What is the Unpardonable Sin?

By AlexanderRahm - Own work, CC BY 3.0

There are a few passages of scripture that I cannot fathom. That's OK, in most cases, as I don't feel that I am capable of understanding everything about God. But there are several in this category I would really like to understand, because they may be relevant to my salvation or that of others.

Matthew 12:31-32 is one such passage. It reads:

Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

I recently listened to an episode of "The Road to Emmaus" podcast with Scott Hahn where that was the topic of discussion. It left me with more questions than answers.

Here's what's conventionally said about the unpardonable sin. The context of the two verses above is that Jesus has cured a demoniac and the Pharisees claim Jesus has done so by beelzebul (the devil) rather than by God's power. Jesus rebukes them, then offers those two verses. The footnote in my Bible says "To attribute to the devil the works of the Holy Spirit seems to imply a hardness of heart that precludes repentance."

Somehow this is often equated to the sin of despair (denial that one's sins can be forgiven) or the sin of presumption (the belief that I do not need repentance for the forgiveness of my sins). I'm not sure I follow the leap from attributing the work of the Holy Spirit to the devil to believing that  my sins are forgiven (or not), but there it is.

The Catechism says:

1864 "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven." There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit. Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

Aquinas describes three different interpretations of the blasphemy agains the Holy Spirit (see highlighted text below):

For the earlier doctors, viz. Athanasius (Super Matth. xii, 32), Hilary (Can. xii in Matth.), Ambrose (Super Luc. xii, 10), Jerome (Super Matth. xii), and Chrysostom (Hom. xli in Matth.), say that the sin against the Holy Ghost is literally to utter a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, whether by Holy Spirit we understand the essential name applicable to the whole Trinity, each Person of which is a Spirit and is holy, or the personal name of one of the Persons of the Trinity, in which sense blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is distinct from the blasphemy against the Son of Man (Matthew 12:32), for Christ did certain things in respect of His human nature, by eating, drinking, and such like actions, while He did others in respect of His Godhead, by casting out devils, raising the dead, and the like: which things He did both by the power of His own Godhead and by the operation of the Holy Ghost, of Whom He was full, according to his human nature. Now the Jews began by speaking blasphemy against the Son of Man, when they said (Matthew 11:19) that He was "a glutton . . . a wine drinker," and a "friend of publicans": but afterwards they blasphemed against the Holy Ghost, when they ascribed to the prince of devils those works which Christ did by the power of His own Divine Nature and by the operation of the Holy Ghost.

Augustine, however (De Verb. Dom., Serm. lxxi), says that blasphemy or the sin against the Holy Ghost, is final impenitence when, namely, a man perseveres in mortal sin until death, and that it is not confined to utterance by word of mouth, but extends to words in thought and deed, not to one word only, but to many. Now this word, in this sense, is said to be uttered against the Holy Ghost, because it is contrary to the remission of sins, which is the work of the Holy Ghost, Who is the charity both of the Father and of the Son. Nor did Our Lord say this to the Jews, as though they had sinned against the Holy Ghost, since they were not yet guilty of final impenitence, but He warned them, lest by similar utterances they should come to sin against the Holy Ghost: and it is in this sense that we are to understand Mark 3:29-30, where after Our Lord had said: "But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost," etc. the Evangelist adds, "because they said: He hath an unclean spirit."

But others understand it differently, and say that the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, is a sin committed against that good which is appropriated to the Holy Ghost: because goodness is appropriated to the Holy Ghost, just a power is appropriated to the Father, and wisdom to the Son. Hence they say that when a man sins through weakness, it is a sin "against the Father"; that when he sins through ignorance, it is a sin "against the Son"; and that when he sins through certain malice, i.e. through the very choosing of evil, as explained above (I-II:78:1; I-II:78:3), it is a sin "against the Holy Ghost."

But here's my basic problem with all the interpretations above. If you say that this sin is only unpardonable because it is not repented of, then it is no different from any other mortal sin, and yet we don't call every mortal sin unpardonable. Blasphemy agains the Holy Spirit then, is not unpardonable.

Want an example? The mission of the Apostles and the formation of the Church is a work of the Holy Spirit. St. Paul considers this an abomination against the Jewish faith - something of the devil, and so he persecutes the Christians. Yet Paul repents and his sin is (presumably - ha ha) pardoned.

Furthermore Jesus says that whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven. Well, isn't that what the Pharisees did? They said Jesus was in league with beelzebul, they didn't directly mention the Holy Spirit (nor did Paul for that matter).

For that matter it would seem that saying a word against the Son of man will be forgiven if the person repents, just like any other sin. And one could say that claiming Jesus is in league with the devil seems to imply a hardness of heart that precludes repentance of that. And indeed we see that many of the Pharisees (as far as we know) did not repent of their words against Jesus.

St. Augustine (one of my personal faves) has an interpretation that at least is consistent logically, but I don't see how it follows form the text. That is, final impenitence is not mentioned, and indeed if the sin is impenitence then it is not a "sin" per se, but impenitence of sin, that precludes forgiveness. The text seems to imply there is a sin which precludes later forgiveness, not a state you are in later that precludes forgiveness from any sin. I guess one could interpret the text as meaning "whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit until death" but that's not what the text says.

And so the whole thing remains a mystery to me. The common interpretation does not make sense to me because the same logic applies to every other mortal sin, including blasphemy against Jesus, which Jesus explicitly says is not this sin.

Read More

Where is the Pope in the Bible?

The words below were posted by me in a facebook conversation. There are some references to other posts, which I leave in for context, but the crux of the post is why the papacy (and Apostolic succession) is Biblical.

I made my previous comments ("Protestantism is the epitome of un-Biblical") intentionally provocative because although Protestants are always accusing Catholics of not being “Biblical” but I can show you passages in the Bible to support everything Catholics believe. The same is, ironically, not true for Protestant beliefs. I do not say this to denigrate Protestants. They are trying to follow what they believe to be the truth, and some of them are living a more loving and moral life than I am for sure. But they are following the traditions of men, as set down by Luther, Calvin, etc.

But as I noted, all of this comes down to authority. For instance you quoted Matthew 26:26- as “proof” that the Eucharist is symbolic. I use the same exact same words as “proof” that the Eucharist is NOT symbolic. Your objections are that eating human flesh is a curse (the same issue the disciples struggled with) and if it were meant to by physical wouldn’t the NT have clearly stated/clarified such? Well, Jesus DID state/clarify in John 6, and the disciples would not accept it and left.

It all depends on your interpretation. Sorry, but the Bible does not “interpret itself.” If it did we would not have this division of Christians, as we would all be able to understand the Bible in the same way. As it is, the Bible contains many passages that appear contradictory, even in light of the entirety of scripture. If our understanding of the Bible differs, how can we decide who is right and who is wrong? You say “well that’s wrong because of ‘X’” and I equally vehemently say “you’re wrong because of ‘Y’”. We can point fingers and say "you're not reading it right" but in the end it’s either all opinion, or there is some authority we can look to.

The Bible says the authority for disputes between Christians is the church (Matthew 18:15-18). And not some invisible communion of all believers, as it would be hard to “tell it to” a community of all believers and have them make a definitive judgement. In Acts 15 we see the church, as a visible body of bishops deriving authority from the Holy Spirit, make a declaration on just such a question (more on that later).

So I thought a good place to start, to cut to the heart of the matter, is apostolic authority and succession.

You claimed, in your post that the Bible says nothing about Apostolic succession. The Bible does, in fact, say a great deal about Apostolic succession. First, let’s cover the specific example of Papal authority and succession, which will lead into the more general case of apostolic succession.

Even if this does not convince you that Catholics are “right” on this topic, I hope it convinces you that Catholicism is not un-Biblical. That is, you can say “I disagree with that interpretation” but the words and verses are there to support the Catholic position, which takes them exactly as written.

There is lots of evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Here’s a brief summary:

• Peter is mentioned more than all the other Apostles combined.
• Whenever the Apostles are named, Peter is listed first, even though he was not the first Apostle to follow Jesus (Matthew 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13).
• Sometimes the apostles are referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32).
• Peter generally speaks for the apostles (Matthew 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and even speaks for Jesus (Matthew 17:24).
• It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32).
• Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17).
• An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7).
• John waits for Peter to go into the tomb (John 20:4).
• The risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34).
• On Pentecost Peter was the first to preach to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40). Peter worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7).
• Peter led the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26).
• Peter received the first converts (Acts 2:41).
• Peter declared the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11)
• Peter excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23).
• Peter received the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).
• Peter led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15).
• Peter announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11).

And I haven’t even mentioned the one test you thought I would (Matthew 16). So let’s look at why Peter should be so prominent.

Name

When Simon joins Jesus, Jesus renames him “Peter” (Petros or Kepha) which means “Rock” (John 1:42). This is not just a nickname, this becomes the name by which he is known. Why Rock? Aside from Abraham, who is referred to as a rock one time (Isaiah 51:1-2) only God is known as a rock, and in neither of those cases is rock a proper name. In fact “rock” was never used as a proper name in those days. Clearly something is going on. Jesus changes Simon’s name to a new name that Jesus invented. As you well know, a name change in the Bible signifies a change in the person’s role. Abram becomes Abraham, Sarai becomes Sarah, Jacob becomes Israel and Simon becomes Peter. You may also note Jesus calls James and John Boanerges, but that is a nickname applied to both, not a replacement for their names; they are still called James and John.

Later (Matthew 16) Jesus would reiterate this name change. The place where he does this is Caesarea Phillipi, which was located near a giant wall of rock. The location wold have been chosen to emphasize the importance of the name change. It was there Peter made his profession of faith: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16). Jesus told him that this truth was specially revealed to him, and then he reiterated: "And I tell you, you are Peter" (Matthew 16:18). To this was added the promise that the Church would be founded, in some way, on Peter (Matthew 16:18).

Office

Let’s look at Matthew 16:16-18:

Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Now take a look at Isaiah 22:15,20-23:

Thus says the Lord God of hosts, “Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household, and say to him: …
In that day I will call my servant Eli′akim the son of Hilki′ah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house.

Jesus’ words in Matthew are clearly referring to the office of “Al Biet” (he who is “over the household”) in Isaiah. This was an office similar to Prime Minister or Viceroy in the Davidic Kingdom. Nor is this the only instance in the Bible where such an office was held. Consider Joseph in Genesis 41:40-44:

You shall be over my household, and all my people will obey your command. Only in respect to the throne will I outrank you.” ^... “I am Pharaoh,” he told Joseph, “but without your approval no one shall lift hand or foot in all the land of Egypt.”

The person who held this office had the authority to speak in the king’s name, to make rules and judge in the king’s name, and to be a steward of the kingdom when the king was away. The symbol of this authority in the Davidic kingdom was possession of the keys of the kingdom. Jesus is assigning this role to Peter. He gives Peter the keys of the kingdom and gives him the power to bind (shut) and loose (open), not just on earth, but in the heaven! This is a big deal!

Note that this person shall be a father (aka pope) to the people and shall be a peg in a sure place (e.g. the one who holds the others together). Note also that this is an office, not a one time thing. In Isaiah the office is transferred from Shebna to Eliakim. It does not end with Shebna.

This is also demonstrated multiple times throughout the New Testament. For instance, in Matthew 17:24-27 Peter speaks to the Pharisees for Jesus. Jesus informs Peter that “the sons are free” but not to give offense they will pay anyway… then pays for himself and Peter. In other words, not only Jesus, but Peter is exempt as being part of the household of the king.

In Luke 22:31-2 Jesus says:

“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”

In verse 31 “you is plural (Satan demands to have you (plural) that he might sift you (plural)” but in 32 it is singular “I have prayed for you (Peter) that your (Peter’s) faith may not fail; and when you (Peter) have turned again, strengthen your brethren.” Jesus shows that Peter has a special role among the Apostles. It is Peter who will not fail, and who will, after the turns back, support the others… kind of like… a rock.

In John 21:15-17 Jesus asks Peter “do you love me more than these?” (meaning the Apostles). He then reminds Peter that he is to “feed my sheep” and “tend my lambs.” Jesus is delegating his responsibility as shepherd to Peter.

Thus we have Jesus assigning Peter to an office (Al Biet) which is to be passed down from one to another. The office is holy in that it is assigned by God, and the person who holds that office is to be a father. Hence we call the Pope (pope is from papa, or father) “the holy father” not because the Pope is especially holy, but because his office is holy and that of a father.

Acts

In the interests of brevity I will skip a bunch of stuff, but note some examples of how Peter exercises his authority.
Acts 1:15-20:

In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said, “Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus…. 

For it is written in the book of Psalms,

‘Let his habitation become desolate,
and let there be no one to live in it’;

and

‘His office let another take.’

Peter leads the group (of 120 people) to choose another bishop. They all understand that the office of bishop does not end with the death of the person holding the office, but that new ones are chosen as successors.

In Acts 2:14 ff. Peter again speaks for all the Apostles, addressing the crowd. Peter instructs them to repent and be Baptized. In Acts 5:1-11 Peter condemns two people to death (exercising his authority that whatever he binds is bound in heaven).

In Acts 15 Peter leads the Council of Jerusalem, where the church makes its first doctrinal declaration. Note that the council of bishops and priests (aka Apostles and elders) frames their decision as: “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials...” - the church council speaks with the authority of the Holy Spirit.

So we see a visible church body, with offices of Pope (Al Biet), bishop (episkopos) and priest (presbyteros), which appoints new members to its offices, which claims the authority to make doctrinal and pastoral decisions in the name of the Holy Spirit.

For other examples of apostolic succession see 1 Timothy 1:6 and 4:14, where Paul reminds Timothy that the office of bishop had been conferred on him through the laying on of hands. Notice in 1 Timothy 5:22 that Paul advises Timothy not to be hasty in handing on this authority to others. This, of course, assume apostolic succession as a rule.

For more evidence we can turn to extra-Biblical sources. While these do not have the weight of Scripture, they are at least historical evidence that apostolic succession was practiced by the Apostles and by those on whom they conferred their authority. Here there are dozens and dozens of documents I could cite, but just to pick two:

Pope Clement I:

"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier... Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

St. Augustine:

“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church’... [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus...” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412])

I could go on, but this, I think, is good evidence that both the Bible and history agree that Apostolic authority and succession are Biblical, and practices by the first Christians, and Papal authority and succession are Biblical, and practiced by the first Christians.

Read More

The Cross in the Old Testament

If you ask someone where to find the Crucifixion mentioned in the Old testament, they'll probably go to Zechariah 12:10:

“And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of compassion and supplication, so that, when they look on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a first-born.

or maybe Psalm  22, which Jesus quotes from the cross, where it says:

For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me. They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.

or maybe Isaiah 53. But what about the cross itself? The cross has been the symbol of Christians for about as long as there have been Christians. Tertullian, in the second century, wrote "We Christians wear out our foreheads with the sign of the cross" - and the practice goes back to long before that.

Which got me wondering - is the sign of the cross in the Old Testament too? If so, it would be a cool foreshadowing of Jesus' Crucifixion - almost as if God knew what was going to happen and gave out hints...

In Genesis, God puts a sign on Cain to mark him as His own, to protect him from being killed.

And the Lord said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground. And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. When you till the ground, it shall no longer yield to you its strength; you shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth.” Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold, thou hast driven me this day away from the ground; and from thy face I shall be hidden; and I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will slay me.” Then the Lord said to him, “Not so! If any one slays Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.” And the Lord put a mark on Cain, lest any who came upon him should kill him. Then Cain went away from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

The Bible does not mention what that mark was, but it is speculated it might be the same mark that God puts on His people in Revelation and in Ezekiel. The word used for "mark," in the Old Testament is "Tav", the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and the letter corresponding to the Greek letter Tau "T" or Roman letter Tee "T". Tav in Hebrew today looks like this:

ת

but of course alphabets evolve over time. At the time, a "Tav" would have looked like "X" or

Interesting, isn't it? Then we have, not a cross shape, but Abraham's son Isaac carrying the wood for the sacrifice up Mount Moriah, which just happens to be the same location where Jesus would carry the wood of the cross for His sacrifice.

In Exodus, we have the instruction to smear the blood of the lamb on both the wooden upright door posts and the wooden cross beam, or lintel - another cross reference (pun intended).

Later on in Exodus, Moses has to hold up his hands for Israel to defeat Amelek (who represents sin and death). We're not told exactly how he held his hands, but Aaron and Hur stand on either side of him to help him hold them up. This suggests his posture was one of hands held up to either side, like Jesus on the cross.

In Leviticus, we have the offering of First Fruits, which comes right after Passover, and includes the wave sheaf offering:

And the Lord said to Moses, “Say to the people of Israel, When you come into the land which I give you and reap its harvest, you shall bring the sheaf of the first fruits of your harvest to the priest; and he shall wave the sheaf before the Lord, that you may find acceptance; on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it. And on the day when you wave the sheaf, you shall offer a male lamb a year old without blemish as a burnt offering to the Lord. And the cereal offering with it shall be two tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil, to be offered by fire to the Lord, a pleasing odor; and the drink offering with it shall be of wine, a fourth of a hin. And you shall eat neither bread nor grain parched or fresh until this same day, until you have brought the offering of your God: it is a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.

This is an offering of a lamb, but also of bread and wine, and the sheaf of wheat is to be "waved." From other texts, it seems that this wave was up and down and side to side, so... you guessed it, the sign of the cross!

I'm sure there are other instances that I'm not aware of, but I thought it was pretty amazing to see the hints of the New Testament hidden in the Old Testament.

Read More

Resurrection in the Old Testament

Jesus (and St. Paul) both speak of the Jews' belief in the Resurrection of the body, but when was that revealed to the Jews? I read an article which claimed that the Resurrection was a relatively "new" concept at the time of Jesus, probably "stolen" from the Babylonians during the captivity. Does the Bible have any references to resurrection from before the captivity?

I though I'd take a look at the Old Testament. Armed with nothing but a search engine and a love of Scripture I found the following:

Of course the most obvious example in 2 Maccabees 7 [emphasis mine]:

The Martyrdom of Seven Brothers

It happened also that seven brothers and their mother were arrested and were being compelled by the king, under torture with whips and cords, to partake of unlawful swine’s flesh. One of them, acting as their spokesman, said, “What do you intend to ask and learn from us? For we are ready to die rather than transgress the laws of our fathers.”

The king fell into a rage, and gave orders that pans and caldrons be heated. These were heated immediately, and he commanded that the tongue of their spokesman be cut out and that they scalp him and cut off his hands and feet, while the rest of the brothers and the mother looked on. When he was utterly helpless, the king ordered them to take him to the fire, still breathing, and to fry him in a pan. The smoke from the pan spread widely, but the brothers and their mother encouraged one another to die nobly, saying,  “The Lord God is watching over us and in truth has compassion on us, as Moses declared in his song which bore witness against the people to their faces, when he said, ‘And he will have compassion on his servants.’”

After the first brother had died in this way, they brought forward the second for their sport. They tore off the skin of his head with the hair, and asked him, “Will you eat rather than have your body punished limb by limb?”  He replied in the language of his fathers, and said to them, “No.” Therefore he in turn underwent tortures as the first brother had done.  And when he was at his last breath, he said, “You accursed wretch, you dismiss us from this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life, because we have died for his laws.”

After him, the third was the victim of their sport. When it was demanded, he quickly put out his tongue and courageously stretched forth his hands, and said nobly, “I got these from Heaven, and because of his laws I disdain them, and from him I hope to get them back again.” As a result the king himself and those with him were astonished at the young man’s spirit, for he regarded his sufferings as nothing.

When he too had died, they maltreated and tortured the fourth in the same way. And when he was near death, he said, “One cannot but choose to die at the hands of men and to cherish the hope that God gives of being raised again by him. But for you there will be no resurrection to life!”

Next they brought forward the fifth and maltreated him. But he looked at the king, and said, “Because you have authority among men, mortal though you are, you do what you please. But do not think that God has forsaken our people.  Keep on, and see how his mighty power will torture you and your descendants!”

After him they brought forward the sixth. And when he was about to die, he said, “Do not deceive yourself in vain. For we are suffering these things on our own account, because of our sins against our own God. Therefore astounding things have happened.  But do not think that you will go unpunished for having tried to fight against God!”

The mother was especially admirable and worthy of honorable memory. Though she saw her seven sons perish within a single day, she bore it with good courage because of her hope in the Lord. She encouraged each of them in the language of their fathers. Filled with a noble spirit, she fired her woman’s reasoning with a man’s courage, and said to them, “I do not know how you came into being in my womb. It was not I who gave you life and breath, nor I who set in order the elements within each of you. Therefore the Creator of the world, who shaped the beginning of man and devised the origin of all things, will in his mercy give life and breath back to you again, since you now forget yourselves for the sake of his laws.”

More on the Moses reference highlighted above as we go backwards in time.

There's the story of Elijah, who was assumed bodily into heaven (2 Kings 2:11-12), but that doesn't quite count as a resurrection. There is also the story of Elisha's bones bringing a man back to life (2 Kings 13:20-21) but although the man is raised from the dead it is an "exceptional" case, not indicative that all will be resurrected. But several of the prophets speak of the resurrection.

Daniel 12:2

Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

and Daniel 12:13

But you, go your way, and rest; you shall rise for your reward at the end of the days.”

Isaiah 26:19 announces of the resurrection of the Jews:

Your dead shall live, their corpses shall rise.
    O dwellers in the dust, awake and sing for joy!
For your dew is a radiant dew,
    and the earth will give birth to those long dead.

Hosea 6:1-2 speaks of resurrection as well.

Come, let us return to the Lord;
    for it is he who has torn, and he will heal us;
    he has struck down, and he will bind us up. 
After two days he will revive us;
    on the third day he will raise us up,
    that we may live before him.

The Psalms deal with at least implied resurrection, such as Psalm 16:9-10:

Therefore my heart is glad, and my soul rejoices;
    my body also dwells secure. 
For thou dost not give me up to Sheol,
    or let thy godly one see the Pit.

That's a little obscure to me, as it's not clear if it means David (the author) will not die, or will die but be resurrected. However, St. Peter (to whom Jesus explained all of Scripture) clearly saw it as referring to the Resurrection and says so at Pentecost in Acts 2:25-32:

For David says concerning him,

‘I saw the Lord always before me,
    for he is at my right hand so that I will not be shaken;
therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced;
    moreover my flesh will live in hope.
For you will not abandon my soul to Hades,
    or let your Holy One experience corruption.
You have made known to me the ways of life;
    you will make me full of gladness with your presence.’

“Fellow Israelites, I may say to you confidently of our ancestor David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.
Since he was a prophet, he knew that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would put one of his descendants on his throne. Foreseeing this, David spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, saying,

‘He was not abandoned to Hades,
    nor did his flesh experience corruption.’

This Jesus God raised up, and of that all of us are witnesses.

So I have to agree on that one.  This one is much clearer - in 1 Samuel 2:6 Hannah prays:

The Lord kills and brings to life;
    he brings down to Sheol and raises up.

Job clearly believes that at least he can be resurrected:

O that you would hide me in Sheol,
    that you would conceal me until your wrath is past,
    that you would appoint me a set time, and remember me! 
If mortals die, will they live again?
    All the days of my service I would wait
    until my release should come.

Then there is Jonah. Yes, good old Jonah. I remember that story from my childhood, but as far as I knew, and as all the kids' stories (like VeggieTales) Jonah just spent 3 days living in the belly of the whale. Sure, when Jesus says (Matthew 16:1-4)

And the Pharisees and Sad′ducees came, and to test him they asked him to show them a sign from heaven. He answered them,  “When it is evening, you say, ‘It will be fair weather; for the sky is red.’ And in the morning, ‘It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” So he left them and departed.

He was referring to His death and Resurrection, but Jonah was just a symbol of that, right? I mean three days in the tomb was like Jonah spending three days in the belly of the whale? Well kids, the actual story is darker. Jonah was dead, and was resurrected. (Jonah 1:17-2:9):

And the Lord appointed a great fish to swallow up Jonah; and Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

Then Jonah prayed to the Lord his God from the belly of the fish, saying,

“I called to the Lord, out of my distress,
    and he answered me;
out of the belly of Sheol I cried,
    and thou didst hear my voice.

For thou didst cast me into the deep,
    into the heart of the seas,
    and the flood was round about me;
all thy waves and thy billows
    passed over me. 

Then I said, ‘I am cast out
    from thy presence;
how shall I again look
    upon thy holy temple?’ 

The waters closed in over me,
    the deep was round about me;
weeds were wrapped about my head 

    at the roots of the mountains.
I went down to the land
    whose bars closed upon me for ever;yet thou didst bring up my life from the Pit,
    O Lord my God. 

When my soul fainted within me,
    I remembered the Lord;
and my prayer came to thee,
    into thy holy temple. 

Those who pay regard to vain idols
    forsake their true loyalty. 

But I with the voice of thanksgiving
    will sacrifice to thee;
what I have vowed I will pay.
    Deliverance belongs to the Lord!”

The Maccabees passage at the beginning references Moses. The reference is to Deuteronomy 32:36, which says:

Indeed the Lord will vindicate his people,
    have compassion on his servants,
when he sees that their power is gone,
    neither bond nor free remaining.

Not a very obvious reference to resurrection, but it gets better. If we continue another few verses we see that God is referring to resurrection (Deuteronomy 32:39):

See now that I, even I, am he;
    there is no god besides me.
I kill and I make alive;
    I wound and I heal;
    and no one can deliver from my hand.

And finally, there is Abraham, all the way back in Genesis 22:9-10:

When they came to the place that God had shown him, Abraham built an altar there and laid the wood in order. He bound his son Isaac, and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. Then Abraham reached out his hand and took the knife to kill his son.

"But Mike," you say, "that doesn't say anything about resurrection." I know, but remember Abraham had been promised descendants through Isaac explicitly. So if Isaac is to die, the only way he could expect God to fulfill God's covenant would be through the resurrection of Isaac. It may not seem obvious to you, but it was to the author of Hebrews (Hebrews 11:17-19):

By faith Abraham, when put to the test, offered up Isaac. He who had received the promises was ready to offer up his only son, of whom he had been told, “It is through Isaac that descendants shall be named for you.” He considered the fact that God is able even to raise someone from the dead—and figuratively speaking, he did receive him back.

When I started this  post I really only knew about two references to resurrection in the Old Testament. It took me quite a while, but I was surprised (and pleased) to find as many as I did (eleven). Do you ever wonder about things in the Bible? It may be time to dust off the old search engine and go digging.

Read More

Words Made Flesh

I wish I could read ancient Greek and Hebrew. It's not a skill I think I will ever possess, but it would be nice. In just the minuscule amount of Scripture I have studied, it seems almost every verse has some nuance that is lost in translation.

For instance, I was listening to a talk by Tim Staples about the Blessed Virgin Mary.  He pointed out that in Luke's narrative of the Annunciation there in an interesting word play going on. Mary asks "How can this be, since I do not know man?" Every translation I am aware of (including "literal" translations) has the angel's reply in Luke 1:37 as:

³⁷ For with God nothing will be impossible.”

or very similar wording. But according to Tim, and I looked it up in a Greek interlinear Bible, the actual words written were

37   ὅτι οὐκ ἀδυνατήσει παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ πᾶν εἶπεν

or

37   for not will be impossible with God every word said.

or

37  for every word of God's is possible.

Similar meaning, but it gives quite a different emphasis to Mary's reply "Let it be done to me according to your word."

Read More

Do you love your enemies?

There is an Irish "blessing" that goes like this:

May those who love us love us.
And those that don't love us,
May God turn their hearts.
And if He doesn't turn their hearts,
May he turn their ankles,
So we'll know them by their limping.

A lot of times our prayers are like that. People hurt us, or hurt others, and we either pray for the victims, or we pray for justice, that the perpetrators get their comeuppance. Now, there is not necessarily anything wrong with praying for justice - many of the Psalms are like that. From Psalm 109:

May his days be few;
    may another seize his goods!
May his children be fatherless,
    and his wife a widow! 
May his children wander about and beg;
    may they be driven out of the ruins they inhabit! 
May the creditor seize all that he has;
    may strangers plunder the fruits of his toil! 
Let there be none to extend kindness to him,
    nor any to pity his fatherless children! 
May his posterity be cut off;
    may his name be blotted out in the second generation! 
May the iniquity of his fathers be remembered before the Lord,
    and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out! 
Let them be before the Lord continually;
    and may his memory be cut off from the earth! 
For he did not remember to show kindness,
    but pursued the poor and needy
    and the brokenhearted to their death. 
He loved to curse; let curses come on him!
    He did not like blessing; may it be far from him!

We are hurt - we are outraged. We want justice without mercy.

But God has a better way. Jesus said, in Luke 6:27-36:

“But I say to you that hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To him who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from him who takes away your cloak do not withhold your coat as well. Give to every one who begs from you; and of him who takes away your goods do not ask them again. And as you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.

 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the selfish. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.

In this year of mercy I've been cognizant of our duty to extend mercy to those who wrong us. I've read (by solid Catholic catechists) that we have to forgive everyone (since we are commanded to), and also that we don't have to forgive the unrepentant (since God does not). Who is right? We pray every day (you do pray this every day, don't you?) in the Our Father "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." So, do we want God to forgive us when we are unrepentant, or perhaps not as repentant as we should be?

There is a principle in computer science called the robustness principle (aka Postel's law) that goes like this "be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others." It is a good principle to use in life. Be conservative in treating others - be as harmless as possible. On the other hand, be willing to accept poor treatment, and forgive.

Note - I'm not saying that those who break the law should not be tried and punished, nor am I saying that we should ignore evil or be doormats for anyone who would abuse us. On the contrary, we should always protect ourselves and others, and part of that is, as a society we should enforce laws. I'm talking about our inward attitude or forgiveness, not some "get out of jail free" card - truly loving those who have done evil.

An easy principle to state, but a hard one to implement. Consider the recent shootings in Dallas. As someone who is not directly involved you may think it relatively easy to forgive Micah Johnson, and whoever else was possibly involved. Yet, do you truly wish to bless him? Do you pray that he is burning (justly) in hell, or that he turned to Jesus as he saw that explosive coming at him, and is now awaiting entry into heaven? Not that easy to bless those who curse you is it?

But let's make it personal. Consider the person who belittled you on Facebook, and made you feel horrible. The person who cut you off in traffic, who took away your job, who betrayed you. Will you pray that they repent? Will you pray that God makes them become nice people? Or will you truly pray that they be blessed, even as they curse you. Will you pray that good things come to them and that they receive a reward in heaven? Would you volunteer to do their time in purgatory? Because if you wouldn't you might be doing your own time in purgatory because of them.

Is it just that they go unpunished, and maybe even rewarded, for having done evil? No, but we should trust God to balance mercy and justice. This is a very hard concept, and one I will continue to meditate on in this year of mercy.

Read More

Canons go Boom

Courtesy cbcs

I recently had a friend challenge me on the canonicity of the so called "apocrypha" - what Catholics call the deuterocanonical books. These are the seven books of the Bible which Protestants reject as being part of Scripture, but Catholics accept. The challenge gave me the opportunity to examine the matter in way more detail than I had before. It was a real eye-opener, and I thought I would share what I learned.

I was hit with 31 reasons why the apocrypha are not Scripture, and found problems with all 31 reasons. I will not go into each on in detail (you're welcome) but there are some general principles. First off, the whole issue of canonicity brings up the whole question of authority (since all differences between Catholics and Protestants is ultimately a matter of authority). Science fiction author John C Wright has written a few articles on this that are far better than anything I could write. A couple of quotes (with links to the articles):

"...one cannot argue that the books of the Bible are canonical and argue at the same time that neither the Church nor any one has the authority to canonize them." - John C Wright

"The redacted sections of the written message provide a logically insurmountable paradox for the Protestant messengers. If their sole authority for the authenticity of their message is the written part of the message, then they have no authority to redact or remove parts of the message on any grounds. The cannot throw away the Book of the Maccabeus or Tobit or the Letters of James or anything else because they claim that neither they nor anyone has the authority to define the cannon." - John C Wright

Now, onto the 31 reasons... I was able to fold all 31 down to five different reasons. You get 31 reasons by repeating the same thing from a slightly different angle or by claiming each church father as a separate authority. Here are my five reasons. If you can think of something that is claimed by Protestants that is not in these five categories, please let me know - I'd by happy to add a sixth.

1. The Catholic Church rejected the books, then changed the canon in the 1500s. This is simply not true, as you can find the documents of the earlier councils in the 300s which list the same canon (for instance http://taylormarshall.com/2008/08/decree-of-council-of-rome-ad-382-on.html).

2. The Jews rejected the books - although they did not until at least 100 AD, which means they were accepted during Jesus' life time (yes, there were certain sects that rejected various sets of books, but of course that is true all throughout history). Additionally the Jews rejected the books of the New Testament, so if we are to accept the Jews as authorities for the canon we have to discard the entire New Testament. I've heard the counter argument that the Jews have authority over the books that don't include Jesus, but claim is ridiculous on the face of it as all of Scripture is about Jesus, as there is one God.

3. The Church Fathers rejected the books - but of the dozens of Church Fathers, there are only a tiny minority that didn't, and it is unclear if they themselves didn't accept them or they were saying that others didn't accept them. For instance, St. Jerome wrote that "I wasn't relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us." (http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/5-myths-about-7-books.html)

4. Jesus and the Apostles rejected the books - but they didn't. In fact Jesus refers to Maccabees as being a Messianic prophetic book (John 10:22-36). He also paraphrases Sirach in Mathew 7:17-20. There are other examples, but these are sufficient to dispute the claim. Nowhere do Jesus and the Apostles define or refute any canon of Scripture.

5. The books are "different" in some way (either in historical errors, discrepancies, doctrine, genre, etc.) and therefore should be rejected - but each of these arguments are arguments against many of the books of the Old Testament (and New Testament). These books are no "different" than any other book in the Bible is from any other. I won't go into specifics, as there are literally dozens of things that can be brought up, but suffice it to say that every difference you can point out in a deuterocanonical book can be found in a non-disputed book in the canon.

Should we reject all the books that are "different" in some way from some other book? In addition, there are many non-canonical books that are "similar" to canonical books - should we add them? Who decides what is "similar enough" to warrant inclusion? Again we have that issue of authority

Ultimately the historical fact is that the Pharisees removed those books, along with the entire New Testament, after Jesus' death, in order to suppress Christianity. Christians accepted those books, with few exceptions. The Christians held several councils to resolve the matter and the issue of the canon was settled in the 300s All Christians accepted them as canonical for 1200 years until Martin Luther unilaterally changed the canon. His authority was not enough to remove all the books he wanted removed (such as James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation) but citing the Jews as authoritative he was able to make those 7 "stick."

Luther made no bones about why he wanted to change the canon - it didn't fit his theology. In fact, in the Old Testament he also wanted to jettison the Pentateuch, Job, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Jonah (he couldn't find an excuse to do so, but his commentary on these books says that he didn't consider them to be canonical). He even added the word "alone" to Romans 3:28 to make it say "For we hold that a man is justified by faith alone apart from works of law." in order to make it support his theology.

So, it seems that the real reason for dropping the apocrypha from the canon of Scripture was to change God's word to fit Luthers' word, and that is just plain wrong.

Read More

Dark Matter

A dear friend of mine was remarking on how he struggles with some of the darker passages of scripture - God commanding the Israelites to kill women and children. At some point, if you read the Bible, you have to come to grips with these sorts of things.

So let's consider a hypothetical situation. Grandma passes away, and in her effects you discover her diary, and begin reading it. You find page after page about what a kind, gentle man your Grandpa was, but then there's a date on which she wrote "John beat the children today." What do you believe about your grandfather in light of that?

Some possibilities come to mind.

• Perhaps it was an expression. Families are full (or at least mine is full) of inside jokes and odd expressions that don't always mean what they say at face value.
• Perhaps she meant it in a different context ("John beat the children [at backgammon] today").
• Perhaps it was paternal correction in a time where corporal punishment wasn't considered evil (e.g. the children were playing with matches and grandpa taught them a lesson).
• Perhaps Grandpa really was a child abuser and Grandma just ignored it most of the time but couldn't on that particular day.

No exegetical analysis of Grandma's diary is going to settle the question. It all falls back on two things. Your relationship with your grandfather and your relationship with your grandmother.

How did your grandfather treat you? Is one sentence enough to undo the lifetime of memories of him pushing you on the swing, teaching you magic tricks and building a bird house together?

What do you know of your grandmother? Was she the sort of woman who would let her children be abused? Didn't she take your brothers to task when they picked on you? Hasn't she always been stern, yet fair?

Similarly, what do we think when we see these passages of Scripture? Some possibilities come to mind.

• Perhaps the Israelites attributed things to God that were not really His attributes. There are plenty of examples in the Old testament where God is depicted as being "evil" "angry" or having "wings." These are all recognized as literary devices.
• Perhaps the author used God as an excuse to justify something the Israelites wanted to do, even though it was not His will. There are examples of this in the Bible as well. One example is the law permitting divorce, which Jesus explicitly points out as the case where God allowed men to make an unjust law because of the "hardness of their hearts."
• Perhaps the actions themselves are expressions, not literal things that were done. For instance, in Psalm 137 the author says "Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!" - but in the psalm the "mother" is understood to be the city of Babylon and her "children" refers to her army.
• Perhaps the actions are exaggerated to make the event seem more than it was. For instance the Canaanites were supposedly all killed, yet they return to fight again later. Likewise the Amalekites. Saying that the Israelites killed every living thing, down to the last child, was likely an exaggeration of a decisive victory.
• Or perhaps God really is evil. and Jesus' and the prophets' exhortations of peace and love are all a ruse to snare gullible believers.

In the end you have to rely on your relationship with God and with His Church. What kind of a god do you think God is? How has the Church seems Him? What are the "fruits" of His believers?

If you have a personal relationship with God, you know what He is like, and these passages don't shake that. If you don't have a relationship, it's all a matter of which exegesis you want to believe. Much of what's available today is written by non-believers who wish to see things in a harsh light. For a more balanced view look to books like Light on the Dark Passages of Scripture by Mark Giszczak

Read More