Pentecost's "Tongues of Fire" and the Heavenly Temple

Tomorrow is Pentecost. Of course, we all know the story from the book of Acts which relates how the Spirit came and descended upon the apostles in the form of those “tongues of fire”. But I’ve always wondered―why tongues of fire?

Of course, one thing Pentecost does is reverse the scattering that took place at Babel where languages--or "tongues"--were confused. But recently I discovered another possible background. Let me explain.

In Jesus’ day “messianic” hopes went hand-in-hand with the idea of a restoration of the tribes of Israel scattered to the nations. This is evident from numerous texts and has been observed by a plethora of scholars. In fact, the idea that God would one day restore Israel from exile is even found on the lips of Moses at the end of Deuteronomy. After first warning Israel that falling away from the covenant would mean judgment and exile, he goes on to say:

“And when all these things come upon you, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before you, and you call them to mind among all the nations where the Lord your God has driven you, 2 and return to the Lord your God, you and your children, and obey his voice in all that I command you this day, with all your heart and with all your soul; 3 then the Lord your God will restore your fortunes, and have compassion upon you, and he will gather you again from all the peoples where the Lord your God has scattered you (Deut 30:1-3).

E. P. Sanders has even gone so far as to say: “In general terms it may be said that ‘Jewish eschatology’ and ‘the restoration of Israel’ are almost synonymous” (Jesus and Judaism, 97). In addition, this eschatological ingathering would include not only the Israelites but the Gentiles as well.[1]

So there would be an ingathering of Israel from the nations. But where would they be gathered to? The answer was also clear to ancient Jews: the Temple. This is also evident in many texts. See for example Isaiah 2, which offers a programmatic vision for the restoration:

“It shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be raised above the hills; and all the nations shall flow to it, 3 and many peoples shall come, and say: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths” (Isa 2:2-3).

Much more could be said (believe me, my dissertation covers a lot of this ground!). In fact, the book of Acts, and especially the account of Pentecost is loaded with texts relating the fulfillment of these restoration expectations. I’ve already discussed that here.

In fact, Jesus himself is described in the New Testament as the New Temple (e.g., John 2:19-21; cf. Mark 15:38). The ingathering thus takes place as we come to Jesus.

So how do the tongues of fire fit in here?

Well, one of the most prominent passages relating a vision of tongues of fire is found in 1 Enoch 14. There Enoch is led into the heavenly temple. Here is how it is described:

“…and in the vision, the winders were causing me to fly and rushing me high up into heaven. And I kept coming (into heaven) until I approached a wall which was built of white marble and surrounded by tongues of fire; and it began to frighten me. And I came into the tongues of fire and drew near to a great house which was built of white marble, and the inner wall(s) were like mosaics…And I entered into the house… And behold there was an opening before me (and) a second house which is greater than the former and everything was built with tongues of fire. And in every respect it excelled the other)―in glory and great honor―to the extent that it is impossible for me to recount to you concerning its glory and greatness… And I observed and saw inside a lofty throne―its appearance was like crystal and its wheels like the shining sun; and I heard the voice of the cheribum; and from beneath the throne were issuing streams of flaming fire. It was difficult to look at it. And the Great Glory was sitting upon it…” (1 Enoch 14:8ff).

The heavenly house is almost certainly meant to be understood as the heavenly temple. Language such as “I drew near” and the image of God’s throne were closely associated with Israel’s worship of God in the Temple (cf. Ps 11:4).

The key here is that the heavenly temple is characterized with tongues of fire.

Much more could be said about 1 Enoch, but for the simplicity of this post let’s move back to Acts 2. That the Church is the temple of God is attested elsewhere in the New Testament. Paul explicitly calls the Church the temple in 1 Corinthians 3:16: “Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?” The idea is also found in Ephesians 2:21, which describes the Church united to Christ growing into a “holy temple”. In fact, for a great treatment of dozens of other passages relating the Temple to the Church see G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God (New Studies in Biblical Theology 17; Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004).

Given the prominence of the tongues of fire in the vision of the heavenly Temple in 1 Enoch―a book well-known to the early Jewish believers and even cited in the book of Jude―it seems to me that the tongues of fire in Acts may be read in terms of New Temple imagery. It would seem hard to believe the early readers of Luke would not have made the connection. Thus, Acts 2 describes how the ingathering to the heavenly Temple would be realized through the Church’s ministry. By uniting oneself to the Church one was gaining access to the heavenly temple. The Church therefore is not merely an earthly phenemona―it is heavenly.

Important support for such a reading may be found in Revelation 1-3 where one encounters a vision of Jesus in the heavenly temple, surrounded by seven lampstands, each with seven “torches” burning. We are told that “the seven lampstands are the seven churches” (Rev. 1:20). Many have also seen the seven torches as in image of the Spirit [cf. Zech 4:10; Beale, The Book of Revelation (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 189]. Warning the churches not to fall away, Christ warns those who will not hear him that he will “remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent (Rev 2:5). The idea seems to be clear. Somehow the churches have a presence—a lampstand—in the heavenly temple. If they do not repent, they will be removed.

The heavenly dimension of the Church’s existence is even more clear in Hebrews 12.

“But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, 23 and to the assembly of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to a judge who is God of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks more graciously than the blood of Abel” (Heb 12:22-24).

Note the language―not you will come to "innumerable angels...the assembly...spirits of just men made perfect...and to Jesus", but you have come. By the way, the word for "assembly" in Greek here is ekklēsia--"Church". The author says, "you have come to the Church" of those enrolled in heaven.

The tongues of fire in Acts 2 therefore seem to evoke 1 Enoch and teach us that the ingathering is taking place at the heavenly temple through the Church’s ministry.

NOTES
[1] Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 289-98; Wright, New Testament and the People of God, 299-338; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 393-96. Especially of note is the recent treatment by Michael F. Bird, Jesus and the Origins of the Gentile Mission (Library of Historical Jesus Studies 331; New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 26-29, which offers an extensive examination of the presence of such hopes in ancient Judaism. Bird cites a number of texts where the restoration of Israel is linked with the idea of the salvation of the Gentiles either en masse (cf. Isa 11:6-10; 42:1-12; 49:6; 66:23; Zeph 2:11; Zech 2:15; Tob 14: 6-7; T. Jud 24:6; 25:5; T. Sim 7:2; T. Dan. 5:11; T. Ash. 7:3; T. Zeb. 9:8; T. Benj. 10:5; 2 Bar 68:5; Sib. Or. 5:493-500) or as merely a remnant (cf. Jub. 2:28; T. Naph. 8:2-3; Amidah 13; 4 Ezra 3:36; 2 Bar 42:5; 72:2-6; also cf. t. Sanh. 13:2; T. Naph. 8:3-4), acknowledging and praising the God of Israel (cf. Dan 3:28-29; 4:1-37; 6:26-28; Pss. 66:1-12; 22:27-28; 46:10; 96:7-10; 117:1-2; Ezek 39:7; 2 Macc 2:28; T. Jud 25:5; Bel. 41-42; Ep. Arist 177, 187-294; Jos. And As. 15:7-8) and accepting the Law of God (cf. Philo, Vit. Mos 2:36, 43-44; Sib Or 5:264-66; 2 En. 33:9; 48:6-9). A number of texts attest to the idea of Israel’s conquering of the Gentiles (cf. Num 24:7, 17 LXX; Pss 2:8-11; 10:15-16; 22:28; 46:6-11; 47:1-9; 48:1-8; Isa 49:23; 54:3; Dan 2:44; 7:14, 27; Obad 21; Zech 14:9; Amos 9:11-12; Zeph 2:1-3; 3:14-20; Mic 5:9; 7:16-17; 1 Macc 4:11; Bar 4:25, 31-35; 4 Ezra 6:26; Jub 26:23; Sib Or 3:49; T. Jud. 24:6; T. Zeb 9:8; 1 En. 48:7-10; T. Mos 10:1-7; Pss. Sol. 17:1-34; Philo, Praem. Poen. 79, 93-97; Vit. Mos. 1.290; Tg. Isa. 30:18-33; 1 QM 1:4-5; 6.5-6; 12:10-16; 19:3-8; Josephus, B. J. 6.312). However, Bird importantly also observes that in many texts the expectation of the destruction of the Gentile nations appears alongside hope for their (partial) salvation (cf. e.g., Isa 66:15-21; 2 Bar 72:2-6; t. Sanh. 13:2; Pss. Sol. 17:22-25, 30-31). Thus, Bird rightly concludes, “views of defeat and admission of the Gentiles were not necessarily mutually exclusive."

The Good Samaritans of the Old Testament

We all know that the Jews and Samaritans in Jesus' day harbored serious animosity towards each other. And so the story of the Good Samaritan is often rightly understood as teaching the importance of showing charity to all, regardless of ethnicity, religion, etc.

But--like just about everything else in the Gospels--there's likely an Old Testament episode lying in the background.

We all know the story of the Good Samaritan, but here I want to talk about some specific aspects of the story, so let's just review. Jesus begins, of course, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead" (Luke 10:30). 

After a Levite and a priest come along, passing by on the opposite side, a Samaritan comes along.

Luke 10:25-37: "But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was; and when he saw him, he had compassion, 34 and went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; then he set him on his own beast and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’"

Jesus then asks, "Which of these three, do you think, proved neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?" (Luke 10:36). When the answer comes, “The one who showed mercy on him,” Jesus responds, “Go and do likewise” (Luke 10:37-38).

Okay--we all know that the point Jesus is making a point about the need to put nationalist tendencies aside. But is it possible that Jesus is drawing the imagery here from on an Old Testament episode?

2 Chronicles 28 relates a story about a battle between the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah. The northern kingdom overpowers those from the south and take captive the people from Judah, including two hundred thousand women and children. However, after the prophet warns the northern tribes that they have sinned in taking captive those from Judea, certain chief men from the northern tribes take pity on the prisoneers (2 Chron. 28:8-11). They stand up to those coming back from the battle, condemning their actions. What happens sounds very familiar.

2 Chron. 28:15: And the men who have been mentioned by name rose and took the captives, and with the spoil they clothed all that were naked among them; they clothed them, gave them sandals, provided them with food and drink, and anointed them; and carrying all the feeble among them on asses, they brought them to their kinsfolk at Jericho, the city of palm trees. Then they returned to Samaria.

It seems likely that the story of the Good Samaritan is drawing on this episode. There we read about northern Israelites showing compassion on those from Judah. They attend to their needs, place them on their animals, and take them to a place where they can be left to be cared for. In other words, they do what the Good Samaritan does in the story in Luke's Gospel.

Once again, it would seem, Jesus' teaching seems to flow from Israel's story. In fact, the story would seem to fit into Jesus' larger program in Luke's Gospel--the restoration of the Davidic Kingdom and specifically, his concern for Judah and Israel. Interestingly, this account from 2 Chronicles is followed by Hezekiah's famous Passover. For more on the Davidic imagery in Luke's Gospel read this.

TIME Magazine: "'Liberal' Catholicism Dead"

"Are you a liberal or a conservative Catholic?"

I absolutely hate that question. What it tries to do is politicize the Church. And when people ask me that question I tell them exactly that and then say, "I'm just Catholic." I believe what the Catholic Church teaches.

Of course, that's not good enough for some people, who then conclude: "Oh, so you're a conservative."

Well, let me tell you, I like the Mass said in English--I love it that Vatican II did that. I also love that the Council expanded reformed the Liturgy of the Word and lectionary cycle--it's way better than what we had before (far less Scripture was read!). Indeed, I could go on and on about things I love about Vatican II.

Even more, I have nothing bad to say about Vatican II!

Here's the way it is: I'm not Catholic simply because I was born Catholic. While I was raised a Catholic, I continue to be Catholic because I choose to be. At the same time, I am not Catholic because I suppose that I am the best arbiter of truth and because, in my great wisdom, I have decided that the Catholic Church comes closest to what I think is right. I don't that's the kind of system Christ established. I think he left his teaching authority with the apostles, especially Peter, and I think we have to submit ourselves to that authority, which they expected would belong to their successors. This was clearly what Paul, and early figures like Clement and Ignatius thought!

I want to agree with the Church, not convince the Church that it needs to agree with me.

Nonetheless, I still get asked: "Are you a liberal or conservative Catholic?" And I just keep responding: "I'm just Catholic."

Of course, there are Catholics who identify themselves as conservative or liberal. Some will say that "Catholic" isn't good enough for them. They've decided the Church doesn't fit well with their own theology. They want something different: "let's repeal Vatican II, it did too much" ("conservatives") or "let's have a Vatican III, it didn't change enough".

While most of those who really believe Vatican II was evil have simply stepped out of the Church and into sects like the Society of Pius X, those who think the Church needs to change its teachings on things like abortion have not. A clear example of such a person is Rudy Guiliani, who has actively protested the Church's teaching on abortion while insisting that he's still a Catholic.

In fact, those my age vividly recall those from older generations--especially those who grew up in the sixties--teaching us things slogans like, "We are Church," a phrase understood as a rallying cry against the teachings of Church. I specifically recall having a Confirmation teacher who liked to take issue with this or that belief, explaining that, for example, things like "hell" were not really something we needed to accept as Catholics. "Hmmm," I remember thinking, "If he doesn't believe what Catholics believe, why would he still want to be Catholic? Why not join a church he thinks is correct."

Of course, such Catholics as my confirmation teacher would quickly identify themselves as "progressive" or "liberal" Catholics. Well, all I have to say is that not too many people from my generation have got "hip" to their ideas. We recognize that many of them have devoted their lives to serving the Church--many of them were our religious education teachers--and we love them. But those such movements are clearly fading. I know it. Others my age know it. It's just a fact.

In fact, this is just a demographic fact. Let's face it, those who want to change the Church's teaching on birth control and abortion are just not reproducing themselves as fast as those who accept it. And, frankly, looking at the "progress" they've made in the last forty years doesn't really inspire hope in younger people that the "cause" to change the Church in such ways is really going to take off.

Now, all I've been saying is kind of "insider" analysis. What blew me away was to see TIME Magazine do a story on this. Check it out:

He may not have been thinking about it at the time, but Pope Benedict, in the course of his recent U.S. visit may have dealt a knockout blow to the liberal American Catholicism that has challenged Rome since the early 1960s....

The liberal rebellion in American Catholicism has dogged Benedict and his predecessors since the Second Vatican Council of 1962-65. "Vatican II," which overhauled much of Catholic teaching and ritual, had a revolutionary impact on the Church as a whole. It enabled people to hear the Mass in their own languages; embraced the principle of religious freedom; rejected anti-semitism; and permitted Catholic scholars to grapple with modernity.

But Vatican II meant even more to a generation of devout but restless young people in the U.S. rather than a course correction, Terrence Tilley, now head of the Fordham University's theology department, wrote recently, his generation perceived "an interruption of history, a divine typhoon that left only the keel and structure of the church unchanged." They discerned in the Council a call to greater church democracy, and an assertion of individual conscience that could stand up to the authority of even the Pope. So, they battled the Vatican's birth-control ban, its rejection of female priests and insistence on celibacy, and its authoritarianism.

Rome pushed back, and the ensuing struggle defined a movement, whose icons included peace activist Fr. Daniel Berrigan, feminist Sister Joan Chittister, and sociologist/author Fr. Andrew Greeley. Its perspectives were covered in The National Catholic Reporter, Commonweal and America. Martin Sheen held down Hollywood, and the movement even boasted its own cheesy singing act: the St. Louis Jesuits. The reformers' premier membership organization was Call to Action, but their influence was felt at the highest reaches of the American Church, as sympathetic American bishops passed left-leaning statements on nuclear weapons and economic justice. Remarks Tilley, "For a couple of generations, progressivism was an [important] way to be Catholic."

Then he adds, "But I think the end of an era is here."

After citing some people who, in essence, disagree with this analysis. The article goes on to basically say what I have above:

But the familiar progressives-versus-Vatican paradigm seems almost certain to be undone by a looming demographic tsunami. Almost everyone agrees that the "millennial generation," born in 1980 or later, while sharing liberal views on many issues, has no desire to mount the barricades. Notes Reese, "Younger Catholics don't argue with the bishops; they simply do what they want or shop for another church." And Hispanic Catholics, who may be the U.S. majority by 2020, don't see this as their battle. "I'm sure they're happy that the celebration of the Eucharist is in the vernacular," says Tilley, "but they don't have significant issues connected to Vatican II."

You can read the whole thing here. It is odd to me that the article somehow implies that sexual abuse scandal was good for "progressive" Catholics. The abuse clearly happened in all places, not simply in "conservative" or "liberal" strongholds.

Five Reasons the Ascension Was Necessary

Following up on the series of posts Brant and I have done on how the work of Christ saves us, I thought it appropriate to close it out today by looking at what Thomas Aquinas says about the Ascension (cf. ST IIIa, q. 57, art. 1 and art. 6).

The ascension saves us in two ways, first of all as it pertains to us and secondly as it pertains to Christ.

Through His Ascension our souls are lifted up to Him, because his ascension fosters faith, hope and love.

1. It helps foster faith in Him, since, if we could see him on earth there would be little faith involved since faith is belief in things unseen (cf. Heb 11:1 , cf. John 20:29). His visible presence could even be an obstacle to supernatural faith!

2. It also inspires hope―the hope of our own future admission into heaven. Jesus didn’t become man, die, rise from the dead and ascend into heaven for his benefit, but for ours! Thomas quotes the Gospel of John where Jesus says, “In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? 3 And when I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also” (John 14:2-3).

3. It also impels us to grow in charity―that is, it directs our love towards heavenly things and away from earthly things. Thomas cites three key texts. First, St. Paul writes, “If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. 2 Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. 3 For you have died, and your life is hid with Christ in God. 4 When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.” Thomas also cites Jesus’ words: “For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also” (Matt 6:21). And, finally, he explains that the Ascension effects charity in our hearts since Jesus goes to the Father to send us the Holy Spirit, who teaches us how to love (cf. John 16:7).

4. It helps us grow in our reverence for Christ, since his ascension reveals his glory, as he goes to sit at the right hand of God. With such a revelation of his glory, we come to the fullest possible understanding of who He is as the Son of Man to whom all glory and dominion belong.

But the ascension has another dimension too.

5. Thomas explains that in the Ascension Jesus enters into heaven with our humanity! He glorifies human nature! Again, he didn’t do this for himself, but for us. Here Thomas cites Micah 2:13, "He shall go up that shall open the way before them." Thomas says, Christ is the Head―and where the Head goes, the Body (the Mystical Body) follows. This is how Jesus himself explains the Ascension: “that where I am you may be also” (John 14:3). Thus Jesus leads those souls he went to in his descent into Hell on Holy Saturday into heaven. Aquinas cites Psalm 67:19 and Ephesians 4, where Paul explains, “Therefore it is said, ‘When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.’ 9 (In saying, ‘He ascended,’ what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He who descended is he who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things)” (Eph 4:8-10).

Thomas sums it up in this way: “Christ's Passion is the cause of our ascending to heaven, properly speaking, by removing the hindrance which is sin, and also by way of merit: whereas Christ's Ascension is the direct cause of our ascension, as by beginning it in Him who is our Head, with whom the members must be united.”

Benedict's US Visit: What You Haven't Heard (Part 1 of 3)

John Paul II announced a “new spring time” was coming for the Catholic Church. In fact, he first announced its coming in America. Let me be the first to tell you… Pope Benedict just brought it.

Before you read on, I want to say something.

There's been much written about Pope Benedict's visit to the US. You'll find commentary in the media, in the Catholic blogosphere, in Catholic-friendly arenas, in anti-Catholic forums—like I said, a lot has been said.

But there's a lot about this visit that you're not hearing. A lot of that has to do with the fact that most of the commentators don't know how to contextualize what just happened. Here I want to do that.

Just what happened with this visit. Well, the short answer is: way more than most people realize. Let me explain... and, as I said before, let me do so by helping to provide the framework for understanding why this visit was so big.

****

First, realize where the Pope is coming from: Europe.

What used to be “Christendom” is now, well, (*err*)… something else. Churches are practically empty. There is a growing animosity to faith. In fact, certain political parties have made “secularizing” (read: moving religion out of the public discussion) major planks in political platforms.

Take the constitution of the EU, for example. The appearance of the word “God” in the document became the focal point of a major debate. Pope Benedict, of course, has passionately urged the EU to include “God”. So far, he’s lost. “God” is out.

And so Pope Benedict leaves Europe and comes to America. And what happened?

First, upon touchdown he was greeted by the President of the United States, who met him on the tarmac. This is the first time President Bush has ever gone to greet a foreign dignitary at the airport. Normally, they go to him. This time, the President went to the airport, essentially, to give the Pope a ride.

As if that wasn’t enough, the next day’s events were unprecedented. The Pope was greeted in Washington, D.C. in what many are saying was the most lavish welcome ceremony given to a foreign leader in the history of the White House. After being given the twenty-one gun salute―the highest ceremonial salute possible (e.g., it is used to honor dead presidents)―the President welcomed the Pope with these words:

Here in America you'll find a nation of prayer. Each day millions of our citizens approach our Maker on bended knee, seeking His grace and giving thanks for the many blessings He bestows upon us. Millions of Americans have been praying for your visit, and millions look forward to praying with you this week. . .

Here in America you'll find a nation that welcomes the role of faith in the public square. . .

Most of all, Holy Father, you will find in America people whose hearts are open to your message of hope. And America and the world need this message. In a world where some invoke the name of God to justify acts of terror and murder and hate, we need your message that "God is love." And embracing this love is the surest way to save men from "falling prey to the teaching of fanaticism and terrorism."

In a world where some treat life as something to be debased and discarded, we need your message that all human life is sacred, and that "each of us is willed, each of us is loved" -- (applause) -- and your message that "each of us is willed, each of us is loved, and each of us is necessary."

In a world where some no longer believe that we can distinguish between simple right and wrong, we need your message to reject this "dictatorship of relativism," and embrace a culture of justice and truth. . .

Did the President really just allude to Benedict’s long-fought war for truth in the face of relativism?! Do yourself a favor and sometime go and read it in its entirety.

The Pope then delivered his address. In it he addressed the role of freedom, praising America for its commitment to liberty. In a particular way, Pope Benedict appreciates the religious liberty America stands for.

The context for the Pope’s praise clearly has to be found in the recognition that he has to deal with the fact that Christians throughout the world struggle under Islamic and communist regimes where their faith is persecuted. In fact, just recently Catholic bishop was kidnapped and executed in Iraq.

One could not help but hear the debate over the EU in the background of this plea:

From the dawn of the Republic, America's quest for freedom has been guided by the conviction that the principles governing political and social life are intimately linked to a moral order based on the dominion of God the Creator. The framers of this nation's founding documents drew upon this conviction when they proclaimed the self-evident truth that all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights grounded in the laws of nature and of nature's God.

However, the Pope went on to warn that freedom is not merely license, but “a summons to personal responsibility.” He went on to say,

The preservation of freedom calls for the cultivation of virtue, self-discipline, sacrifice for the common good, and a sense of responsibility towards the less fortunate. It also demands the courage to engage in civic life and to bring one's deepest beliefs and values to reasoned public debate.

Again, do yourself a favor and read the whole thing.

****

When the Pope finished, the fireworks didn’t end. The President leaned over and the microphone―still on―captured his words: “Awesome speech your holiness. I think we’re supposed to sit down for one more moment.”

I was not prepared for what was coming next.

The army chorus saluted the pope with a song all Americans know. It’s a song that evokes the deepest patriotic sensibilities. But I will never hear them the same way again. The army chorus welcomed the Pope, singing these words: “Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord. . .”

In fact, the sentiment was echoed by President Bush. When asked what he thought of the Pope, Bush stated, “I looked in his eyes and I saw God.”

The song went on to describe the coming of a Lord very different from the “I’m-okay-you’re-okay-God” of political correctness:

“He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored.
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of his terrible swift sword.
His truth is marching on.”

The military seemed to be saying, “Welcome Holy Father. We know who you are and we know what you’ve come to do. Trample out the vintage, loose the terrible swift sword. Truth is marching on.”

Whatever the musicians were thinking, it was clear what the Pope was doing. Eyes-closed, you could read him singing (or was it praying?) along: "Glory, glory, Hallelujah!"

All this happened at the White House!

Yes, America has its warts and wrinkles. We've got a lot to answer for here. But while the light of faith is being snuffed out in Europe, there's still a spark in America.
But that’s not the end of it. Here’s the most amazing part―and no one else seems to be pointing it out.

That song was inspired by Revelation 14, which reads:

"Then I looked, and lo, a white cloud, and seated on the cloud one like a son of man, with a golden crown on his head, and a sharp sickle in his hand. . . 17 So he who sat upon the cloud swung his sickle on the earth, and the earth was reaped. 18 Then another angel came out from the altar, the angel who has power over fire, and he called with a loud voice to him who had the sharp sickle, “Put in your sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth, for its grapes are ripe.” 19 So the angel swung his sickle on the earth and gathered the vintage of the earth, and threw it into the great wine press of the wrath of God; 20 and the wine press was trodden outside the city. . ."

When I realized that, I got chills. Let me explain.

Every morning the Pope prays the Liturgy of the Hours―the prayer book prayed by virtually all priests, religious and many lay people. Before he went to the White House that day, the Pope prayed from the Office of Readings, pre-selected for that day.

The first reading was from Revelation 14--the exact passage that inspired the Battle Hymn of the Republic.

What moved the army chorus to play a song inspired by that reading? Were they reading the Liturgy of the Hours too that day? I doubt it. The readings were set in stone long ago when the liturgical calendar was determined. But I think this visit was also planned a while ago as well―and I’m not talking about the work of the organizers in the Vatican.

(Part II forthcoming shortly.)

+++UPDATE+++
To listen to the performance of the Battle Hymn of the Republic played at the ceremony mentioned above, check out: www.christourhope.net (I'll have more to say about this site very soon!)

What's Your Favorite Book on Jesus?

As some of you may know, I'm currently working on a new book on Jesus (forthcoming from Eerdmans). The working title is:

Jesus and the Last Supper:
Ancient Judaism and the Origin of the Eucharist

It's been almost three years in the making now, and I keep finding new material that is more exciting than I can say... Let's just say I don't post everything on the blog.

Anyway, as I'm writing, I am re-reading some of the classic books on Jesus that have been written in the last century or so, and was wondering who you thought I should model my writing after. One of the tips Dale Allison once gave me is to read great writers while writing your final drafts, so I've been following his advice.

I have my favorite books on Jesus, but was wondering if you wanted to chime in: What's your favorite book on Jesus?
I'm thinking here of several criteria:

1. Excellent writing (Clarity, style, etc.)
2. Exciting content.
3. Fresh Insights (explanatory power).
4. Historical Plausibility.
5. Footnotes vs. Endnotes.

Here are my top five (in no particular order):
1. N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God
2. E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism
3. Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus
4. Hilarin Felder, Christ and the Critics
5. Dale Allison, Jesus of Nazareth, Millennarian Prophet
(I realize this isn't a complete work on Jesus, but Allison is so brilliant, I love anything he writes, even when I disagree)

In your answers, be sure to let me know what you like most about your favorite Jesus book, so I can steal it and add it to my work!

Napoleon's Proof for the Divinity of Jesus

I have recently been re-reading Hilarin Felder, who I am beginning to think of as "the Catholic Albert Schweitzer," both for the eloquence of his writing and the force of his arguments. In volume 2 of his book, Felder gives an amazing quote from Napoleon Bonaparte regarding the divinity of Jesus. I've never read anything like this before.

Felder states:
"Napoleon regarded this as precisely the most striking proof of the divinity of Jesus--namely, his power over men's hearts. The once wellnigh all-powerful Corsican, in the solitude of his last days, called up before his imagination all the heroic figures and master minds of the world, and measured them by his own gigantic greatness. But all of them combined, and he himself as well, vanished like empty shadows before the person of Jesus Christ:

Napoleon:
"What a conqueror!--a conqueror who controls humanity at will, and wins to himself not only one nation, but the whole human race. What a marvel! He attaches to himself the human soul with all its energies. And how? By a miracle which surpasses all others. He claims the love of men--that is to say, the most difficult thing in the world to obtain; that which the wisest of men cannot froce from his truest friend, that which no father can compel from his children, no wife from her husband, no brother from his brother--the heart. He claims it ; he requires it absolutely and undividedly, and he obtains it instantly.

Alexander, Caesar, Hannibal, Louis XIV strove in vain to secure this. They conquered the world, yet they had not a single friend, or at all events, they have none any more. Christ speaks, however, and from that moment all generations belong to him; and they are joined to him much more closely than by any ties of blood and by a much more intimate, sacred and powerful communion. He kindles the flame of love which causes one's self-love to die, and triumphs over every other love. Why should we not recognize in this miracle of love the eternal Word which created the world? The other founders of religions had not the least conception of this mystic love which forms the essence of Christianity.

I have filled multitudes with such passionate devotion that they went to death for me. But God forbid that I should compare the enthusiasm of my soldiers with Christian love. They are as unlike as their causes. In my case, my presence was always necessary, the electric effect of my glance, my voice, my words, to kindle fire in their hearts. And I certainly posses personally the secret of that magic power of taking by storm the sentiments of men; but I was not able to communicate that power to anyone. None of my generals ever learned it from me or found it out. Moreover, I myself do not possess the secret of perpetuating my name and a love for me in their hearts for ever, and to work miracles in them without material means.

Now that I languish here at St Helena, chained upon this rock, who fights, who conquers empires for me? Who still even thinks of me? Who interests himself for me in Europe? Who has remained true to me? That is the fate of all great men. It was the fate of Alexander and Caesar, as it is my own. We are forgotten, and the names of the mightiest conquerors and most illustrious emperors are soon only the subject of a schoolboy's taks. Our exploits come under the rod of a pedantic schoolmaster, who praises or condemns us as he likes.

What an abyss exists between my profound misery and the eternal reign of Christ, who is preached, loved, and worshipped, and live on throughout the entire world. Is this to die? Is it not rather to live eternally? The death of Christ! It is the death of a God."

(Quoted in Hilarin Felder, Christ and the Critics, vol. 2, pp. 216-17)

I never read that quote from Napoleon in my government-high-school textbooks! Being chained to a rock after having conquered the world evidently gives a man time to think.

St. Justin Martyr and the Return of the Exiles

Lately, I've been reading the book of Joshua and Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho for my Christology class. Although the latter is not a text most people think of when they think "christology," I would argue that it is, the first major work of Christology in the history of the Church.

Anyway, given our interest in Jewish restoration eschatology here at the blog, I found the following quote fascinating. In the midst of debating with Trypho, Justin's Jewish interlocutor, he says:

"Why do you Trypho never inquire why the name Hosea, the son of Nun, which his father gave him, was changed to Jesus [=Joshua in Hebrew]? Especially since not only was his name changed, but also, after becoming Moses successor, he alone, of all his contemporaries who fled Egypt, led the rest of the people into the Holy Land. And just as he, not Moses, conducted the people into the Holy Land and distributed it by lot among those who entered, so also will Jesus the Christ gather together the dispersed people and distribute the good land to each, though not in the same manner." (Dialogue with Trypho, 113.3)

Here we see Justin very clearly articulate his understanding of Jesus' messiahship in terms of typological restoration eschatology, with the new Exodus and the ingathering of the exiles at the center. However, he clearly does not understand this in terms of an earthly ingathering to the land of Israel and Jerusalem in the old creation. He continues:

"For, Joshua gave them an inheritance for a time only, since he was not Christ our God, nor the Son of God; but Jesus, after the holy resurrection, will give us an inheritance for eternity... After his coming the Father will, through him, renew heaven and earth." (Dialogue with Trypho 113.4)

Justin clearly appears to envision the eschatological ingathering as taking place in the new creation. I find this a striking text, given some of the conclusions I reached in my earlier writing. I would appreciate any thoughts you have on this!

JP Catholic Students Make Video For Upcoming Papal Visit!!!

This is not, strictly speaking, a biblical-theological post, but I'm so proud of our students that I had to run it here...

The Bishop of San Diego came to John Paul the Great Catholic University ("JP Catholic" for short) with a request. As you probably know, Pope Benedict XVI is coming to America this month. During one of the events a few dioceses from around the country will be displaying a video on a mega-screen that will be viewed by thousands of pilgrims for a papal event. The Bishop asked our students to put together a short piece for the diocese of San Diego.

It was a real honor... and our students--only in their second year--did not disappoint, delivering an extremely professional looking video. The work is even more impressive given that they were only given one week to get it done! As Tim Evans, one of our students, put it on his blog, "How awesome is it, by the way, that one of my first film projects, and the first I help with that is shown on a big screen, is made especially for the Holy Father?!"

Take a look:


If you or someone you know is looking to explore a college degree in media and looking to do so from a Catholic perspective, check out our school's website: http://www.jpcatholic.com/ --it's an incredible place!

ANOTHER ANCIENT GOSPEL DISCOVERED!!!

The academic world was turned on its head today with the announcement of the discovery of ancient Gospel relating the life of Christ.

PHILADELPHIA (AP)--The discovery of another ancient account of the life of Christ was made known today by two scholars working in connection with Pittsburgh Seminary.

"There is no doubt about it," Dr. Holtzman declared at a press conference Tuesday morning,"this the most important discovery since the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is actually more significant than the Nag Hammadi collection!"

The scholars went on to say that the document clearly dates to the first century. Moreover, it is associated with the name of one of Jesus' original disciples. It is believed that this document will be viewed as a necessary supplement to the Synoptic Gospels in historical Jesus research, as it confirms much of the portrait of Jesus found therein, though with some differences.

Here is the full story.

The Annunciation (Luke 1:26-28): Contextual Analysis

Today is the Solemnity of the Annunciation (normally it would be on the 25th--nine months before Christmas--but because the Easter octave fell early the feast was moved). So much could be said about this great feast. Here I thought I'd touch on the relationship between the account of the Annunciation to Mary with the other "annunciation" in Luke's Gospel--the anouncement of John the Baptist's birth to Zechariah. (I just recently covered this episode in the Luke Bible study I invited you all to below.) The similarities are striking! Let's take a look.

First let's read the text. I'm going to italicize a few important lines.

Luke 1:5-8: In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah... and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. 7 But they had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and both were advanced in years. 8 Now while he was serving as priest before God when his division was on duty, 9 according to the custom of the priesthood, it fell to him by lot to enter the temple of the Lord and burn incense. 10 And the whole multitude of the people were praying outside at the hour of incense. 11 And there appeared to him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense. 12 And Zechariah was troubled when he saw him, and fear fell upon him. 13 But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer is heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. 14 And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth; 15 for he will be great before the Lord, and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb. 16 And he will turn many of the sons of Israel to the Lord their God, 17 and he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared.” 18 And Zechariah said to the angel, “How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years.” 19 And the angel answered him, “I am Gabriel, who stand in the presence of God; and I was sent to speak to you, and to bring you this good news. 20 And behold, you will be silent and unable to speak until the day that these things come to pass, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their time.”

Let's sum up what happened here.

1. Gabriel appears to a priest

2. The priest is troubled (1:12)

3. Gabriel says, “Do not be afraid” (1:13)

4. Gabriel announces the birth of a child and gives his name: “you shall call his name John” (1:13)

5. The child is described as having an eschatological role (e.g., like Elijah, cf. Luke 1:16-17; Mal 4:5-6; Sir 48:10).

6. Zechariah asks: “How shall I know this?” (1:18)

7. Zechariah explains that he is unable to have children (1:18).

8. He does not believe and is made mute until John’s birth (1:20).

Now let's look at the Annunciation to Mary:

Luke 1:26-38: In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” 29 But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. 30 And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.” 34 And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, since I have no husband?” 35 And the angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. 36 And behold, your kinswoman Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. 37 For with God nothing will be impossible.” 38 And Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.

Let's sum up what we've read here:

1. Gabriel appears to a virgin

2. Mary is "troubled" (1:29)

3. Gabriel says, “Do not be afraid” (1:30)

4. Gabriel announces the birth of a child and gives his name: "you shall call his name Jesus" (1:31)

5. The child is described as having an eschatological role (he is the Davidic Messiah, cf. Luke 1:32-33).

6. Mary asks: “How can this be…” (1:34)

7. Mary explains that she is unable to have children (1:34).

8. Mary responds in faith (1:38)

There are numerous similarities here. Yet, the similarities underscore the striking difference between Zechariah’s response and Mary’s. Whereas Zechariah, a priest serving in the temple fails to believe, Mary, a poor young peasant woman, responds in faith. If there's ever a place where an ancient Israelite would expect to have an angelic vision it's in the temple! Yet, Mary, whose angelic visitation is almost exactly like Zechariah's, believes the angel's word.

Indeed, she is "full of grace"!

In-Depth Bible Study on Luke at JP Catholic

For those of you living in southern California, I want to invite you the free Bible study I'm leading at John Paul the Great Catholic University on Wednesday nights at 7pm. For directions, go here. If you So-Cal readers would help us spread the word, we would be grateful.

This is a very detailed study--we're going through about a chapter or a half of a chapter a session. Each night participants get a packet of handouts that contains outlines, summaries, and a ton of footnotes with bibliographic information for further study. We're looking at all kinds of elements and issues attached with the Gospel--historical, apologetic, theological, pastoral, etc. The effort is made to appeal to both a popular and more academically inclined audiences. We're going through everything from Catholic magisterial teaching to the Dead Sea Scrolls, the early fathers, contemporary scholarship, Pope Benedict's new book on Jesus, etc.

After we are through with Luke we will take up Acts of the Apostles.

Some of the issues we are discussing include:
--Whether the Gospel of Luke is historically reliable
--Why Jesus called himself "the Son of Man
--How the Dead Sea Scrolls relate to our understanding of Jesus and the Judaism of his day
--Why Mary is likely a source for Luke's knowledge of Jesus
--Why there are differences in the Gospel accounts of episodes and teachings of Jesus
--How Luke's Gospel is related to Paul's Epistles
--How Old Testament hopes are fulfilled in Jesus and his ministry
--Why the Apostles are described by Luke as priests of the messianic age
--How Daniel's prophecy of 490 years (cf. Dan 9) is related to Jesus' ministry
--How Jesus is presented as a new Adam, Isaac, Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, Elijah, Elisha, Jeremiah, etc.
--What contemporary scholarship is saying about the various Gospel episodes and the historical Jesus
--How the early Church interpreted Jesus' teachings
--and much, much more...

Next week: As we move into Luke 7, we will discuss:
--Jesus' role as the new Elisha
--miracles and historical research
--Why John the Baptist, who had leaped in his mother's womb at the Visitation and had baptized Jesus, sent messengers to Jesus with the question, "Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?” (cf. Lk 7:19).
--and much more...


If you really want to do some extra preparation before each session, get a hold of the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: The Gospel of Luke (buy it through this link and support the St. Paul Center!).

Podcast of Radio Show with Dr. Pitre

Today Brant and I were on Catholic Answers Radio talking about Holy Saturday and the line in the Apostles' Creed which states that Jesus "descended into hell." (Hopefully the show taught about the subject and was not an experience of it!) Anyone interested can hear it on Catholic Answers' website tomorrow when it will be available as a podcast. Just click here and then click on the 4pm Monday slot (you'll see our names).

For more information on Jesus' Descent into Hell see 1 Peter 3:18-21, Ephesians 4:8-10, the treatment in Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica IIIa, q. 52 (the third Summa citation in three posts!), the Catechism of the Catholic Church 631-637, and the Catechism of the Council of Trent, art. 5.

The idea is found in some of the earliest Christian writings:

St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5, 31, 2 (c. 180 A.D.): "If, then, the Lord observed the law of the dead, that He might become the first-begotten from the dead, and tarried until the third day “in the lower parts of the earth" [Eph 4:9] then afterwards rising in the flesh, so that He even showed the print of the nails to His disciples, He thus ascended to the Father;—[if all these things occurred, I say], how must these men not be put to confusion, who allege that “the lower parts” refer to this world of ours, but that their inner man, leaving the body here, ascends into the super-celestial place? For as the Lord “went away in the midst of the shadow of death,” [Ps 23:4] where the souls of the dead were, yet afterwards arose in the body, and after the resurrection was taken up [into heaven], it is manifest that the souls of His disciples also, upon whose account the Lord underwent these things, shall go away into the invisible place allotted to them by God, and there remain until the resurrection, awaiting that event..."

Tertullian, A Treatise on the Soul, 60 (c. 197-220 A.D.): ... we read that Christ in His death spent three days in the heart of the earth [cf. Matt 12:40] that is, in the secret inner recess which is hidden in the earth, and enclosed by the earth, and superimposed on the abysmal depths which lie still lower down. Now although Christ is God, yet, being also man, “He died according to the Scriptures,” [ and “according to the same Scriptures was buried” [1 Cor 15:4]. With the same law of His being He fully complied, by remaining in Hades in the form and condition of a dead man; nor did He ascend into the heights of heaven before descending into the lower parts of the earth, that He might there make the patriarchs and prophets partakers of Himself."

It is also found in Melito of Sardis, the Odes of Solomon, Cyril of Jerusalem, and others. For a number of citations and a look at the iconography associated with the Descent into Hell, go to the Australian E-Journal of Theology 7 (2006).

I also recommend the audio set of Brant Pitre's excellent lecture series, Life After Death: The Seven Last Things.

Five Reasons the Resurrection Was Necessary

Picking up on Brant's last post, I thought it appropriate to list the five reasons Thomas Aquinas gives for the resurrection (ST IIIa, q. 53, art. 1).

1. It reveals God’s justice. Because Christ humbled himself and died on the cross out of love and obedience to the Father, God lifted him up by a glorious resurrection.

2. It was necessary for the confirmation of our faith in Christ. Thomas cites Paul, who explains that the resurrection attests to the power of God (2 Cor 13:4).

3. It gives us hope for the resurrection of our bodies. This, of course, is the whole point of 1 Corinthians 15. As Paul writes, “Now if Christ be preached that He rose from the dead, how do some among you say, that there is no resurrection of the dead?" (1 Cor 15:12)

4. It means death to sin and new life in Christ for us. Since we are united with Christ we have not only died with him but been raised with him to newness of life. Thomas cites Romans 6:4, 11: “We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life… 11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.”

5. It completes the work of salvation. This is an especially important point that is far too often overlooked. Christ’s death is not the only aspect of his work for our salvation. Again, Thomas cites Paul, who explains that Christ was “put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification” (Rom 4:25). Most people forget about this verse and simply profess that Jesus died for our salvation--but that's only part of it!

Thomas pays very close attention to Paul’s language. Salvation involves two elements: (1) the payment of the debt due to sin, which is accomplished on the cross (e.g., he was “put to death for our trespasses”) and (2) he is raised for our sakes as well (e.g., "for our justification"). Ultimately, Jesus’ resurrection wasn’t for his sake but for ours. The goal of salvation was not simply to save us from sin, but to unite our humanity to God. Peter explains that we are called to become “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet 1:4). Christ’s resurrection then is the cause of our sharing in the new life of grace―the unity of our humanity with divinity. Salvation isn’t just a matter of being delivered from the punishment due to sin, namely, hell―it also means being delivered to life in God (cf. also ST IIIa q. 56, art. 2; cf. also IIIa q. 57, art. 6.; also see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 654).

Hallelujah―He is Risen!

Five Reasons the Cross was the Most Suitable Way for Our Redemption

In his Summa Theologica, St. Thomas gives the following five reasons for why the Crucifixion of Jess was the most suitable way for our redemption (III. Q.46, Art. 3). They are worth pondering during this Holy Week:

In the first place, man knows thereby how much God loves him, and is thereby stirred to love Him in return, and herein lies the perfection of human salvation; hence the Apostle says (Romans 5:8): "God commendeth His charity towards us; for when as yet we were sinners . . . Christ died for us."

Secondly, because thereby He set us an example of obedience, humility, constancy, justice, and the other virtues displayed in the Passion, which are requisite for man's salvation. Hence it is written (1 Peter 2:21): "Christ also suffered for us, leaving you an example that you should follow in His steps."

Thirdly, because Christ by His Passion not only delivered man from sin, but also merited justifying grace for him and the glory of bliss, as shall be shown later (48, 1; 49, 1, 5).

Fourthly, because by this man is all the more bound to refrain from sin, according to 1 Corinthians 6:20: "You are bought with a great price: glorify and bear God in your body."

Fifthly, because it redounded to man's greater dignity, that as man was overcome and deceived by the devil, so also it should be a man that should overthrow the devil; and as man deserved death, so a man by dying should vanquish death. Hence it is written (1 Corinthians 15:57): "Thanks be to God who hath given us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." It was accordingly more fitting that we should be delivered by Christ's Passion than simply by God's good-will.

As St. Augustine says (De Trin. xiii): "There was no other more suitable way of healing our misery" than by the Passion of Christ.

New Scott Hahn book--Best Cover Ever!

This is hilarious...

Okay, as a general rule you shouldn't judge a book by its cover. But in the past, in addition to having great content inside, Scott Hahn's books have always been published with absolutely beautiful covers.

Consider the striking image of the prodigal son on the cover of Lord, Have Mercy (2003):

Or take a gander at Letter and Spirit (2005):

Apparently, Dr. Hahn is taking a different route with his next book, Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins' Case Against God (2008):

My order is in!