clear definitive teaching on this point,yet: DS 670: Stephen V in 885 taught: "If he who destroys by abortion what is conceived in the womb is a murderer, how much more will he who destroys a child one day old will be unable to excuse himself of homicide." DB 1641,DS 2803: Pius IX, in defining the Immaculate Conception on Dec.8, 1854 wrote: "We define that the doctrine that holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary was in the first instant of her conception...preserved immune from all stain of original sin has been revealed by God." -- If that immediate creation of soul at the first instant of conception was the case with her, it seems implied it is the case of others. 1917 Code of Canon Law # 747: "Care must be taken that all aborted fetuses, which come forth at whatever time, if they are certainly alive, should be baptized without condition; if doubtfully alive, with condition." 1983 Code,#871: "Aborted fetuses, if living, must be baptized so far as this is possible."
Vatican II,Gaudium et Spes 27: "Besides, whatever things are opposed to life, such as murders of any kind, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, and voluntary suicide itself...are criminal,...and most greatly contradict the honor of the Creator." Ibid. 51: "Therefore life, starting with conception, is to be protected with the greatest care, and abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes." Roman Catechism (Lovanii,1662,p.36}: As soon as Jesus was conceived, "a rational soul was joined to it.... Nobody can doubt that this was something new and an admirable work of the Holy Spirit, since in the natural order no body can be informed by a human soul except after the prescribed space of time." (Background of the thought of the Roman Catechism is found in the defective biology of the time, as seen in St.Thomas ST III.33.2.ad 3 and I.118.2 ad 2. Modern Medical data: At once with the union of sperm and ovum,each contributing 23 chromosomes,the complete perfectly individualized genetic code of the new individual is present. 7.Man as the Image of God: There are several interpretations. Here are examples: 1)Biblia Comentada,Pentateuco: A.Colunga & M.Cordero. Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, 1967.3d ed. (on Gen 1.26)p.59: "The context seems to insinuate that this 'image and likeness' of man with God lies in the dominion over all created things...man would not be capable of exercising that dominion if he did not possess a rational soul,with two faculties,intelligence and will. In this we see the ultimate root of similarity of man with God." COMMENT: We cannot however suppose the ancient Hebrews knew of the two faculties:it is merely implicit. 2) La Sagrada Escritura, Genesis, F.Asensio,p.34: "The divine intelligence and will are reflected in the intelligence and will of man." COMMENT: As above. 3)On Genesis, Bruce Vawter,p.56:"Commentators old and new have sought the source of man's imaging of God in his 'spiritual' nature that separates him from the beasts and approximates him to the divine in the possession of mind and will. We might add emotions too, which the Bible does not hesitate to ascribe to God. This interpretation would be just as wrong as the preceding if it were to ascribe to the biblical author a later analysis of the human person in which he did not share, or if it were to dwell in its own way on one part only of the human composite at the expense of another.We say again,what the text is concerned with is the creation of mankind, not of a spiritual soul.It is on the right track, however, the more it tries to isolate what is distinct [57] about man with respect to the rest of creation by causing him alone to ask what is his relation to it and to his Creator....Man is not only a creature but a conscious creature, and in the consciousness of his creaturehood he mirrors in some fashion that supreme consciousness with whom he can dialogue." COMMENT: This view is based on the theory of the unitary character of man, which we discussed above.It is not right to say the Bible ascribes emotions to God - such language is only anthropomorphism. Conclusion: We think it best to say the likeness is in dominion over all creation, given to man by God. It is true this does imply two faculties of mind and will, but even if we do not flatly accept the unitary theory of man - c.f above - we note that this is only an implication.
IV Original Sin 1.Definition of Original Justice: It means that before the fall, Adam and Eve had been given sanctifying grace. It does not say if they received it simultaneously with creation or not. We distinguish three kinds of gifts: a)Mere human nature - which would have in it many drives,all legitimate,but each operating blindly, without regard for the other drives or for the whole man. So in a state of mere nature, mortification would have been needed.
b)Preternatural gifts:freedom from suffering and death,and a coordinating gift (Gift of Integrity) making it easy to keep all drives in proper place. We can see from Genesis that there was such a coordinating gift, since before the sin, Adam was naked, but it did not bother him - afterwards, it did, so that he improvised some covering. c)Supernatural life of grace. 2.Errors on original justice:
a)Pelagians: Man by nature is fully free and free of any internal necessity towards evil. By his own powers he can avoid sin. It practically denies original sin. b)Luther: Original justice was part of the essence of man - so in losing it, man became totally corrupt, and cannot help sinning. Cf.Luther, On the Bondage of the Will,and Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod,1932,#14: "As to the question why not all men are converted and saved, seeing that God's grace is universal and all men are equally and utterly corrupt, we confess that we cannot answer it." This corruption remains even after Baptism. By faith as it were a white cloak of the merits of Christ is thrown over a person's corruption - and God decides not to look under the rug. He will act as if the man is justified - even though he is still corrupt. This is extrinsic justification, radically different from the Catholic teaching that by Baptism we are "washed off,made holy,and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the spirit of our God." (1 Cor 6.11). A person becomes a "new creation" which is totally remade, not totally corrupt:2 Cor 5.17; Gal 6.15.Cf.2 Cor 4.6. The Holy Spirit dwells in the soul of the just: 1 Cor 3:16-17;6:19. The Holy Spirit would not dwell in total corruption. Justification is not extrinsic, but intrinsic: the Holy Spirit is transforming the soul, making it basically capable of taking in the vision of God in the next life by making it a sharer in the divine nature:cf. 2 Peter 1:4. Cf.Justification by Faith.Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VII, ed. H.George Anderson, T.Austin Murphy, Joseph A. Burgess, (Augsburg,Minneapolis,1985),and Righteousness in the New Testament by John Reumann, with responses by Joseph A.Fitzmyer, and Jerome D.Quinn, Fortress, Phila, 1982.
Cf.also the Augsburg Confession, Art IV: "Likewise they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but they are justified by grace because of Christ, by faith, when they believe that they have been taken into grace, and that sins are remitted because of Christ who by His death satisfied for our sins. God imputes this faith for [in place of] justice before Himself".
Because of this hopeless corruption ,Luther wrote to Melanchthon: Epistle 501: "Pecca fortiter sed crede fortius." - "Sin bravely or strongly, but believe still more bravely or strongly." He probably did not mean to encourage sin,but meant that no matter how much you continue to sin, it is all paid for in advance. Hence: infallible salvation,since the merits of Christ outweigh all sins, past, present, and future. We recall the Missouri Synod, cited above, could not explain how if all are totally corrupt, and grace is everywhere, not all are saved. They saw the conclusion that would be obvious: blind predestination.They shied away from that. Calvin did not.Cf.Wm.Most, Catholic Apologetics Today,cap.18-19 for the answer to the problem. Cf.also Louis Bouyer, The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism, Newman,1957.
The authors of the Missouri Synod doctrine either did not know or did not accept what Luther himself said. Luther held a blind predestination (The Bondage of the Will,tr.J.L.Packer,& O.R Johnston ,Flemming H.Revell Co.,Old Tappan.N.J.,1957,pp.103- 04: "So man's will is like a beast standing between two riders.If God rides,it wills and goes where God wills....If Satan rides,it wills and goes where Satan wills.Nor may it choose to which rider it wil run...the riders themselves fight to decide who shall have and hold it."
c)Baius: (A professor at Louvain, died 1589. Condemned by Pius V and Gregory XIII, and finally after much tergiversation, submitted.) Held that the supernatural gifts were owed to human nature - this destroys the distinction between natural and supernatural order.Free will is not completely destroyed,but is so weakened that without grace,it has no power except to sin. Yet our works can be called free in that they proceed from an inclination intrinsic to us. The essence of justification lies not in infused grace but in the keeping of the commandments. Cf.DS 1901-80. His errors are sometimes called SemiLutheran.
NOTE ON CONDEMNED PROPOSITIONS: 1)If even one thing is false, the whole proposition will be condemned. 2)We must look to see with what theological note they are condemned.
d)Jansenius. He was Bishop of Ypres.In his book Augustinus, published in 1640 after his death,he renewed the errors of Luther and Baius in a more subtle way.-- God owed to His own attributes of justice,holiness,wisdom,and goodness to not create man without sanctifying grace, and He also owed it to Himself not to create man without the gifts of immortality and impassibility. Original sin is concupiscence, which corrupts the soul and all its powers. Even the justified remain subject to it at least interiorly. Sin is possible even without interior freedom of choice. Yet these gifts are gratuitous in relation to man - though not in relation to the attributes of God,to which they are due. God could not have created man in the state of mere nature (i.e.,without the preternatural and supernatural gifts). The virtues of pagans are vices.Jesus died only for the Predestined - the mass of men are damned.
He was condemned by Innocent X (DS 2001-07:These 5 propositions are the heart of Jansenism), and by Alexander VIII (DS 2301-32). Clement XI condemned the Jansenistic errors of Paschasius Quesnel: DS 2400-2502. Pius VI in 1794 condemned the teachings of the Synod of Pistoia (held in 1786) in DS 2600- 2700: it was hostile to scholasticism and the papacy, had a Jansenistic and Gallican spirit. Advocated liturgical reform to be managed by local authority and attacked devotion to Sacred Heart, frequent confession and the religious orders. The Jansenists agreed that the five propositions of DS 2001-06 are heretical, but denied they were found in the book Augustinus. Alexander VII in DS 2010-12 declared that the 5 propositions are found in the book.
3.Magisterium on original justice:
a) Council of Trent. DS 1511: "If anyone does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the command of God in paradise, at once lost the holiness and justice in which he had been constituted...Let him be anathema." This implies that he had grace before the fall. It does not make clear if he had it from the start of his existence.
b) Second Council of Orange.529 AD.Because of special approbation by Pope Boniface II (DS 398) the canons of this council are considered as solemn definitions (DS 389): "Human nature, even it is remained in that integrity in which it was made, in no way could, without the help of the Creator, save itself; hence since without the grace of God it could not keep the salvation which it had received: how without the grace of God could it restore what was lost?"
c) Pius V condemned some propositions of Baius,including DS 1921: "The sublimation and exaltation of human nature into a sharing of the divine nature was owed to the integrity of the way he was first made, and hence should be called natural, and not supernatural."
4.Genesis 1-11
a) Genre of Genesis 1-11:
(1) Pius XII,Humani generis,DS 3898:"We must deplore a certain way of interpreting the historical books of the Old Testament too freely. The first 11 chapters of Genesis,though they do not strictly conform to the rules of historical writing used by the great Greek and Latin historians or historians of our time, yet pertain to history in a true sense, to be further studied and determined by Scripture scholars."
COMMENT: We could satisfy this requirement by saying that these chapters do report, by the vehicle of stories, things that really happened -- in this way they do pertain to history in a true sense. Chiefly the following: God made all things; in some special way He made the first human pair; He gave them some sort of command (we do not know its nature),they violated it,and fell from His favor. (Note that favor even though the word is not used in the text, would be chen in Hebrew, which is the closest word to grace. Hence they lost grace,and did not have it to pass on to their descendants.(Cf. New Catholic Encyclopedia s.v."grace,in the Bible"). So original sin is contained in the narrative. Really, if we said God did no more than smile at a person,and gave him nothing, and the person could do good by his own power - it would be Pelagianism. Hence favor must imply grace.
(2) John Paul II,Audience of Sept 19,1979: "The whole archaic form of the narrative...manifests its primitive mythical character." In note 1, he cites at length P.Ricoeur,speaking of "the Adamic myth". However, on Nov 7,1979 the Pope also said:"...the term 'myth' does not designate a fabulous content, but merely an archaic way of expressing a deeper content." Also in note 1 on Sept 19: "If in the language of the rationalism of the 19th century, the term 'myth' indicated what was not contained in reality...the 20th century as modified the concept of myth.... M.Eliade discovers in myth the structure of the reality that is inaccessible to rational and empirical investigation. Myth, in fact, transforms the event into a category and makes us capable of perceiving the transcendental reality."
ADDENDUM: On Sept 12,1979:"...the first account of man's creation is chronologically later than the second.The origin of this latter is much more remote. This more ancient text is defined as 'Yahwist.'" -- In note 1 on Nov.7: "After the creation of the woman, the Bible text continues to call the first man 'adam (with the definite article), thus expressing his 'corporate personality', since he has become the 'father of mankind', its progenitor and representative...." -- God called Adam after the fall and Adam replied: "I was afraid because I was naked, and I hid myself."-
It is easy to gather what the inspired writer meant to convey by this narrative. Before the sin, Adam was naked; after the fall, the same. But before the fall it did not bother him, afterwards it did. Clearly, the sex drive, the most rebellious of all, had begun to assert itself. Before the fall Adam must have had some gift that made it easy to keep all drives in proper balance. Each was good in itself, but each would work blindly, without regard for the other drives or for the whole person. So,as we said,a coordinating gift was needed. It used to be called the Gift of Integrity.
5.Anthropology on primitive man: Many anthropologists today especially those commited to atheistic evolution,think Adam was a stupid lout, who one day emergeed from his cave and on hearing thunder and lightning said: Duh! I gues them is gods."
What is the evidence for thst view? Precisely nothing except the imagination that constructed a foolish picture and even more fooliwhly imagined matter came into existence by itself from a sort of methane soup,which gradually gave itsel higher and higher characteristics until mn was intelligent. But that is irrational - it supposes a being can raise itself to heigher and higher levels without ny ouside soucer for the higher being.I cannot give mysel $10,000 if I do noth ave it.So not only when it is to give a human soull,but also at previous stages of ascent the higher being had to come from outside.
Actully anthroplogists in studying primitive man divide into two sharply different groups whom we might name: 1)The Imaginers: who use only mere imagination,as above; 2) the Extrapolators.
To explain this last term we need to notice that all anthropologists agree that we we study primitives still known inthe world today or primitives for whom we have records of recent times,we can as it were construct a ladder, rungs of material progress going up - from hunting and fishing, to highly advanced material cultures. Now we do have a considerable body of evidence for these things and no one would sugest just using imaginatioin instead of empirical data. But then we move away from this known area to the area for which written records are lacking,that is where we find the split giveninto the Imaginers and the Extrapollators.
It so happens that abmong the Exptrapolators are the members of the Schmidt school of anthopology.Wilhelm Schmidt (1868- 1954),in his Der Ursprung der Gottesidee, 12 volumes, Mnster,1912-54, presented evidence from a study of various primitives, at the lowest level of material culture, such as those of Tierra del Fuego in South America, the Negrillos of Rwanda in Africa, and the Andaman Islanders in the Indian Ocean. The 1990 printing of Encyclopedia Britannica, 26,p.554 says Schmidt and his collaborators, "saw in the high gods, for whose cultural existence they produced ample evidence from a wide variety of unconnected societies, a sign of a primordial monotheistic revelation that later became overlaid with other elements.... Their interpretation is controversial, but at least [Andrew] Lang [1844-1912] and Schmidt produced grounds for rejecting the earlier rather naive theory of evolutionism. Modern scholars do not, on the whole, accept Schmidt's scheme.... it is a very long jump from the premise that primitive tribes have high gods to the conclusion that the earliest men were monotheists."
What seems to be rejected is the extrapolation from finding that many low level primitives (hunting and fishing stage) are monotheists to the conclusion that the same was true of the whole human race at a similarly low level of culture.
However, the evidence for many such tribes in historical times still stands. The case seems similar with the Greeks and Romans, both of whom came from the Indoeuropeans. In those days when people traveled, they often tried to see if some of the gods they found in other lands were really the same as their own gods. Herodotus did much of this (in 2.50 he says that almost all the divine figures came to Greece from Egypt). Many of these attempts were strained, and without real foundation. But when the Greeks and Romans got to know each other, they found they had some myths and divinities in common, even though with different names. We know that the names for the chief God, Jupiter and Zeus (possessive case: Dios) are linguistically the same, both going back to Indoeuropean dyaus - p schwa ter. (The computer does not have a character for schwa, which is an obscure vowel, like the a on the end of sofa ). The IE word means "Sky Father".
Really if one does not suppose that it is highly likely that conditions for the whole race at the same level of material culture as known primitives (hunter-gatherers) would be quite similar, there is no solid way to establish what the race was like. It is far better than the mere armchair imaginings, of an evolutionistic type that others have used. So the extrapolation proposed by Schmidt was and is quite reasonable. Actually some scholars today in archaeology do make precisely such an extrapolation. In a recent work, The Adventure of Archaeology, by Brian M.Fagan, published by the National Geographic Society in 1989, on pp.344-46 we find: "Experimentation in archaeology is not limited to state-of-the-art technology. 'New archaeologists' seek innovative ways to study living societies in order to construct models that describe the behavior of past ones. Jeremy Sabloff of the University of New Mexico said, ' We've gone beyond filling up museums with art objects. The objects are not an end in themselves but a means to inform us about the social and economic behavior of ancient people.' In the 1970s Lewis R.Binford of the University of New Mexico observed Alaska's Nunamiut Eskimos, a modern hunter-gatherer society. Binford watched the Eskimos set up hunting camps and saw how they hunted, killed, butchered, and ate animals. His insights gave him a fuller understanding of how ancient hunter-gatherers chose their campsites, and helped him analyze the animal bones found at such sites."
Further, as the Britannica says, at least Schmidt blocked the silly evolutionistic view that primitive man must have been stupid, that one day he came out of his cave, saw lightning and heard thunder, thought they were gods. There never was a shred of evidence for such a view. It was just imagination built on the assumption that everything has evolved.
That evolutionistic notion was a further projection from belief in the evolution of the human body from primates. Science, Research Reports of November 21,1980,pp.883-87 reports on a meeting of 160 of the world's top paleontologists, anatomists, evolutionary geneticists, and developmental biologists held at the Field Museum in Chicago. The majority of those scientists concluded that Darwin was wrong - not in those words, but they rejected Darwin's idea that there were many intermediate forms between, for example, fish and birds. They recognized that the fossil record does not provide even one clear case of such forms. This did not lead them to reject evolution itself. No, they opted for what they called "punctuated equilibria", the idea that a species might stay the same for millions of years, and then by a fluke, leap up to something much higher, in the same line. If any evidence for the view was offered at the meeting, Science does not mention it. Nor does the report in Newsweek, of November 3,190, pp.95-96. They might perhaps point to the high vertical columns exposed in the Grand Canyon, in which low forms, such as Trilobites, appear at the bottom, and higher and higher forms as one goes up. But there is no evidence that the higher came from the lower by a fluke or leap. Further it is admitted that the Grand Canyon was once a sea bottom: naturally the lower things would be found farther down.
The related theory of polygenism has had an inconclusive but impressive blow recently. Allan Wilson of the University of California at Berkeley (Science News, August 13, 1983, p.101) from a study of mitochondria worldwide, concluded that all existing humans came from one mother who lived 350,000 years ago. At first Wilson received little acceptance, but now, as Newsweek of Jan 21, 1988 reports, his view is getting widespread acceptance, except that the age of the mother is now put at 200,000 years ago. As we said, this does not conclusively disprove polygenism - for there could have been, for example, 6 original pairs, but the lines from all but one died out.
As mentioned above,an attempt today is being made to try to trace a common father of all.Cf.A.Gibbons, "Looking for the Father of us all: in Science 261 (1991) pp.378-90.
Also, history does show in many instances that when a people has high material affluence, religion tends to suffer. The U.S and Japan are examples today.
Is sacrifice universal among primitives? Very widespread, but not entirely universal. Further, the ideas behind sacrifice vary widely. For example, in Mesopotamia sacrifice was food for the gods. Thus in the Epic of Gilgamesh, after the Babylonian Noah, Utnapishtim, came out of his ark and offered sacrifice, the gods - who had been cowering in fear of the flood on the battlements of heaven - came down and swarmed "like flies" about the sacrifice. They had not had anything to eat for some time. Again, Aristophanes the Greek comic poet, in his The Birds, pictures the birds threatening to cut of the supply of sacrifices if the gods would not do what the birds wanted.
Is belief in a Supreme Being universal? At least nearly so, but there are a few cases where it seems lacking, e.g., among the Navahoes in the Southwest of the U.S.A. Even in such cases, we must wonder if perhaps extensive alcoholism has blinded the people. St.Paul in Romans 1.18-32 describes the gradual descent into blindness, and says that atheists are inexcusable, for the existence of God is so obvious from creation. (More on seeming atheists in our section on St.Justin the Martyr).
2.Human rationality and the beginning of human thought
Aristotle said, in Metaphysics 2.1, that people began to work for wisdom when they began to wonder, first about obvious things, then on deeper things, and when they got enough leisure to do it. He is, of course, indulging in armchair method. Yet the thought is at least very plausible.
However, at least most of the most primitive peoples - cf.remarks on Navahoes above - do seem to know a Supreme Being. The fact is so evident, that no one, without some kind of mental block, could fail to see it.
Some primitive peoples have even held an idea of creation. One Egyptian creation myth says that Atum (meaning:totality) stood on the mud hillock that emerged from the primeval waters and named the parts of his body, and thus the gods came into being. This reflects a belief held long after the time of the most primitive cultures, that a word spoken by a person in authority produces what it says.
Egyptian creation stories seldom mention the origin of man. Some say that Atum wept, and thus mankind came. This is a play on words: ramet means mankind, remiet means tears.
6.Did Our Lady know her own Immaculate Conception in Gen 3.15? We already saw that the Church saw it in Gen.3.15. Therefore she,with graces greater than any other creature - cf.Ineffabilis Deus - should have been able to see it. Further, 3 of the 4 Targums see Gen.3.15 as messianic - even though with some obscurity, for they make it allegorical. Now if the Jews with the veil on their hearts (2 Cor.3.14) could see it was messianic, all the more she must have seen it. If so, she would know she was the woman, and then could see what the Church sees in it. Objection: The Jews did not see original sin in that verse or in other parts of OT. Reply: Largely true, but they should have and could have. Adam & Eve fell from God's favor by their sin.Even though Genesis does not use the Hebrew chen (favor), it is clear they did fall from favor. Now when God favors, He does not just smile and give nothing - it means He gives grace - else the Pelagians would be right: man would be able to do good without grace.So, they fell from grace.So they did not have it to transmit to their descendants. So their descendants arrive in the world without grace -- and that is what it means to be born in original sin. The Immaculate Conception gave freedom from original sin, i.e., sanctifying grace,in surpassing measure. But to say this does not say anything about the preternatural gifts. Of course she was actually free from disorderly inclinations to sin, and free from all sin, even venial (cf.DS 1573,2800). But was the gift of bodily immortality given? Pius XII in defining the Assumption was careful never to say in his own words that she died. Always he said: "at the end of her earthly course" etc.
7.Infused knowledge in Adam: Some theologians have thought Adam was given infused knowledge, else he would have been in a stupid state such as evolutionists imagine. They note that in Gen 2.19ss Adam named all the animals. Some of the Fathers appeal to this: St.John Chrysostom,On Genesis 2 Hom.15.2; S.Augustine, Opus Imperfectum contra Iulianum 5.1, RJ 2011 (cites Pythagoras saying great wisdom is needed to first name things); St.John Damascene, De Fide Orthodoxa 2.30.(RJ 2360). -- But as to the evolutionists' picture we distinguish: they thought first man was stupid as well as lacking in knowledge. The text of Gen 2.19ss considering genre, seems to mean that Adam was not stupid, but need not indicate great knowledge. Some appeal to Sirach 17.1-9, but it does not refer specifically to Adam. Sirach says God made man in his own image, gave him limited days, gave man strength and power over all things. In v 5:"He forms men's tongues and eyes and ears and imparts to them an understanding heart. With wisdom and knowledge he fills them;good and evil he shows them." But this is generic, not specific to Adam: we notice the use of the plural, them. The very fact of being able to use language does point to intelligence that could even use abstract ideas - for even the concept of dog is abstract, formed from seeing many dogs, and then taking away from each dog all that is individual. There is an impassible gap between just one abstract idea -- which no material medium could hold,and any imaginable degree of elevation of lower types of knowlegte.A computer can be made to almost instantly check huge number of possibilities to find the right one,can even learn from experiences of this sort -- but there is still an impassible gap between that and an abstract idea for the latter cannot be helpd by any material medium as we said. No artist using his choice of medium to work in could possibly produce an image of my concept of dog,or of justice.
Did Adam and Eve develop language on their own over a period of time? Or did God infuse a knowledge of language? More likely He infused it.
8.The nature of original sin:
a) Paul VI,Profession of Faith, (Credo of the People of God) 1968: "We believe that in Adam all have sinned, <1> which means that the original offense committed by him caused human nature, common to all, to fall to a state in which it bears the consequences of that offense. This is no longer the state in which human nature was at the beginning in our first parents, constituted as they were in holiness and justice <2>, and in which man was immune from evil and death <3>. And so,it is human nature, so fallen, deprived of the gift of grace <4> with which it had first been adorned, injured in its own natural powers <5> and subjected to the dominion of death that is communicated to all men: it is in this sense that every man is born in sin. We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin is transmitted with human nature <6>, 'by propagation, not by imitation' and that it ' is in all men, proper to each .'" <7>
COMMENTS (following the numbers inserted above):
1) In Adam all have sinned - this reflects the Vulgate translation, not the understanding of the Greek Fathers who take it to mean:"the condition being fulfilled, all have sinned." Trent, DS 1506, said it would be good "if out of all Latin editions...it should be known which one should be considered authentic...in public readings, disputations, preaching, and explanations." This did not address the question of which critical readings were genuine.Nor did it prohibit versions from original languages, as Pius XII pointed out in Divino Afflante Spiritu, EB 549, though many had thought that.
So this statement of Trent is behind the fact that Paul VI used the words "In Adam all have sinned". But Trent also said, DS 1514, that Rom 5.12 "should not be understood differently from the way in which the Catholic Church, spread throughout the world, has always understood it." Now the Church spread throughout the world has always understood Rom 5.12 to teach original sin. But there has not been universal belief of the sense of the last clause,"in whom all have sinned", since the Greek Fathers took it in a very different way.
If one reads "in whom all have sinned", there has been a temptation to say all wills were included in the will of Adam. Even today I.F.Sags,in Sacrae Theologiae Summa, 4th ed.1964, III.I I, 962 wrote: "Now in Romans 5:12-21 there lies hidden for certain the biblical concept of the corporative person, so that Adam bringing on a sin is both an individual and at the same time the collection of humans, or rather, all humanity; in this way in sinning he is considered as taking the part of all men, much as, with due proportion, Christ took the part of all in the redemption." But Sags seems unduly moved by the Latin version, which is not reflected in St.Paul's original Greek. Further, Paul VI goes on to explain it in a different way, for he continues: "this means that...the original offense ...caused human nature...to fall to a state in which it bears the consequences of that offense." And he goes on to enumerate those consequences.
2) Our first parents were "constituted in holiness and justice." They lost that, so could not transmit it.This is a privation,rather than something positive transmitted (cf John Paul II on this,below).
3) Our first parents had been immune from evil and death. But again,t hey lost this boon,and could not transmit it. 4) So now our fallen nature is "deprived of the gift of grace".
5) It is "injured in its own natural powers". This refers to the common teaching that the mind is darkened and the will weakened.-- This does not mean the total corruption that Luther spoke of,which was condemned by Trent, DS 1568. Further St.Paul speaks of Christians as a "new creation" which is incompatible with total corruption: 2 Cor 5.17; Gal 6.15.-- But there are two view possible other than total corruption: (1) Original sin reduces us to the same state we would have had if there had been no original sin, but if there were also no added gifts. Then since our body and soul include many legitimate drives, which each operate blindly, mortification would be needed to tame them. This is clearly a state of weakness of will, since it has to fight these imbalances, which the rabbis called yetzer hara. That in turn lets the mind see less clearly: cf.the two spirals. (2) Original sin reduces us somewhat further, but not so far as total corruption.-- Below we will quote John Paul II clearly teaching the first of these possibilities. 6)It is transmitted with human nature in the sense that we receive a nature minus the things just mentioned. The state can be called a state of sin by the analogous use of terms. We compare an adult who has committed a mortal sin, and a newborn baby. They both lack grace which they should have - but the adult lacks it by grave personal fault, the baby without any fault. But since they both have the same privation, we can, analogously, speak of a state of sin. 7)It is proper to each in that each has the same state of privation. b) John Paul II,General Audience of Oct 1,1986: "In context it is evident that original sin in Adam's descendants has not the character of personal guilt. It is the privation of sanctifying grace in a nature which, through the fall of the first parents, has been diverted from its supernatural end. It is a 'sin of nature' only analogically comparable to 'personal sin.'"
c) John Paul II,General Audience of Oct.8,1986: "It is human nature so fallen, stripped of the grace that clothed it, injured in its own natural powers and subjected to the dominion of death, that is transmitted to all men, and it is in this sense that every man is born in sin. .... However, according to the Church's teaching, it is a case of a relative and not an absolute deterioration, not intrinsic to the human faculties ....not of a loss of their essential capacities even in relation to the knowledge and love of God." [emphasis added].
COMMENTS: WE notice changes in the language, from saying original sin is transmitted by heredity to saying original sin is "the privation of sanctifying grace", the lack of what should be there. This really means that original sin is the non- transmission of grace. Further, our mind is darkened and will weakened only in a relative sense, for there is "not an absolute deterioration...not a loss of their essential capacities." It seems to mean that original sin took our nature down only to the level it would have been in had God given only basic humanity to Adam and Eve -- for in that, without a coordinating gift,there would be need of mortification to gain control over the various drives which would tend to be rebellious.
In making such changes,we are observing,at the same time,two official texts: 1)Vatican II,On Ecumenism 7:"...if any things - whether in morals or in ecclesiastical discipline, or even in the way of expressing doctrine - to be carefully distinguished form the deposit of faith - have been kept less accurately, at the suitable time they should be restored in the right order and form." 2) Paul VI,Mysterium fidei,Sept 3,1965:"The rule of speaking which the Church in the course of long ages, not without the protection of the Holy Spirit, has introduced, and has strengthened by the authority of Councils...must be kept sacred,and no one at his own whim or under pretext of new knowledge may presume to change them. To sum up: Vatican II said that some expressions in older documents may need improvement, but Paul VI added: true,but we must not say the old expressions are false, merely that they are capable of improvement. 9.Concupiscence and original sin: a)Trent defined:DS 1515: "If anyone denies that through the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ,which is conferred in Baptism,the guilt of original sin is remitted, or even asserts that not all that has the true and proper nature of a sin is taken away, but says it is only scraped or not imputed: Let him be anathema....This Holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never meant that this concupiscence, which at times the Apostle calls 'sin' [Rom 6:12 ss] is a sin in that it is truly and properly a sin in those reborn -- but [it teaches that it is called sin] because it comes from sin and inclines to sin. But if anyone hold the contrary: Let him be anathema." b)St.Augustine's view is not fully clear. He had written,in De duabus animabus contra Manichaeum 10.12:"There is never sin anywhere except in the will." In Retractations 1.15.2 he comments: "But this sin, of which the Apostle spoke thus [referring to Rom 7:16-18] is called sin for the reason that it comes from sin, and is the penalty of sin; at times it is called concupiscence of the flesh....the guilt of this concupiscence is taken away in Baptism, but the weakness remains." COMMENT:He speaks of concupiscence as a "guilt" [reatus]. So it seems he means there is a guilt to it before Baptism takes the guilt away,leaving the weakness. Hence concupiscence would be a part of original sin. This fits with his tendency to hold Traducianism [souls of children derive from souls of parents] - since otherwise he would find it hard to explain how original sin is transmitted, if God would create each soul separately. Then there would be nothing positive to original sin. As we saw above most clearly in the teaching of John Paul II, original sin in us is a privation, not something positive.
Augustine's view seems to hold some influence today: I.F.Sags, op.cit. 956 says Salmanticenses, Gonet, Pignataro, Billot,Boyer and others hold that concupiscence is the material element of original sin even in a strict sense.-- Others deny this;D.Soto, Bellarminus, Silvius and more commonly the Thomists and many others. Sags himself comments at the end of 956: "Perhaps it would be better, to help avoid confusion, if concupiscence were simply not called a material element of original sin." 10.Was it once thought that intercourse in marriage is sinful? The charge is sometimes made. It seems to be present in some,not in others. Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria seem to say it is not sinful: Tertullian, To his wife :"How beautiful, then, the marriage of two Christians, two who are one in hope, one in desire, one in the way of life they follow, one in the religion they practice. They are as brother and sister, both servants of the same Father. Nothing divides them ether in flesh or in spirit. They are, in very truth, two in one flesh, and where there is but one flesh there is also but one spirit. They pray together.... Hearing and seeing this, Christ rejoices. To such as these, He gives His peace. Where there are two together, there also He is present, and where He is, there evil is not." Clement of Alexandria,Paedagogos, 1.12.99 PG 8,368C:"As for deeds, walking and reclining at table, eating and sleeping, marriage relations and the manner of life, the whole of a man's education all become illustrious as holy deeds under the influence of the Educator [Christ]." And in 2.10.94: "Yet, marriage in itself merits esteem and the highest approval.... To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom we should take as our instructor." The words of some writers were influenced by the Vetus Latina version of 1 Cor 7.6.: "I say this by way of pardon." (It really should mean that it is by way of kindness, not by way of command, that Paul said what he had just said). St.Jerome, Adversus Jovinianum 1.7: "'It is good' he [St.Paul in 1 Cor 7:1]] says for a man not to touch a woman.' If it is good not to touch a woman,therefore it is evil to touch one: for nothing is contrary to good except evil. If ...it is evil, but is forgiven [We recall the confusion just mentioned on "pardon"] it is granted so that worse may not happen....Let each one, he says, have [his own wife] which he had before he came to the faith, whom it was good not to touch, and after receiving the faith of Christ [it is good] to know only as a sister, not as a wife, unless [the danger of] fornication would make the touch excusable." St.Jerome, Sermon On Eating the Paschal Lamb (PL 40.1024) Once thought not genuine,now seen as genuine: G.Morin,Anecdota Maredsolana 5.3): "If the Shew Bread [cf.1 Sam 21:4-5] could not be eaten by those who had touched their wives, how much more can that bread which came down from heaven not be eaten by those who a bit before adhered to conjugal embraces....? Not that we condemn marriage, but that, at the time when we are about to eat the flesh of the Lamb, we should be free from the works of the flesh."
COMMENTS: The first of the texts of Jerome seems to mean real sin,the second refers to fittingness,not necessarily to sin. St.Augustine,Enchiridion 78.21:After quoting St.Paul, 1 Cor 7:5, saying: "Do not deprive one another...." he adds: "If mingling with the wife to procreate children..., could be thought to be not a sin, but also [it could be thought not to be a sin to do it] for the sake of carnal pleasure.... Therefore, as I said, this could be thought not to be a sin if he [St.Paul] had not added, 'I say this by way of pardon, not by way of command'. Who now would deny it is a sin, when he admits that a pardon is given to those who do it, by apostolic authority?" St.Gregory the Great, Epistle 11.64 (PL 77.1196-- a note in col.1185 comments that there are some things in the letter that seem foreign to the thought of Gregory. And the Corpus Christianorum edition omits this letter, since it was lacking in the official Lateran Register which the Pope kept for future reference. So we are not sure the Epistle is genuine.): The Epistle says that a man sleeping with his wife should not enter the church until he has washed with water.Here the letter draws on the ritual purity rules of Lev.15.18. But the letter reinterprets Leviticus: "This is to be understood spiritually...unless first the fire of concupiscence cools in the soul, he should not think himself worthy of the assembly of the brethren.... Only a tranquil mind can occupy itself in contemplation." S.Lyonnet, Annotationes in Priorem Epistulam ad Corinthios,Romae,1965-66.pp.100-101 reports that after St.Augustine, because of his authority, very many authors even though they did not have the mistaken reading of 1 Cor 7:6 [reading 'pardon" instead of "concession"] still held that the conjugal act was a fault, which became venial because of marriage." Lyonnet refers the reader to the Dictionnaire de Thologie Catholique at the word marriage. St.Thomas Aquinas, II.80.7. He asks whether a nocturnal emission impedes anyone from receiving Holy Communion, and replies: Only mortal sin makes it necessary for a person to abstain from receiving this sacrament... .But out of certain fittingness there is an impediment in two ways. One always happens, the uncleanness of the body.... The other is the wandering of the mind, which follows on a nocturnal emission, especially when it comes with unclean imagination." Vatican II,Gaudium et spes 49:"The Lord has seen fit by a special gift of grace and love to heal, to perfect, and to elevate this love.... So the actions by which the spouses are intimately and chastely united are honorable and worthy, and, carried out in a truly human manner, signify mutual self-giving, and promote it."
COMMENTS: In this difficult matter,we need to be very careful to preserve two truths simultaneously.
1.Marriage is good, even can be a means of perfection: Vatican II just cited corrects the errors of a few earlier writers. Marriage even offers great means of spiritual growth, if one uses it according to our Father's plans. Paul VI said to the 13th National Congress of the Italian Feminine Center,Feb.12,1966: "Christian marriage and the Christian family demand a moral commitment. They are not an easy way of Christian life, even though the most common, the one which the majority of the children of God are called on to travel. Rather, it is a long path toward sanctification." Cf.Pius XI, Casti connubii, DS 3707:"This mutual interior conforming of the spouses to one another, this constant zeal to make each other better, in a certain very true way, as the Roman Catechism teaches [II.8.13] can even be called the first purpose of marriage, provided however, that marriage be understood not in a narrow sense as an institution to rightly procreate and educate offspring, but in a broader sense as a communion, habituation, and association in all of life."
How this works is seen in God's plan for maturing. Cf.Our Father's Plan, pp.144-49. Within marriage there are countless occasions that demand self-sacrifice - because male and female psychology are so very different - and for the sake of the children. "Their goals become your goals", said a commercial for insurance policies. The celibate lacks this pressure,and so, if care is not taken, can remain selfish. The Eastern Fathers stress that abstention from marriage alone is not enough - detachment from everything is needed for spiritual growth. Cf.St.John of the Cross, Ascent of Mt.Carmel I.11.4: A bird tied to the ground by a string can fly only so high as the string permits.It makes no difference if the string is stout or thin. Similarly, an attachment to even one imperfection can set limits to one's growth. Cf.also St.Francis de Sales, Treatise on Love of God, 12.3. (Many scents in the spring can confuse a hunting dog, make it unable to follow the game. So, having many desires makes it hard for us to follow the trail of God).
2.St.Paul does say that objectively virginity/celibacy offers a spiritual help not to be found in marriage. We said "objectively" since God's plans are that most people marry. If they do this, intending to follow His plan, there is no lack of generosity. For those for whom He intends it, to omit marriage could be a danger. But yet, for those for whom God intends it, virginity/celibacy offers an additional help to spiritual growth. St.Gregory of Nyssa wrote in On Virginity 20: "No more do our emotional powers possess a nature which can at one and the same time pursue the pleasure of sense and court the spiritual union; nor, besides can both those ends be gained by the same course of life; continence, mortification of the passions, avoidance of fleshly needs, are the agents of the one union; but all that are the reverse of these are the agents of bodily cohabitation."
Socrates many times over urged the seeker for truth to have as little as possible to do with things of the body: Phaedo 62, 65,66, 82-82,114; Republic 485-86, 517, 519, 543, 608, 613.
Vatican II LG 46: "The counsels [poverty, chastity, obedience] contribute not a little to spiritual freedom; they constantly arouse the fervor of love, and are able to make the christian more conformed to the kind of virginal and poor life which Christ the Lord chose for Himself, and which His Virgin Mother embraced." And in Optatam totius [on priestly training] 10 the Council added:"Let seminarians recognize the duty and dignity of Christian marriage, which is an image of the love of Christ and His Church;but they must see the greater excellence of consecrated virginity." St.Paul in 1 Cor 7.5 urges spouses to abstain from intercourse, by mutual consent,for a time, so they may be free for prayer. This is not a matter of clock hours. Rather it depends on the insights shown by St.Gregory the Great and St.Gregory of Nyssa cited above. This is explained by Mt 6.21: "Where your treasure is,there is your heart also." For one can put his treasure in anything. We note (1) some things are farther below God than others, (2) there is a difference in the degree of hold creatures have on a person - only as far as imperfection - or occasional venial sin - or habitual venial sin - or occasional mortal sin - or habitual mortal sin. In proportion to these, it will be just that much less easy for thoughts and hearts to rise to the divine level. This is true even in the lawful use of marriage, as the two Sts.Gregory indicate (a thing can be good and also be the thorns of the Gospel parable). Again, a galvanometer will measure current correctly if it has no outside pulls. Very strong outside pulls may mean the current in the coil (grace, which respects my freedom) will have no effect at all. Then the man is blind, and since grace cannot do the first task, to show him what God wills, it will not do anything further either. So he is lost - for cannot be saved without grace -- unless a grace comparable to a miracle is provided. Probably this is done when someone puts an extraordinary weight into the scales of the objective order,to call for an extraordinary grace. 7.Man's Need of Redemption: a)There is need of redemption arising from original sin in that the privation of grace which constitutes original sin means the soul lacks the means necessary to take part in the beatific vision. This does not mean that an unbaptized baby goes to hell. St.Augustine thought so: Enchiridion 93;Contra Iulianum 5.11.44 He speaks of the "mildest punishment" [mitissima poena]. However in Epist. 166.6.16: "But when we come to the punishment of infants, believe me, I am pressed in the tightest place, and I do not know at all what to answer." St.Fulgentius, De fide ad Petrum 27,68 agrees with Augustine. Sadly, Leonard Feeney does too: Cf.Thomas M.Sennott, They Fought the Good Fight, Monrovia,1986,pp.395-06. He quotes Pope Pius IX (DS 2866,"God... would never of His supreme goodness and mercy permit anyone to be punished with eternal torments...who has not incurred the guilt of voluntary sin."- on the previous page he had given an equivalent translation of Pius IX and called it in error!) and then ridicules the words of Pius IX : "If God cannot punish eternally a human being who has not incurred the guilt of voluntary sin, how then, for example, can He punish eternally babies who die unbaptized?" St.Gregory Nazianzen,Orationes 40,23 : "I think that...these [babies who die unbaptized] are neither glorified, nor are punished by the Just Judge, who on the one hand were not sealed [baptized], but on the other hand are not evil, but rather suffered a loss than inflicted one." COMMENT: St Gregory speaks of the Just Judge - implying he thought it would be unjust to damn infants. St.Gregory of Nyssa,On Infants taken away prematurely. R. 1059, thinks that those infants who die without baptism are those who would have been lost by sinning had they lived a full life. St.Thomas Aquinas: The Church has never taught the damnation of infants. Rather, the view of St.Thomas Aquinas has been widely taught, without censure, for centuries: De malo q.5.a.3 ad 4: "Children who die in original sin are on the one hand perpetually separated from God in regard to the loss of glory, of which they do not know, but not in regard to the participation of natural good things, which they do know." And ibid.c.: "That which they have in nature they have without pain."
Pius VI,in 1794 in DS 1616, condemned the teaching of the Synod of Pistoia for saying that the idea that there is a limbo for unbaptized infants is a Pelagian fable. 12.Theological reasoning on unbaptized infants: 1)On the one hand,a baby who dies without baptism lacks the transformation of the soul by grace that makes it capable of taking in the Beatific Vision; on the other hand,original sin is sin in an analogous sense, i.e., the soul lacks the grace it should have, but it lacks it without any personal fault at all. Therefore it deserves no positive punishment at all. 2)God surely could, in His own way, supply that grace. He did it in the case of the Holy Innocents. He could do it in other cases too, if He should so will. His hands are not tied by the Sacraments. As St.Thomas said, ST III.68.2.c.," His [God's] power is not tied by( or:to) the Sacraments." 3)Does He actually do so? a)Theologians commonly hold that God provided for the salvation of those who died before Christ in some way. Girls of course were not circumcised. (cf.Summa 3.62.ad 3: "By circumcision the ability was given to boys to arrive at glory." It was enough to belong to the People of God. St.Paul in 1 Cor 7.14 says that the unbelieving mate in marriage is consecrated,or made holy, through union with the Christian, who does come under the Covenant: "Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is,t hey are holy." So they are holy precisely by belonging to a family with even one party Christian.- Paul does not at this point mention Baptism as the reason for their holiness -- he speaks of the mere fact that they belong to a family with one Christian parent. -- Similarly, the Jews believed that merely belonging to the People of God insured their salvation, unless they positively ruled themselves out by great sins. Cf.Talmud, Sanhedrin 10.1: "All Israel has a share in the age to come." It adds there are three groups who do not have a share: those who deny the resurrection, those who deny the Law is from heaven, and Epicureans. Cf. E.P.Sanders, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, (Fortress,Philadelphia,1977 pp.147-82). St.Paul insists,in Romans 3.28-30 that if God had not provided for those who did not know the Law, He would not be their God. So He must have done so, and did it through the regime of faith. Could we argue that if God makes no provision for unbaptized infants, He would not act as their God? Probably yes.
Also, St.Paul insists many times over, in Rom 5.15-17, that the redemption is superabundant, more so than the fall. But since God did provide for infants before Christ, if He did not do so after Christ, the redemption would not be superabundant, it would be a hellish liability for infants and many others. b)God shows great concern for the objective moral order. Cf.Our Father's Plan, chapter 4. But He seems concerned also with the objective physical order: In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Abraham explains (Lk 16.25): "Remember that you in your lifetime received good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish." - No mention of sins on the part of the rich man or virtue in the poor man. - Could it be then that God decides: These infants were deprived of what in the normal objective order they should have had, according to my intention. So now they must receive compensation? Cf.also the reversals of material fortune in Luke 6:24-26. Objection: The Council of Florence (DS 1351): It has strenuous language which Feeney and his friends love to quote: "...none who are outside the Catholic Church...can partake of eternal life...and ... the unity of the ecclesiastical body has such force that only for those who remain in it are the sacraments of the Church profitable for salvation, and fasting, alms and other works of piety and exercises of Christian soldiery bring forth eternal rewards [only] for them. 'No one, howsoever much almsgiving he has done, even if he sheds his blood for Christ, can be saved, unless he remains in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Catholic Church.'" COMMENTS: 1.This is merely a very strong statement of the need of belonging to the Church. It does not explain in what that membership consists. Other documents of the Church supply for that (cf.also the Patristic and Scriptural study in W.Most, Our Father's Plan, Appendix, for a way of understanding the requirement,such that it removes any problem). Feeney liked to assume that milder sounding texts, such as Pius IX, Holy Office and Pius XII, and Vatican II, all contradict this text. It is really hard to imagine that the Church would contradict herself! We should never assume that if there is a plausible way of taking into account ALL texts. 2.It is quite possible to suppose Florence speaks of those who explicitly and contumaciously reject the Church. Pius IX (DS 2866 ) does explicitly speak that way. Or we may take the broader definition of membership worked out in Our Father's Plan. 3.As to infants - the teaching is true that if some soul actually dies in original sin, that one cannot reach the vision of God. That could be described as a penalty, but it would be better to speak of it as a loss than as a positive punishment, in line with St.Thomas Aquinas and other texts given above in this section. And we recall that Vatican II, Decree on Ecumenism 6 said: "If...there have been deficiencies in the way that Church teaching has been formulated, to be carefully distinguished from the deposit of faith itself, these can and should be set right at the opportune moment." We notice that only the wording may need improvement - the content is to remain (cf.Paul VI, in Mysterium fidei,Sept 3,1965,23-24,AAS 57.758). This text of Florence is surely a case where the wording might be improved, while keeping the teaching - again, making use of the two possibilities listed above, i.e., that the text refers to those who explicitly and contumaciously reject the Church, or,u sing the broader Patristic understanding of membership. As to infants we can also add that our theological speculation given above may be true. The Council of Florence speaks only of those who actually die in original sin. Perhaps the infants do not actually die in it.
4)John Paul II, Redemptoris missio,Dec.7,1990 10: "The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the Gospel revelation or to enter the Church. ... For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation." COMMENT: The Pope has in mind basically adults. Yet his words, "since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all," show a pattern of thought which logically should apply to infants too.
b)We need redemption also for forgiveness of our personal sins. On the way redemption operates, see Our Father's Plan, chapters 4-11. 13.Nature of the first sin: There is no magisterium statement on this. Some have thought it was sexual. Cf.I.Kikawada,and A.Quinn, Before Abraham Was, Abingdon,1985,pp.68 & 81,n.9. Kikawada thinks it was a refusal to carry out the command to increase and multiply (Gen 1.28). For certain,the use of sex was not forbidden to them, rather, the command to multiply implied it. But Kikawada's idea meets with the objection that Genesis depicts the sin as done on one particular occasion - the refusal would have been spread out. Some.e.g., J.Coppens, La connaissance du bien et du mal et le pch du paradis, Lovain,1949, thinks this the passage is a polemic against Canaanite sexual practices -- which were a temptation to the Jews. In view of the genre of Genesis, we think it best not to press the specific nature of the sin. Rather, the account is psychologically brilliant, to bring out the root of all sin: pride. We can retell the incident to show this: Eve is in the garden one day, and along comes the tempter: "What a nice garden! Do they let you eat of all the trees?: Yes - but wait, over there is one tree we must not eat. We will die if we do." The tempter puts on a surprised look: "He said that! Don't you see he is selfish. He knows if you eat that you will become like gods. He wants to keep that all for himself." Eve looks at the fruit- "I can just SEE it is good." This implies: God may know in general what is good, but right here and now, I know better. V. The Election of Israel 1.Election vs final salvation: It is important to distinguish clearly the two. Election is choosing the Israelites to be His favored people, the first People of God. That fact did not predetermine their final salvation, even though it provided special help for that (fuller discussion below). Failure to make the distinction has brought many serious errors. In general, the Fathers of the Church, both East and West, did not make this distinction. Cf.Wm.Most, New Answers to Old Questions 183-213. Hence they took, for example, the parable of the banquet to refer to predestination to heaven - when actually it referred to the fact that all Jews were called to the Messianic kingdom, few accepted: "Many (probably Hebrew rabbim: "the all who are many) are called, few are chosen. The same trouble plagued the Congregationes de Auxiliis, 1597-1607, called by Clement VIII, closed by Paul V -text of the decision in DS 1090.The Pope refused to approve either the "Thomists" or the Molinists. We did sketch the correct answer to predestination to heaven in earlier lectures. As to the principles for election to full membership in the People of God, the Church, St.Paul in Romans 9 makes clear the negative part of the answer: it is not based on merits. He nowhere explicitly states the positive part of the answer though it can be gathered from 1 Cor.1.26-30, telling them that their community does not have many wise or noble men - they are nobodies, and: "As a result of God [not as a result of merits],you are in Christ Jesus." Implies that they got the special election because they were in greater need. This is reinforced by other passages: Ezekiel 3,5-7: "You are not sent to a people of foreign speech and a hard language whose words you cannot understand, but to the house of Israel...Surely, if I sent you to such, they would listen to you. But the house of Israel will not listen to you you, for they are not willing to listen to me; because all the house of Israel are of a hard forehead and a stubborn heart." Jonah, chapter 3. Barely does Jonah begin to preach, when the Assyrians do penance in sackcloth and ashes - quite unlike the People of God who persecuted the prophets. Luke 10.30-37, the parable of the Good Samaritan: Officers of the People of God pass the wounded man by - someone not from the People of God has mercy. Luke 10.13: Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you,Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes." Luke 17,12-19: Cure of ten lepers. Those of the People of God do not even return to say thanks - a Samaritan did. St.Paul's missions. Regularly, Paul went first to the Jews, got poor reception, often persecution. The Gentiles welcomed him.
We conclude: it seems that the members of the People of God are more resistant to God's grace than are the outsiders - and so they got that extra help because they might not have been saved without it. So the positive reason for election is the need of the people - not their merits. 2.No salvation outside Church: There is a defined doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church ,defined most vehemently in the Council of Florence:DS 1351: "It firmly believes, professes and preaches, that none who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can partake of eternal life, but they will go into eternal fire...unless before the end of life they will have been joined to it [the Church]; and that the unity the ecclesiastical body has such force that only for those who remain in it are the Sacraments of the Church profitable for salvation, and fastings, alms and other works of piety and exercises of the Christian soldiery bring forth eternal rewards [only] for them. 'No one,howsoever much almsgiving he has done, even if he sheds his blood for Christ, can be saved, unless he remains in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.'" (The internal quote is from St.Fulgentius of Ruspe, De Fide ad Petrum 38.79.).We comment first that Florence seems to have had in mind those who through their own fault reject the Church. Cf.the words of Pius IX in DS 2866: "Those who are contumacious against the authority of the same Church...and who are obstinately separated from the unity of this Church....cannot obtain eternal salvation." But Pius IX said, before this point: "God in His supreme goodness and clemency, by no means allows anyone to be punished with eternal punishments who does not have the guilt of voluntary fault." - Further this Council of Florence was held in 1442 before anyone knew of the Western hemisphere. It would not have meant to damn all those who never had a chance to know the Church.
We saw early in this course the chief Magisterium texts stating the FACT that people can be saved without formal entrance into the Church. Now we add theological reasoning to show HOW this can work out. The critical point is this: What does membership in the Church mean? For a full treatment,see Our Father's Plan, Appendix ,pp.241 69. Briefly, a study of the Fathers shows that they had two series of texts - usually both from the same man - one set sounding very stringent, the other very broad. E.g.,St.Justin Martyr, Apology 1.46: "Christ is the Logos [the Divine Word], of whom the whole race of men partake. Those who lived according to Logos are Christians, even if they were considered atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus." Cf.his Apology 2.10.8: "Christ...was and is the Logos who is in everyone...." Now a spirit does not take up space.We say a spirit is present wherever he produces an effect. What effect does the Logos produce? We find the answer in St.Paul,Romans 2.14-16: "The gentiles who do not have the law, do by nature the things of the law, they, not having the law, are a law for themselves. These show the work of the law written on their hearts, while their conscience bears witness, and their thoughts, in turn, will be either accusing or even defending them on the day on which God will judge the hidden things of men, according my Gospel, through Jesus Christ." - Paul clearly echoes Jeremiah 31,33: "I will write my law on their hearts." It is God, or the Spirit of God, or the Spirit of Christ, the Divine Logos - all works done outside the divine nature are common to all three Persons - who writes the law on their hearts, i.e., makes known to them interiorly what morality calls for. (Modern anthropology agrees, says that primitives show a remarkable knowledge of the moral law.)
Now if a pagan follows this law on his heart, objectively, even though he does not know it, he is following the Spirit of Christ. But then we gather from Romans 8.9 that if one has and follows the Spirit of Christ, he "belongs to Christ". But that in turn means to be a member of Christ, and that is a member of the Church - without external adherence, but yet substantially a member.-- So there is no problem with the words of Florence - even many pagans who never heard of the Church can be members, substantially. In fact,Romans 8.15:"As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are sons of God." Some of the pagans just described do follow the Spirit - so they are sons of God, and as sons have a right to inherit the kingdom, as Romans 8.17 says:"If sons, heirs also, heirs of God, coheirs of Christ." Cf.Vatican II, LG 49:"All who belong to Christ, having His Spirit, coalesce into one Church." We recall too the clear teachings of Pius IX, Pius XI,Vatican II, LG 16 and of John Paul II, Redemptoris missio 10, cited above.
What If a Pagan Sins Mortally? (tentative speculation)
St Paul urges (Romans 3:29):"Is He the God only of the Jews? Is He not also the God of the gentiles? Yes, He is the God of the gentiles."
Paul means that if God had made salvation depend on keeping the Mosaic law, then all who did not know of it would go to hell. But Paul knows God is not like that, is not a cruel monster. So Paul insists that God has provided for the salvation of nonJews too. How? Paul says it is by faith that they can be saved.
To explain how that works out we must first notice what Paul means by that word "faith". He does not mean just developing a confidence that the merits of Christ apply to him. (If he has an emotional experience at such a point then he is "reborn", but without such an emotion, one goes to hell, say the Fundamentalists). Such a view is simplistic, rests on nothing in St.Paul. For we need to read every passage (probably with the help of a concordance) where Paul speaks of faith, read each in context, keep notes, and add them up. If we do that our result is: If God speaks a truth, faith requires we believe it in our minds; if He makes promise, faith requires we have confidence He will keep it; if God tell us to do something, we must do it - this is "the obedience of faith" of which Paul speaks in Romans 1:5, that is, the obedience that faith is. All these are to be done in love.
Martin Luther, in his Exposition of Psalm 130.4, said about justification by faith: "If this article stands, the church stands, if it collapses, the church collapses." How sad! he wrote his own church's obituary, for he did not know what faith means - there is quite a contrast between just getting the conviction that the merits of Christ apply to me (plus or minus emotion at the time) and a faith that believes, hopes, obeys, and loves. The Protestant Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Supplement, on p.333 gives precisely the definition of Pauline faith we have just given. If that be the case, faith, which includes obedience, cannot excuse from obedience so that one can sin greatly, but believe still more greatly (Luther, Epistle 509).
Can one who follows him still be saved? We will be more generous than the Fundamentalists who consign to hell all who are not "born again", i.e,. have an emotional experience of a "faith" that is not Pauline faith. So we will say yes, they can be saved in spite of such a sad error. For St.Paul in Romans 2:14-16 explains: "The gentiles who do not have the law, do by nature the things of the law. They show the work of the law written on their hearts." And according to their reaction conscience will accuse or defend them at Judgment. St.Justin the Martyr (Apology 1.46) applies this sort of principle to Socrates. He says Socrates was really a Christian, because he followed the Divine Word, the Logos. In Apology 2:10 Justin adds that the Divine Word, the Logos, is within each one. Thanks to St.Paul, we can see what the Word does there: He writes the law on their hearts. Now if Socrates accepts that law, even though he does not know that it is the Divine Word that writes it, Socrates is objectively following the Spirit of Christ. Then, from Romans 8:9, we note that if one does have and follow the Spirit of Christ, that one "belongs to Christ." To belong to Christ is to be Christian; in fact, it also means, in Paul's terminology, to be a member of Christ - which is to be a member of the Church! (So much for the Extra Ecclesiam problem).
We note in passing how well this squares with the recent Encyclical on the missions of John Paul II ( 10): "The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church.... For such people, salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation." We are here suggesting how that "mysterious relationship" could work. Socrates of course did not formally become a member of the Church, yet we are suggesting he could have a substantial, though imperfect form of membership, sufficient to satisfy the teaching "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus."
Just as John Paul II in the same Encyclical stressed that what he said in 10 did not mean we should not promote the missions, so we emphasize that our proposal does not diminish that need. Pius XII said it well in his Encyclical on the Mystical Body ( 103): "They still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church." And he wants them "to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation."
But suppose a person, pagan or other, has reached justification, the state of grace, by the means we have explained, suppose he later sins mortally. If he just continues to believe it is all right, that he need do nothing about it, will that cancel his mortal sin? Of course not. A mistake does not give absolution.
And yet Paul's confidence expressed in Romans 3:29 that God is the God of all, suggests He has provided a way. Such a person will not make an act of perfect contrition. A pagan hardly even dreams of such a thing. The born-again man thinks there is no need. Let us present for comment something new. In chapter 33:17- 19 (cf.18:21-22) of Ezekiel God says emphatically that if the just man turns from the just way, he will not live. But he also says that if the wicked man turns from his evil way, he will live. And there is no mention of perfect contrition.
Let us recall that in God there are no real distinctions. We do not say that He has love, but that He is love. Similarly He is justice, He is mercy. If one, thinking of the fact that God is good or morally right in Himself, regrets having done something sinful, that is perfect contrition.
But we need to recall that when we love God, we do not act on the usual definition of love: "To love is to will good to another for the other's sake". No, we cannot will that God we well-off, that He get anything. Instead, Scripture pictures Him as pleased if we obey, displeased if we do not. Of course, our obedience does not give Him anything. He cannot benefit. But still, He wants us to obey, and for two reasons: 1)He loves all that is good, loves objective morality; 2) He wants to give to us - but that giving will be in vain if we are not open to receive. So He wants us to obey so He can give. Since He is Generosity itself, it gives Him pleasure to give effectively to us.
Therefore we get this equation: Love directed to God is in practice the same as obedience to Him, and obedience is love. (Cf.John 14:15 & 21).
So if the wicked man of whom God spoke through Ezekiel turns from his evil way, the man begins to obey, and so he loves, and in effect says: Now I see that this is not good, it is wrong, it is evil, I should not do it, it is not right. So it would seem that this is how God could say that that man will live. In God justice and love are identified - as are all His attributes. So this man, motivated by God's justice (and with the grace He always makes available) is doing the equivalent of acting on the basis of God's goodness. His obedience really is in practice, love of God.
An ancient Jew would recognize that what he had done was not only wrong in general, but was wrong because it offended God, who is "sadiq, [morally righteous], and loves sedaqoth, [things that are morally righteous]" as Psalm 11:7 told him. But what of a pagan who does not know the true God? St.Justin the Martyr's lines can help here: Socrates in accepting what is objectively the Spirit of Christ, did not know what He was accepting. Yet that acceptance, according to St.Justin, made Socrates a Christian. So in a parallel way, the sinner who turns from his evil way will live, as God told Ezekiel, since he bases his turn- about on what is good in itself - but it is God who is good in Himself. The man would not explicitly have all these thoughts in mind. But yet, what he is and does objectively can suffice, just as it would for Socrates. His obedience is in practice the same as love of God.
What we have just proposed is admittedly Scriptural and theological speculation. Yet it seems quite possible God may so act, and this could explain His repeated words through Ezekiel. 3.Scriptural vocabulary for entering the Church: The chief point is the usage of the words save and salvation. As usual with ancient words, there is a broad spectrum of meaning to these words. There are three possible senses: 1)rescue from temporal evils 2) entry into the Church 3) final salvation. the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament does not list any usage to mean infallible salvation by one act of taking Christ as one's personal Savior. Some texts in which save means enter the Church: Rom 9.27: "But Isaiah cries out in regard to Israel: If the number of sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea,the remnant will be saved". Paul cites Is 10.22-23 in abridged form from LXX. Isa said only a remnant would return from captivity to rejoin people of God. In parallel,Paul means a remnant of the Jews will join the new people of God. Rom.10.10: "For by the heart one has faith [leading to ] righteousness. With the mouth there is profession of faith [leading to] salvation. -- All of Chapters 9-11 of Romans refer to membership in Church. Rom.11.25-26 :"A partial blindness has happened to Israel, until the fullness of the gentiles enter [the Church], and so, all Israel will be saved". In context, Paul predicts the conversion of Jews, not final salvation. For Jews could reach final salvation even before the end time - even gentiles could be saved as in Rom 2.14-16. 1 Cor 7.16 :"How do you know, wife, if you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband,if you will save your wife?" In context: bring into the Church. 1 Ths.2.15: The Jews, "did not please God, and were against all men, forbidding us to speak to the gentiles so they could be saved." This does not mean final salvation -- as Rom 2.14-16 shows, gentiles could reach that even if Paul did not preach to them. 4.God's appearances to Israel: a)The Fathers thought it was always the Logos who appeared. Cf.Aloys Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition (John Knox.Atlanta 2d ed.1975). I. p.103 commenting on Justin Apology 1.46: "In his view, the incarnation is merely the conclusion in an immense series of manifestations of the Logos, which had their beginning in the creation of the world." Behind this view seems to be the idea that the Father was too transcendent to appear in the world, and so He needed the Logos as a bridge to mankind. Cf. Justin Martyr, Dialogue 127: "He is not moved nor can be contained by place or by the whole world, for He existed before the world was made. How then could He talk to anyone, or be seen by anyone, or appear on the smallest portion of the earth, when the people at Sinai were not able to look even on the glory of him [Moses] who as sent from him?" So the Mediator is the Logos. Quasten, Patrology I.p.208 thinks, "Justin denies the substantial omnipresence of God." Not so. His translation of the Greek was poor at one point, where he said: "He is not moved or confined to a spot in the whole world". It should be as above instead. Also, Quasten thinks,p.209, that "Justin tends to subordinationism.... This is evident from Apology 2,6:"His Son who alone is properly called Son, the Logos, who alone was with him and was begotten before the works, when at first he created and arranged all things by him, is called Christ, in reference to his being anointed and God's ordering all things through him." This does not prove any subordination. - Justin is groping. He wants to say the Father is transcendent (arretos) but that He employs the Son as Mediator. This is a point of theological method. We at times find two truths, which seem to clash, yet even after checking, we see both are established. Then we must hold both, until we find how to reconcile them (cf.the case of the two sets of statements by the Fathers on the knowledge of Christ, and on membership in the Church). Justin did not find how to reconcile the truths. Nor did various other Fathers who spoke similarly. Thus Origen has been both accused and acquitted of subordinationism: Quasten II.77: "that he teaches subordinationism has been both affirmed and denied; St.Jerome does not hesitate to accuse him of doing so, while Gregory Thaumaturgos and St.Athanasius clear him of all suspicion. Modern authors like Rgnon and Prat also acquit him." - There are two kinds of statements in Origen: (a)Affirms divinity: In Hebr.Frg.24,359: "Thus Wisdom too, since it proceeds from God, is generated out of the divine substance itself. Under the figure of a bodily outflow, nevertheless, it, too, is thus called 'a sort of clean and pure outflow of omnipotent glory' (Wisd,7,25). Both these similes manifestly show the community of substance between Son and Father. For an outflow seems homoousios,i.e.,of one substance with the body of which it is the outflow or exhalation." (from Quasten,p,78) Discussion with Heraclides: "Origen said: We confess therefore two Gods?" (cited from Quasten II,p.64) (b)Seems to state subordination: On John 13.25: "We say that the Saviour and the Holy Spirit are without comparison and are very much superior to all things that are made, but also that the Father is even more above them than they are themselves above creatures even the highest." (from Quasten II,p.79). COMMENT:He says the Savior and Holy Spirit are "very much superior to all things that are made...[and] above creatures" - which seems to imply they are not made and are not creatures. It only affirms the Father is higher - probably means transcendence - again, the problem of theological method with two kinds of statements.
Again,we recall the language of 1 Cor 15: 28 that at the end Christ woudl be subject to the Father. And in the whole of St.Pater's speech in acts 2 on the first Pentecvost there is hardly a hint of the divinity of Christ.Cf.also Paul's speech on the Areopagus. 5. Appearances compared to revelation: Eithe one, revelation or vision, may come without the other. There are three kinds of appearances: 1)Sensory or corporeal: The senses perceive a real object which is normally invisible. Need not be a real human body that is seen - may be a sensory or luminous form, or God or His agent may produce that image on the eyes of the one who sees the vision. Note on Eucharistic visions: St.Thomas III.76.8 holds that Jesus does not appear in visible form in His real body since the Ascension. The appearances may come: (a) by His working on the exterior senses (usually when only one person sees the vision), so that there is nothing there in external reality. (b) There is something in external reality, but in the case of the Eucharist, there is a change in the figure, color etc. of the accidents of the Real Presence. (This is usual when more than one person sees or when the apparition continues and even is exhibited in a shrine).- St.Teresa of Avila,Relations XV (Peers edition I.pp.341-42) seems to agree with St.Thomas: "From some of the things He said to me, I learned that, since ascending into the heavens, He had never come down to earth again to communicate Himself to anyone, except in the Most Holy Sacrament." - But others thinks there is a real presence, especially when He appears in proximity to the Sacred Host (cf.also the words cited above for St.Teresa, "except in the Most Holy Sacrament". When elsewhere, some think it is merely moral presence - others think there is a physical presence,and cite the case of St.Anthony kissing the Infant Jesus - a scene witnessed by the owner of the house where it happened: Cf.Poulain, Graces of Interior Prayer, pp.315-16. On visions in general, cf.Poulain, pp.301-02, and Royo Marin, Teolog¡a de la Perfecci¢n Cristiana,pp.815-19, A.Tanquerey, The Spiritual Life,pp.701-02. The same principles would apply to visions of the Blessed Virgin - and we note the varied images in which she appears. 2)Imaginative visions: produced in the imagination by God or angels or Saints, during sleep or when awake. Often an intellectual vision accompanies, which explains the meaning. -- These can be produced in three ways: (1)Awakening of images already present in memory, (2) Supernatural combination of such images held in memory, (3) Newly infused images.-- the devil can work in the first two ways ,not in the third. Such visions may come in sleep or while awake.May deal with things past or future as well as present. Cf.the case of the dreams of Joseph the patriarch. They may also be symbolic.
3)Intellectual visions: There is no sensory image present in these, the effect is directly supernatural on the intellect. There will be more clarity and force than what one would have from the natural powers. May come by way of ideas already acquired but coordinated or modified by God, or through infused ideas .The visions may be obscure ,manifesting only the presence of the object, or they may be clear. These intellectual visions may last a long time, days, weeks, even years. Cf.St.Teresa, Interior Castle 6.8.3. The effects may include profound understanding or love. They are apt to bring absolute certitude that they come from God: cf.St.Teresa, Life, 27.5. Combinations: In the Damascus road instance, Paul saw with his eyes a sensory vision, with his imagination he saw Ananias coming to him, in his mind he understood God's will. 6.Three kinds of revelations: (Preliminary:distinguish public, found in Scripture and Tradition, completed when last Apostle died and NT was finished.Cf. Dei verbum 4 - and private revelations: all else).
1)Auricular: A sound is produced in the air by a good or evil spirit. They may seem to come from a vision. 2)Imaginary: This does not mean false, but rather,a locution not perceived by the ears but by the power of image making. May be received while asleep or awake, and may come from God or a good or bad angel. The fruits produced in the soul - if one examines all fruits, not just some -- can see if the source is good or bad. Satan can afford to produce some seeming good fruits, if in the long run he can get evil results, such as disobedience to the Church over alleged visions, or pride, or may suggest great projects, beyond the ability of the soul, which will later give up all effort. 3)Intellectual: Impressed directly on the mind ,with no images received in senses or imagination. There are three classes, according to St.John of the Cross - whom others follow (Ascent of Mt.Carmel II.28-31): successive, formal, substantial. 1)Successive: These are formed by the soul, reasoning, with much facility, especially during meditation. They are the combined effect of the soul and the Holy Spirit. Illusion and error are quite possible here. St.John of Cross in II.39.4 says sometimes pure heresy can come in, created by the imagination of the soul or by the devil. 2)Formal: These seem to come from outside, whereas the successive seem to originate within the soul, even though the Holy Spirit may have a part in producing them. They, unlike the successive, may come even when one is distracted: thus the exterior origin is known. Illusion by the devil is possible here.
Substantial: Same as formal, but they produce in the soul the effects they signify, e.g,if God says to the soul: be quiet, be humble. Royo Marin, op.cit,p.821 ,thinks no illusion possible in such a case. Note:1)These locutions and visions belong to the category of gratiae gratis datae or charismatic, and per se are not necessary for spiritual growth of the soul, even though per accidens they may aid it. They do not even prove a soul is in the state of grace: cf.Mt 7.22-23. But one should not desire these -- danger of self-deception or devilish deception. St.Teresa of Avila warns (Interior Castle 6.9): "I will only warn you that, when you learn or hear that God is granting souls these graces, you must never beseech or desire Him to lead you along this road. Even if you think it is a very good one,and to be greatly prized and reverenced, there are certain reasons why such a course is not wise": Lack of humility, open to suggestion by devil or by self, presumption; trials usually go with these; may bring loss instead of gain. Cf.Matt 7,22-23. 2)St.John of Cross warns on accepting revelations. It is unfortunate to center spiritual life about these - may even weaken faith, which wants to see, instead of believing. Cf.Ascent II.11; III.13,and Poulain, op.cit., pp.299-399; Garrigou-Lagrange,Three Ages of the Spiritual Life II.575-88. 7.Transcendence and immanence: God is both immanent, close to us, present within us by grace, and transcendent. He was immanent to Israel by His special appearances (cf.below). a)Transcendence:He is best known by unknowing.We recall from first section: Arnobius, Against Nations 1.31: "To understand you, we must be silent,and for fallible conjecture to trace you even vaguely, nothing must even be whispered." Pseudo-Dionysius,Mystical Theology 1.2:God is best known by "unknowing". St.Gregory of Nyssa,Life of Moses PG 44.376: "The true vision of the One we seek, the true seeing, consists in this: in not seeing. For the One Sought is beyond all knowledge." St.Augustine,De Doctrina Christiana 1.6.6: "He must not even be called inexpressible, for when we say that word we say something." St.Thomas Aquinas (In:Maritain, Angelic Doctor, Sheed & Ward,London, 933, p.51: "Such things have been revealed to me that the things I have written and taught seem slight to me". He never went back to his Summa after that revelation. Plato,Republic 6.509B. Good (which probably stands for God) is "beyond being." b)Beyond categories: 1)Problem of Incarnation: In it,since God is unchangeable,He acquires no relation to the humanity,yet that humanity is assumed into One Person,and the person does suffer in the humanity. Further, all works of the Three Persons done outside the Divine Nature are common to all Three. Reply: The humanity was given the relation to only the One Person,not to all three. 2)God's knowledge: (a)Active vs passive. Neither mode can work for Him: He cannot be passive, cannot receive anything; but neither is He as limited as a blind man, who knows things move only if he is moving them. Thus St.Thomas, to explain God's knowledge of future contingents always invokes eternity - but stops with that, never says He knows by causality. If it were by infrustrable causality, no need of eternity to make such knowledge possible.We would say: He knows the future free decisions because He intends to cause them. Cf.New Answers to Old Questions, 463-70. esp. 474. (b)Futuribles:What would be if some conditions would be. Scripture shows He does know them: 1 Sam.23:10-13; Jer 38:17-23; Lk 10:13. Further, it is universal belief that if one prays for what would be harmful to him, God would not grant it. This presupposes knowledge of futuribles.-- Eternity cannot help here, by making them present, since they never will be -- only would be. If one tried to use infrustrable causality, an almost infinite series of decrees would be needed. Hence many older theologians who insisted on knowledge only via causality, denied that God has certain knowledge of futuribles, e.g.,P.de Ledesma, De divinae gratiae auxiliis,a.18. 3)Eternity: In view of it,since there is no change in God, what seems to us to be past or future is all present to Him - creation is present to Him, return of Christ at end is present.
8.Principal early manifestations to Israel: 1)To Noah: Genesis 6.13; 9.1. 2)To Abraham: Genesis 12:1 (leave Haran); 15:1 (Father of many:justification by faith); 17:1 (circumcision ordered); 18:1 (three visitors & promise of birth of Isaac); 18:22 (bargaining over Sodom); 21:17 (speaks of Hagar); 22:1 (call for sacrifice of Isaac). 3)To Isaac: Gen.25:23 ( two nations in womb of Rebekah). 4)To Jacob:Gen.28:10 (dream at Bethel); 49:10 (prophecy about Judah -- presupposes revelation). 5)To Moses: Exodus 3:4 ff (burning bush,and revelation of divine name, plus words of God before the Exodus); 12:1 (Passover instituted); 13:1 (consecration of firstborn); Exodus 15.1 ff.(ark of covenant); 19:1:ff (covenant of Sinai and laws). Leviticus 4:1 ff (sheggagah); 16:.1 (Yom Kippur: Aaron not to enter Holy of Holies often). 6)The Temple: a)prototype was the dwelling in the desert. Ex 25:1 ff.(notice Ex 25:40: "See that you make them according to the pattern shown you on the mountain - cf.rabbinic notions that the idea of the Temple was eternal: Talmud. Pesahim 4.4.54a): "Seven things were created before the creation of the world, namely: Torah, repentance, paradise, gehenna, the throne of majesty, the temple and the name of the Messiah." Cf.also 2 Baruch 4:2-6 in Charlesworth,Pseudepigrapha of the OT I.622).-- Divine presence filled the dwelling: Ex 40:34-35: "The cloud dwelled (shakan; LXX epeskiazein- cf.Lk 1.35, same verb) upon it and the glory of the Lord filled the dwelling (hamishkan)". b)Solomon's Temple: David had been forbidden by God to build the temple: compare 1 Chron. 22:8 -- because he shed much blood -- yet in 1 Kings 14:8 God praises David as a perfect man who "followed me with all his heart, doing only that which was right in my eyes." (It was a matter of fittingness, not of morality) -- Warning to Solomon 1 Kings 9.4ff: "If you live in my presence...I will establish your throne of power over Israel forever...But if you and your descendants ever withdraw from me, and do not keep the commandments and statues...I will cut off Israel from the land...and reject the temple...Israel shall become a proverb...among all nations." So it was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar II, rebuilt by God's command to Haggai, who promised the new temple would be more glorious (2:9) than the old -- fulfilled when Christ entered the Temple). On lavish use of gold in first temple, see BAR May/June,1989,pp.20-34. 9.Knowledge of future retribution: (Recall comments on nefesh above. It seems that knowledge of future retribution,as distinct from future survival, did not clearly develop until the time of the Maccabees: There seems to have been revelation mediated by contact with Greek ideas of two parts in man (if not known clearly before), and the crisis coming from the final sufferings of the martyrs. Interior illumination or locution could have made the fact clear. 10.The Divine Names: El/il.Found already at Ebla, probably around 2500 BC: cf. G.Pettinato,The Archives of Ebla (Doubleday,1981): p.72(date), and pp. 276-77 (theophoric names with il and ya). Cf.Akkadian ilu (late 3rd millennium) and Babylonian bab-ilu -- gate of the god(Babylon). Also known at Ugarit (c.1600BC).-- Almost out of use in OT, except in theophoric names and a few special combinations, such as El shaddai and El gibbor. Elohim. The most frequent OT word for God,but also used for pagan gods,for angels,and even for human judges. It has plural ending, most likely plural of majesty or intensive plural.
Yahweh: a)Meaning: debated. Most likely a verbal form of haya (Originally perhaps hwy = "to be". Some think it a hiphil form meaning "cause to be". If we take it as meaning I am,the sense is almost metaphysical or abstract. Yet we meet something similarly almost abstract in St.Paul's focusing esp. at Rom 8:7: "The flesh is not subject to the law of God, for it cannot be: those in the flesh cannot please God." Cf.1 Jn 3:9:"Everyone who is begotten of God does not sin...and he is not able to sin,since he is begotten of God." On focusing cf.W.Most,"Focusing in St.Paul", in Faith & Reason, fall,1976.II.2.pp.47-70. (Given as research paper at Catholic Biblical Association convention,Douglaston, NY in 1973).
b)Occurrence: It is probably found at Ebla - cf.Archives of Ebla ,pp.276-77. Also found on the Moabite stone (9th century BC) and may be an element in Egyptian, Ugaritic, Nabatean and Mari texts of 2nd millennium BC. Postexilic Jews developed such a reverence for the name that they would not pronounce it in public reading,except that the High Priest could say it on Yom Kippur (other uses by priests:debated). The Dead Sea Scrolls use the Paleo-Hebrew script for writing it. In the Masoretic text it has the consonants yhwh, but the vowel points for adonai,lord, so no one would inadvertently pronounce it. In the 16th century AD this led to the mistaken form Jehovah. Modern Jews often use the expression: hash-shem = the name, to avoid saying it. c)Revelation: There is a problem: Gen 4:26:"Then men began to call upon the name of Yahweh." in contrast to Exodus 3:14 and 6:3. In 6:3 God told Moses: "And I appeared to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as El Shaddai,and my name Yahweh was not known to them." (In 3.14 the burning bush vision God revealed the name to Moses). Solution: Dahood,in Archives of Ebla, pp.276-77 suggests that the name was known to northern or Syrian tradition early on, but not known to Egyptian tradition until later. It is also possible that we have an updated form anachronistically inserted at Gen 4:26. It is also possible that the name was known to the first men, later forgotten, by the time of Abraham. Some have suggested that Jethro, father-in-law of Moses, a priest of Midian (cf.Ex.cap.18), introduced him to the Midianite name of God - but this denies the reality of the burning bush vision. 11.Scriptural account of the patriarchal age: Abraham: Chapter 12: Abram (later Abraham) came from Ur in Mesopotamia to Haran in NW Mesopotamia, at the command of God, who promised to make him into a great nation. In 12:3 God promised:"All the families of the earth shall be blessed in you." [Ambiguous Hebrew: either as given, or: Shall bless themselves through you" i.e., in blessing shall say: "May you be blessed as Abraham". But the NT in Gal 3:8 and Acts 3:25 understands it as in the way we first gave it. St.Paul takes it to mean those who have faith in Jesus will be the real children of Abraham in the spiritual sense, imitating his faith. Lot, his nephew, went with him. He built an altar with Bethel to the west and Ai to the east, and called upon the name of Yahweh (12:8: cf.the problem of the revelation of the name -- seems like an anachronism here).
He went to the Negeb, but because of a famine, went into Egypt. Abram told Sarai to say she was his sister -- for, as expected, the king's men took her to the king. Abram received rich presents because of her. But then (Gen 12:17): "God struck Pharaoh and his household with great plagues because of Abram's wife Sarai." So, the king called Abram: Why did you not say she was your wife.Take her and go. Chapter 13: Abram came back to the Negeb, now a rich man, and continued toward the place between Bethel and Ai where he had built an altar. Lot too was rich, and so they decided to part, because of quarrels of their herdsmen. Lot went to Sodom. Abram settled near the terebinth of Mamre at Hebron,and built an altar to Yahweh. Chapter 14: Four kings, including Amraphel of Shinar, made war, captured Lot. Abraham heard of it, took 318 of his retainers, pursued the kings, rescued Lot. Then Melchizedek king of Salem offered bread and wine as a priest of El Elyon. Abram gave him a tenth of all he had. Now,in chapter 15, Abram worried he had no heir. God promised him descendants as numerous as the stars. His faith was credited as righteousness (sedaqah). In assurance, God had him take a heifer, a ram ,and a turtle dove and pigeon, and split them, with each half opposite. Abram had a trance. God promised him the land, but not until the fourth dor [time period], for the wickedness of the Amorites had not yet reached its fullness. Chapter 16: Sarai was sterile, so she gave Hagar to him to have children. After she became pregnant, she ridiculed Sarai. Sarai complained to Abram, and Sarai abused Hagar so much that she ran away into the desert. God promised Hagar her descendants would be a great nation. Abram was now 86. In chapter 17, God told Abram: Walk in my sight and be blameless. God changed his name to Abraham, saying he would be the father of a host of nations. He then commanded circumcision (after Abraham was already just, in chapter 15. St.Paul stresses this timing. God also promised Sarai would have a son, Isaac, when she was 90, Abraham was 99. Chapter 18:Abraham sees three men, gives them a meal. One of the men, God, promises again she will bear Isaac. As the men left, God stayed behind, and said He intended to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham haggles until God agrees to spare the cities for 10 just men -- they are not found. Chapter 19: Two angels come to Lot in Sodom. The Sodomites want to abuse them sexually. Lot offers two daughters. But the angels strike the men of Sodom blind. Then they tell Lot to leave Sodom. Then God rained down sulphurous fire on the cities. On leaving, Lot's wife looks back, becomes a pillar of salt. Lot lives for a time in a cave. His two daughters get him drunk, have intercourse, to have children. One had a son named Moab, the other a son named Ammon. Chapter 20: Another episode like that with Pharaoh: Abimelech takes her, thinking her Abraham's sister. God threatens him in a dream, and he does not touch her. Rather, he gave 1000 shekels of silver to Sarah, and many slaves to Abraham who prayed for Abimelech, and the sterility of his household was removed. Chapter 21: When Abraham was 100 years old,Isaac was born to Sarah.Abraham then sent Hagar and Ishmael away. Abraham stays in the land of the Philistines many years. Chapter 22: God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Isaac carried the wood for the sacrifice, but at the last moment, an angel told him not to kill Isaac. Abraham found a ram, offered it instead. God renewed the promise to Abraham, who returned to Beersheba. Chapter 23: Sarah died at Hebron at age 127. Abraham was then 137. He bought the cave of Machpelah from Ephron the Hittite to bury her. Chapter 24: Three years after his mother's death, Isaac married Rebekah, daughter of Bethuel, son of Nahor -- Abraham had sent a servant to his own land, to Nahor, in Aram Naharaim, to get a wife for Isaac. God guided the expedition. (Nahor is in the vicinity of Haran, the name appears often in the Mari letters under the name Nahur. Abraham died at age 175, and Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the same cave as his wife. Chapter 25: Tells of his marriage to Keturah. Not sure if it is in chronological order -- if he married her after the marriage of Isaac he would have been 140 and would have had children at that age. Isaac: Chapter 25: Isaac was 40 when he married Rebekah,whom Abraham's servant brought from Mesopotamia. She,like Sara,was barren,but obtained twins by Isaac's prayer.Before the twins were born,God foretold: the elder shall serve the younger.Esau and Jacob were born when Isaac was 60.Esau became a hunter.One day,when he returned very tired,he asked for food Jacob was cooking- had to give up his birthright for it. Chapter 26: Isaac fears Abimelech,king in Gerar,where Isaac had come because of famine. So like Abraham, they say she is his sister. Abimelech would have taken her, but happened to see Isaac fondling her, concluded she was wife,not sister. Abimelech reproached him:"You would thus have brought guilt on us" if one of the men of Abimelech had taken her in good faith. -- After a quarrel over wells Isaac had reopened, he fled back to Beersheba. God renews the promise to him.Isaac builds an altar there. Chapter 27:When Isaac is old and blind and near death he tells Esau to bring him a meal of game and he will bless him.The mother overhears, has Jacob take a kid from the flock. Jacob gets the blessing. Esau comes back too late. Esau planned then to kill Jacob, so his mother sent him to her brother Laban in Haran. Jacob: Chapter 28:Isaac called Jacob,blessed him,told him to go to the household of Laban in Haran and pick a wife there.Esau became more envious.At Bethel on the way,Jacob say the vision of a ladder with God standing at the top,who renewed His promises. Chapters 29-31:Jacob reaches Haran,There he helps the daughters of Laban water their flock.Laban is tricky, said he would give him Rachel as his wife, for seven years service, really gave Leah. Then after another 7 years he got Rachel also.Jacob had 11 sons and one daughter. By Rachel he had Joseph.Laban told Jacob he must serve more to get his flocks. Trickery by Laban is foiled. Jacob secretly fled from Haran with his household.Rachel stole the household gods. Laban pursued. But Laban and Jacob made a covenant in the hills of Gilead that neither would harm the other.Jacob returned home. Chapter 32-33:On the way back Jacob meets Esau,and was afraid at first. Before meeting Esau,Jacob wrestled with a strange being,had to limp. The strange man gave him the name Israel.Afterwards, he made peace with Esau. Chapter 34:Dinah,daughter of Leah and Jacob was raped by Shechem, son of Hamor,chief of the region of Shechem.Simeon and Levi lied,said Shechem could have their sister as wife if the males in the city would be circumcised.They did so,but when they were recovering,Simeon and Levi massacred all the males.Jacob was displeased. Chapter 35:Jacob went back to Bethel,where God renewed the promises to him,confirmed the name Israel.They set out for Bethlehem.Rachel died after giving birth to Benjamin. Isaac died at 180.Esau and Jacob buried him in the cave of Machpelah where Sarah,Abraham,and Rebekah had been buried.
Joseph: His brothers,envious of him,for his dreams,sold him as a slave into Egypt.He was put in charge of the house of Potiphar,captain of the Pharaoh's guard. The wife of Potiphar wanted sex with Joseph.He refused.She accused him of attacking her.He went to prison;there he interpreted dreams for two former royal officials.One was restored to court,then forgot Joseph until the king had two dreams.Joseph was called out,interpreted the dreams to mean 7 years of bumper crops,then seven of crop failure:advised they should store grain.The Pharaoh made him vizier.When the famine came,it struck also the land of Jacob.He sent sons to buy grain in Egypt.Joseph toyed with them,finally made them bring Benjamin.He finally broke down,admitted he was their brother.The king invited the whole household of Jacob to move to Egypt.There Jacob died at age 130,was buried in the cave of Machpelah. 12.Patriarchal age - historicity and dating:
We are not sure of the centuries in which the patriarchs lived. There are chiefly three tendencies,depending on where we date the Exodus from Egypt:
a) Early dating of Exodus: 1 Kings 6.1 says 480 years from the Exodus to the start of construction of the Temple in 4th year of Solomon. Scholars usually say Solomon died in 930 plus or minus 10 years.Thus the beginning of the temple would be about 966 BC.Figuring backward we get: 2091,Abraham left for Canaan 1876,Family of Jacob goes to Egypt 1446,Exodus from Egypt 966,Start of the Temple
b)Later dating of Exodus: Dating of Exodus is often given as about 1290 BC. Calculation starts with Ex 1.11,which says the Israelites built for Pharaoh store-cities,Pithom and Raamses. Raamses may be Per Ramesese,which is probably same as Avaris-Tanis.Avaris was deserted after 1500,and was reestablished by Seti I(1318- 01).Rameses II began in 1301,so he is Pharaoh of Exodus. Ps 78.12 and 43 say Hebrews were at Tanis (also called Zoan) when royal court was there.If they left in 1290,would enter Palestine c 1250.Then still 20 years to reach west Palestine and be met by Merneptah (cf.his stele).So they entered Egypt c 1720,about time of entry of Hyksos.
c)Loose theories: Some think there never was an Exodus,just a peasants' revolt in Canaan. Others deny Scripture means to give us any data.
We will return to theories of the date of the Exodus below: 13.Theories on the Patriarchal Age in relation to other ancient data: The core question is that of the genre of the patriarchal stories.Are they perhaps something like the genre of epic? The Church has not settled this question for us thus far,so we may consider many possibilities. a)The patriarchs are largely eponyms,not historical persons: cf.H.Shanks,Ancient Israel,Biblical Archaeology Society, 1988, pp. 4-5. Even if so,what are the traditions behind the narratives? We know memories could be accurate for centuries,as shown by the case of King Tudiya,first on the Assyrian King list.For long the early sections were thought to be artificial or corrupt or merely invented.Now it is known from Ebla that he made a treaty with Ebrum,king of Ebla,around 2350 B.C.The Assyrian King list dates from about 1000B.C.,so the gap is about 13 centuries: Cf.G.Pettinato, Archives of Ebla, Doubleday,1981,pp.103-05. b)Albright,Speiser and G.E.Wright: They reason that some details in the stories correspond to known features of 2nd millennium culture in Mesopotamia,Syria,and Canaan.This reconstruction is widely influential even today,but much doubt has been cast upon it. Cf.Biblical Archaeologist, 42.1 (Winter 1979) for two articles,favorable and unfavorable, pp.37-47. Also H.Shanks, op.cit., pp.9-11. This school holds that an urban culture flourished in Syria and Canaan in Early Bronze Age, much of 3rd millennium. But late in this millennium, this civilization collapsed,was replaced by dominantly nonurban,pastoral culture. Records of Dynasty III of Ur complain of chronic trouble with nonurban peoples. There may have been an invasion or at least massive immigration of nomadic peoples from edges of desert - they were called Amurru or Amorites. This is the Amorite Hypothesis. The patriarchs then are Amorites, and Abraham's movements belong to the Amorite movements. This Abraham phase would be 2100-1900 BC, which is Middle Bronze I. The next period, MB II A is age of unwalled villages in Syria and Canaan. The 12th dynasty kings of Egypt who were strong encouraged gradual development of a system of city-states in Syria and Canaan. But then in MB II B Egypt began to weaken,at the time of Jacob. This was the Old Babylonian period in Mesopotamia, time of Hammurabi and his successors. It is the age of Mari in Syria. New ruling dynasties in cities of Syria and Mesopotamia have typically Amorite names. Yet a substantial population of nomads remained which was also Amorite. For views of W.F.Albright, see his Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan,chapter 2 and From the Stone Age to Christianity;The Biblical Period from Abraham to Ezra. Some of Albright's students did not go so far as he did in this precision. Would say only that the patriarchal stories are best understood in setting of early 2nd millennium. Cf.Wright, in Biblical Archaeology,rev.ed.1962; Wm.G.Dever, "Palestine in the Second Millennium BCE:The Archeological Picture" in J.M.Hayes, and J.M.Miller, Israelite and Judaean History,1977, esp.pp.70- 120; Roland de Vaux, The Early History of Israel, 1978, pp.161-287. Names like those of the patriarchs are common in materials of first half of second millennium. Abram and Jacob are actually found, but not Joseph or Isaac. Also,the Nuzi tablets showed similar customs in many,not all things. John Bright, History of Israel,3d ed.,1981,esp.pp.67-102, gave a classic modern outline of the view of Albright. E.A.Speiser, in Anchor, Genesis, using chiefly Nuzi archives, gave a largely Hurrian interpretation of the activities of the patriarchs. Cf.esp pp.xxxix ff. and 86 ff and passim. C.H.Gordon,in Journal of Bible and Religion 21 (1953) pp.238- 43 and elsewhere (cf.K.Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament [1966] p.42.n.36) proposed a 14th century date, thought Abraham was a merchant-prince. Similar are views of O.Eissfeldt,in Cambridge Ancient History, 2d ed.II.26a,1965,p.8. c)Criticisms of the Albright proposals: 1)The pastoral peoples were present even earlier too, alongside of urban centers - so it is not likely their invasion or immigration caused collapse of cities. Possibly: overpopulation, drought, famine. 2)Circumstances of what is now called late Middle Bronze I (Alright's MB II A) could have been a suitable context: nomads and cities were side by side in Syria and Canaan. This is called a dimorphic pattern = urban and nomadic culture side by side. This dimorphic pattern has been common in Middle East even to modern times. 3)Nuzi patterns seem to reflect widespread Mesopotamian practices rather than distinctively Hurrian customs which might have been assumed to have penetrated into Canaan. The Nuzi type in which a barren wife provides a bondwoman is not unique to Nuzi - is found in Old Babylonian, Old Assyrian texts too, and also in a 12th century Egyptian document. 4)Names like Abram are not certainly attested in Middle Bronze Age (or in Ebla) but are found later,in Late Bronze. The name type to which belong Isaac, Jacob and Joseph are the most characteristic type of Amorite name. d)Martin Noth and Albrecht Alt: Alt was teacher of Noth. They worked about same time as Albright. They believe Israel was formed from an amalgamation of various clans and tribes, which happened gradually during the period of settlement in Canaan. Noth tried to reconstruct things by history of traditions - derived from work of Hermann Gunkel,inventor of Form Criticism. A major clue to the origin of an element of tradition is its connection with a region, place or other geographical feature. Abraham is associated with the oaks of Mamre near Hebron. Isaac dwells at oases of Beersheba and Beer-lahai- roi. Jacob most closely tied to Shechem and Bethel. So Noth thought traditions about Abraham came from the Judean Hills,those on Isaac from SW Judah and Negeb, and those on Jacob from central hills of Ephrem. Thought the Jacob stories are the oldest component. These three traditions were blended when the stories were transmitted orally ,before the composition of J. Dates proposed for J range from 10th to 6th centuries BC. Fact that Abraham was said to be oldest shows the combining took place when Judah was in ascendancy. Could not have been complete before 11th century. -- Note that in this view we can thus trace the development of the traditions, but have only indirect information about the patriarchs themselves. e)Criticism of Noth theories: 1)Noth thought a story with a complex structure was surely late -- but more recent study shows this need not be true at all. Cf.the notion that Mark had to be early for similar reasons:cf W.Most, The Consciousness of Christ, pp.215-16, and Frank M.Cross,:"The Epic Tradition of Early Israel...." in The Poet and the Historian.Essays in Literary and Historical Biblical Criticism, ed. R.E.Friedman,1983,esp.pp.24-25. Very probably Homer was an oral poet -- as also were the Ugaritic myths and epics - but the narratives are extended, with a complex structure. 2)Robert Oden,in:"Jacob as Father,Husband, and Nephew: Kinship Studies and the Patriarchal Narrative" in: Journal of Biblical Literature 102 (1983) pp.189-205. He has shown that kinship patterns are very often the central factors in the social structure and self-definition of a community. He sees two kinds of genealogies: one is linear, from Abraham to Jacob, which defines Israel in relation to other peoples, second,a laterally branched genealogy starting with the 12 sons of Jacob, which defines Israel internally. We note that Abraham,Isaac and Jacob all marry within the larger family group. f)T.L.Thompson in The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives, (Zeitschrift fr alttestamentlich Wissenschaft, Supp,133. 1974, wants to give priority to literary and form criticism, and virtually drop archaeology. He dates the patriarchs to the first millennium! J.Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition,Yale, 1975, agrees on literary and form criticism instead of archaeology, and also dates patriarchs in 1st millennium. Criticisms of Thompson:The chronological details are simply impossible. For example,.Van Seters thinks camel nomadism was not possible until the first century B.C. But he admits (p.17) that there was "limited domestication [of camels] in Arabia in third millennium." Cf. K.Kitchen,op.cit.,p 79-80. g)Conclusions:1.Most scholars are convinced that the stories about the three patriarchs contain at least a kernel of authentic history, though they are reluctant to mark which details are authentic. Yet they say the narratives may be more ideology than history -- to make a political and theological statement about the Israelite nation. We comment: Yet it is safe to assume that the Israelites, like many other nations, did have a tradition about their past, perhaps embellished, as in epic. The case of Esau fits a frequent pattern -- his line is descended from a brother of the great ancestor, Abraham, having suitable marriages, Esau not. Ethnic separateness is one of the strongest features of the tradition, so the Israelite nation did not arise out of a coalition of outsiders, even though some others, probably of half Hebrew ,half Egyptian ancestry joined the Exodus on the way out (Exodus 12.38;cf.Num 11.4). As to the Exodus itself, it is unlikely a people would invent the story of their having been slaves for centuries, and then recount also their manifold infidelities during the desert wandering and after that as well.
2.An objection comes from McCarter,in Ancient Israel, pp.18-19, who thinks the twelve tribe entity did not come until David's time. He cites Judges 5:14-18 saying it shows no mention of Judah and Simeon, and says also Manasseh and Gad are also missing, while two tribes Machir (Judges 5:14)and Gilead (Judges 5:17) are given which are not in the later list. COMMENT: The list does not profess to give all tribes - just those who fought against Sisera. Manasseh is represented by Machir, a place name. Gilead is representing Gad. Gilead as a place name sometimes represents all Israelite Transjordan (cf.Joshua 22:9), or at times (cf.Num 32:29) it means only the areas between the Jabboc and Arnon rivers (i.e,Reuben and Gad) or (cf.Joshua 17:5) between the Jabboc and Yarmud (i.e.,Manasseh). Judah and Simeon were simply too distant to join the campaign, and were not needed - enough without them. 3.Many believe the story of Joseph, Gen 37 and 39-47, originated independently of the stories about the three great ancestors. Yet the general outline of the events in the story of Joseph is likely to have an ultimate basis in historical fact, even if, as some think, some details are not historical. The story shows only a limited knowledge of the life and culture of Egypt. Thus Gen 41:23 & 27 speaks of a hot east wind scorching the grain, but in Egypt it is the south wind that does this. The titles and offices the story assigns to various Egyptian officials fit better with known parallels in Syria and Canaan than with Egyptian parallels: cf.Donald Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph, Vetus Testamentum Supplement #20, Brill, 1970, and R.De Vaux, The Early History of Israel (tr.D.Smith, Philadelphia, Westminster,1978),pp.301-02. There are some authentic Egyptian details, but they seem to fit the period after the time of the Hyksos. K.A.Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament, pp.52-53: "...the price of twenty shekels of silver paid for Joseph in Genesis 37:28 is the correct average price for a slave in about the eighteenth century BC [cites Hammurabi code and Mari texts]: earlier than this, slaves were cheaper (average,ten to fifteen shekels), and later they became steadily dearer." 14.Details of historicity of the Exodus: (1). Number involved:Exodus 12.37-39 speaks of about six hundred thousand men, on foot, besides women and children. A mixed multitude also went up with them, and very many cattle, both flocks and herds.- This number seems impossibly high. Possible solutions: a)Some today tend to think a much smaller group was involved - perhaps represented by the tribe of Levi. Other proposals include : elements of the Leah, Rachel and the so-called concubine tribes. Others suppose two stages of escape - one as early as the expulsion of the Hyksos, c.1550 - or in some other division resulting from the Pharaoh's hesitations about letting them go. b)The best view is that the genre is much like epic, and Hebrews tend to exaggerate even without that. It is multiplying by a factor of ten. Cf.R.B.Allen, Numbers, in Expositor's Bible Commentary, (Regency, Zondervan,1990 2, pp.680- 91
(2) The wall of water: An inspired author could record two variant traditions, without affirming either one- this seem true in the case of the crossing of the Red sea- two woven together in Exodus 14. Vv.21-15 say the Lord drove the sea back with a strong wind-- but yet says the waters were like a wall on the right and the left.And vv 1-29 speak of the deep waters coming onto the Egyptians. Compare chapters 16 & 17 in First Samuel,on David meeting Saul for the first time (On variant traditions, cf. Free From All Error, pp.87-88.The inspired writer found two sources, did not know which was true, affirmed neither, only asserts he found the two:here they are.)
Gulf of Suez is 15 miles wide, but 217 miles long,high mountains on each side of it, which could funnel wind from NW down onto the gulf water at around 10 MPH on an average day. Oceanographers Doron Nof of Fla.State Univ.and Nathan Paldor of Hebrew University in Jerusalem say if the winds went to about 45 mph they would push the gulf water ahead of them. In ten hours there would be enough water cleared from gulf to drop water level by eight feet.(Discover magazine of Jan 1993,p.62. But 8 feet reduction in depth would not be nearly enough. (3).The route taken is extremely hard to determine. Many now think the Red Sea really was the Sea of Reeds,perhaps a papyrus lake. Cf.Oxford Bible Atlas,pp.58-59. One possibility is a southern route, along east coast of Gulf of Suez. We can tentatively identify some sites on this e.g., Marah and Elim. The vagueness of later stopping points may be due to rugged southern terrain where copper and turquoise mines were found.Then Mt.Sinai (Horeb) would be probably Jebel Musa. Then they headed NE to Kadesh-barnea. A northern route would cross the narrow sandy spit between Lake Sirbonis and the Mediterranean, and then go SE to Kadesh- Barnea, and a Mt.Sinai in the north, perhaps Jebel Magharah or Jebel Halai. A major problem with this view is the difficulty of crossing the dunes between Lake Sirbonis and Kadesh-barnea. They stopped at Kadesh-barnea while spies scouted the land - Numbers caps. 13-14.Because of their faithless reaction there, God condemned them to wander for years, so none of the generation there would enter the promised land, except Joshua and Caleb. There is a problem of lack of remains near the probable site of Kadesh-Barnea: Cf.R.Cohen, "Did I excavate Kadesh-Barnea" in BAR, May- June, 1981.pp 21-33. However, Frank Moore Cross,retired from Harvard, in an interview in Bible Review, August 1992,pp.23-32,61-62 thinks the Israelites really wandered in the area of Midian, where many remains have been found. Also, Moses had the vision of the Burning Bush in Midian,and seemingly Sinai was there. Moses married a woman from Midian.
15.Modern Debates on the Date of the Exodus: (1).Early dating: John J.Bimson, David Livingston, "Redating the Exodus" in BAR, Sept-Oct.1987,p.40ff. Would date Exodus to 1460 BC,with conquest at about l420. This entails changing date of end of Middle Bronze II to just before 1400, instead of traditional 1550. See p.104 below: Bietak, for Egypt, dates end of MB II to 1500-1450. Starting point is 1 Kgs 6.1, saying Solomon started temple in his 4th year, 480 years after Exodus. They admit the numbers may be round or somewhat artificial. But it fits with their proposal.
This proposal solves most problems of remains of cities conquered: At end of their MB II we would find Jericho, with a wall, destroyed at this point (newer data on Jericho reported below,p.105,on Wood ). On Gibeon: Joshua 9:27 records no conquest,it was abandoned, but it was there at end of MB II. There would be signs of destruction at right time, of a city with a wall for: Hebron, Lachish, Hazor.They argue that Ai belongs at Khirbet Nisya - which will show a site abandoned at the right point, with at least some occupation indicated at right time. Similarly they place Arad at Tell Malhata - surface finds indicate occupation there. They think Bethel is not Beitin but Bireh - MBII pottery found in surface surveys -- other things not yet found. They have answers for the dating based on Exodus l.11-- Site shows some building in 19-17 centuries BC at Pi-Ramesse. At Pithom some signs of brutal treatment by Hyksos. An important footnote on p.52 indicates a variation possible for Jericho,which would still help the problem by extending the occupation of MB II C cities down through LB I.(Also,see p.105 below on Jericho by Bryant Wood). (2)General Objections to early dating: 1).If we take these figures we would have to accept the ages given for the patriarchs:Abraham 175 yrs (Gen.21.7); Isaac 180 years (Gen.35.280); Jacob 147 years (Gen.47.28); Joseph ll0 (Gen.50.26).Many reject ages so great-- But Science News,Nov.7,1987,p.301 proposes shift in length of years. 2)Moreover, the 480 years looks like a symbolic number: 12 x 40. Moreover the length of stay in Egypt is unclear.Exodus 12,40 in LXX and Gal 3.17 say 430 years from Abraham's entry into Canaan at age 75 and the Exodus.But Exodus 12,40 in Hebrew (Masoretic text) gives 430 years in Egypt,while LXX would have only 215 years. 3.Moses and Aaron were fourth generation descendants of Jacob's son Levi (1 Chron.5.27-29).The 430 years assigned to slavery in Egypt is high for three generations,an average of 143 yrs each.-- And this clashes with what 1 Chron.7. 20-27 tells: Joshua, a younger associate of Moses was a 12th generation descendant of Levi's brother Joseph. Then the 11 generations from Joseph to Joshua would average 39 yrs each. -- We reply that genealogical lists are not always complete,and genealogies in Scripture need not be like ours: R.R.Wilson in Biblical Archaeologist, Winter,1979.42, pp.11-22,and also R.Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World,Yale,1977,p.166. (3).Articles objecting to early dating:
(a)"Radical Exodus Dating Fatally Flawed", by Baruch Halpern,in BAR Nov.-Dec.1987 pp.56-61 -- a slashing attack on Bimson. Many attacks followed on Halpern in March-April BAR,in letter section. Especially the following: (b).Comment on Bimson proposal to move date to MB II:BAR.March-April,1989,p.54 (report by Hershel Shanks on annual meeting of BASOR and other societies): "Dever and Bietak [one of world's leading Egyptologists, director of excavations at Tell el-Daba, eastern Delta] disagree by between 100 and 150 years on the dating of the Middle Bronze Age II.Bietak dates this period from about 1700 to l500-1450 B.C. Dever and other archaeologists working in Israel place the end of the Middle Bronze age about 1550 B.C. The end of the Middle Bronze Age also marks the beginning of the Late Bronze Age, the period immediately preceding the Israelite emergence in Canaan.... the basic issue is whether Bietak has correctly fit three strata of pottery from Tell el-Daba into Egyptian chronology. Unfortunately, Bietak's pottery is still unpublished. Moreover, say those who support Dever, we must also look at synchronisms with Mesopotamian chronology, which, like Egyptian chronology, also provides absolute dates. The relative dating evidence from Canaan also somehow bears on the outcome of the debate." [a note gives references to previous articles on the matter,BAR and others].
(4)Support for early dating:
(a) BAR, March-April 1990.Bryant G.Wood, "Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho?" He says yes,about 1400 B .C. K.Kenyon could not find such evidence,said Jericho City IV was destroyed at end of Middle Bronze Age (c.1550 B.C.). Wood argues: (a)Kenyon depended on not finding imported Cypriote ware which would point to Late Bronze I. But she dug in a poor part of the city,very limited - two squares 26 ft on a side each. She should not expect to find expensive ware in such a place.But Garstang has found it elsewhere in Jericho. (b)She thought the destruction was associated with Egyptian pursuit of Hyksos. But why would the Hyksos destroy a city when fleeing? And there are no records indicating Egyptians came that far - farthest point was Sharuhen in SW Canaan. Further, Egyptians always destroyed by siege -- no sign of that at Jericho. And Egyptians started campaign before the harvest, so supplies of food would not be enough to stand a siege.But Garstang found much grain in jars at Jericho,so it was not starved out (Joshua attacked after spring harvest).(c) The cemetery there shows a continuous series of Egyptian scarabs from the 18th through the early 14th centuries BC. So it was not abandoned after 1500 as Kenyon thought. (d)Radiocarbon test of burnt debris there shows date of 1410,plus or minus 40 years.
(b)Attack on proposal of Wood, in #7: BAR Sept- Oct.1990, Piotr Bienkowsi attacked Wood, agreed with Kenyon.But in same issue Wood answers - seems to have the better of the argument. Also, Kenyon has been caught in a large mistake in the City of David- cf.next item (c) below: (c).Attack on work of Kenyon at Jericho:"Yigal Shiloh.Last Thoughts" in BAR March-April,1988,pp.15-27 - an interview before his death.In the fall of 1987,he was awarded the prestigious Jerusalem Prize in Archeology for his work on the City of David in Jerusalem.BAR,p.15 says, "Shiloh confounded the skeptics and uncovered spectacularly informative remains that brought him world-wide fame and adulation." He found serious defects in the previous work of famous Kathleen Kenyon. On p.25,with picture, BAR reports:"Before Shiloh excavated the City of David, the stepped-stone structure had been only partially excavated. Kathleen Kenyon who excavated in the City of David from 1961 to 1967,dated it to no earlier than the sixth century B.C." She was also,noted for her work at Jericho.
p.23:"When we excavated in this depression,we found Early Bronze material, Middle Bronze material, Late Bronze material, even Chalcolithic. Do you understand? This proves again and again what I said about the defects in Kathleen Kenyon's system of working. You could work five years in one area.For example,in the southern part of Area E,we worked for five years. For five years,we found material only from the eighth century,the seventh century. But once we moved farther north, just three meters,there was a depression. We looked down and instead of bedrock we found Middle Bronze and Early Bronze material."
p.27: "As we mentioned earlier, when Kathleen Kenyon finished her excavations here, she in effect said good luck to anybody who follows her, but they will not find much." But Shiloh found a lot,as we saw.
(d).Goedicke's Thera theory:"The Exodus and the Crossing of the Red Sea, according to Hans Goedicke" by Hershel Shanks. BAR Sept/Oct.1981,pp.42-50.P.45: "In 1477 B.C.during the reign of Pharaoh Hatshepsut, the volcano on Thera erupted; a huge tidal wave rolled across the Mediterranean and drowned the Egyptian army south of Lake Menzaleh; the fleeing Israelites escaped into Sinai." Goedicke translates, on p.49,a document of Hatshepsut:"I annulled the former privileges [that existed] since [the time] the Asiatics were in the region of Avaris of Lower Egypt.The immigrants (shemau) among them disregarded the tasks which were assigned to them....And when I allowed the abominations of the gods [i.e.,these immigrants to depart],the earth swallowed their footsteps!" -- Proposed change of date of Thera eruption to 165 BC, "In: Myth becomes History" by Carol G.Thomas, Publications of Association of Ancient Historians #4, pp. 31-37. (e). Attack on Thera theory of Goedicke:"A Critique of Professor Goedicke's Exodus Theories"[As in d above,BAR Sept/Oct. 1981] by Charles R.Krahmalkov,in BAR Sept/Oct. 1981,pp.51-54. On p.53:"Krahmalkov's Theory. Embarking on ships from the Red Sea Port of Qoseir,the Israelites successfully crossed the Sea to Arabia or Sinai,while their Egyptian pursuers drowned in a storm." (5)Support for late dating: in addition to archeological work on two cities built by Hebrews):
(a)Adam Zertal, "Israel enters Canaan" in BAR Sept/Oct.1991,pp.30-47 after 12 years of surveying and excavating the tribal territory of Manasseh, found a trail of pottery showing Israel entered Canaan at the end of the Late Bronze Age (13th century BC) and continued into Iron Age I (1200-1000 B.C.) He found 116 sites from MB IIB (1750-1550), but then for LB 1550- 1200) only 39 sites.The number rose again for Iron Age I (1200- 1000) to 136. Iron Age people used the soil differently than the earlier group -they had to work on the hills. Zertal says pottery shows some of the Israelites entered near Schechem - Moses had told the to build an altar as soon as they crossed the Jordan, at Mt. Ebal (Dt.17:1-11) which Joshua did. Others would have crossed near Jericho. Epic genre can easily accommodate such a pattern. We have already explained that long oral transmission is possible: cf. G. Pettinato, op. cit. pp.103-05.
(b)Kenneth Kitchen in BAR March-April,1995, pp. 48-57, 88- 96, "The Patriarchal Age: Myth or History?" gives what BAR calls "an extraordinary demonstration" that certain things in the stories of the patriarchs are found in early 2nd millennium BC - and at no other period. He shows that at least some elements of those narratives are time-specific, and the times indicated are those which the Bible gives for them.
NEW FINDINGS: L. Williams, The Mount Sinai Myth. Wynwood Press, NY,1990: With a companion he visited Mount Sinai in Midian, photographed the blackened top, found the 12 pillars Moses had set up. He got George Stevens of Horizon Research to use infrared technique on photographs from the French satellite system. He located precise spot of the crossing in the Gulf of Aqaba, as well as the route of Israel near Mt. Sinai, now called Jabal al Lawz, which is guarded by troops of Saudi Arabia, this confirms the video of Wyatt as to Sinai, which shows the mountain and the pillars.
(6).Proposals of very loose genre:
(a) Mattanyah Zohar,Dept of Archaeology,Hebrew University,Jerusalem. In BAR Mar.April 1988.pp.13 and 58:Argues that we know the pattern of epics from Serbia, Troy, Finland, Persia, Japan, Ireland, and others, that it is quite loose,floats in time and space, yet has a kernel in it - so we should treat the whole tradition of the Exodus. Hence on p.13 speaks harshly: "...Bruce Halpern...takes seriously the esoteric dating of John Bimson and David Livingston.... This simply does too much honor to the 'lunatic fringe' growing around the archaeology of Palestine." We comment: The intemperate language is unworthy of a scholar. (NB also p.104 above, Hershel Shanks' report on proposed change of dating of Middle Bronze II).
(b).Continuous Exodus theory: "How not to create a history of the Exodus -- a Critique of Professor Goedicke's Theories" (cf.p.106 above) by Eliezer D.Oren in BAR Nov/Dec.1981,pp.46-53. on p.53:"The actual events were,no doubt,much more complex than the Biblical narrative indicates.All we can do in the present state of our knowledge is to suggest that the various traditions interwoven in the Biblical narrative imply that the Egyptian episode must be seen as a continuous process of migrations, settlement and movement on various occasions and along different routes, by small and large groups between Egypt and Canaan. At the same time,many people of the same ethnic stock remained in Palestine and never went to Egypt."[italics in original]. Oren was a prominent Israeli archaeologist and chairman of Dept.of Archaeology at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. (c).Proposal of loose genre on Exodus: "A Bible Scholar looks at BAR's coverage of the Exodus",by Yehuda T.Radday (of Technion Institute). BAR Nov./Dec.1982,pp.68- 71. p.68:"...the aim of the biblical historiography was not to 'tell history' as we moderns understand the telling of history.The Biblical authors were not historians in any modern sense of the term....The purpose...was to promulgate certain specific religious,moral and social concepts.....[p.69] Almost everyone admits that an Exodus occurred.But the details of the journey are presented in such a way that relating them either chronologically or geographically to known historical data is indeed difficult.....[p.71]. Archaeology can neither sustain nor refute the Bible." (d).Attack on loose genre theory of Exodus: Siegfried Herrmann, A History of Israel in Old Testament Times, tr.J.Bowden.Fortress,1975 (dedicated to Albrecht Alt),p.60:"The theory that a group of workers, presumably composed of different elements,finally escaped from Egypt and,despite their probable ethnic complexity,attached themselves to groups in the Sinai desert who later went on to Palestine,seems to be logically correct." (e).Further attack on loose genre theory of Exodus: Nahum Sarna,"Israel in Egypt" in AI,p.51:"The cumulative effect of several varied lines of approach tend to support the historicity of the slavery in Egypt,the reality of the migration from that country and the actuality of the subsequent Israelite penetration and control of much of Canaan.Had Israel really arisen in Canaan and never been enslaved in Egypt,a biblical writer would have had no reason to conceal that fact and could surely have devised an appropriate narrative to accommodate that reality were he given to fictional inventiveness.We are at a loss to explain the necessity of fabricating an uncomfortable and disreputable account of Israel's national origins,nor can we conceive how such a falsity could so pervade their national psyche as to eliminate all other traditions and historical memories,let alone be the dominant and controlling theme in the national religion."
(7) Various added articles on Exodus:
(a)."Ancient Records and the Exodus Plagues",in BAR Nov/Dec.1987.,on text of Ipu-wer on plagues in Egypt. (b)."Lachish--Key to the Israelite Conquest of Canaan?" BAR Jan/Feb.1987.pp.18ff. (c)."Did I excavate Kadesh-Barnea?" by Rudolph Cohen,BAR May/June,1981 pp.21-33.--Uncertain if that is the site - if so,seems to have no remains of use by Israel during the desert period, when they stayed there a long time. Springs there are richest and most abundant in the Sinai, watering the largest oasis in N.Sinai. Many acres today of fruit and nut trees. Has remains of three ancient fortresses, earliest probably of time of Solomon. But if we put the wanderings in Midian there is no problem. Cf.report on views of Frank Moore above on p.103.
(d) BAR Sept/Oct.1988: three articles pp.34 ff on Israelite origins.
(e)Charles R.Krahmalkov, "Exodus Itinerary Confirmed by Egyptian Evidence, in BAR, Sept/Oct.1994,pp,.54 62,and 79. -- Shows that hieroglyphic inscriptions on the Temple of Amon at Karnak give lists of places,that fit remarkably with the Exodus itinerary in Scripture. A list there by Thutmoses III from Late Bronze Age I mentions Iyyin,Dibon,Abel and Jordan,all of which appear in Numbers 33,and in the same order as the list of Thutmoses III. A list by Ramesses II has Heres,Qarho (Dibon) Ikanu and Abel,which match some of the place names from Numbers 33. So the Israelite invasion route described in Numbers 33:45b - 50 shows an official, heavily traveled Egyptian road through the Transjordan in the Late Bronze Age. The City of Dibon was a station on that road at the time. Ramesses says he sacked Dibon. Also, the Mesha Stela from 9th century BC,records that King Mesha conquered Israelite territory east of the Jordan and humiliated the tribe of Gad. Among towns mentioned is Qarbo,seemingly Biblical Dibon,showing that a Dibon did exist then,even though remains have not yet been found there.
Archaeology : (1).Kenneth,Kitchen, The Bible in Its World: The Bible and Archaeology Today , Intervarsity Press,Downers Grove,IL 1977,pp.10-15: a)Notes that the mid-brick buildings of the ancient Near East could easily be gradually swept away by wind,sand and rain. b)Not always is a site completely excavated,for it is costly.For example,Ashdod covers about 70 acres of lower city area and another 20 acres of acropolis.By l977 only 1,1/2 acres had been excavated.-- Only 1/10 of the site of Et-Tell,which some think was Ai,had been excavated.-- Only a small portion of Jericho had been excavated.
ADD:J.A.Callaway,in Ancient Israel, p.61:"The kidney-shaped mound of ancient Jericho still has about 70 feet of occupation layers intact,dating from the earliest settlement, about 9000 B.C.,beside the spring known today as Ain es-Sultan." And on p.63:"At Ai..John Garstang excavated eight trenches in 1928. In 1931 he wrote that 'A considerable proportion of L.B.A.[Late Bronze Age I.ending about 1400 B.C.]' wares were found,including 'A Cypriote wishbone handle' and that they were left 'in the collection of the American School (Now Albright Institute).' This pottery has never been found....Thus nothing of Garstang's 'Late Bronze" evidence is available for a 'second opinion' of his interpretation." c)Site shift is possible. Jericho was abandoned from Hellenistic times and moved to near the springs of Ain- Sultan,onto the site that became modern Jericho (Er-Riba).But in Hellenistic and Roman times,palaces and villas were constructed at still a third side nearby (Tulul Abu el-Alaiq).So today there are three Jerichos.-- R.Brown (Recent Discoveries and The Biblical World Glazier,Wilmington,1983,pp.68-69 admits: "Aharoni,the excavator argues that in Canaanite times Arad was not at Tell Arad but at Tell el-Milh (Malhata) 7 miles southeast of Tell Arad, while Hormah was at Khirbet el-Meshash (Masos) 3 miles further west."
(2).See 15, (8) and (9) above. 17.Covenant of Sinai: a)Relation to Hittite Treaties:George Mendenhall in Biblical Archaeologist, 17,1954,pp.26-46 and 49-76 (same in Law and Covenant in the Ancient Near East, Pittsburgh,1955) noted that there is a well defined pattern 1)preamble - Hittite king is presented, titles given. 2)Historical prologue: gives foundation for obligations of the vassal. 3) Stipulations.List of obligations of vassal. Vassal is often directed to avoid "murmuring", and must love the Sun (Hittite King). 4)Deposit and public reading -- perhaps 3 times a year. 5)List of witnesses- numerous gods. 6)Curses and blessings. -- Some then tried to find same elements in Sinai covenant, esp.W.Moran,"De foederis Mosaici traditione:in Verbum Domini 40,1962.3-17. But D.J.McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, Biblical Institute, 1963 thought otherwise, said similar conditions in two places can give similar responses. He also noted that Israel was not so much a vassal as family member - cf.berith and goel. b)Sinai as bilateral - cf.W. Most, in CBQ Jan 1967. Also Cyrus Gordon notes the Apology of Hattusili III who made a bilateral covenant with Ishtar: in The Common Background of Greek and Hebrew Civilizations.NY,1965,p.96. He also notes cases in pagan Greek literature of such agreements, bilateral.-- Those who would make it unilateral said God took on no obligations - but cf.Exodus 19:5. They are probably influenced by Protestant notions that we do nothing towards our salvation. Covenant of Sinai was at first thought of only for temporal favors - but in later centuries, was reinterpreted to mean eternal salvation. Integral part of ceremony was cutting an animal in two,and walking between the pieces- cf.Abraham in Genesis l5:9 ss: "Just as this is cut up, so may X be cut up - if he breaks the berith. Hence probably the term "to cut a covenant". c)Covenant law: May have been influenced by Code of Ur-nammu of Ur c.2100 BC, and Hammurabi,18th century.
How is it possible to say that the Biblical law was revealed,and yet seems borrwed from earlier codes?
Let us make a comparison in the style of revelation God used to bring to thee Jews the knowledgeof future retributiion. Up to the time of the persecution of Antiochus IV of Syria,they seem not to have understood.Thus e.g., Psalms 72 bravely said he was disbturbed at the prosperity of the wicked,until he entereted the sanctuary and found what an end they cam to.,Now this was true many times-- but not at all times. Now the terrible deaths of the Maccabean martyrsin 2 Mc shows the need of an agonizing reappraisal.Joined with this would be the early contact with Greek thought which clearly spoke of two parts in man --- even though the concepts wee not precisely the same as ours.These were the means it seems by which God gradully lead them to understand retribution in the future life.
Something quite parallel seems to appear in chapter 3 of Ezekiel,where God orders him to eat a book. Phyisally that was not impossible,but terribly difficult. So it must have meant that God filled Ezekiel with God's spirit and understandy of things,so that he could confidently say: "Thus says the Lord" - when He had not received a special revelatio
Similarly Moses the greateat and most intimate of the prophets,was filled with God's Spirit and so could write these laws.
Two kinds of law: (1)Case law,casuistic, (2) and prescriptive or apodictic laws. Two major collections: 1)Those associated with Sinai:Exodus 19 - Num 10:10. 2)Those given in plains of Moab in Deuteronomy. 18.Mosaic authorship of Pentateuch: On June 27,1906 Biblical Commission was asked about theory "that the work,conceived by [Moses] under divine inspiration,was entrusted to another or to several to be written...and that finally the work done in this way and approved by Moses as the leader and inspired author was published." They found this theory permissible.- Cf.Eugene Maly in Jerome Biblical Commentary,1968, I,p.5.par 24:"Moses...is at the heart of the Pentateuch and can,in accord with the common acceptance of the ancient period,correctly be called its author."
19.Joshua vs Judges: The genre of Joshua seems something like epic - brilliant victories everywhere, and miracles. But in Judges there is a more factual genre,and so there is need of more fighting, as we see in chapter 1. In l:21, Jerusalem is in the hands of the Jebusites "to the present day".David finally took it, 2 Sm.5:6-9. Purpose of Judges is to show God rewards when they are faithful, punishes when they are not. 20.The Ban: God called for wiping out the Canaanites for two reasons: 1)to guard against danger Israel would fall into idolatry. 2) to punish the Canaanites for their sins- cf.Gen 15:16. - What of killing children? Life is a moment to moment gift from God. Whether He simply stops giving, or uses a human agent for the same effect, no problem. Evil of murder is violation of rights of God.But when He orders,the problem no longer arises. 21.The first kings: Saul was rejected from kingship - not necessarily from final salvation.Again,there are two accounts of his sin - perhaps both are true,perhaps neither is affirmed as final: 1 Sam.13:1-14 and 15:1-31. David also sinned,greater sins,but was not rejected from kingship - favors in external order not conditioned by human merit. Cf.Romans 9:15. Instead,God promised an everlasting dynasty to David - really fulfilled in Christ. 22.Problems of the chronology of the Kings.Good solution to these in Edwin R.Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, Zondervan,1983 (new revised edition). 23.Babylonian Captivity. Nebuchadnezzar II of New Babylonia in two waves- 597 and 587, destroyed city and temple,took many into captivity.This deportation was not entirely new - the Assyrians had done same before this time. During the Exile,the great prophecy of the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31ff. 24. Return: Cyrus of Persia in 539 encouraged return. Most did not return. Were sluggish in rebuilding temple,,so in 520 BC God warned through Haggai: "You have sown much but have brought in little. You have eaten but have not been satisfied...." It means that things do not produce results since you are unfaithful. Also in 2:6-9: "One moment yet, and I will shake the heavens and the earth, the sea and the dry land...and the treasures of all the nations will come in. And I will fill this house with glory. Greater will be the future glory of this house than the former...And in this place I will give peace. " Instead of "treasures of the nations" St.Jerome read "the one desired by all nations". Hebrew is unclear. It has singular hemdat with a plural verb.But Jerome was following rabbinic tradition,and so his version is very respectable. Even if we take the reading that treasures will come in,it should probably mean the messianic age. This was written in 520 B.C.,and yet it is only a moment. 25.Persecution by Antiochus Epiphanes IV: In 167 Antiochus banned circumcision,religious study,observance,and ordered Jews to eat pork. He introduced idols into the Temple.It was all part of a program of Hellenization to homogenize his loose empire.Some Jews gave up their religion; some died wretchedly, some form ed an army but refused to fight on the sabbath, were all slaughtered. But the Maccabees did put up resistance with an army, and this made possible, humanly speaking, the survival of Judaism. The terrible deaths of the martyrs helped bring on an agonized reappraisal: the Jews had to see that God does not make things right always in this life - so they had to think of future retribution. This was aided by contact with Greek thought on two parts in man (had they ever strictly held for one part in man? Not in the sense usually intended.Cf.treatment on nefesh above in these notes). The Hasamonean rulers ruled 142-27 BC.They became corrupt by the end. In 41 B.C.Rome appointed Herod tetrarch. In 37 by taking Jerusalem he became king. For the first time a ruler from the tribe of Judah failed - Herod was nominally Jewish by religion, but by birth was half Idumean, half Arab, and surely not of the tribe of Judah. Hence Jacob Neusner writes, Messiah in Context,p.12 that there was "intense,vivid,prevailing expectation that the Messiah was coming soon." On p.242:"It is difficult to imagine how Gen 49:10 can have been read as other than a messianic prediction.", and ibid.: "In the days of the King Messiah, the enmity between the serpent and woman will come to an end (Gen.3:15...)." We already saw earlier the Messianic prophecies,and saw that from the Targums the Jews in general understood them. When the Magi came, Herod's theological advisers had no difficulty in telling him the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem, based in Micah 5. 26.Date of Birth of Christ: A recent study, E.L.Martin, The Star that Astonished the World (ASK Publications,Portland, Or.25000,1991) shows that Jesus was born in 3 B.C..probably in the fall. The time hinges on one thing, the fact that Josephus puts the death of Herod just after a lunar eclipse. Martin shows we must pick the eclipse of Jan.10,1 B.C. because all the events that Josephus says took place between Herod's death and the next Passover would take about 12 weeks.The only other eclipse that gave enough time would be that of Sept 15,5 BC. But since Herod then was very sick,and in Jericho at the time of the eclipse,he would not have stayed in Jericho - extremely hot at that season,while Jerusalem would have been comfortable. But Jan 10 would be comfortable in Jericho. Further, there are secular sources that show there was an enrollment in 3 B.C. to take an oath of allegiance to Augustus (cf.Lewis & Reinhold,Roman Civilization,Source Books II,pp.34-35 since in 2 B.C.he was to receive the great title of Father of His Country. The real governor of Palestine would have gone to Rome for the great celebration. He needed someone to take care of the country in his absence. Since Augustus got the honor on Feb.5,2 BC,the governor would have to leave before Nov 1 of 3 BC- Mediterranean was dangerous for sailing after Nov 1.But Quirinius had just completed a successful war to the north, in Cilicia, against the Homonadenses. So he could be an ideal man to put in charge. Luke does not use the noun governor,but a verbal form, governing. Still further, there has been an obscure decade 6 B.C. to 4 A.D. whose events were hard to fit in if we took the birth of Christ to have been in the range 4 to 6 B.C. But with the new dating all these fall into place easily. E.g.Augustus in 1 AD received his 15th acclamation for a victory in 1 AD. If we picked 4 BC for birth of Christ,we cannot find such a victory,but if birth of Christ is 3 BC,then the war would b e running at about the right time and finished in 1 AD. Martin's work has received fine reviews from astronomers his work is based on astronomy,and over 600 planetariums have modified their Christmas star show to fit with his findings) and from Classicists, who were concerned about the obscure decade. Objection: a)Josephus says Herod had a reign of 37 years after being proclaimed king by Romans,and had 34 yrs after death of Antigonus,which came soon after Herod took Jerusalem. b)Further,his 3 successors,Archelaus,Antipas and Philip started to reign in 4 BC.So Herod died in 4 BC.
Reply: a)That calculation would make the death of Herod fall actually in 3 BC - scholars have had to stretch the date,since there was no eclipse of moon in 3 BC. - But, Herod took Jerusalem late in 36 BC (on Yom Kippur in a sabbatical year,so it was well remembered - and Josephus says Pompey had taken Jerusalem in 63 which was 27 yrs to the day of Herod's capture of Jerusalem). Using the common accession year dating,we see Herod started his 34 years on Nisan 1 in 35 BC,and those years would end on Nisan 1, 1 BC. So 34 years after 35 BC yields 1 BC for death of Herod after eclipse of Jan 10. -- b)As to the 3 successors,Herod lost favor of Augustus in 4 BC, on a false report, was no longer "Friend of Caesar", but "Subject". Antedating of reigns was common - reason here was to make the three seem to connect with the two "royal" sons, of Hasmonean descent, Alexander and Aristobulus,whom Herod executed on false reports from Antipater (do not confuse with Antipas).
VI. The Holy Trinity 1. Old Testament Hints:There is certainly no clear revelation of the Trinity in the OT. Some have tried to see some hints of it. The word elohim has a plural ending, yet is often used for God (it may also stand for angels or human judges). However,it usually get a singular verb. It may be a sort of plural of majesty.
There are a few places where a plural verb is used:
Gen 1.16: "Let us make man in our own image,in the likeness of ourselves." COMMENT:This could be merely the plural of majesty. However, it is introduced by a singular expression: "Elohim said." Gen.3.22: "See, the man has become like one of us."-- COMMENT: Introduced by singular "Yahweh Elohim said".
Gen.11.7: "Come let us go down and confuse their language." COMMENT: Introduced by singular: "Yahweh said" in v.6.
Is 6.8: "Whom shall I send? Who will be our messenger?" COMMENT: Note the shift from I to our. B.De Margerie (The Christian Trinity in History, tr. E.J.Fortman,St.Bede's, Still River, 1981, p.4) notes that these four texts come at special points in the history of humanity. He also asserts that "the OT did not yet have at its disposal a clear and distinct concept of human personality nor of person in general." (Cf.references there in note 7. Cf.also our comments earlier on nefesh). The Fathers commonly argue from such passages as these to the Trinity. Cf.St.Augustine, Contra sermones Arianorum 16.6.1.PL 42.695. St.Epiphanius in Panarion 23.1. PG 41.383 calls this explanation the common one. St.Gregory of Nyssa, Oratio Catechetica. III. PG 45.17-20, suggests polytheism is a garbled likeness of the Trinity. Cf.J.Finegan, Myth & Mystery,Baker,1991,pp.59-60. Also the fact that the Schmidt school of anthropology asserts that the lowest primitives had one God, a Sky-Father- cf.Indo-European Dyaus-pater.
2. Mentions of the Three Persons:
a)Father. Is used only 14 times in all of OT. E.g. Exodus.4:22-23: "And say to Pharaoh: Thus says Yahweh: Israel is my son, my firstborn. And I say to you: Let my son go, and he will serve me, but if you refuse, I will slay your son,your first born."
b)Son:It is clear that He is a Person distinct from the Father from many places in Scripture. e.g.Jn 1:18 speaks of "the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father". c)Holy Spirit. Is spoken of as distinct from the Father and the Son, for He is given by the Father at the request of the Son; He is to take the place of Christ, He will give testimony about the Son. He comes from the Father: Jn 14:16-26. He is clearly Divine, since e.g., He scrutinizes the depth of God: 1 Cor 2:10-11. We are His temples: 1 Cor 6:19-20.
3.The Church has always taught the Trinity,from the earliest Creeds. S.Athanasius, Epist.4 to Serapion 1.28 (R.782): "Let us see likewise this tradition and doctrine from the beginning,and the faith of the Catholic Church, which the Lord gave us,the Apostles preached, and the Fathers guarded....And so the Trinity is Holy and perfect, which is recognized in the Father and Son and Holy Spirit." St.Epiphanius, Panarion 73-34: "[ The Antiocheans] confess that the Father and Son and Holy Spirit are consubstantial, three hypostases, one ousia [substance], one divinity. Such is the true faith....which the Fathers and the Bishops gathered together in the Nicene Synod confessed."
4.There are processions within the divinity. Processions mean the origin of one Person from the other.They are immanent in the sense that all are within the one divinity. Only the Father does not proceed: hence the name of unbegotten is proper to Him. Two Greek words were often confused in the debates: agenetos = not made and agennetos = not generated. The Eunomians said the latter is the complete and proper designation of the divinity - and hence denied the divinity of the Logos and the Holy Spirit. But Chapter 1 of John's Gospel both speaks of the logos as God and as begotten.
The Son comes from the Father by way of generation - He is the Word, coming by way of intellect. The Holy Spirit comes by procession, not by generation - otherwise He would be identified with the Son, for only the relations of origin distinguish the Three Persons one from another. (ST I.36.4). He comes by way of will.He is the love of the Father for the Son and of the Son for the Father.Catechism of Council of Trent 1.9.7: "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the divine will as it were inflamed with love." Leo XIII,in Divinum illud(May 9,1897), He proceeds, "from the mutual love of Father and Son." His origin is therefore in both Father and Son (cf.Filioque). The Filioque was defined by Lateran IV: DS 800; "The Father is from no one, the Son is from the Father alone, the Holy Spirit is equally from each." The definition was repeated by Council of Florence in 1439, DS 1300: "We define that this truth of faith is to be believed and received by all Christians, and so all should profess that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has His essence and His subsistent being from the Father and the Son together, [and] proceeds eternally as from one principle and by one spiration."
There are two forms of wording: The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son -- and: The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.
The former is most common among the Latins, but Tertullian (R 372,375,378) uses also the second, as does St.Hilary (R.878).-- St.Ephrem (R 714) wrote: "The Father is the begetter and the Son begotten from His bosom, the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son." St.Epiphanius (R 1082): "[He is] Spirit of God, and Spirit of the Father and Spirit of the Son." 5.Relations: The Persons are constituted by the relations of origin: Father, begotten Son, Spirated Spirit. There is no real distinction between the divine essence and the relations, but only a virtual distinction.
6.The operations outside the Divine Nature are common to the Three Persons. Lateran IV,1215 .DS 800: "Father and Son and Holy Spirit: three persons, but one essence,substance or nature, altogether simple. The Father is from no one, the Son from the Father alone, the Holy Spirit equally from each; without beginning, always and without end: The Father generating, the Son being born, and the Holy Spirit proceeding; [they are] consubstantial and coequal and co-omnipotent,and coeternal; one principle of all." Pius XII, Mystici Corporis: "And besides let them retain as most certain with firm mind, that in these things all are to be considered common to the Most Holy Trinity, inasmuch as they look to God as the supreme efficient cause." 7.Appropriation: Even though all things done outside the Divine Nature are common to all Three, yet we suitably appropriate certain things to certain individual persons. As a matter of fact, Scripture itself makes these appropriations, calling the Father God, Christ, the Lord. Father is Creator, Son is Redeemer, Holy Spirit is Sanctifier. 8.Missions. St.Augustine, De Trinitate 4.20.29 :"For the Son to be sent, is to be known in his origin from the Father. In the same way, for the Holy Spirit...to be sent, is to be known in his procession from the Father." St.Thomas, ST 1.43.2.3: "Mission includes eternal procession and adds something, that is, effect within time." De Margerie, Trinity,pp.108-09:"If the Church ceaselessly deepens its doctrine of the Holy Spirit, must we not see here first of all a fruit of this incessant invisible mission of the Spirit of Truth to her and to each of her members, of this salvific mission by which the Father and the Son send the Spirit essentially to unveil the secret of his procession by making rational creatures participate in love." COMMENT: Recall that to love is to will good to another for the other's sake. St.Augustine, Sermo 71.12.18.PL 38. 454:"The Father and the Son have willed that we enter into communion among ourselves and with them through that which is common to them, and to bind us into one by this Gift which the two possess together that is,by the Holy Spirit, God and gift of God. It is in Him in fact that we are reconciled with the Divinity and take our delight in it". That is, as De Margerie, p.118, says, citing P.Smulders (Dictionnaire de Spiritualit asctique et mystique,Paris,1932- IV ,1960,1280- 82, art. Esprit Saint): "The love by which the Father and the Son embrace and communicate with one another overflows into us, makes us love God and communicate with our brothers in the Church." COMMENT: If we love God we will that He have the pleasure of giving to us and of seeing objective order fulfilled. If we really want that, we want it to be true not only in ourselves but in others, for His sake, and for their sake. Hence love of God and Love of neighbor are inseparable. De Margerie,p.154-55:"...the Son of God,the eternal Son of the eternal God, has become Son of Man so that his brothers in humanity may be able to participate at once in his eternal generation and in his eternal return toward the Father, becoming by grace filii in Filio, ex Patre et ad Patrem [sons in the Son, from the Father and to the Father like him." 9.Perichoresis: Each of the Divine Persons is in the other since each is infinite, and since each wills the supreme goodness of Supreme Being to the other -- which is the same as saying they love. It is love that makes three one. Love among human persons tends to unity, in God it simply is or produces unity.
Abbreviations
AI = Hershel Shanks,ed,Ancient Israel AAS = Acta Apostolicae Sedis BAR = Biblical Archaeology Review BCE = BC CBQ = Catholic Biblical Quarterly DB = Denmzinger-Bannwart,Enchiridion Symbolorum (early editions of DS) DS =Denzinger-Sch"nmetzer,Enchiridion Symbolorum DV = Vatican II, Dei verbum (Constitution on Revelation) EB = Enchiridion Biblicum FFAE = W.Most,Free From All Error J = W.Jurgens,The Faith of the Early Fathers (English of RJ) KM = R.Bultmann, in Kerygma and Myth, ed.H.W.Bartsch, tr.R.Fuller,NY Harper & Row Torchbooks, 1961 2d ed.vol I. LG = Vatican II, Lumen gentium (Constitution on Church) OFP = W. Most, Our Father's Plan RJ = Rout de Journel,Enchiridion Patristicum
Copyright (c) 1997 EWTN Online Services.
-------------------------------------------------------
