Heaven and Belief in Christ the Savior

Over at the Althouse blog, the question is posed --

Do you think you need to believe in Jesus to go to Heaven when you die?

And, of course, that depends on what one means by "believe."

Is it necessary to believe intellectually, with one's mind, to have an affirmative knowledge that you believe?

Well, intellectual belief certainly helps. For one thing, the intellectual believer will presumably then go and be baptized, which provides the grace of not only redeeming one from Original Sin, which is absolutely necessary for salvation, but it provides other graces as well to grow in the faith and grow closer to the Lord, if only one accepts those graces in the heart.

However, Jesus says that it is not necessarily the case that the intellectual believer will be automatically saved, that there are many who fed Him even without realizing they were doing so. (Mt. 25:34-40) Meanwhile, Jesus also says that there are plenty who proclaim, "Lord, Lord," to whom He will say "I don't know you because you never really took me into your heart." (cf. Mt. 7:21-23) And Paul notes that the people of Athens worship God unknowingly with their altar to an unknown God. (Acts 17:22-23)

So, what is important that you "know" Jesus and "believe" in your heart, i.e., you have a sincere thirst for love and hunger for truth in your heart. (Mt. 5:3-10) That is enough to be "blessed," to at least open the door to possible salvation, even if you do not intellectually realize that you know Jesus in your heart, for the God of Divine Mercy seeks to save, not to condemn, so He will help you the rest of the way. God is not bound by the requirement of sacramental baptism by water, He is perfectly free to provide the effects of baptism by alternate means. (For example, neither Mary nor Joseph nor any of the righteous people of the Old Testament ever received sacramental baptism by water, but the Church recognizes them to be in heaven.)

At the same time, this "belief in the heart" is made more difficult if one intellectually affirmatively rejects Jesus and/or God and/or everything about Him. And sincere belief in the heart is -- or at least should be -- easier if one intellectually believes.

As for going to Heaven without Jesus -- can anyone tell me "where" Heaven is, or how one can get there without Him taking us there? Can anyone describe to me the process of transferring one's spiritual being from this present physical reality to any other? Or how one goes about resurrecting your dead body and transforming it to a glorified state?

And since Heaven is, by definition, eternal union with God, why would anyone want to be in Heaven later if he does not want to have a relationship with Him now or during this life?

Make no mistake here, though. Heaven is not some exclusive club. God is offering free memberships to anyone who wants them. And Jesus is eager to give tickets for the trip there to anyone who wants them.

Accepting such tickets to heaven does not restrict our freedom or otherwise burden us. All it does is open us to love and truth. All it does is open us to what is truly good. All it requires is that we be the person that we were made to be.

Note also that the idea that you can be a god unto yourself, that you can be your own savior, that you have no real need of God and are capable of being self-actualizing into heaven is the very first error, the very first sin, it is the original sin and such error is ultimately the origin of every other sin committed since then.

Even if you knew "where" heaven was, you do not have the ability to transcend this existence yourself, especially after you are dead.

Heaven being a "place," a state of being of perfection in truth (and love), for one to persist in error, any error but especially the error of self-salvation, is to prevent your very entry into heaven. Error and imperfection cannot exist in a place of truth and perfection.

That error and imperfection must be removed, it must be purged from you, you must be purified before you are capable of uniting with that which is all true and perfect.

If you are incapable of perfection now, you certainly won't be able to do it yourself after you are dead. You need help.

Thankfully, the Lord is a God of Divine Mercy who gives countless opportunities for people to accept His outstretched arms of love.

The Passover in Egypt is a prime example.

God gave Pharaoh chance after chance after chance to do the right thing, to do the good thing, to simply allow people to follow Him.

God did not obliterate Egypt at the first sign of rejection. Rather, He gave Pharaoh a modest rebuke (the first plague) and gave him another chance. And then another, and another, and another.

Ten times God asked Pharaoh to let His people go (the number ten has symbolic meaning, it means completeness). God gave Pharoah a complete number of opportunities to turn to truth and justice.

But eventually death comes. Death comes to us all, and when it comes there are no more chances, no more opportunities. God remains ever merciful, but being dead, you no longer have the ability to accept. Your future (your first born) is no more.

You need to accept His love and truth in your heart while there is still time, while you still live, so that death might "pass over" you. And, again, such acceptance of love and truth does not burden us, it frees us from bondage, it allows us to walk out of slavery to freedom and the Promised Land.

The Plagues and Exodus in the Light of Christ

From the very beginning, the Passover Lamb and Moses have been understood as prefiguring Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God who is sacrificed and the New Moses who leads His people out of the bondage of sin and death to the Promised Land of eternal life with God. And the crossing of the Red Sea has long been understood to symbolize Baptism.

Are there other parallels besides the Passover Lamb and the Death of the First Born? Is there a connection between the Plagues and Jesus smashing the marketplace before Passover? Might one say that, in the Passion, Jesus (God) is suffering the Plagues upon Himself? How can we see the Plagues as the entire Trinity in action, even if veiled in mystery?

Note that the Plagues begin with water turned to blood, and the Passion begins with Jesus’ sweat turned to blood, and it ends with blood and water pouring from His side. Is there a Eucharistic significance here, as there is in the Unleavened Bread of Passover? There are three days of “darkness” between the Crucifixion and the Resurrection. Also, blows are inflicted on Him (hail), resulting in injuries (boils and open sores), while He endures annoying insults (frogs, flies, lice).

The Ten Plagues of Egypt:Objections and Questions About God, Part Four

The Plagues and Exodus, Mercy and Hope, and Eschatology

1. Hope and the Oppressed – We often read the story of the Passion by placing ourselves in various roles. If we were to put ourselves into the story of the Plagues, which part(s) are the most applicable? How do the Israelites symbolize us, as the people of God? Jesus is the New Moses, but can Moses and Aaron signify us as well as witnesses for the Lord who seek to turn (convert) sinners (Pharaoh)?

It is part of the institutional memory of the Jewish people to remember how God brought His people out of bondage in Egypt. This is partly to remember the Covenant and give thanks to God, but also to provide hope in times of persecution and hardship, that God will not give up, but will work tirelessly for our redemption and salvation.

The Book of Revelation (ch. 15-16) tells of the “seven last plagues,” including water turned to blood, festering open sores, darkness, unclean spirits like frogs, and hail and lightning. Both Exodus and Revelation show that evil and oppression will not have the final word, that they are not in control, rather, God is in charge, that He will make distinctions and save His people, that He will make His people immune from the ultimate suffering, the suffering of eternal death.

2. Hope and the Sinner – How should we view Pharaoh? Is he merely “the bad guy” of the story? Or are we Pharaoh also? Does he, can he, signify us? Doesn’t Pharaoh, although an oppressor, represent the typical sinner? And if he does, seeing as how God gave him many chances, shouldn’t that give us sinners hope of God’s inexhaustible mercy?

At first, Pharaoh professes an ignorance of God. Then he seeks to bargain and negotiate with God, seeking to set conditions and terms of doing good. Like any sinner, especially like the sinner who suffers some adverse consequences because of his sin, Pharaoh begins to lose resolve, he begins to crack, and starts to turn toward the good, if only with the “imperfect contrition” of wanting to avoid further punishment. Perhaps he really is truly sorry and repentant? But his movements toward the good end, and he becomes obstinate – his heart is hardened – when the pressure is off. The temptations of sin – in his case, power – cause him to fall backward. The cycle repeats itself over and over. After a while, Pharaoh, like a typical sinner, even admits his fault and is sorry, but again the will to do good is weak and he falters.

Eventually, however, the obstinate sinner runs out of time – the final plague is the point at which it is too late – death. (Do not the first-born, as inheritors, represent the future?) It is now too late for the sinner to repent, just as it was then too late for Pharaoh. There are no more “second” chances, there is no more future after death.

The account of the Plagues provides a glimpse into how God deals with the evildoer. We are a people of instant gratification; we want things done now. And in thinking of deliverance from Egypt, we tend to reduce the Exodus to the Passover and the Red Sea. But it is more than that. God did not rescue and redeem His people immediately. Rather, He did it over time, as part of a process. And He was not concerned only with His "chosen people."

Take note that Egypt was a provider of refuge for Abraham and the family of Jacob, as well as Joseph, Mary, and Jesus. Consequently, would not God be favorably disposed toward Egypt? Is the lesson to be learned that God does not merely want to destroy the oppressor, but to convert him, giving him many opportunities to do so?

God gave the evil oppressor Pharaoh many chances, many opportunities to do the right thing. While Moses and Aaron and the Israelites are the People of God, we would do well to remember that Pharaoh and the Egyptians -- indeed, all the oppressors of the world -- are God's children too. As His children, He loves them too. Just as He gives us many, many opportunities to repent, so too did He give Pharaoh many chances to do the right thing. God did not strike him down immediately, He did not destroy Egypt with one blow the first time, but only upon the tenth time.

Is not one of the big messages here concerning God’s approach to sinners, which should give those of us who are also sinners hope? That He prods, He pokes, He warns, He chastises, He is patient when the sinner back-slides, He gives countless chances, and His divine mercy is everlasting, that no matter how obstinate we might have been in sin, so long as we turn toward Him while there is still time, before death, when it is then too late, that we will be forgiven?

The Ten Plagues of Egypt:Objections and Questions About God, Part Three

God’s Primary Objective

What is God’s primary objective in the Plagues and the Exodus? Is it merely to emancipate His people? Is it to retaliate and punish the Egyptians for enslaving the Israelites? Is it to show His power and might?

And is God being sincere and honest when He, through Moses, tells Pharaoh to let the people go in order to worship God for a few days? Or was that a ruse (a lie), with the real plan being to never return? If freedom was the plan, when might we say that the people were truly free? After the death of the first born? After the crossing of the Red Sea? Or were they truly free only when they reached Sinai and received the Ten Commandments and other Law?

Being Truth, God could not have been dishonest when He had Moses tell Pharaoh merely to let the people go worship Him.

Thus, it would appear that the primary objective of the Exodus was not political freedom, but religious freedom, the main objective was for the people to know Him and receive the Law. Only then would they be truly free.

Another objective would appear to be to part of the on-going battle against polytheism, to demonstrate, in the defeat of Egypt’s false gods and death cult by powerful and wondrous deeds, that the Lord is the One, True, and Almighty God. (Compare God’s revelation of Himself in Egypt to His speaking to Elijah in a whisper in 1 Kings 19.)

The Ten Plagues of Egypt:Objections and Questions About God, Part Two

Another objection that might be raised against the biblical account of the Ten Plagues is the apparent infliction of suffering by God. The same objection is raised with respect to other events depicted in the Bible, for example, the Flood or warfare against the various enemies of Israel.

Setting aside for now the question of whether the Plagues constitute a "judgment" or "punishment" upon Egypt, or are merely an occasion for God to demonstrate His supremacy over the false gods of Egypt --

Should we be bothered or scandalized by God inflicting hardship and suffering on the people? Is God being unfair or unjust with respect to everyday Egyptians, who were innocent and had nothing to do with enslaving the Israelites or with Pharaoh's refusal to let them go? Or is whatever God does "just," no matter how unjust in human terms, because God is by definition all-good and just? Should God’s actions in Egypt lead us to alter our conception of what “God is Love” means?

Similarly, when God acts, it is the entirety of the Trinity who acts, such that Jesus Himself was involved in the infliction of the Plagues. But how can we reconcile that with our understanding of Jesus as the epitome of love?

Taking a closer look, can we really say that God is being unfair or unjust with respect to everyday Egyptians when they essentially acquiesced and joined in Pharaoh’s obstinate sin by not overthrowing him? Did they not also share in the fruits of the slave labor of the Israelites? By their eating that poisoned fruit and their failure to do the right thing and free the Israelites, do they not share in Pharaoh’s guilt?

Even if they were “innocent” bystanders, setting aside the final Plague, were the other Plagues so harsh and so excessive so as to be an injustice by God? Or is the fact that they were consistent with other naturally-occurring disasters mean that, although imposed by God, they were in line with what might be deemed to be reasonable punishment or chastisement?

And do not the repeated warnings that God gave before the coming of a given Plague eliminate any reasonable claim of injustice by God?

Besides, God showed that He was willing to save those who are not His people, including those who were officials of Pharaoh, if they began to believe in Him, as in the case of the Plague of hail. (Exodus 9:19-20) Moreover, when, at Pharaoh's request, Moses prays to God to lift a given plague, God does so.

While pondering the accusation of unjust infliction of suffering by God, which admittedly might be supported by a superficial reading of the text, let us ask this as well:

Why did God not simply destroy Egypt? Why did He not simply wipe everyone out at the very beginning, so that the Israelites could leisurely walk out of Egypt?

Compare God’s approach concerning Pharaoh and Egypt with His approach concerning the Amalekites, the arch-enemies of Israel, who sought to prevent the Israelites from entering the Promised Land, thus incurring “God’s wrath” and His command to exterminate them. Is it because Amalek is an outright barrier to the salvation of God’s people, while Pharaoh is merely an oppressor and obstinate sinner?

Take note that Egypt was a provider of refuge for Abraham and Joseph, Mary, and Jesus. Consequently, would not God be favorably disposed toward Egypt? Is the lesson to be learned that God does not merely want to destroy the oppressor, but to convert him, giving him many opportunities to do so?

Moses and Aaron and the Israelites are the People of God. But we would do well to remember that Pharaoh and the Egyptians -- indeed, all the oppressors of the world -- are God's children too. As His children, He loves them too. Just as He gives us many, many opportunities to repent, so to did He give Pharaoh many chances to do the right thing. God did not strike him down immediately, He did not destroy Egypt with one blow the first time, but only upon the tenth time.

Taking all of the above into consideration, rather than concluding that God unjustly inflicted disproportionate suffering on innocent people, is not the better reading of the text that God instead dealt with Pharaoh patiently and treated Egypt mercifully?

Jesus said to pray for those who persecute you. Do we not see this with Moses praying on behalf of Pharoah to lift the plagues?

Jesus said to love your enemies. Taking a deeper look at the scriptural passages on the Ten Plagues -- which show God being patient, giving opportunities to convert, and mostly inflicting hardships that are consistent with nature -- do not these passages demonstrate that God did exactly that, love the Egyptians, the enemy of the Israelites?

If we satisfy ourselves with a superficial reading of scripture, merely taking the text at face-value, we run the risk of making a grievously wrong interpretation. But if we poke and prod and ask questions, seeking a deeper understanding, an understanding consistent with the Love and Truth of God, then we will discover the true and proper meaning.


Next: Was God dishonest? Did He have Moses lie to Pharaoh?
.

The Ten Plagues of Egypt:Objections and Questions About God, Part One

Most of the Plagues were like natural disasters. So, the question arises, even if the Plagues did, in fact, happen – were they merely naturally-caused, were they merely natural disasters, or were they caused by God? (Just because something seems usual or ordinary does not mean that God is not behind it.)

Some people, both atheists and others opposed to God as depicted in the Bible, as well as those who have a good faith misunderstanding of God and scripture, have voiced certain objections to God's actions with respect to the Ten Plagues. One of those objections concerns passages such as Exodus 7:3-4, which is immediately prior to Moses turning the water of the Nile to blood,

I will make Pharaoh so obstinate that, despite the many signs and wonders that I will work in the land of Egypt, he will not listen to you. Then I will lay my hand on Egypt and with mighty acts of judgment I will bring out my divisions, my people the Israelites.

Prior to many of the other Plagues, the scripture likewise says that God hardened Pharaoh's heart or otherwise made him stubborn, obstinate, unyielding, etc.

God Hardens Pharaoh’s Heart --
Issues of Free Will and Justice

In the many passages where it says that God made Pharaoh obstinate, obdurate, or hardened his heart – should those be read to mean that God deprived Pharaoh of free will?

And if God did deprive Pharaoh of free will, if Pharaoh did not let the Israelites go only because God hardened his heart against it, is not God the one truly responsible for Israel’s continued enslavement, rather than Pharaoh? Would not God then be the cause of evil?

If so, is not God being unjust to punish Pharaoh and innocent Egyptians when it was God Himself who made Pharaoh’s heart so unyielding?

These are valid questions, and they present us with something of a quandary, given that the passages at issue, if taken at face-value, would seem to support the conclusion that God did something evil. However, such a reading would be contrary to the truth that we know about God -- that God is all-good and cannot do evil, that God is Love and Truth, and to take away a person's free will would not be an act of love, but of violence, and would be contrary to the truth and inherent dignity of the human person, who is made by Him as a free being, not as an automaton. And God, being Truth, cannot act or be contrary to Himself.

So there must be some other reading, something more consistent with the truth of God.

Perhaps the better reading of such passages is that, rather than deprive Pharaoh of free will, rather than treat him as a puppet, in “hardening his heart,” God only gave Pharaoh what he wanted, which was an obstinate will?

After the Nile was turned to blood, "the Egyptian magicians did the same things by their secret arts, and Pharaoh's heart became hard; he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said." (Exodus 7:22)

Could we not say that God only made Pharaoh firm in what he already believed, and what he already wanted, in order to, among other things, take those beliefs to their logical extreme, which is that obstinate rejection of God can ultimately lead to only one end -- death?

Do not these passages show that God, in fact, greatly respected Pharaoh’s free will?

Not only did God merely make Pharaoh firm in what Pharaoh already desired, merely make him true to his own selfish will, such that it was not a violation of his free will, but, in seeking the emancipation of the Israelites, God did not simply treat Pharaoh as puppet and change his mind for him.

God could have deprived Pharaoh of free will by overriding Pharaoh's intransigence, but He instead allowed Pharaoh to continue to resist God's will.

Reading the "hardened his heart" passages in the context of the whole of the Ten Plagues, and the whole of the Bible, in the light of Christ and consistent with God being the God of Love and Truth, is not the proper interpretation that Pharaoh, and Pharaoh alone, is responsible for his obstinacy? The Pharaoh, by his repeated refusals, by His repeatedly saying "no" to God, brought the consequences of his refusal on himself? That he, as sovereign of the Egyptian nation, bears the responsibility for his unyielding actions?

And, given God's repeated warnings about what would happen if Pharaoh continued to refuse to let the Israelites go, that God acted eminently fair and just?

Next: The Infliction of Suffering by God?
.

The Ten Plagues of Egypt:A Foundational, Unavoidable Issue

For the most part, the texts of the Bible refer to the Ten Plagues as “wonders” and “acts,” etc., not as “plagues.” The word “plague” itself is from the Greek pleghé, meaning a blow so violent as to cause injuries and sometimes even death. Similarly, a footnote in the New American Bible states that the ancient Egyptian word pesach also means a stunning blow, as in the case of the death of the first-born, and this might be the origin of the Hebrew word pesach, which now means “Passover.” Some Jewish scholars say that the plagues were in the nature of military tactics against the Egyptians, so that the modern equivalent idea might be like that of the “shock and awe” campaign that was used in the early days of the Iraq War.

Before getting into any substantial analysis of that text, however, there is a fundamental and foundational issue that must be addressed --

How should we read the passages on the Plagues? Should we read the Plagues as a whole as literal history fact? Should we read each individual plague literally, or might we read one or more of them more metaphorically or as an application of hyperbole, without destroying the historical fact of the whole?

Or does it matter one way or the other? Will we miss the forest for the trees if we unduly focus on the question of the historicity of the Plagues?

Did the Plagues really happen? If they really happened historically, were they caused by nature or by God? Are the accounts in scripture purely mythical allegorical stories, or mythological explanations of naturally-caused disasters?

If they did not really happen, as some modern scholars might hold, then why would the Egyptians have let the Israelites go? Or did they? Clearly it would have taken a powerful, cataclysmic event for the Egyptians to allow tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of slave laborers to leave. (It took the United States a massive Civil War to free the slaves.)

If the Plagues did not actually happen, then we have a major problem because that calls into question the Exodus itself, and that calls into question whether Israel was ever in bondage in the first place.

However, God delivering Israel from bondage is the foundational event of the Old Testament and, hence, a foundational event of the New Testament. Indeed, the question of the historicity of the Plagues would seem to be on a par with the historicity of the Resurrection of Christ. If the Resurrection did not happen (as many modern scholars maintain), then Christianity is a lie. And if the Plagues did not happen, then the Exodus likely did not happen, and Salvation History is itself a lie.

It is clear then, that we cannot avoid the foundational question of the historicity of the Plagues, just as a Christian must inevitably answer the question: did Jesus rise from the dead or not?

It should be noted that extra-biblical historical sources have little, if any, mention of a large group of slaves leaving Egypt. However, it is not unusual that the most momentous acts and events of God should go unnoticed by mankind.

Next: Questions about God and the Plagues
.

Reading the Bible:Some Preliminary Thoughts and Considerations

As noted previously, I am helping to prepare a group presentation on the Ten Plagues of Egypt for my Master Catechist Certification Class. What we hope to do is first have a section on reading, interpretation, and understanding of scripture generally. That general section is not yet in final form, but here are a few basic concepts.

Types of Scriptural Reading:
The purposes of reading scripture are many, but they include personal growth, growing closer to God, and personal understanding, so as to increase one's one faith and to be able to better defend and explain the faith to nonbelievers. The various types of scriptural reading include, but are not necessarily limited to --

(1) Individual reading.

(2) Group bible study.

(3) Scholarly exegesis. This might include not only believing theologians, but non-believing academics.

(4) Lectio divina - "divine reading"

(a) individual - reading, meditation, prayer, contemplation
(b) group - reading, meditation, prayer, contemplation, discussion, and action

(5) Liturgical reading.

(6) The Magisterium. The Church has definitively interpreted some of scripture, but not the entirety of the Bible. There are many passages on which the Magisterium has not spoken on authoritatively. Thus, personal individual interpretation of scripture is inevitable.


Various Methods and Approaches for Exegesis (Interpretation).

There are some basic principles one needs to keep in mind if one wants to properly understand a given passage from scripture. You cannot read the passage in isolation, but must read it in context and with certain premises in mind. Accordingly, one must:

(1) Read scripture in a manner consistent with the truth of God, in the light of the fullness of Revelation, Jesus Christ, and consistent with the purposes of revelation. (CCC 203-21) That is, for example, in a manner consistent with the truths that God is One and a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that God is Love and Truth. (This is something one must especially keep in mind when reading those scriptural passages which suggest a "harsh," "angry," "jealous," "wrathful," and "vengeful" God.) But note that this immediately raises the issue of how to remain faithful to those truths of God generally and Jesus Christ specifically. To do that, one must build his interpretation on rock, not sand, that is:

(a) Read scripture together with Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium, which are guided by and protected from error by the Holy Spirit. (CCC 95, 113)
(b) Read scriptural passages in the context of the whole Bible. (CCC 112) For example, one must read the Old Testament in light of the New Testament. (CCC 128-30)
(c) Read scripture in a manner consistent with the truths of the faith (analogy of faith). (CCC 114)
(d) Fit your interpretation to God and the Faith, not vice versa. If your personal interpretation and conclusions are contrary to the truths of God and the Faith, it is wrong.
(e) Read scripture with humility, understanding that you are not the Magisterium, so your interpretation cannot be definitive. And when you are done reading and done interpreting, take a step back and go and make sure that your understanding is consistent with the Magisterium.
(f) Make your personal reading of scripture prayerful. In reading and reflecting on the text, open yourself to the grace of understanding from the Holy Spirit. Do not read scripture merely as an academic exercise, rather, have a living relationship with the Word of God.

(2) Read scriptural passages in the historical context of the time and place in which they were written, including both extra-biblical history and Salvation History. (CCC 110)

(a) Having a basic understanding of outside history is very helpful and sometimes crucial to a proper understanding of the text. The Bible does not pretend to be a repository of all human knowledge, and it presupposes a knowledge of various non-biblical events. (For example, in understanding why God would give to Abraham and his descendants a far away land, it is helpful to know that, in the polytheistic beliefs of the time, a "god" was limited to a particular place or realm, such that, by giving Abraham a land far away, God was demonstrating that He is not limited, rather, He is the One God of everywhere.)
(b) Understand that the purpose of the Old Testament, the events which make up Salvation History, was to lead to Jesus Christ. And this Salvation History was necessarily a gradual process, given that humanity had lost almost all understanding of God after the Fall, such that mankind believed all sorts of false ideas about God and had adopted all sorts of evil ways. Thus, we see the text moving from the more vague and ambiguous (as viewed from a modern perspective) to the more specific as it draws closer to the time of Jesus. Also, in leading mankind back to the truth of Himself, God necessarily dealt with mankind as it was at that particular time, in the fallen, ignorant, and evil state of that era, using terms and images and concepts that such a harsh and blood-thirsty humanity would understand.

(3) One must take into account the problem of translation into other languages.

(a) The Bible was not written in 21st century English. It was written in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and that was often only after a long period of orally teaching what was later written down.
(b) The English translations often vary and some are better than others. And if we are using a translation that itself uses archaic English, as in the King James version, then one has the problem of translating that archaic English into understandable modern English.
(c) Most importantly, perhaps, is the need to properly take into account the problem of describing the indescribable, e.g. describing God in human terms. A writer can know only what he knows, such that he can write only in terms that he knows, and likewise a reader can understand only in terms that he already knows and understands. Hence, the human writers, not being able to fully comprehend the mystery of God, often use human attributes to describe Him.

(4) To properly interpret and understand a given passage, one must discern what it is that the human author, as inspired by God, intended to convey and how he intended it to be read. (CCC 109-10, 115-19) For example --

(a) literal history, taking the words at face value
(b) allegory or metaphor
(c) hyperbole
(d) moral
(e) prophetic or anagogical

(5) Engage the text. Ask questions of it. Do not be afraid of inconsistencies, and do not merely ignore them. The Catholic Faith is a faith of reason, and your own personal faith should seek understanding.

(a) Scripture can actually be an obstacle to true understanding and can even mislead when it stems from either an superficial or erroneous interpretation or when one avoids confronting it, such that one necessarily adopts someone else's wrong interpretation. It may at times be challenging, but it is crucial, if we are to have a proper understanding of the Lord, and especially if we are to fulfill our calling to be a witness of Jesus Christ to the world, that we confront and clear away distorted images of God that might arise from a faulty reading of the text.
(b) To be a faithful witness, we must clear away obstacles and stumbling blocks to our knowing that God is Love and God is Truth. Scripture is intended to lead toward God, it is intended to lead us toward Love and Truth, so we must not shy away from the challenging parts or otherwise allow ourselves or others to have an understanding that leads us away from Him, even if we think that our false understanding is the correct one.
(c) To avoid such faulty understanding of scripture and to avoid being led away from God, rather than toward Him, we should not be afraid to engage the text and confront the "hard questions." In so engaging it, we should keep in mind the above principles, reading the scriptures prayerfully and deferring to any authoritative and definitive interpretation by the Magisterium, with the understanding that the Magisterium does not arrive at its interpretation arbitrarily, but only by itself reading the scriptures prayerfully, open to the Holy Spirit, consistent with reason and the truths of the Faith.

.