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 P�ch� 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,
M�nster,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.Sag��s,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 Sag��s 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.Sag��s, 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. Sag��s 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
Th�ologie 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 p�ch� 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 R�gnon 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 f�r 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� asc�tique 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 = Rou�t de Journel,Enchiridion Patristicum
Copyright (c) 1997 EWTN Online Services.
-------------------------------------------------------
Provided courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
PO Box 3610
Manassas, VA 22110
Voice: 703-791-2576
Fax: 703-791-4250
Web:
http://www.ewtn.com
Email address:
[email protected]
-------------------------------------------------------
