Ever since I started studying the Bible seriously I have noticed a curious fact: in the New Testament, it is very rare that Jesus is explicitly referred to as “God” (Greek theos). In fact, there are only two cases in the whole of the New Testament that Jesus is unquestionably called God (John 1:1; 20:28), although there are a small number of other passages in which the author is probably using the term God to refer to Jesus (John 1:18, Romans 9:5, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:8, 2 Peter 1:1), although each of these other instances are questioned in some quarters.

What is particularly interesting is that just a few years after the writing of the New Testament books we find other Christians who have no such hesitation. St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was a disciple of John the Apostle and died in the early 2nd century, shows no reserve is calling Jesus God: “For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived in the womb by Mary” (Ignatius Letter to the Ephesians 18:2); “love towards Jesus Christ our God” (Ignatius Letter to the Romans Preface); “I give glory to Jesus Christ the God who bestowed such wisdom upon you” (Ignatius Letter to the Smyrnaeans 1:1).

So why do the New Testament writers hesitate, or even refuse, to call Jesus God if they believed him to be divine?

Some, of course, would say that the N.T. authors did not, in fact, believe Jesus to be divine. But that ignores the overwhelming evidence of the N.T. writings. Even if Jesus were never called God in the N.T. it is still clear that the first Christians believed him to be divine. His authority to change the Law (Matthew 5) and to forgive sins (Matthew 9:1-3), as well as his exaltation as Lord of the Universe (Philippians 2:9-11, Colossians 1:15-20) are just a few examples showing that the N.T. authors believed him to be equal to God. So, again, why didn’t they just go around explicitly calling him God as later Christians would do?

The answer lies in the strictly monotheistic Jewish atmosphere in which the first Christians lived and breathed and the competing worldview of the ruling Roman Empire. To a first century Jew, there was only one God and that was the God of Israel. To apply the term God to another being would be to reject the strongest pillar of Judaism: monotheism. To the first century Roman pagan, on the other hand, there were many gods and applying the term theos to someone caused no more concern than calling him powerful or a ruler. So the first century Jewish Christians (and remember, all the first Christians were Jewish) had a dilemma: they understood and accepted that Jesus possessed divine attributes, yet they also held steadfast to Jewish monotheism, so how could they express this without being perceived as Roman polytheists? If they just blithely called Jesus God, most Jews (and pagans) would believe they were inventing yet another god in the pantheon of pagan gods – or they would have believed that the Christian equated Jesus with God the Father. In many ways, the revelation of the Trinity was the greatest linguistic challenge man ever faced.

So the New Testament authors closely guarded their use of the title God for Jesus, and used many other ways to express his divinity. No one reading the N.T. books in the first century would have questioned that their authors believed Jesus to be divine, but at the same time they would have also been clear that these authors did not believe Jesus to be the same person as God the Father. By being circumspect in their language, they were able to protect both their monotheistic beliefs as well as their conviction that Jesus was God.

Eventually, as Christianity grew it became more confident in its distinctive beliefs regarding the Godhead in contrast to both Judaism and paganism and so was able to more freely assign the title God to Jesus outright, as we see in the writing of St. Ignatius of Antioch. The belief didn’t change, but the language used to express it did develop.

For further reading: Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus by Murray J. Harris

A live webcast of the Pope’s visit to the U.K. can be found here.

Pray for Pope Benedict and pray for the U.K.!

If you counted up all the other “patient” deaths he has caused, he should get about 5,000 years in prison:

Mass. doc gets 6 months in abortion patient death

BARNSTABLE, Mass. (AP) — A doctor was sentenced Tuesday to six months in jail after pleading guilty to involuntary manslaughter in the case of a woman who died after he performed an abortion on her.

Dr. Rapin Osathanondh was sentenced in the 2007 death of 22-year-old Laura Hope Smith. He pleaded guilty in a Massachusetts court Monday, just as his trial was about to begin.

Smith was 13 weeks pregnant when she went to see Osathanondh for an abortion in his Cape Cod office. She was pronounced dead later that day.

Prosecutors charged Osathanondh with manslaughter, alleging that he failed to monitor her while she was under anesthesia, delayed calling 911 when her heart stopped, and later lied to try to cover up his actions…

Osathanondh, 67, who is originally from Thailand, had been licensed to practice medicine in Massachusetts since 1974.

He did not speak in court Tuesday, but his lawyer, Paul Cirel, said Osathanondh had expressed “most profound remorse and regret for Laura Smith’s death.”

Cirel said Osathanondh came to the United States in the 1960s and had performed thousands of safe abortions before Smith’s death.

“This is regrettably — terribly — the one complication, the one problem that ever came up in his practice,” Cirel said.

No, Mr. Cirel, I’d say there has been more than one “complication/problem” in his practice over the years.

One of the most popular posts of this blog is my Rules of Engagement for Catholics on the Internet. And now, it has been translated into…well, I actually don’t know what language it has been translated in. Does anyone out there know?

Những qui tắc tham gia trên Internet đối với người Công Giáo

Thế giới trực tuyến là một phần thiết yếu của cuộc sống hàng ngày cho người Công giáo trong thế kỷ 21. Trong vài năm qua, internet blogger và người biện hộ, Eric Sammons, đã phát triển một số quy tắc của sự gắn kết cho các tông đồ Internet có thể hữu ích cho mỗi người chúng ta.

Continue reading (if you can)…

As these rules are universal and apply to any Catholic on the Internet, I’m pleased to see that they have been translated. Now I just need to figure out what language this is…

Update: Asute reader Frank pointed me to the Google Translate page, which informs us that this is Vietnamese. Thanks Frank!

A new trailer has been posted for There Be Dragons, the upcoming movie based on the life of St. Josemaria Escriva. It looks quite promising:

We see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for every one. For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through suffering. (Hebrews 2:9-10)

This week Pope Benedict is traveling to England to beatify John Henry Cardinal Newman, one of the most influential English Catholics in history. Among Catholics, the idea that is most associated with Cardinal Newman is his theory of the development of doctrine. This theory argues that over time the Church’s understanding of divine revelation grows and develops, deepening our knowledge of these truths of our faith. Today most Catholics accept this theory as correctly interpreting the history of the Church’s doctrinal teaching and see it as the practical application of the Holy Spirit’s guidance to all truth that Jesus promised (John 16:13).

But this was not the case in Newman’s time. When he first proposed this theory – in the late 1830’s, a few years before he became Catholic – his ideas were seen as quite radical. It was still twenty years until Darwin’s famous On the Origin of Species, which proposed evolutionary processes in the development of biological species, and the common understanding of history in Newman’s time was a strictly static one. Everyone believed that although time went on, most things basically stayed the same. This was true in Christian doctrine as well – what 19th century Catholics believed was identical to what 6th century or 3rd century Catholics believed. But Newman’s study of history – combined with his probing mind – realized that this is not the case; that, in fact, our understanding of divine revelation is not identical to a 6th or 3rd century Catholic’s understanding. The Church’s constant meditation on divine truths over the centuries – guided by the Holy Spirit – has led to a deeper understanding of those truth. How the Trinity was expressed in the 4th century was a development – and an improvement – from how it was expressed in the 2nd century.

Newman liked to compare the Church to a tree, which grows organically from a seed to a sapling to eventually a full-grown mature tree. The essence of the tree is the same, but its outward appearance does change. Likewise, the Church does teach the same truths today that it did in previous centuries, but our understanding of these truths has developed and therefore outwardly they may appear on the surface to be different.

Many in Newman’s time accused Newman of heresy on this point. They felt that any suggestion that our faith was not identical to the faith of a 3rd century Catholic meant that the content of the Faith had changed. In other words, both could not be correct. But Newman realized that what is true in microcosm is true in macrocosm as well. If an individual believer’s understanding of the faith grows and develops during his lifetime (and it should), then the combination of all individual believer’s understanding must also grow and develop.

What Newman also recognized during this study of the development of doctrine is that there must be some objective party which can determine if a new understanding is a legitimate development or an illegitimate heresy. How can we know that Arius’ teachings on Christ are heretical but the unscriptural word “homoousis” (used in the Nicene Creed) is doctrinally legitimate? Time and again, no matter the issue, Newman saw that it was Rome that made the correct determination in this regard. It was Rome that protected the faith from innovation but guided it in its development. Thus, shortly after completing his work Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, he followed his own developed understanding of the Faith and entered the Church of Rome.

Pretty cool:

Tolkien relation sculpts Cardinal Newman statue

Perhaps this is just another case of “the media doesn’t get religion”, but I was struck by the opening paragraphs of this story:

The former Belgian bishop who resigned in April after admitting he sexually abused a nephew for years said Saturday he would go into hiding to assess his future, despite calls for him to leave the church immediately.

Roger Vangheluwe said in a statement he would immediately leave an abbey in his bishopry of Bruges, where he has been staying since his April 23 resignation. His bishopry has urged him to seek another place to live, and several victims of sexual abuse by clergy as well as a prominent senator have called on him to leave the church as an institution.

“Leave the church as an institution?” What does that mean? Excommunicate himself? Stop going to Mass? The reporter of this story really dropped the ball in this case.

The absolute last thing anyone should want is for this bishop to leave the Church; it is the Church, after all, which is the hospital for sinners and the only place this man can find peace and forgiveness. Obviously, justice must be served and the Church should make sure he never serves in a capacity that endangers other children, but kicking him out of the Church would do nothing to help him.

While he was at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat with Jesus and his disciples. The Pharisees saw this and said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” He heard this and said, “Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do. Go and learn the meaning of the words, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ I did not come to call the righteous but sinners.” (Matthew 10-13)

The slogan of an Evangelical ministry at Wake Forest University named “Wake” is “Worship. Teaching. Friends.”

That’s right. WTF.

They know the double-meaning (and if you don’t, you should be proud) and are using it intentionally to garner attention from college-aged kids through their slogan “WTF is Wake”. Their banner:

The “Wake” people are very pleased with their new-found “viral” status, and somehow think that by getting attention they are advancing their ministry (even though most observers don’t realize that the double-meaning is intentional). However, “attention” does not mean “evangelization”. The dude who is threatening to burn the Qu’ran is getting attention, but that doesn’t mean he is evangelizing. When are people going to learn that being a media whore doesn’t make you an apostle of the Good News? There is nothing wrong with trying to engage the culture, but efforts like this are just salt that has lost its taste, and we know what that’s good for (Matthew 5:13).

I have often commented that one of the most powerful pro-life activities we can undertake is to pray in front of abortion clinics. It takes the battle to the heart of darkness and exposes the light of Christ on it. So I am very pleased to see that Bishop Samuel Aquila of Fargo, North Dakota is encouraging his priests to schedule time for such activities in the coming month:

A bishop already known for his pro-life activism is taking the further step of exhorting his priests to pray outside the state’s sole abortion clinic.

“The 40 Days for Life North Dakota campaign will soon begin again, running from Sept. 22 through Oct. 31,” Bishop Samuel Aquila of Fargo wrote in a recent letter to priests. “I know what a busy time this is for you in the parishes, yet I ask that you schedule one more very important thing on your calendar: your hour of prayer outside the abortion facility. I encourage you to tell your parishioners when that hour will be so that they may join you, or pray in union with you from wherever they may be at that time.”

Read his letter to priests here.

Let us all make an effort to go to an abortion clinic soon and pray in front of it. Also, be sure to pray for Bishop Aquila and all bishops!

Everyone has heard the popular phrase, “What would Jesus do?” (WWJD?). It gained popularity in the Evangelical world in the 1990’s as a way to encourage Christians to consider what Jesus would do before making moral decisions. In many ways this is a great idea, and Catholic tradition has always called on disciples of Christ to live in a Christ-like manner. In fact, St. Paul goes so far as to say that it is no longer he who lives, but Christ who lives in him (Galatians 2:20).

However, there is a danger in WWJD? in that it can blur the distinction between Christ and us. Namely, that he is God and we are not. Just looking at the Gospel of Matthew, here are a few instances in which what Jesus did is NOT what we should do:

“You have heard it said…but I say to you” (Matthew 5:20-48)
In Christ’s Sermon on the Mount, he often stated an Old Testament command, but then followed it by stating, “But I say to you”, thus making himself above the Law. In fact, in some cases – such as with marriage – he even changes the Law as it was originally received by Moses! None of us ever have the ability to change the law as it has been received by God.

“Your sins are forgiven” (Matthew 9:1-8)
Christ startled those around him by forgiving the sins of people who came to him. As the scribes correctly noted, this is blasphemy if you are not God. We can – and should – forgive the sins that are committed against us, but we have no ability to forgive sins committed against others. (Of course, priests have been given the ability to forgive sins, but most of us are not priests, and they are only able to do it through the ministry of the Church).

“Follow me” (Matthew 9:9, 9:37-39, 19:21)
Christ often calls people to unconditionally follow him – and he makes grand promises (and dire predictions) to those who take up his call. He made it clear that he should be the center of each person’s life if they want true joy and happiness – and he predicts persecution to those who take him up on his offer. We, on the other hand, should always point people to Christ and never to ourselves. If anyone is following you, you better give them a new map.

“On the third day [I] will be raised to life” (Matthew 16:21, 17:22, 20:19)
If anyone you knew predicted that three days after his death he would be walking the earth again, you would rightly think he was crazy. Jesus, however, did just that – and backed it up by defeating death. None of us, however, should go around predicting our bodily resurrection (at least not until the Last Day).

“You have the poor with you always, but you will not always have me” (Matthew 26:11)
Christianity has always been clear that we have a duty to care for the poor. In fact, we recognize that when we serve the poor, we serve Christ (cf. Matthew 25:31-46). However, when the disciples were indignant that a woman “wasted” an expensive bottle of ointment on Jesus instead of selling it to help the poor, Jesus made the startling statement that the woman’s action was superior to helping the poor. If any of us were to think that service to us was more important than serving the poor, we would be deluding ourselves.

These are just a few examples (and if I had picked John’s Gospel, I could multiply them even more; after all, who of us can say “I am the way, the truth and the life”?), but they should serve to remind us that although we are to be molded into the image of Christ, we must always remember that Jesus Christ is the unique and divine Son of God, and none of us should ever act exactly as he did on this earth. We sometimes become so familiar with the words and actions of Christ found in the Gospels that we forget how inappropriate – and even blasphemous – they would be coming from ordinary men and women like us.

So instead of asking “What would Jesus do?” we should ask ourselves, “What would Jesus have me do?”

When reading the lives of saints, perhaps nothing is so startling to the modern reader than the practices of corporal mortification that these holy men and women engaged in. In our pleasure-driven world, the idea that someone would willingly choose to inflict pain on themselves is incomprehensible.  And the practice of mortification is universal among the saints – even John Henry Cardinal Newman, who is known as an intellectual, used the discipline on a regular basis.

Based on this reality, those of us who desire to become saints today might wonder where does mortification fit into our lives? Are we to engage in some of these seemingly extreme measures? Catholic tradition has always recommended the advice (and approval) from a spiritual director before engaging in corporal mortification, and most people today don’t have spiritual directors. So what can we do? Fortunately, there are plenty of mortifications that we Catholics can practice that are true mortifications and can be done by anyone without a spiritual director. Catholic Phoenix gives us five great examples:

Wake like a hero. Get up the first time the alarm goes off. Don’t hit the snooze button, instead practice what members of Opus Dei call “the heroic moment.” Roll out of bed, kiss the floor, and say one word: serviam. That’s Latin for “I will serve.” It’s exactly the opposite of what Lucifer said before being cast into hell.

Be on time. To everything. Here I open myself up to “tu quoque”s galore, but it is still good advice. Punctuality shows respect for others and yourself. It’s a perfect mortamin because it’s a small thing, but hard to do.

Be cheerful even when you don’t feel like it. Every one you meet is engaged in a great struggle, not just you. Suck it up and be friendly. You might feel like an old shoe, but your attitude doesn’t need to smell like one. Smiles are free, they’re easy, and they go a long way towards boosting morale—maybe even your own.

Order a smaller size drink. This is a ridiculously simple mortification, but a surprisingly hard one to do. For whatever reason, Americans feel entitled to jumbo-sized beverages—they don’t even have small drinks at McDonald’s anymore—but this is the perfect covert act of self-denial. If anyone notices, they’ll probably chalk it up to the economy.

Eat fish on Friday. Admit it: you want to be a Catholic who eats fish on Friday—it’s so not cool, that it is cool. Besides, nobody will notice, I promise—there are too many trendy diets for people to keep track of. Call it the “purposefully alternating proteins and legumes” diet (the p.a.p.a.l. diet, wink, wink) and your co-workers will beg you for the details. Also, contrary to popular belief, Catholics have not been excused from the requirement to abstain from meat on Fridays—it’s just that now one is allowed to substitute another suitable act of mortification.

And if anyone feels that these mortifications are not serious enough, I challenge you to actually try them on a consistent basis for at least a month or two. You will find they are not as easy as they appear – and that they do involve dying to self, which is what mortification is for.

Finally, when doing any type of mortification, follow the advice of St. Josemaría Escrivá: “Choose mortifications that don’t mortify others” (The Way 179). If your mortifications cause you to be grumpy and uncharitable to others, then they are not means to salvation for you or for others.

Your birth, O Virgin Mother of God,
proclaims joy to the whole world,
for from you arose the glorious Sun of Justice, Christ our God;
he freed us from the age-old curse and filled us with holiness;
he destroyed death and gave us eternal life.
Canticle of Zechariah Antiphon – Morning Prayer

Your Nativity, O Virgin,
Has proclaimed joy to the whole universe!
The Sun of Righteousness, Christ our God,
Has shone from You, O Theotokos!
By annulling the curse,
He bestowed a blessing.
By destroying death, He has granted us eternal Life.
Troparion

By Your Nativity, O Most Pure Virgin,
Joachim and Anna are freed from barrenness;
Adam and Eve, from the corruption of death.
And we, your people, freed from the guilt of sin,
celebrate and sing to you:
The barren woman gives birth to the Theotokos,
the nourisher of our life!
Kontakion

Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us – and Happy Birthday!

Imagine a world in which Matthew was writing his Gospel as a blog:

Crazy Week!

Hey, everyone, sorry about not posting for the past week – things have been CRAZY lately! I know I promised to post some tips on how to save on your taxes, but so much has happened in the past week that I really need to tell you about!

You remember last week when I was excited about Jesus being gloriously welcomed into Jerusalem? I mentioned then that I thought for sure our leaders would back him now, and the Messianic Age would kick off. Well, things didn’t go quite as I thought they would (sometimes I guess it would be best to reflect a little more before blogging!). As you have probably all heard by now, just a few days after his entry into Jerusalem, Jesus was arrested by the Jewish guard and handed over to the Roman authorities.

I know that there have been rumors that one of us apostles turned him in, and I’m sad to confirm that Jesus was indeed betrayed by Judas Iscariot (who always seemed a bit shifty, if you ask me). After a show trial, the Romans had Jesus crucified. I was unable to be there in person for the crucifixion (I had some other things I had to do at the time), but those who were there tell me that it was very tragic. I’ll be honest, I was crushed by his death. I thought for sure that Jesus was the Christ we were all waiting for (click here for some of my proofs for his Messianic credentials).

But then we heard a strange story from Mary Magdalene. I know some of my readers in the past have questioned her association with us, but Jesus trusted her completely. Anyway, she claims that she has seen the Lord! That’s right, she claims that he is not really dead, but is risen! I don’t know what to think, but all of his closest followers are supposed to go up to Galilee, where he says he will appear to us.

Crossing my fingers….

Update: Fellow blogger John has written that he and Peter went to the tomb and it was empty! The burial clothes were there, but no body!

Comments (7):

Zedekiah: I can’t believe you actually believe Mary Magdalene. She obviously is delusional (just look at her history) and you are a sap to take her seriously.

Abinadab: Good point Zedekiah. But what I can’t believe is that anyone would take a former tax-collector seriously. What a joke.

Luke: Great post! I’m going to link to you on my own blog!

Azel: This is ridiculous – no one takes this Jesus of Nazareth seriously; I mean, really, from Nazareth? Everyone knows that the Messiah will come from Bethlehem. You guys are all tools.

Hazael: This is clearly a hoax. I notice how you were conveniently not at his crucifixion, and how the only witness you have for his “resurrection” is a woman with a questionable history. I’ll take you seriously when you show a little more proof.

Ahaziah: I don’t really care about this Jesus fellow; what really matters is that we overthrow the oppressive Roman rulers. Everyone should know better than to listen to a guy who used to work for the Romans. Shame on you.

Saul of Tarsus: Jesus is a heretic and anyone who follows him has left the true Faith of God Almighty. Mark my words, there will be consequences for these actions…