Jewish Afterlife, Catholic Afterlife Podcast

Did you know that Orthodox Jews pray for the dead and that his practice predates the time of Christ?

I just recently finished up my Jewish Origins of Catholicism Lecture Series at the in Washington D.C. "Jewish Afterlife, Catholic Afterlife" is the last segment of this fourteen-part series. In this podcast I discuss Jewish understandings of the afterlife as they relate to the Catholic doctrines of the resurrection of the body, prayers for the dead, purgatory, and heaven and hell.

For more information or to listen to the podcast, click here.

I've recently adopted all lectures for the Jewish Origins of Catholicism into a book. Stay tuned as I try to get it published. (And say a prayer, too.)

What Was the Sanhedrin?

First the name. Sanhedrin is an Aramaic corruption of the Greek word Synédrion, corresponding our word "synod." In Hebrew, it was referred to as the Beit Din or "House of Judgment." The Sanhedrin was the "Supreme Court" of Jerusalem. It had the right of judgment in matters concerning heresy, matters pertaining to the Temple and its courts, and any other authority not assumed by Rome.

The rabbis teach that the Sanhedrin finds its origin in the episode of the seventy elders assembled by Moses (Num 11:16). However, the first historical mention of a governing body of elders in Jerusalem goes back to the reign of Antiochus the Great (223-187 B. C.; Josephus Antiquities,, XII, iii, 3). It likely arose as a governing body of clout with the Hasmoneans after the Maccabaean revolt.

According to Josephus (Jewish Wars, II, xx, 5), the Sanhedrin consisted of seventy members, plus the president. New appointees came to office by receiving the imposition of hands and seem to have sat on the Sanhedrin till death. The High Priest was the president ex officio of the Sanhedrin, as can be discerned from the Gospels. The High Priest was the one who called and summoned the Sanhedrin. (Before the time of Christ, it seems that men other than the High Priest held the presidency.)

The Visible Church Speaking?

Something else from the Presbyterian Church in America. A Presbyterian antagonist of the Federal Vision proponents has reproved the FVs with these words:

Yes, assemblies and counsels may err, but this is the Visible Church speaking here! Aren’t we to have a high regard for the Visible Church? Is she not our nursing mother to feed and nourish us spiritually? Has she not spoken a word of admonition to you? Do you not honor her? Do you not heed the voice of your spiritual mother?

Are we to believe that the 331,000 member "Presbyterian Church in America" constitutes the "the Visible Church"? How parochial can one be?

Never mind that there are something like 16 million Southern Baptists in America, or that there are about 60 million Catholics in America. Can it be that this splinter of a denomination that began in 1973 is the capital "V", capital "C" - Visible Church?

This is just another example of Presbyterians using a Catholic hermeneutic (appealing to the voice of Mother Church) in order to refute what they perceive to be creeping crypto-Catholicism (Federal Vision theology).

HT: Alastair.

St. Paul and Works of the Law

The meaning of the Pauline phrase "works of the law" (Greek: ergon nomou) is the hinge on which the 16th century debate over faith and works swings.

Even in the Catholic Church, there has been debate as to the meaning of the St. Paul's phrase "works of the law" since the time of St. Augustine and St. Jerome.

St. Jerome held that "works of the law" referred not the moral law (i.e. the Ten Commandments) but to the civil and ceremonial law of Moses (e.g. circumcision, kosher dietary prohibitions, new moons, Temple sacrifice, etc.). St. Augustine held that "works of the law" extended to all works, whether or not they pertained to the legislation of Moses. Both were correct.

From a textual point of view, "works of the law" relates to ceremonial works of the Torah. However, and this is a big however, all works in general are incapable of meriting justification from God. The Torah of Moses amplified man's inability to save himself and highlighted Israel's failure to be priestly and sacrificial. In this sense, Augustine is correct - works of the law indicated that all works are impotent.

As I stated in a previous post, the Council of Trent authoritatively taught that "nothing that precedes justification, whether faith or works, merits the grace of justification. For if it is by grace, it is no more by works. Otherwise, as the apostle says, grace is no more grace."

Trent teaches that works prior to justification, whether Jewish works of the Torah or works of any kind, are unable to merit justification. As Louis Bouyer explains, Luther's novel formulation of "justification by faith alone" was an attempt to safeguard this doctrine. Unfortunately, Luther's desire to ensure the gratuitous nature of justification led him to adopt the unbiblical articulation of "justification by faith alone." This articulation is not found in Scripture or in the Tradition of the Church.

So what are "works of the law"? Specifically, "works of the law" are the ceremonial precepts of Israel that cannot justify a man before God. Generally, "works of the law" signify that all works are insufficient to justify a man before God. If the divinely revealed precepts are ineffectual, a fortiori, how much more any other kind of work!

Federal Vision Loses, Zwinglians Win: PCA-GA 2007

For those interested in the Presbyterian Church in America, the 2007 General Assembly adopted the ad interim committee's report concerning the Federal Vision. Apparently this occurred after a stirring address given by none other than R.C. Sproul who rallied the Calvinists by appealing to the common cause doctrine of sola fide. The following description is by R. Scott Clark:

R. C. Sproul speaks against the motion. The issue is imputation. The purity of the PCA is at stake. He said that he cannot understand the hesitancy. He spoke against adding a minority on the ground that it's like adding the accused to the jury. Applause and laughter. Before the moderator could gavel them down, R C said, "shame on you brothers for your righteous applause.

All of this was anticipated by what has been described by a PCA pastor who was present as a "pathetic communion service" the previous evening. The catholic-minded Federal Vision adherents have lost.

What does this mean? In my post "Catholic Perspective on the Federal Vision" I stated:

As a Catholic (and former member of the PCA) I believe the Federal Vision group is right in its theological tendencies and wrong about its denomination. Whether or not the PCA holds to the Westminster Standards, the PCA is still largely a Zwinglian/Anabaptistic denomination. I don’t mean this in a pejorative way. I just mean that the inherited tradition of the PCA is not covenantal and sacramental.

The PCA General Assembly proved me correct. By adopting the report, the PCA has indeed demonstrated two things about the PCA and perhaps the future of American Calvinism:

1. The General Assembly is capable of strong-arm politics. Ironically, the General Assembly made a "Catholic" move by appealing to "tradition and canons" - in this case the denominational confession of the Westminster Confession of Faith. The conclusion of the debate is even more ironic in that the General Assembly applied a Catholic hermeneutic of "tradition" in order to defeat what they perceived as creeping Catholic doctrine.

2. The PCA is "still largely a Zwinglian/Anabaptistic denomination."

The PCA has essentially told the Federal Vision adherents that they are not welcome in the PCA denomination and that their beliefs are contrary to the denomination's theological commitments. If the Federal Visionists seriously trusted their ecclesiology and believed that the PCA was a valid Church, they would submit to the ruling. I doubt they will. I predict a split, a new denomination, or a defection to Douglas Wilson's homegrown denomination.

In my post "Catholic Perspective on the Federal Vision" I also wrote:

The leadership and pew members are basically Evangelicals that read R.C. Sproul, maybe believe in infant baptism, and have worked “the five points of Calvinism” into their worldview. And when the last word is spoken, the Federal Visionists will be sidelined and ridiculed as crypto-Catholics and adherents to “salvation by works.” Fundamentally, the PCA fears that the Federal Vision movement is “just too Catholic.” All this talk about sacraments, covenants, ecclesiology, robes, candles, weekly communion, just gives your typical Southern Presbyterian the heebie-jeebies. They want that old time religion of three Wesleyan hymns, the pastoral prayer, and a 35 minute sermon proclaims the “sovereign grace of the Gospel.”

Alas, it has already come to pass. I still stand by my prediction that:

younger Presbyterians will gravitate toward what the Federal Vision offers. Many will sink their teeth into it and many will find it wanting. Many will discover that the Catholic Church is their true home, and many will discover her in a great moment of joy. This Federal Vision is really only a peek into the keyhole of the Catholic Church. The Federal Visionist has a vision of the beautiful things inside, but they have not yet appreciated the warmth of a true home.

Perhaps General Assembly 2007 will serve as the effectual calling of the Federal Vision Calvinists to Catholic Church.

Peter Kreeft on Goddesses and Priestesses

A great quote from Peter Kreeft's new book The Philosophy of Jesus:

Alone among the ancient gods, the Jewish God was always "He," never "She" (or "It" or "They" or Hermaphrodite). For "She" symbolized something immanent, while "He" was transcendent. "She" was the Womb of all things, the cosmic Mother, but "He" was other than Mother Earth. He created the earth, and He came into it from without, as a man comes into a woman. he impregnated nonbeing with being, darkness with light, dead matter with life, history with miracles, minds with revelations, His chosen people with prophets, and souls with salvation. He was transcendent.

That is why only Judaism, of all ancient religions, had no goddesses and no priestesses. For priests are representatives and symbols of gods. Priests mediate not only Man to God but also God to Man. Women can represent Man to God as well as men can, for women are equally human, valuable, good, and pious. But women cannot represent this God to Man, for Gos is not our Mother but our Father. Earth is our Mother.

This is a great quote and it distills the matter rather clearly. I've spent hours explaining this to people, and Kreeft says everything needed to be said in two simple paragraphs.

Peter Kreeft's New Book: The Philosophy of Jesus

We just received the new Peter Kreeft book at the Catholic Information Center. I picked up a copy yesterday and started reading. I can't put it down. The first chapter of the "Metaphysics of Christ" is wonderful. The imagery that Kreeft employs is spectacular. Here's an excerpt:

He is the Fisherman, the Fisher-King, and we are the fish, not vice versa. This Fisherman cannot be caught life fish. He fits into no net and swallows no bait, not even the Devil's temptations in the wilderness. There is no place in His mouth for a hook to hold, for His mouth is fire.

I heartily recommend it.

Another PCA convert to Catholicism Discusses the Federal Vision Debate

A few weeks ago, I posted some thoughts entitled "A Catholic Prespective on the Federal Vision," which discussed the growing Presbyterian debate over Federal Vision debate that is literally ripping apart the Presbyterian Church in America.

There is now another online voice examining the debate. He is also a former member of the PCA who has converted to the Catholic Church. Check it out.

Also, those who are interested in this topic should take a look at "The Catholic Church and Reformed Doctrine."

Blogroll Request

I humbly beseech all fellow bloggers who read this blog that you would vouchsafe to list this blog to your own by including a referring link.

Covenant of Works - A Catholic Perspective

Do the first few chapters of Genesis present us with one or two divine covenants? Is there a covenant of creation and a separate Adamic covenant of promise(cf. Gen 3:15)?

The locus classicus for this debate is Hosea 6:7

Like Adam, they have broken the covenant—they were unfaithful to me there.

Other passages relate to the debate: Jeremiah 33:20-26 and 31:35-36 relate the Davidic covenant with God's covenant with creation.

As the Presbyterian Church in American holds its General Assembly to discuss the Federal Vision debate, I'd like some help formulating a Catholic perspective to the covenantal narrative of the creation and fall of mankind. The Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith presents a somewhat flimsy explanation based on the "Covenant of Works" and the "Covenant of Grace."

II. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.

III. Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, the commonly called covenant of grace; wherein He freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe. (WCF vii, II-III)

This is an attempt to push a false dichotomy of "grace vs. works" into the nature of creation. A Catholic cannot accept a dichotomy of grace and works in the pre-fall state of Adam because the Catholic Church believes that Adam possessed a supernatural habit of grace and original righteousness prior to the fall. It was not an existence of "strict merit" prior to the fall. Rather, Adam was the "son of God" (lowercase "s") and not a slave laborer walking the tight-rope.

Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Closing

The Holy See is closing the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana (Vatican Library) till 2010. It is not a conspiracy, though I am sure the media will spin something from it.

Air conditioning and dust protection will be installed and fire exits will be improved.

During the closure, scholars will still be able to obtain digital copies of ancient manuscripts in the Vatican library that they can study at home.

But the reading room, which is used by about 100 scholars a day, will be occupied during rebuilding by the Vatican's book restorers, who have to look after more than one million printed volumes and 75,000 priceless manuscripts.

Reat article from BBC. Hat tip to Dr. Scott Johnson.

Jewish Holy Days, Catholic Holy Days Podcast

Assistant Director Taylor Marshall presents an insightful lecture on the Old Covenant holy days of Passover, Pentecost, Rosh haShana, Yom Kippur, Tabernacles, Hanukkah, and Purim, and examines how they relate to the New Covenant. Taylor also examines how certain feasts relate to the teachings of Christ and have been appropriated by the Catholic Church.

Click here for more details or to listen to the podcast: Jewish Holy Days, Catholic Holy Days Podcast.

Elijah/Elisha and John/Jesus at the Jordan River

There is a nice thread over at Singing in the Reign by Michael Barber on the parallels between the prophetic succession from Elijah to Elisha and from John the Baptist to Christ.

With respect to the Elijah/Elisha and John/Jesus "succession" of prophethood - it is worth noting that in both cases the former "transferred his mission" to the latter at the Jordan River.

Elijah handed over the baton to Elisha at the Jordan. John handed over the baton to Christ at the Jordan.

In a certain sense, Moses also handed over power to Joshua before the Joshua crossed the Jordan. The Jordan River is a sign of the Kingdom of God being established in the Promised Land. Crossing the Jordan or entering the Jordan (John's baptism!) is a sign of covenantal renewal between the people of God and God Himself.

Also related to this is the miracle of the Transfiguration where Christ is seen with Moses and Elijah. These two visitors personify the Law and the Prophets, but they also point to their true prophetic successor - not Joshua and Elisha, but Jesus the Son of God.

(The names "Yah Shua" and "Eli Sha" both refer to "the Lord of salvation" and "God my salvation". Christ's name, "Yashua" corresponds to the meaning of each.)

2007 Anglican Use Conference Review

The 2007 Anglican Use Conference in Washtington, D.C. went off, well. First, those who visit the blog, "What is the Anglican Use"? The Anglican Use is the liturgy used by personal parishes of the Pastoral Provision of John Paul II. These were Episcopal congregations that converted en masse with their priests. They use modified form of the Roman Rite that has been adapted form the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. The liturgy they used can be found in the Book of Divine Worship.

This year’s lectures were:

Rev. Peter Gerald

Catholic Chaplain of the University at Kent in Canterbury England

Rev. Charles Connor, Ph.D.

Rector of St Peter’s Cathedral in Scranton, PA and EWTN host

Mrs. Linda Poindexter

Episcopal priest for 13 years and convert to the Catholic Faith

Rev. Msgr. Bruce E. Harbert

Executive Director of the reconstituted International Commission on English in the Liturgy

The most interesting lecture was Msgr. Harbert's discussion on the history of the liturgy in English. Msgr. Harber focused on the tendency since Trent to translate the Roman liturgy, particularly the Holy Mass with with "we" language. He showed how post-Tridentine translators began to translate the Holy Mass for devotional use and in doing so "expanded" the liturgical language to encompass "us." Nearly all prayers that are particular to the priest have been expanded to "we" and "us" and those prayers particular to a group in the assembly (e.g. catechumens) are also modified from being for "them" to "us." Even Thomas Cranmer is not exempt from this tendency.

Msgr. Harbert made an interesting comment that the Roman Canon in the Book of Divine worship is not the Coverdale translation. David Burt explained that it derives from the Knott Missal.

The conference ended with a glorious celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass by Father Eric Bergman according to the Anglican Usage in the crypt chapel of the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception.

Gentile Priests and Levites

There is an interesting passage is Isaiah, right toward the end, where the Lord explains that he will choose "priests" and "Levites" from among the Gentiles.

This is remarkable because in order to be a Levite, one must be born of the tribe of Levi. Moreoever, to be a priest (kohan), one must be not only a Levite but a descendent of Aaron. Here the Lord says that he shall choose men who are not Levites, Aaronites, nor even Jews!

I will set a sign among them. And from them I will send survivors to the nations, to Tarshish, Put, and Lud, who draw the bow, to Tubal and Javan, to the coastlands afar off, that have not heard my fame or seen my glory; and they shall declare my glory among the nations.

And they shall bring all your brethren from all the nations as an offering to the LORD, upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon dromedaries, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, says the LORD, just as the Israelites bring their cereal offering in a clean vessel to the house of the LORD.

And some of them also I will take for priests and for Levites, says the LORD. (Is 66:19-21)

The Catholic Church teaches that this promise is fulfilled by the fact that God has called Gentiles to be his priests and Levites. The priesthood and Levitical ministry is fulfilled in the presbyteral vocation and the diaconal vocation, respectively. Beginning with the Apostolic Fathers, deacons were considered to function like "Levites" because they were clerical but not priestly.

The fact that these Gentile priests and Levites bring a "cereal" offering of wheat is fulfilled by the fact that New Covenant priests offer only the Todah ("Thanksgiving") sacrifice of Bread and Wine, like Melchizedek.

[This is from a forthcoming book on the subject.]

How Do Heavenly Saints "Hear" Our Intercessions?

Many Protestants object to invoking the saints in prayer for the good reason that they feel that this practice obscures the mediation of Christ. However, the Catholic Church teaches that the prayers of Saints in Heaven are still mediated to God the Father through Jesus Christ. Christ is the one mediator between God and man, whether those men are in heaven or on earth.

The Catholic asks a saint in heaven to prayer for him just as he might ask a friend for prayer. There is however a big difference between asking my wife to pray for me and asking St. Paul to pray for me.

For example, my wife is standing in the room and can hear me say, "Sweetie, please pray that I prepare my lecture in time for tomorrow's class." If I were to ask the same "prayer request" from St. Paul, it is obvious that he is not standing in the room with corporal ears ready to receive my vocal request.

How then does this prayer get transmitted to St. Paul? And what if there are 2,000 people all asking for St. Paul's prayers at the same time?

Some Protestants assume that Catholics believe that the Saints are omniscient and/or omnipotent. The Catholic Church does NOT teach that the Saints in heaven are omniscient and/or omnipotent. So if they are not omniscient how do they "hear" these prayer requests coming from earth?

The answer is the Holy Spirit. St. Augustine taught that just as the Church is the body of Christ, so the Holy Spirit is the "soul of the Church."

What the soul is in our body, that is the Holy Ghost in Christ’s body, the Church” (Sermon 267, 4: PL 38, 1231 D).

The soul's presence in the human body is what allows messages to move through the body. The brain can cause the toes to wiggle or the eye to wink. But this can never happen in a dead body. The soul is what allows messages to travel through the body. If you take away the soul, the brain cannot ask the toes to wiggle and stomach cannot ask the hands and mouth to feed it.

So it is in the communion of saints. The Holy Spirit allows the central nervous system of the Body of Christ to send messages back and forth from one another. The Holy Spirit is He who gives the Saints their status as "holy ones."

Let me anticipate two objections:

1) If what you say is true and the Holy Spirit transmits "prayer requests" from us to other Christians in heaven, why can't I send a prayer request by telepathy to a Christian living in China?

2) If what you say is true and the Holy Spirit transmits "prayer requests" from us to Christians in heaven, then why can't they send us personal messages in return?

The first objection is answered on account of "time and space." If we are separated by time and space from another person, we cannot communicate. (This is not entirely true in an age of cell phones and email.) The glorified Saint is not in time or space. This is a mystery. So he or she can somehow hear a million prayers "at one time" through the Holy Spirit who is infinite.

The second objection is answered by recognizing that the Saints sometimes do "send messages" to the faithful on earth. For example St. Gregory of Nyssa explains that St. Gregory the Illuminator received a vision in which:

"he heard the one who had appeared in womanly form exhorting John the Evangelist to explain to the young man the mystery of the true faith. John, in his turn, declared that he was completely willing to please the Mother of the Lord even in this matter and that this was the one thing closest to his heart. And so the discussion coming to a close, and after they had made it quite clear and precise for him, the two disappeared from his sight." (St. Gregory of Nyssa, Life of St. Gregory the Wonderworker)

Here we have a pre-Constantinian example of the Blessed Virgin and St. John the Apostle appearing to someone earth with a message. The history of the Church is full of such examples.

One last objection. But isn't praying to dead people the sin of necromancy?

Technically, necromancy is consulting the dead in order to discern the future. The word necromancy derives from the νεκρός (nekrós), "dead", and μαντεία (manteía), "divination". First, the Saints in heaven are not "dead." They are alive in Christ - more alive than we are! "He is not God of the dead, but of the living; you are quite wrong" (Mark 12:27). Secondly, Catholics do not ask the Saints for prayer so that they can forecast the future. Maybe somebody's aunt in Mexico conjures up things through burning herbs and invoking saints - but that is not what the Catholic Church teaches or promotes. It's an abuse, not the norm.

Ultimately, glorified Saints in heaven take up their priestly identity as the people of God. This priestly identity involves intercession and so they continue to love us and the only thing they can do is pray for us. "We are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses" (Hebrews 12:1).

All Saints, pray for us!

Brief Review of the Pope's New Book by Taylor Marshall

Some have claimed the Holy Father’s new book is meant to be a refutation of the Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code. Not only is this false, I believe that it is a too great of a compliment to Dan Brown.

Instead, Jesus of Nazareth is the first part of Ratzinger's magnum opus on Christology – a “biblical Christology” that seeks to base itself on the accounts of the Four Gospels. Pope Benedict’s employs phrases like, "implicit Christology," or "hidden Christology," in order to emphasize the high view of Christ contained in the Gospel accounts of Christ. Perhaps it could be said that Ratzinger’s career as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was in fact a career dedicated to the defense of Catholic Christology. Ratzinger, now Benedict, believes that a proper understand of Christ leads to a proper understanding of everything. He is Augustinian, which is to say that he is rooted in a tradition that emphasizes the unique revelation of Christ to mankind. Good Christology leads to good liturgy, good ecclesiology, etc.

The Pope’s book is a personal conversation between "Ratzinger" and the “historical Jesus” movement of scholarship characteristic of the 20th century. Benedict drives in the last nail of the coffin containing the theory that the “historical Jesus” was a simple Jewish teacher who was only later deified by the Church into a cosmic redeemer. The Holy Father demonstrates that the Gospels do indeed present the historical Jesus as the cosmic redeemer of mankind.

The Holy Father not only dispels the notion of “the true historical Jesus apart from the Church,” he also cuts down any attempt to recast Jesus as a liberalizer of Judaism or a prophet of social progress. These two aberrations can lead to anti-Semitism (something ingrained in his German conscience) and to totalitarian regimes of materialism (something ingrained in his Catholic conscience).

Perhaps the most interesting section of the book is the Holy Father’s interaction with Rabbi Jacob Neusner’s book A Rabbi Talks with Jesus. The Holy Father praises Rabbi Neusner for his willingness to engage the words of Christ from a rabbinical point-of-view. Obviously Rabbi Neusner does not accept the claims of “Rabbi Jesus” but Neusner does bring out the depth of Christ’s message, which is edifying for the Christian reader. Neusner confirms for the Holy Father that Christ was not a liberalizer of Judaism or a social progressive. Jesus was a rabbi making bold claims. Neusner recognizes that Jesus elevates himself not only above the person of Moses but also above the revealed Torah. A Pope and a Rabbi walk into a bar, and the Pope says to the Rabbi, "Way to go! You have done my work for me. You have revealed the radical Christology of the Gospels from a Jewish perspective."

It should be remembered that Jesus of Nazareth is only the Holy Father’s first volume, beginning with the baptism of Christ in the Jordan and ending with His transfiguration, thus reviewing the first half of Christ’s public ministry. The Holy Father is likely working on its sequel at this very moment. We should pray that the Holy Father has the length of days and length of wit to finish this daunting task. The publication of Jesus of Nazareth is momentous. Here we have an insightful theologian proposing a “biblical Christology” against the errors of the 20th century. And it just so happens that this insightful theologian is the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church. Deo gratias.

by Taylor Marshall

Calvin Quote on the "Substance of the Sacrament"

Several years ago, I remember reading this quote by John Calvin and being impressed by it:

We must confess, then, that if the representation which God gives us in the Supper is true, the internal substance of the sacrament is conjoined with the visible signs; and as the bread is distributed to us by the hand, so the body of Christ is communicated to us in order that we may be made partakers of it. (John Calvin, Short Treatise on the Lord's Supper, 17)

The interesting thing is that Calvin here deals the presence of Christ in terms of "substance." Not only that, Calvin speaks of the "internal substance" being "conjoined with the visible signs." This comes close to consubstantiation, where the substance of Christ is conjoined to the substance of bread and wine. Quite remarkable.

Calvin in the same treatise later goes on to refer to transubstantiation as "the devil's doctrine". Here I would say that Calvin is obviously wrong, but it seems that Calvin assumes that the Catholic Church teaches that the substances of bread and wine are "annihilated," and this is not exactly what the Church teaches.

Fishers of Men and the 153 Fish in John 21:11

There was a good discussion led by Michael Barber about the Restoration of the Kingdom and Fishers of Men over at Singing in the Reign over the symbolism of "fish" in the Old and New Covenants.

Michael reminds us that the idea of "fishers of men" was not something new with Christ's appointment of the Apostles but something prophesied by Jeremiah 16:14-16, which ends with the words:

“Behold, I am sending for many fishers, says the Lord, and they shall catch them" (Jer 16:16).

Ezekiel also uses this image as an image of redemption from exile. Ezekiel describes a river flowing from the eschatological Temple into the sea.

Fishermen will stand beside the sea; from En-gedi to En-eglaim it will be a place for the spreading of nets; its fish will be of very many kinds, like the fish of the Great Sea. (Ezek 49:10)

Christ assigns the task of evangelistic "fishing" to the Apostles. In continuity of this tradition, St. John mentions the miraculous catch of the 153 fish after Christ has risen from the dead.

So Simon Peter went aboard and hauled the net ashore, full of large fish, a hundred and fifty-three of them; and although there were so many, the net was not torn. (Jn 21:11)

Why did St. John record the exact number? St. Augustine rightly observed its significance. 153 is the triangular of 17. That means that if you add all the numbers decreasing from 17, you get 153. That is to say, 17 + 16 + 15 + 14 +13 + 12 + 10 + ... + 1 = 153.

What is the significance of the number 17? The number was a sign. St. John has a special love for the number 17. The 12 extra baskets of bread from the five barley loaves adds up to 17. (St. Augustine said that it represented the gifts of the Old and New Covenant - the Ten Commandments and the Sevenfold Spirit.)

Seventeen is also the age at which Joseph was sold into Egyptian slavery (Gen 37:2) and the Patriarch lived in Egypt for seventeen years (Gen 47:28). The Book of Acts lists seventeen nations present for Pentecost (Acts 2:7-11). Seventeen seems to be number of the nations, just as seventy also serves as the number of the nations (cf. Gen 10).

10 x 7 = 70

10 + 7 = 17

Peter's catch of 153 seems to indicate the superabundance of the ingathering of the nations. A sort of "wink wink" for the reader who is in the know.

153 also is a "magic number." Not only is it the triangular of 17, the Pythagoreans believed the number to be unique. 153 is the sum of the cubes of its own digits (1x1x1 + 5x5x5 + 3x3x3 = 153).

The Phoenix in the Judeo-Christian Tradition

Several years ago I was reading 1 Clement and I was alarmed that St. Clement (the fourth pope) seemed to believe that the phoenix was a real animal. Moreover, St. Clement uses the phoenix as a sign of Christ's resurrection.

Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection] which takes place in eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is called a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the deed bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was completed. (1 Clement 25)

Was Clement nuts or was he speaking from a valid tradition?

As it turns out, the tale of the phoenix is actually found in the Bible's oldest book - the book of Job. Job 29:18 reads,

Then I said: 'I shall die with my nest, and I shall multiply my days as the phoenix.'

Clement's idea that the phoenix dies and its nest and the returns for a length of days has its origin here.

The Hebrew translation is debated. The Hebrew word chol is typically translated in one of three different ways:

1. sand
2. phoenix, as in the mythical bird
3. palm tree

In nearly every context, the Hebrew word chol means "sand." We should expect then that to be the Jewish interpretation. But instead, the post-Christian rabbis have almost unanimously interpreted the passage in Job as referring to the mythical bird, the phoenix. The midrashic document the Genesis Rabba or Bereshit Rabba (19:5) explains that Eve “gave the cattle, beasts, and birds to eat of [the forbidden fruit]. All obeyed her and ate thereof, except a certain bird named chol, as it is written, “Then I said: I shall die with my nest, and I shall multiply my days as the chol.” (Job 29:18). The Genesis Rabba was composed no later than A.D. 450. From this point on, Jewish rabbinical scholars (e.g. Rashi) simply assume that Job 29:18 is speaking of the phoenix bird that is able to rise from the ashes. In fact, if you consult almost any Jewish translation of Job, you will find that Job 29:18 has been translated as referring to the "phoenix" and not "sand."

The Septuagint oddly presents the Hebrew word chol as with the Greek word phoinikos, which technically refers to the palm tree. Yet it is very close to the Greek word phoinix or "phoenix." Some believe that the original word of Job 29:18 in the Septuagint tradition was in fact "phoenix." It is difficult to understand how a Hebrew word meaning "sand" came to be translated as phoinikos or "palm tree." Given the prevalence of the Jewish tradition of the phoenix reading, I think that the original text likely read phoinix or "phoenix" and that early on it was later corrected by a sober copyist as phoinikos or "palm tree" so as to avoid a rather embarrassing interpretation that Job believed that a bird died in its nest and rose again.

So it goes like this. Job 29:18 originally had an obscure reference to Job dying in "his nest" and then multiply his days "like sand." Probably through Hellenic influence, the mythical idea of the phoenix was read into the passage. The idea of death and new life in the context of "death and rebirth in the nest" was just to juicy to leave alone after readers new about the mythical tradition of the phoenix bird. Thus, the Septuagint translated the passage as referring to the "phoenix" and not "sand." Then later the Septuagint passage was mistakenly corrected, not by returning to the "sand" translation but by altering the word toward an entirely new concept - that of the "palm tree" or phoinikos.

In case you're interested, St. Jerome later translated the term in Latin as palma or "palm tree." I wonder if he looked at the Hebrew or not.

St. Clement in 1 Clement likely had Job 29:18 in mind because he quotes Job just after describing his chapter on the phoenix (25). He does not quote the Job 29:18 passage directly, but still Clement quotes Job to prove the long expected hope of the resurrection. It is not surprising then to conclude that St. Clement's phoenix sermon illustration for the resurrection of the dead also has its origins in Job.

Chanting Evensong, Once Again

I had the great honor of chanting Evensong this evening in the gorgeous chapel at the Dominican House of Studies in Washtington, D.C. (pictured above). Father Eric Bergman (the most recent Pastoral Provision priest) asked me if I would be willing to chant and officiate Evensong at the Anglican Use conference according to the Book of Divine Worship.

I haven't officiated at a service since I left the Episcopal priesthood. It was a glorious experience. The chapel reminded me of Nashotah House. Great rood screen. Old. Wood ceiling, so somewhat dead acoustics. Antiphonal choir stalls. And no air conditioning, so it was hot. I hope Fr. Bergman didn't mind, but I must have sweat through his cassock and maybe even the surplice. It was sweaty - but for some reason that just made it better. A reasonable sacrifice.

Anyway, the Anglican Use Conference is getting along well. I look forward to tomorrow's lecture by Msgr. Bruce Harbert of ICEL on the history of the liturgy in English.