Jan Luyken etching of the Parable of the barren fig tree in the Bowyer Bible.
At that very time there were some present who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. He asked them, “Do you think that because these Galileans suffered in this way they were worse sinners than all other Galileans? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all perish as they did. Or those eighteen who were killed when the tower of Siloam fell on them – do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others living in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all perish just as they did.” Then he told this parable: “A man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came looking for fruit on it and found none. So he said to the gardener, ‘See here! For three years I have come looking for fruit on this fig tree, and still I find none. Cut it down! Why should it be wasting the soil?’ He replied, ‘Sir, let it alone for one more year, until I dig around it and put manure on it. If it bears fruit next ear, well and good; but if not, you can cut it down.’”
Readings:
The 13th-century mystic, Bl. Angela of Foligno, had a deep experience of God, and when her confessor asked her to tell him about it, she said, “Father, if you experienced what I experienced and then you had to stand in the pulpit to preach, you could only say to the people, ‘My friends, go with God’s blessing, because today I can say nothing to you about God.’”
This could be a remedy for the excessive fluency we have when we speak about God. The word comes tripping off our tongue as if it there were nothing mysterious about it at all. It was not so in the beginning. In the Old Testament God revealed his name to Moses: it was Yahweh. “That will be my name forever, and by this name they shall call upon me for all generations to come.” The Jews regarded this name as so holy that it should not be pronounced. In Hebrew, vowels are not written - only consonants. So the name was something like YWH. When they came to this name in the Scriptures they said ‘Adonai’ instead (Lord). As time went by and no one had ever heard the word pronounced, no one knew any longer how it was meant to be pronounced. (Later, some people began to put to vowels of ‘Adonai’ with the consonants of YWH, and it yielded – more or less – the artificial name ‘Jehovah’.)
It’s somehow a wonderful thing to have a name for God that must never be pronounced. We Christians don’t talk like that, but in fact we say something that is even more radical. For us it is not that there is some taboo word that must never be uttered, but that all words fall short of the mark. Use any words you like, we say, or as many as you like, but know that when you have said them all you have said nothing. This is something that is not stated clearly or often enough. So that you will be reassured that this is not some new teaching, here are some brief extracts from the writings of St Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274) on this subject.
“God is ultimately known as unknown, because then the mind knows God most perfectly when it knows that his essence is above all that can be known in this life of wayfaring.”
“Whatever is comprehended by a finite being [that is, us] is itself finite.”
“God is honoured by silence, not because we may say or know nothing about him, but because we know that we are unable to comprehend him.”
“Neither Christian nor pagan knows the nature of God as he is in himself.”
“We only know God truly when we believe that he is above all that human beings can think about God.”
God is a dark mystery. But isn’t God light? “God is light and in him there is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5). Yes, but excess of light, as St Augustine said, has the same effect as darkness.
In today’s gospel reading we are brought up against the fathomless problem of evil. Is there any answer to it? We are lost for words when tragedy strikes at us – or near us. We use a lot of words, certainly, but we know that they all fall short. It is similar in that respect to the dark mystery of God. On an ordinary day we can say pat things about God and about suffering and evil. But when we are touched by any of these we have to fall silent. Then the only word we have is the one word that expresses God and humanity to the full extent that they can be expressed in our flesh: Jesus, the Word made flesh. All the puffs of air that we call words are insubstantial beside him. He is present to us whether we are awake or asleep, whether speaking or silent, whether full of joy or full of pain.
+++
Cyril of Jerusalem
Lecture 7 : The Father
0700
For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father, . . . of whom all fatherhood in heaven and earth is named, &c.
1). Of God as the sole Principle we have said enough to you yesterday1 : by “enough” I mean, not what is worthy of the subject, (for to reach that is utterly impossible to mortal nature), but as much as was granted to our infirmity. I traversed also the bye-paths of the manifold error of the godless heretics: but now let us shake off their foul and soul-poisoning doctrine, and remembering what relates to them, not to our own hurt, but to our greater detestation of them, let us come back to ourselves, and receive the saving doctrines of the true Faith, connecting the dignity of Fatherhood with that of the Unity, and believing In One God the Father: for we must not only believe in one God; but this also let us devoutly receive, that He is the Father of the Only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ.
2. For thus shall we raise our thoughts higher than the Jews2 , who admit indeed by their doctrines that there is One God, (for what if they often denied even this by their idolatries?); but that He is also the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, they admit not; being of a contrary mind to their own Prophets, who in the Divine Scriptures affirm, The Lord said unto me, Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten thee3 . And to this day they rage and gather themselves together against the Lord, and against His Anointed4 , thinking that it is possible to be made friends of the Father apart from devotion towards the Son, being ignorant that no man cometh unto the Father but by5 the Son, who saith, I am the Door, and I am the Way6. He therefore that refuseth the Way which leadeth to the Father, and he that denieth the Door, how shall he be deemed worthy of entrance unto God? They contradict also what is written in the eighty-eighth Psalm, (He shall call Me, Thou art my Father, my God, and the helper of my salvation. And I will make him my first-born, high among the kings of the earth7 . For if they should insist that these things are said of David or Solomon or any of their successors, let them shew how the throne of him, who is in their judgment described in the prophecy, is as the days of heaven, and as the sun before God, and as the moon established for ever8 . And how is it also that they are not abashed at that which is written, From the womb before the morning-star have I begotten thee9: also this, (He shall endure with the sun, and before the moon, from generation to generation10 . To refer these passages to a man proof of utter and extreme insensibility.
3. Let the Jews, however, since they so will, suffer their usual disorder of unbelief, both in these and the like statements. But let us adopt the godly doctrine of our Faith, worshipping one God the Father of the Christ, (for to deprive Him, who grants to all the gift of generation, of the like dignity would be impious): and let us Believe in One God the Father, in order that, before we touch upon our teaching concerning Christ, the faith concerning the Only-begotten may be implanted in the soul of the hearers, without being at all interrupted by the intervening doctrines concerning the Father.
4. For the name of the Father, with the very utterance of the title, suggests the thought of the Son: as in like manner one who names the Son thinks straightway of the Father also11 . For if a Father, He is certainly the Father of a Son; and if a Son, certainly the Son of a Father. Lest therefore from our speaking thus, In One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, and of All Things Visible and Invisible, and from our then adding this also, And in One Lord Jesus Christ, any one should irreverently suppose that the Only-begotten is second in rank to heaven and earth,—for this reason before naming them we named God the Father, that in thinking of the Father we might at the same time think also of the Son: for between the Son and the Father no being whatever comes.
5. God then is in an improper sense12 the Father of many, but by nature and in truth of One only, the Only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ; not having attained in course of time to being a Father, but being ever the Father of the Only-begotten13 . Not that being without a Son before, He has since by change of purpose become a Father: but before every substance and every intelligence, before times and all ages, God hath the dignity of Father, magnifying Himself in this more than in His other dignities; and having become a Father, not by passion14 , or union, not in ignorance, not by effluence15 , not by diminution, not by alteration, for every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom can be no variation, neither shadow of turning16 . Perfect Father, He begat a perfect Son, and delivered all things to Him who is begotten: (for all things, He saith, are delivered unto Me of My Father17 
and is honoured by the Only-begotten: for, I honour My Father18 , saith the Son; and again, Even as I have kept My Father’s commandments, and abide in His love19 . Therefore we also say like the Apostle, Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and God of all consolation20 : and, We bow our knees unto the Father from whom all fatherhood in heaven and on earth is named21 : glorifying Him with the Only-begotten: for he that denieth the Father, denieth the Son also22 : and again, (He that confesseth the Son, hath the Father also23 ; knowing that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father24 .
6. We worship, therefore, as the Father of Christ, the Maker of heaven and earth, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob25 ; to whose honour the former temple also, over against us here, was built. For we shall not tolerate the heretics who sever the Old Testament from the New26 , but shall believe Christ, who says concerning the temple, Wist ye not that I must be in My Father’s house27 ? and again, Take these things hence, and make not my Father’s house a house of merchandise28 , whereby He most clearly confessed that the former temple in Jerusalem was His own Father’s house. But if any one from unbelief wishes to receive yet more proofs as to the Father of Christ being the same as the Maker of the world, let him hear Him say again, Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing, and not one of them shall fall on the ground without My Father which is in heaven29 ; this also, Behold the fowls of the heaven that they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; and your heavenly Father feedeth them30 ; and this, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work31 .
7. But lest any one from simplicity or perverse ingenuity should suppose that Christ is but equal in honour to righteous men, from His saying, I ascend to My Father, and your32 Father, it is well to make this distinction beforehand, that the name of the Father is one, but the power of His operation33 manifold. And Christ Himself knowing this has spoken unerringly, I go to My Father, and your Father: not saying ‘to our Father,’ but distinguishing, and saying first what was proper to Himself, to My Father, which was by nature; then adding, and your Father, which was by adoption. For however high the privilege we have received of saying in our prayers, Our Father, which art in heaven, yet the gift is of loving-kindness. For we call Him Father, not as having been by nature begotten of Our Father which is in heaven; but having been transferred from servitude to sonship by the grace of the Father, through the Son and Holy Spirit, we are permitted so to speak by ineffable loving-kindness.
8. But if any one wishes to learn how we call God “Father,” let him hear Moses, the excellent schoolmaster, saying, Did not this thy Father Himself buy thee, and make thee, and create thee34 ? Also Esaias the Prophet, And now, O Lord. Thou art our Father: and we all are clay, the works of Thine hands35 . For most clearly has the prophetic gift declared that not according to nature, but according to God’s grace, and by adoption, we call Him Father.
9. And that thou mayest learn more exactly that in the Divine Scriptures it is not by any means the natural father only that is called father, hear what Paul says:—For though ye should have ten thousand tutors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I begat you through the Gospel36 . For Paul was father of the Corinthians, not by having begotten them after the flesh, but by having taught and begotten them again after the Spirit. Hear Job also saying, I was a father of the needy37 : for he called himself a father, not as having begotten them all, but as caring for them. And God’s Only-begotten Son Himself, when nailed in His flesh to the tree at the time of crucifixion, on seeing Mary, His own Mother according to the flesh, and John, the most beloved of His disciples, said to him, Behold! thy mother, and to her, Behold! thy Son38 : teaching her the parental affection due to him39 , and indirectly explaining that which is said in Luke, and His father and His mother marvelled at Him40 : words which the tribe of heretics snatch up, saying that He was begotten of a man and a woman. For like as Mary was called the mother of John, because of her parental affection, not from having given him birth, so Joseph also was called the father of Christ, not from having begotten Him (for he knew her not, as the Gospel says, until she had brought forth her first-born Son41 ), but because of the care bestowed on His nurture.
10 Thus much then at present, in the way of a digression, to put you in remembrance. Let me, however, add yet another testimony in proof that God is called the Father of men in an improper sense. For when in Esaias God is addressed thus, For Thou art our Father, though Abraham be ignorant of us42 , and Sarah travailed not with us43 , need we inquire further on this point? And if the Psalmist says, Let them be troubled from His countenance, the Father of the fatherless, and Judge of the widows44 , is it not manifest to all, that when God is called the Father of orphans who have lately lost their own fathers, He is so named not as begetting them of Himself, but as caring for them and shielding them. But whereas God, as we have said, is in an improper sense the Father of men, of Christ alone He is the Father by nature, not by adoption: and the Father of men in time, but of Christ before all time, as He saith, And new, O Father, glorify Thou Me with Thine own self, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was45 .
11. We believe then In One God the Father the Unsearchable and Ineffable, Whom no man hath seen46 , but the Only-begotten alone hath declared Him47 ). For He which is of God, He hath seen God48 : whose face the Angels do alway behold in heaven49 , behold, however, each according to the measure of his own rank. But the undimmed vision of the Father is reserved in its purity for the Son with the Holy Ghost.
12. Having reached this point of my discourse, and being reminded of the passages just before mentioned, in which God was addressed as the Father of men, I am greatly amazed at men’s insensibility. For God with unspeakable loving-kindness deigned to be called the Father of men,—He in heaven, they on earth,—and He the Maker of Eternity, they made in time,—He who holdeth the earth in the hollow of His hand, they upon the earth as grasshoppers50 . Yet man forsook his heavenly Father, and said to the stock, Thou art my father, and to the stone, Thou hast begotten me51 . And for this reason, methinks, the Psalmist says to mankind, Forget also thine own people, and thy father’s house52 , whom thou hast chosen for a father, whom thou hast drawn upon thyself to thy destruction.
13. And not only stocks and stones, but even Satan himself, the destroyer of souls, have some ere now chosen for a father; to whom the Lord said as a rebuke, Ye do the deeds of your father53 , that is of the devil, he being the father of men not by nature, but by fraud. For like as Paul by his godly teaching came to be called the father of the Corinthians, so the devil is called the father of those who of their own will consent unto him54 .
For we shall not tolerate those who give a wrong meaning to that saying, Hereby know we the children of God, and the children of the devil55 , as if there were by nature some men to be saved, and some to be lost. Whereas we come into such holy sonship not of necessity but by choice: nor was the traitor Judas by nature a son of the devil and of perdition; for certainly he would never have cast out devils at all in the name of Christ: for Satan casteth not out Satan56 . Nor on the other hand would Paul have turned from persecuting to preaching. But the adoption is in our own power, as John saith, But as marry as received Him, to them gave He power to become the children of God, even to them that believe in His name57 . For not before their believing, but from their believing they were counted worthy to become of their own choice the children of God.
14. Knowing this, therefore, let us walk spiritually, that we may be counted worthy of God’s adoption). For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God58 . For it profiteth us nothing to have gained the title of Christians, unless the works also follow; lest to us also it be said, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham59 ). For if we call on Him as Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, let us pass the time of our sojourning here in fear60 , loving not the world, neither the things that are in the world: for if any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him61 . Wherefore, my beloved children, let us by our works offer glory to our Father which is in heaven, that they may see our good works, and glorify our Father which is in heaven62 ). Let us cast all our care upon Him, for our Father knoweth what things we have need of63 .
15. But while honouring our heavenly Father let us honour also the fathers of our flesh64 : since the Lord Himself hath evidently so appointed in the Law and the Prophets, saying, Honour thy father and thy mother, that it may be well with thee, and thy days shall be long in the land65 . And let this commandment be especially observed by those here present who have fathers and mothers). Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing to the Lord66 . For the Lord said not, (He that loveth father or mother is not worthy of Me, lest thou from ignorance shouldest perversely mistake what was rightly written, but , more than Me67 . For when our fathers on earth are of a contrary mind to our Father in heaven, then we must obey Christ’s word. But when they put no obstacle to godliness in our way, if we are ever carried away by ingratitude, and, forgetting their benefits to us, hold them in contempt, then the oracle will have place which says, (He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death68 .
16. The first virtue of godliness in Christians is to honour their parents, to requite the troubles of those who begat them69 , and with all their might to confer on them what tends to their comfort (for if we should repay them ever so much, yet we shall never be able to return their gift of life70 ), that they also may enjoy the comfort provided by us, and may confirm us in those blessings which Jacob the supplanter shrewdly seized; and that our Father in heaven may accept71 our good purpose, and judge us worthy to shine amid righteous as the sun in the kingdom of our Father72 : To whom be the glory, with the Only-begotten our Saviour Jesus Christ, and with the Holy and Life-giving Spirit, now and ever, to all eternity. Amen).
March 6th, 2010
Satan as depicted in the Ninth Circle of Hell in Dante Alighieri’s Inferno, illustrated by Gustave Doré.
In a book of memoirs released in February, the noted Italian exorcist Fr. Gabriele Amorth affirmed that “Yes, also in the Vatican there are members of Satanic sects.” When asked if members of the clergy are involved or if this is within the lay community, he responded, “There are priests, monsignors and also cardinals!”
The book, “Father Amorth. Memoirs of an Exorcist. My life fighting against Satan.” was written by Marco Tosatti, who compiled it from interviews with the priest.
Fr. Amorth was asked by Tosatti how he knows Vatican clergy are involved. He answered, “I know from those who have been able to relate it to me because they had a way of knowing directly. And it’s something ‘confessed’ most times by the very demon under obedience during the exorcisms.”
The famous Italian exorcist was also asked if the Pope was aware of Satanic sects in the Vatican, to which Fr. Amorth replied, “Of course, he was informed. But he does what he can. It’s a horrifying thing.”
Benedict XVI, being German, comes from a place “decidedly averse to these things,” argued Fr. Amorth, saying that in Germany “there practically aren’t any exorcists.” However, he clarified, “the Pope believes (in them).”
The Italian priest also warned of the existence of bishops and priests who do not believe in Satan in the interview. “And yet, in the Gospel, Jesus speaks extensively about it, so it should be said, either they’ve never read the Gospel or they just don’t believe it!”
Fr. Jose Antonio Fortea Cucurull, a Spanish priest and theologian who specializes in demonology and is now studying for his doctorate of theology in Rome, responded to Fr. Amorth’s assertions on March 1.
After reading reports of Fr. Amorth’s accusations pointing a finger at members of the clergy, including cardinals, Fr. Fortea declared that it is a “duty of justice” to speak out in their defense.
Noting that some prelates “are more spiritual and others more earthly, some more virtuous and others more human,” he wrote on his blog, “from there to affirm that some cardinals are members of Satanic sects is an unacceptable distance.”
The Spanish priest then explained the sources of information used by Fr. Amorth to say that Satanic sects are operating in the Vatican.
In addition to the people that seek help for demonic possession, said Fr. Fortea, “innumerable persons come to us who claim to have visions, revelations and messages from Our Lord.” Among these, “a certain number offer apocalyptic messages and revelations about the infiltration of Satanism and the Masons within the dome of the Church.”
Fr. Fortea added that the only acceptable stance is to suspend judgment of the messages while they are subjected to time-intensive discernment, “sometimes months for each one of the cases.”
The other source Fr. Amorth refers to, according to Fr. Fortea, is the demons who are being exorcised. Of this, the Spanish priest wrote that knowing whether or not the demon is telling the truth “is in many cases impossible.”
“We can know with great confidence when a demon tells the truth in the subject directly related with the exorcism. That is, the number of demons, their name and similar things. But we cannot be confident in what regards concrete news relating to people.”
“Father Amorth does not have other sources of knowledge than the two that I just cited,” indicated the Spanish exorcist, “I refer to his own words for this affirmation.”
Fr. Fortea observed that the existence of similar messages from the same sources is “something known by me just as (it has been) by many other colleagues for many years.”
“Among exorcists, some have come to similar conclusions as those of Fr. Amorth. Others have not.”
Fr. Fortea also defended those implicated in Fr. Amorth’s statements, stating, “Our College of Cardinals, if we compare it with past centuries is the most edifying and virtuous that history has ever known. One would have to go back to the epoch of the Roman Empire to find a body of electors so distanced from all earthly pretension as the current one is.
“Cardinals might be better or worse,” he reflected, “but all have upright intentions and seek the glory of God.”
He concluded by emphasizing, “Statements must be proven, especially when they are about such grave accusations that affect the honorability of those who form part of the Head of the Church as far as they help the Supreme Pastor.”
March 6th, 2010
Gerard van Honthorst, 1623, like many works of the period, allows a genre scene with moral content.
Now all the tax-collectors and sinners were coming near to listen to him. And the Pharisees and the scribes were grumbling and saying, ‘This fellow welcomes sinners and eats with them.’
So he told them this parable: ‘There was a man who had two sons. The younger of them said to his father, “Father, give me the share of the property that will belong to me.” So he divided his property between them. A few days later the younger son gathered all he had and travelled to a distant country, and there he squandered his property in dissolute living. When he had spent everything, a severe famine took place throughout that country, and he began to be in need. So he went and hired himself out to one of the citizens of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed the pigs. He would gladly have filled himself with the pods that the pigs were eating; and no one gave him anything. But when he came to himself he said, “How many of my father’s hired hands have bread enough and to spare, but here I am dying of hunger! I will get up and go to my father, and I will say to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me like one of your hired hands.’ ” So he set off and went to his father. But while he was still far off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion; he ran and put his arms around him and kissed him. Then the son said to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.” But the father said to his slaves, “Quickly, bring out a robe—the best one—and put it on him; put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. And get the fatted calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate; for this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found!” And they began to celebrate.
‘Now his elder son was in the field; and when he came and approached the house, he heard music and dancing. He called one of the slaves and asked what was going on. He replied, “Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fatted calf, because he has got him back safe and sound.” Then he became angry and refused to go in. His father came out and began to plead with him. But he answered his father, “Listen! For all these years I have been working like a slave for you, and I have never disobeyed your command; yet you have never given me even a young goat so that I might celebrate with my friends. But when this son of yours came back, who has devoured your property with prostitutes, you killed the fatted calf for him!” Then the father said to him, “Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. But we had to celebrate and rejoice, because this brother of yours was dead and has come to life; he was lost and has been found.” ’
This is probably the best-loved of all the parables of Jesus; yet it appears in only one gospel: Luke’s. It can be read from the perspective of each of the characters: the younger son, the older son, and the father. When we call it the parable of “the prodigal son” (an expression that does not occur in the parable itself), we are reading it from the perspective of the younger son. But in the context in which Jesus told it, it was clearly about the father.
If the word ‘prodigal’ means lavish, we ought to call it the parable of the prodigal father. The father was prodigal in mercy and forgiveness. In the parable the father represents God. Jesus could have drawn any kind of picture of God he wanted. This is the one he drew. God is rich in mercy, abounding in love. The ‘Almighty God’ of our youth didn’t always leave us with that impression, but the truth was never lost on the saints. Julian of Norwich wrote, “Our courteous Lord will show himself to the soul full joyfully and with glad countenance and friendly welcoming, as if he had been in pain and in prison, saying sweetly, ‘My dear one, I am glad that you are come to me: in all your woe I have always been with you, and now you see my love, and we will be united in bliss.’”
This heart-warming story of God is essential to our Lenten diet. Without it, our efforts to lead a better life only lead us into self-righteousness.
…Which brings us to the older brother. Remember that when Jesus told this story he was surrounded by a crowd of surly scribes and Pharisees. They were objecting to his friendliness towards sinners. “This fellow welcomes sinners and eats with them.” Jesus captured them perfectly in the figure of the older brother. It sometimes happens that the eldest in a family becomes a sort of third parent, but of course without the warm instincts of a father or mother. When an elder brother loses his brotherliness, other qualities flow in to take its place: grumpiness, cold anger, stinginess, resentment…. Thank God there are many exceptions in real life, but the older brother in the parable was all of those things.
“I have been working like a slave for you… yet you have never given me even a young goat so that I might celebrate with my friends.” But as his father pointed out, the goats were his! “All that is mine is yours.” The real reason is that celebration was foreign to him, he was enjoying his resentment, he was a kill-joy; he had no heart. And he was stingy.
Any of us, if we’re not careful, could slip into that dreary role. We can become so addicted to doing our duty that we forget how to celebrate. The Pharisees were like a group of angry elder brothers; they accused Jesus of being a glutton and a drunkard (Lk 7:34), because he knew how to celebrate. But they were not able to make him like themselves. In fact he spoke of the kingdom (the presence) of God as a banquet (Mt 22). Again, it was not lost on the saints. Julian wrote: “Our sins are forgiven by mercy and grace, and we are received with joy, just as it will be when we come to heaven.”
March 6th, 2010
Addressing himself to warlocks and witches, Robbie Burns wrote:
Ye gipsy-gang that deal in glamour,
And ye deep-read in hell’s black grammar….
A contemporary of his explained: “When devils, wizards or jugglers deceive the sight, they are said to cast glamour over the eyes of the spectator.” The word ‘glamour’ retained this magical sense longer in Scotland than anywhere else. The modern sense, ‘delusive or alluring charm’, is a much weakened one.
Was it only the rhyme that made Burns put those two words together, ‘glamour’ and ‘grammar’? No doubt he knew that they were once the same word: ‘glamour’ is a corruption of ‘grammar’. There was some primitive fear of the written word, a feeling that anyone who could read could also bewitch. If that sounds weird to you, just think of the ambiguity of the word ‘spell’!
In ancient times the Jews considered the spoken word a sort of ‘thing’; once it was uttered it could not be taken back: Isaac, for example, could not take back the blessing he had given to Jacob. When literacy becomes widespread this permanence is transferred to the written word. ‘Character’ (meaning a letter of the alphabet) comes from the Greek word ‘to engrave’, suggesting a durability that the spoken word then begins to lose. In our age there is as little permanence for the written as for the spoken word: the waves of spoken language that wash over us are not different from the newspapers that swell to a hundred pages, only to be put in the bin the next morning, with just a few pages read. And books, like food products, have shelf-lives. In the popular imagination the permanence of words – even written words – is disappearing fast.
But what about sacred texts? Are these not considered as sacred today as they ever were in the past? Aren’t there still people in the world who will kill for a comma?
Yes, and there are people who believe that everything is written in the stars: the future legible in the past. There is a deep urge in all of us to seek something permanent in this changing world. Well, nothing could ever be as permanent as the past, and an authoritative text that delivers this past to us has some kind of grim but reassuring appeal.
What about the Bible? Isn’t it fixed and permanent? Yes, and older translations leave you in no doubt about that. “After me cometh he who is mightier than I” (KJV) sounds much more solemn and permanent than “Someone is following me” (JB); and “Your adversary the devil… prowling around like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour” is much more terrifying than the same devil “looking for someone to eat.” By why does it sound more impressive? I suspect that sometimes we are we looking for the wrong thing in it. We would like it to have an antique and exotic flavour that will keep it trapped in the past. We enjoy the magic, the glamour, that has been squeezed out of it by modern translations.
Is there hope for the Bible in a world of bewildering change? There is always the wrong kind of hope as well as the right: there is the temptation to literalism and fundamentalism. Something rebels in me when I see a celebrant or reader raise up the Lectionary, and announce: “This is the word of the Lord.” The word of the Lord, I hope, is not paper and ink, but a proclamation to a community of believers; it is a word of hope and promise living in the hearts of people who are trying to live by the Beatitudes, and not a book on a shelf or a lectern. In Norwegian they don’t say, “This is the word of the Lord” at the end of a reading; they say “Slik lyder Herrens ord,” (‘Thus sounds the word of the Lord’). A Muslim told me once that there is a tradition that Mohammed was illiterate. This, I suspect, is, as far as it goes, similar to Christians saying that Mary is a virgin: the word of God has to be seen to be from God and not from a purely human source. This made me aware that it is not the Bible that corresponds to the Koran, but Jesus. For Christians, Jesus is the Word of God, and the Scriptures are words about him, a testimony to what God has done and is doing in him; they are the word of God in a strictly subordinate sense.
The glamour of the old translations is no great loss, even though it was often very beautiful, while some modern translations can sound quite banal at times. But the Scriptures never sounded antique to the people who wrote them, or to the first people who listened to them. Scripture is not about itself; it is a word boiling over with urgency about Jesus. The antique glamour of old things enables us to date them and place them, like ornaments and works of art, or like ancient creatures trapped in amber; but that is not what the Scriptures are about. The patina of age appeals to nostalgia, but the Good News is for today, the urgent “today” and “now” of the Gospels. The Lord of life will not imprison us, as sacred texts, including the Bible, are often made to do. His words can never be twisted into chains to bind the captives set free by him.
Donagh O’Shea.
March 6th, 2010
Icon of the Transfiguration by Theophanes the Greek (15th century)
Luke 9:28b-36
Now about eight days after these sayings Jesus took with him Peter and John and James, and went up on the mountain to pray. And while he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became dazzling white. Suddenly they saw two men, Moses and Elijah, talking to him. They appeared in glory and were speaking of his departure, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem. Now Peter and his companions were weighed down with sleep; but since they had stayed awake, they saw his glory and the two men who stood with him. Just as they were leaving him, Peter said to Jesus, “Master, it is good for us to be here; let us make three dwellings, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah” – not knowing what he said. While he was saying this, a cloud came an overshadowed them; and they were terrified as they entered the cloud. Then from the cloud came a voice that said, “This is my Son, my Chosen; listen to him!” When the voice had spoken, Jesus was found alone. And they kept silent and in those days told no one any of the things they had seen.
In all three liturgical cycles we have the strange story of the Transfiguration on the second Sunday of Lent. What does it mean? The second reading is a kind of echo of this gospel reading, and perhaps it gives us a key to open up its meaning for us. The Lord, St Paul writes, “will transfigure these wretched bodies of ours into copies of his glorious body.” The Transfiguration, then –whatever we discover it to mean – is not only about Jesus but about us. It is to make some discernible difference to us today.
There was the everyday Jesus who was well known to his friends; and then there was the moment when they scarcely recognised him, so transformed – transfigured – was he. Divinity shone through him, revealing depths that they had never imagined. Can this happen only to Jesus? When the little girl was asked what a saint was, she replied (thinking of the stained glass windows in the church), “A person who lets the light through.” Lovely – but is it only an image? Can it also be a reality? Could you and I let the light through? We are probably far too aware of our wretchedness to think thoughts like that. But it is just these “wretched bodies of ours” that are the material of transfiguration, according to St Paul.
In a beautiful poem called The sunrise ruby, Jelaluddin Rumi(1207-1273) the Sufi mystic, imagines a girl asking her beloved,
‘Do you love me or yourself more?
Really, tell the absolute truth.’
He says, ‘There’s nothing left of me.
I’m like a ruby held up to the sunrise.
Is it still a stone, or a world
made of redness? It has no resistance
to sunlight.’
There it is: in one way it is a stone, but in another it is a world of redness. This gives some impression of what transfiguration might mean. When you are completely absorbed and self-forgetful as you look at the sea, or at a sunset, or the night sky, or a tree, you are still yourself, of course; but you are also more than yourself. At any rate you are a kind of larger self, and not the small self that thinks before speaking, and counts money, and always looks after his or her own interests.
But we would like to hear what Christian mystics have to say about it. Johann Tauler (1300-1361) wrote the following:
“God fires the spirit with a spark from the divine abyss. By the strength of this supernatural help the soul, enlightened and purified, is drawn out of itself into a unique and ineffable state of pure intent toward God….This complete turning of the soul toward God is beyond all understanding and feeling; it is a thing of wonder and defies imagination….In this state the soul, purified and enlightened, sinks into the divine darkness, into a tranquil silence and inconceivable union. It is absorbed in God, and now all equality and inequality disappear. In this abyss the soul loses itself, and knows nothing of God or of itself, of likeness to Him or of difference from Him, or of anything whatsoever. It is immersed in the unity of God and has lost all sense of distinctions.”
Sadly, this aspect of the Christian faith is not as familiar to many as it could be. We have learnt to settle for less. Most people believe that the best things are not for them. But we are all called to deep enlightenment and union with God. Does this mean that we are to be somehow unreal and up-in-the-air? Hardly. Tauler and the people of his time had to be intensely practical. But his words live for centuries beyond the time he uttered them, because he was in touch with the living heart of our Faith. It is he, and the likes of him, who will lead us to the heart of God.
+++
LENTEN READINGS
Ambrose selected works
06119 Arius is charged with the first of the above-mentioned errors, and refuted by the testimony of St. John. The miserable death of the Heresiarch is described, and the rest of his blasphemous errors are one by one examined and disproved.
123). Arius, then, says: “There was a time when the Son of God existed not,” but Scripture saith: “He was,” not that “He was not.” Furthermore, St. Jn has written: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.”217 Observe how often the verb “was” appears, whereas “was not” is nowhere found. Whom, then, are we to believe?—St. John, who lay on Christ’s bosom, or Arius, wallowing amid the outgush of his very bowels?—so wallowing that we might understand how Arius in his teaching showed himself like unto Judas, being visited with like punishment.
124. For Arius’ bowels also gushed out—decency forbids to say where—and so he burst asunder in the midst, falling headlong, and besmirching those foul lips wherewith he had denied Christ. He was rent, even as the Apostle Peter said of Judas, because he bought a field with the price of evil-doing, and falling headlong he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.”218 It was no chance manner of death, seeing that like wickedness was visited with like punishment, to the end that those who denied and betrayed the same Lord might likewise undergo the same torment.
125. Let us pass on to further points. Arius says: “Before He was born, the Son of God was not,” but the Scripture saith that all things are maintained in existence by the Son’s office. How, then, could He, Who existed not, bestow existence upon others? Again, when the blasphemer uses the words “when” and “before,” he certainly uses words which are marks of time. How, then, do the Arians deny that time was ere the Son was, and yet will have things created in time to exist before the Son, seeing that the very words, “when,” “before,” and “did not exist once,” announce the idea of time?
126. Arius says that the Son of God came into being out of nought. How, then, is He Son of God—how was He begotten from the womb of the Father—how do we read of Him as the Word spoken of the heart’s abundance, save to the end that we should believe that He came forth, as it is written, from the Father’s inmost, unapproachable sanctuary? Now a son is so called either by means of adoption or by nature, as we are called sons by means of adoption.219 Christ is the Son of God by virtue of His real and abiding nature. How, then, can He, Who out of nothing fashioned all things, be Himself created out of nothing?
127. He who knows not whence the Son is hath not the Son. The Jews therefore had not the Son, for they knew not whence He was. Wherefore the Lord said to them: “Ye know not whence I came;”220 and again: “Ye neither have found out Who I am, nor know My Father,” for he who denies that the Son is of the Father knows not the Father, of Whom the Son is; and again, he knows not the Son, because he knows not the Father.
128. Arius says: “[The Son is] of another Substance.” But what other substance is exalted to equality with the Son of God, so that simply in virtue thereof He is Son of God? Or what right have the Arians for censuring us because we speak, in Greek, of the ousia, or in Latin, of the Substantia of God, when they themselves, in saying that the Son of God is of another “Substance,” assert a divine Substantia.
129. Howbeit, should they desire to dispute the use of the words “divine Substance” or “divine Nature,” they shall easily be refuted, for Holy Writ oft-times hath spoken of ousia in Greek, or Substantia in Latin, and St. Peter, as we read, would have us become partakers in the divine Nature. But if they will have it that the Son is of another “Substance,” they with their own lips confute themselves, in that they both acknowledge the term “Substance,” whereof they are so afraid, and rank the Son on a level with the creatures above which they feign to exalt Him.
130. Arius calls the Son of God a creature, but “not as the rest of the creatures.” Yet what created being is not different from another? Man is not as angel, earth is not as heaven, the sun is not as water, nor light as darkness. Arius’ preference, therefore, is empty—he hath but disguised with a sorry dye his deceitful blasphemies, in order to take the foolish.
131. Arius declares that the Son of God may change and swerve. How, then, is He God if He is changeable, seeing that He Himself hath said: “I am, I am, and I change not”?221
February 28th, 2010
Queen Esther
Minerva Teichert 1888-1976
Purim narratives
- The primary source relating to the origin of Purim is the Megillat Esther (Book of Esther), which became the last of the 24 books of the Tanakh to be canonized by the Sages of the Great Assembly. It is dated to the 4th century BCE [2] and according to the Talmud was a redaction by the Great Assembly of an original text by Mordecai [3].
- The Greek Book of Esther included in the Septuagint, is a retelling of the events of the Hebrew Book of Esther rather than a translation and records additional traditions, in particular the identification of Ahasuerus with Artaxerxes and details of various letters. It is dated to the second to first century BCE.[4] The Coptic and Ethiopic versions of Esther are translations of it instead of the Hebrew Esther.
- A Latin version of Esther was produced by Jerome for the Vulgate. It translates the Hebrew Esther but interpolates translations of the Greek Esther where the latter provides additional material.
- Several Aramaic targums of Esther were produced in the Middle Ages of which two survive – the Targum Rishon (“First Targum”) and Targum Sheni (“Second Targum”) [5][6] dated c. 500 – 1000 CE.[7] These were not targums (“translations”) in the true sense but like the Greek Esther are retellings of events and include additional legends relating to Purim.[5] There is also a 16th century rescension of the Targum Rishon sometimes counted as Targum Shelishi (“Third Targum”).[6]
Book of Esther
In the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint the Book of Esther bears only the word “Esther” as title. But the Jewish rabbis called it also the “volume of Esther”, or simply “the volume” (megillah) to distinguish it from the other four volumes (megilloth), written on separate rolls, which were read in the synagogues on certain feast days.
As this one was read on the feast of Purim and consisted largely of epistles (cf. Esther 9:20, 29), it was called by the Jews of Alexandria the “Epistle of Purim”. In the Hebrew canon the book was among the Hagiographa and placed after Ecclesiastes. In the Latin Vulgate it has always been classed with Tobias and Judith, after which it is placed. The Hebrew text that has come down to us varies considerably from those of the Septuagint and the Vulgate. The Septuagint, besides showing many unimportant divergencies, contains several additions in the body of the book or at the end. The additions are the portion of the Vulgate text after ch. x, 3. Although no trace of these fragments is found in the Hebrew Bible, they are most probably translations from an original Hebrew or Chaldaic text. Origen tells us that they existed in Theodotion’s version, and that they were used by Josephus in his “Antiquities” (XVI).
St. Jerome, finding them in the Septuagint and the Old Latin version, placed them at the end of his almost literal translation of the existing Hebrew text, and indicated the place they occupied in the Septuagint. The chapters being thus rearranged, the book may be divided into two parts: the first relating the events which preceded and led up to the decree authorizing the extermination of the Jews (1-3:15; 11:2; 13:7); the second showing how the Jews escaped from their enemies and avenged themselves (4-5:8; 13-15).
The Book of Esther, thus taken in part from the Hebrew Canon and in part from the Septuagint, found a place in the Christian Canon of the Old Testament. The chapters taken from the Septuagint were considered deuterocanonical, and, after St. Jerome, were separated from the ten chapters taken from the Hebrew which were called protocanonical. A great many of the early Fathers clearly considered the entire work as inspired, although no one among them found it to his purpose to write a commentary on it. Its omission in some of the early catalogues of the Scriptures was accidental or unimportant. The first to reject the book was Luther, who declared that he so hated it that he wished that it did not exist (Table Talk, 59). His first followers wished only to reject the deuterocanonical parts, whereupon these, as well as other deuterocanonical parts of the Scriptures, were declared by the Council of Trent (Sess. IV, de Can. Scripturæ) to be canonical and inspired. With the rise of rationalism the opinion of Luther found many supporters. When modern rationalists argue that the Book of Esther is irreligious in character, unlike the other books of the Old Testament, and therefore to be rejected, they have in mind only the first or protocanonical part, not the entire book, which is manifestly religious. But, although the first part is not explicitly religious, it contains nothing unworthy of a place in the Sacred Scriptures. And any way, as Driver points out (Introduc. to the Lit. of the Testament), there is no reason why every part of the Biblical record should show the “same degree of subordination of human interests to the spirit of God“.
As to the authorship of the Book of Esther there is nothing but conjecture. The Talmud (Baba Bathra 15a) assigns it to the Great Synagogue; St. Clement of Alexandria ascribes it to Mardochai; St. Augustine suggests Esdras as the author. Many, noting the writer’s familiarity with Persian customs and institutions and with the character of Assuerus, hold that he was a contemporary of Mardochai, whose memoirs he used. But such memoirs and other contemporary documents showing this familiar knowledge could have been used by a writer at a later period. And, although the absence in the text of allusion to Jerusalem seems to lead to the conclusion that the book was written and published in Persia at the end of the reign of Xerxes I (485-465 B.C.) or during the reign of his son Artaxerxes I (465-425 B.C.), the text seems tooffer several facts which may be adduced with some show of reason in favour of a later date. They are:
- an implied statement that Susan had ceased to be the capital of Persia, and a vague description of the extent of the kingdom (i, 1);
- an explanation of Persian usages that implies unfamiliarity with them on the part of the readers (i, 13, 19; iv, 11; viii, 8);
- the revengeful attitude of the Jews towards the Gentiles, by whom they felt they had been wronged, and with whom they wished to have little to do (iii, 8 sqq.);
- a diction showing many late words and a deterioration in syntax;
- references to “the Macedonians” and to the plot of Aman as an attempt to transfer “the kingdom of the Persians to the Macedonians” (xvi, 10, 14).
On the strength of these passages various modern critics have assigned late dates for the authorship of the book, as, 135 B.C., 167 B.C., 238 B.C., the beginning of the third century B.C., or the early years of theGreek period which began 332 B.C. The majority accept the last opinion.
Some of the modern critics who have fixed upon late dates for the composition of the book deny that it has any historical value whatever, and declare it to be a work of the imagination, written for the purpose of popularizing the feast of Purim. In support of their contention they point out in the text what appear to be historical improbabilities, and attempt to show that the narrative has all the characteristics of a romance, the various incidents being artfully arranged so as to form a series of contrasts and to develop into a climax. But what seem to behistorical improbabilities are in many cases trivial. Even advanced critics do not agree as to those which seem quite serious. While some, for instance, consider it wholly improbable that Assuerus and Aman should have been ignorant of the nationality of Esther, who was in frequent communication with Mardochai, a well-known Jew, others maintain that it was quite possible and probable that a young woman, known to be a Jewess, should be taken into the harem of a Persian king, and that with the assistance of a relative she should avert the ruin of her people, which a high official had endeavoured to effect. The seeming improbability of other passages, if not entirely explained, can be sufficiently explained to destroy the conclusion, on this ground, that the book is nothistorical. As to artful contrasts and climax to which appeal is made as evidences that the book is the work of a mere romancer, it may be said with Driver (op. cit.) that fact is stranger than fiction, and that a conclusion based upon such appearances is precarious. There is undoubtedly an exercise of art in the composition of the work, but no more than any historian may use in accumulating and arranging the incidents of his history. A more generally accepted opinion among contemporary critics is that the work is substantially historical. Recognizing the author’s close acquaintance with Persian customs and institutions, they hold that the main elements of the work were supplied to him by tradition, but that, to satisfy his taste for dramatic effect, he introduced details which were not strictly historical. But the opinion held by most Catholics and by some Protestants is, that the work is historical in substance and in detail. They base their conclusions especially on the following:
- the vivacity and simplicity of the narrative;
- the precise and circumstantial details, as, particularly, the naming of unimportant personages, the noting of dates and events;
- the references to the annals of the Persians;
- the absence of anachronisms;
- the agreement of proper names with the time in which the story is placed;
- the confirmation of details by history and archeology;
- the celebration of the feast of Purim in commemoration of the deliverance of the Jews by Esther and Mardochai at the time of the Machabees (2 Maccabees 15:37), at the time of Josephus (Antiq of the Jews, XI, vi, 13), and since.
The explanation of some that the story of Esther was engrafted on a Jewish feast already existing and probably connected with a Persian
festival, is only a surmise. Nor has any one else succeeded better in offering an explanation of the feast than that it had its origin as stated in the Book of Esther. (See also HERODOTUS, History, VII, 8, 24, 35, 37-39; IX, 108)
+++
The Jerome Bible Commentary, book by book
Jesus and His Church in the Book of
Esther
Esther Book: the story of a Jewish Queen, Esther, who saves her people from a planned anti-Jewish plot to kill all the Jews in only one day!… and the Final Judgment of God the King to the good and the bad persons... it is a book of Feasts!. the feast of King Ahasuerus lasted 180 days.
Jesus is the Judging King of Mat.25,who rewards with greatness the good persons and punishes with power the bad ones.
Mary is our Queen who intercedes for our needs as in the Cana wedding of John 2.
Esther Feast, Purim.
Part 1: Quick Survey
Part 1: Quick Survey
Esther, Part 1b: Esther, a type of Christ and His Church7 similarities of foreshadows or symbols or prefigurements
Jesus, the Judge… the Last Judgment
Jewish Feasts
The life of a Christian should be a Wedding Feast!… on Earth… Now!
The Five Dogmas on Mary
The Book of Esther recounts the story of a Jewish Queen, Esther, who saves her people from a planned anti-Jewish plot to kill all the Jews in only one day!… and the Final Judgment of God the King to the good and the bad persons... it is a book of Feasts!.
Jesus in the Book is the judging King of Mat.25:31-46, who rewards with greatness the good persons and punishes with power the bad ones.
Virgin Mary is our Queen who intercedes for our needs as in the Cana wedding of John 2… The Fathers of the Church considered Esther as a type of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
The mother of the King is the Queen Mother in all the kingdoms… Virgin Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit, the King of our hearts (Lk.1:35)… and the spouse of the King is the Queen… the Queen of our hearts!.
This is the story of a beautiful Jewish woman, Esther (from the Hebrew meaning star, happiness), who became Queen of Persia when King Ahasuerus (or Xerxes ) married her without knowing she was a Jew. She was a Jewess of the tribe of Benjamin, daughter of Abihail, and bore before her accession to the throne the name of Hádássah (Edissa, meaning myrtle).
Her family had been deported from Jerusalem to Babylon in the time of Jechonias (599 B.C.). On the death of her parents she was adopted by her father’s brother, Mordecai or Mardochai, who then dwelt in Susan, the capital of Persia… he guided her and became a gatekeeper for the king to stay close to Esther.
Haman or Haaman or Aman, the prime minister, a wicked person, is offended when Mordecai refuses to bow down to him. Haman devises to have Mordecai hanged, and plans a massive persecution and a massacre, killing all the Jews in the world in one day!… Mordecai, however, is honored by the king for reporting a plot against the king’s life and the wicked Haman is eventually executed instead.
Queen Esther, after many prayers and fasting for three days, persuaded the king to kill Haman and grant Mordecai the king’s “signet ring” and the right to save the Jews. The king ordered that Aman should be hanged on the gibbet prepared for Mordecai, and, confiscating his property, bestowed it upon the intended victim. He charged Mordecai to address to all the governors of Persia letters authorizing the Jews to defend themselves and to kill all those who, by virtue of the previous decree, should attack them. During two days the Jews took a bloody revenge on their enemies in Susan and other cities.
The Festival of Purim, in February, commemorates this victory… the saving of the Jews by Esther. The word “Purim” is used because Haman determined by lot (pûr, pl. pûrîm), that the massacre should take place a twelvemonth hence.
As the story is told in the synagogue or in school, the children hiss, shake noisy rattles ( greggors ), shoot their toy guns and generally make a lot of noise every time the name of Haaman is mentioned. Children also have fancy dress parties, with costumes of pirates and modern day villains being especially popular.
Gifts are exchanged ( usually boxes of sweets and biscuits) A special filled pastry is eaten, called Haaman’s ears. These recall how Haaman’s ears were his downfall when he listened to those who suggested he use his position to bring about the destruction of the Jews. The day before the feast is “the fast of Esther”, recalling how Esther had all the Jews fast and pray that her bold plea to the king would be accepted. An “Esther Fast” is practiced by some believers seeking to have really serious dealings with God.
The Book calls the Israelites “Jews” (from the tribe of Judah) (2:5, 4:3,13,14,16, 8:16, 10:3)… Zechariah 8:23, is the only other book of the Old Testament to mention the name “Jew”.
It is a Book with pious prayers by all the Jews for Esther when she is ready to intercede to the King… and beautiful prayers of Mordecai (13) and of Esther (14).
A Book of Feasts:
1- The feast of King Ahasuerus (1)… for 180 days.
2- The feast to choose Esther as Queen (2).
3- The feast of Esther to the King (5).
4- The second feast of Esther to the King (7).
5- The Feast of Purim (9).
The Book in the Bible:
- Chapters 1 to 10 are accepted by all Christians, and they are in all Bibles.
- Chapters 11 to 16 are accepted by Catholics but not by Protestants… they are not in the Protestant Bibles.
Author:
Mordecai, the first 10 chapters (9:20), an the last 6 chapters (12:4).
The Book:
1- The first 10 Chapters, accepted by all Christians:
1- Plot against the Jews (chapters 1 to 4):
- Feast of King Ahasuerus (1)… for 180 days.
- Esther Queen (2).
- Plan of Haman against Mordecai and edict to massacre all the Jews in the world in one day! (3-4).
2- Fail of the Plot, and Triumph of the Jews and of Mordecai (chapters 5 to 10):
- First Feast of Esther (5)… Mordecai honored (6).
- Second feast of Esther… and Haman hanged (7).
- Edict in favor of the Jews (8).
- Vengeance of the Jews (9).
- The Feast of Purim (10).
2- Chapters 11 to 16, only in the Catholic Bibles:
- Dream of Mordecai (10-11).
- Plot to kill the King discovered by Mordecai, who is honored (12).
- Edict against the Jews, and prayer of Mordecai (13).
- Prayer of Esther (14).
- Intercession of Esther with the King (15).
- Edict in favor of the Jews (16).
The first 10 chapters, the Book accepted by all Christians, do not mention the word “God”… and Luther declared that he so hated it that he wished that it did not exist (Table Talk, 59).
When modern rationalists argue that the Book of Esther is irreligious in character, unlike the other books of the Old Testament, and therefore to be rejected, they have in mind only the first or protocanonical part, not the entire book, which is manifestly religious…. with very pious and beautiful prayers to God.
But, although the first part is not explicitly religious, it contains nothing unworthy of a place in the Sacred Scriptures… and it is one of the books of the Old Testament which proclaims with a glorious and beautiful story the Final Judgment of God of the world and of every human being… as does the Final Judgment of the King, Jesus Christ, in Matthew 25:31-46.
… and furthermore, it is a real dramatic and moving story of the persecution of the Jews, that will go on all over the centuries, including the Holocaust.
Some Prayers in Esther:
Esther asks prayers from all the Jews:
Esther sent back to Mordecai the response: “Go and assemble all the Jews who are in Susa; fast on my behalf, all of you, not eating or drinking, night or day, for three days. I and my maids will also fast in the same way. Thus prepared, I will go to the king, contrary to the law. If I perish, I perish!” (4:15-16).
Prayer of Mordecai and all Israel:
… and said: “O Lord God, almighty King, all things are in your power, and there is no one to oppose you in your will to save Israel. You made heaven and earth and every wonderful thing under the heavens. You are Lord of all, and there is no one who can resist you, Lord… All Israel, too, cried out with all their strength (13:1-11).
Prayer of Esther:
Queen Esther, seized with mortal anguish, likewise had recourse to the Lord. Taking off her splendid garments, she put on garments of distress and mourning. In place of her precious ointments she covered her head with dirt and ashes. She afflicted her body severely; all her festive adornments were put aside, and her hair was wholly disheveled.
Then she prayed to the Lord, the God of Israel, saying: “My Lord, our King, you alone are God. Help me, who am alone and have no help but you, for I am taking my life in my hand… Save us by your power, and help me, who am alone and have no one but you, O Lord… Save us from the power of the wicked, and deliver me from my fear.” (13:12-30).
On the third day, putting an end to her prayers, she took off her penitential garments and arrayed herself in her royal attire… (15:1).
Quotations from the New American Bible
Bible Art Gallery, Book by Book Art Gallery of Christianity Religions Art Gallery
Other Web Pages of Dr. Domínguez
(over 200, in English and Spanish)
Public domain text. No rights reserved. May be distributed freely
February 27th, 2010
Graphic: The countries where Christians are most persecuted
DER SPIEGEL
Gone is the era of tolerance, when Christians enjoyed a large degree of religious freedom under the protection of Muslim sultans as so-called “People of the Book” while at the same time medieval Europe was banishing its Jews and Muslims from the continent or even burning them at the stake. Also gone is the heyday of Arab secularism following World War II, when Christian Arabs advanced through the ranks of politics.
As political Islam grew stronger, devout believers’ aggression focused not only on corrupt local regimes, but also more and more on the ostensibly corrupting influence of Western Christians, for which local Christian minorities were held accountable. A new trend began, this time with Christians as the victims.
In Iraq, for example, Sunni terrorist groups prey specifically on people of other religions. The last Iraqi census in 1987 showed 1.4 million Christians living in the country. At the start of the American invasion in 2003, it was 550,000, and at present it is just under 400,000. Experts speak of a “creeping genocide.”
Christianity’s Modern- Day Martyrs
The rise of Islamic extremism is putting increasing pressure on Christians in Muslim countries, who are the victims of murder, violence and discrimination. Christians are now considered the most persecuted religious group around the world. Paradoxically, their greatest hope could come from moderate political Islam. By SPIEGEL staff.
February 26th, 2010
The Temptation of Christ by Sandro Botticelli
Luke 4:1-13
Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness, where for forty days he was tempted by the devil. He ate nothing at all during those days, and when they were over, he was famished. The devil said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become a loaf of bread.” Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘One does not live by bread alone.’” Then the devil led him up and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. And the devil said to him, “To you I will give their glory and all this authority; for it has been given over to me, and I give it to anyone I please. If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours.” Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve only him.’” Then the devil took him to Jerusalem, and placed him on the pinnacle of the temple, saying to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here, for it is written, ‘He will command his angels concerning you, to protect you,’ and ‘On their hands they will bear you up, so that you will not dash your foot against a stone.’” Jesus answered him, “It is said, ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’” When the devil had finished every test, he departed from him until an opportune time.
John the Baptist had no questions about his own identity, even when he had been thrown into the dungeon, this child of the desert. He sent word to Jesus, “Are you the one who is to come, or are we to wait for another?’” (Luke 7:20). ‘Are we to wait for another?’ He had doubts about Jesus but not about himself!
What are we to make of the temptations of Jesus? Were they real temptations? If they were, then he was seeking to understand his own identity and considering different ways of spending the rest of his life. If they were not, then the whole scene was only a charade. It is not at all to doubt his divinity if we take the temptations seriously. He was divine, but his human mind was human: that is, limited. The three gospels that tell of his temptations link them with his baptism in the Jordan. He came to the Jordan as an unknown carpenter, and the Holy Spirit came and “rested on him” (others are touched or moved by the Spirit, but the Spirit “rested” on Jesus). He was catapulted out of his old way of life; Mark says the Spirit “drove him out into the desert” (1:12). The Voice had said to him “You are my Son, the Beloved; my favor rests on you.” To see how he was going to spend the rest of his life, he had to have time to think and pray and struggle.
A temptation may come from the outside, but unless it goes to the inside it is not a temptation. The first temptation was to be a material provider. This is a good thing to be. How do you tempt a good person? – with goodness, because he will not take an evil bait. It’s not so difficult to be a material provider, and in fact most people can do it for themselves. But if Jesus had given in to this temptation, the work would have absorbed him completely, distracting him from his real task. The next temptation was to power. This is always a subtle one, and very easily rationalized. Any kind of power will do. It was said of someone that he entered the priesthood in order to do good, and did well instead. I can persuade myself that a position of power would give me greater opportunities of doing good. Jesus avoided this trap too. The most distinctive thing about him throughout his public life was his refusal of power. In the end he made himself utterly powerless on the Cross. It is very moving to see that that choice was not automatic, but conscious and deliberate. The third temptation, which cannot have occupied his mind for long, was to become a celebrity.
Some scholars suggest that this gospel passage was a summary story; that is, that it describes a process that went on throughout his life, rather than a single occasion. Whether or not that is likely, it is certainly the case that these temptations are ever-present for the disciples of Jesus, the Church. Most of us would find it easier to buy groceries for someone than to sit for hours and listen to their pain and confusion, or their anger…. As for power and glory: that is a long story! We can imagine we are defending the power and glory of God when in reality we are only defending the worldly power and pride of the Church. The Church’s identity does not consist in titles and honors and expensive dress, but in following the poor man of Nazareth. We, the disciples of Jesus, the Church, have to be driven into the desert again and again… until we understand profoundly and embrace wholeheartedly the way of the Cross.
+++
LENTEN READING
AUGUSTINE – DE TRINITATE “ON THE TRINITY” – CONCLUSION
In the Retractations (ii. 15) Augustine speaks of this work in the following terms:—
I spent some years in writing fifteen books concerning the Trinity, which is God. When, however, I had not yet finished the thirteenth Book, and some who were exceedingly anxious to have the work were kept waiting longer than they could bear, it was stolen from me in a less correct state than it either could or would have been had it appeared when I intended. And as soon as I discovered this, having other copies of it, I had determined at first not to publish it myself, but to mention what had happened in the matter in some other work; but at the urgent request of brethren, whom I could not refuse, I corrected it as much as I thought fit, and finished and published it, with the addition, at the beginning, of a letter that I had written to the venerableAurelius, Bishop of Carthage, in which I set forth, in the way of prologue, what had happened, what I had intended to do of myself, and what love of my brethren had forced me to do.
Chapter 28 – Conclusion
O Lord our God, we believe in Thee, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. For the Truth would not say, Go, baptize all nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, unless Thou wast a Trinity. Nor wouldest thou, O Lord God, bid us to be baptized in the name of Him who is not the Lord God. Nor would the divine voice have said, Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one God, unless Thou wert so a Trinity as to be one Lord God. And if Thou, O God, weft Thyself the Father, and weft Thyself the Son, Thy Word Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit your gift, we should not read in the book of truth, “God sent His Son;”144 nor wouldest Thou, O Only-begotten, say of the Holy Spirit, “Whom the Father will send in my name;”145 and, “Whom I will send to you from the Father.”146 Directing my purpose by this rule of faith, so far as I have been able, so far as Thou hast made me to be able, I have sought Thee, and have desired to see with my understanding what I believed; and I have argued and labored much. O Lord my God, my one hope, hearken to me, lest through weariness I be unwilling to seek Thee, “but that I may always ardently seek Thy face.”147 Do Thou give strength to seek,, who hast made me find Thee, and hast given the hope of finding Thee more and more. My strength and my infirmity are in Thy sight: preserve the one, and heal the other. My knowledge and my ignorance are in Thy sight; where Thou hast opened to me, receive me as I enter; where Thou hast closed, open to me as I knock. May I remember Thee, understand Thee, love Thee. Increase these things in me, until Thou renewest me wholly. I know it is written, “In the multitude of speech, thou shalt not escape sin.”148 But O that I might speak only in preaching Thy word, and in praising Thee! Not only should I so flee from sin, but I should earn good desert, however much I so spake. For a man blessed of Thee would not enjoin a sin upon his own true son in the faith, to whom he wrote, “Preach the word: be instant in season. out of season.”149 Are we to say that he has not spoken much, who was not silent about Thy word, O Lord, not only in season, but out/of season? But therefore it was not much, because it was only what was necessary. Set me free, O God, from that multitude of speech which I suffer inwardly in my soul, wretched as it is in Thy sight, and flying for refuge to Thy mercy; for I am not silent in thoughts, even when silent in words. And if, indeed, I thought of nothing save what pleased Thee, certainly I would not ask Thee to set me free from such multitude of speech. But many are my thoughts, such as Thou knowest, “thoughts of man, since they are vain.”150 Grant to me not to consent to them; and if ever they delight me, nevertheless to condemn them, and not to dwell in them, as though I slumbered. Nor let them so prevail in me, as that anything in my acts should proceed from them; but at least let my opinions, let my conscience, be safe from them, under Thy protection. When the wise man spake of Thee in his book, which is now called b the special name of Ecclesiasticus, We speak,” he said, “much, and yet co eshort; and in sum of words, He is all.”151 When, therefore, we shall have come to Thee, these very many things that we speak, and yet come short, will cease; and Thou, as One, wilt remain “all in all.”152 And we shall say one thing without end, in praising Thee in One, ourselves also made one in Thee. O Lord the one God, God the Trinity, whatever I have said in these books that is of Thine, may they acknowledge who are Thine; if anything of my own, may it be pardoned both by Thee and by those who are Thine. Amen).
February 21st, 2010
Questioned about the vexing issue of whether pro-abortion politicians should be admitted to the Eucharist, Cardinal Sean O’Malley– who faces such questions frequently in his Boston archdiocese– told LifeSite News that clear guidance from the Vatican is necessary.
LSN: “So you think it needs a directive from the Pope or be made clear in Canon Law?”
O’Malley: “It’s the only way it is really going to work.”
What a good idea! Something clear. Something in the Code of Canon Law. Something like this:
Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.
If the Vatican approves this wording, let’s call it
Canon 915.Oh wait.
waiting for guidance
February 20th, 2010
Image captured on film!
There are thieves, and there are thieves. Police in Seoul, South Korea, recently nabbed a man who had allegedly stolen 1,200 pairs of luxury-brand shoes from funeral halls at large hospitals. The man had reportedly stored his stolen goods at a warehouse, hoping to one day set up shop as a street vendor. Here, a man searches for his shoes in a sea of look-alikes at a police station.
February 20th, 2010
Previous Posts
