A Lesson in Biblical Interpretation

The Gospel reading for today (Jn 6:1-15) says --

Jesus went across the Sea of Galilee. A large crowd followed him, because they saw the signs he was performing on the sick. Jesus went up on the mountain, and there he sat down with his disciples. The Jewish feast of Passover was near.
When Jesus raised his eyes and saw that a large crowd was coming to him, he said to Philip, "Where can we buy enough food for them to eat?"
He said this to test him, because he himself knew what he was going to do.
Philip answered him, "Two hundred days?' wages worth of food would not be enough for each of them to have a little.'"
One of his disciples, Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, said to him, "There is a boy here who has five barley loaves and two fish; but what good are these for so many?"
Jesus said, "Have the people recline."
Now there was a great deal of grass in that place. So the men reclined, about five thousand in number. Then Jesus took the loaves, gave thanks, and distributed them to those who were reclining, and also as much of the fish as they wanted. When they had had their fill, he said to his disciples, "Gather the fragments left over, so that nothing will be wasted." . . .

Let's focus on two things in this passage --

(1) First consider when Jesus asks Philip, "Where can we buy enough food for them to eat?" One major error in reading scripture is to read it in an overly literal fashion and, thus, a similar, but more serious error is to think that God is always speaking in literal terms. In fact, when revealing various truths to us in Salvation History, God uses a variety of teaching methods, what is called the "Divine Pedagogy."

Here, Jesus is not really thinking about buying food for the people despite the question to Philip. He already knows that He is going to provide the bread. The question he poses is a rhetorical question, it is asked by Jesus to make a point, to actually prove the opposite of what Jesus appears to be saying, to point out that there is no place where they can buy enough food. Even if they had the money, the 200 days wages, still the neighboring shops had certainly not baked enough loaves for more than 5,000 that day.

This is a good example of an important point to learn when reading about God saying something that really seems to be contrary to the God of Love and Truth. Perhaps the prime example, one of the most troubling incidents that people grapple with in trying to reconcile Love and Truth with God is when we read about God asking Abraham to offer Isaac in sacrifice. How could a loving God want such a horrific thing? The answer, of course, is that God does not want human sacrifice, and He did not want Isaac sacrificed. Rather, He was trying to teach Abraham and us something, like Jesus with Philip, He was utilizing the teaching method of proving the opposite of what He appeared to be asking.

(2) Now let's consider another part of the passage, "Then Jesus took the loaves, gave thanks, and distributed them to those who were reclining, and also as much of the fish as they wanted. When they had had their fill . . ."

As written, the passage says that Jesus took the five loaves and two fishes, gave thanks, and distributed five loaves and two fishes, such that the people divided amongst themselves five loaves and two fishes. Nowhere in this particular text does it explicitly say that the loaves and fishes were multiplied. Rather, it is implied that that is what happened. We also know that the five loaves and two fishes were multiplied to a countless number of loaves and fishes because such has been passed down to us through Tradition, the oral teaching and understanding of the Church.

So what is to be learned here? That the Bible does not record each and every tiny little fact of events. Rather, some things are implied, and it is presumed that you already have some pre-existing knowledge of the events.

To be sure, with respect to the latter point, in evangelization, in spreading the Gospel to others, we typically do not simply hand a non-believer a Bible and say "read this." Instead, people first come to know about Jesus Christ because someone has orally told them about Him. That is as it has always been, and the Gospels presuppose that the reader already has some familiarity with Him and with the history of the time.

So, again, we cannot simply take a highly literal approach to reading scripture. We need to go beyond a passive reading, go beyond the superficial plain text, and instead actively engage scripture, actively have a relationship with the Word of God.
_________________________

ADDED:
I just read Pope Benedict's remarks at today's Angelus. He noticed a seemingly insignifcant point that most everyone probably overlooks -- the boy.

In the scene of the multiplication, the presence of a boy is noticed. Given the difficulty of feeding so many people, he offered to share the little he had - five loaves and two fish (cf Jn, 6:8).

The miracle did not come from nothing but from an ordinary boy's desire to share what he had. Jesus does not ask us what we do not have, but shows us that if each of us offers what little we have, a miracle can always take place again. God is able to multiply every one of our small deeds of love and make us share in his gift.

Reading scripture, the Word of God, is often like this event - within what seems to be only a few points of importance there is a multiplicity of significance and meaning to be reaped and learned.

God of Love and Human Sacrifice, Abraham and Isaac

At Mass this Sunday, we heard one of the more troubling passages of scripture, that concerning God asking Abraham to offer Isaac as a sacrifice. Many people are troubled by this, asking how could God ask this if He is supposedly so loving and good?

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 the context of the entirety of the Bible, especially in light of Jesus Christ (indeed, this is one of the lessons of the Transfiguration, which was the Gospel reading, where Moses, representing the Law, and Elijah, representing the prophets, appear with Jesus, the Word), as well as in the context of the historical context of the time and place in which the passage was written, including extra-biblical history.

The book of Genesis informs us that, in opposing God, who is Life, man necessarily brings death upon himself. The result of Original Sin is that a wide gulf of separation between God and humanity was created, a separation between man and love, truth, and life. And not only are proper relationships between mankind and God severed, but, as we see with Adam turning against Eve, and Cain killing Abel, proper relationships between human beings themselves are estranged, so that, instead of living a life of love and truth toward others, mankind has lived a life of selfish self-gratification and exploitation of others; instead of harmony, there is discord.

Now God, who is Divine Mercy, knew this rupture would happen. God knew that His covenant of love with Adam would be broken, and He already had a plan for reconciliation. This process of God calling humanity back to Himself is called “salvation history,” and this plan of redemption was to establish a relationship with a specific people and develop them so that they could learn to know God and live according to His will of love and truth.

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 of the Old Testament 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, and most importantly in interpreting and understanding those "hard" passages in scripture, we must understand that, in leading mankind back to the truth of Himself, God necessarily dealt with mankind as it was at that particular time, that is, 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.

As part of this process, God established the great covenant with Abraham to set apart a people to be His own. (Gen. 12, 17) To show that He was not merely the god of a particular place, as was believed to be the case by the polytheists of the time, but that He is the One God who is Lord everywhere, God told Abraham (then called Abram) to leave his home in Ur (present day southern Iraq) and go to a far land, Canaan (present day Israel), which would be given to him and his descendents. To demonstrate this covenant with Abraham and his descendents, the sign of the covenant, circumcision, was made on the instrument of procreation. Through these chosen people, God would bring salvation to all mankind.

At this time in human history, not only was polytheism widely practiced, but human sacrifice was a part of some of those religions.

In order for Abraham (and we) to fully understand the gravity of the situation, and so that he could demonstrate and prove (to himself) that he had total faith in the Lord, even to the point of being willing to sacrifice his beloved son Isaac, God followed the expectations of the times and told Abraham to offer him in sacrifice, which Abraham dutifully prepared to do. (Gen. 22)

God did not test Abraham in order for God to know the extent of his fidelity, the omniscient God already knew. Rather, God tested Abraham so that Abraham would know that he was so faithful that he was willing to sacrifice his own son, whom he loved. God does ask us to put our love for Him before our love for others. However, God does not, in fact, desire human sacrifice; He desires mercy and a loving heart (Hos. 6:6). And in loving God before loving others, even our own family, we actually end up providing even more love, and even more perfect love, to others.

In order to graphically demonstrate that He does not desire human sacrifice (and wanted the widespread practice to end), God had Abraham proceed to the brink of sacrificing Isaac only so that He could then stop him. Neither Abraham nor any other member of mankind would be asked for such a sacrifice. Instead, as Abraham told Isaac, God Himself would provide for the sacrifice, as He also did in providing Himself as the Lamb of God -- the same Lamb of God whose Immaculate Mother, Our Lady of Guadalupe, would appear to the lowly Juan Diego many years later to end the culture of human sacrifice by the Aztecs.

So, what we should take away from the story of the testing of Abraham, of God asking him to offer up Isaac as a sacrifice is NOT that God is cruel, but quite the opposite -- God is Love -- He does not desire human sacrifice; He desires mercy and a loving heart (Hos. 6:6). As Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict) writes --

A misunderstood theology has left many people with a completely false image, the image of a cruel God who demands the blood of His own Son. They have read out of the Cross the image of Job's friends and have turned their backs on this God in horror. But the opposite is true! The biblical God demands no human sacrifices. When He appears in the course of the history of religion, human sacrifice ceases. Before Abraham can slaughter Isaac, God speaks and stops him; the ram takes the place of the child. The cult of Yahweh begins when the sacrifice of the firstborn, which was demanded by the ancestral religion of Abraham, is replaced by his obedience and his faith -- the external substitute, the ram, is only the expression of this deeper reality, which is not a replacement, but rather looks ahead to the future fulfillment. For the God of Israel, human sacrifice is an abomination; Moloch, the god of human sacrifices, is the embodiment of the false god who is opposed by faith in Yahweh. For the God of Israel, it is, not the death of a man, but his life that is the act of worship. Irenaeus of Lyons expressed this in the wonderful formula: "Gloria Dei homo vivens" (The living man in the glorification of God.) And this is the kind of "human sacrifice," of worship, that God demands. (The God of Jesus Christ, pp. 54-55 (1976)

God does not delight in holocausts. He neither needs nor wants animal sacrifices, He neither needs nor wants grain (cereal) sacrifices, even though He had provided certain regulations for both types of sacrifice. What use has God for burnt animal flesh or grain?

So why the long history of animal and grain sacrifice, as recounted in the Old Testament?

It would appear that it was merely preparatory for the real sacrifice that is desired by God -- He who is Love. What the God of Love desires is love -- we were made by love, out of love, for love. And love, true and complete love, is necessarily sacrificial -- one sacrifices himself for the sake of the other, one gives of himself and puts the other before himself and his wants; he does not use the lives of others or otherwise sacrifice them for his own gain.

This sacrifice of self in love is the sacrifice that God desires. The sacrifice He desires is not that of an animal's life, not that of our children, but of our own; the blood sacrifice He desires is not the blood of an animal, but our "blood," that is, our own life, that is, our spirit -- a sacrifice of love. Just as He sacrificed His own Precious Blood and poured out His Spirit upon us, so too does He ask this of us. God desires it, but does not command it, because love, by it's very nature, is something that must be freely given.

The sacrifice that is desired by God and is acceptable to Him is the sacrifice of self, the sacrifice of a pure and contrite heart, renouncing prior infidelities and giving one's life back to Him who made it, placing one's self at the service of God. That is, loving the Lord thy God with all thy heart and all thy soul and all thy mind and all thy strength, and loving one another as He has loved us.

Psalm 137 and the Victory of Christ

The Anchoress asks, "Does this Scripture Verse Trouble You?"

Dr. Mark D. Roberts recently wrote about Psalm 137:9, a verse which he said makes us most uncomfortable:

The verse is “He shall seize and shall dash your children on the rock!” and of it, Robert’s writes:

"How can any part of Scripture seem to celebrate the killing of babies? How in the world are we to make sense of this verse? How can we read it, not to mention pray it, as Christians? Didn’t Jesus call us to love our enemies and forgive them, not smash their babies against the rocks? How are we supposed to answer the opponent of Christianity who throws Psalm 137:9 in our faces?"

In his devotional, Roberts lists five ways for the verse to be looked, covering the realities of the Babylonian exile and what may have been experienced at their hands, the human sense for revenge-as-justice and the applicable lessons of grace, and Christ working through us.

Maybe it’s because I am a Catholic with an abundance of rowdy ethnic residue, I have never once been made uncomfortable about that verse. Quite the opposite, the entire psalm brings me enormous consolation, each time I read it, because–as with the entire psalter–this psalm affirms both the brokenness of the human condition, and our commonality with our ancient kin, who reach out to us through centuries to communicate to us (and for us) the deepest longings and darkest instincts of the human heart. . . .

The post by Dr. Roberts that the Anchoress reflects upon is entitled --
"The Verse in Scripture that Makes Us Most Uncomfortable"

And, of course, here in the title, we encounter a fundamental and overwhelming error from the outset, that is, the idea that we should ever read any verse in isolation. To be sure, that is often the quickest way to misread, misinterpret, and misunderstand scripture, to take out one verse and read it undetached from the rest.

Moreover, just as one cannot read a given passage in isolation if one wishes to understand, one also cannot arbitrarily adopt the plain meaning of the text. Rather, one must read it:

(a) in context, including in the context of the whole passage, the whole Bible, especially the New Testament, and that Divine Revelation handed down to us by Sacred Tradition, as well as the context of human history and literary and pedagogical methods, and
(b) in a manner consistent with the truth of God, in the light of the fullness of Revelation, the Logos, Jesus Christ, who is Love and Truth Incarnate, and consistent with the purposes of revelation.

Scripture is intended to lead us toward truth, but it can sometimes actually be an obstacle to understanding of truth and can mislead if an overly-literal and fundamentalist approach is taken. This is especially a concern with respect to reading certain portions of the Old Testament, where the text seems to be inconsistent with Love and Truth.

So what of Psalm 137 and the verse at issue? Verse 9 itself is actually a continuation of Verse 8,

"O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us. Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!"

As is pointed out by the Anchoress and commenters at her site, the speaker here is not God, but is supposed to be one of those being held during the Babylonian Captivity.

What did the Psalmist, the human author, wish to convey here? And what does the Holy Spirit, who inspired the writing, wish to reveal here? Is there only one meaning, or multiple meanings on multiple levels? Is it merely a historical report of a captive voicing his frustrations? Is that what the Holy Spirit wants us to take away from this, a mere historical curiosity? Or is there something more, something bigger, something that might apply to each of us, and not merely some guy crying on the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers 2500 years ago?

To get at the big and essential question of what was intended (which is the primary question, see Dei Verbum 12), we have to consider just exactly how literally we are supposed to take the passage. Did the writer intend for us to understand that the speaker actually wants to smash babies?

Well, let's consider what is said a few verses earlier --

"5 If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither! 6 Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I do not remember you, if I do not set Jerusalem above my highest joy!"

Should we read that passage as the speaker desiring that his hand actually wither if he forgets his homeland? Or that his tongue be literally glued to the roof of his mouth?

Maybe. But much more likely, the speaker is engaging in hyperbole and metaphor.

And having used fairly obvious hyperbole and metaphor here, is it likely that the speaker suddenly switched to a totally literal meaning in the immediately following verses, or is it more likely that it is a continuation of the same literary devices of hyperbole and metaphor? If we consider that verses 8-9 are, on their face, harsh and violent and contrary to the Love and Truth of Jesus Christ, and remembering that we must read scripture in the light of Christ, the better interpretation and understanding of verses 8-9 is that the speaker is not speaking literally, but figuratively.

This is especially true when we further remember that, although the Psalmist has put the words in the mouth of a Babylonian captive, being Revelation, it is actually God who is communicating to us here. That same God who, beyond Jesus Christ, repeatedly says in the Old Testament that He does not delight in death.

OK, so if we seek to find a deeper meaning that the superficial plain text, what might we find? Is the speaker engaging in only hyperbole and metaphor with respect to his immediate situation, the Babylonian Captivity, or is there a broader meaning here, something that might be relevant for the entirety of Salvation History? Perhaps even something eschatological?

One thing jumps out fairly quickly, and that is the word "rock." In Christian understanding, what does "rock" mean? Well, it has a few meanings, but each related to the other. The "rock" is Christ, and it is the Church (represented by Peter, the Rock), and it is Truth (which is Christ again).

So, what might we wish to see smashed against the Rock that is Christ/Truth/the Church?

Evil and sin. And it has long been understood that references to "Babylon" are references to the greatest enemy of man, i.e. evil and sin, which have indeed done horrible things to us, in this our worldly exile. And the word "child" is often used to refer to the future. Thus, smashing a child of Babylon might refer to the eschatological smashing of evil and sin.

Seen in this way, verses 8-9 show themselves to be about being happy at the ultimate destruction of evil by Christ and His Church. Thus, we see that Psalm 137 is more than a mere report of an expression of frustration and rage. Much more. Although veiled, Jesus Christ is revealed again and again in the Old Testament. Here too is a revelation of Christ, and His victory over sin and evil and death.

(In his Exposition on Psalm 137, St. Augustine expands on this understanding. See also St. Ambrose, On Repentence, Book II, Chap. XI.)

.

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.

.

Jesus and the Interpretation of Scripture

The Gospel reading for today's Sunday Mass was about the Transfiguration, where Jesus is seen with Moses (who represents the Law) and Elijah (who represents the Prophets), signifying, among other things, that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets.

The Gospel reading for yesterday's Mass was from the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:43-48 --

Jesus said to His disciples:
“You have heard that it was said, you shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.
But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for He makes His sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust.
For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same?
And if you greet your brothers and sisters only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same?
So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

Now, I have read that passage many, many times before and, like most, have focused on the "love your enemies" part. But recently, in preparing my Master Catechist Class presentation, I have been reflecting and meditating on the Ten Plagues of Egypt and on some of the more challenging scriptural passages in the Old Testament, which tend to depict God as angry, wrathful, vengeful, etc., such that I have been dealing with issues of scriptural interpretation. And when I heard the above reading yesterday, a new aspect jumped out at me.

"You have heard that it was said, you shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy." Now, where was it said that? In scripture. That idea of loving neighbor and hating enemy is well supported in the plain meaning of the text of several Old Testament passages, including those referring to God's "anger," "wrath," and "hate" for this or that. And this obviously was the prevailing interpretation and understanding of that scripture at the time of Jesus.

In response to this plain meaning reading of scripture, which took the text at face-value, Jesus seems to say the exact opposite, "But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust."

In several other places, Jesus likewise says, "You have heard that it was said . . . But I say to you . . ." Furthermore, Jesus goes on to say that He did not come to abolish the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfill them, that is, inter alia, He is not changing the Law or teaching anything different, He is only providing a correct and true understanding of scripture (the Law and Prophets).

In other words, what Jesus is saying here is, "You have understood scripture thusly, but even though that understanding is supported by the text, you have interpeted it wrong, you misunderstand what the scripture means."

Thus, what it appears that Jesus is saying here is that we should not always necessarily adopt a face-value reading of Old Testament scripture, that there is a deeper meaning than what the plain meaning of the text would suggest. Especially with respect to those passages where God in the Old Testament appears to be contrary to the God of Love and Truth, as revealed in the New Testament, given Jesus' words here, it would appear to not be inappropriate to go beyond the plain meaning of the text, we can feel comfortable in looking for the deeper meaning, a meaning that is more consistent with Love and Truth, and that if our interpretation has God acting contrary to Love and Truth, then we have interpreted it wrong. Such interpretation of deeper meaning would not be abolishing such scripture, even if it is different from the plain meaning, but would be fulfilling it.

"You have heard that it was said . . . But I say to you . . ."
.

Master Catechist Class Project

We are reaching the end of the Master Catechist certification course that I am enrolled in. There is no final exam, but we will spend the last few sessions giving presentations to the class in groups of three.

Our group is not scheduled for a few more weeks yet, but we have tentatively decided on a topic -- Bible study/scriptural exegesis/lectio divina as applied to those passages in Exodus dealing with the Ten Plagues of Egypt.

We wanted something that would be a little more challenging, something dealing with some of the "hard cases" concerning God -- those portions of scripture (typically in the Old Testament) where God appears to be acting inconsistently with the God of Love and Truth that is revealed in the New Testament, that is, those portions involving the "wrath" and "anger" of God, where God "smites" His enemies, and rains down destruction on them. (These issues have also been recently considered over at the Archdiocese of Washington Blog.)

What are the different ways one might read and interpret and understand these passages from Exodus?

In the case of the Ten Plagues, scripture informs us that, when Pharaoh refused to let the Israelites go, God inflicted various calamaties upon Egypt, including the death of the first-born. How does one reconcile a God of Love with the infliction of suffering like this? Also, scripture states that God "hardened Pharaoh's heart." That being the case, was it really fair and just to punish Pharaoh for his refusal? And was God depriving Pharaoh of free will? Or is there some other interpretation of this text?

In addition to these questions concerning the "justice" (or apparent "injustice") of God, we have the questions of whether the Plagues really happened historically, and whether they were naturally caused or inflicted by God? Do the Plagues have any symbolic significance, individually or as a whole? Are they merely historical or is there prophetic meaning in them as well?

So, these and many other questions are what I will be working on and researching and reflecting upon the next few weeks. Hopefully, I'll have an outline presentation not too long from now.
.

Remain in My Love: Love One Another as I Love You

Lectio Divina on John 15:4-17 --

"Remain in me, as I remain in you.
"Just as a branch cannot bear fruit on its own unless it remains on the vine, so neither can you unless you remain in me. I am the vine, you are the branches. Whoever remains in me and I in him will bear much fruit, because without me you can do nothing.
"Anyone who does not remain in me will be thrown out like a branch and wither; people will gather them and throw them into a fire and they will be burned.
"If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask for whatever you want and it will be done for you. By this is my Father glorified, that you bear much fruit and become my disciples.
"As the Father loves me, so I also love you. Remain in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and remain in his love.
"I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and your joy may be complete.
"This is my commandment: love one another as I love you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. I no longer call you slaves, because a slave does not know what his master is doing. I have called you friends, because I have told you everything I have heard from my Father.
"It was not you who chose me, but I who chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit that will remain, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name he may give you.
"This I command you: love one another."

Meditation of Pope Benedict XVI
Meeting with Seminarians of Rome
Pontificio Seminario Romano Maggiore
February 12, 2010

Your Eminence, Excellencies,
Dear friends:

Every year it is a great joy for me to be with the seminarians of the Diocese of Rome, with the young people who are preparing to answer the call of the Lord to be workers in his vineyard, priests of his mystery. It is the joy of seeing that the Church lives, that the future of the Church is present here in our land, here in Rome itself.

In this Year for Priests, we must be particularly attentive to the words of the Lord concerning our service. The Gospel passage that was read just now speaks indirectly but profoundly of our Sacrament, our call to be in the vineyard of the Lord, to be servants of his mystery.

In this brief passage (John 15:4-17), we find some key words which give an indication of the announcement that the Lord wants to make in this text.

"To remain" -- In this brief passage, we find the word ten times; and then the new commandment, "Love each other as I have loved you"; "No longer servants but friends"; "Bear fruit"; and finally, "Ask for whatever you want and it will be done for you" -- you will be given joy.

Let us pray to the Lord so that he may help us enter into the meaning of his words, so that these words may penetrate our hearts, and can be the way and the life in us, with us and through us.

The first statement is "Remain in me . . . in my love."

Remaining with the Lord is the fundamental first theme of this passage. But to remain where? In love, in the love of Christ, in being loved and in loving the Lord.

All of Chapter 15 concretizes the place where we must remain, because the first eight verses explain and present the parable of the vine: "I am the vine and you are the branches." The vine is an Old Testament image which we find in the Prophets and in Psalms, and has a double meaning: It is a parable for the People of God, who are his vineyard. He planted a vine in this world, he cultivated it, he cultivated the vineyard, protected this vineyard, and for what purpose? Of course, to find fruit, to find the precious gift of the grape, of the good wine.

And thus emerges the second meaning: the vine is a symbol, an expression of the joy of love. The Lord created his people to find a response to his love, and so this image of the vine, of the vineyard, has a spousal meaning. It is an expression of the fact that God seeks the love of his creature, he wants to enter into a relationship of love, a spousal relation with the world, through the people chosen by him.

But then, concrete history is a story of infidelity: instead of the precious grape, the vineyard only produces small "inedible things." This is not the answer to God's great love, this does not give rise to a unity, to the unconditional union between man and God, in the communion of love.

Man retreats into himself, he wants to have himself all to himself, he wants God for himself, he wants the world for himself. In this way, the vineyard is devastated, the wild boar from the forest, all the enemies come in, and the vineyard becomes a desert.

But God does not give up: God finds a new way to arrive at a free and irrevocable love, to the fruit of this love, to the true grape: God becomes man, and thus, he himself becomes the root of the vine, he himself becomes the vine which is therefore indestructible.

This people of God cannot be destroyed because God himself has entered into them, he implanted himself on this earth. The new People of God is truly founded on God himself who became man, and thus calls us to be, in him, the new vine - he calls us to be with him and to "remain in him."

We must keep in mind also, that in Chapter 6 of the Gospel of John, we find the discourse on bread, which becomes the great discourse on the Eucharistic mystery. In this Chapter 15, we have the discourse on the vine.

The Lord does not speak explicitly of the Eucharist, but of course, behind the mystery of wine is the reality that he became bread and wine for us, that his blood is the fruit of the love born from the earth for always, and in the Eucharist, his blood becomes our blood, we become new men: we receive a new identity when the blood of Christ becomes ours. Thus, we are kin to God through his Son, and in the Eucharist, the great reality of the vine -- of which we are the branches united with the Son and thus with eternal love -- becomes actual.

"Remain with me." To remain in this great mystery, to remain in this great gift of the Lord who made us part of himself, in his body and with his blood. I think we should meditate well on this mystery, that God himself took on flesh, one with us, and blood, one with us; and that, remaining in this mystery, we can remain in communion with God himself, in this great story of love, which is the story of true happiness.

Meditating on this gift -- God became one with all of us, and at the same time, he makes us all one, one life -- we must also begin to pray so that the more this mystery penetrates our mind, the more we become capable of seeing and living the greatness of the mystery, and thus we start to comply with the command, "Remain with me."

If we continue to attentively read this Gospel passage from John, after "Remain with me," we also find a second imperative: "Observe my commandments."

"Observe" is only the second level - the first is still "remain," the ontological level: namely, that we are united with him, that he has given us himself as an earnest, he has already given us his love, the fruit. It is not we who must produce this great fruit. Christianity is not a moralism. It is not we who have to do what God expects of the world, but we must enter, above all, into this ontological mystery: God has given himself. God gives himself - his being, his love; he precedes our actions, and in the context of his body, in the context of being with him, identified with him, ennobled by his blood, we too can act with Christ.

Ethics is a consequence of being. First, the Lord gives us a new being, this is the great gift -- being precedes action: from this being comes action, like an organic reality, because what we are, we can be, even in our actions. Thus, we thank the Lord because he has removed us from pure moralism, that is, we do not have to obey a law laid down before us, we only need to act in accordance with our new identity. Thus, it is no longer obedience, an external thing, but a realization of the gift of our new being.

I say it once again: Let us thank the Lord because he goes before us, he gives us what we should give ourselves, so that we can then become, in truth. and with the power of our new being, actors of his reality.

To remain and to observe: Observing is the sign of remaining, and remaining with the gift that he gives us, which has to be renewed every day of our lives.

Then follows the new commandment: "Love one another as I love you. . . . No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends."

What does it mean? This too is no moralism.

One could say, "It's not a new commandment; the commandment to love one's neighbor as oneself already exists in the Old Testament." And some will say, "Such love for others must be radicalized further: loving others should mean to imitate Christ who gave himself for us. It should be a heroic love, to the point of making the gift of oneself." But in this case, Christianity would be a heroic moralism.

It is true that we should come to this radicality of love that God has shown and given us, but even in this, the true novelty is not what we do -- the true novelty is what He did: The Lord gave us himself, and the Lord gave us the true novelty of being members of his body, branches of the vine that He is.

And so the novelty is the gift, the great gift, and from this gift, from its novelty, as I have said, follows new action.

St. Thomas Aquinas says it in a more precise manner when he writes: "The new law is the grace of the Holy Spirit" (Summa theologiae, I-IIae, q. 106, a. 1). The new law is not a new command more difficult than others: the new law is a gift, the new law is the presence of the Holy Spirit given to us in the Sacrament of Baptism, in Confirmation, and given us daily in the Eucharist.

The Fathers of the Church distinguished between sacramentum and exemplum. "Sacramentum" is the gift of new being, and this gift becomes an example for our action. But sacramentum comes before, and we live from the sacrament. Thus, the centrality of sacrament, which is the centrality of gift.

Let us proceed with our reflection. The Lord says: "I no longer call you slaves, because a slave does not know what his master is doing. I have called you friends, because I have told you everything I have heard from my Father."

No longer servants who obey a command, but friends who know each other, who are united in the same will, the same love. The novelty then is that God has made himself known, that God showed himself, that God is no longer the unknown, the one sought but not found or only guessed at from afar. God has made himself seen: In the face of Christ, we see God, God has made himself known to us, thus he has made us his friends.

Let us consider that, in the story of mankind, in all the archaic religions, man knew there is a God. This is a knowledge immersed in the heart of man - that God is one, that the gods are not the God. But this God still remained quite remote, as though he did not want to make himself known, did not make himself loved, not a friend, but a distant God.

That is why religions did not concern themselves much with this God: the concrete life was occupied with spirits, and with the concrete realities one faces every day and that must be dealt with everyday. God remained distant.

Then there came the great philosophical movement. Think of Plato, Aristotle, who started to have the intuition that "God" is agathon, goodness itself -- the eros that moves the world. But this still remained a human thought -- an idea of God that comes close to the truth, but it is our idea, and God remained the hidden God.

Not long ago, a professor of physics from Regensburg wrote me after having read only recently my lecture at the University, to tell me that he could not agree with my reasoning, or could agree only in part. He said, "Of course, I am convinced by the idea that the rational structure of the world demands a creative reason who created this rationality, which cannot be explained by itself alone." He continued, "But that could be a demiurge," he said, "which seems to me more certain than what you say. I cannot see it as God-Love, who is good, just and merciful. And I can see that there could be a reason that precedes the rationality of the cosmos. But the rest of it, I do not see."

And so, God remains hidden to him -- because he sees a reason that precedes our reason and our rationality, that precedes the rationality of existence, but he does not see that there is eternal love, that there is great mercy which is given to us so we may live.

And yet, in Christ, God has shown himself in his full truth, he has shwon that he is reason and love, that eternal reason is love, and is therefore creative.

Unfortunately, even today, many live far from Christ, they do not know his face. Hence the eternal temptation of dualism, which is hidden even in the professor's letter, and which is always being revived, namely, that there is not only a principle for good, but a bad one, a principle for evil; that the world is divided into realities that have equal power, and that the good God is just one part of reality.

Even in theology, including Catholic theology, the thesis that God is not omnipotent is being disseminated. This is the way they seek to make an apologia (an argument in defense) for God, who can therefore not be responsible for the evil that we find widespread in the world.

But what a poor argument! A God who is not omnipotent? Evil not under his power? How could we trust in such a God? How can we be sure of his love if it ends where the power of evil begins?

God is no longer unknown. In the face of the Crucified Jesus we see God, and we see true omnipotence, not the myth of omnipotence. For us men, power and authority are always identical to the capacity to destroy and to make trouble. But the true concept of omnipotence, which appears in Christ, is the very opposite: in him, true omnipotence is to love to the point that God can suffer. Here, he shows his true omnipotence, one that can reach the point of a love that suffers for us.

And so we see he is the true God; and the true God, who is Love, is power -- the power of love. We can trust in his omnipotent love and live in and with this omnipotent love.

I think we should always meditate anew on this reality, and to thank God because he has shown himself to us, because we know him by face, one on one, no longer like Moses who could only see the Lord from behind. But even this is a beautiful idea, about which St. Gregory of Nyssa said: "To see only his back means that we must always walk behind Christ."

Yet, God showed his face in Christ. The veil of the temple was torn apart, it is open, and the mystery of God is visible. The first commandment that prohibited images of God because they could only debase reality, was changed, renewed, took on another form. Because now in Christ the man, we can see the face of God. We can have icons of Christ and thus see who God is.

I think that whoever understand this, whoever has let himself be touched by this mystery -- that God revealed himself -- has torn wide open the veil of the temple, seen his face, and found a source of permanent joy.

All we can say is, "Thank you. Yes, we know who you are, who God is, and how to respond to him." I think that this joy of knowing the God who has shown himself, to the most intimate of his being, also implies the joy of communicating him. He who understands this, who lives touched by this reality, should do as the first disciples did when they went among their brothers and friends, saying, "We have found him about whom the prophets spoke. He is here now."

Mission is not a thing that is added externally to the faith, it is the dynamism of faith itself. He who has seen and met Jesus should go forth among others and tell them: "We have found God -- and it is Jesus who was crucified for us."

Continuing, the text says: "I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit that will remain."

And with this, we go back to the start, to the image, the parable of the vine: it is created to bear fruit.

And what is the fruit? As we said earlier, the fruit is love. In the Old Testament, with the Torah as the first stage of God's self-revelation, the fruit was understood as justice, namely, to live according to the Word of God, to live in God's will, and thus live well. That remains, but at the same time, it is transcended: true justice does not consist in obedience to some norms, but it is love, creative love, which by itself finds the richness and abundance of goodness.

"Abundance" is one of the key words in the New Testament -- God himself always gives in abundance. In creating man, he created the abundance of an immense cosmos; to redeem man, he gives himself; in the Eucharist, he gives himself.

And whoever is united with Christ, who is a branch of his vine, lives from this law and does not ask, "Can I do this or not? Should I do this or not?" He lives in the enthusiasm of a love that does not ask, "Is this necessary or is it prohibited?" but simply, in the creativity of love, which desires to live with Christ and for Christ, and give all of himself for him, thus realizing the joy of bearing fruit.

Let us also keep in mind that the Lord says, "I have chosen you to go and bear fruit . . ."

This is the dynamism that lives in Christ's love. To go forth, namely, not to remain in myself and for myself, to look to my perfection, to guarantee eternal happiness for myself, but to forget myself, to go forth as Christ did, to go forth like God went forth from his majesty towards our poverty, in order to find fruit, to help us and give us the possibility of bearing the true fruit of love. The more we are filled with the joy of having discovered the face of God, the more the enthusiasm of love will be real in us and bear fruit.

Finally, we come to the last word in this passage: "Whatever you ask the Father in my name, he will give you."

It is a brief catechesis on prayer, which always surprises us anew.

Twice in this Chapter 15, the Lord says, "Whatever you ask, I will give," and once in Chapter 16. And we will say: "No, Lord, that is not true." So many good and profound prayers by mothers who pray for their sons who are dying are not answered; so many prayers in order for a good thing to happen, that the Lord does not grant.

So what does this promise of Jesus mean? The Lord offers us the key to understanding it in Chapter 16. He tells us how much he gives us, what it all means -- charà, joy! If one finds joy, one has found everything and sees everything in the light of divine love.

Like St. Francis who composed his great poem on creation in a desolate place, yet it was precisely there, close to the suffering Lord, that he rediscovered the beauty of existence, the goodness of God, and composed his great poem.

It is useful to recall, at the same time, some verses from the Gospel of Luke, in which the Lord, speaking of prayer, says: "If you who are wicked can give good things to your children, how much more will the Father in heaven give you, his children, the Holy Spirit."

The Holy Spirit, in the Gospel of Luke, is joy, and in the Gospel of John, he is the same thing: joy is the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is joy. In other words, we ask of God not some small or big thing: we ask of God the divine gift, God himself, the great gift that he gives us.

It is in this sense that we should learn to pray, to pray for the great reality, the divine reality, that he may give himself to us, that he may give us his Spirit so we can respond to the demands of life and help others in their suffering. Of course, the "Our Father" teaches us to do this.

We can pray for many things, and for all our needs, we can pray, "Help me!" This is very human, and God is also human, as we have seen. Therefore, it is right to pray to God even for the little things in our everyday life.

But at the same time, prayer is a journey -- I would say a ladder upwards. We must learn increasingly better what things we can pray for, and what things we cannot pray for because they are expressions of one's selfishness. I cannot pray for things which are harmful to others, I cannot pray for things that will aid my selfishness, my pride. Therefore praying, in the eyes of God, becomes a process of purifying our thoughts and our desires.

As the Lord says in the parable of the vine: we must be trimmed back, purified, everyday. To live with Christ, in Christ, to remain in Christ, is a process of purification. Only this process of slow purification, of liberation from ourselves and the desire to think only of ourselves, is the true journey of life, which opens up the road to joy.

As I have indicated, all these words of the Lord have a sacramental background. The fundamental background for the parable of the vine is Baptism: we are planted in Christ. It is the Eucharist: with Christ, we are bread, body, blood, life.

And this process of purification has its sacramental background in the sacrament of Penance, of Reconciliation, in which we accept the divine pedagogy that, day by day, throughout life, purifies us and makes us true members of his body.

In this way, we can also learn that God does answer our prayers, he often responds with his goodness even to small prayers, but often, eh also corrects them, transforms them and directs them so that we may finally and truly be branches of his Son, of true life, members of his body.

Let us thank God for the greatness of his love, let us pray that he may help us to grow in his love, and truly remain in his love.


(The preceding reflections by Pope Benedict were delivered largely extemporaneously.)
.

A Hermeneutic of Faith: The Word of God Must be Perceived with the Church and Within the Context of the Faith of the Church

Address of Pope Benedict XVI
Plenary Session of the Pontifical Biblical Commission
on the theme "Interpretation and Truth in the Bible"
April 23, 2009

I am happy to welcome you again at the end of your annual plenary session. I thank Cardinal William Levada for his greeting and his concise exposition of the theme which was the subject of your careful reflection during your meetings this week.

You met this time to examine in depth a subject that is very important: the inspiration and truth of the Bible. It is a subject that concerns not just theology but the entire Church, since the life and mission of the Church are necessarily founded on the Word of God, which is the soul of theology as well as the inspiration for all of Christian existence. The subject also responds to a concern that has been particularly dear to my heart, because the interpretation of Sacred Scripture is of capital importance for the Christian faith and for the life of the Church.

As you recalled, Mr. President, the encyclical Providentissimus Deus, of Pope Leo XIII, offered Catholic exegetes new encouragement and new directives on the subject of Biblical inspiration, truth and interpretation. Much later, Pius XII in his encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu took up and completed that precedent to exhort Catholic exegetes to reach solutions in full accord with the doctrine of the Church, taking due account of the positive contributions of new methods of interpretation that had developed meanwhile.

The living impulse that these two Popes gave to Biblical studies, as you said, found full confirmation and was developed farther by the Second Vatican Council, in a way that the entire Church has drawn from and benefited. In particular, the conciliar Constitution Dei Verbum illumines even today the work of Catholic exegetes and invites Pastors and the faithful to nourish themselves more assiduously at the table of the Word of God. The Council recalls, in this respect, first of all, that God is the Author of Sacred Scripture:

Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.

Dei Verbum, 11. However, since all that is asserted by inspired authors and sacred writers must be considered as asserted by the Holy Spirit, the invisible and transcendent Author, "the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation" (ibid., 11).

Some norms which directly concern the interpretation of Scripture derive from the correct formulation of the concept of divine inspiration and truth in Sacred Scripture. The same Dei Verbum, after having stated that God is the Author of the Bible, reminds us that in Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way.

This divine-human synergy is very important: God truly speaks to men in a human way. For a correct interpretation of Sacred Scripture, therefore, it is necessary to research carefully what the sacred writers truly meant to say and what God wished to manifest to man through human words. "The words of God, expressed in human language, have been made like human discourse, just as the word of the eternal Father, when He took to Himself the flesh of human weakness, was in every way made like men" (Dei Verbum, 13).

These indications, very necessary for a correct interpretation of the historico-literary character as the first dimension of every exegesis, must then be linked to the premises of (Catholic) doctrine on the inspiration and truth of Sacred Scripture. Indeed, since Scripture is divinely inspired, there is a supreme principle of correct interpretation without which sacred writings would remain a dead letter, a thing of the past: Holy Scripture "must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written" (Dei Verbum, 12).

In this respect, Vatican-II indicated three criteria which are always valid for interpreting Sacred Scripture according to the the Spirit that inspired it.

First of all, one must pay great attention to the content and unity of all Scripture - it is Scripture only in its unity. No matter how different are the books that compose it, Sacred Scripture is one in the unity of God's plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and the heart (cfr Lk 24,25-27; Lk 24,44-46).

In the second place, one must read Scripture in the context of the living tradition of the entire Church. According to Origen, "Sacra Scriptura principalius est in corde Ecclesiae quam in materialibus instrumentis scripta." (Sacred Scripture is written in the heart of the Church before it is on material instruments.) Indeed, the Church carries in its Tradition the living memory of the Word of God, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives it the interpretation in the spiritual sense (cfr Origen, Homiliae in Leviticum, 5,5).

The third criterion is the need to pay attention to the analogy of the faith, that is, the cohesion of the single truths of the faith among themselves and with the overall plan of Revelation, and the fullness of the divine economy that it encloses.

The task of the researchers who study Sacred Scripture in different ways is to contribute, according to the aforementioned principles, to a more profound understanding and exposition of the sense of Sacred Scripture. The scientific study of sacred texts is important, but does not suffice alone since it only satisfies the human dimension. In order to respect the coherence of the faith of the Church, the Catholic exegete must be careful to perceive the Word of God in these texts within the context of that faith.

Without this indispensable reference point, exegetic research will remain incomplete: losing sight of its principal goal, it risks being reduced to a purely literary reading in which the true author, God, no longer appears.

Moreover, the interpretation of Sacred Scriptures cannot be simply an individual scientific effort - it should always be confronted with, inserted into and authenticated by the living Tradition of the Church. This norm is decisive in identifying the correct reciprocal relationship between exegesis and the Church Magisterium.

The Catholic exegete is not only a member of the scientific community, but also, and above all, a member of the community of believers of all time. Indeed, these texts are not given to individual researchers or to the scientific community "to satisfy their curiosity or to provide them with subjects for study or research" (Divino afflante Spiritu, EB 566). Texts inspired by God are entrusted in the first place to the community of believers, to the Church of Christ, in order to nourish their life of faith and guide their life of charity. Respect for this goal must condition the validity and effectiveness of Biblical hermeneutics.

The encyclical Providentissimus Deus recalls this fundamental truth observing that, far from hindering Biblical research, respect for this datum favors its authentic progress. I would say that a hermeneutic of faith corresponds more to the reality of this test than a rationalistic hermeneutic which does not recognize God.

To be faithful to the Church means, indeed, to place oneself in the current of the great Tradition which, under the guidance of the Magisterium, has considered the canonical writings as the word addressed by God to his people and has never ceased to meditate on them and to discover their inexhaustible riches. The Second Vatican Council reaffirmed this with great clarity: "All of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God" (Dei Verbum, 12).

As the above-mentioned dogmatic Constitution reminds us, there is an inseparable unity between Sacred Scriptures and Tradition, because both come from the same source:

There exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end.

For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known.

Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.

Dei Verbum, 9.

As we know, the phrase “pari pietatis affectu ac reverentia” - the same sense of loyalty and reverence - was created by St. Basil, and accepted in the Decree of Gratianus, from which it came into the Council of Trent and then into Vatican II. It expresses precisely this inter-penetration between Scripture and Tradition. Only the ecclesial context allows Sacred Scripture to be understood as the authentic Word of God which becomes guidance, standard and rule for the life of the Church and the spiritual growth of believers.

This, as has been said, does not prevent in any way a serious and scientific interpretation, but moreover, it opens access to further dimensions of Christ, that are inaccessible through a purely literary analysis, which remains incapable of incorporating the global sense that for centuries has guided the Tradition of the entire People of God.

Dear members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, I wish to conclude my intervention by expressing to you all my personal thanks and encouragement. I thank you sincerely for the demanding work that goes with serving the Word of God and the Church, through research, teaching and publication of your studies.

I would add to this my encouragement for the path that still remains ahead. In a world where scientific research takes on even greater importance in many fields, it is indispensable that exegetic science be situated at an appropriate level. It is one of the aspects of the inculturation of the faith which is part of the Church's mission, along with acceptance of the mystery of Incarnation.

Dear brothers and sisters, may the Lord Jesus Christ, Word of God incarnate, and Divine Master who opened the spirits of his disciples to the sense of Scriptures (cfr Lk 24,35), guide and sustain you in your reflections.

May the Virgin Mary, model of obedience to the Word of God, teach you to accept ever more the inexhaustible richness of Sacred Scripture, not only through intellectual research, but also in your life as believers, so that your work and your actions may contribute to always make the light of Sacred Scripture shine before the faithful.

Assuring you of my support through prayers for your efforts, I impart to you the Apostolic Blessing from the heart, as a token of divine favors.
.