2017-04-17T15:55:27-04:00

Ancient and Medieval Jewish Commentators

RabbiRembrandt

Portrait of a Rabbi (1635), by Rembrandt (1606-1669) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

(1982; revised 9-14-01)

***

Isaiah 52:13 – Isaiah 53 (RSV)13 Behold, my servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high.
14 As many were astonished at him–his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of the sons of men–
15 so shall he startle many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which has not been told them they shall see, and that which they have not heard they shall understand.
1 Who has believed what we have heard? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
2 For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or comeliness that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.
8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people?
9 And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the will of the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief; when he makes himself an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand;
11 he shall see the fruit of the travail of his soul and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out his soul to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

From: Christology of the Old Testament and a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions, Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg (1802-1869; an orthodox Lutheran and eminent theologian)
*

Translated by T. Meyer, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 4 volumes, 1854-1858)

 

There cannot be any doubt that the messianic interpretation was pretty generally received in earlier times by the Jews. This is admitted even by those later interpreters who pervert the prophecy, e.g., Ibn-ezra, Jarchi [Rashi], Abravanel and Nahmanides.
The whole translation of the Chaldean Paraphrast, Jonathan, refers to prophecy to Messiah. He paraphrases the very first clause: “behold, My Servant Messiah shall prosper.” The Midrash Tanchuma states: “This is the King Messiah who is high and lifted up, and very exalted, more exalted than Abraham, elevated above Moses, higher than the ministering angels.”
*

There is a remarkable passage in the very old book Pesikta, cited in the treatise Abkath Rokhel, and reprinted in Hulsii Theologia Judaica, where this passage occurs, p. 309:

“When God created the world, He stretched out His hand under the throne of His glory, and brought forth the soul of the Messiah. He said to him: ‘Will you heal and redeem My sons after 6000 years?’ He answered him, ‘I will.’ Then God said to him: ‘Will you then also bear the punishment in order to blot out their sins, as it is written, “But he bore our diseases” ‘ (53:4). And he answered Him; ‘I will joyfully bear them.’ ” (cf. Zohar, 2:212a)

Rabbi Moses Haddarshan states: “Immediately the Messiah, out of love, took upon himself all those plagues and sufferings, as it is written in Isaiah 53, ‘He was abused and oppressed.’ ” In the Rabboth, a commentary, 53:5 is quoted, and referred to the sufferings of the Messiah. In the Midrash Tillim, an allegorical commentary on the Psalms, printed at Venice in 1546, it is said at Psalms 2:7: “The things of King Messiah are announced in the prophets, e.g., in the passage Is 52:13 and 42:1, in the Hagiographa, e.g., Ps 60 and Dan 7:13.”
*

Rabbi Alschech, in Hulsii Theologia Judaica, pp. 321 ff., comments:

    Upon the testimony of tradition, our old rabbis have unanimously admitted that king Messiah is here the subject of discourse. We, in harmony with them, conclude that king David, i.e., the Messiah, must be considered as the subject of this prophecy – a view which is indeed quite obvious.
Comparatively few Jews (i.e., those who didn’t take the “servant-as-Israel” view) believed that the passage referred to a person other than the Messiah. The kabbalistic Jews still largely held to the messianic interpretation of the passage.

* * * * *
From: The Messiah Texts, Raphael Patai, Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1979 [Jewish]

Here are Raphael Patai’s credentials, from Gates to the Old City: A Book of Jewish Legends (New York: Avon Books, 1980):

 

Noted anthropologist, Biblical scholar, and author of 26 books (as of 1980). He taught Hebrew at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and served as professor of anthropology at Dropsie University and at Fairleigh Dickinson University, and as visiting professor at the Univ. of Pennsylvania and at Princeton, Columbia, Ohio State, and New York Universities.

Concerning the suffering servant of Isaiah 42, 49, 50, 52, 53, Patai writes:

“The Aggada, the Talmudic legend, unhesitatingly identifies him with the Messiah, and understands especially the descriptions of his sufferings as referring to Messiah ben Joseph.”

Patai considers Daniel 9:24-27 messianic, including the death of the Messiah:

“It is quite probable that the concept of the suffering Messiah, fully developed in the Talmud, the Midrash, and the Zohar, has its origin in the biblical prophecies about the suffering servant.”

Patai also lists Isaiah 9:6-7, 11:1-12, Daniel 7:13-14, and Zech 9:9-10 as messianic passages.

“R. Shim’on ben Jaqish explained: ‘And the spirit of God hovered over the face of the water’ (Gen1:2) – this is the spirit of King Messiah, as it is written, ‘And the spirit of the Lord will rest upon him.’ (Is 11:2).” (Gen Rab. 2:4)

“You find that at the beginning of the creation of the world King Messiah was born.” (Pes. Rab. ed. Friedmann, p.152b)

Some rabbis named the Messiah, “The Leprous of the House of Study,” based on Isaiah 53:4 (B. Sanhedrin 98b).

“The Holy One began to tell him (the Messiah) the conditions (of his mission), and said to him, ‘Their sins will force you into an iron yoke, and they will render you like unto this calf whose eyes have grown dim, and they will choke your spirit with the yoke, and because of their sins your tongue will cleave to the roof of your mouth. Do you accept this?’ He said, ‘with gladness I accept it, so that not a single one of Israel should perish, even the dead who have died from the days of Adam until now. This is what I want.’ ” (Pes. Rab. pp. 161a-b)

“(When) the Son of David comes they will bring iron beams and put them upon his neck until his body bends and he cries and weeps, and he says: ‘How much can my strength suffer? How much my spirit and soul? And how much my limbs? Am I not but flesh and blood?'” (Pes. Rab. 162a)

“You have suffered because of the sins of our children, and cruel punishments have come upon you . . . you were put to ridicule and held in contempt by the nations of the world because of Israel . . . All this because of the sins of our children . . . great sufferings have come upon you on their account. And (God) says to him, ‘Be you the judge over these peoples, and do to them whatever your soul wishes . . . all of them will die from the breath of your lips.’ ” (Pes. Rab. ch. 36)

“Elijah . . . says to him: ‘Endure the sufferings and the sentence of your Master who makes you suffer because of the sin of Israel.’ And thus it is written: ‘He was wounded because of our transgressions.’ . . . (Is 53:5) – until the time when the end comes.” (Mid. Konen, BhM, 2:29)

“As long as Israel dwelt in the Holy Land, the rituals and sacrifices removed all those diseases from the world; now the Messiah removes them from the children of the world.” (Zohar 2:212a)

Patai: “When the death of the Messiah became an established tenet in Talmudic times, this was felt to be irreconcilable with the belief in the Messiah as the Redeemer who would usher in the blissful millennium of the Messianic age. The dilemma was solved by splitting the person of the Messiah in two . . . ”

The development of the two-Messiah doctrine also had to do with a messianic parallel to Moses, who died before entering the Promised Land.

Referring to Zech 12:10-12, “R. Dosa says: ‘(They will mourn) over the Messiah who will be slain.’ ” (B. Suk. 52a; also Y. Suk. 55b)

“A man shall arise from my seed; like unto the sun of righteousness, walking with the sons of man in meekness, and no sin shall be found in him. And he shall pour upon you the spirit of grace, and you shall walk in his commandments . . . a rod of righteousness to the nations, to judge and save all that call upon the Lord.” (Testament of Judah, 24)

* * * * *
From: The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (1883), by Alfred Edersheim (1825-1889; convert from Judaism to Anglicanism)

Edersheim intensively studied the doctrines, practices, and conditions of Judaism in the centuries preceding and following the beginning of the Christian era.

 

LIST OF OLD TESTAMENT PASSAGES MESSIANICALLY APPLIED IN ANCIENT RABBINIC WRITINGS (Vol. i. Book II. ch. v.)
*

The following list contains the passages in the Old Testament applied to the Messiah or to Messianic times in the most ancient Jewish writings . . . The Rabbinic works from which quotations have been made are: the Targumim, the two Talmuds, and the most ancient Midrashim, but neither the Zohar (as the date of its composition is in dispute), nor any other Kabbalistic work, nor yet the younger Midrashim, nor, of course, the writings of later Rabbis. I have, however, frequently quoted from the well-known work Yalkut, because, although of comparatively late date, it is really, as its name implies, a collection and selection from more than fifty older and accredited writings, and adduces passages now not otherwise accessible to us. AndI have the more readily availed myself of it, as I have been reluctantly forced to the conclusion that even the Midrashim preserved to us have occasionally been tampered with for controversial purposes . . .

Is. lii. 3 is Messianically applied in the Talmud (Sanh. 97 b), while the last clause of verse 2 is one of the passages quoted in the Midrash on Lamentations (see Is. xi. 12).The well-known Evangelic declaration in Is. lii. 7 is thus commented upon in Yalkut (vol. ii. p. 53 c):

In the hour when the Holy One, blessed be His Name, redeems Israel, three days before Messiah comes Elijah, and stands upon the mountains of Israel, and weeps and mourns for them, and says to them: Behold the land of Israel, how long shall you stand in a dry and desolate land? And his voice is heard from the world’s end to the world’s end, and after that it is said to them: Peace has come to the world, peace has come to the world, as it is said: How beautiful upon the mountains, &c. And when the wicked hear it, they rejoice,and they say one to the other: Peace has come to us. On the second day he shall stand upon the mountains of Israel, and shall say: Good has come to the world, good has come to the world, as it is written: That bringeth good tidings of good. On the third day he shall come and stand upon the mountains of Israel, and say: Salvation has come to the world, salvation has come to the world, as it is written: That publisheth salvation.

Similarly, this passage is quoted in Yalkut on Ps. cxxi. 1. See also our remarks on Cant. ii. 13.

Verse 8 is one of the passages referred to in the Midrash on Lamentations quoted above, and frequently in other places as Messianic.

Verse 12 is Messianically applied in Shemoth R. 15 and 19.

Verse 13 is applied in the Targum expressly to the Messiah. On the words ‘He shall be exalted and extolled’ we read in Yalkut ii. (Par. 338, p. 53 c, lines 7 &c. from the bottom): He shall be higher than Abraham, to whom applies Gen. xiv. 22; higher than Moses, of whom Num. xi. 12 is predicated; higher than the ministering angels, of whom Ezek. i. 18 is said. But to Him there applies this in Zech.iv. 7: ‘Who art thou, O great mountain?’ ‘And He was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities, and the chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and with His stripes we are healed.’ R. Huma says, in the name of R. Acha: All sufferings are divided into three parts; one part goes to David and the Patriarchs, another to the generation of the rebellion (rebellious Israel), andthe third to the King Messiah, as it is written (Ps. ii. 7), ‘Yet have I set My King upon My holy hill of Zion.’ Then follows a curious quotation from the Midrash on Samuel, in which the Messiah indicates that His dwelling is on Mount Zion, and that guilt is connected with the destruction of its walls.

In regard to Is. liii. we remember, that the Messianic name of ‘Leprous’ (Sanh. 98 b) is expresslybased upon it. Is. liii. 10 is applied in the Targum on the passage to the Kingdom of the Messiah. Verse 5 is Messianically interpreted in the Midrash on Samuel (ed. Lemberg, p. 45 a, last line), where it is said that all sufferings are divided into three parts, one of which the Messiah bore – a remark which is brought into connection with Ruth ii. 14. (See our comments on that passage.)

* * * * *
Jewish Messianic Interpretations of Isaiah 53

[ source ]

“Friends of the Court”

The Targum

Behold, My Servant the Messiah shall prosper.

— Targum (“Targum Jonathan”) to Isaiah 52:13, various editions (such as Samson H. Levey, The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation; the Messianic Exegesis of the Targum. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1974, p. 63).

In the early cycle of synagogue readings:

We know that messianic homilies based on Joseph’s career (his saving rolepreceded by suffering), and using Isaiah 53 as the prophetic portion, were preached in certain old synagogues which used the triennial cycle…

— Rav Asher Soloff, The Fifty Third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Commentators, to the Sixteenth Century (Ph.D. Thesis, Drew University, 1967), p. 146.

The addition of 53.4-5 [to the cycle of synagogue readings] was evidently of aMessianic purport by reason of the theory of a suffering Messiah. The earlier part of [the Haftarah] (52.7ff.) dealt with the redemption of Israel, and in this connection the tribulations of the Messiah were briefly alluded to by the recital of the above 2 verses.

— Jacob Mann, The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue (NY: Ktav, 1971, 1940), p. 298.

Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 98b

The Rabbis said: His name is “the leper scholar,” as it is written, Surely he hathborne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted. [Isaiah 53:4].

— Soncino Talmud edition.

Ruth Rabbah 5:6

The fifth interpretation [of Ruth 2:14] makes it refer to the Messiah. Come hither: approach to royal state. And eat of the BREAD refers to the bread of royalty; AND DIP THY MORSEL IN THE VINEGAR refers to his sufferings, as it is said, But he was wounded because of our transgressions. (Isa. LIII, 5).

— Soncino Midrash Rabbah (vol. 8, p. 64).

The Karaite Yefeth ben Ali (10th c.)

As to myself, I am inclined, with Benjamin of Nehawend, to regard it as alluding to the Messiah, and as opening with a description of his condition in exile, from the time of his birth to his accession to the throne: for the prophet begins by speaking of his being seated in a position of eat honour, and then goes back to relate all that will happen to him during the captivity. He thus gives us to understand two things: In the first instance, that the Messiah will only reach his highest degree of honour after long and severe trials; and secondly, that these trials will be sent upon him as a kind of sign, so that, if he finds himself under the yoke of misfortunes whilst remaining pure in his actions, he may know that he is the desired one..

— S. R. Driver and A. Neubauer, editors, The Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters (2 volumes; New York: Ktav, 1969), pp. 19-20. The English translations used here are taken from volume 2. The original texts are in volume 1. Cf. Soloff, pp. 107-09.

Another statement from Yefeth ben Ali:

By the words “surely he hath carried our sicknesses,” they mean that the pains and sickness which he fell into were merited by them, but that he bore them instead. . . . And here I think it necessary to pause for a few moments, in order to explain why God caused these sicknesses to attach themselves to the Messiah for the sake of Israel. . . . The nation deserved from God greater punishment than that which actually came upon them, but not being strong enough to bear it. . . God appoints his servant to carry their sins, and by doing so lighten their punishment in order that Israel might not be completely exterminated.

— Driver and Neubauer, pp. 23 ff.; Soloff pp. 108-109.

Another statement from Yefeth ben Ali:

“And the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all.” The prophet does not by avon mean iniquity, but punishment for iniquity, as in the passage, “Be sure your sin will find you out” (Num. xxxii. 23).

— Driver and Neubauer, p. 26; Soloff p. 109.

Mysteries of R. Shim’on ben Yohai (midrash, date uncertain)

And Armilaus will join battle with Messiah, the son of Ephraim, in the East gate . . .; and Messiah, the son of Ephraim, will die there, and Israel will mourn for him. And afterwards the Holy One will reveal to them Messiah, the son of David, whom Israel will desire to stone, saying, Thou speakest falsely; already is the Messiah slain, and there is non other Messiah to stand up (after him): and so they will despise him, as it is written, “Despised and forlorn of men;” but he will turn and hide himself from them, according to the words, “Like one hiding his face from us.”

— Driver and Neubauer, p. 32, citing the edition of Jellinek, Beth ha-Midrash (1855), part iii. p. 80.

Lekach Tov (11th c. midrash)

“And let his [Israel’s] kingdom be exalted,” in the days of the Messiah, of whom it is said, “Behold my servant shall prosper; he will be high and exalted, and lofty exceedingly.”

— Driver and Neubauer, p. 36.

Maimonides, Letter to Yemen (12th c.)

What is to be the manner of Messiah’s advent, and where will be the place of his appearance? . . . And Isaiah speaks similarly of the time when he will appear,without his father or mother of family being known, He came up as a sucker before him, and as a root out of the dry earth, etc. But the unique phenomenon attending his manifestation is, that all the kings of the earth will be thrown into terror at the fame of him — their kingdoms will be in consternation, and they themselves will be devising whether to oppose him with arms, or to adopt some different course, confessing, in fact, their inability to contend with him or ignore his presence, and so confounded at the wonders which they will see him work, that they will lay their hands upon their mouth; in the words of Isaiah, when describing the manner in which the kings will hearken to him, At him kings will shut their mouth; for that which had not been told them have they seen, and that which they had not heard they have perceived.

— Driver and Neubauer vol 1: p. 322. Edition is Abraham S. Halkin, ed., Igeret Teman (New York: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1952). See Soloff pp. 127-128.

Zohar II, 212a (medieval)

There is in the Garden of Eden a palace named the Palace of the Sons of Sickness. This palace the Messiah enters, and He summons every pain and every chastisement of Israel. All of these come and rest upon Him. And had He not thus lightened them upon Himself, there had been no man able to bear Israel’s chastisements for the transgressions of the law; as it is written, “Surely our sicknesses he has carried.”

— Cited in Driver and Neubauer, pp. 14-15 from section “va-yiqqahel”. Translation from Frydland, Rachmiel, What the Rabbis Know About the Messiah (Cincinnati: Messianic Literature Outreach, 1991), p. 56, n. 27. Note that this section is not found in the Soncino edition which says that it was an interpolation.

Nachmanides (R. Moshe ben Nachman) (13th c.)

The right view respecting this Parashah is to suppose that by the phrase “my servant” the whole of Israel is meant. . . .As a different opinion, however, is adopted by the Midrash, which refers it to the Messiah, it is necessary for us to explain it in conformity with the view there maintained. The prophet says, The Messiah, the son of David of whom the text speaks, will never be conquered or perish by the hands of his enemies. And, in fact the text teaches this clearly. . . .

And by his stripes we were healed — because the stripes by which he is vexed and distressed will heal us; God will pardon us for his righteousness, and we shall be healed both from our own transgressions and from the iniquities of our fathers.

— Driver and Neubauer, pp. 78 ff.

Yalkut ii: 571 (13th c.)

Who art thou, O great mountain (Zech. iv. 7.) This refers to the King Messiah. And why does he call him “the great mountain?” Because he is greater than the patriarchs, as it is said, “My servant shall be high, and lifted up, and lofty exceedingly” — he will be higher than Abraham,… lifted up above Moses, . . . loftier than the ministering angels.

— Driver and Neubauer, p. 9.

The same passage is found in Midrash Tanhuma to Genesis (perhaps 9th c.), ed. John T. Townsend (Hoboken, New Jersey: Ktav, 1989), p. 166.

Yalkut ii. 620 (13th c.), in regard to Psalm 2:6

I.e., I have drawn him out of the chastisements. . . .The chastisements are divided into three parts: one for David and the fathers, one for our own generation, and one for the King Messiah; and this is that which is written, “He was wounded for our transgressions,” etc.

— Driver and Neubauer, p. 10.

R. Mosheh Kohen ibn Crispin (14th c.)

This Parashah the commentators agree in explaining of the Captivity of Israel,although the singular number is used in it throughout. . . .As there is no cause constraining us to do so, why should we here interpret the word collectively, and thereby distort the passage from its natural sense?. . . As then it seemed to me that the doors of the literal interpretation of the Parashah were shut in their face, and that “they wearied themselves to find the entrance,” having forsaken the knowledge of our Teachers, and inclined after the “stubbornness of their own hearts,” and of their own opinion, I am pleased to interpret it, in accordance with the teaching of our Rabbis, of the King Messiah, and will be careful, so far as I am able, to adhere to the literal sense.

— Driver and Neubauer, pp. 99-100.

Another comment from R. Mosheh Kohen ibn Crispin

If his soul makes itself into a trespass-offering, implying that his soul will treat itself as guilty, and so receive punishment for our trespasses and transgressions.

— Driver and Neubauer, p. 112.

R. Sh’lomoh Astruc (14th c.)

My servant shall prosper, or be truly intelligent, because by intelligence man is really man — it is intelligence which makes a man what he is. And the prophet calls the King Messiah my servant, speaking as one who sent him. Or he may call the whole people my servant, as he says above my people (lii. 6): when he speaks of the people, the King Messiah is included in it; and when he speaks of the King Messiah, the people is comprehended with him. What he says then is, that my servant the King Messiah will prosper.

— Driver and Neubauer, p. 129.

R. Elijah de Vidas (16th c.)

Since the Messiah bears our iniquities which produce the effect of His being bruised, it follows that whoso will not admit that the Messiah thus suffers for our iniquities, must endure and suffer for them himself.

— Driver and Neubauer, p. 331.

Rabbi Moshe Alshekh (El-Sheikh) of Sefad (16th c.)

I may remark, then, that our Rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the King Messiah, and we ourselves also adhere to the same view.

– Driver and Neubauer, p. 258.

Herz Homberg (18th-19th c.)

The fact is, that it refers to the King Messiah, who will come in the latter days,when it will be the Lord’s good pleasure to redeem Israel from among the different nations of the earth…..Whatever he underwent was in consequence of their own transgression, the Lord having chosen him to be a trespass-offering, like the scape-goat which bore all the iniquities of the house of Israel.

— Driver and Neubauer, p. 400-401.

The musaf (additional) service for the Day of Atonement, Philips machzor (20th c.)

Our righteous anointed is departed from us: horror hath seized us, and we have none to justify us. He hath borne the yoke of our iniquities, and our transgression, and is wounded because of our transgression. He beareth our sins on his shoulder, that he may find pardon for our iniquities. We shall be healed by his wound, at the time that the Eternal will create him (the Messiah) as a new creature. O bring him up from the circle of the earth. Raise him up from Seir, to assemble us the second time on Mount Lebanon, by the hand of Yinnon.

— A. Th. Philips, Machzor Leyom Kippur / Prayer Book for the Day of Atonement with English Translation; Revised and Enlarged Edition (New York: Hebrew Publishing Company, 1931), p. 239. The passage can also be found in, e.g., the 1937 edition. Also, Driver and Neubauer, p. 399.

* * * * *
Medieval Jewish Messianic Exegesis of Isaiah 53: Espousals & “Hostile” Acknowledgements (including Maimonides, Abravanel, Alshech, Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Ibn Crispin, Liturgies)

[ source ]

 

Maimonides on Isaiah 53

*

Maimonides (writes to Jacob Alfajumi): It is said about Him (the Messiah), And his delight will be in the fear of the Lord (Isaiah 11:3).

He grew up before him as a tender plant and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness: and when we see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. Isaiah 53:2 (Comp. Isaiah 52:14)

(again to Rabbi Jacob Alfajumi):

And likewise said Isaiah that He (the Messiah) would appear without acknowledging a father or mother: He grew up before him as a tender plant and as a root out of a dry ground etc. (Comp. Luke 2:46-49; Matthew 12:46-50.)

He was despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrow and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Isaiah 53:3 (Comp. note as Pesiqta; Isaiah 49:7a.)

Zohar (Part II, fol. 212a and Part III, fol. 218a, Amsterdam edition):

When Israel was in the Holy Land, they had their sufferings and afflictions removed from them by their prayers and sacrifices; but now the Messiah removes them from the children of the world. When the Holy One, blessed be He, wishes the recovery of the children of the world, He afflicts one righteous person from their midst, and for His sake all are healed. How is this known? It is written, He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities . . . and with his stripes we are healed (Isaiah 53:5).

* * * * *
THE SERVANT OF JEHOVAH: THE SUFFERINGS OF THE MESSIAH AND THE GLORY THAT SHOULD FOLLOW

AN EXPOSITION OF ISAIAH 53

BY DAVID BARON (Hebrew-Christian scholar)

[ source ]

*

THE ANCIENT JEWISH INTERPRETATION OF ISAIAH 53 (excerpts)

*

That the generally received older Jewish interpretation of this prophecy was the Messianic is admitted by Abrabanel, who himself proceeds in a long polemic against the Nazarenes to interpret it of the Jewish nation. He begins, The first question is to ascertain to whom (this scripture) refers, for the learned men among the Nazarenes expound it of the man who was crucified in Jerusalem at the end of the Second Temple, and who according to them was the Son of God and took flesh in the virgin’s womb, as is stated in their writings. Jonathan ben Uziel interprets it in the Targum of the future Messiah; and this is also the opinion of our learned men in the majority of their Midrashim.

Similarly another, Rabbi Mosheh el Sheikh, commonly known as Alshech (latter half of the sixteenth century), who also himself follows the older interpretation, at any rate of the first three verses (52:13-15, which, however, as we shall see, contain a summary of the whole prophecy), testifies “that our Rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the King Messiah.”

In fact, until Rashi (Rabbi Solomon Yizchaki, 1040-1105) applied it to the Jewish nation, the Messianic interpretation of this chapter was almost universally adopted by Jews, and his view, which we shall examine presently, although received by Ibn Ezra, Kimchi, and others, was rejected as unsatisfactory by many others, one of whom (R. Mosheh Kohen Ibn Crispin, of Cordova, and afterwards Toledo, fourteenth century, who says rightly, of those who for controversial reasons applied this prophecy to Israel, that the doors of literal interpretation of this chapter were shut in their face, and that they wearied themselves to find the entrance, having forsaken the knowledge of our teachers, and inclined after the stubbornness of their own hearts and of their own opinions. According to Ibn Crispin, the interpretation adopted by Rashi distorts the passage from its natural meaning, and that in truth it was given of God as a description of the Messiah, whereby, when any should claim to be the Messiah, to judge by the resemblance or non-resemblance to it whether he were the Messiah or not.

Another (R. Eliyya de Vidas, c. 1575), says The meaning of He was wounded for our transgressions. . . bruised for our iniquities, is that since the Messiah bears our iniquities, which produce the effect of him being bruised, it follows that whoever will not admit that the Messiah thus suffers for our iniquities must endure and suffer them for himself.

Before proceeding to an examination of the modern Jewish interpretation of this chapter, let me add two further striking testimonies to its more ancient Messianic interpretation–taken this time, not from any Targum, or Midrash, or Rabbinical Commentary, which might be said to express the individual opinion of this or that Rabbi, but from the Jewish liturgy, which may be said to bear upon it the seal of the authority and usage of the whole synagogue.

The first is taken from the liturgy for the Day of Atonement–the most solemn day of the Jewish year–and reads as follows: “We are shrunk up in our misery even until now! Our Rock has not come nigh to us; Messiah our righteousness (or, “our righteous Messiah”) has departed from us. Horror has seized upon us, and we have none to justify us. He has borne the yoke of our iniquities and transgressions, and is wounded because of our transgression. He bears our sins on his shoulder, that he may find pardon for our iniquities. We shall be healed by his wound at the time the Eternal will create him (Messiah) as a new creature. O bring him up from the circle of the earth, raise him up from Seir to assemble us the second time on Mount Lebanon, by the hand of Yinnon.” (This forms part of the Musaph service for the Day of Atonement. The author, according to Zunz, was Eleazer ben Kalir, who lived in the ninth century. Yinnon, as will be seen, was one of the names given by the Rabbis to the Messiah, and is derived from Psalm 72:17, which the Talmud renders, “Before the sun was, his name. . .” a rendering and expression which implies a belief in the pre-existence of at least the name of the Messiah, and perhaps of the Messiah himself.)

The other passage is also from the Machsor (Liturgy for the Festival Services), and will be found among the prayers on the Feast of Passover. It is as follows: “Flee, my beloved, until the end of the vision shall speak; hasten, and the shadows shall take their flight hence; high and exalted and lofty shall be the despised one; he shall be prudent in judgement, and shall sprinkle many! Lay bare thine arm! Cry out and say, ‘The voice of my beloved; behold he cometh!'” (David Levy, the English translator of the Machsor, says in a note that this verse referred to the true Messiah.)

. . . Rashi, at an earlier period of his life–when he wrote his Commentary on the Talmud–actually followed the older interpretation, which applied Isaiah 53 to the Messiah, but he very probably wrote his Commentary on the bible (in which the new interpretation is first introduced) after the second Crusade, when the hideous massacres of Jews in Spire, Worms, Mainz, Cologne by the wild profligate swarm which gathered, after the first Crusaders were gone, might well have occasioned it.

* * * * *
The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters (1876)

by S. R. Driver and Ad. Neubauer

(available online in abridged form)

Driver and Neubauer’s The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters was intended to be a complete collection of everything said about this passage in Jewish classical literature. First published in 1876, it included an introduction by E.B. Pusey, Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford for nearly 50 years, discussing various objections to interpreting the passage of the messiah. The material here has been vastly abridged; but it includes a cross-section of views, including some who think the passage refers to Hezekiah, or Isaiah, or to the nation of Israel as a whole. But a surprising number of commentators favor an interpretation which sees in the passage references to a messiah who suffers for the sins of his own generation and of Israel.

Excerpts:

Benjamin of Nehawend, a philosophic Karaite of much reputation (c. 800 A.D.), still believed that Isaiah 53 referred to the messiah (according to Yepheth ben Ali). “Many,” Ibn Ezra says, in the middle of the twelfth century, “explained it as being of the messiah”, on the authority of a traditional saying of the rabbis.

A few, however, still continued to explain the whole of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 as referring to the messiah. But these were met by the great paradox: How can the same one both be put to death and yet also prolong his days and reign? Hence Moses ben Nachman supposed only a readiness to die. Ibn Crispin, only a nearness to death. Some rabbis explained the last verse of Moses, although (as Moses Elsheikh hints) they thereby had a difficulty in connecting it with what preceded. Moses Elsheikh himself followed the “unanimous opinion of the rabbis” that the section referred to the messiah; but so great was the difficulty of admitting the death of the messiah, that he also interpreted all the verses which spoke of death as referring to Moses.

From this difficulty, however, they could be freed as soon as they could satisfy themselves that the prophecy might refer to any group of men, some of whom had died, or even of any one man, except Jesus. The expected exhalation of the figure could be relegated to the future. And out of the many explanations suggested, it was only natural that the one most flattering to national feeling was extensively adopted. It might have in effect become universal, except for its unsatisfactoriness.

This new interpretation, emphasizing Israel’s suffering, began with Rashi. Rashi’s authority is put forward by some who followed him, with Ibn Ezra, J. and D. Kimchi, who were later than he; but no one before him. His great Talmudical studies, which seem to have been his earliest occupation, did not suggest it. On the contrary, in his notes on the Talmud he followed the older tradition. In the graphic story in which Joshua ben Levi is reported to have made diverse inquiries of Elisha and Shimon ben Yohai as to the coming of the messiah, and was told that he would find the messiah sitting at the gates of Rome among the poor who bare sicknesses, Rashi explains the words “bearers of sicknesses” by reference to this section of Isaiah. “‘ Bearers of sicknesses’, in other words, stricken; and he too is stricken, as it is written, ‘And he was wounded for our iniquities,’ and it is written, ‘And our sicknesses he bare’.”

But if Rashi’s later commentary was written after 1096 A.D.–after the hideous massacre of Jews in Spire, Worms, Maintz, and Cologne, by the wild swarm which gathered in the wake of the first Crusaders–then these deeds may have been the cause for his change of mind. Before then, according to Gratz (who is careful in noting any disparity of condition between them and any people among whom they sojourned), Jews “were neither in a condition of oppression nor contempt, nor were shut out from holding property”. Afterwards, though, according to Milman (“History of the Jews”), scenes were far too common in which the Jews suffered as innocent victims.

Rashi’s interpretation that Isaiah 52:13-53:12 referred to Israel as a nation, with stress on her suffering (instead of her dispersion) was accepted by most subsequent commentators. But it would have been a strange exception to the language of the prophets, and of Isaiah himself, who upbraids his people for their wickedness, their neglect of God, their dullness and blindness, hypocrisy, idolatries and disobedience, and who tells them, “Your iniquities have separated you and your God”–it would have been a strange contradiction had he, in the midst of this, described them as God’s righteous servant, who should bear the sins of the world. And that we, the gentiles, when converted, after the arrival of the messiah, should admit that they suffered in our stead, the just for the unjust, and atoned for us.

Abraham Farissoll apologizes for those who interpreted it of the messiah. “Whatever justice there may be in the expressions of our sages, who applied the prophecy to the messiah [note, therefore, that some sages did in fact apply this passage to the messiah], it should be borne in mind that although they themselves and their words are both truthful, yet their object was [only] allegorical.”

Moses Elsheikh says, “The verses in the chapter are difficult to fix or arrange in a literal manner, so that the various parts, from the beginning to the end, may be combined and connected closely together.I see commentators going up and down among them, and yet neither agreeing on the subject to which the whole is to be referred, nor disentangling the words with any simple plan.” He himself then plans, in “all humility”, to set himself to “apply to it a straightforward method, according to the literal sense of the text, such as should be adopted by one who would rightly unite the several words and periods, and determine what view is legitimate, and what not.” He then interprets it of the Messiah; yet, when he comes to verses 9-12, all of which speak of the death, he says, “These verses are all of them hard, though we shall not touch on everything which might be noticed.”

Shlomo Levi says, “Throughout this prophecy, all the commentators exert their utmost on its interpretation, and are at no small variance as to its import.” Even in later times, R. Napthali Altschuler expresses his surprise that “Rashi and David Kimchi have not, with the Targum, applied them to the Messiah likewise.”

Passani expresses his surprise at former commentators, and says, “Not one of the explanations is in complete accord with the language of the text, or succeeds in satisfying us–still less the [Christians].” He thinks that, like all other prophecies, most of Isaiah’s also point to the latter days, when the Messiah shall have appeared, but exhorts caution how it should be interpreted. “Take heed, O wise man, in your words, even though the language be meant to be metaphorical and indirect.”

Rabbi Tanchum seems to be carefully ambiguous. He uses the phrase, “any person or nation”, but speaks of the subject as being “one of the generation in exile”, who had died, yet “a guide and a deliverer”, who “rescues them from captivity and their enemies generally”, and speaks of “his hidden nature, the mystery connected with him not being revealed to them.” He concludes with a protest against there being anything allegorical, and seems to think that the intention of the prophet was, not to be understood.

Ibn Amran says, “As relates to the Jews, there is no little difficulty in giving a sense to these most obscure words of Isaiah at the present; they manifestly need a prophetic spirit; thus our older and more abstruse masters went apart from one another to different explanations. But,” he satisfies himself, “each very far removed from the exposition of the Christians.”

Mosheh El-Sheikh (“Alshech”)

*

I may remark, then, that our rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the King Messiah, and we shall ourselves also adhere to the same view; for the Messiah is of course David, who, as is well known, was “anointed”, and there is a verse in which the prophet, speaking in the name of the Lord, says expressly, “My servant David shall be king over them” (Ezekiel 37:24). The expression My servant, therefore, can justly be referred to David; for from what is explicit in one place we can discover what is hidden or obscure in another.

God declares in these verses how far the merits of those who suffer for the sins of their own age extend their effects, adducing a proof from the case of the Messiah who bore the iniquities of the children of Israel, “and behold his reward is with him” The Almighty argues with Israel, saying, “. . . look and learn how great is the power of the man who suffers for a whole generation; you shall see then from the exaltation which I shall confer upon the King Messiah how vast are the benefits of the chastisements of love to him that endures them.”

Our rabbis further say, “He shall be higher than Abraham . . . lifted up above Moses. . . and loftier than the ministering angels.” As Moses ruled even in the world of the stars–for the rabbis say that for this reason the hail, the locusts, and the grasshoppers were sent through his instrumentality–so, even more fully, will the Messiah hold sway over these likewise. This does not imply that he will be superior to Moses in wisdom or in prophecy, nor again, that at the time alluded to Moses will not in every respect be the greater (indeed anything different from this will not be credited by those who have real knowledge), but only that he will be more exalted than Moses was previously, in his own lifetime.

And he is to be loftier than the angels, according to the text (Ezek. 1:18), for these had “loftiness and fear”, i.e., in spite of their high position, they still stood in awe of the Almighty, not venturing, like the righteous one who “played before him, as a son before his father”, to make request of their Creator.

I maintain that up to this point we have had the words of God announcing the greatness of the Messiah in return for his sufferings.

Here, however, the prophet seems to set before us the words of Israel endorsing the Divine declaration, and affirming in their own persons its entire truth. “The ‘tried saying of the Lord’ ” , they exclaim, “which He has made known to us concerning the King Messiah, has opened our ears and removed the blindness of our eyes; we beheld a man, just and perfect, bruised and degraded by suffering, despised in our eyes, and plundered verily before God and man, while all cried, ‘God has forsaken him!’ ; he must surely, therefore, we thought, be ‘despised’ likewise in the eyes of the Almighty, and this is why He has made him ‘an offscouring and refuse’ (Lam. 3:45). But now the Lord has awakened our ear, and taught us that the chastisements of love are infinitely great; henceforth, then, will ‘his strength be magnified’, when we see him just, and humble in spirit, stricken, and smitten; for them we shall all agree in concluding that what we had seen before meant nothing except that he was carrying our sicknesses; and that his sufferings were for the protection of his generation.”

Such is the substance of what the prophet puts into the people’s mouth. And first of all they say, “He came up as a tender shoot”, etc. ; i.e., we see one who was as tender shoot with water for it to absorb, and growing great and tall; he was like this, however, only in the upper world; for though this just and perfect sufferer flourished and grew great before God in the upper world, yet in the earth which we see below, he was as a root coming forth out of the dry earth, where there was no water for him. Being lowly, therefore, in the sight of our eyes, he was without form and comeliness in the world; his form was “darkened” by the blackness of his sufferings (cf Lam. 4:8), and “his own leanness bore witness in his face”; neither had he any beauty that we could desire him on account of his righteousness, but, on the contrary, he was rejected in our eyes.

YEPHETH BEN ALI
*

Isaiah 52:13 The commentators differ concerning this section. The Fayyumi [Sa’adyah Gaon of Fayyum] lost his senses in applying it to the prophets generally, or, according to some authorities, in supposing that it referred to Jeremiah. Some of the learned Karaites apply the prophecy to the pious of their own sect. Others think that the subject of it is David and the Messiah, saying that all the expressions of contempt, such as “many were desolated at you”, refer to the seed of David who are in exile; and all the glorious things refer to the Messiah. As to myself, I am inclined, with Benjamin of Nehawend, to regard it as alluding to the Messiah, and as opening with a description of his condition in exile, from the time of his birth to his accession to the throne. The expression “My servant” is applied to the Messiah as it is applied to his ancestor in the verse, “I have sworn to David My servant” (Psalm 89:4).

Inasmuch as now at the end of the captivity there will be no prophet to intercede at the time of distress, the time of the Lord’s anger and of his fury, God appoints His Servant to carry their sins, and by doing so lighten their punishment in order that Israel might not be completely exterminated. Thus, from the words, “he was wounded for our transgressions”, we learn two things: first, that Israel had committed many sins and transgressions, for which they deserved the indignation of God; and second, that by the Messiah bearing them they would be delivered from the wrath which rested upon them, and be enabled to endure it, as it is said, “And by associating with him we are healed.”

The expression “smitten of God” signifies that these sicknesses attacked him by the will of God; they did not arise from natural causes. And the word “afflicted” corresponds to “despised” in verse 3, the meaning being that he was afflicted with poverty.

Verse 6 exhibits Israel’s wickedness in not awaking to repentance after God had punished them with his plagues. They are compared in this respect to sheep without a shepherd, wandering from the way, and torn by wild beasts, going astray among the mountains without any to lead them back,. In like manner Israel in captivity has no one to call him, and lead him back to the right way, and if a guide rises up to them, desiring to bring them back, they hasten to kill him, and so cause their captivity to be prolonged. By the words “we have turned every one to his own way”, they mean that each is occupied with the necessities of life and with establishing his fortune. And while God looks upon their work, and they do not think of their sicknesses, their guilt is thrown upon this guide, as it is said, “And the Lord laid upon him the iniquity of us all.” The prophet does not mean literally “the iniquity”, but rather the punishment for this iniquity.

Verse 9 says, “And he made his grave with the wicked.” This means that he sometimes despaired so much of his life as either to dig for himself a grave among the wicked (i.e., the wicked Israelites), or at least desire to be buried among them. The general sense is that he resigned himself to die in exile.

It was said, “The Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all”, and the prophet repeats the same thought here, saying that God was pleased to bruise and sicken him, though not in consequence of sin. The prophet next says, “When his soul makes a trespass offering”, indicating thereby that his soul was compelled to take Israel’s guilt upon itself, as it is said, “And he bore the sin of many”.

DON YITZCHAK ABARBANEL
*

The first question is to ascertain to whom [this passage] refers; for the learned among the Nazarenes expound it of the man who was crucified in Jerusalem at the end of the Second Temple, and who, according to them, was the Son of God, and took flesh in the virgin’s womb, as stated in their writings. But Yonathan ben Uzziel interprets it in the Targum of the future messiah; and this is also the opinion of our own learned men in the majority of their midrashim, although one of the verses (verse 12) is referred to Moses our master.

In the same way I see in the exposition of Rabbi Mosheh ben Nachman that he explains the prophecy [as being about] the King Messiah. The Gaon Rabbi Sa’adyah, however, interprets it entirely of Jeremiah. And Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra, and also Rabbi Menachem [ben Shlomoh] Meiri speaks of this interpretation as “excellent”, though what may be the goodness or excellence that they see in it, I do not understand.

Rashi, however, and Rabbi Joseph Qamchi, and his son, the great Rabbi David Qamchi, all with one voice explain the entire prophecy of Israel.

As regards the course taken by Yonathan ben Uzziel and our other wise men, who interpret it of Messiah our righteousness, I do not know whether in saying this they mean Messiah ben Joseph, who they believe is to come at the commencement of the deliverance, or whether they intend Messiah son of David, who is to arrive afterwards. In either case, however, the sense of the words will not admit of such an explanation.

In a word, the interpretation of Yonathan, and of those who follow him in the same opinion, can never be considered to be the true one, in a literal sense, because the character and drift of the passage as a whole will not bear it. These learned men were concerned only with allegorical or adventitious expositions, and hence merely applied the traditions they had received respecting the Messiah to the present passage, without in the least imagining it to be its actual meaning.

MOSHE KOHEN IBN CRISPIN
*

Others have supposed it to mean the just in this present world; but these, too, for the same reason, by altering the number, distort the verses from their natural meaning. As then it seemed to me that the doors of the literal interpretation of the Parashah were shut in their face, and that “they wearied themselves to find the entrance”, having forsaken the knowledge of our Teachers, and inclined after the “stubbornness of their own hearts”, I am pleased to interpret it, in accordance with the teaching of our rabbis, of the King Messiah, and will be careful, so far as I am able, to adhere to the literal sense; thus, possibly, I shall be free from the forced and far-fetched interpretations of which others have been guilty.

He shall be high and exalted, and lofty exceedingly. He will be more exalted than Moses; for when he gathers together our scattered ones from the four corners of the earth, he will be exalted in the eyes of all the kings in the whole world, and all of them will serve him, as Daniel prophesies concerning him, “All nations, peoples, tongues shall serve him.” (Dan. 7:14). He will be loftier than Solomon, whose dignity was so lofty that he is said to have “sat on the throne of the Lord” (I Chron. 29:23), and our rabbis say that he was king over both the upper and the nether world. (Sanhedrin 20b) But the King Messiah, in his all-comprehending intelligence, will be loftier than Solomon. Exceedingly above the ministering angels, because that same comprehensive intelligence will approach God more nearly than theirs.

This prophecy was delivered by Isaiah at the divine command for the express purpose of making known to us something about the nature of the future Messiah, who is to come an deliver Israel, and his life from the day he arrives at the age of discretion until his advent as a redeemer, in order that if anyone should arise claiming to be himself the Messiah, we may reflect, and look to see whether we can observe in him any resemblance to the traits described here. If there is any such resemblance, then we may believe that he is the Messiah our righteousness; but if not, we cannot do so.

RABBI SHLOMOH ASTRUC
*

My servant shall prosper, or be truly intelligent, because by intelligence man is really man–it is intelligence which makes a man what he is. And the prophet calls the King Messiah My servant, speaking as the One who sent him. Or he may call the whole people My servant, as he says above My people (52:6). When he speaks of the people, the King Messiah is included in it. And when he speaks of the King Messiah, the people is comprehended with him. What he says then, is that My servant the King Messiah will prosper.

Our rabbis declare that he will be higher than Abraham; more exalted than Moses; and loftier than the angels. Lofty through the angels, in that he will depend upon the intelligent powers which belong to him and are his ministers, and which tend to attach themselves to God, so that he will be like the Angel of the Lord of Hosts. Of him also, it is said, that “His angels He will appoint for you, to keep you in all your ways.” (Psalm 91:11).

In verse 52:14, the prophet, speaking of Israel as a whole, says, Just as all who saw you were amazed at the greatness of your distress, and said, What is the heat of this fierce anger (Deut. 29:24) that is upon this people more than any other people? and, Is this the city which men used to call the perfection of beauty (Lam. 2:15)? [so will they now be amazed at your glory]. For as before the Lord gave full measure in smiting you, so now he will give you full measure of prosperity, so that the dignity of this Anointed One, when he is anointed, will surpass that of all others who are anointed, by the radiancy of his countenance which will shine like that of Moses (Ex. 34:30).

[Normally this verse is translated, “he was marred beyond any other man”; but with a slight change in the spelling of one word it could read, “he was anointed beyond any other man”. Apparently this is how the verse is being interpreted in the above passage. It is interesting to note that one of the versions of Isaiah found among the Dead Sea Scrolls also has this alternate reading–ed.]

SA’ADYAH IBN DANAN
*

I was perusing the book of the prophet Isaiah, and when I came to the Parashah Behold My servant, I set before myself the notes of those who had commented upon it, and pondered over them and examined the opinions they contained. But all alike, I found, lacked solidity and soundness; as was the more palpable, since each differed from the rest in the subject to whom he supposed it to refer, some expounding the Parashah of the congregation of Israel as a whole, and others, in one way or another, of the King Messiah, who will speedily be revealed in our days. This, in fact, is done by our rabbis, who , in the section Heleq (Sanhedrin 94a), on the words To the increase of his government (Isaiah 9:7), expound as follows: The Holy One sought to make Hezekiah the Messiah, and [to make] Sanacherib, Gog and Magog.

And the heretics explain it of their messiah, by their method of interpretation, discovering in its arguments relating to his passion and death, and their false belief in him, which, however, have been refuted oftentimes with unequivocal proofs by learned Jews. One of these, Rabbi Joseph ben Kaspi, was led so far as to say that those who expounded it of the Messiah, who is shortly to be revealed, gave occasion to the heretics to interpret it of Jesus.

May God, however, forgive him for not having spoken the truth! Our rabbis, the doctors of the Talmud, deliver their opinions by the power of prophecy, possessing a tradition concerning the principles of interpretation, so that their words are the truth. The principle which every expositor ought to rest upon is never to shrink from declaring the truth. And now I will make known what has been communicated to me from heaven, namely, the Parashah was originally uttered with a reference to Hezekiah, king of Judah and Israel, but being “a word deftly spoken” (Prov. 25:11), nevertheless alludes covertly to the King Messiah. . .

Says the author: Behold, we have explained the several parts of this Parashah in an elegant and plausible manner; and the interpretation here given is the one that is revealed and open to all, but there is a secret one, sealed and treasured up in its midst, which sees throughout allusions to the King Messiah (who is assuredly to be speedily revealed in our own days). And in the same sense it is expounded by our rabbis.

MOSHEH BEN MAIMON (MAIMONIDES)
*

What is to be the manner of Messiah’s advent, and where will be the place of his first appearance? He will make his first appearance in the land of Israel, as it is written, “The Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to His Temple” (Mal. 3:1); but as to the manner of his appearance, until it has taken place, you cannot know this, not so that you could say he is the son of a specific person, or to be from the family of that person. There shall rise up one whom none have known before, and the signs and wonders which they shall see performed by him will be the proofs of his true origin. For the Almighty, when he declares to us his mind upon this matter, says, “Behold a man whose name is the Branch, and he shall branch forth from his place.” (Zech. 6:12) And Isaiah speaks similarly of the time when he will appear, without his father or his mother or family being known, He came up as a shoot before him, and as a root out of dry earth, etc. But the unique phenomenon attending his manifestation is, that all the kings of the earth will be thrown into terror at the fame of him—their kingdoms will be in consternation, and they themselves will be devising whether to oppose him with arms, or to adopt some different course, confessing, in fact, their inability to contend with him or ignore his presence, and so confounded at the wonders which they will see him work, that they will lay hands upon their mouth; in the words of Isaiah, when describing the manner in which the kings will hearken to him, At him kings will shut their mouth; for that which had not been told them have they seen, and that which they had not heard they have perceived.

RABBI SHMUEL LANYADO
*

My servant, i.e., the King Messiah, shall be high and exalted, and lofty exceedingly–he shall be higher than Abraham; lifted up above Moses; and loftier than the ministering angels. Rabbi Yitzchak Abarbanel was unable to comprehend how the Messiah could be lifted up above Moses, of whom it was said that “there arose no prophet in Israel like him”. (Deut. 34:10); and still more how he was to be greater than the angels, who are spiritual beings, whereas the Messiah is born of a woman. It is, in fact, upon that expression that the idolaters [Christians] rest the chief article of their faith, the divinity of the Messiah. Abarbanel rejects also the opinion of the learned En Bonet, who explains it of the doctors, “for how”, he asks, “could it enter into anyone’s mind to speak of the doctors as exalted above Abraham or Moses?”

In my own humble opinion it seems that in this instance En Bonet is right; for in point of nobility the Messiah will excel even Abraham, and therefore it is promised that he shall be high. And in the ability to guide Israel he will be superior to Moses. For Moses, when he was a shepherd, had compassion on the kid which escaped from him in order to drink, and brought it to his bosom; and for that purpose the Almighty had chosen him (Shmoth Rabba)–how much more then that he might guide and tend Israel?

The opinions of our wise men on the interpretation of this verse have now been discussed. But we do not gather clearly from their language whether they are speaking of Messiah son of Ephraim or of Messiah son of David.

In a word, the explanation of the rabbis and of the Targum of Yonathan cannot possibly be conceived as being truthful in the sense of being literal; it is allegorical and adventitious, consisting, as it does, in the adaptation of one of their traditions to the language of the text. And a proof of this lies in the fact that the Targum itself refers the subsequent verses to Israel, and not to the Messiah, and that one verse , the last, is referred by our rabbis to Moses.

In my own humble opinion, I believe that they mean to assert that the verse speaks solely of Messiah son of David, to whom all the gorgeous language in it will apply. The prophet next addresses the people of Messiah son of Ephraim, and encourages them not to be afraid of the myriads which were against them; that even though the son of Ephraim were slain, the Almighty would avenge him by the hand of Messiah son of David, who would sprinkle the blood of many nations.

The words mean, then, As when you, O Messiah son of Ephraim, went forth into the world, many were astonished at you, wondering how it could possibly be that his countenance was so marred beyond men, and his form beyond the sons of men, whether also such was the usual appearance of a conqueror–as they thus mocked you without measure, so will the Messiah son of David sprinkle the blood of many nations.

THE MIDRASH KONEN
*

The fifth mansion in Paradise is built of onyx and jasper, and set stones, and silver and gold. . . there dwells Messiah son of David, and Elijah, and Messiah son of Ephraim. There is also the “litter of the wood of Lebanon” , like the tabernacle which Moses made in the wilderness; all the furniture thereof and “the pillars thereof of silver, the bottom of gold, the seat of purple”, and within it, Messiah son of David who loves Jerusalem. Elijah takes him by his head, and lays him down in his bosom, holds him, and says, “Bear the sufferings and wounds with which the Almighty does chastise you for Israel’s sake”; and so it is written, He was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities, until the time when the end should come.

ASERETH MEMROTH
*

The Messiah, in order to atone for them both [for Adam and David] will make his soul a trespass-offering, as it is written next to this, in the Parashah Behold My servant. And what is written after it? He shall see seed, shall have long days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

YAKOV YOSEPH MORDECHAI CHAYIM PASSANI
*

I am much surprised at those commentators who have applied themselves to investigate the meaning of this Parashah. One, for example, maintains that it was the intention of the prophet to allude to Moses; another, that he referred to the Israelitish people; a third applies it to king Josiah; a fourth dwells much upon the King Messiah, and so brings the Midrash into the text. For ourselves, however, we know with certainty that scripture never bears any other than the simple and literal meaning.

Moreover, not one of the explanations mentioned is in complete accordance with the language of the text, or succeeds in satisfying us, still less does the opinion of the disbelievers who make these verses the foundation of their faith.

Thus the words had no form or comeliness cannot possibly be interpreted of Moses, for everyone is well aware that Moses had a fine form and the strength of a lion. And if (as is indeed the case) the words, For the transgression of my people were they smitten allude to Israel, then the person described as suffering for the nation cannot be the nation itself.

And as regards the explanation which refers it to the Messiah, we may say, Take heed, O wise men, in your words, even though the language be meant to be metaphorical and indirect.

I have therefore been led to the conviction that the Parashah may after all be referred intelligibly and naturally to Hezekiah.

RABBI NAPHTHALI BEN ASHER ALTSCHULER
*

I will now proceed to explain these verses of our own Messiah, who, God willing, will come speedily in our days. I am surprised that Rashi and Rabbi David Kimchi have not, with the Targum, applied them to the Messiah likewise.

LEVI BEN GERSHOM
*

It follows necessarily from this verse (Deut. 34:10) that no prophet whose office was restricted to Israel alone could ever arise again like Moses; but it is still quite possible that a prophet like Moses might arise among the gentile nations. In fact the Messiah is such a prophet, as it is stated in the Midrash on the verse, Behold My servant, etc. , that he will be “greater than Moses”, which is explained to mean that his miracles will be more wonderful than those of Moses. Moses, by the miracles he wrought, drew but a single nation to the worship of God, but the Messiah will draw all nations to the worship of God. And this will be effected by means of a marvelous sign, to be seen by all the nations even to the ends of the earth, that is, the resurrection of the dead.

RABBI LIWA OF PRAGUE
*
The Messiah, who is the perfection of the world, will be high and lofty and exalted. Now, inasmuch as he is the perfection, he is also the consummation, and the consummation is above all things; and this is why it is said of this Messiah that he will be high and exalted and lofty.
2017-04-10T18:24:00-04:00

Cornelius

Vision of Cornelius the Centurion (1664), by Gerbrand van den Eeckhout (1621-1674) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

*****

A friend of mine who is also a Catholic writer and webmaster, who would be known to many if I named him, wrote me a letter, asking:
I’ve been dialoguing with a colleague, a fallen away Catholic, and we got onto the subject of the Holy Spirit and baptism. I had noted that the early Church saw baptism as a person’s entry into the Church. He countered with the account of Cornelius, particularly St. Peter’s statement (prior to Cornelius’s baptism) that, “these people . . . have received the Holy Spirit just as we have”. His argument is that baptism can’t be what confers the Holy Spirit if Cornelius already had the Spirit prior to baptism, so it was his belief that did that.

*

My off-the-top-of-my-head response (which I’m actually going to stick with, mostly) is that it’s not reasonable to insist that this one verse in Acts overthrows all the rest of what the New Testament and the broader Tradition teach about baptism. On more reflection I think that’s a reasonable answer — God can certainly confer special gifts of the Spirit on Cornelius in order to serve as a special demonstration to St. Peter and those with him, without necessarily implying that somehow he had received the whole enchilada, as it were, everything that would come with baptism. Of course a very literal reading of “these people . . . have received the Holy Spirit just as we have” would be deployed. One small reply would be that the Greek actually has just hos = as, not kathos which would be better translated “just as”. So at the very least St. Luke wasn’t purposely emphasizing that the Gentiles had received the Spirit “exactly like” St. Peter already had.

The real puzzler is actually Acts 8:14-17. I know we look there for biblical support of confirmation, but the way that is worded is kind of odd — they had believed and even been baptized but had not yet received the Holy Spirit.

*
I tried to search your web site for more that you had written specifically addressing objections that people raise against baptismal regeneration from some of these episodes in Acts.  I didn’t find anything too specific, so thought I’d reach out and see if you have anything more, or could recommend a particularly good resource?

Here’s my reply:

Good and interesting questions. I think we have to distinguish between receiving a measure of the Holy Spirit at baptism and then a fuller measure at confirmation and/or additional “informal” fillings, as it were, where the Holy Spirit showers more grace upon us.

This adequately explains Acts 8:14-17. I think the text there means “receiving the fullness of the Spirit.” It would be an unspoken or unexpressed premise, in other words. Accordingly, Scott Hahn in his Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, comments on 8:16: “A distinction is made in Acts between Baptism, which confers the Spirit in an invisible way (2:38), and the laying on of hands, which calls down the Spirit to manifest his presence in a visible and charismatic way (19:6).”

Note that 8:17 states (RSV): “Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.” That is clearly confirmation. So I think in context we have to interpret the text a bit non-literally: it’s receiving a fullness, not the Spirit, period.

Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) 1262 states:”The different effects of Baptism are signified by the perceptible elements of the sacramental rite. Immersion in water symbolizes not only death and purification, but also regeneration and renewal. Thus the two principal effects are purification from sins and new birth in the Holy Spirit.”

Likewise:

CCC 1265: “Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte “a new creature,” an adopted son of God, who has become a “partaker of the divine nature,” member of Christ and co-heir with him, and a temple of the Holy Spirit.”

CCC 1266: “. . . giving them the power to live and act under the prompting of the Holy Spirit through the gifts of the Holy Spirit;  . . .”

Confirmation takes it a step further:

CCC 1285: “. . . For “by the sacrament of Confirmation, [the baptized] are more perfectly bound to the Church and are enriched with a special strength of the Holy Spirit.  . . .”

CCC 1288:”From that time on the apostles, in fulfillment of Christ’s will, imparted to the newly baptized by the laying on of hands the gift of the Spirit that completes the grace of Baptism. . . .”

I think we need to keep in mind three things:

1) The literal or (to various degrees) non-literal language of Scripture depends on context (as you well know).

2) The times described in Acts was a transitional period: between the old and new covenants, and including the incorporation of Gentiles into the Church. The Spirit had just fallen at Pentecost. Scripture seems to show some gaps in time between different groups receiving that same gift of the fullness of the Holy Spirit’s indwelling.

3) The theology of the Holy Spirit and/or confirmation were obviously at a very primitive stage at the time of the writing of Scripture. Thus, absolute precision of descriptions (just as with, say, The Trinity, or Two Natures of Christ) would not be expected.

Cornelius (Acts 10) presents a little bit of a perplexity, as you (and your friend) note. But I think it is plausibly understood in light of the above factors, and you mostly hit upon the answer already. It was a transitional period, immediately after Pentecost. So in this case, God sent the Spirit as a sign-miracle, before baptism. We know that God intended it as a sign, because of what the text says:

Acts 10:45-46 And the believers from among the circumcised who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. [46] For they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God. . . .

I suspect (sheer speculation) that it happened when it did because that was when the crowd was there to see it (they may not have all followed them to the baptismal site, and God would have known that, if so). So God decided to do it, and it was accompanied by miraculous tongues (as Pentecost itself was).*
Because it was a transitional period and the apostolic age, where miracles were much more prevalent, God decided to change the order of events (receiving of the Holy Spirit, then baptism). It doesn’t follow that the order would always be that way for all times. It’s not a normative Scripture. Your friend thus confuses the special period of the apostles and all its glorious public miracles, with the routine normative (institutionalized) experiences that most of us have (the two-stage receiving of the Spirit through baptism and confirmation).

Dom Bernard Orchard, A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (1953, p. 1022) offers an explanation:

The one exception is the Descent of the Holy Spirit on Cornelius and his household, even before they had been baptized. But here a direct divine intervention was necessary, to ensure the admission of Gentiles into the Church without conditions. Yet, in spite of their high Gift, they have to submit at once to authority, and be baptized.

Eerdmans Bible Commentary
agrees, from a Protestant perspective:
As Peter himself suggests in v. 47 (cf. 11:15). this event reproduced the descent of the Spirit on the original band of disciples in Acts 2. The occasion has been well described as ‘the Pentecost of the Gentile world’. No routine procedure would have availed for so unprecedented a situation as the acceptance of the gospel by the Gentiles; an unmediated act of God was required.

In other words, it was an absolutely unique historical situation in the history of salvation: the first time Gentiles received the indwelling or fullness of the Holy Spirit. That can’t be made normative for everyone today, anymore than Pentecost is normative. No Protestant maintains that the Day of Pentecost is normative as to what will happen whenever anyone receives the Holy Spirit (however they apply and interpret the latter):

Acts 2:1-8 When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. [2] And suddenly a sound came from heaven like the rush of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. [3] And there appeared to them tongues as of fire, distributed and resting on each one of them. [4] And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. [5] Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. [6] And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one heard them speaking in his own language. [7] And they were amazed and wondered, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? [8] And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language?
Even Pentecostals, some of whom hold that being filled with the Spirit must be accompanied by tongues, as verification (like my old Assemblies of God: and I myself never agreed with this particular teaching), don’t say that it is literally different known languages, as in Acts 2. So no one thinks that Pentecost is normative for today’s being filled with the Spirit.
*

Likewise, by analogy, the “Gentile Pentecost” of Cornelius et al in Acts 10 is not normative for all time, either, and that includes the order of events. It was an exception to the rule, as a special case during the apostolic age and transition from the old to new covenants.

*****

2017-04-18T18:09:07-04:00

BibleCatholicism2

Photograph by “jclk8888” (7-7-13) [Pixabay / CC0 public domain]

*****

[This is an installment of an extensive series of mine, in which I interact with the book that I believe is the best Protestant critique of Catholicism in our times: Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, by Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. Mackenzie (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1995).]
*****
Norman Geisler wrote:
 
There is no indication in the Bible that anyone ever prayed for another after the person died. (p. 348)
 
Inspired Holy Scripture (God’s revelation), to the contrary, states:
1 Kings 17:17-23 (RSV) After this the son of the woman, the mistress of the house, became ill; and his illness was so severe that there was no breath left in him. [18] And she said to Eli’jah, “What have you against me, O man of God? You have come to me to bring my sin to remembrance, and to cause the death of my son!” [19] And he said to her, “Give me your son.” And he took him from her bosom, and carried him up into the upper chamber, where he lodged, and laid him upon his own bed. [20] And he cried to the LORD, “O LORD my God, hast thou brought calamity even upon the widow with whom I sojourn, by slaying her son?” [21] Then he stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried to the LORD, “O LORD my God, let this child’s soul come into him again.” [22] And the LORD hearkened to the voice of Eli’jah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived. [23] And Eli’jah took the child, and brought him down from the upper chamber into the house, and delivered him to his mother; and Eli’jah said, “See, your son lives.”
*
2 Kings 4:32-35 When Eli’sha came into the house, he saw the child lying dead on his bed. [33] So he went in and shut the door upon the two of them, and prayed to the LORD. [34] Then he went up and lay upon the child, putting his mouth upon his mouth, his eyes upon his eyes, and his hands upon his hands; and as he stretched himself upon him, the flesh of the child became warm. [35] Then he got up again, and walked once to and fro in the house, and went up, and stretched himself upon him; the child sneezed seven times, and the child opened his eyes.
*
Acts 9:36-41 Now there was at Joppa a disciple named Tabitha, which means Dorcas. She was full of good works and acts of charity. [37] In those days she fell sick and died; and when they had washed her, they laid her in an upper room. [38] Since Lydda was near Joppa, the disciples, hearing that Peter was there, sent two men to him entreating him, “Please come to us without delay.” [39] So Peter rose and went with them. . . . [40] But Peter . . . knelt down and prayed; then turning to the body he said, “Tabitha, rise.” And she opened her eyes, and when she saw Peter she sat up. [41] And he gave her his hand and lifted her up. Then calling the saints and widows he presented her alive.
The Bible informs us that the disciples raised people from the dead (Mt 11:5; Lk 7:22) and that Jesus told them that they would be able to, and should, do so (Mt 10:8). So they went out and did it, presumably with the use of prayer for that end (since Elijah, Peter, and also Jesus prayed when they raised the dead). Thus, they prayed for the dead. If dead saints are not too far “out of reach” to be prayed for and raised from the dead back to earthly life, then I submit that they are not too distant for us to pray for their souls while in purgatory.

It’s inescapable logic:

1. The prophet Elijah prayed for the widow’s son, and the prophet Elisha prayed for the Shunammite’s son, and St. Peter prayed for Tabitha, that they be raised from the dead.

2. In order for such miracles to occur, the person prayed for had to have been dead, by definition.

3. Therefore, Elijah, Elisha, and the Apostle Peter all prayed for the dead, so that such a thing is recorded in the written Word of God (directly contrary to Norman Geisler’s claim above).

4. We must conclude, then, that it is God’s will and an entirely scriptural practice to pray for the dead. If it were not God’s will for men to pray such things, He would not have honored the prayers of Elijah, Elisha, and Peter, and the three dead persons would not have been raised (1 Jn 5:14-15).

If Protestants demand biblical examples of praying for the dead, we have provided them. Even if they are exceptional cases, this is not fatal to the argument. All miracles are exceptions by definition. Raising the dead was certainly an exception to routine, humdrum everyday life, yet Jesus told his disciples to go do it (Mt 10:8).

If we can pray for a dead man to come back to life, it seems only likely that we can pray for his soul as well, since the first prayer presupposes an intermediate state wherein that soul (without a body) is neither in heaven nor hell, from which there is no end or exit (as far as it is revealed in Scripture). These third states are Hades and purgatory.

If a person can be so aided in the earthly direction, why couldn’t he or she be aided in the heavenly direction, and who can completely deny that there might be gradations or processes in the journey from earth to heaven? As Jesus would ask the Pharisees, “which of these two things is more difficult to do?”

But Dr. Geisler maintains that:

Praying for the dead contradicts the example of Jesus. When Jesus lost his close friend Lazarus by death he never prayed to God for him. He simply resurrected him . . . (p. 354)

This is a pretty desperate argument. We know from Scripture that Jesus prayed to God right at the time of the raising of Lazarus, saying, “Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me” (Jn 11:41). What, I ask, is He thanking His father for? The most straightforward explanation is that He was thanking Him for raising Lazarus. Again, in  Acts 9:40, St. Peterknelt down and prayed” right before raising Tabitha. I submit that very few people would deny that he was praying for her: to raise her.

Likewise, the prophet Elisha “prayed to the Lord” right before raising a child from the dead (obviously praying for that result). Yet, Geisler would have us believe that Peter’s and Elisha’s prayers contradict “the example of Jesus”: as if there were something wrong with them. It’s ludicrous. They are plainly praying for the dead, and it is presented as an altogether good and moral thing to do, not a bad and immoral, impermissible thing.

But if those three counter-arguments are deemed insufficient, for those whose preconceived, unbiblical theology is contrary to them, then the undeniable, unarguable clincher is Elijah’s example above, in which we are expressly, specifically, explicitly informed that he prayed for the dead child, and that God heard the prayer and raised him: 

Then he stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried to the LORD, “O LORD my God, let this child’s soul come into him again.” [22] And the LORD hearkened to the voice of Eli’jah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived.

Therefore, If Geisler is to be believed, Elijah would be contradicting Jesus and doing something wrong, which is absurd, as there is no hint of disapproval in the text. Elijah was one of the greatest prophets of the Old Testament: so righteous that he could pray for it to stop raining for three-and-a-half years, and then to start up again (Jas 5:16-18). He was taken up to heaven in a whirlwind, and appeared on the Mount of Transfiguration with Moses and Jesus. This particular argument is beyond silly, and embarrassing to even have to refute. But so it is with many arguments against Catholicism. The only contradiction here is between Dr. Norman Geisler and the clear, perspicuous teaching of the Holy Bible.

Another fairly straightforward biblical example of prayer for the dead, is St. Paul’s prayer for Onesiphorus. Geisler casually assumes (p. 348) that Onesiphorus wasn’t dead. Many Protestant commentators, however, disagree with him. See my papers,  St. Paul Prayed for a Dead Man: Onesiphorus, and Paul Prayed for Dead Onesiphorus (Protestant Commentaries).

The Bible teaches that one can and should pray for the dead. Period. End of discussion (for those who believe that the Bible is God’s inspired Word and revelation). Next question?

*****

2017-04-18T18:13:46-04:00

Erasmus

Desiderius Erasmus (1466/1469-1536); portrait (1523) by Hans Holbein the Younger (1497/1498-1543) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

(2-12-09)
*****
(Seven Parts)
*
Part VI: Erasmus’ Hyperaspistes (1526): Sola Scriptura and Perspicuity of Scripture Critiqued
*

From: Peter Macardle and Clarence H. Miller, translators, Charles Trinkhaus, editor, Collected Works of Erasmus, Vol. 76: Controversies: De Libero Arbitrio / Hyperaspistes I, Univ. of Toronto Press, 1999.

* * * * *

I myself prefer to have this cast of mind than that which I see characterizes certain others, so that they are uncontrollably attached to an opinion and cannot tolerate anything that disagrees with it, but twist whatever they read in Scripture to support their view once they have embraced it. (p. 120; citing his earlier Discussion, or Diatribe)

I do not condemn those who teach the people that free will exists, striving together with the assistance of grace, but rather those who discuss before the ignorant mob difficulties which would hardly be suitable in the universities. . . . to discuss those difficulties of the scholastics about notions, about reality and relations, before a mixed crowd, you should consider how much good it would do. (p. 123)

And then, as for what you say about the clarity of Scripture, would that it were absolutely true! But those who laboured mightily to explain it for many centuries in the past were of quite another opinion. (p. 129)

But if knowledge of grammar alone removes all obscurity from Sacred Scripture, how did it happen that St. Jerome, who knew all the languages, was so often at a loss and had to labour mightily to explain the prophets? Not to mention some others, among whom we find even Augustine, in whom you place some stock. Why is it that you yourself, who cannot use ignorance of languages as an excuse, are sometimes at a loss in explicating the psalms, testifying that you are following something you have dreamed up in your own mind, without condemning the opinions of others? . . . Finally, why do your ‘brothers’ disagree so much with one another? They all have the same Scripture, they all claim the same spirit. And yet Karlstadt disagrees with you violently. So do Zwingli and Oecolampadius and Capito, who approve of Karlstadt’s opinion though not of his reasons for it. Then again Zwingli and Balthazar are miles apart on many points. To say nothing of images, which are rejected by others, but defended by you, not to mention the rebaptism rejected by your followers but preached by others, and passing over in silence the fact that secular studies are condemned by others but defended by you. Since you are all treating the subject matter of Scripture, if there is no obscurity in it, why is there so much disagreement among you? On this point there is no reason for you to rail at the wretched sophists: Augustine teaches that obscurity sometimes arises from unknown or ambiguous words, sometimes from the nature of the subject matter, at times from allegories and figures of speech, at times from passages which contradict one another, at least according to what the language seems to say. [De doctrina christiana 2.6.7, 2.9.15] And he gives the reason why God wished such obscurity to find a place in the Sacred Books. [De doctrina christiana 4.8.22] (pp. 130-131)

Furthermore, where you challenge me and all the sophists to bring forward even one obscure or recondite passage from the Sacred Books which you cannot show is quite clear, I only wish you could make good on your promise! We will bring to you heaps of difficulties and we will forgive you for calling us blinder than a bat, provided you clearly explicate the places where we are at a loss. But if you impose on us the law that we believe that whatever your interpretation is, that is what Scripture means, your associates will not put up with such a law and they stoutly cry out against you, affirming that you interpret Scripture wrongly about the Eucharist. Hence it is not right that we should grant you more authority than is granted by the principal associates of your confession. (p. 132)

. . . how did it happen that after the gospel was preached such blindness remained in the church of God that there was no one after the apostles except Jan Hus and Wyclif who did not get stuck in places all through the Scriptures? (p. 133)

. . . even your own writings and your dissenting adherents refute what you assert. (p. 134)

Nor did I say that some places in Scripture offer difficulties in order to deter anyone from reading it, but rather to encourage readers to study it acutely and to discourage the inexperienced from making snap judgments. (p. 135)

But still, if I were growing weary of this church, as I wavered in perplexity, tell me, I beg you in the name of the gospel, where would you have me go? To that disintegrated congregation of yours, that totally dissected sect? Karlstadt has raged against you, and you in turn against him. And the dispute was not simply a tempest in a teapot but concerned a very serious matter. Zwingli and Oecolampadius have opposed your opinion in many volumes. And some of the leaders of your congregation agree with them, among whom is Capito. Then too what an all-out battles was fought by Balthazar and Zwingli! I am not even sure that there in that tiny little town you agree among yourselves very well. Here your disciples openly taught that the humanities are the bane of godliness, and no languages are to be learned except a bit of Greek and Hebrew, that Latin should be entirely ignored. There were those who would eliminate baptism and those who would repeat it; and there was no lack of those who persecute them for it. In some places images of the saints suffered a dire fate; you came to their rescue. When you book about reforming education was published, they said that the spirit had left you and that you were beginning to write in a human spirit opposed to the gospel, and they maintained you did it to please Melanchthon. A tribe of prophets has risen up there with whom you have engaged in most bitter conflict. Finally, just as every day new dogmas appear among you, so at the same time new quarrels arise. And you demand that no one should disagree with you, although you disagree so much among yourselves about matters of the greatest importance! (pp. 143-144)

If you agreed among yourselves on your dogmas, you could accuse me of pride for not paying attention to teachings propounded by learned men with such an overwhelming consensus. As it is, since I have always adhered to the Catholic church and kept away from your fellowship, since your doctrine has been condemned by the princes of the church and the monarchs of the world, to say nothing of the censure by the universities, since you quarrel so much among yourselves, each of you claiming all the while to have the Spirit of Christ and a completely certain knowledge of Holy Scripture, how can you still . . . be outraged that an old man like me who knows nothing of theology should prefer to follow the authoritative consensus of the church rather than to join you, who dissent no less from the church than you dissent from each other? (p. 144)

Certainly no one after the apostles claimed that there was no mystery in Scripture that was not clear to him. (pp. 153-154)

Just so you, Luther, teach that whatever questions arise out of Holy Scripture ought to be handled in the presence of any person whatsoever . . . certain points . . . though they are true, can still not be spoken of before just any audience without endangering piety and concord and which should be set forth prudently. And here I place many points which you publish in the German language for uneducated people, such as the liberty of the gospel, which, if treated in judicious sermons on the right occasion, are not fruitless, but if they are treated in such sermons as yours, you see what fruit they produce. (pp. 166-167)

. . . even though I were to grant that what you teach is true, judge for yourself what contribution to piety is made by those who proclaim to the ignorant mob such things as these: there is no free will; our will has no effect but rather God works in us both our good deeds and our bad ones. (p. 167)

. . . it is possible that certain things may be in some sense true which nevertheless it would be inexpedient to proclaim before an unlearned audience. (p. 168)

. . . you offend precisely in that you continually foist off on us your interpretation as the word of God . . . in interpreting Scripture I prefer to follow the judgment of the many orthodox teachers and of the church rather than that of you alone or of your few sworn followers . . . (pp. 180-181)

And so away with this ‘word of God, word of God.’ I am not waging war against the word of God but against your assertion; nor is the word of God inconsistent with itself but rather human interpretations collide with one another. If you are influenced by the judgment of the church, what you assert is human fabrication, what you fight against is the word of God. (p. 181)

I say that those who treat such questions with arguments pro and con before an ignorant mob are like actors who perform a play not suited to everyone before an indiscriminate audience. (p. 195)

Holy Scripture, together with its figures of speech, has a language peculiar to itself. . . . just as the divine wisdom tempers its speech according to our feelings and our capacity to understand, so too the dispenser of Holy Scripture accommodates his language to the benefit of his audience . . . who ever conceded to you that figures of speech in Holy Scripture are not at all obscure as long as grammar is available, since everywhere in Genesis we are tormented by figures and the most erudite men sweat so much over the allegories of the prohets? (pp. 195-196)

But what I was after was for you to tell how we could be sure that what your adherents claim for themselves is true, especially when we see those who struggle equally to claim the Spirit for themselves disagree so violently among themselves about so many things. An easy believer is light-headed, and you would rightly find us lacking in manly constancy if we rashly defected from the universal Catholic church unless the matter was proved to us with ironclad arguments. (p. 199)

You stipulate that we should not ask for or accept anything but Holy Scripture, but you do it in such a way as to require that we permit you to be its sole interpreter, renouncing all others. Thus the victory will be yours if we allow you to be not the steward but the lord of Holy Scripture. (pp. 204-205)

. . . if they [bishops or theologians] should agree among themselves in explaining Holy Scripture, we would have something certain to follow. As it is, our heralds teach something different than you do, and your adherents disagree among themselves and even go so far as to cry out boldly against you. Where, then, even in the church, is this certain judgment by which we prove or disprove teachings drawn from Holy Scripture, a rule which is completely certain . . .? (p. 215)

. . . the second chapter of Malachi [verse 7] commands the people to ask for the Law from the mouth of a priest . . . Why then do you people not follow the advice of Malachi and ask for the Law from the mouths of priests and bishops? Moreover, what need was there to learn the Law from the mouth of a priest, since anyone of the people who knew the language and had common sense could easily understand a Law that was perfectly clear. [?] Therefore someone who orders that the Law be sought from the mouth of a priest indicates that the Law is not clear to just anyone, but rather he points out the fitting interpreter of the Law. (p. 217)

And why do we speak of the light of the gospel, if not because what is wrapped and covered up in figures in the Law is brought out into the open by the gospel? Is nothing there predicted about Christ which is not perfectly clear to all, provided they know Hebrew? Indeed, even the disciples of the Lord, after hearing so many sermons, after seeing so many miracles, after so many signs and tokens which the prophets foretold concerning Christ, did not understand Scripture until Christ opened up the meaning so that they understood Scripture. (p. 218)

At this point when will you stop throwing prophets, baptists, and apostles at us? No one doubts their Spirit, and their authority is sacrosanct. Because they had the Spirit teaching them from within, they explained what is obscure in the writings of the prophets. We were talking about your spirit and that of your followers, who profess that there is nothing in Holy Scripture which is obscure to you as long as you know grammar, and we demanded that you establish the credibility of this certainty, which you still fail to do, try as you may. (p. 219)

. . . when the Lord added ‘for those places speak of me,’ [John 5:39] he added a good deal of light, pointing out the aim of the prophecy. Just so in Acts, when Paul had taught and admonished them, they compared the scriptural passages with what had been carried out and what had been propounded to them; and there was much they would not have understood if the apostle had not supplied this additional light. Therefore I am not making the passages obscure, but rather God himself wanted there to be some obscurity in them, but in such a way that there would be enough light for the eternal salvation of everyone if he used his eyes and grace was there to help. No one denies that there is truth as clear as crystal in Holy Scripture, but sometimes it is wrapped and covered up by figures and enigmas so that it needs scrutiny and an interpreter, either because God wanted in this way to arouse us from dullness and also to set us to work, as Augustine says, or because truth is more pleasant and affects us more deeply when it has been dug out and shines forth to us through the cover of darkness than if it had been exposed for anyone at all to see . . . (pp. 219-220)

. . . if, as you teach, nothing is needed for Holy Scripture except grammar, what need is there to hear a preacher expound and interpret it? It would be enough to read out a prophet or the gospel to the common people who do not have the sacred books without explaining anything at all, unless there might perhaps be some underlying difficulty about the words. (pp. 221-222)

If Holy Scripture is perfectly clear in all respects, where does this darkness among you come from, whence arise such fights to the death about the meaning of Holy Scripture? You prove from the mysteries of Scripture that the body of the Lord is in the Eucharist physically; from the same Scripture Zwingli, Oecolampadius, and Capito teach that it is only signified. (p. 222)

You say this as if I said that all Scripture is obscure and ambiguous, though I confess that it contains a treasure of eternal and most certain truth, but in some places the treasure is concealed and not open to just anybody, no matter who. The sun is not dark if it does not appear when it is covered by clouds or if a dim-sighted person gropes about in full daylight . . . I was dealing with intricate questions which arise from Holy Scripture as it is interpreted first in one way and then in another. Here was the place you should have brought forth that most certain light of yours by which you convict the whole church of blindness. For, as to that quibble of yours that this light is always concealed in that church which is hidden and not thought to be the church, even if I granted you this (which you cannot prove), it is more probable that the holiest and also most learned men belonged to that hidden church than that you and your few adherents do. (p. 223)

The same thing also happens to you followers: Bugenhagen and Oecolampadius speak about some places with doubts and hesitation, and in the end even Philippus [Melanchthon] does, for whom there is no end to your praises. Everything which you thundered with such vehemence and lavishness against those who think there is anything obscure in Scripture recoils on the heads of your followers and even on your own. Finally, you yourself confess that obscurity occurs in the mysteries of Scripture because of ignorance about words, and you will add, I think, because of corruptions in the manuscripts, figures of speech, and places which conflict with one another. Once you admit this, all the disadvantages return which you attributed to obscurity. For it does not matter where the obscurity comes from as long as some is there. Such obscurity you certainly cannot deny. But if you eliminate all faith in those who are at a loss anywhere, you yourself are at a loss and so are your adherents, in whom you wish us to have wholehearted faith. (pp. 225-226)

And he [Paul] says there: ‘We know partially and we prophesy partially,’ and a little further on ‘Now I know partially, but then I shall know as I am known.’ [1 Cor 13:9,12] By prophecy Paul means the interpretation of the mysteries of Scripture; why would he profess that it is imperfect if there is nothing which is not perfectly clear? And if Paul here acknowledges imperfection, where are those who now boast of omniscience? (p. 234)

But you will say that Zwingli and Oecolampadius lost the Spirit after they started writing against you. (p. 235)

But if you attribute a total understanding of the Holy Scripture to the Holy Spirit, why do you make an exception only for the ignorance of grammar? In a matter of such importance will the Spirit allow grammar to stand in the way of man’s salvation? Since he did not hesitate to impart such riches of eternal wisdom, will he hesitate to impart grammar and common sense? (p. 239)

If you contend that there is no obscurity whatever in Holy Scripture, do not take up the matter with me but with all the orthodox Fathers, of whom there is none who does not preach the same thing as I do. (p. 242)

For which of them [the Church Fathers], in explaining the mysteries in these volumes, does not complain about the obscurity of Scripture? Not because they blame Scripture, as you falsely charge, but because they deplore the dullness of the human mind, not because they despair but because they implore grace from him who alone closes and opens to whomever he wishes, when he wishes, and as much as he wishes. (pp. 244-245)

But I am resolved in matters of faith not to give any weight to private feelings. (p. 247)

Both the Spirit and common sense and the clarity of Holy Scripture are claimed by both sides. . . . Grant that Scripture is perfectly clear: what will we unlearned people do when we see both sides contending with equal assertiveness that they have the Spirit who reveals mysteries and that they find Scripture absolutely clear? Grant that it is obscure in some places: what will we do when each side accuses the other of blindness? However these things may be, we are certainly left wavering in doubt, and in the meantime you neither acquit your faith by fulfilling your promise nor set us free by removing our doubt. (p. 254)

2017-02-06T12:29:55-04:00

Erasmus

Desiderius Erasmus (1466/1469-1536); portrait (1523) by Hans Holbein the Younger (1497/1498-1543) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

(2-10-09)
*****
(Seven Parts)
*
Part IV: Erasmus’ Hyperaspistes (1526): Luther’s Anti-Traditional Elements
*

From: Peter Macardle and Clarence H. Miller, translators, Charles Trinkhaus, editor, Collected Works of Erasmus, Vol. 76: Controversies: De Libero Arbitrio / Hyperaspistes I, Univ. of Toronto Press, 1999.

* * * * *

I have always hated factions. Up to now I wanted to stand alone, as long as I am not separated from the Catholic church. There was no reason for you to be afraid since you, together with your guard of sworn adherents, had to deal with a single person, and unarmed at that. But, you say, ‘you are armed with eloquence.’ If I have any, I certainly didn’t use it against you, and I dispensed not only with that weaponry, but also with the authority of the princes of the church, which by itself could be thought to be weapon enough for me. What was the point of absolving yourself of any fear of a single, unarmed person, since you have so courageously scorned both popes and emperors and battalions of theologians? But on these points you simply wanted to play the rhetorician. (p. 116)

There has to be some end to disputing. It is you who are forcing us to take up the matter all over again by calling into doubt, indeed by dislodging and demolishing, what has been fully approved, fixed, and immovable for so many centuries. (p. 121)

Which is more wicked: not to dispute about Christian dogmas beyond what is sufficient or to undermine them, throw them out, trample upon them, and decorate them with your kind of verbal decorations? (p. 126)

Is it right for just anyone to abrogate the judgments of the ancient Fathers which have been fully confirmed by the public decision of the church? Finally, why are you so outraged by the prophets who arise after you? (p. 129)

You can be sure of this, Luther, I do not entirely agree with any dogma of yours (I mean those that have been condemned) except that what you write about the corrupt morals of the church is truer than I would wish. (p. 139)

And then, what need is there for simple Christians to dispute about contingencies and the will as merely passive, since the magisterium of the church regards as settled that the will does do something but that what it does is ineffectual unless grace constantly lends its aid? Christian people have held this doctrine for fifteen hundred years, nor is it right to dispute about it, except in a restrained way and so as to better establish what the church has handed down. (p. 139)

It is not only excessively curious but also wicked to call into question, as you do, what the church has accepted with such an overwhelming consensus. (p. 140)

. . . if what the church has decided is true and indubitable, it is not safe for the ignorant multitude to hear the reasons, protestations, and oaths for the other side. But this is what I was urging, that simple people be content to accept the Catholic opinion, believing and holding what they have received, that is, the very thing you have undertaken to impugn. (p. 161)

I think that those who dispute about frivolous questions are more acceptable than those who by their disputations call back into debate matters about which the church has long since decreed that there should be no disagreement, having condemned what is false and approved what is true. (p. 163)

If I handle Holy Scripture with less learning, at least I do so cautiously and with reverence, following in the footsteps of the orthodox and fearing to depart from the decisions of the church. (p. 176)

If you are influenced by the judgment of the church, what you assert is human fabrication, what you fight against is the word of God. If you are not, even so you should deploy very clear arguments to prove what you assert before you command us to go over to your position, which is at odds with so many luminaries of the church and even with the public judgment of the church. (p. 181)

. . . arguments which would make us believe with certainty that you and your few adherents teach the truth, while so many Doctors of the church, so many universities, councils, and popes etc. were blind, even though both sides have Scripture in common. (p. 197)

. . . we should be shown some reason why we can safely believe in your teaching, rejecting the doctrine handed down by so many learned and famous men and accepted by the whole Christian world with such an overwhelming consensus. You try many ways to avoid this knot. (p. 200)

We are dealing with this: would a stable mind depart from the opinion handed down by so many famous men famous for holiness and miracles, depart from the decision of the church, and commit our souls to the faith of someone like you who has sprung up just now with a few followers, although the leading men of your flock do not agree either with you or among themselves — indeed though you do not even agree with yourself, since in this same Assertion you say one thing in the beginning and something else later on, recanting what you said before. (p. 203)

In A Discussion I do not employ the authority of either popes or councils or orthodox teachers to support free will, and even if I had done so, that would have been somewhat more tolerable than your citing of Melanchthon’s pamphlet as if it had the same authority as canonical Scripture. (p. 295)

In A Discussion I do not defend my own teaching but that of the church, but I do so without the assistance of the church, and I defend it from Holy Scripture, not as a fabrication of men but as the determination of Holy Scripture. (p. 205)

And here once more you have the impudence to scoff at orthodox Greek writers whom you deprive of all authority by a marvellous assumption, that the saints have sometimes erred because they are human . . . (p. 207)

Therefore do not insist that on the issue of free will you have the advantage of having Augustine so often on your side — as you boast, though I will soon show that this is quite false — lest we turn your comparison back against you. Or if you deprive them [the Church Fathers] of all authority, stop making use of their testimony. If they said many things devoutly, many things excellently, although they sometimes made mistakes, allow us to make use of what they said well, as you claim the right to do also. . . . It seems that up to now you have not ranted and raved enough against the most approved Doctors of the church unless you accuse St Jerome of impiety, sacrilege, and blasphemy because he wrote, ‘Virginity fills up heaven; marriage, the earth.’ (pp. 208-209)

You rant and rave thus against Jerome, but you do not allow anyone to disagree with you, however courteously. . . . I said it is not credible that God for so many centuries should have overlooked such a harmful error in his church without revealing to some of his saints the point which you contend is the keystone of the teachings in the gospel . . . (pp. 209-210)

But the whole drift of your reasoning is to make us understand that it is unknown who the saints are and what the church is . . . in such a way that the church of the saints seems to be where it is not, and, on the other hand, is where it does not seem to be . . . But when you declaim all this so copiously, you do nothing but confound and entirely subvert all heretical conventicles . . . How, then, are you sure that Wyclif was a holy man and the Arians were heretics? Is Wyclif holy precisely because he was condemned by the church which you call papistical? By the same token you will say that Arius was holy because he was condemned by the same church. At this point if you appeal to Scripture, did the Arians have any lack of Scripture? No, they did not, you will say, but they interpreted it wrongly. But how can we be sure of that except that the church rejected their interpretation and approved that of the other side? The same could be said of Pelagius . . . But let us grant it is possible that a general council is so corrupt that either there is no one moved by the Spirit of God, or if there is, he is not listened to, and that a conciliar decree is issued from the opinion of evil men, still it is more probable that the Spirit of God is there than in private conventicles, where the spirit of Satan is quite likely to be detected . . . I think it is safer to follow public authority rather than the opinion of someone or other who scorns everyone and boasts of his own conscience and spirit. If it is enough to say, ‘I have the Spirit,’ then we will have to believe many people urging various opinions upon us, and if the opinions disagree with one another they cannot be true . . . other things being equal, the greater probability lies on the side of what is approved by such men and confirmed by the public authority of the church rather than with what someone or other brought up on his own. (pp. 210-211)

As it is, since you confess that you are not certain where the saints are, where the true church is which does not err, either we will waver in uncertainty or we will follow what is nearer to the truth. (p. 211)

But if we posit an equal balance in the things by which you wish to be judged and the opinion of men is wavering in the balance, I ask you whether the authority of the ancient Fathers and the church should have any weight. . . . it should have enough weight, when the scale is evenly balanced, to incline us towards those who have been commended for so many centuries by the public favour of the whole world than towards those who are commended for no other reason than that they are baptized. And so if you insist that their authority has no value in confirming an opinion, then neither does yours or anyone else’s. (p. 213)

Why should it be so monstrous if, when some ambiguity or other arises in Scripture, we ignorant souls should prefer to consult the see of Rome rather than that of Wittenberg, which is full of disagreements at that? And who would believe the church of Rome if it should make pronouncements without Scripture? Nor does it interpret Scripture without the help of a council made up of learned men. You interpret at your own whim, with the help of your spirit, which is unknown to us . . . (p. 224)

. . . you demand that we reject their [the Church Fathers’] authority, that we hold to your teachings as if they were articles of the faith. At least grant us, for their teachings as well as yours, the same right to suspend judgment about either. (p. 225)

And I do not bring up how numerous and gifted they [the Church Fathers] were except to force you to bring forth a manifest argument by which we may know that we can safely believe in you and piously diverge from them. (p. 226)

The church has judged the Arians, and you approve of her judgment. But the same church condemned your teachings. (p. 232)

There [Luther’s Commentary on the Psalms] you call the ancient, orthodox writers consummately orthodox, holy, and learned; here you laugh at me for attributing holiness to them, while you charge them with blindness, ignorance, even blasphemy and sacrilege. And you can find no other excuse that would enable them to be saved except that they meant something different from what they wrote or repented of their error before they died. (p. 238)

. . . I called into question which interpretation we should follow, that of the ancient Fathers, which has been approved for so many centuries, or yours, which has sprung up so recently. (p. 244)

I do not require anyone to reject the opinion of all of them [the Church Fathers] on a matter of such great importance and to believe me alone — which is what you do, and not on this dogma alone, entreating and even demanding assent as rightfully due to you, threatening to trample in the mire of the streets whoever resists you as you preach the word of God. Therefore fairness requires that you give us firm arguments showing us why your judgment alone should carry more weight with us than that of so many great men . . . (p. 245)

What a convenient crack you have found here, one through which you can slip away whenever you are confronted with the authority of the ancient Fathers: they didn’t mean this, but rather they brought such things forth with a wandering pen and a meandering mind. And all the time you do not see that this device of yours can be turned back against you, not only by us but also by your followers . . . if it should happen that we seemed equal in testimonies out of Scripture and judgment hung in the balance, wavering in either direction, I asked whether it seemed right in this state of affairs that the authority of the ancients, together with the decision of the church, should certainly have a tiny bit of influence to make us more inclined towards their judgment rather than yours. . . . Place, then, free choice in the middle, held in good faith by the Catholic church for more than thirteen hundred years. Place yourself on one side assailing it with the assistance of Scripture and me on the other side defending it with the same assistance. Add spectators who, like me, think all our evidence is equal, although you demand to be at one and the same time both contestant and umpire and superintendent of the games. Who will award the prize either to you or to me, and by whose choice shall free choice be preserved or else destroyed? (pp. 249-250)

Now look at the laws which you prescribe, though you are not yet the victor: lay down whatever arms are supplied by the ancient orthodox teachers, the schools of the theologians, the authority of councils and popes, the consensus of the whole Christian people over so many centuries; we accept nothing but Scripture, but in such a way that we alone have authoritative certainty in interpreting it; our interpretation is what was meant by the Holy Spirit; that brought forward by others, however great, however many, arises from the spirit of Satan and from madness; what the orthodox taught, what the authority of the church handed down, what the people of Christ embraced, what the schools defend is the deadly venom of Satan; what I teach is the spirit of life; believe that in Scripture there is no obscurity at all, not even so much as to need a judge; or, though all are blind, I am not blind; for I am conscious that I have the Spirit of Christ, which enables me to judge everyone but no one to judge me; I refuse to be judged, I require compliance; let no one be the least bit moved by the multitude, the magnitude, the breadth and depth, the miracles, the holiness of the church’s saints; they all were lost if they meant what they wrote, unless perhaps they came to their senses before the last day of their lives; whoever does not believe my proofs either lacks common sense or commits blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and subverts Christianity. If we accept such laws as these, the victory is indeed yours. Then again, you demand that we not believe the ancient orthodox Fathers because they sometimes disagreed amongst themselves, whereas the few of you fight very much with each other about the prophets, images, church rules, baptism, the Eucharist; and you want us nevertheless to believe your teachings, especially because every day we expect new ones. And we are called blasphemous because we still cling to the old church and do not dare to join your camp . . . I am not making any of this up; I am saying what is certain and well known. (p. 261)

ADDENDUM

Erasmus’ Own Orthodoxy and Obedience to the Church

From the Catholic church I have never departed. I have never had the least inclination to enlist in your church — so little, in fact, that, though I have been very unlucky in many other ways, in one respect I consider myself lucky indeed, namely that I have steadfastly kept my distance from your league. I know that in the church which you call papistical there are many with whom I am not pleased, but I see such persons also in your church. But it is easier to put up with evils to which you are accustomed. Therefore I will put up with this church until I see a better one, and it will have to put up with me until I become better. And surely a person does not sail infelicitously if he holds to a middle course between two evils. (p. 117)

But let me show you how you have slandered me twice over: first I myself explicitly exclude from Scepticism whatever is set forth in Sacred Scripture or whatever has been handed down to us by the authority of the church. (p. 118)

I think it is sufficiently clear from my writings how much I attribute to Sacred Scripture and how unwaveringly I am in the articles of faith. On these points I am so far from desiring or having a Sceptical outlook that I would not hesitate to face death to uphold them. . . . now that the church has defined them [various “controverted teachings”] also, I have no use for human arguments but rather follow the decision of the church and cease to be a Sceptic. (pp. 118-119)

Whatever has been handed down as part of our faith is not to be sifted and searched so as to call it into question; rather it is to be professed. . . . Nor do I condemn in an unqualified way those who engage in moderate disputation, seeking to investigate some point which is not expressed in Sacred Scripture or defined by the church, but rather those who indulge in fierce and destructive strife about such matters. . . . I do not condemn moderate investigation but rather obstinate strife to the detriment of religion and harmony. (p. 120)

But I do not place more hope or find more consolation anywhere than in Holy Scripture, from which I believe I have derived so much light that I may hope for eternal salvation by the mercy of God without any of your contentious dogmas. And so I have no less reverence for Scripture than those who honour it most devoutly . . . the decrees of the Catholic church, especially those issued by general councils and fully approved by a consensus of Christian people, carry such weight with me that, even if my tiny intellect cannot fully understand the human reasons underlying what is prescribed, I will embrace it as if it were an oracle issued by God, nor will I violate any regulation of the church unless it is absolutely necessary to have a dispensation from the law. And I would be enormously displeased with myself and would suffer mental torment if the leaders of the church had directed at me the judgment they have pronounced against you . . . Follow your bent and make whatever interpretation you wish, call me a dyed-in-the-wool papist. You will not be able to impugn my attitude in any way, except that together with all good men I have desired the correction of the church, in so far as that can be done without serious and violent disturbances. (p. 127)

In Sacred Scripture, whenever the sense is quite clear, I want nothing to do with Scepticism, no more than I do concerning the decrees of the Catholic church. (p. 127)

For what does it mean to submit human understanding to the judgment of the church if not to believe what the church prescribes? I do not fully understand how the Father differs from the Son, how the Holy Spirit proceeds from both, though he is the son of neither one; and I am still more certain about this than about what I touch with my fingers. (p. 128)

I have always professed to be quite apart from your league; I am at peace with the Catholic church, to whose judgment I have submitted my writings, to detect any human error in them, for I know that they are very far from any malice or impiety. . . . It is not my place to wield the rod of judgment over the lives of popes and bishops. (p. 141)

Am I in danger of offending the Spirit of God if I am afraid to dissent from the church of Christ? Indeed the very reason I do not dare to entrust myself to you is that I am afraid to offend the Spirit of God. (p. 146)

I thought less badly of the man [Jan Hus] before I sampled the book he wrote against the Roman pontiff. What does such laborious abuse have in common with the Spirit of Christ? And in our discussion it does not matter what sort of pope condemned Hus; he is unknown to me, and popes have their own judge before whom they stand or fall. They are my judges; I am not theirs. (p. 230)

. . . Including Acceptance of Sola Gratia
*

. . . in my Discussion I so distinctly and so clearly explain that there is no contradiction in saying that the sum and substance of a good deed should be attributed to God and asserting also that the human will does something, however tiny its share may be. (p. 154)

For why should anyone have faith in himself if he knows that he can neither begin nor complete anything without the help of God’s grace, to whom I profess that the sum and substance of all things rightly done ought to be attributed? Nor is there any difference between you and me except that I make our will cooperate with the grace of God and you make it completely passive. (p. 185)

How will a person rise up against God if he knows that he has in himself no hope of salvation without the singular grace of God, if he is persuaded that all human powers are of no avail for salvation without the aid of grace, especially since he is not unaware that everything he can do by his natural powers is the free gift of God? If a person wishes to cross the ocean, is he confident that he can achieve this without a ship and wind? And yet he is not idle while he is sailing. For professing free will does not tend to make a person attribute less to the mwercy of God but rather keeps him from not responding to operating grace and gives him reason to blame himself if he perishes. I exalt God’s mercy so much, I diminish human power so much, that in the matter of salvation no one can claim anything for himself, since the very fact of his existence and whatever he can do by his natural endowments is the gift of God. You exalt grace and demean mankind so much that you open another pit which we had closed over by attributing just a little bit to free will, namely that it accommodates itself to grace or turns away from grace. (p. 186)

When you say that a person taken captive by sin cannot by his own power turn his will to good unless he is blown upon by the breath of grace, we also profess this, especially if you mean turning effectively. (p. 188)

. . . you remove grace from free will, but when I say free will does something good, I join it with grace, and while it obeys grace it is acted upon and it acts felicitously. (p. 190)

Now see how you bear down upon me: it effects nothing without grace; therefore it does nothing at all with grace. Is this the trap you have set to catch me? (p. 190)

2017-01-15T16:22:44-04:00

Debate4

Image by geralt (12-4-13) [Pixabay / CC0 public domain]

*****

(1-21-01)

*****

As a Christian apologist (first evangelical Protestant, now Catholic) and a philosophically-minded person (and, I hope, also a fair-minded and open-minded one) who has engaged in more than 20 years’ worth of discussions with people of almost every conceivable point of view, I have come to some conclusions about the various types of discourse, and which are more fruitful and constructive than others. I distinguish between what I call mutual monologue and dialogue. The first is the following procedure:

Mutual Monologue I: Between Two Christians of Different Persuasions

1. X presents position A with a multitude of biblical proof texts and historical evidences.2. Y basically ignores or quickly dismisses X’s biblical proof texts and historical evidences for position A with a one-sentence “reply” and proceeds to present position B with a multitude of alternate biblical proof texts and historical evidences.

This is what I would call “a war of competing proof texts” or a “mutual monologue,” and I don’t find it very helpful or constructive myself, for further understanding or learning on either side.

Mutual Monologue II: Between a Christian and a Non-Christian

*

1. X (Christian) presents Christian position A with a multitude of rational and historical proofs.

2. Y (non-Christian) basically ignores or quickly dismisses X’s proofs for Christian position A with a one-sentence “reply” and proceeds to present non-Christian position B with a multitude of alternate rational and historical proofs.

Dialogue, or a dialectical approach (in my view, anyway), would be the following:

True Dialogue I: Between Two Christians of Different Persuasions*

1. X presents position A with a multitude of biblical proof texts and historical evidences.

2. Y offers alternative and (so he thinks) superior explanations of each of X’s biblical proof-texts and historical evidences, and then presents his own biblical proof texts and historical evidences for position B.

3. X offers alternative and (so he thinks) superior explanations of each of Y’s biblical proof-texts and historical evidences, counter-responds to the critique of his own previously-stated biblical proof texts and historical evidences, and then presents more of his own biblical and historical proofs (if he has any more on the subject).

4. Y again offers alternative explanations of X’s contentions, and/or counter-responds to X’s counter-response (or concedes the argument if position A is superior) . . . Etc.

5. X does the same in turn (if Y is still maintaining his position) and either proceeds or concedes the argument if position B is superior . . . Etc.

True Dialogue II: Between a Christian and a Non-Christian

1. X (Christian) presents Christian position A with a multitude of rational and historical proofs.

2. Y offers alternative and (so he thinks) superior explanations of each of X’s rational and historical proofs for Christian position A, and then presents his own rational and historical proofs for non-Christian position B.

3. X offers alternative and (so he thinks) superior explanations of each of Y’s rational and historical proofs for non-Christian position B, counter-responds to the critique of his own previously-stated rational and historical proofs, and then presents more of his own rational and historical proofs for Christian position A (if he has any more on the subject).

4. Y again offers alternative explanations of X’s contentions, and/or counter-responds to X’s counter-response (or concedes the argument if Christian position A is superior) . . . Etc.

5. X does the same in turn (if Y is still maintaining his position) and either proceeds or concedes the argument if non-Christian position B is superior . . . Etc.

This is what I have complained about Protestant (and Orthodox) apologists rarely doing. They virtually never engage in the second process; what I call “true dialogue.” They often engage in the first: the war of the biblical proof texts and/or historical evidences (because they have plenty of alleged proofs for their own position). But if they don’t engage our best proofs, how can they hope to fairly compare the two positions (assuming they want to do so in the first place, which is by no means certain)? I don’t buy it.

When two Christians are debating, what they definitely have in common (among several other things) is a reverence for Holy Scripture, so that they can carry out their argument under that framework, and try to compare interpretation with interpretation, to determine which hermeneutical and exegetical explanation has more validity, plausibility, explanatory value, and internal consistency with other aspects of their theological position.

But if there is never any true give-and-take, or interaction, or respectful and reasoned consideration of the opponent’s arguments, this can’t occur, and it is simply two ships passing in the night. That is the sort of discussion I have no interest in. It is no better than each person reading material from the other camp, but going no further.

Likewise, with the non-Christian critic of Christianity. Oftentimes, the non-Christian (either religious or agnostic) will engage in mutual monologue rather than true dialogue. Note that I have omitted any mention of biblical proof texts in discussions between Christians and non-Christians, because they do not hold this presupposition (or axiom or premise) in common. One must argue in favor of the validity and trustworthiness of revelation and Scripture, by means of reasoned and historical proofs, archaeology, manuscript evidences, fulfilled prophecies, miracles, experiential proofs, etc.

Once it is agreed that Scripture is divinely inspired, then the two parties can argue over its interpretation. Prior to that point, the Christian must argue on rational and historical grounds (the second actually being a subset of the first), whether presenting his own position or critiquing the non-Christian one (because that is what most thinking people of any persuasion hold in common).

In any event, both sides need to truly interact with their opponents’ point of view and demonstrate both its logical / ethical / philosophical / scientific weaknesses and the superiority of their own position. Simply stating one’s position and assuming it is self-evidently superior, or appealing to numbers of adherents or academics, etc. will not do. That is not rational argument; it is simply proclamation.

But all good discussion presupposes a minimum of respect both for the other’s position and his rational faculties and honesty. To question any of these three factors at a foundational level is to doom the discussion from the outset and virtually assure a scenario rife with ad hominem attacks and personal insults, or rudeness, condescension, and the like.

This frequent lack of true dialogue is why, e.g., anti-Catholics (whether Protestant, Orthodox, or Anglican) and Catholics can rarely engage in constructive discussion. The former refuses to grant the latter the status of Christian from the outset. This leads to an inevitable lack of respect (at least in the Catholic’s eyes) and – almost always – therefore to insults and a superior-subordinate, condescending relationship, rather than a mutually-respectful side-by-side dialogue of rational and religious equals.

Likewise, this is the case with discussions between the Christian and the non-Christian. Very frequently, the latter disdains the former as irrational and gullible, or in need of a psychological crutch, or intolerant or bigoted, or irredeemably hypocritical, or stuck in the distant past, etc. (i.e., all the stereotypes which get passed down about Christians and Catholic Christians in particular). If these are present, along with a certain arrogance and lack of open-mindedness to have one’s misconceptions corrected, good, true discussion will be well-nigh impossible.

If the non-Christian will neither interact with the Christian’s arguments (provided they are conducted within mutually agreeable parameters and presuppositions), nor respond to critiques of his own position, then there is no point in having a so-called “dialogue,” because what will then occur is, in fact, a mutual monologue. Non-Christians hate to be “preached” to; well, by the same token, most Christians resent being lectured by non-Christians (especially if such a lecture contains some of the false caricatures mentioned above). Both sides would prefer a legitimate, mutually respectful discussion and meeting of the minds.

But Christians, too, have their own set of flaws and shortcomings, when engaging in discourse with non-Christians. The latter are often regarded as amoral or immoral, or inherently insincere, simply due to the fact that they are not Christians, or they are viewed with suspicion as part of some nefarious conspiracy to bring down Christianity, or western civilization, or societal morality. There are all sorts of false stereotypes that Christians carry about non-Christians, particularly atheists and agnostics.

In all cases, it remains true that one must engage in discussion with not only an intent to teach and correct, where necessary, but also to learn and understand the opponent, and to be corrected or to change one’s opinion, wherever this is warranted. One must extend the benefit of the doubt and of charity to a dialogical opponent, and never question their honesty or basic intelligence or sincerity, failing the most compelling of repeated evidences to the contrary.

This, in my opinion (based on long personal experience), leads to good discussion and learning and friendship, and admiration, and mutual respect (and yes, conversions, too, in some instances), and is the philosophy I try to always uphold and live by in the course of my apologetic work and discussions online and “in real life.”

2021-11-22T16:39:04-04:00

Priest

Photo by “paterdarius” [Pixabay / CC0 public domain]

***

(5-9-08)

***

[all verses RSV]

***

The Power of Priests to Bind and Loose (Impose Penance and Grant Absolution)

Matthew 3:6 and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

Matthew 18:18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (cf. Mt 16:19: to Peter alone)

Mark 1:5 . . . and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

John 20:22-23 . . . he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” cf. Lk 24:47; 1 Jn 1:8-9)

Acts 19:18 Many also of those who were now believers came, confessing and divulging their practices.

1 Corinthians 5:3-5 For though absent in body I am present in spirit, and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus,
you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

2 Corinthians 2:6-11 For such a one this punishment by the majority is enough; so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him. For this is why I wrote, that I might test you and know whether you are obedient in everything. Any one whom you forgive, I also forgive. What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ, to keep Satan from gaining the advantage over us; for we are not ignorant of his designs.

1 Timothy 1:18-20 This charge I commit to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophetic utterances which pointed to you, that inspired by them you may wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith, among them Hymenae’us and Alexander, whom I have delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.

James 5:14-15 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.

Disciples (Proto-Priests) as Direct Representatives of Jesus
*

Matthew 10:40 He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives him who sent me.

Luke 10:16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

John 13:20 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who receives any one whom I send receives me; and he who receives me receives him who sent me.”

2 Corinthians 5:20 So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

Disciples and Apostles (Proto-Priests) Are Called and Chosen (Vocation) By Jesus or the Holy Spirit
*

Matthew 4:18-22 As he walked by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon who is called Peter and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen. And he said to them, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.” Immediately they left their nets and followed him. And going on from there he saw two other brothers, James the son of Zeb’edee and John his brother, in the boat with Zeb’edee their father, mending their nets, and he called them. Immediately they left the boat and their father, and followed him.

Matthew 9:9 As Jesus passed on from there, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax office; and he said to him, “Follow me.” And he rose and followed him.

Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

Mark 1:20 And immediately he called them; and they left their father Zeb’edee in the boat with the hired servants, and followed him.

Mark 3:13-14 And he went up on the mountain, and called to him those whom he desired; and they came to him. And he appointed twelve, to be with him . . .

Mark 6:7 And he called to him the twelve, . . .

Luke 6:13 And when it was day, he called his disciples, and chose from them twelve, whom he named apostles;

Luke 9:1 And he called the twelve together . . .

John 13:18 I am not speaking of you all; I know whom I have chosen; it is that the scripture may be fulfilled, `He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.’

John 15:16, 19 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide; so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. . . . If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.

Acts 1:2 until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen.

Acts 10:41 not to all the people but to us who were chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.

Acts 20:28 Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son.

Acts 26:16 But rise and stand upon your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you to serve and bear witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you,

Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God

1 Corinthians 1:1 Paul, called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus,

1 Corinthians 7:17, 20, 24 Only, let every one lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him, and in which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches. . . . Every one should remain in the state in which he was called. . . . So, brethren, in whatever state each was called, there let him remain with God.

1 Corinthians 9:16-17 For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward; but if not of my own will, I am entrusted with a commission.

1 Corinthians 12:28-29 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?

2 Corinthians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, . . .

Galatians 1:1 Paul an apostle — not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead —

Ephesians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God,

Ephesians 4:11 And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers,

Colossians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, . . .

Colossians 1:25 of which I became a minister according to the divine office which was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known,

1 Timothy 1:1, 12 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope, . . . I thank him who has given me strength for this, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful by appointing me to his service,

1 Timothy 2:7 For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . .

2 Timothy 1:1,11 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God according to the promise of the life which is in Christ Jesus, . . . For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher,

Disciples and Apostles (Proto-Priests) Are “Sent” By Jesus or the Holy Spirit, and Given Authority

Matthew 10:1 And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every infirmity.

Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans,”

Matthew 10:16 “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.”

Mark 3:14-15 And he appointed twelve, to be with him, and to be sent out to preach and have authority to cast out demons:

Mark 6:7 And he . . . began to send them out two by two, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits.

Luke 9:1-2 And he . . . gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases, and he sent them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal.

Luke 10:1-3 After this the Lord appointed seventy others, and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to come. And he said to them, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; pray therefore the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest. Go your way; behold, I send you out as lambs in the midst of wolves.

Luke 10:19 Behold, I have given you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy; and nothing shall hurt you.

Luke 11:49 Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, `I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,’

Luke 22:35 And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no purse or bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.”

John 4:38 I sent you to reap that for which you did not labor; others have labored, and you have entered into their labor.

John 17:18 As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.

John 20:21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”

Acts 1:8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Sama’ria and to the end of the earth.

Acts 9:15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel;

Acts 13:2, 4 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” . . . So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleu’cia; and from there they sailed to Cyprus.

Acts 16:10 And when he had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go on into Macedo’nia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them.

Acts 22:21 And he said to me, ‘Depart; for I will send you far away to the Gentiles.'”

Acts 26:17 . . . the Gentiles — to whom I send you

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

2 Corinthians 10:8 For even if I boast a little too much of our authority, which the Lord gave for building you up and not for destroying you, I shall not be put to shame.

2 Corinthians 13:10 I write this while I am away from you, in order that when I come I may not have to be severe in my use of the authority which the Lord has given me for building up and not for tearing down.

Disciples and Apostles (Proto-Priests) Preside Over the Eucharist and the Mass
*

Isaiah 66:18, 21 For I know their works and their thoughts, and I am coming to gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come and shall see my glory, . . . And some of them also I will take for priests and for Levites, says the LORD.

Malachi 1:11 For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.

Luke 22:19-20 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after supper, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. ”

Acts 2:42, 46 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. . . . And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts, (cf. Acts 20:7)

1 Corinthians 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

Hebrews 5:1 For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins.

Hebrews 8:3 For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; hence it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer.

The Church Calls, Commissions, and Sends Men Out to Do the Work of Ministry
*

Acts 9:22-30 But Saul increased all the more in strength, and confounded the Jews who lived in Damascus by proving that Jesus was the Christ. When many days had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him, but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night, to kill him; but his disciples took him by night and let him down over the wall, lowering him in a basket. And when he had come to Jerusalem he attempted to join the disciples; and they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared to them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who spoke to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus. So he went in and out among them at Jerusalem, preaching boldly in the name of the Lord. And he spoke and disputed against the Hellenists; but they were seeking to kill him. And when the brethren knew it, they brought him down to Caesare’a, and sent him off to Tarsus.

Acts 11:22 News of this came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch.

Acts 14:23 And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they believed.

Acts 15:1-4 But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.
So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoeni’cia and Sama’ria, reporting the conversion of the Gentiles, and they gave great joy to all the brethren. When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them.

Acts 15:22, 25 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsab’bas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,

Acts 15:27, 30, 33 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. . . . So when they were sent off, they went down to Antioch; and having gathered the congregation together, they delivered the letter. . . . And after they had spent some time, they were sent off in peace by the brethren to those who had sent them.

Acts 17:10, 14 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Beroe’a; and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. . . . Then the brethren immediately sent Paul off on his way to the sea, . . .

Romans 10:15 And how can men preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach good news!”

1 Corinthians 4:17 Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach them everywhere in every church.

2 Corinthians 8:16-23 But thanks be to God who puts the same earnest care for you into the heart of Titus. For he not only accepted our appeal, but being himself very earnest he is going to you of his own accord. With him we are sending the brother who is famous among all the churches for his preaching of the gospel; and not only that, but he has been appointed by the churches to travel with us in this gracious work which we are carrying on, for the glory of the Lord and to show our good will. We intend that no one should blame us about this liberal gift which we are administering, for we aim at what is honorable not only in the Lord’s sight but also in the sight of men. And with them we are sending our brother whom we have often tested and found earnest in many matters, but who is now more earnest than ever because of his great confidence in you. As for Titus, he is my partner and fellow worker in your service; and as for our brethren, they are messengers of the churches, the glory of Christ.

Galatians 1:18; 2:9 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. . . . and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised;

Ephesians 6:21-22 Now that you also may know how I am and what I am doing, Tych’icus the beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord will tell you everything. I have sent him to you for this very purpose, that you may know how we are, and that he may encourage your hearts.

Philippians 2:25 I have thought it necessary to send to you Epaphrodi’tus my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier, and your messenger and minister to my need, (cf. 2:19,23,28)

Colossians 4:7-10 Tych’icus will tell you all about my affairs; he is a beloved brother and faithful minister and fellow servant in the Lord. I have sent him to you for this very purpose, that you may know how we are and that he may encourage your hearts, and with him Ones’imus, the faithful and beloved brother, who is one of yourselves. They will tell you of everything that has taken place here. Aristar’chus my fellow prisoner greets you, and Mark the cousin of Barnabas (concerning whom you have received instructions — if he comes to you, receive him),

1 Thessalonians 3:2 and we sent Timothy, our brother and God’s servant in the gospel of Christ, to establish you in your faith and to exhort you,

Titus 1:5 This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you,

(cf. 1 Timothy 3:1-13)

Laying on of Hands For Ordaining and Calling Ministers of God
*

Acts 6:1-6 Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, the Hellenists murmured against the Hebrews because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution. And the twelve summoned the body of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brethren, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” And what they said pleased the whole multitude, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Proch’orus, and Nica’nor, and Ti’mon, and Par’menas, and Nicola’us, a proselyte of Antioch. These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands upon them.

Acts 9:17 So Anani’as departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came, has sent me that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”

Acts 13:1-4 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyre’ne, Man’a-en a member of the court of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off. So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleu’cia; and from there they sailed to Cyprus.

1 Timothy 4:11-16 Command and teach these things. Let no one despise your youth, but set the believers an example in speech and conduct, in love, in faith, in purity. Till I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the council of elders laid their hands upon you. Practice these duties, devote yourself to them, so that all may see your progress. Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers. (cf. 1 Tim 5:22; Heb 6:2)

2 Timothy 1:6 Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands;

Apostolic Succession
*

Acts 1:16-26 “Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry. (Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Akel’dama, that is, Field of Blood.) For it is written in the book of Psalms, `Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’; and `His office let another take.’ So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us — one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.” And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsab’bas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthi’as. And they prayed and said, “Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.” And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthi’as; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.

2 Timothy 2:2 and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

2 Timothy 4:1-6 I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths. As for you, always be steady, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfil your ministry. For I am already on the point of being sacrificed; the time of my departure has come.

Sacrificial Nature of Ministry / Persecution

Matthew 4:22 Immediately they left the boat and their father, and followed him.

Matthew 5:10-12 Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Matthew 10:22 and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.

Matthew 10:38 and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

Matthew 16:24 Then Jesus told his disciples, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

Matthew 19:27-29 Then Peter said in reply, “Lo, we have left everything and followed you. What then shall we have?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life.

Matthew 23:34 Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, (cf. Lk 11:49)

Matthew 24:9 Then they will deliver you up to tribulation, and put you to death; and you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake.

Mark 6:8 He charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff; no bread, no bag, no money in their belts;

Mark 8:34 And he called to him the multitude with his disciples, and said to them, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

Mark 10:28-31 Peter began to say to him, “Lo, we have left everything and followed you.” Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life. But many that are first will be last, and the last first.

Mark 13:13 and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake.

Luke 6:22, 26 Blessed are you when men hate you, and when they exclude you and revile you, and cast out your name as evil, on account of the Son of man! . . . Woe to you, when all men speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets.

Luke 9:3 And he said to them, “Take nothing for your journey, no staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money; and do not have two tunics.

Luke 9:23 And he said to all, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.

Luke 9:57-62 As they were going along the road, a man said to him, “I will follow you wherever you go.” And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head.” To another he said, “Follow me.” But he said, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.” But he said to him, “Leave the dead to bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.” Another said, “I will follow you, Lord; but let me first say farewell to those at my home.” Jesus said to him, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.” (cf. Mt 8:19-20)

Luke 10:16 “. . . he who rejects you rejects me, . . .”

Luke 14:26-27 “If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple.”

Luke 16:13 No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon

Luke 21:12, 17 But before all this they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors for my name’s sake. . . . you will be hated by all for my name’s sake.

John 12:25 He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.

John 15:18-20 If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, `A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also.

John 17:14 . . . the world has hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

1 Corinthians 4:9-15 For I think that God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, like men sentenced to death; because we have become a spectacle to the world, to angels and to men. We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are wise in Christ. We are weak, but you are strong. You are held in honor, but we in disrepute. To the present hour we hunger and thirst, we are ill-clad and buffeted and homeless, and we labor, working with our own hands. When reviled, we bless; when persecuted, we endure; when slandered, we try to conciliate; we have become, and are now, as the refuse of the world, the offscouring of all things. I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

1 Corinthians 9:12, 18-19 . . . we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ. . . . What then is my reward? Just this: that in my preaching I may make the gospel free of charge, not making full use of my right in the gospel. For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more.

2 Corinthians 4:7-17 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, to show that the transcendent power belongs to God and not to us. We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies. For while we live we are always being given up to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus may be manifested in our mortal flesh. So death is at work in us, but life in you. Since we have the same spirit of faith as he had who wrote, “I believed, and so I spoke,” we too believe, and so we speak, knowing that he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us with you into his presence. For it is all for your sake, so that as grace extends to more and more people it may increase thanksgiving, to the glory of God. So we do not lose heart. Though our outer nature is wasting away, our inner nature is being renewed every day. For this slight momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison,

2 Corinthians 6:4-5 but as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: through great endurance, in afflictions, hardships, calamities, beatings, imprisonments, tumults, labors, watching, hunger;

2 Corinthians 11:23-28 Are they servants of Christ? I am a better one — I am talking like a madman — with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death. Five times I have received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one.
Three times I have been beaten with rods; once I was stoned. Three times I have been shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brethren; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure upon me of my anxiety for all the churches.

Philippians 3:7-8 But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ

2 Timothy 3:12 Indeed all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted,

1 John 3:13 Do not wonder, brethren, that the world hates you.

Celibacy for the Sake of Undistracted Devotion to the Lord
*

Matthew 19:12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.

1 Corinthians 7:7-9, 17, 32-35, 38 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion. . . . Only, let every one lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him, and in which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches. . . . I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. . . . he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.

God’s Fellow Workers For the Kingdom
*

Mark 16:20 And they went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that attended it. Amen.

John 15:13-15 Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you.

1 Corinthians 3:9 For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.

1 Corinthians 9:22 . . . I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

2 Corinthians 4:15 For it [his many sufferings: 4:8-12, 17] is all for your sake, so that as grace extends to more and more people it may increase thanksgiving, to the glory of God.

2 Corinthians 6:1 Working together with him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain.

Ephesians 3:1-2 For this reason I, Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus on behalf of you Gentiles — assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace that was given to me for you,

1 Timothy 4:16 Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.

God’s Servants
*

Matthew 6:24 No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. (cf. Lk 16:13)

Mark 9:35 And he sat down and called the twelve; and he said to them, “If any one would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all.” (cf. 10:43; Mt 10:24, 20:26, 23:11; Lk 16:13)

Luke 22:26 But not so with you; rather let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves.

John 12:26 If any one serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there shall my servant be also; if any one serves me, the Father will honor him. (cf. Jn 13:16, 15:20)

1 Corinthians 3:5-8, 10 What then is Apol’los? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. I planted, Apol’los watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. He who plants and he who waters are equal, and each shall receive his wages according to his labor. . . . According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and another man is building upon it. Let each man take care how he builds upon it.

1 Corinthians 4:1 This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ . . .

2 Corinthians 4:5 For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake.

2 Corinthians 6:4 but as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way . . .

Galatians 1:10 Am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ.

Philippians 1:1 Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, . . .

Colossians 1:7 as you learned it from Ep’aphras our beloved fellow servant. He is a faithful minister of Christ on our behalf

Colossians 4:7 Tych’icus will tell you all about my affairs; he is a beloved brother and faithful minister and fellow servant in the Lord. (cf. 1 Thess 3:2)

Titus 1:1 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, . . .

James 1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, . . .

1 Peter 5:1-3, 5 So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed. Tend the flock of God that is your charge, not by constraint but willingly, not for shameful gain but eagerly, not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock. . . . Likewise you that are younger be subject to the elders. . . .

2 Peter 1:1 Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, . . .

Revelation 1:1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place; and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,

God’s Ministers Entitled to Pay
*

Luke 10:7 And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages; do not go from house to house.

1 Corinthians 9:3-12-14 This is my defense to those who would examine me. Do we not have the right to our food and drink? Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living? Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Who tends a flock without getting some of the milk? Do I say this on human authority? Does not the law say the same? For it is written in the law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? Does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of a share in the crop. If we have sown spiritual good among you, is it too much if we reap your material benefits? If others share this rightful claim upon you, do not we still more? . . . Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.

1 Timothy 5:17-18 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching; for the scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”

Priests as Dispensers of Sacraments

1 Corinthians 4:1-2 This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover it is required of stewards that they be found trustworthy. (cf. Mt 28:19; Acts 2:38, 41; James 5:14) [Latin sacramentum means “mystery”]

See also: Catechism of the Catholic Church: #897, 1113, 1119, 1210, 1461, 1536-45, 1554-1599

Related Reading:
*
*

*
Visible, Hierarchical, Apostolic Church [1996]

*

Debunking the Mythical Invisible Church [9-14-15]
*

Bishops in the Apostolic Church [1-16-01; rev. 5-7-03]
*

Clerical Celibacy: Dialogue with John Calvin [9-17-09]
*
Dialogues on Various Biblical Arguments for Apostolic Succession [1-5-17]

*

Biblical Evidence Regarding Calling Priests “Father” [2-24-16]

*****

***
*
Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 3,900+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***
2017-01-05T12:07:18-04:00

HeartofStone

Photo by “markus53” [Pixabay / CC0 public domain]

*****

(12-18-08; expanded on 1-4-17)

*****

This was a question on the Coming Home Network forum (where I was moderator from 2007-2010):

2 Thessalonians 2:11 says that those who refuse to accept the love of the truth will be sent strong delusion from God. To what extent do we understand this? It is hard to say that God would be responsible for leading someone to delusion, but is it only because a person has ultimately rejected God’s attempt to lead them to the truth? I guess my question is along the lines of if God can only do good, to what extent can He contribute to someone’s delusion or the effects of it.

This is a typically pungent Hebraism for God allowing something to happen in His Providence. It really all hinges on free will. Man can choose to follow God and His precepts and commands or not. When we do not, we become more and more hardened. This is a recurrent motif in the Bible: “hardening of hearts”. Sometimes it is said that the person hardened their heart; sometimes that God did it (the typically Hebraic and Catholic “both/and” outlook). The latter is in the sense that I have described above (from the information we receive by comparing Scripture with Scripture and harmonizing all of the Bible). Man is responsible for his own sin. Here is the biblical data (RSV):

God “Causing” it

Exodus 4:21 And the LORD said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles which I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go.

Exodus 7:3 But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, . . . (cf. 7:13-14, 22)

Exodus 9:12 But the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he did not listen to them; as the LORD had spoken to Moses.

Exodus 10:1 Then the LORD said to Moses, “Go in to Pharaoh; for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants, that I may show these signs of mine among them,

Exodus 10:20 But the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he did not let the children of Israel go.

Exodus 10:27 But the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he would not let them go.

Exodus 11:10 Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh; and the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he did not let the people of Israel go out of his land.

Exodus 14:4 And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, . . .

Exodus 14:8 And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh . . .

Exodus 14:17 And I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians . . .

Deuteronomy 2:30 But Sihon the king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him; for the LORD your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, . . .

Joshua 11:20 For it was the LORD’s doing to harden their hearts that they should come against Israel in battle, in order that they should be utterly destroyed, and should receive no mercy but be exterminated, as the LORD commanded Moses.

Isaiah 63:17 O LORD, why dost thou make us err from thy ways and harden our heart, so that we fear thee not?

Romans 9:18 So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills.

Man Causing it

Exodus 8:15 But when Pharaoh saw that there was a respite, he hardened his heart, . . . (cf. 8:19)

Exodus 8:32 But Pharaoh hardened his heart this time also, and did not let the people go.

Exodus 9:34 But when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunder had ceased, he sinned yet again, and hardened his heart, he and his servants. (cf. 9:7, 35)

Deuteronomy 15:7 you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother,

1 Samuel 6:6 Why should you harden your hearts as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts? . . .

2 Chronicles 36:13 He also rebelled against King Nebuchadnez’zar, who had made him swear by God; he stiffened his neck and hardened his heart against turning to the LORD, the God of Israel.

Job 9:4 who has hardened himself against him, and succeeded?

Psalm 95:8 Harden not your hearts, as at Mer’ibah, as on the day at Massah in the wilderness,

Proverbs 28:14 . . . he who hardens his heart will fall into calamity.

Hebrews 3:8 do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, on the day of testing in the wilderness,

Hebrews 3:15  while it is said, “Today, when you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.”

Hebrews 4:7 again he sets a certain day, “Today,” saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted, “Today, when you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.”

No Cause Directly Indicated

Daniel 5:20 But when his heart was lifted up and his spirit was hardened so that he dealt proudly, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and his glory was taken from him;

Mark 6:52 for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened.

Mark 8:17 And being aware of it, Jesus said to them, “Why do you discuss the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened?

(cf. Ex 7:13-14, 22; 8:19; 9:7, 35; Is 6:10 + Jn 12:40)

God allows such people their freedom to rebel, which in turn entails the devil getting in there and making things worse (just as God allowed the devil to tempt Job: Job 1:12). So in a sense to say that “God did so-and-so” when He simply allowed it to take place, is an assertion of God’s overall Providence. God is asserting that He is in control. There is also a strong sarcastic element in this sort of biblical concept (that we see in Job and often in the prophets), as if God were saying, “okay; you don’t want to follow Me and do what is best for you? You know better than I do about that? Very well, then, I’ll let you become blind and deluded. See how well off you’ll be then.”

Strictly speaking, that isn’t how God thinks or acts, but it was an anthropomorphism to help practical, concrete, non-philosophical Hebrew man be able to relate to the mysterious, transcendent God.

The bottom line is that men harden themselves in rebellion and God allows it. Hence we have in Scripture, many “if . . . then” conditional prophecies. If people rebel, God will withdraw His grace and protection from them, and so in a sense He did it. But it was always essentially man’s rebellion:

Joshua 24:20  If you forsake the LORD and serve foreign gods, then he will turn and do you harm, and consume you, after having done you good.”

1 Chronicles 28:9 “And you, Solomon my son, know the God of your father, and serve him with a whole heart and with a willing mind; for the LORD searches all hearts, and understands every plan and thought. If you seek him, he will be found by you; but if you forsake him, he will cast you off for ever.

2 Chronicles 7:17-20 And as for you, if you walk before me, as David your father walked, doing according to all that I have commanded you and keeping my statutes and my ordinances,[18] then I will establish your royal throne, as I covenanted with David your father, saying, `There shall not fail you a man to rule Israel.’ [19] “But if you turn aside and forsake my statutes and my commandments which I have set before you, and go and serve other gods and worship them, [20] then I will pluck you up from the land which I have given you; and this house, which I have consecrated for my name, I will cast out of my sight, and will make it a proverb and a byword among all peoples.

2 Chronicles 15:2 If you seek him, he will be found by you, but if you forsake him, he will forsake you.

[see many more examples]

*****

2016-12-23T14:06:55-04:00

Jesus39

Jesus: detail of the Ghent Altarpiece (1432), by Jan van Eyck (c. 1390-1441) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

*****

(11-13-07)

*****

The “short version” of orthodox Christology is to remember the following formulas (the fine points and details are best left to theologians, as long as they are undeniably orthodox and are teaching opinions in total accord with infallible Catholic dogma):

1) Holy Trinity: God exists eternally in Three Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: all eternal and equal in glory, honor, and essence.

2) God (i.e., Jesus, God the Son, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity) became Man (the incarnation) at a certain identifiable point in space-time history.

3) Jesus is a Divine Person.

4) It is improper to refer to Jesus as a “human person” or to claim that He contains within Himself more than one person (human and divine) or to deny that Mary is Theotokos (Mother of God or, literally, “God-bearer”). That is the heresy of Nestorianism. When we refer to “human” with regard to Jesus, it is with regard to His human nature, that He assumed at the incarnation, not His Person (which is Divine and eternal).

5) Jesus has two natures (the Hypostasis or Hypostatic Union): divine and human (the denial of his human nature is the heresy of Monophysitism; some Monophysites, however, believed in a single divine-human nature in Christ).

6) Jesus has two wills: divine and human (the assertion of a single divine-human will is the heresy of Monotheletism).

7) The orthodox Catholic notion of communicatio idiomatum holds that:

The human and the divine activities predicated of Christ in Holy Writ and in the Fathers may not be divided between persons or hypostases, the Man-Christ and the God-Logos, but must be attributed to the one Christ, the Logos become Flesh . . . It is the Divine Logos, who suffered in the flesh, was crucified, and rose again . . .

(Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 144)

Christ’s Divine and Human characteristics and activities are to be predicated of the one Word Incarnate. (De fide.)

As Christ’s Divine Person subsists in two natures, and may be referred to either of those two natures, so human things can be asserted of the son of God and Divine things of the Son of Man.

The old Lutheran Doctrinal Theology theology inclines to the monophysitic error which posits a real transference of Divine attributes such as omniscience, omnipotence, ubiquity, by reason of the Hypostatic Union, to the human nature of Christ, and teaches that “Christ, not only as God, but also as man knows all, can do all, and is present to all created things” (formula concordiae I 8, 11).

(Ott, p. 160)

The nature of the Hypostatic Union is such that while on the one hand things pertaining to both the Divine and Human nature can be attributed to the person of Christ, on the other hand things specifically belonging to one nature cannot be predicated of the other nature. Since concrete terms (God, Son of God, Son of Man, Christ the Almighty) designate the Hypostasis and abstract terms (Godhead, humanity, omnipotence) the nature, the following rule may be laid down: communicatio idioamatum fit in concreto, non in abstracto. The communication of idioms is valid for concrete terms not for abstract ones. So, for example: The Son of Man died on the Cross; Jesus created the world. The rule is not valid if . . . the concrete term is limited to one nature. Thus it is false to say “Christ has suffered as God.” “Christ created the world as a human being.” It must also be observed that the essential parts of the human nature, body and soul are referred to the nature, whose parts they are. Thus it is false to say: “Christ’s soul is omniscient,” “Christ’s body is ubiquitous.”

Further, predication of idioms is valid in positive statements not in negative ones, as nothing may be denied to Christ which belongs to Him according to either nature. One, therefore, may not say: “The Son of God has not suffered,” “Jesus is not almighty.”

(Ott, p. 161; italics added)

To assert the contrary is the heresy of Nestorianism. The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes the Hypostatic Union as follows:

468 After the Council of Chalcedon, some made of Christ’s human nature a kind of personal subject. Against them, the fifth ecumenical council, at Constantinople in 553, confessed that “there is but one hypostasis [or person], which is our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Trinity.” Thus everything in Christ’s human nature is to be attributed to his divine person as its proper subject, not only his miracles but also his sufferings and even his death: “He who was crucified in the flesh, our Lord Jesus Christ, is true God, Lord of glory, and one of the Holy Trinity.”

470 Because “human nature was assumed, not absorbed”, in the mysterious union of the Incarnation, the Church was led over the course of centuries to confess the full reality of Christ’s human soul, with its operations of intellect and will, and of his human body. In parallel fashion, she had to recall on each occasion that Christ’s human nature belongs, as his own, to the divine person of the Son of God, who assumed it. Everything that Christ is and does in this nature derives from “one of the Trinity”. The Son of God therefore communicates to his humanity his own personal mode of existence in the Trinity.

(see Catechism, #456-483; available online; see also the Twelve Anathemas of St. Cyril Against Nestorius, from the Acts of the Council of Ephesus: 431 A.D.)

8) Another important and dogmatically accepted aspect of trinitarianism and Christology is what is known as the perichoresis (Greek) or circumincession (Latin). Fr. John A. Hardon. S.J., in his Modern Catholic Dictionary (Doubleday, 1980, 415-416) precisely defines it:

The penetration and indwelling of the three persons reciprocally in one another. In the Greek conception of the Trinity there is an emphasis on the mutual penetration of the three persons, thus bringing out the unity of the divine essence. In the Latin idea . . . the stress is more on the internal processions of the three divine persons. In both traditions, however, the fundamental basis of the Trinitarian perichoresis is the one essence of the three persons in God.

For more on perichoresis, see my papers: Prayer to Jesus in the New Testament and Circumincession: 50 Cent Trinitarian Word.

Perichoresis is also specifically applied to the two natures of Christ. Biblical indications of this doctrine can be found in the following passages (RSV):

John 10:30: I and the Father are one.

John 10:38: . . . believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.

John 14:9-11: Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, `Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me . . .

See also the various biblical ways of describing the indwelling of Christian believers, proving that all three persons of the Holy Trinity are involved (not just the Holy Spirit):

[the following verses are KJV]

I) Jesus and the Father Indwell Christian Believers

JOHN 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

II) Jesus Indwells Christian Believers

JOHN 14:18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. {cf. Jn 14:16-17}

JOHN 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I {am} in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

JOHN 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.

JOHN 17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; . . .

III) God the Holy Spirit Indwells Christian Believers

1 CORINTHIANS 3:16-17 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and {that} the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? (17) If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which {temple} ye are.

JOHN 14:16-17 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; (17) {Even} the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. {cf. Jn 14:18 below}

ROMANS 8:9,11 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his . . . (11) But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. {cf. Rom 8:10 below}

1 CORINTHIANS 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

1 CORINTHIANS 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost {which is} in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? {cf. to 1 Cor 3:16}

GALATIANS 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

IV) “God” (Divine Person Not Specified) Indwells Christian Believers
(Arguably God the Father)

2 CORINTHIANS 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in {them}; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. {cf. Ex 29:45, Jer 31:33, Ezek 37:27}

V) God the Father and God the Holy Spirit Indwell Christian Believers

1 JOHN 3:24 . . . And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

1 JOHN 4:12-16 . . . If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. (13) Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. (14) And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son {to be} the Saviour of the world. (15) Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. (16) And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. {cf. Neh 9:20, Jn 14:26, 15:26, 16:7-8,13-15, Rom 8:14, 2 Cor 13:14}

VI) God the Holy Spirit, and God the Son, Jesus, Indwell Christian Believers

ROMANS 8:10 And if Christ {be} in you, the body {is} dead because of sin; but the Spirit {is} life because of righteousness. {cf. Rom 8:9}

VII) God the Father Indwells Christian Believers

1 JOHN 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him . . .

We don’t have nearly as much of a problem today with the three heresies mentioned above (though a lot of Protestantism-in-practice and liberal Catholic and Protestant theology has strong Nestorian tendencies, and some have argued that Calvin’s Christology was literally Nestorian), but they were huge problems in the first seven centuries of the Church, especially in the East.

Today we have the luxury of orthodox councils and popes having carefully defined and explained all these doctrines. But unfortunately many Catholics (not to mention non-Catholic Christians) are insufficiently acquainted with orthodox Christology and so (often inadvertently) fall into various errors.

We all do need to do some study, at least enough to grasp the basic distinctions above, concerning persons, natures, wills, essences, etc., so we don’t fall into heresies. This stuff may seem very abstract and not-so-important to us, yet all error can lead one far astray, and (false) ideas have consequences. Christology is at the center of Christianity, so we should all spend some time learning it.

Folks certainly learn many other complicated things (quantum physics, trigonometry, income taxes, engineering, auto mechanics, computer programming, advanced medicine, how to operate a DVD player, etc.). These things can only be simplified so much, because they are quite complex and nuanced by nature (no pun intended!).

* * * * *

Additional, More Technical Distinctions and Clarifications

Jesus was neither a man nor a human being before the Incarnation. “God became man.” Jesus is a Divine Person with a human nature and a divine nature. To say that Jesus is a “human person” is the Christological heresy of Nestorianism (see, e.g., Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pp. 143-146).

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote about the “person” / “nature” distinction:

Augustine [Fulgentius] says (De Fide ad Petrum ii) that “God assumed the nature, not the person, of man.”

I answer that, A thing is said to be assumed inasmuch as it is taken into another. Hence, what is assumed must be presupposed to the assumption, as what is moved locally is presupposed to the motion. Now a person in human nature is not presupposed to assumption; rather, it is the term of the assumption, as was said (3, 1,2). For if it were presupposed, it must either have been corrupted–in which case it was useless; or it remains after the union–and thus there would be two persons, one assuming and the other assumed, which is false, as was shown above (2, 6). Hence it follows that the Son of God nowise assumed a human person.

Reply to Objection 1.
The Son of God assumed human nature “in atomo,” i.e. in an individual, which is no other than the uncreated suppositum, the Person of the Son of God. Hence it does not follow that a person was assumed.

(Summa Theologica, III, 4, 2)

Theologian Ludwig Ott, in the same section in his book on the Hypostatic Union (pp. 150-151) writes:

Christ’s death dissolved the connection between body and soul — Christ was therefore during the three days not “man” that is, a compositum of body and soul ([St. Thomas Aquinas], Summa Theologica, III, 50, 4) — but His death did not dissolve the attachment of Godhead and humanity, or of their parts. Even after their separation the body and soul separately remained hypostatically united with the divine Logos.

St. Thomas wrote in the noted section:

When the higher [species] is removed, so is the lower. But the living or animated being is a higher species than animal and man, because an animal is a sensible animated substance. Now during those three days of death Christ’s body was not living or animated. Therefore He was not a man.

I answer that, It is an article of faith that Christ was truly dead: hence it is an error against faith to assert anything whereby the truth of Christ’s death is destroyed. Accordingly it is said in the Synodal epistle of Cyril [Act. Conc. Ephes. P. I, cap. xxvi]: “If any man does not acknowledge that the Word of God suffered in the flesh, and was crucified in the flesh and tasted death in the flesh, let him be anathema.” Now it belongs to the truth of the death of man or animal that by death the subject ceases to be man or animal; because the death of the man or animal results from the separation of the soul, which is the formal complement of the man or animal. Consequently, to say that Christ was a man during the three days of His death simply and without qualification, is erroneous. Yet it can be said that He was “a dead man” during those three days.

However, some writers have contended that Christ was a man during those three days, uttering words which are indeed erroneous, yet without intent of error in faith: as Hugh of Saint Victor, who (De Sacram. ii) contended that Christ, during the three days that followed His death, was a man, because he held that the soul is a man: but this is false, as was shown in I, 75, 4]. Likewise the Master of the Sentences (iii, D, 22) held Christ to be a man during the three days of His death for quite another reason. For he believed the union of soul and flesh not to be essential to a man, and that for anything to be a man it suffices if it have a soul and body, whether united or separated: and that this is likewise false is clear both from what has been said in I, 75, 4, and from what has been said above regarding the mode of union (2] , 5).

I know it’s very “heavy” (my head’s spinning, too, believe me) but Christology and Trinitarianism always will be. These are deep waters indeed, and barely comprehensible to us.

As for the additional question of theophanies (in relation to the incarnation), Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., defines this phenomenon in his Modern Catholic Dictionary (p. 538):

A direct communication or appearance by God to human beings . . . These theophanies were temporary manifestations. They were not like the Incarnation, which, though it began in time, will continue for all eternity.

A Protestant site (I don’t want to reference it because there may be some Christological errors in it, on various sub-pages), writes (in agreement with Catholic doctrine):

A theophany is a manifestation of God in the Bible that is tangible to the human senses. In its most restrictive sense, it is a visible appearance of God in the Old Testament period often, but not always, in human form. . . . every theophany wherein God takes on human form foreshadows the incarnation . . .

Related Reading:

Jesus is God: Biblical Proofs [1982; slightly revised in 1997]

The Holy Trinity: Biblical Proofs [1982]

Deity of Jesus: Called Lord/Kurios & God/Theos [10-24-11]

*****

2016-12-06T15:15:57-04:00

+ Lutheran Confessional Agreement

MaryAnnunciation10

The Annunciation (1850), by Dante Gabriel Rossetti (1828-1882) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

(11-1-08)

***

From discussion on the Coming Home Network forum. The woman whose words are in blue is married to a Lutheran, who has a hard time accepting many Catholic beliefs.

* * * * *

Dave Armstrong, I just read your article about this, the one in which you gave an apologetic argument to some Protestants on this topic. You mentioned in there that this dogma is not “necessary” but is “fitting.”

I wanted to make it clear (lest there was any misunderstanding of this) that I don’t mean “unnecessary” in terms of “non-dogmatic.” It is required belief for Catholics. Rather, I meant “unnecessary” in terms of a scenario where God could have done otherwise (even the Incarnation, I believe, falls into this category). Other things in theology are necessary, such as, e.g., that God could never have sinned, or could never not exist, etc.

Certainly he [her husband] must know, at least, that Martin Luther himself firmly accepted the perpetual virginity of Mary, so it can’t be that far off, or considered as merely a “Catholic” thing. Many other Protestants have believed it up to our present day (and probably most of them until religious liberalism in the late 18th and early 19th centuries).

I’m curious why the physical integrity of the Blessed Mother during the birth of our Lord is important. I understand that in times past, virginity was equated with being physically intact in a certain way. But this sign of virginity isn’t always present or could become “not intact” in ways other than sexual activity (as I understand it, anyway). Is it because our Immaculately Conceived Mother would not have suffered the effects of the Fall as connected to Eve?

I think that would probably be the reasoning, yes.

If yes, what about those scholars of Sacred Scripture who understand the first chapters of Genesis as containing truth but not utter historical fact? I’m guessing that the consequences of the Fall as described count as truth?

The fall (including its consequences) was a real thing: that is not in dispute in Catholic dogmatic theology, and the NT data makes that abundantly clear. Indeed, with no fall, none of us would even need a Savior, and the crucifixion would become null and void. The gospel message would be a big non sequitur. How it came about may be presented in parabolic form (eating an apple, etc.)

If so, should our Lord not have worked (assuming he labored as a carpenter)? Or am I misunderstanding or focusing on the wrong ideas?

The main purpose of these doctrines (beyond the fact that they are simply true and factual) is to uphold the absolute uniqueness of Jesus Christ, by reiterating that His birth was unique, and His mother very special. That was the reason that she was proclaimed “Mother of God” (Theotokos), That wasn’t about her, it was about Him. Perpetual virginity is the same: so that people wouldn’t question the Virgin Birth. After all, if Mary had other children, then skeptics would question whether her firstborn was a miraculous birth.

Please forgive me if this has already been answered somewhere. I choose to give my assent to this dogma, but I’d love to clean up the mental compartment in which the information is stored. As far as Scripture understanding goes, I’ve gone from being taught “every word in the Bible is literally (literalistically speaking) true” to hearing that some stories in the Bible are cultural expressions without factual truth but, as inspired Scripture, bearing God’s truths.

As I understand it, a supernatural birth, in the sense that the very birth involved no pain or physiological process, etc. (without getting more explicit!) is not dogma, but the dogma is perpetual virginity before, during, and after childbirth.

Since there is no reason Jesus COULDN’T have come to us through a woman who later had other children/lost her virginity, and if there ISN’T solid concrete evidence to show that Mary really truly was ever-virgin (other than her words, “I know not man,” which isn’t a whole lot to go on), then why must the RCC insist upon it as binding on all the faithful?

There is a lot more evidence than that, as I documented in four lengthy papers, cited below. I think you should read those or something along the same lines, before concluding that there is no “solid concrete evidence.” There is quite a bit in Scripture and the early Church historical record. There is also the fact that the Fathers pretty much unanimously taught the doctrine. The earliest Protestants accepted it (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, English “reformers”). Many solid Protestant scholars up to the present era accepted it. People like John Wesley did . . . Why was it such a strong tradition if there was nothing substantial behind it? This is something to ponder, as a curiosity (if one has any doubts about it).

God is able to communicate to His Church truths, even if they may not be absolutely explicit in Scripture, to a degree that many Protestants unbiblically demand (since Scripture itself never states that all doctrines must explicitly be contained in its pages, and that very notion is a tradition of man). Sola Scriptura isn’t in Scripture at all, but that doesn’t stop Protestants from adopting it as their formal principle of authority, does it? The canon of Scripture ain’t in Scripture.

It is Protestantism that has the severe internal difficulties, not Catholicism. Protestants arbitrarily (in the final analysis) pick and choose what they want to believe, despite how weakly these tenets are supported. They object to some of the Marian doctrines, on the grounds that they aren’t “biblical” at all, yet they turn around and accept something as utterly unbiblical as sola Scriptura. That’s an epistemological double standard. Bottom line: they don’t like certain doctrines simply because they are “Catholic.”

The Church makes things dogmatic because she is concerned about Catholics having certainty and not uncertainty. When things are believed by the vast majority of Christians throughout the centuries (including, in this instance, by Orthodox and Protestants), then they are proclaimed (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) to be dogmas. Protestants do the same, but not to the extent that Catholics do. So the discussion is over a matter of degree.

That is the thing that drives my husband up the wall.

Obviously it would, because he thinks on the basis of Protestant presuppositions and principles, but these are logically circular and unbiblical. The Bible never teaches that all doctrines have to be explicitly taught in it. He’s a Lutheran. The founder of Lutheranism (Luther himself) believed in the Immaculate Conception, which is certainly not an explicitly biblical doctrine (but it is not contradictory to what is in Scripture at all).

He has no problem with the fact that Mary may very well HAVE BEEN ever-virgin. It just makes him nuts that the Church declares it to be true and insists everyone must accept it or be declared a heretic.

Well, I have news for him: his own tradition of Lutheranism does the same thing. The Lutheran Confessions are binding on Lutherans, and constitute their dogma (of course, Lutheran liberals thumb their nose at that, but that is another issue; this is what historical Lutheranism is). Here is what the Formula of Concord (1577) states:

On account of this personal union and communion of the natures, Mary, the most blessed Virgin, bore not a mere man, but, as the angel [Gabriel] testifies, such a man as is truly the Son of the most high God, who showed His divine majesty even in His mother’s womb, inasmuch as He was born of a virgin, with her virginity inviolate. Therefore she is truly the mother of God, and nevertheless remained a virgin.

(Solid Declaration, Article VIII: The Person of Christ, section 24)

I think it’s a beautiful teaching, and I do believe it. But I can see my husband’s point of view, as well.

He’s not even consistent with his own tradition. I think he needs to ask himself why that is. If he wants to rail against required dogma on this score, then he has to include Lutherans in it, as well as Catholics. Then he is against himself. And that is pretty silly, isn’t it?

The Augsburg Confession of 1530, written by Luther’s best friend and successor, Philip Melanchthon, refers to “the blessed virgin Mary” (Article III: The Son of God).

As I said before, he does not care whether Martin Luther believed it of Mary or not. It’s a matter of insisting people accept something as true that may or may not actually be true.

Okay; he doesn’t care about what Luther thought, and indeed that is perfectly acceptable, in the structure of Lutheran authority. But he is bound to what the official Lutheran confessions declare, if he claims to be an orthodox Lutheran.

I’m just wondering if there IS anything we know that shows it to be true.

I think there is quite a bit.

Or is it just one of those things a person has to struggle with and hopefully come to believe by faith?

I think it is a highly reasonable, plausible doctrine, when all the relevant factors are considered, which is why it has been the overwhelming consensus of all Christians throughout history. Now lots of Protestants and theological liberals of all stripes deny it, just like they deny many other traditional Christian doctrines. Don’t be taken in by them! Go with the Bible, the early Church, and unbroken Catholic tradition, Orthodox tradition, early Protestant tradition, and that of most Protestants till the last few hundred years.

The extra ironic twist in this (for the Lutheran husband referred to above) is that the Lutheran confessions also dogmatically affirm the perpetual virginity of Mary, as I have documented. It’s not just Catholic authority, then, that poses a problem for him in this regard: but the overwhelming consensus and authority of all Christian groups until the last few hundred years, when the Protestants caved on it.

In effect, then, he is choosing between theological liberalism, and orthodox Christian historical, received tradition. It’s a larger question than simply Catholic vs. Protestant or Catholic vs. Lutheran. It’s Catholic + Orthodox + historic Lutheranism + most other forms of historic Protestantism vs. Post-“Enlightenment” theological liberalism (that has infiltrated all these groups “on the ground”).

Related Reading:

*
 *
 *
Jesus’ “Brothers” Always “Hangin’ Around” Mary … (Doesn’t This Prove That They Are Actually His Siblings?) [8-31-09]
 *
 *
 *
 *
*
The Virginitas in Partu Revisited (Msgr.  Arthur Calkins)
*
Follow Us!



Browse Our Archives