Sal Conventus Tui Dei

Salt and Bread

SALT OF THE COVENANT OF YOUR GOD

I likely have heard the things written below about salt sometime before in some homily or sermon but over time I have forgotten it, so it is good to be reminded of these Biblical truths. Yesterday’s Gospel reading for Daily Mass was Mark 19:41-50. The account of salt in verse 50 is duplicated in Matthew 5:13 and Luke 14:34-35. But St. Mark includes a prefatory addition in verse 49 which really struck me:

Everyone will be salted with fire.

I looked this verse up in my several editions of the Latin Vulgate and in my Greek New Testament. The Vulgate edition from around the time of the Council of Trent in the 1500s expands this verse somewhat (numbering it as verse 48):

Omnis enim igne salietur, et omnis victima sale salietur.
For everyone will be salted with fire, and every victim salted with salt.

I did not find this addition – and every victim salted with salt – in my Greek New Testament (where here the text is in verse 49):

πας γαρ πυρι αλισθησεται.
Everyone for fire shall be salted.

So I wondered why the addition appears in the Latin Vulgate form the Council of Trent. The answer is that the version of the Greek New Testament used by the translators at the Council of Trent was the 1550 Stephanus New Testament and it has the addition which modern Greek texts omit:

πας γαρ πυρι αλισθησεται και πασα θυσια αλι αλισθησεται.
Everyone for fire shall be salted and every sacrifice to salt shall be salted.

Then I wondered from where this addition came. A little research showed that it comes from Leviticus 2:13 which Jesus’ disciples, being devout Jews, would have known straightaway:

Quidquid obtuleris sacrificii, sale condies, nec auferes sal foederis Dei tui de sacrificio tuo: in omni oblatione tua offeres sal.
Whatsoever sacrifice thou offerest, thou shalt season it with salt, neither shalt thou take away the salt of the covenant of thy God from thy sacrifice. In all thy oblations thou shalt offer salt.

The sacrifices being spoken of here are cereal or grain offerings. Grain was used to make bread. And who is the Bread of Life but Jesus Christ Himself? He is the Bread we offer at the Holy Sacrifice of the Eucharist – the very Flesh we consume at each Holy Communion. This is a very important thing to understand. This is why St. Ignatius of Antioch said in his letter to the Romans:

I am the wheat of God, and let me be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ.

This is what St. Paul meant when he wrote in Romans 12:1:

Obsecro itaque vos fratres per misericordiam Dei, ut exhibeatis corpora vestra hostiam viventem, sanctam, Deo placentem, rationabile obsequium vestrum.
I beseech you therefore, brethren, through the mercy of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God, your reasonable service.

Thus, Jesus tells us in Mark 9:49:

Bonum est sal: quod si sal insulsum fuerit, in quo illud condietis? Habete in vobis sal, et pacem habete inter vos.
Salt is good. But if the salt became unsavory; in what will you season it? Have salt in you, and have peace among you.

The reason why Jesus uses this allusion to salt derives from the aforementioned Levitical practice of applying salt to grain offerings. There is an interesting note on this in my NKJV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible that may assist in further understanding the use of salt in grain offerings, and once again this would have been immediately recognizable to the audience to whom Jesus was speaking:

Salt was the finest preservative in antiquity, and it symbolized permanence and preservation. Salt was probably used in the covenant ceremony in which Israel celebrated its unbreakable covenant with God. The salt that accompanied many Israelite sacrifices was used physically in the seasoning of the elements, but it also symbolically contributed to the quality of the covenant relationship between humanity and God. In antiquity, parties who shared salt (here the Lord and the Israelites) were united by mutual obligations. Thus, a letter from Neo-Babylonia refers to a tribe’s covenantal allies as those who “tasted the salt of the Jakin tribe.” Similarly, the Greeks salted their covenantal meals, and in Ezra 4:14 those who tasted the salt (the literal Hebrew) of the Persian king’s palace were bound by loyalty to him.

Since human allies establishing a covenant would commonly share a meal featuring salted meat, it would make sense for the salt in Israelite sacrifices to serve as a reminder of the covenant between God and Israel. Because salt was employed as a preservative, its use in a covenantal context also emphasized the expectation that the covenant would last for a long time, a meaning attached to salt in Babylonian, Persian, Arabic and Greek covenant contexts. Because salt inhibits the leavening action of yeast, which represented rebellion, salt could additionally stand for that which prevented rebellion. An additional explanation for the appropriateness of salt in connection with the covenant is found in its association with agricultural infertility: in a Hittite treaty, the testator pronounces a curse: if the treaty is broken, “May he and his family and his lands, like salt that has no seed, likewise have no progeny.”

St. John Chrysostom, one of 36 Doctors (or Teacher) of the Church, Bishop of Constantinople in the later 4th and early 5th centuries AD, provides commentary in chapter 10 of homily 15 on the Gospel of St. Matthew.

Now then, after giving them due exhortation, He [Jesus] refreshes them again with praises. As thus: the injunctions being high, and far surpassing those in the Old Testament; lest they should be disturbed and confounded, and say, How shall we be able to achieve these things? hear what He says: You are the salt of the earth (Matthew 5:13). Implying, that of absolute necessity He enjoins all this. For not for your own life apart, says He, but for the whole world, shall your account be. For not to two cities, nor to ten or twenty, nor to a single nation am I sending you, as I sent the prophets; but to earth, and sea, and the whole world; and that in evil case. For by saying, You are the salt of the earth, He signified all human nature to have lost its savor, and to be decayed by our sins. For which cause, you see, He requires of them such virtues, as are most necessary and useful for the superintendence of the common sort. For first, the meek, and yielding, and merciful, and righteous, shuts not up his good deeds unto himself only, but also provides that these good fountains should run over for the benefit of others. And he again who is pure in heart, and a peacemaker, and is persecuted for the truth's sake; he again orders his way of life for the common good. Think not then, He says, that you are drawn on to ordinary conflicts, or that for some small matters you are to give account. You are the salt of the earth.

What then? Did they restore the decayed? By no means; for neither is it possible to do any good to that which is already spoilt, by sprinkling it with salt. This therefore they did not. But rather, what things had been before restored, and committed to their charge, and freed from that ill savor, these they then salted, maintaining and preserving them in that freshness, which they had received of the Lord. For that men should be set free from the rottenness of their sins was the good work of Christ; but their not returning to it again any more was the object of these men's diligence and travail.

Do you see how by degrees He indicates their superiority to the very prophets? In that He says they are teachers, not of Palestine, but of the whole world; and not simply teachers, but awful ones too. For this is the marvelous thing, that not by flattering, nor soothing, but by sharply bracing them, as salt, even so they became dear to all men.

Now marvel not, says He, if leaving all others, I discourse to you, and draw you on to so great dangers. For consider over how many cities, tribes, and nations, I am to send you to preside. Wherefore I would have you not only be prudent yourselves, but that you should also make others the same. And such persons have great need to be intelligent, in whom the salvation of the rest is at stake: they ought so much to abound in virtue, as to impart of the profit to others also. For if you do not become such as this, you will not suffice even for your own selves.

Be not then impatient, as though my sayings were too burdensome. For while it is possible for others who have lost their savor to return by your means, you, if you should come to this, will with yourselves destroy others also. So that in proportion as the matters are great, which you have put into your hands, you need so much the greater diligence. Therefore He says,

But if the salt has lost its savor, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men (Matthew 5:13).

For other men, though they fall never so often, may possibly obtain indulgence: but the teacher, should this happen to him, is deprived of all excuse, and will suffer the most extreme vengeance. Thus, lest at the words, When they shall revile you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you, they should be too timid to go forth: He tells them, unless you are prepared to combat with all this, you have been chosen in vain. For it is not evil report that you should fear, but lest ye should prove partners in dissimulation. For then, You will lose your savor, and be trodden under foot: but if you continue sharply to brace them up, and then are evil spoken of, rejoice; for this is the very use of salt, to sting the corrupt, and make them smart. And so their censure follows of course, in no way harming you, but rather testifying your firmness. But if through fear of it you give up the earnestness that becomes you, you will have to suffer much more grievously, being both evil spoken of, and despised by all. For this is the meaning of trodden under foot.

Conclusion: The depths of Sacred Scripture cannot be fully plumbed without a knowledge of the historical and cultural background surrounding the text, and without reading and studying the commentary of the early Church Fathers.

Non Habes Quod Requiritur

NON HABES QUOD REQUIRITUR
YOU DON’T HAVE WHAT IT TAKES

On Sunday, January 27, 2019, my wife wanted to attend service at the Protestant Evangelical Church in the southern part of our city. I actually am quite happy that we did attend for the message from the pulpit was appropriate and timely. My notes (with some side commentary) are provided below. The chosen Scripture passage was Hebrews 4:11-16:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews+4%3A11-16&version=RSVCE

INTRODUCTION

The message of the culture is not the message of the Gospel. It is a false message to say that you can do anything you put your mind to do for you are not God. You are not omnipotent and you cannot do it by your own power. In Genesis 41:16, when asked to interpret his dream, “Joseph answered Pharaoh, ‘It is not in me; God will give Pharaoh a favorable answer.’”

In another respect God uses marriage to bring us to the end of ourselves because by our own effort without His help we cannot make the marriage relationship work, hence the modern divorce rate.

The message in the Epistle to the Hebrews is that Jesus as our High Priest is superior to all. And St. Paul emphasizes in Ephesians 2:8, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God…”

COME WHOLEHEARTEDLY TO THE FAMILY OF GOD (HEBREWS 4:11)

In Hebrews 4:11, we “strive to enter that rest.” Rest is peace with God. But the use of the word strive seems contradictory.

All are born in sin. David said in Psalm 51:5, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. (This Psalm was written in repentance for the adultery with Bathsheba and murder of Uriah her husband which David had committed). God required everything from David and in like manner God requires everything from us in order to receive everything from Him. We live by Faith in Christ, NOT in self. Therefore, we must strive – be diligent and come wholeheartedly into God’s family. 2nd Corinthians 13:5 states, “Examine yourselves, to see whether you are holding to your faith. Test yourselves. Do you not realize that Jesus Christ is in you? — unless indeed you fail to meet the test!” Seek out Godly counsel. Don’t bank on the supposition that you prayed a prayer. You must live the life. Examine yourself.

It is here that I am going to diverge from my notes and give a more correct explanation of what the preacher was trying to say. He denied the salvific effect of baptism, treating it as a mere ordinance of the confirmation of one’s pre-existing salvation and not as a Sacrament. I think that he was trying to say that just because you’re baptized doesn’t mean you get an automatic ticket into Heaven. That’s true by itself. I agree with that. Baptism isn’t a free ticket where I can do whatever sin I want but I remain saved just because I was baptized. So I think this is more a matter of semantics. Let me explain and tie this into what the preacher went on to say.

Jesus in Mark 16:16 says, “He who believes AND is baptized will be saved…” And 1st Peter 3:21 states, “Baptism, which corresponds to this, NOW SAVES YOU, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ….” However, James 2:17, 19 & 24 state, “So FAITH BY ITSELF, if it has no works, IS DEAD….Even the demons believe—and shudder…You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

Therefore, to be saved: (1) one must believe, AND (2) one must be baptized AND (3) one must put one’s faith and baptism into action by good works in obedience to glory of God. Salvation isn't just an event. It is a process of living.

Thus, those three Scripture passages directly support what the preacher did say, that (for example) the Jews being God’s Chosen people was insufficient for their salvation. Obedience is the authentic mark of a follower of Christ – a willingness to die to self. That’s the second part of Hebrews 4:11, “….that no one fall by the same sort of disobedience.”

COME EXPECTANTLY TO THE WORD OF GOD (HEBREWS 4:12-13)

God loves me and I must love Him. We must come back to God’s Word to let it shape us. “For the word of God is living and active…” This is the basic nature of God’s Word. 2nd Peter 1:20-21 states, “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”

God never has to make His rules better. His Word is living and God-breathed. In the same way, Genesis 2:7 says, “Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being…” Just as man became a living being by being God-breathed, so too the Word of God.

The Word of God is active. The Greek word used here is ενεργός which goes into our English word energy. The Word is at work.

The Word of God is sharper than any two-edged sword. Ephesians 6:17 says, “And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” Thus, the Word of God is the Sword of the Spirit. The written Word of God can be no less powerful than the words that Jesus Himself used to forgive sin and raise the dead.

2nd Timothy 3:14-15 states, “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” The Word of God teaches us and makes us wise unto salvation.

2nd 3:1-17 states, “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” The Word of God equips us for every good work.

The Word of God pierces to the innermost being and cuts us surgically.

Should we read God’s Word daily? YES! We all need to be daily cut in order to be continuously conformed to God’s image. The sword of the Spirit is life-changing.

Matthew 4:4 states, “But he answered and said, it is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” This must start at childhood, for Deuteronomy 4:9 states, “Only take heed, and keep your soul diligently, lest you forget the things which your eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life; make them known to your children and your children’s children…” The Word of God is more important than food, clothing, housing, work, etc. You don’t have what it takes without following what the Bible says.

The preacher explained that he does expository – verse by verse – preaching in order to feed the people of God, and he cited Hebrews 5:11-14 which states:

“About this we have much to say which is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of God’s word. You need milk, not solid food; for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their faculties trained by practice to distinguish good from evil.”

And Revelation 20:12 states, “And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done.” At this point the preacher speculated that one of the books to be opened would be the Bible. The Navarre Study Bible has a note on this. That note describes only the two sets of books mentioned in Rev 20:12, and states in part the following:

“The author [of Revelation] then turns his attention to the resurrection, when all men will be judged according to their works. He describes this by using the metaphor of two books. One of these records the actions of men (as in Daniel 7:10 and other passages of the Old Testament, cf., e.g., Is 65:6; Jer 22:30). The second book contains the names of those predestined to eternal life (an idea inspired by Daniel 12:1; cf. also, e.g., Ex 32:32). This is a way of showing that man cannot attain salvation by his own efforts alone…”

At this point the preacher expounded on the evil of abortion, describing abortion as a mess and as sin. The Bible states that life begins in the womb – Jeremiah 1:5: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you…” Pictures of baby formation at 12, 27 and 40 weeks were displayed on massive screens at the front of the Sanctuary. Psalm 139:13 states, “For thou didst form my inward parts, thou didst knit me together in my mother’s womb.” However, in NY State it is now permissible to kill a baby at the moment of birth. Governor Andrew Cuomo signed such a bill into law. That is heinous and unspeakable.

God uses His Word to point out our sins. We don’t have what it takes to get saved, to live day by day.

COME CONFIDENTLY TO THE THRONE OF GOD (HEBREWS 4:14-16)

We have an Advocate – Christ Jesus – to speak on our behalf. Nothing can deliver our deepest needs but Jesus. He never failed in His temptations and He won’t fail us in ours. We are able to pray because of Jesus and we are able to receive help because of Jesus. He is the Bread of Life (John 6:22-59). He is life itself (John 14:6). John Newton once said that no one can ask too much of Jesus. Therefore, let us come confidently to the Throne of Grace.

Should we pray every day? YES! Just as we should read His Word every day.

Romans 12:3 states, “For by the grace given to me I bid everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith which God has assigned him.” This shows that we can’t do it by ourselves but only by the measure of faith that God assigns us. Therefore, why don’t we come to the Word of God, the Throne of God? Maybe we’re lost, in which case we need to repent and convert.

We cannot be with God and be separated from His Word, His Throne.

PERSONAL COMMENT

The respect that Protestant Evangelicals have for the written Word of God should be practiced by every Catholic and Orthodox person. I cannot emphasize that enough. We Catholics and Orthodox directly descended from the first century Christians gave the Bible to the world, and for us to NOT know what it says is absolutely shameful. But the Word of God isn’t just written.

John 1:1 says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” The written Word is merely a reflection of the Divine Word (Jesus Christ) Who created all of existence and became incarnate of a Virgin in order to die on a Cross for our sins; he descended into hell, rose from the dead and sits at the right hand of God the Father from whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. When we are baptized, we are baptized into His Body the Church of which He the crucified and risen Lord is the Head exactly as St. Paul describes it. When we partake of the Holy Eucharist, we eat that Word as His flesh and drink His blood exactly as the Bread of Life Discourse in John chapter 6 describes it.

Reading the Bible is absolutely necessary, but the Holy Spirit through the very real power of the Sacraments makes its power alive within us. Jesus said in John 6:53-58, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”

The Eucharist – not the Bible – is the source and summit of our Faith. In fact, there was no Bible (as we know it today) before the late AD 300s when the Church at two different councils decided on what books would be in the Bible and what would not be. Before that time the only thing that Christians had were the Church, Sacred Tradition and scattered collections of Scared Books. That’s why St. Paul says in 1st Timothy 3:15, “…if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” And in 2nd Thessalonians 2:15 he says, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”

I was very pleased and blessed with the overall sermon, especially that the subject of abortion was directly and forthrightly dealt with (sadly unlike Catholic Parishes which are running scared under the priestly sex abuse scandal and lack of leadership from the current Pontiff). And I like being stimulated to think on these things. Furthermore, I have nothing but encouragement to offer this Protestant preacher. But I always go back to how the early Church Fathers in the first four centuries AD viewed Scriptures. They were the closest to the Apostles, and I would urge any preacher - Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant - to read how the Church Fathers viewed and interpreted Sacred Scripture.

Purgatorium

Amici, Americani, Compatriotae,

One of the things that is so frustrating about so-called adherents to the doctrine of Sola Scripture is their cherry picking on what they base their man-made theology and their ignoring what is inconvenient to their man-made theology. I really don't understand this cognitive dissonance. The passage of Sacred Scripture between verses 11 and 16 of 1st Corinthians chapter within today's Epistle reading in the Divine Liturgy is a case in point:

12 If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw,13 the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire [itself] will test the quality of each one’s work.14 If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage.15 But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire.

It's obvious that this is a reference to Purgatory which is explained by articles 1030 through 1032 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.

1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin." [2nd Maccabees 12:46] From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God. The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:

Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice [Job 1:5], why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.

St. John Chrysostom (Doctor of the Church, born at Antioch, AD 347; died at Commana in Pontus, 14 September, AD 407) goes on to explain this further in his 41st homily on 1st Corinthians:

Let us then give them aid and perform commemoration for them. For if the children of Job were purged by the sacrifice of their father, why do you doubt that when we too offer for the departed, some consolation arises to them? Since God is wont to grant the petitions of those who ask for others. And this Paul signified saying, that in a manifold Person your gift towards us bestowed by many may be acknowledged with thanksgiving on your behalf. 2 Corinthians 1:11 Let us not then be weary in giving aid to the departed, both by offering on their behalf and obtaining prayers for them: for the common Expiation of the world is even before us. Therefore with boldness do we then intreat for the whole world, and name their names with those of martyrs, of confessors, of priests. For in truth one body are we all, though some members are more glorious than others; and it is possible from every source to gather pardon for them, from our prayers, from our gifts in their behalf, from those whose names are named with theirs. Why therefore do you grieve? Why mourn, when it is in your power to gather so much pardon for the departed?

In his encyclical Spe Salvi Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI explains that the duration of time in Purgatory is not of a terrestrial nature, that is, subject to the laws of physical space and time:

It is clear that we cannot calculate the “duration” of this transforming burning in terms of the chronological measurements of this world. The transforming “moment” of this encounter eludes earthly time-reckoning—it is the heart's time, it is the time of “passage” to communion with God in the Body of Christ...

...if “Purgatory” is simply purification through fire in the encounter with the Lord, Judge and Saviour, how can a third person intervene, even if he or she is particularly close to the other? When we ask such a question, we should recall that no man is an island, entire of itself. Our lives are involved with one another, through innumerable interactions they are linked together. No one lives alone. No one sins alone. No one is saved alone. The lives of others continually spill over into mine: in what I think, say, do and achieve. And conversely, my life spills over into that of others: for better and for worse. So my prayer for another is not something extraneous to that person, something external, not even after death. In the interconnectedness of Being, my gratitude to the other—my prayer for him—can play a small part in his purification. And for that there is no need to convert earthly time into God's time: in the communion of souls simple terrestrial time is superseded.

For Protestants who may not understand, everyone who goes to Purgatory after death eventually ends up in Heaven after purgation is completed. No one who goes to Purgatory after death ever goes to Hell, and no one in Hell ever escapes to go to either Purgatory or Heaven. And our prayers for those in purgatory are a spiritual act of mercy. Lastly, the doctrine of Purgatory is entirely Biblical as the discussion above demonstrates - those people who are "saved" but in an imperfect state of being marred by the effects of sin will be cleansed by fire, but in a non-terrestrial, spiritual sense where the passage of time does not have the meaning as it does in physical space and time.

Concio LXII Sancti Augustini

Amici, Americani, Compatriotae,

Today’s Gospel reading in the Holy Mass is Luke 14:15-24, the Parable of the Large Banquet. A person dining with Jesus says, “Blessed is the one who will dine in the Kingdom of God.” Jesus then gives the story of a great dinner to which a man invited many. But when the time came for people to attend the banquet, excuse after excuse was given.

The first said to him,

'I have purchased a field and must go to examine it;

I ask you, consider me excused.'

And another said, 'I have purchased five yoke of oxen

and am on my way to evaluate them;

I ask you, consider me excused.'

And another said, 'I have just married a woman,

and therefore I cannot come.'

So the master of the house in a rage demanded that the poor, crippled, blind and lame be invited instead. Who however were those declining to come to the feast? St. Augustine tells us in his 62^nd sermon delivered at the Basilica Restitua:

(1) The man who had to examine a field that he had just purchased is the person subjected to the pride of life. The importance of what he does for himself supersedes the importance of attending the great feast of his master.

(2) The man who had just purchased five yoke of oxen is the person who subjected to the lust of the eyes, for the five yoke of oxen represent the five senses: (a) two eyes, (b) two ears, (c) two nostrils, (d) tongue and palate, and (e) skin inside and out.

(3) The man who had just married a woman is the person subjected to the lust of the flesh, for instead of bringing his new wife to the banquet, he must go home to satisfy his conjugal desires.

Here we see what prevents us from sitting at the Eucharistic Table of our Blessed Lord:

The Pride of Life

The Lust of the Eyes

The Lust of the Flesh.

Everyone is invited. Not everyone will however dine with our Lord and Savior.

Consequens Inobedientiae

Mordecai does not bow to Haman

Amici, Americani, Compatrioate,

Last night's Scripture reading within the Liturgy of the Hours was from Esther chapter 3 where Haman, a newly appointed official to the court of Persian King Ataxerxes, conspired to commit genocide against the entire Jewish people because Mordecai, a Jew in the king's court, would not bow in obeisance to him. As the reader may recall, Esther (Mordecai's niece and the young woman whom King Ataxerxes appointed to replace Vashti as Queen to reign from 479 to 465 BC) would act to prevent this genocide (which is the subject of the book named after her). But in this enmity between Mordecai and Haman there is a great lesson, for Haman was Agagite (3:1) and Mordecai was the great grandson of Kish (of the tribe of Benjamin) (2:5) who had been King Saul's father. And from that we have  history.

In Exodus 17:8-16 (a little later than 1450 BC), right after Moses struck the rock in the wilderness from which sprung water to quench the thirst of the wandering Israelites, a people called the Amalekites attacked. When Moses raised his hands over the battlefield, the Israelites prevailed. When due to weariness his arms dropped, the enemy prevailed. So Aaron and Hur held up Moses' arms and the victory went to Israel; the Amalekites were defeated. But they did not forget this incident and great hatred rose between the the two nations.

In 1st Samuel 15, the prophet Samuel told King Saul (1078 to 1010 BC) to finally eradicate the Amalekites - every man, woman, child, infant and beast - for what had happened during the sojourn of the Israelites in the Sinai desert. King Saul carried out only part of the task, saving as spoils the best of what the Amalekites had instead of destroying everything, and sparing the life of the Amalekite king, a man by the name of Agag (hence was Haman in the Persian court later on called an Agagite for he was a descendant of Agag). As a result of King Saul's disobedience, the kingdom of Israel was ripped from him as he ripped a part of Samuel's garment as Samuel went to leave.

Finally when the people of Judah were deported to Babylon, the last remaining descendant of Amalekite King Agag and the last remaining descendant of the line of Kish (father of King Saul), Mordecai, meet and they hate each other. If King Saul had carried out the Lord's command, then he likely would not have lost the kingdom and there would have been no Amalekite descendants, and all the train of events leading up to and including Haman's plot for genocide would not have occurred. But King Saul saved the best of the spoils of war for himself (using the excuse that he was going to sacrifice the spoils to Samuel's Lord).

You see, the attempt to wipe out all Jews from the face of the Earth occurred a thousand years before Haman resurrected that plot. And God (about five hundred years after the initial attempt and five hundred years before Haman's conspiracy) told King Saul to take care of this problem and Saul did not. The consequences for Saul's disobedience were not however relegated to him along but followed the Jewish people into captivity a half millennium later. Yet God in His eternal wisdom foresaw what would happen and put Esther in the right place at the right time to foul Haman's plans and bring final defeat onto the Amalekites. In spite of our disobedience God will always have the final victory, and from this the Chosen People were preserved for the eventual birth of the Messiah, the Savior of the World.

Anxietas et Sollicitudo

Amici, Americani, Compatriotae,

For those of you who follow the daily Scripture readings in the Divine Liturgy, did you notice that today’s episode of Jesus telling workaholic Martha that Mary sitting at His feet had chosen the better course (Luke 10:25-37) comes directly on the heels of the story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:38-42)? Yesterday we are given an example of the salutary nature and essentialness of good works done for others. Today we are given an example that being an attentive disciple at the Master’s feet, not good works, counts for value. So why the difference? It rests in motives. In the case of the Good Samaritan, the Sacred Text tells us that he was “moved with compassion” and that is why he rescued the wounded man lying in the ditch. In the case of Martha, she was “anxious and worried about many things,” and thus was “burdened with much serving.” Do we do good works because we are moved with compassion or do we do good works because we are anxious and worried? To sit at Jesus’ feet as Mary did, listening to Him speak, let us be moved with compassion. There is no room for anxiety and worry.

PS, tomorrow’s Gospel reading in the Divine Liturgy will be the Lord’s Prayer in Luke 11:1-4, the parallel passage being Matthew 6:9-15. How appropriate!

Poena Capitalis

Amici, Americani, Compatriotae,

Regarding the recent change in the Church’s position on Capital Punishment, please see the actual revision of CCC 2267 and the statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith below.

Letter to the Bishops regarding the new revision of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the death penalty, from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 02.08.2018

New revision of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the death penalty – Rescriptum “ex Audentia SS.mi”, 02.08.2018

Personally I don't see how any statement on Capital Punishment can fail to address Genesis 9:6 and Romans 13:1-7.

Quicumque effuderit humanum sanguinem,
per hominem fundetur sanguis illius;
ad imaginem quippe Dei
factus est homo.

And who sheds the blood of men
through man shall his blood be poured;
to the image obviously of God
is made man.

Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit. Non est enim potestas nisi a Deo; quae autem sunt, a Deo ordinatae sunt.
Itaque, qui resistit potestati, Dei ordinationi resistit; qui autem resistunt ipsi, sibi damnationem acquirent.
Nam principes non sunt timori bono operi sed malo. Vis autem non timere potestatem? Bonum fac, et habebis laudem ex illa;
Dei enim ministra est tibi in bonum. Si autem malum feceris, time; non enim sine causa gladium portat; Dei enim ministra est, vindex in iram ei, qui malum agit.
Ideo necesse est subditos esse, non solum propter iram sed et propter conscientiam.
Ideo enim et tributa praestatis; ministri enim Dei sunt in hoc ipsum instantes.
Reddite omnibus debita: cui tributum tributum, cui vectigal vectigal, cui timorem timorem, cui honorem honorem.

Let every soul be subordinate to the higher powers. For power is not except from God; which however are, from God they are ordained.
And thus, who resists power, resists the ordinance of God; who however resist Him, to themselves the y acquire damnation.
For princes are not for fear to good work but evil. However do you not wish to fear power? Do good, and you will have praise out of that;
For he is the minister of God to you in good. If however you will do evil, fear, for not without cause he carries the sword;
For he is the minister of God, the defender in wrath for him, who conducts evil.
Therefore it is necessary to be subordinate, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience.
For therefore also you supply tribute; for they are the ministers of God pursuing into this itself.
Return debts to all: to whom tribute tribute, to whom tax tax, to whom fear fear, to whom honor honor.

Historia Brevis de Scriptura Sacra et Ecclesia Catholica

Amici, Americani, Compatriotae,

The following two essays on Scripture and the Church were written by Ken Litchfield in response to a question posed on Facebook, “Where in the Bible does it list the books which should be part of the Bible?” The Protestant position is clearly and irrefutably debunked.

The Short History of the Bible by Ken Litchfield

The Bible is the collection of writings that the Catholic Church decided were inspired and could be read at Mass. It is a collection of books written by different authors in different writing styles, over thousands of years, for different audiences. The Bible contains historical events, but it is not written like a history book. It is not a manual on how to run a religion or build a church. Those things already existed before the Bible was assembled. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles called the Didache is the earliest manual on how to run a Church. In modern times the Catholic Church is governed by Canon Law and the Catechism which are based on Scripture.

At the time of Jesus, the Sadducees, that taught and worshiped at the Temple in Jerusalem, considered only the 5 books of Moses to be the word of God. The Pharisees and Rabbis that taught and worshiped in the Synagogues, considered the 5 books of Moses, the writings of the Prophets, the Psalms, and some of the historical writings as Scripture. They grouped these writings in sets of 22 or 24 books. The Essene Jews had another set of writings that they used in their community. The Jews of this time did not have a standardized Old Testament.

Jews living outside of Jerusalem used a Greek Translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint. This translation has the 46 books of the Catholic Old Testament in it, and various others that did not make it into the Catholic Old Testament. The 7 books that are in the Catholic Old Testament but not the Protestant Old Testament are 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Wisdom, Baruch, Sirach, Tobit, and Judith.
The Early Christians considered the Greek Septuagint version of the Hebrew writings as Scripture. The New Testament quotes from the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament more than 80% of the time. All the books that made it into the New Testament were written in the first century. This is a basic history of the Bible.

Around 90 AD a rabbinic school in Jamnia had a debate on which books were sacred and generally concluded that the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes were inspired texts.

Rabbi Akiba Ben Joseph started standardizing the writings that the Jews would use in their Synagogues between 100 and 130 AD. This collection is known as the Tanakh. He declared that the book of Sirach and all others written after that do not defile the hand which means they were not sacred texts that could not be touched after they were written. He established a canon of 22 or 24 books depending on how they were organized. The current Protestant Old Testament of 39 books is a reorganization of the 24 books. The Jews that rejected Jesus settled their Old Testament 100 years after Christianity had been started by Peter and the Apostles.

The Hebrew Masoretic Text commonly used today was developed between 500 and 900 AD. The Hebrew scholars took the consonant only Hebrew text and added vowels to make whole words as we have them in modern books.

The oldest list of the New Testament books is on incomplete scrap of parchment known as the Muratorian fragment from around 170 AD. It lists the Gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John, Acts of the Apostles, 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Galatians, 1st and 2nd Thessalonians, Romans, Philemon, Titus, 1st and 2nd Timothy, Jude, 1st and 2nd John, Wisdom of Solomon, Revelation of John, and Revelation of Peter as scripture. This list does not include 1 and 2 Peter, James, 3 John and Hebrews.

In 180 AD Irenaeus writes that there are only 4 Gospels and lists their authors as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

In 200 AD Origen considered the 4 Gospels, the Book of Acts, the 14 letters of Paul 1 Peter, Jude, 1 John and the Book of Revelation as Scripture. Origen expressed reservations concerning James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John. Origen also considered Gospel of Peter, Gospel of the Hebrews, Acts of Paul, I Clement, Epistle of Barnabas, Didache, and Shepherd of Hermas as divinely inspired.

Around 315 AD Eucebius of Caesarea wrote about the Canon of Scripture based on what he learned from Origen’s library and the libraries in Alexandria and Jerusalem. He wrote that the universally recognized books are the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, Book of Acts, the 14 Epistles of Paul (including Hebrews), 1 Epistle by Peter, 1 Epistle by John and the Revelation (Apocalypse) of John. Eusebius writes that these writings are accepted by some Churches but not all Churches: 2 Epistle of Peter, 2 and 3 Epistles of John, James and Jude. He writes that the Church in Rome rejects the book of Hebrews and many Churches read the Shepherd of Hermas during the Divine Liturgy. Eusebius writes that these books are non-Apostolic writings but useful for teaching: Acts of Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter, Epistle of Barnabas, Didache-Teaching of the 12 Apostles, Gospel of the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse of John.
Eucebius writes that these writings are heretical: Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mathias, Acts of Andrew, and Acts of John. This shows that the New Testament list we have today was not finalized at this time.

Around 325 AD the Codex Vaticanus, the Codex Sinaicticus and the Codex Alexandria were assembled. They are likely from the 50 copies of Scripture in Greek commissioned by the Roman Emperor Constantine. Between these 3 ancient books we have the fully accepted 66 book Old Testament, the books of the Deuterocanon (aka the apocrypha) including 3 Esdras, Wisdom, Prologue to Ecclesiasticus, Ecclesiasticus, Esther (with additions), Judith, Tobit, Baruch, Epistle of Jeremiah, Daniel (with additions), and the 1-4 Maccabees. They contain the New Testament Four Gospels, Book of Acts, 1 and 2 Peter, 1,2 and 3 John, Jude, James, the Epistle to the Hebrews the 13 Pauline Epistles, and The Book of Revelation.

In 360 AD the Council of Laodicea listed a canon of scripture that had 26 of the 27 books of the New Testament leaving off the Book of Revelation.

In 367 AD Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria listed the 27 books of the New Testament in his Church Calendar letter sent to his Churches.

In 382 AD Pope Damasus at the Council of Rome listed the 27 books of the New Testament and 46 books of the Old Testament as the Canon of Scripture for use in Churches.

In 383 AD Pope Damasus commissioned St. Jerome to make a Latin translation of the New and Old Testament Scriptures. Jerome used the Hebrew Masoretic texts for his Old Testament translation and Greek writings for the New Testament translation. The Hebrew texts didn’t include the Old Testament books that were in the Greek Septuagint because the Jews had rejected them. Jerome made a Latin translation of these books after they were confirmed by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage.

In 386 AD the St. Augustine guided the Council of Hippo in North Africa which established the same list of 46 Old Testament books and 27 New Testament books.

In 397AD the Council of Carthage under Augustine came up with the same list and sent it to Rome for approval after another council in 419AD.

In 405 AD Pope Innocent I listed the 27 books of the New Testament and 46 books of Old Testament in his Church Calendar letter to the Bishop of Lyon in France.

In 434 AD Vincent of Lerins “Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient for everything, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? Because all do not accept it in one and the same sense. One understands its words in one way, another in another way producing various interpretations. Therefore the right understanding should be in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical interpretation."

In 787 AD the Second Council of Nicaea accepted the decrees of previous smaller Councils. This included the Canon of Scripture determined in 397 by the Council of Carthage. 

In 1441 the Council of Florence approved the list of 46 Old Testament books and 27 New Testament books accepted by the Councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage.

In 1550 the list of 46 Old Testament books and 27 New Testament books were made official at the Council of Trent.

This is why there is a difference today between the Catholic and Protestant Bibles. It wasn't until the end of the 300s that list of Old and New Testament Scriptures were established.

The Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, 1st Clement to the Corinthians, and the Epistle of Barnabas were read in many early Churches. The Book of Revelation, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, James and the Book of Hebrews were considered questionable by many.

The Catholic Church that teaches that baptism forgives sins, that Jesus is present in the Eucharist, and that the Bishop of Rome is the head of the Church, is the Church that decided which books are the divinely inspired words of God. The Early Church Synods of Rome, Hippo and Carthage are the first Church councils that established the list of divinely inspired books. This list was confirmed at the Ecumenical Councils of 2nd Nicaea and Florence. The Catholic Church hand copied the Bible for over 1000 years before moveable type was developed by Gutenberg. For the first 1500 years of Christianity the Bible was interpreted based on the Tradition handed on by the Apostles. This Tradition can be understood through the writings of the Early Church Fathers who had an overall majority understanding of their interpretation.

The Bible contains divinely inspired writings. But they need to be interpreted. The thousands of different Protestant churches have different interpretations of these divinely inspired writings. The Catholic Church has the oldest and original understanding of these writings. The Pope is the successor of the minister that Jesus left behind to feed His sheep and tend His flock. This same Jesus promised to be with His Church to the end of time (Matt28:20). Jesus didn't leave us a book as an authority; He left us a Church to teach us what He taught the Apostles. Catholics put their trust in the Church that Jesus founded not a man’s interpretation of the Bible that the Catholic Church assembled.

No Protestant church has a record of how they decided which books make up the New Testament; even Martin Luther said “What would we know of the Scriptures if it wasn’t for the papists (Catholic Church)”.

The Church That Jesus Left Behind to Carry on His Mission by Ken Litchfield

Many people assume that Jesus left us a book as an authority and not a teaching Church. The writings of the New Testament, that both Protestants and Catholics agree are Scripture, tell us that Jesus didn't leave us a book.

In Matthew chapter 16 we learn that Jesus said “You are Peter and on this Rock I will build my Church”. He gives Peter the keys to the kingdom indicating his authority in the kingdom and that it would be handed on to successors like ministers that served the Jewish kings (Isiah ch 22). This is a transfer of authority from the seat of Moses in the Old Covenant to the new seat of authority in the New Covenant, the Chair of Peter. Jesus gives Peter and the Apostles the power to bind and loose, showing that they had authority to make and discontinue laws and the fellowship of members of the Church. After His resurrection Jesus gives the Apostles the authority to forgive or retain sins (John ch 20).In Matthew chapter 28, before ascending into Heaven, Jesus tells the Apostles that all the authority that God gave Him, he passes onto the Apostles. Jesus also told the Apostles to go out and teach the world everything that He taught and to Baptize them in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Jesus promises to be with them until the end of the age.

In John’s Gospel chapter 17 Jesus prays that we would all be one as He and the Father are one. This tells us that Jesus wants there to be unity in the Church, not thousands of conflicting denominations. The end of John's Gospel chapters 20 and 21 tells us that everything is not in what we now call the Bible because no book could hold it all. 

The Bible is the collection of books that the Catholic Church assembled and declared these are the inspired texts that can be read at Mass. This tells us that Jesus left a Church not a book.

In the Book of Acts chapter 1, Peter and the rest of the Apostles meet to replace Judas as one of the 12 Apostles. The King James Bible tells us that they referred to Judas’ office as a ‘Bishopric’. The understanding from the beginning is that the Apostles hold an office that has successors.

In the Book of Acts chapter 2 Peter preaches to the Jews and 3,000 are added to the Church through Baptism. This shows that the Church that Jesus left behind to carry on His mission existed before the New Testament was written. Jesus left a Church not a book.

The Book of Acts chapter 9 uses the Greek phrase, "ekklesia kath holos," which means "the Church throughout all". From this we derive the name Catholic Church meaning the whole group of called out people that believe the same universal thing.

The Book of Acts chapter 15 tells us at the Council of Jerusalem, the Apostles, and those they had appointed called presbyters (bishops), held a Council that made a decision that went against what was then considered Scripture (the Old Testament required circumcision) and gave a binding decree on all Christians. This shows that the Apostles knew that they had authority from Jesus that could bind and loose the laws of the old covenant before there was a Bible. Their decree to the Church says that it seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us …. This shows that the Church had binding authority and was protected by the Holy Spirit as Jesus promised. They sent the decree out with Paul, Barnabas and other appointed messengers, showing how the authority came from the Apostles not a private interpretation of individuals.

When the Apostles went out and founded Churches, they would appoint successors that we now call Bishops by laying hands on them. In 1 Timothy chapter 3 Paul tells Timothy that the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth not the Bible which was still being written. In chapter 4 Paul tells Timothy to be a good minister, to teach soundly and to not neglect the gift he was given through the laying on of his hands. Paul reminds him again in 2 Timothy 1:6 “Remember the gift you received with the laying on of my hands” referring to when he made Timothy a Bishop. Paul also warns Timothy to be careful about whom he lays hands on and be sure they know and follow the Faith before laying hands on them. This shows how the Faith was passed on through the teachers not just a book. In Ephesians chapter 4, Paul also lists the different positions in the Church like Prophets, teachers, readers etc. In Titus chapter 1, Paul reminds Titus that he left him in Crete to teach the people rightly and appoint presbyters in every town to properly hand on the Faith. Paul also tells Titus that the men he appoints should teach and appoint other men following the Tradition of Apostolic Succession. In 1 Corinthians chapter 10 and 11, Paul tells the Corinthians of the Church practices and that we have no other practices and neither do the Churches of God. Unity in practice was expected among the Christians then and now.

These Bible passages speak of the Unity that God desires for His Church.

Romans 12:4-5 “For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another” 

1 Corinthians 1:10 “I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.”

Acts 4:32 “Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common.”

Hebrews 13:11 “Let brotherly love continue”

Ephesians 4:5-6 “One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all. 

All of these verses speak about the unity that God wants for His Church.

In 90 AD the Church in Corinth had a dispute, so they wrote a letter to the Bishop of Rome. Pope Clement, Bishop of Rome wrote back that the Apostles received their authority from Jesus and the Bishops received their authority from the Apostles. We call this handing down of authority Apostolic Succession. When the Corinthians had a dispute they wrote to the Church in Rome and not Jerusalem, Antioch, another nearby major Church or the Apostle John, because they knew that Rome had the Authority.

In 107 AD Ignatius Bishop of Antioch writes that the teachings of the Church are passed on through the Bishops not a book. Ignatius also tells us that wherever the Bishop is, there is the catholic Church. In his letter to the Church in Rome, Ignatius writes that he doesn’t command them like Peter and Paul, but asks them not to try and rescue him when he gets there. This is early evidence that the Church in Rome had the teaching of Peter and Paul because this was the last place that they lived and taught.

In 150 AD the early Church historian Hegesippus took a trip from Jerusalem to Rome by land. He recorded that everywhere he traveled the Church taught the same thing. This shows that from the beginning there was unity in the Church teaching and practice not the ‘variety’ that some propose.

In 180 AD Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon in Gaul (France), wrote a 5 volume book against Heresies. Irenaeus learned the Faith from Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, who learned the Faith from the Apostle John. Irenaeus writes that if two Churches have a doctrinal dispute they need to see which Church can trace its history back to an Apostle. Or he says, all you have to do is find out what the Church in Rome teaches, because all Churches have to be in agreement with that Church because Peter and Paul taught there.

All of this tells us that the Church that Jesus left behind was known as the Catholic Church and was headquartered in Rome by the end of the first century. The Catholic Church has the Authority from Jesus and is protected from error, through the Holy Spirit, like Jesus said it would be (Matt ch 28). Unity can only be maintained through authority.

The Catholic Church offers the authority of the Chair of Peter, the Church Councils and the Bible to guide us as we grow in our Faith in Jesus Christ.

America Inpenitentialis

The Holy Prophet Hosea

Amici, Americani, Compatriotae,

Today's Old Testament Scripture reading is from Hosea 6:1-6. As usual, this selection is taken out of context where the rest of the chapter that provides key information is missing. The reading emphasizes God's call to repentance and forgiveness, but it does not go on to state what Israel's and Judah's reply to that call is. And their reply is precisely the reply of modern day America. Since God does not change in His holiness, righteousness and justice, His response in turn will be the same today as it was back then some 2700 years ago. Yet He remains a God of mercy as verse 11 describes - a mercy we clearly do not merit.

ENGLISH

1 “Come, let us return to the Lord;
for he has torn, that he may heal us;
he has stricken, and he will bind us up.
2 After two days he will revive us;
on the third day he will raise us up,
that we may live before him.
3 Let us know, let us press on to know the Lord;
his going forth is sure as the dawn;
he will come to us as the showers,
as the spring rains that water the earth.”
Impenitence of Israel and Judah

4 What shall I do with you, O E′phraim?
What shall I do with you, O Judah?
Your love is like a morning cloud,
like the dew that goes early away.
5 Therefore I have hewn them by the prophets,
I have slain them by the words of my mouth,
and my judgment goes forth as the light.
6 For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice,
the knowledge of God, rather than burnt offerings.

7 But at Adam they transgressed the covenant;
there they dealt faithlessly with me.
8 Gilead is a city of evildoers,
tracked with blood.
9 As robbers lie in wait for a man,
so the priests are banded together;
they murder on the way to Shechem,
yea, they commit villainy.
10 In the house of Israel I have seen a horrible thing;
E′phraim’s harlotry is there, Israel is defiled.

11 For you also, O Judah, a harvest is appointed.
When I would restore the fortunes of my people.

LATIN

1 “Venite, et revertamur ad Do minum,
quia ipse laceravit et sanabit nos,
percussit et curabit nos.
2 Vivificabit nos post duos dies,
in die tertia suscitabit nos,
et vivemus in conspectu eius.
3 Sciamus sequamurque,
ut cognoscamus Dominum.
Quasi diluculum praeparatus est egressus eius,
et veniet quasi imber nobis temporaneus,
quasi imber serotinus irrigans terram”.
4 Quid faciam tibi, Ephraim?
Quid faciam tibi, Iuda?
Caritas vestra quasi nubes matutina
et quasi ros mane pertransiens.
5 Propter hoc dolavi per prophetas,
occidi eos in verbis oris mei,
sed ius meum quasi lux egredietur;
6 quia caritatem volo et non sacrificium,
et scientiam Dei plus quam holocausta.
7 Ipsi autem in Adam transgressi sunt pactum;
ibi praevaricati sunt in me.
8 Galaad civitas operantium iniquitatem
maculata sanguine.
9 Et quasi insidiantes virum latrones
caterva sacerdotum;
in via interficiunt pergentes Sichem,
vere scelus operantur.
10 In domo Israel vidi horrendum:
ibi fornicationes Ephraim,
contaminatus est Israel.
11 Sed et tibi, Iuda, parata est messis,
cum convertero sortem populi mei.

Triticum et Zizanium

Fr. Elias Khalil

Amici, Americani, Compatriotae,

Friends came over to the house this weekend and stayed with us. They with my wife wanted to attend church on Sunday morning, so we went to the 10 am Mass at the South Annex of St. Matthew's Catholic Church. Rev. Elias Khalil, a Maronite Catholic priest from the country of Lebanon, officiated with a Deacon assisting. The Scripture readings for the Sixteenth Sunday in Ordinary Time included the following:

• God's Characteristics: Wisdom 12:13, 16-19
• Cry for Help: Psalm 86:5-6, 9-10, 15-16
• Intercession of the Holy Spirit: Romans 8:26-27
• Parable of the Wheat and the Tares: Matthew 13:24-43

Overall the Mass was conducted well. Unfortunately the hymns were quite modernist and gave more recognition to man than God as is typical of Novus Ordo Masses with a liberal progressive congregation. And the Gloria in Excelsis and the Sanctus Sanctus Sanctus were sung to the rhythm of elevator music instead of the old fashion way that exalts God with the passion of resounding praise. The Agnus Dei however was not done too badly. And the homily had a good message: at the end of time God's angels will separate the wheat from the tares. God will judge for it is not within our authority to judge during this time on Earth. This is a lesson which we would all do well to keep in mind, for in today's Church with the infiltration and infestation of modernism and liberalism, it is all too easy to sit in judgment and demand that God remove the heretics and apostates from authority whether in Parish or Diocese or the Vatican itself. God will do that but in God's time, not ours.

The only thing I really objected to in the homily was when Father Khalil described how farmers in the Middle East - particular Israel - would de-weed their fields, pulling up the tares and leaving the wheat; he referred to Israel as Palestine. Of course, since he is an Arab from Lebanon, that is to be expected. But the reality is this: Palestine was an artificial designation which the Romans had given to Judah, northern Israel, and Lebanon from 100 BC to about AD 400. There never were any Palestinian people and there are not any now, merely Arabs (descendants of Ishmael, son of Abraham by the Egyptian Hagar, and Esau, first born of Isaac who sold his birthright for a bowl of porridge) who need to accept the authority which God promised Abraham over all the land ".....from the Wadi of Egypt to the Great River, the Euphrates" (Genesis 15:18). This promise still stands today because God does not renege on His Word, for St Paul states in Romans 11:1, "I ask, then, has God rejected his people? Of course not!"

In any event, the overall message of the homily was good - God will ensure separation of wheat form tares. The elevator music is however completely unsatisfactory. And Israel still remains in God's promises.

One last thing - I would encourage the reader to study what the Church Fathers have to say about the parable of the wheat and the tares. St. John Chrysostom gave two homilies on this:

• Homily 46
• Homily 47

And St. Augustine gave one homily:

• Sermon 23

Please also see the following at The American Catholic blog:

• Life in a Time of Tares

Let us pay attention to the Church Fathers and not today's modernist, feel-good liberalization of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith.

.

Serpens in Gardino

Amici, Americani, Compatriotae,

Why do I believe in the record of Creation and Original Sin in Genesis? Because without it none of Sacred Scripture would make any sense. There would be no purpose in Jesus having come into the world. There would be no resurrection of the dead. All of life would be completely pointless. Thank God, however, that that is not the case. Therefore, in emphasizing the need to accept the account of original sin given by Moses, Pope Pius XII writes the following in paragraph 37 of his encyclical, Humani Generis:

When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

Therefore Genesis 3:1-8 in today's Scripture readings is of particular importance. Here the serpent tempts Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and from there comes all of humanity's sin. Verse 6 tells us that she and her husband Adam succumbed to temptation:

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate.

This is explained further in 1st John 2:16.

For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, is not of the Father but is of the world.

Comparing the two passages of Sacred Scripture we see the following:

• The Lust of the Flesh: Eve saw the tree was good for food
• The Lust of the Eyes: Eve saw the tree was a delight to the eyes
• The Pride of Life: Eve saw the tree was desirable to make one wise

Jesus was tempted in the same as recorded in Matthew 4:1-11 and Luke 4:1-13.

• The Lust of the Flesh: The devil said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread.”
• The Lust of the Eyes: And the devil took him up, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, and said to him, “To you I will give all this authority and their glory; for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will. If you, then, will worship me, it shall all be yours.”
• The Pride of Life: And he took him to Jerusalem, and set him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here; for it is written, ‘He will give his angels charge of you, to guard you,’ and ‘On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.’”

But unlike the first woman Eve, the second Adam (as St. Paul calls him in his epistles) passes the test.

• Jesus Response to the Lust of the Flesh: And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone.’”
• Jesus Response to the Lust of the Eyes: And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.’”
• Jesus Response to the Pride of Life: And Jesus answered him, “It is said, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God.’”

Jesus got those response from Sacred Scripture:

• Deuteronomy 8:3 - He therefore let you be afflicted with hunger, and then fed you with manna, a food unknown to you and your ancestors, so you might know that it is not by bread alone that people live, but by all that comes forth from the mouth of the LORD.
• Deuteronomy 6:13 - The LORD, your God, shall you fear; him shall you serve,* and by his name shall you swear.
• Deuteronomy 6:16 - You shall not put the LORD, your God, to the test, as you did at Massah.

Here we see how the Old Testament from the very beginning in the record of Creation and Original Sin is one continuous account to Jesus the Atonement for our sin.

Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned — sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. Romans 5:12-14

For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:21-22

So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body. Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual which is first but the physical, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. I tell you this, brethren: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 1 Corinthians 15:42-29

Dies Festus Praesentationis Nostri Domini in Templo

Amicic, Americani, Compatriotae,

Yesterday was the Feast Day of the Presentation of Our Lord in the Temple (which is the Fourth Joyful Mystery of the Most Holy Rosary). I got to attend daily Mass during lunchtime at Our Lady of Grace. But before Mass I had the opportunity to avail myself of the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation. Having gotten sober in a 12 Step Program some few decades ago, I hold a special place in my heart for this Sacrament. It is like the moral inventory steps in any of the Anonymous Programs:

Step 4: Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves
Step 5: Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
Step 10: Continued to take personal inventory, and when we were wrong, promptly admitted it.

Page 85 of the Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous says:

It is easy to let up on the spiritual program of action and rest on our laurels. We are headed for trouble if we do, for alcohol is a subtle foe. We are not cured of alcoholism. What we really have is a daily reprieve contingent on the maintenance of our spiritual condition. Every day is a day when we must carry the vision of God’s will into all of our activities. “How can I best serve Thee-Thy will (not mine) be done.” These are thoughts which must go with us constantly. We can exercise our will power along this line all we wish. It is the proper use of the will.

My sobriety is contingent on my spiritual condition. My spiritual condition is contingent on my moral inventory. My moral inventory is contingent on how well and how frequently I avail myself of the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation. Therefore, to neglect this Sacrament is to set myself up for a drink or a drug where hell begins not after some future death but right here and right now. Today I choose to do what the Sacrament requires because I simply cannot stand the alternative of temporal hell on Earth, much less eternal hell in the afterlife. I suppose that's imperfect contrition, but my 12 Step sponsor (and his sponsor a Franciscan priest who was my Confessor early in sobriety) would always say that fear can be a great motivator. As Psalm 111:10 states:

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom;
a good understanding have all those who practice it.
His praise endures for ever!

Nevertheless, without further delay, yesterday's Scripture readings included the following:

• The Coming Messenger: Malachi 3:1-4
• Entrance into the Temple: Psalm 24:7-10
• Exaltation through Abasement: Hebrews 2:14-18
• Jesus' Presentation in the Temple: Luke 2:22-40

Jesus' Presentation in the Temple

Father Kirby again gave an excellent homily on the Presentation. Several things stood out to me. First, Egypt's Pharaoh in Exodus chapter 1 had demanded the death of each male Hebrew child because the Hebrew people were multiplying and Pharaoh feared that they would join Egypt's enemies in a conflict. This was turned against Pharaoh in the last of the Ten Plagues where the first born male among each Egyptian family fell dead as the Angel of Death passed over the land (Exodus 11).

Second, for the Institution of the Passover (Exodus 12)and the Feast of the Unleavened Bread (Exodus 13), the Lord commands thusly in Exodus 13:2:

Consecrate to me all the first-born; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and of beast, is mine.

And the Lord goes on in verses 11 to 16 to say:

And when the Lord brings you into the land of the Canaanites, as he swore to you and your fathers, and shall give it to you, you shall set apart to the Lord all that first opens the womb. All the firstlings of your cattle that are males shall be the Lord’s. Every firstling of an ass you shall redeem with a lamb, or if you will not redeem it you shall break its neck. Every first-born of man among your sons you shall redeem. And when in time to come your son asks you, ‘What does this mean?’ you shall say to him, ‘By strength of hand the Lord brought us out of Egypt, from the house of bondage. For when Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the Lord slew all the first-born in the land of Egypt, both the first-born of man and the first-born of cattle. Therefore I sacrifice to the Lord all the males that first open the womb; but all the first-born of my sons I redeem.’ It shall be as a mark on your hand or frontlets between your eyes; for by a strong hand the Lord brought us out of Egypt.

Leviticus chapter 12 gives further details on the Purification of Women after Childbirth, specifying a certain timetable in verses 2 through 4:

If a woman conceives, and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as at the time of her menstruation, she shall be unclean. And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. Then she shall continue for thirty-three days in the blood of her purifying; she shall not touch any hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying are completed.

In obedience to these commands the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Joseph bring Jesus their firstborn to the Temple 40 days after his birth - the forty having significance in the 40 years that Israel spent in the wilderness after the Exodus, and 40 days and nights that it rained upon the Earth during the Great Flood in Genesis 7.

Third, the term firstborn would seem to imply to us modern people that there must have been other children, otherwise Jesus would be called the only born or only son of the Blessed Virgin Mary (and obviously she wouldn't be Virgin). However, in Judaic Law the term firstborn has a legal significance regardless of whether or not there are other children afterwards. Therefore, those who use that term to dispute the perpetual Virginity of our Lord's Mother demonstrate ignorance of Scripture (and invariably they are Protestants who likewise deny the power of the Sacraments, the authority of the Church and the primacy of the Pope as the Vicar of Christ).

So Jesus was the firstborn dedicated to His Father 40 days after His birth as the Law prescribes. While He, being the Son of God, could declare exemption from the requirements of the Law, He did not, but was obedient even through His earthly Mother and foster father in every way. Philippians 2:5-8 describes it in this way:

Have this mind among yourselves, which was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.

And if He did not exempt Himself from obedience to Divine Law, then what's wrong with us?

Iob: Miseria et Familia

Amici, Americani, Compatriotae,

Once again I had the opportunity to attend a service at the Weddington United Methodist Church this last Sunday where the Rev. Dr. Terry Moore gave the sermon. But before I begin discussing that, the one thing I would like to note is what I see on entering the sanctuary at that facility. Directly in front and above the podium area is a large stain glass window showing Jesus with outstretched arms flanked by the Greek letters Alpha on the right and Omega on the left:

Sanctuary at Weddington UMC

I am pleased to see that a depiction of Jesus Christ is front and center. Now true, like most Protestant ecclesial communities, there is sadly no Crucifix nor any Tabernacle where the consecrated hosts - Jesus Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity - are kept. And also true, the choir and musical instruments figure prominently. But at least one sees the Reverend dressed in the robes befitting a Christian cleric and the Choir in like apparel, and at least something of basic Christianity is readily and prominently visible instead of this:

A Baptist Rock 'n Roll Theatre

But enough of such comparisons. The point of this blog post is Job: Trouble and Family.The sermon that Rev. Dr. Moore gave was 31 minutes long (it's too bad that most of today's Catholics can't even sit through a 10 minute homily, let alone a 31 minute sermon; one wonder how they would fare at listening to a homily given by one of the early Latin or Greek Church Fathers who were known to go on for an hour or more). The reader can listen to the sermon by left clicking his mouse cursor on the aforementioned hyperlinked text. While I took notes, I am not going to reproduce them here. Suffice it to say that the minister spoke from Job 2:8-10 using the Contemporary English Version:

8 Then Job sat on the ash-heap to show his sorrow. And while he was scraping his sores with a broken piece of pottery, 9 his wife asked, “Why do you still trust God? Why don’t you curse him and die?” 10 Job replied, “Don’t talk like a fool! If we accept blessings from God, we must accept trouble as well.” In all that happened, Job never once said anything against God.

Of course, I prefer the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition for the English and the Nova Vulgata Bibliorum Sacrorum Editio for the Latin:

8 And he took a potsherd with which to scrape himself, and sat among the ashes. 9 Then his wife said to him, “Do you still hold fast your integrity? Curse God, and die.” 10 But he said to her, “You speak as one of the foolish women would speak. Shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?” In all this Job did not sin with his lips

8 Qui testa saniem radebat, sedens in sterquilinio. 9 Dixit autem illi uxor sua: “ Adhuctu permanes in simplicitate tua? Benedic Deo et morere ”. 10 Qui ait ad illam: “ Quasi una de stultis mulieribus locuta es! Si bona suscepimus de manu Dei, mala quare non suscipiamus? ”. In omnibus his non peccavit Iob labiis suis.

Job's Wife

The minister then offered what I initially thought was a very unique explanation for the statement - curse God and die - which Job's wife made to her husband. Basically, the minister said that Job's wife had also lost her family - her sons and daughters - and her possessions and home when God had permitted Satan to attack him. And she was seeing her husband being tormented by skin boils into abject misery. Surely this affected her feelings too, and for that reason she gave in to human nature and said what she said.

Then I did some research and discovered that what this pastor was saying had been said before by modern-day feminist theologians (no offense intended against the pastor). Today's Christian Woman has an article entitled, "The Most Misunderstood Woman in the Bible." Please, care lector, do read it after you have listen to the minister's sermon. You will find the similarity of phrases and sentences between what was written in 2011 and what was preached in 2017. Now there's nothing wrong with using one's research in preparing a sermon; but my only point is this - viewing Job's wife as being misunderstood is not an idea new in modern theology, but it is an idea new to ancient Christian tradition as the following discussion will explain.

Now concerning the wife, both the article and the sermon claim that "Augustine labeled her 'the devil's accomplice,' Calvin called her 'a diabolical fury,'" and that such titles are unfitting and unfair given the loss which the wife suffered, and given the fact that she stuck out this whole terrible ordeal right past Job chapter 42, so she was demonstrably loyal.

But let us recall what Jesus said to St. Peter in Matthew chapter 16. St. Peter had declared Jesus the Christ and Jesus said to him, "Thou art Rock and upon this Rock I shall build my Church...." Then a few verses later Jesus foretells His death and resurrection, to which St. Peter declares, "God forbid, Lord! This shall never happen to you!" At that point Jesus turns and says, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men." So if Jesus after calling St. Peter the Rock upon whom He will build His Church also calls him Satan for having forbidden the Lord's impending torture and death on the Cross, then why is it so unfair and unthinkable that St. Augustine should describe Job's wife as adiutrix diaboli after she advised Job to do precisely what Satan told God in Job 2:4-5 that he could make Job do?

Skin for skin! All that a man has he will give for his life. But put forth thy hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse thee to thy face.

No, mei amici, we should not buy the liberal progressive feminist exoneration of Job's wife just as Christ Himself did not buy St. Peter's admonition that He should not go through His passion and death. I do fully and completely agree with Rev. Dr. Moore that Job's wife suffered mightily in losing everything. Heaven forbid that that should happen to any of us (me included). I also agree with him that she remained with Job right through the end. May we (especially me) therefore remain loyal and steadfast to our Beloved regardless the tragedy. But when she said to Job what Satan had previously told God he could make Job do, at that moment she was NO different than St. Peter when he admonished our Lord that He should NOT go to His passion and death. And that is the problem I had as I listen to the sermon on Sunday. I am NOT criticizing Rev. Dr. Moore (he was trying very hard to explain something very difficult to the unlearned such as I), but this idea new in ancient Christian tradition that Job's wife has been maligned (especially by St. Augustine) was nagging at me all day long.

So while everything which the pastor said about being prepared in one's relationship before crisis hits is very, very true (and he with humility admitted that he would likely behave similarly to Job's wife in such a crisis), the central point of Sacred Scripture - the Cross - which Luke 14:25-32 talks about I thought was missing from Sunday's sermon:

25 Now great multitudes accompanied him; and he turned and said to them, 26 “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. 27 Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple. 28 For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? 29 Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation, and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, 30 saying, ‘This man began to build, and was not able to finish.’ 31 Or what king, going to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and take counsel whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? 32 And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends an embassy and asks terms of peace. 33 So therefore, whoever of you does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.

St. John Chrysostom

In summary, therefore, let us consider what St. John Chrysostom (AD 347-407), Doctor of the Church, Bishop of Constantinople, says about Job's wife in sections 4 and 5 within Homily 28 on 1st Corinthians (I always prefer the Patriarchs of the early Church over today's feminist theology - again, no offense to Rev. Dr. Moore). St. Chrysostom (golden tongue in Greek) was rather long winded, but truth cannot always be distilled into a mere sound bite or Facebook meme. And besides, St. Chrysostom is one of my favorites!

4. Hearing therefore all these things, let us both take great care of the poor, and restrain our appetite, and rid ourselves of drunkenness, and be careful worthily to partake of the Mysteries; and whatsoever we suffer, let us not take it bitterly, neither for ourselves nor for others; as when untimely death happen or long diseases. For this is deliverance from punishment, this is correction, this is most excellent admonition. Who says this? He that has Christ speaking in him.

But nevertheless even after this many of our women are so foolishly disposed as even to go beyond the unbelievers in the excess of their grief. And some do this blinded by their passion, but others for ostentation, and to avoid the censures of them that are without: who most of all are deprived of excuse, to my mind. For, lest such a one accuse me, says she, let God be my accuser: lest men more senseless than the brute beasts condemn me, let the law of the King of all be trampled under foot. Why, how many thunderbolts do not these sayings deserve?

Again; If any one invite you to a funeral supper after your affliction there is no one to say any thing against it, because there is a law of men which enjoins such things: but when God by His law forbids your mourning, all thus contradict it. Does not Job come into your mind, O woman? Rememberest thou not his words at the misfortune of his children, which adorned that holy head more than ten thousand crowns, and made proclamation louder than many trumpets? Do you make no account of the greatness of his misfortunes, of that unprecedented shipwreck, and that strange and portentous tragedy? For thou possibly hast lost one, or a second, or third: but he so many sons and daughters: and he that had many children suddenly became childless. And not even by degrees were his bowels wasted away: but at one sweep all the fruit of his body was snatched from him. Nor was it by the common law of nature, when they had come to old age, but by a death both untimely and violent: and all together, and when he was not present nor sitting by them, that at least by hearing their last words he might have some consolation for so bitter an end of theirs: but contrary to all expectation and without his knowing any thing of what took place, they were all at once overwhelmed, and their house became their grave and their snare.

And not only their untimely death, but many things besides there were to grieve him; such as their being all in the flower of their age, all virtuous and loving, all together, that not one of either sex was left, that it befell them not by the common law of nature, that it came after so great a loss, that when he was unconscious of any sin on his own part or on theirs, he suffered these things. For each of these circumstances is enough even by itself to disturb the mind: but when we find them even concurring together, imagine the height of those waves, how great the excess of that storm. And what in particular is greater and worse than his bereavement, he did not even know wherefore all these things happened. On this account then, having no cause to assign for the misfortune, he ascends to the good pleasure of God, and says, The Lord gave, the Lord has taken away: as it pleased the Lord, even so it happened; blessed be the name of the Lord for ever. Job 2:21 And these things he said, when he saw himself who had followed after all virtue in the last extremity; but evil men and impostors, prospering, luxurious, revelling on all sides. And he uttered no such word as it is likely that some of the weaker sort would have uttered, Was it for this that I brought up my children and trained them with all exactness? For this did I open my house to all that passed by, that after those many courses run in behalf of the needy, the naked, the orphans, I might receive this recompense? But instead of these, he offered up those words better than all sacrifice, saying, Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return there. If however he rent his clothes and shaved his head, marvel not. For he was a father and a loving father: and it was meet that both the compassion of his nature should be shown, and also the self-command of his spirit. Whereas, had he not done this, perhaps one would have thought this self-command to be of mere insensibility. Therefore he indicates both his natural affection and the exactness of his piety, and in his grief he was not overthrown.

5. Yea, and when his trial proceeded further, he is again adorned with other crowns on account of his reply to his wife, saying, If we have received good at the hand of the Lord, shall we not endure evil? Job 2:10 For in fact his wife was by this time the only one left, all his having been clean destroyed, both his children and his possessions and his very body, and she reserved to tempt and to ensnare him. And this indeed was the reason why the devil did not destroy her with the children, nor asked her death, because he expected that she would contribute much towards the ensnaring of that holy man. Therefore he left her as a kind of implement, and a formidable one, for himself. For if even out of paradise, says he, I cast mankind by her means, much more shall I be able to trip him up on the dunghill.

And observe his craft. He did not apply this stratagem when the oxen or the asses or the camels were lost, nor even when the house fell and the children were buried under it, but so long looking on the combatant, he suffers her to be silent and quiet. But when the fountain of worms gushed forth, when the skin began to putrify and drop off, and the flesh wasting away to emit most offensive discharge, and the hand of the devil was wearing him out with sharper pain than gridirons and furnaces and any flame, consuming on every side and eating away his body more grievously than any wild beast, and when a long time had been spent in this misery ; then he brings her to him, seasoned and worn down. Whereas if she had approached him at the beginning of his misfortune, neither would she have found him so unnerved, nor would she have had it in her power so to swell out and exaggerate the misfortune by her words. But now when she saw him through the length of time thirsting for release, and desiring the termination of what pressed on him vehemently then does she come upon him. For to show that he was quite worn down, and by this time had become unable even to draw breath, yea, and desired even to die, hear what he says; For I would I could lay hands on myself, or could request another and he should do it for me; And observe, I pray, the wickedness of his wife, from what topic she at once begins: namely, from the length of time, saying, How long will you hold out ?

Now, if often even when there were no realities words alone have prevailed to unman a person, consider what it was likely he then should feel, when, besides these words, the things themselves also were galling him; and what, as it should seem, was worst of all, it was a wife also who spoke thus, and a wife who had sunk down utterly and was giving herself up, and on this account was seeking to cast him also into desperation. However, that we may see more clearly the engine which was brought against that adamantine wall, let us listen to the very words. What then are these? How long will you hold out? Saying, Lo! I wait a short time longer, expecting the hope of my salvation. Nay, says she, the time has exposed the folly of your words, while it is protracted, yet shows no mode of escape. And these things she said, not only thrusting him into desperation, but also reproaching and jesting upon him.

For he, ever consoling her as she pressed upon him, and putting her off, would speak as follows: Wait a little longer, and there will soon be an end of these things. Reproaching him therefore, she speaks: Will you now again say the same thing? For a long time has now run by, and no end of these things has appeared. And observe her malice, that she makes no mention of the oxen, the sheep or the camels, as knowing that he was not very much vexed about these; but she goes at once to nature, and reminds him of his children. For on their death she saw him both rending his clothes and shaving off his hair. And she said not, your children are dead, but very pathetically, your memorial is perished from the earth, the thing for which your children were desirable. For if, even now after that the resurrection has been made known children are longed for because they preserve the memory of the departed; much more then. Wherefore also her curse becomes from that consideration more bitter. For in that case, he that cursed, said not, Let his children be utterly rooted out, but, his memorial from the earth. Your sons and your daughters. Thus whereas she said, the memorial, she again accurately makes mention of either sex. But if you, says she, carest not for these, at least consider what is mine. The pains of my womb, and labors which I have endured in vain with sorrow. Now what she means is this: I, who endured the more, am wronged for your sake, and having undergone the toils I am deprived of the fruits.

And see how she neither makes express mention of his loss of property, nor is silent about it and hurries by; but in that point of view in which it also might be most pathetically narrated, in that she covertly refers to it. For when she says, I too am a vagabond and a slave, going about from place to place, from house to house, she both hints at the loss and indicates her great distress: these expressions being such as even to enhance that misfortune. For I come to the doors of others, says she; nor do I beg only, but am a wanderer also and serve a strange and unusual servitude, going round everywhere and carrying about the tokens of my calamity, and teaching all men of my woes; which is most piteous of all, to change house after house. And she stayed not even at these lamentations, but proceeded to say, Waiting for the sun when it will set, and I shall rest from my miseries and the pains that encompass me, by which I am now straitened. Thus, that which is sweet to others, says she, to behold the light, this to me is grievous: but the night and the darkness is a desirable thing. For this only gives me rest from my toils, this becomes a comfort to my miseries. But speak somewhat against the Lord, and die. Perceivest thou here too her crafty wickedness? How she did not even in the act of advising at once introduce the deadly counsel, but having first pitifully related her misfortunes and having drawn out the tragedy at length, she couches in a few words what she would recommend, and does not even declare it plainly, but throwing a shade over that, she holds out to him the deliverance which he greatly longed for, and promises death, the thing which he then most of all desired.

And mark from this also the malice of the devil: that because he knew the longing of Job towards God, he suffers not his wife to accuse God, lest he should at once turn away from her as an enemy. For this cause she no where mentions Him, but the actual calamities she is continually harping on.

And do thou, besides what has been said, add the circumstance that it was a woman who gave this counsel, a wonderful orator to beguile the heedless. Many at least even without external accidents have been cast down by the counsel of woman alone.