Friday, February 23, 2024

Christ the King

“The desire for peace is certainly harbored in every breast, and there is no one who does not ardently invoke it. But to want peace without God is an absurdity, seeing that where God is absent thence too justice flies, and when justice is taken away it is vain to cherish the hope of peace. "Peace is the work of justice" (Is. xxii., 17). There are many, We are well aware, who, in their yearning for peace, that is for the tranquillity of order, band themselves into societies and parties, which they style parties of order. Hope and labor lost. For there is but one party of order capable of restoring peace in the midst of all this turmoil, and that is the party of God. It is this party, therefore, that we must advance, and to it attract as many as possible, if we are really urged by the love of peace”. This year (2023) the Catholic Church will celebrate the Feast of Christ the King on Sunday, the 26th of November. In 1957, I (Damien Mackey) made my First Holy Communion on the same feast-day, which occurred that year on the 27th of October. It is all about Jesus Christ. He is the Lord of Creation, the Lord of History, the Alpha and the Omega, to whom all things must be subjected. Pope Saint Pius X dedicated his 1903 encyclical letter, E Supremi to the theme: ON THE RESTORATION OF ALL THINGS IN CHRIST. Venerable Brethren, Health and the Apostolic Benediction. In addressing you for the first time from the Chair of the supreme apostolate to which We have, by the inscrutable disposition of God, been elevated, it is not necessary to remind you with what tears and warm instance We exerted Ourselves to ward off this formidable burden of the Pontificate. Unequal in merit though We be with St. Anselm, it seems to us that We may with truth make Our own the words in which he lamented when he was constrained against his will and in spite of his struggles to receive the honor of the episcopate. For to show with what dispositions of mind and will We subjected Ourselves to the most serious charge of feeding the flock of Christ, We can well adduce those same proofs of grief which he invokes in his own behalf. "My tears are witnesses," he wrote, "and the sounds and moanings issuing from the anguish of my heart, such as I never remember before to have come from me for any sorrow, before that day on which there seemed to fall upon me that great misfortune of the archbishop of Canterbury. And those who fixed their gaze on my face that day could not fail to see it . . . I, in color more like a dead than a living man, was pale for amazement and alarm. Hitherto I have resisted as far as I could, speaking the truth, my election or rather the violence done me. But now I am constrained to confess, whether I will or no, that the judgments of God oppose greater and greater resistance to my efforts, so that I see no way of escaping them. Wherefore vanquished as I am by the violence not so much of men as of God, against which there is no providing, I realize that nothing is left for me, after having prayed as much as I could and striven that this chalice should if possible pass from me without my drinking it, but to set aside my feeling and my will and resign myself entirely to the design and the will of God." 2. In truth reasons both numerous and most weighty were not lacking to justify this resistance of Ours. For, beside the fact that We deemed Ourselves altogether unworthy through Our littleness of the honor of the Pontificate; who would not have been disturbed at seeing himself designated to succeed him who, ruling the Church with supreme wisdom for nearly twenty six years, showed himself adorned with such sublimity of mind, such luster of every virtue, as to attract to himself the admiration even of adversaries, and to leave his memory stamped in glorious achievements? 3. Then again, to omit other motives, We were terrified beyond all else by the disastrous state of human society today. For who can fail to see that society is at the present time, more than in any past age, suffering from a terrible and deeprooted malady which, developing every day and eating into its inmost being, is dragging it to destruction? You understand, Venerable Brethren, what this disease is - apostasy from God, than which in truth nothing is more allied with ruin, according to the word of the Prophet: "For behold they that go far from Thee shall perish" (Ps. 1xxii., 17). We saw therefore that, in virtue of the ministry of the Pontificate, which was to be entrusted to Us, We must hasten to find a remedy for this great evil, considering as addressed to Us that Divine command: "Lo, I have set thee this day over the nations and over kingdoms, to root up, and to pull down, and to waste, and to destroy, and to build, and to plant" (Jerem. i., 10). But, cognizant of Our weakness, We recoiled in terror from a task as urgent as it is arduous. 4. Since, however, it has been pleasing to the Divine Will to raise Our lowliness to such sublimity of power, We take courage in Him who strengthens Us; and setting Ourselves to work, relying on the power of God, We proclaim that We have no other program in the Supreme Pontificate but that "of restoring all things in Christ" (Ephes. i., 10), so that "Christ may be all and in all" (Coloss. iii, 2). Some will certainly be found who, measuring Divine things by human standards will seek to discover secret aims of Ours, distorting them to an earthly scope and to partisan designs. To eliminate all vain delusions for such, We say to them with emphasis that We do not wish to be, and with the Divine assistance never shall be aught before human society but the Minister of God, of whose authority We are the depositary. The interests of God shall be Our interest, and for these We are resolved to spend all Our strength and Our very life. Hence, should anyone ask Us for a symbol as the expression of Our will, We will give this and no other: "To renew all things in Christ." In undertaking this glorious task, We are greatly quickened by the certainty that We shall have all of you, Venerable Brethren, as generous cooperators. Did We doubt it We should have to regard you, unjustly, as either unconscious or heedless of that sacrilegious war which is now, almost everywhere, stirred up and fomented against God. For in truth, "The nations have raged and the peoples imagined vain things" (Ps.ii., 1.) against their Creator, so frequent is the cry of the enemies of God: "Depart from us" (Job. xxi., 14). And as might be expected we find extinguished among the majority of men all respect for the Eternal God, and no regard paid in the manifestations of public and private life to the Supreme Will - nay, every effort and every artifice is used to destroy utterly the memory and the knowledge of God. 5. When all this is considered there is good reason to fear lest this great perversity may be as it were a foretaste, and perhaps the beginning of those evils which are reserved for the last days; and that there may be already in the world the "Son of Perdition" of whom the Apostle speaks (II. Thess. ii., 3). Such, in truth, is the audacity and the wrath employed everywhere in persecuting religion, in combating the dogmas of the faith, in brazen effort to uproot and destroy all relations between man and the Divinity! While, on the other hand, and this according to the same apostle is the distinguishing mark of Antichrist, man has with infinite temerity put himself in the place of God, raising himself above all that is called God; in such wise that although he cannot utterly extinguish in himself all knowledge of God, he has contemned God's majesty and, as it were, made of the universe a temple wherein he himself is to be adored. "He sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God" (II. Thess. ii., 2). 6. Verily no one of sound mind can doubt the issue of this contest between man and the Most High. Man, abusing his liberty, can violate the right and the majesty of the Creator of the Universe; but the victory will ever be with God - nay, defeat is at hand at the moment when man, under the delusion of his triumph, rises up with most audacity. Of this we are assured in the holy books by God Himself. Unmindful, as it were, of His strength and greatness, He "overlooks the sins of men" (Wisd. xi., 24), but swiftly, after these apparent retreats, "awaked like a mighty man that hath been surfeited with wine" (Ps. 1xxvii., 65), "He shall break the heads of his enemies" (Ps. 1xxvii., 22), that all may know "that God is the king of all the earth" (Ib. 1xvi, 8), "that the Gentiles may know themselves to be men"(Ib. ix., 20). 7. All this, Venerable Brethren, We believe and expect with unshakable faith. But this does not prevent us also, according to the measure given to each, from exerting ourselves to hasten the work of God - and not merely by praying assiduously: "Arise, O Lord, let not man be strengthened" (Ib. ix., 19), but, more important still, by affirming both by word and deed and in the light of day, God's supreme dominion over man and all things, so that His right to command and His authority may be fully realized and respected. This is imposed upon us not only as a natural duty, but by our common interest. For, Venerable Brethren, who can avoid being appalled and afflicted when he beholds, in the midst of a progress in civilization which is justly extolled, the greater part of mankind fighting among themselves so savagely as to make it seem as though strife were universal? The desire for peace is certainly harbored in every breast, and there is no one who does not ardently invoke it. But to want peace without God is an absurdity, seeing that where God is absent thence too justice flies, and when justice is taken away it is vain to cherish the hope of peace. "Peace is the work of justice" (Is. xxii., 17). There are many, We are well aware, who, in their yearning for peace, that is for the tranquillity of order, band themselves into societies and parties, which they style parties of order. Hope and labor lost. For there is but one party of order capable of restoring peace in the midst of all this turmoil, and that is the party of God. It is this party, therefore, that we must advance, and to it attract as many as possible, if we are really urged by the love of peace. 8. But, Venerable Brethren, we shall never, however much we exert ourselves, succeed in calling men back to the majesty and empire of God, except by means of Jesus Christ. "No one," the Apostle admonishes us, "can lay other foundation than that which has been laid, which is Jesus Christ." (I. Cor.,iii., II.) It is Christ alone "whom the Father sanctified and sent into this world" (Is. x., 36), "the splendor of the Father and the image of His substance" (Hebr.i., 3), true God and true man: without whom nobody can know God with the knowledge for salvation, "neither doth anyone know the Father but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal Him." (Matth. xi., 27.) Hence it follows that to restore all things in Christ and to lead men back to submission to God is one and the same aim. To this, then, it behoves Us to devote Our care - to lead back mankind under the dominion of Christ; this done, We shall have brought it back to God. When We say to God We do not mean to that inert being heedless of all things human which the dream of materialists has imagined, but to the true and living God, one in nature, triple in person, Creator of the world, most wise Ordainer of all things, Lawgiver most just, who punishes the wicked and has reward in store for virtue. 9. Now the way to reach Christ is not hard to find: it is the Church. Rightly does Chrysostom inculcate: "The Church is thy hope, the Church is thy salvation, the Church is thy refuge." (Hom. de capto Euthropio, n. 6.) It was for this that Christ founded it, gaining it at the price of His blood, and made it the depositary of His doctrine and His laws, bestowing upon it at the same time an inexhaustible treasury of graces for the sanctification and salvation of men. You see, then, Venerable Brethren, the duty that has been imposed alike upon Us and upon you of bringing back to the discipline of the Church human society, now estranged from the wisdom of Christ; the Church will then subject it to Christ, and Christ to God. If We, through the goodness of God Himself, bring this task to a happy issue, We shall be rejoiced to see evil giving place to good, and hear, for our gladness, " a loud voice from heaven saying: Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God and the power of his Christ." (Apoc. xii., 10.) But if our desire to obtain this is to be fulfilled, we must use every means and exert all our energy to bring about the utter disappearance of the enormous and detestable wickedness, so characteristic of our time - the substitution of man for God; this done, it remains to restore to their ancient place of honor the most holy laws and counsels of the gospel; to proclaim aloud the truths taught by the Church, and her teachings on the sanctity of marriage, on the education and discipline of youth, on the possession and use of property, the duties that men owe to those who rule the State; and lastly to restore equilibrium between the different classes of society according to Christian precept and custom. This is what We, in submitting Ourselves to the manifestations of the Divine will, purpose to aim at during Our Pontificate, and We will use all our industry to attain it. It is for you, Venerable Brethren, to second Our efforts by your holiness, knowledge and experience and above all by your zeal for the glory of God, with no other aim than that Christ may be formed in all. 10. As to the means to be employed in attaining this great end, it seems superfluous to name them, for they are obvious of themselves. Let your first care be to form Christ in those who are destined from the duty of their vocation to form Him in others. We speak of the priests, Venerable Brethren. For all who bear the seal of the priesthood must know that they have the same mission to the people in the midst of whom they live as that which Paul proclaimed that he received in these tender words: "My little children, of whom I am in labor again until Christ be formed in you" (Gal. iv., 19). But how will they be able to perform this duty if they be not first clothed with Christ themselves? and so clothed with Christ as to be able to say with the Apostle: "I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me" (Ibid. ii., 20). "For me to live is Christ" (Phlipp. i., 21). Hence although all are included in the exhortation "to advance towards the perfect man, in the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ" (Ephes. iv., 3), it is addressed before all others to those who exercise the sacerdotal ministry; thus these are called another Christ, not merely by the communication of power but by reason of the imitation of His works, and they should therefore bear stamped upon themselves the image of Christ. 11. This being so, Venerable Brethren, of what nature and magnitude is the care that must be taken by you in forming the clergy to holiness! All other tasks must yield to this one. Wherefore the chief part of your diligence will be directed to governing and ordering your seminaries aright so that they may flourish equally in the soundness of their teaching and in the spotlessness of their morals. Regard your seminary as the delight of your hearts, and neglect on its behalf none of those provisions which the Council of Trent has with admirable forethought prescribed. And when the time comes for promoting the youthful candidates to holy orders, ah! do not forget what Paul wrote to Timothy: "Impose not hands lightly upon any man" (I. Tim. v., 22), bearing carefully in mind that as a general rule the faithful will be such as are those whom you call to the priesthood. Do not then pay heed to private interests of any kind, but have at heart only God and the Church and the eternal welfare of souls so that, as the Apostle admonishes, "you may not be partakers of the sins of others" (Ibid.). Then again be not lacking in solicitude for young priests who have just left the seminary. From the bottom of Our heart, We urge you to bring them often close to your breast, which should burn with celestial fire - kindle them, inflame them, so that they may aspire solely after God and the salvation of souls. Rest assured, Venerable Brethren, that We on Our side will use the greatest diligence to prevent the members of the clergy from being drawn to the snares of a certain new and fallacious science, which savoureth not of Christ, but with masked and cunning arguments strives to open the door to the errors of rationalism and semi-rationalism; against which the Apostle warned Timothy to be on his guard, when he wrote: "Keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words, and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called which some promising have erred concerning the faith" (I. Tim. vi., 20 s.). This does not prevent Us from esteeming worthy of praise those young priests who dedicated themselves to useful studies in every branch of learning the better to prepare themselves to defend the truth and to refute the calumnies of the enemies of the faith. Yet We cannot conceal, nay, We proclaim in the most open manner possible that Our preference is, and ever will be, for those who, while cultivating ecclesiastical and literary erudition, dedicate themselves more closely to the welfare of souls through the exercise of those ministries proper to a priest jealous of the divine glory. "It is a great grief and a continual sorrow to our heart" (Rom. ix., 2) to find Jeremiah's lamentation applicable to our times: "The little ones asked for bread, and there was none to break it to them" (Lam. iv., 4). For there are not lacking among the clergy those who adapt themselves according to their bent to works of more apparent than real solidity - but not so numerous perhaps are those who, after the example of Christ, take to themselves the words of the Prophet: "The Spirit of the Lord hath anointed me, hath sent me to evangelize the poor, to heal the contrite of heart, to announce freedom to the captive, and sight to the blind" (Luke iv., 18-19). 12. Yet who can fail to see, Venerable Brethren, that while men are led by reason and liberty, the principal way to restore the empire of God in their souls is religious instruction? How many there are who mimic Christ and abhor the Church and the Gospel more through ignorance than through badness of mind, of whom it may well be said: "They blaspheme whatever things they know not" (Jude ii., 10). This is found to be the case not only among the people at large and among the lowest classes, who are thus easily led astray, but even among the more cultivated and among those endowed moreover with uncommon education. The result is for a great many the loss of the faith. For it is not true that the progress of knowledge extinguishes the faith; rather is it ignorance, and the more ignorance prevails the greater is the havoc wrought by incredulity. And this is why Christ commanded the Apostles: "Going forth teach all nations" (Matth. xxvii., 19). 13. But in order that the desired fruit may be derived from this apostolate and this zeal for teaching, and that Christ may be formed in all, be it remembered, Venerable Brethren, that no means is more efficacious than charity. "For the Lord is not in the earthquake" (III Kings xix., II) - it is vain to hope to attract souls to God by a bitter zeal. On the contrary, harm is done more often than good by taunting men harshly with their faults, and reproving their vices with asperity. True the Apostle exhorted Timothy: "Accuse, beseech, rebuke," but he took care to add: "with all patience" (II. Tim.iv., 2). Jesus has certainly left us examples of this. "Come to me," we find Him saying, "come to me all ye that labor and are burdened and I will refresh you" (Matth. xi., 28). And by those that labor and are burdened he meant only those who are slaves of sin and error. What gentleness was that shown by the Divine Master! What tenderness, what compassion towards all kinds of misery! Isaias has marvelously described His heart in the words: "I will set my spirit upon him; he shall not contend, nor cry out; the bruised reed he will not break, he will not extinguish the smoking flax" (Is. xlii., I, s.). This charity, "patient and kind" (I. Cor. xiii., 4.), will extend itself also to those who are hostile to us and persecute us. "We are reviled," thus did St. Paul protest, "and we bless; we are persecuted and we suffer it; we are blasphemed and we entreat" (I. Cor., iv., 12, s.). They perhaps seem to be worse than they really are. Their associations with others, prejudice, the counsel, advice and example of others, and finally an ill advised shame have dragged them to the side of the impious; but their wills are not so depraved as they themselves would seek to make people believe. Who will prevent us from hoping that the flame of Christian charity may dispel the darkness from their minds and bring to them light and the peace of God? It may be that the fruit of our labors may be slow in coming, but charity wearies not with waiting, knowing that God prepares His rewards not for the results of toil but for the good will shown in it. 14. It is true, Venerable Brethren, that in this arduous task of the restoration of the human race in Christ neither you nor your clergy should exclude all assistance. We know that God recommended every one to have a care for his neighbor (Eccli. xvii., 12). For it is not priests alone, but all the faithful without exception, who must concern themselves with the interests of God and souls - not, of course, according to their own views, but always under the direction and orders of the bishops; for to no one in the Church except you is it given to preside over, to teach, to "govern the Church of God which the Holy Ghost has placed you to rule" (Acts xx., 28). Our predecessors have long since approved and blessed those Catholics who have banded together in societies of various kinds, but always religious in their aim. We, too, have no hesitation in awarding Our praise to this great idea, and We earnestly desire to see it propagated and flourish in town and country. But We wish that all such associations aim first and chiefly at the constant maintenance of Christian life, among those who belong to them. For truly it is of little avail to discuss questions with nice subtlety, or to discourse eloquently of rights and duties, when all this is unconnected with practice. The times we live in demand action - but action which consists entirely in observing with fidelity and zeal the divine laws and the precepts of the Church, in the frank and open profession of religion, in the exercise of every kind of charitable works, without regard to selfinterest or worldly advantage. Such luminous examples given by the great army of soldiers of Christ will be of much greater avail in moving and drawing men than words and sublime dissertations; and it will easily come about that when human respect has been driven out, and prejudices and doubting laid aside, large numbers will be won to Christ, becoming in their turn promoters of His knowledge and love which are the road to true and solid happiness. Oh! when in every city and village the law of the Lord is faithfully observed, when respect is shown for sacred things, when the Sacraments are frequented, and the ordinances of Christian life fulfilled, there will certainly be no more need for us to labor further to see all things restored in Christ. Nor is it for the attainment of eternal welfare alone that this will be of service - it will also contribute largely to temporal welfare and the advantage of human society. For when these conditions have been secured, the upper and wealthy classes will learn to be just and charitable to the lowly, and these will be able to bear with tranquillity and patience the trials of a very hard lot; the citizens will obey not lust but law, reverence and love will be deemed a duty towards those that govern, "whose power comes only from God" (Rom. xiii., I). And then? Then, at last, it will be clear to all that the Church, such as it was instituted by Christ, must enjoy full and entire liberty and independence from all foreign dominion; and We, in demanding that same liberty, are defending not only the sacred rights of religion, but are also consulting the common weal and the safety of nations. For it continues to be true that "piety is useful for all things" (I. Tim. iv., 8) - when this is strong and flourishing "the people will" truly "sit in the fullness of peace" (Is. xxxii., 18). 15. May God, "who is rich in mercy" (Ephes.ii., 4), benignly speed this restoration of the human race in Jesus Christ for "it is not of him that willeth, or of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy" (Rom. ix., 16). And let us, Venerable Brethren, "in the spirit of humility" (Dan. iii., 39), with continuous and urgent prayer ask this of Him through the merits of Jesus Christ. Let us turn, too, to the most powerful intercession of the Divine Mother - to obtain which We, addressing to you this Letter of Ours on the day appointed especially for commemorating the Holy Rosary, ordain and confirm all Our Predecessor's prescriptions with regard to the dedication of the present month to the august Virgin, by the public recitation of the Rosary in all churches; with the further exhortation that as intercessors with God appeal be also made to the most pure Spouse of Mary, the Patron of the Catholic Church, and the holy Princes of the Apostles, Peter and Paul. 16. And that all this may be realized in fulfillment of Our ardent desire, and that everything may be prosperous with you, We invoke upon you the most bountiful gifts of divine grace. And now in testimony of that most tender charity wherewith We embrace you and all the faithful whom Divine Providence has entrusted to Us, We impart with all affection in the Lord, the Apostolic Blessing to you, Venerable Brethren, to the clergy and to your people. Given at Rome at St. Peter's, on the 4th day of October, 1903, in the first year of Our Pontificate. PIUS X Kingdom of the Son: Scott Hahn Reflects on the Solemnity of Christ the King https://stpaulcenter.com/audio/sunday-bible-reflections/kingdom-of-the-son-scott-hahn-reflects-on-the-solemnity-of-christ-the-king/ Readings: 2 Samuel 5:1–3 Psalm 122:1–5 Colossians 1:12–20 Luke 23:35–43 ________________________________________ Week by week, the Liturgy has been preparing us for the revelation to be made on this, the last Sunday of the Church year. Jesus, we have been shown, is truly the Chosen One, the Messiah of God, the King of the Jews. Ironically, in today’s Gospel we hear these names on the lips of those who don’t believe in Him—Israel’s rulers, the soldiers, a criminal dying alongside Him. They can only see the scandal of a bloodied figure nailed to a cross. They scorn Him in words and gestures foretold in Israel’s Scriptures (see Psalm 22:7–9; 69:21–22; Wisdom 2:18–20). If He is truly King, God will rescue Him, they taunt. But He did not come to save Himself, but to save them—and us. The good thief shows us how we are to accept the salvation He offers us. He confesses his sins and acknowledges he deserves to die for them. And he calls on the name of Jesus, seeking His mercy and forgiveness. By his faith he is saved. Jesus “remembers” him—as God has always remembered His people, visiting them with His saving deeds, numbering them among His chosen heirs (see Psalm 106:4–5). By the blood of His cross, Jesus reveals His Kingship—not in saving His own life, but in offering it as a ransom for ours. He transfers us to “the kingdom of His beloved Son,” as today’s Epistle tells us. His kingdom is the Church, the new Jerusalem and House of David that we sing of in today’s Psalm. By their covenant with David in today’s First Reading, Israel’s tribes are made one “bone and flesh” with their king. By the New Covenant made in His blood, Christ becomes one flesh with the people of His kingdom—the head of His body, the Church (see Ephesians 5:23–32). We celebrate and renew this covenant in every Eucharist, giving thanks for our redemption, hoping for the day when we too will be with Him in Paradise. [End of quote] “In an era of resurgent nationalism, a belief in Christ as king guards against the ever-present and profoundly unchristian tendency to elevate politics over faith”. Jacob Lupfer Taken from: Sunday is the Feast of Christ the King. Here's why it still matters. (msn.com) Sunday is the Feast of Christ the King. Here's why it still matters. Religion News Service (RNS) — Lost in the shorter, busier, cooler days of late November, around Thanksgiving but before the Christmas rush, is an important Christian observance called the Solemnity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, King of the Universe. It was instituted in 1925 by Pope Pius XI in an encyclical titled “Quas Primas” and was Pius’ response to the increasing secularization and nationalism in the aftermath of World War I, which saw the fall of the royal houses of the Hohenzollerns, Romanovs, Habsburgs and the Ottoman Empire, all within four gruesome years. Thus Christ the King came into a seemingly extinguished Christendom with live memories of the Great War’s incomprehensible human carnage and epochal political upheaval. Then, as now, modern people were pulled in competing directions about where their loyalties lay. Pius’ encyclical drew richly on Old and New Testament teaching about divine kingship. In answer to the political chaos he offers the comfort of a king “of whose kingdom there shall be no end.” Not even the most ardent Protestant biblicist could object. Indeed, the feast day has taken on an increasingly ecumenical character and is better known nowadays by its Protestant name, Christ the King Sunday. Jesus’ kingship had been expounded long before “Quas Primas,” of course. Pius’ notions are captured in a well-loved (though controversial) hymn from the 1870s that proclaims, “Crowns and thrones may perish, kingdoms rise and wane; But the church of Jesus constant will remain.” Others come to mind for anyone who has attended church for any time: “Come Thou Almighty King,” “Rejoice! The Lord Is King,” “Crown Him With Many Crowns,” “Praise, My Soul, the King of Heaven,” “All Glory, Laud, and Honor (to Thee, Redeemer, King).” That last was composed by Theodulf of Orleans in 820. So, is Christ king? Does the image matter to Christians anymore? It should. Christ the King offers both a hopeful and a sobering reminder to Christians whose loyalty to Jesus becomes subordinated to political ideology. In an era of resurgent nationalism, a belief in Christ as king guards against the ever-present and profoundly unchristian tendency to elevate politics over faith. Some would be tempted to impose the kingship of Christ by coercion or force of law. When adherents of Catholic Christian nationalist Nick Fuentes chanted “Christ is king!” on the National Mall the day the U.S. Capitol was overrun, it was palpably a cry against declining Christian cultural power, not for the Christian submission that Pius called for, a call that Christ reign in Christians’ hearts, minds, wills and bodies. Not that Christ the King doesn’t point up serious problems of pluralism and tolerance we have not solved yet. The first new British sovereign in seven decades awaits his coronation — his anointing in the name of the only king greater than he — amid global concern about whether democracy can prevail over anti-pluralistic nationalist and fascist-adjacent currents. King Charles’ reign has already invited questions about whether a Christian state even makes sense in the modern world and whether it can survive. The aftereffects of European empire now mean that the nations that invented the divine right of kings and put Christ above their own are subsuming diverse religious populations and institutions into their civic life. Charles’ new prime minister and the Conservative Party’s new leader, the Right Honorable Rishi Sunak, is a practicing Hindu and an icon for his nearly one million British co-religionists (and many millions more elsewhere). In advance of the G20 meeting in Indonesia earlier this month, the international organization held its first Religion Forum, the “R20.” Former U.S. ambassador to the Holy See Mary Ann Glendon attended as a delegate and observed “earnestness and palpable goodwill.” If there is an echo of the crusaders in “Christ the King,” there is no note of it in the way Charles and leaders of other historically Christian-dominated nations have resolved to move forward on faith. If religion, reduced to diplomatspeak, seems to pale a bit, it may be better that way. Our triumphalist line has not prevented the diminishment of faith in every sense. Which brings us to American evangelicals, who, regrettably tend not to observe Christ the King Sunday. This is one more instance in which they should unite more closely with global ecumenical Christianity. It’s not a theological problem — conservative evangelicals are inherently comfortable with “King Jesus” language. Rather, evangelicals, having grasped for political salvation, have the most to lose in submitting to a king that asks them to put off the trappings of power. In the end, Christ’s kingship is a spiritual matter for Christians. And that needs to be enough. (Jacob Lupfer is a political strategist and writer in Jacksonville, Florida. The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of Religion News Service.)

Thursday, February 22, 2024

A Nativity Shining Light of relevance to Israelite Magi

by Damien F. Mackey “Magi from the east came to Jerusalem”. Matthew 2:1 Part One: Were the Magi inspired pagans or Israelites? According to my recent article: Magi and the Persian factor (8) Magi and the Persian factor | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu the Magi of Matthew 2 definitely could not have been from Persia. Nor were they likely to have been, as I concluded, non-Israelites: “Now, from what has gone before, I think that there must be a very good chance that these, too [the Magi] - however many of them there may have been - must have been Israelites, albeit ‘enlightened’, rather than foreigners (gentiles), Persians or Nabateans”. Even the suggestion that the Magi were Zoroastrians may smack of a Hebrew element. Because, according to certain traditions, Zoroaster (Zarathustra) was actually the Jewish prophet Baruch: https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/2562-baruch —In Arabic-Christian Legend: The Arabic-Christian legends identify Baruch with Zoroaster, and give much information concerning him. Baruch, angry because the gift of prophecy had been denied him, and on account of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, left Palestine to found the religion of Zoroaster. The prophecy of the birth of Jesus from a virgin, and of his adoration by the Magi, is also ascribed to Baruch-Zoroaster (compare the complete collection of these legends in Gottheil, in "Classical Studies in Honor of H. Drisler," pp. 24-51, New York, 1894; Jackson, "Zoroaster," pp. 17, 165 et seq.). It is difficult to explain the origin of this curious identification of a prophet with a magician, such as Zoroaster was held to be, among the Jews, Christians, and Arabs. De Sacy ("Notices et Extraits des MSS. de la Bibliothèque du Roi," ii. 319) explains it on the ground that in Arabic the name of the prophet Jeremiah is almost identical with that of the city of Urmiah, where, it is said, Zoroaster lived. However this may be, the Jewish legend mentioned above (under Baruch in Rabbinical Literature), according to which the Ethiopian in Jer. xxxviii. 7 is undoubtedly identical with Baruch, is connected with this Arabic-Christian legend. As early as the Clementine "Recognitiones" (iv. 27), Zoroaster was believed to be a descendant of Ham; and, according to Gen. x. 6, Cush, the Ethiopian, is a son of Ham. It should furthermore be remembered that, according to the "Recognitiones" iv. 28), the Persians believed that Zoroaster had been taken into heaven in a chariot ("ad cœlum vehiculo sublevatum"); and according to the Jewish legend, the above-mentioned Ethiopian was transported alive into paradise ("Derek Ereẓ Zuṭṭa," i. end), an occurrence that, like the translation of Elijah (II Kings ii. 11), must have taken place by means of a "vehiculum." Another reminiscence of the Jewish legend is found in Baruch-Zoroaster's words concerning Jesus: "He shall descend from my family" ("Book of the Bee," ed. Budge, p. 90, line 5, London, 1886), since, according to the Haggadah, Baruch was a priest; and Maria, the mother of Jesus, was of priestly family. …. [End of quote] The captivating tale of the Magi has been absorbed by other ethnicities-religions. For, as I wrote in my article: Magi incident absorbed into Buddhism? (4) Magi incident absorbed into Buddhism? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu quoting Holger Kersten: “At last, in 1937, various expeditions were dispatched from Lhasa to seek out the holy child according to the heavenly omens, in the direction indicated. Each group included wise and worthy lamas of highly distinguished status in the theocracy. In addition to their servants, each group took costly gifts with them …”. Interestingly, too, “the holy child” was aged 2 (cf. Matthew 2:16). Which Israelites could the Magi have been? We know at least the when of the Magi, the beginning of AD time, reign of Herod. We also know the where, that they were “from the east” (Matthew 2:1-2): After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, ‘Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him’. If they were Israelites, as I believe they must have been, then what was their east? Presumably they, like the prophet Job, were living east of the River Jordan (Job:1:2): “[Job] was the greatest man among all the people of the East”. His home, traditionally, was in Hauran, Ausitis (Uz), where lived the bene qedem. In the Book of Tobit, it is called “Ecbatana” (Bathania) (Tobit 7:1), which is Bashan. According to Jewish Virtual Library, article “Kedemites or Easterners”: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/kedemites-or-easterners KEDEMITES OR EASTERNERS (Heb. בְּנֵי קֶדֶם (benei kedem, bene qedem), adjective qadmoni, קַדְמֹנִי; Gen. 15:19) is a general designation for the peoples living on the eastern border of Syria and Palestine, from as far north as Haran (Gen. 29:1–4) to as far south as the northern end of the Red Sea (Gen. 25:1–6). In Israelite ethnology, all these peoples, and the Ishmaelites as well, who ranged from the border of Egypt to Assyria (i.e., the Middle Euphrates), and who included the inhabitants of Tema and Dumah (Gen. 25:12–18), were all related. Their center of dispersion was the Middle Euphrates region – called Aram-Naharaim (Gen. 24:10; Deut. 23:5), Paddan-Aram (Gen. 28:2, 5, 6, 7; 31:18 (or Paddan, Gen. 48:7)), "the country Aram" (Hos. 12:13), or simply Aram (Num. 23:7). From here Abraham and Lot moved to Canaan (Gen. 12:5). Lot eventually moved to Transjordan and became the ancestor of Moab and Ammon (Gen. 19:30ff.), while Abraham became the ancestor of all the other Kedemites, including the Ishmaelites, and of the Israelites as well. His son Isaac and the latter's son Jacob-Israel married wives from Abraham's original home-land, where Jacob even lived for 20 years. Hence the confession, "My father was a wandering/ fugitive Aramean who migrated to Egypt" (Deut. 26:5). The Israelites acknowledged all those peoples as their kin in contrast to the Canaanites. The Kedemites enjoyed among the Israelites a great reputation for wisdom. Not only does David quote a Kedemite proverb which he characterizes as such, but the wisdom of the Kedemites is rated only lower than Solomon's though higher than that of the Egyptians (I Kings 5:10), and Isaiah represents the Egyptian king's wise men as seeking to impress him by claiming descent from sages of Kedem (this, not "of old," is the meaning of qedem in Isa. 19:11). …. [End of quote] Now, given my re-dating of the Nativity to the time of Judas Maccabeus: Religious war raging in Judah during the Infancy of Jesus (5) Religious war raging in Judah during the Infancy of Jesus | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu then we might expect to find the Magi amongst Transjordanian allies of the Maccabees. In I Maccabees 5 we read of Judas and his army crossing over the Jordan to deliver oppressed Jews, and there occurs the very interesting reference to “the land of Tobias” – that being (the Greek version of) the name of Job. Also mentioned here is Dathema, that is apparently right in Job-ian territory (Bashan): https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/hdb/d/dathema.html DATHEMA ( 1Ma 5:9 ). A fortress in Bashan. It may perhaps be the modern Dâmeh on the S. border of the Lejâ district, N. of Ashteroth-karnaim. And so we read (vv. 9-23): Now the nations in Gilead gathered together against the Israelites who lived in their territory and planned to destroy them. But they fled to the stronghold of Dathema and sent to Judas and his brothers letters that said, ‘The nations around us have gathered together to destroy us. They are preparing to come and capture the stronghold to which we have fled, and Timothy is leading their forces. Now then, come and rescue us from their hands, for many of us have fallen, and all our kindred who were in the land of Tobias have been killed; the enemy have captured their wives and children and goods and have destroyed about a thousand persons there’. While the letters were still being read, other messengers, with their garments torn, came from Galilee and made a similar report; they said that the people of Ptolemais and Tyre and Sidon and all Galilee of the gentiles had gathered together against them “to annihilate us.” When Judas and the people heard these messages, a great assembly was called to determine what they should do for their kindred who were in distress and were being attacked by enemies. Then Judas said to his brother Simon, ‘Choose your men and go and rescue your kindred in Galilee; Jonathan my brother and I will go to Gilead’. But he left Joseph, son of Zechariah, and Azariah, a leader of the people, with the rest of the forces in Judea to guard it, and he gave them this command, ‘Take charge of this people, but do not engage in battle with the nations until we return’. Then three thousand men were assigned to Simon to go to Galilee and eight thousand to Judas for Gilead. So Simon went to Galilee and fought many battles against the nations, and the nations were crushed before him. He pursued them to the gate of Ptolemais; as many as three thousand of the nations fell, and he despoiled them. Then he took the Jews of Galilee and Arbatta, with their wives and children, and all they possessed and led them to Judea with great rejoicing. Note, moreover, the likeness to the Book of Job 1:16, 17 and 18: “While he was still speaking, another messenger came and said …”, to: “While the letters were still being read, other messengers, with their garments torn, came from Galilee and made a similar report …” (I Maccabees 5:14). Did the Magi, like Job’s first generation of children, perish amidst turmoil, or were they still to be found living amongst those “rejoicing” Jews whom Judas Maccabeus led safely “to Judea”? King Herod no longer cast his dark shadow over the kingdom. Perhaps some Magi had perished at the hands of Timothy, and some had survived. One can only guess at this stage. Tobias (Job) had benefitted from family inheritances (Tobit 14:13): “He took respectful care of his aging father-in-law and mother-in-law; and he buried them at Ecbatana …. Then he inherited Raguel’s estate as well as that of his father Tobit”. He, as Job, would see to it that all of his surviving children likewise benefitted (Job 42:12-15): The LORD blessed the latter part of Job’s life more than the former part. He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen and a thousand donkeys. And he also had seven sons and three daughters. The first daughter he named Jemimah, the second Keziah and the third Keren-Happuch. Nowhere in all the land were there found women as beautiful as Job’s daughters, and their father granted them an inheritance along with their brothers. Now, in my much shortened revision, there was not much time lapse at all between late Job and the Birth of Jesus Christ. There are common elements with Job and the Magi; the East; wisdom; purity of gold (e.g., Job 23:10); camels (presumably); expecting a Redeemer (Job 19:25); wealth. Job (Tobias), whose father, Tobit, had quoted the prophet Amos (Tobit 2:6), would surely have known the Messianic prophecy of Micah, who was this very Amos: God can raise up prophets at will - even from a shepherd of Simeon (8) God can raise up prophets at will - even from a shepherd of Simeon | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Micah’s prophecy had famously been repeated to King Herod after the Magi had arrived in Jerusalem (Matthew 2:3-6): When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the Law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born. ‘In Bethlehem in Judea’, they replied, ‘for this is what the prophet has written: “But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel”.’ Of course the Magi already knew it, but they had gone directly to Jerusalem presuming (I think) that the royal Babe had now grown and would be ensconced in Jerusalem. Why did the Magi take so long to leave their home? Perhaps this was due to the turmoil of war that was raging in Israel at the time. Tobit (1:15) tells his son, Tobias, of the roads being unsafe for travel during the reign of Sennacherib, king of Assyria. Possibly, the Magi picked up (some of) their gifts for the Messiah in Jerusalem. It is interesting that the name of one of Job’s daughters, Keziah, or Cassia (42:14), has a close connection with frankincense and myrrh: https://www.earthsunessentials.com.au/product/cassia/ “Cassia features in folklore medicine often. It is even included in the Bible with Myrrh, Frankincense, and other oils and herbs”. Did Matthew (2:11) have Job 42:11 in the back of his mind when writing of the Magi’s visit to “the house”? All [Job’s] brothers and sisters and everyone who had known him before came and ate with him in his house. … each one gave him a piece of silver and a gold ring. The road taken by the Magi from “the land of Tobias” to Jerusalem was not to be the way that these wise men (and women?) would return (Matthew 2:12): “… having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route”, avoiding Jerusalem this time. Intending to head NE, did they make a switch eastwards from the Central Ridge Route to the King’s Highway? Readers with a good knowledge of ancient biblical roads may be able to help out here. Conclusion The when of the Magi - the beginning of AD time, reign of King Herod ‘the Great’ (Maccabean era in my revision). The where of the Magi - they were “from the east” (Matthew 2:1-2), the Bashan region. The who of the Magi - certainly enlightened Israelites, likely family of the prophet Job. Part Two: What was the bright Star that the Magi saw? ‘Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him’. Matthew 2:2 While some of the best efforts to interpret the Magi Star have concluded, as we have read in: Solid attempts to interpret the biblical sky (3) Solid attempts to interpret the biblical sky | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu that it was a planet, say, Venus or Jupiter, none, I think, has been able fully to explain it in its precise detail - for example, the fact that “it stopped” (Matthew 2:9): “After [the Magi] had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was”. At last I have found an article that, for me, makes proper sense of the Nativity Star. Matthew Ervin, in December 2013, explained it as the Glory of God. He uses the word, Shekinah, which, however, is not found in the Bible. I would prefer: Glory of the Lord (כְבוֹד יְהוָה), Chevod Yahweh (e.g. 2 Chronicles 7:1). Matthew Ervin writes: https://appleeye.org/2013/12/15/the-star-of-bethlehem-was-the-shechinah-glory/ The Star of Bethlehem Was the Shekinah Glory …. Theories as to what the Star of Bethlehem was are myriad. The usual answers look to celestial objects ranging from real stars to comets. Indeed, the inquiry has been so wide sweeping that virtually every object appearing in the sky has been posited as the Bethlehem Star. However, when Scripture is examined the identity of the Star is evident. The Greek ἀστέρα or astera simply identifies a shining or gleaming object that is translated as star in Matthew 2:1-10. The magi specifically referred to it as, “His star” (v. 2). In addition, the behavior of this Star alone is enough to discount any natural stellar phenomenon. The Star led the magi from the east to the west [sic] toward Jerusalem (vv. 1-4). Then the Star moved from the north to the south in Bethlehem (v. 9). The Star would disappear and then reappear before it finally came to hover over where Jesus was staying (vv. 7-9). If not a regular stellar object then what exactly was the Star of Bethlehem? The synoptic narrative in Luke’s Gospel provides an answer: And in the same region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with great fear. Luke 2:8-9 (ESV) The glory of the Lord here is a powerful example of the Shekinah Glory. This type of glory is a visible manifestation of God’s presence come to dwell among men. The Shekinah was often accompanied by a heavenly host (e.g. Ezek. 10:18-19) and so it was at the birth of Christ (Luke 10:13). The Shekinah Glory declared Messiah’s birth to the shepherds (Luke 2:8-11). The Star of Bethlehem likewise declared to the magi that Messiah had arrived (Matt. 2:9-10). No doubt this is because Matthew and Luke were describing the same brilliant light in their respective gospels. Although the Shekinah takes on various appearances in Scripture, it often appears as something very bright. This includes but is not limited to a flaming sword (Gen. 3:24), a burning bush (Ex. 3:1-5; Deut. 33:16), a pillar of cloud and fire (Ex. 13:21-22), a cloud with lightning and fire (Ex. 19:16-20), God’s afterglow (His “back”) (Ex. 33:17-23), the transfiguration of Jesus (e.g. Matt. 17:1-8), fire (Acts 2:1-3), a light from heaven (e.g. Acts 9:3-8) and the lamp of New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:23-24). It was the Shekinah Glory that dwelled in the Holy of Holies. It was last in Solomon’s temple but departed as seen by Ezekiel (Ezek. 9:3; 10:4-19; 11:22-23). Haggai prophesied that the Shekinah Glory would return to the temple in Israel and in a superior way (Hag. 2:3; 2:9). And yet it would seem that this never happened for the Second Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. Perhaps though the Shekinah did return. The Star of Bethlehem was the Shekinah Glory declaring the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ and residing in His person. And why not? The Messiah was prophesied to come as a star (Num. 24:17), and Jesus is called the, “bright morning star” (Rev. 22:16). …. [End of quote] It would be most fitting for the prophet Haggai to foretell the return of the Glory cloud. For Haggai (an abbreviated name) was my Habakkuk, the Akkadian name of Tobias (= Job) from his years spent in Nineveh: Haggai as Job late in his life? (10) Haggai as Job late in his life? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And his father, Tobit, appears to have foretold the return of God’s glory in chapter 13, as I noted in my article (following a 2013 piece): Saint John Paul II on Tobit (10) Saint John Paul II on Tobit | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu I once read an intriguing article that valiantly attempted to identify Luke’s Shepherds, at the Nativity, with Matthew’s Magi. Upon examination, h0wever, the two entities appear to be really quite different – geographically speaking, for one. But what, I think, can now be identified as one, thanks to Matthew Erwin, is the Glory beheld by both the Shepherds and the Magi: … when Scripture is examined the identity of the Star is evident. The Greek ἀστέρα or astera simply identifies a shining or gleaming object that is translated as star in Matthew 2:1-10. The magi specifically referred to it as, “His star” (v. 2). In addition, the behavior of this Star alone is enough to discount any natural stellar phenomenon. The Star led the magi from the east to the west [sic] toward Jerusalem (vv. 1-4). Then the Star moved from the north to the south in Bethlehem (v. 9). The Star would disappear and then reappear before it finally came to hover over where Jesus was staying (vv. 7-9). If not a regular stellar object then what exactly was the Star of Bethlehem? The synoptic narrative in Luke’s Gospel provides an answer: And in the same region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with great fear. Luke 2:8-9 (ESV) …. The shining Glory God’s glory had been manifest, according to Matthew Erwin, in the Flaming Sword of Genesis; to Moses, in the Burning Bush, to the Exodus Israelites in the Pillar of Cloud; and to Israel, again, in the first Temple. But it had departed at the time of the Babylonian Exile and had not returned when the second Temple was completed. Matthew Erwin has really sewn this up: It was the Shekinah Glory that dwelled in the Holy of Holies. It was last in Solomon’s temple but departed as seen by Ezekiel (Ezek. 9:3; 10:4-19; 11:22-23). Haggai prophesied that the Shekinah Glory would return to the temple in Israel and in a superior way (Hag. 2:3; 2:9). And yet it would seem that this never happened for the Second Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. Perhaps though the Shekinah did return. …. The family of Job-Tobias knew, from what we now have written in Tobit 13, that the Glory of the Lord was going to return after the return from Exile. Job, as Haggai, now in his late old age, had advised the people, disappointed at the sight of the second Temple, that the Glory of the Lord would return. And return again it did, with the Birth of Jesus Christ, the New Temple, who would render obsolete the old stone Temple (pope Benedict XVI). In other words, the second Temple was only ever to be temporary, and would be dramatically replaced (destroyed even) by He who is the true Temple of God. The Shepherds saw the Light at close hand and were able to go directly to the stable. Their guiding Light conveniently stopped, just as the shining Cloud was wont to do during the Exodus (Numbers 9:17): “When the cloud moved from its place over the Tent, the Israelites moved, and wherever the cloud stopped, the Israelites camped”. The Magi saw it at a distance from Bethlehem. They had long been expecting it. Their ancestor, Tobit, had foretold its return, and his son, Haggai, confirmed it much later. The Magi, who - as descendants of Job, as I think - were undoubtedly clever and educated, did not really need, though, to be able to read the heavens and constellations (as Job almost certainly could, Job 38:31-33) to identify the Star. They were expecting it and they simply had to wait until they saw it. This was a manifestation for Israel, to be understood by Israel, which is a solid reason why I think that the Magi mut have been Israelites, not gentiles. The Nativity Star of relevance to Israel determines the ethnicity of Matthew’s Magi. Conclusion The when of the Magi - the beginning of AD time, reign of King Herod ‘the Great’ (Maccabean era in my revision). The where of the Magi - they were “from the east” (Matthew 2:1-2), the Bashan region. The who of the Magi - certainly enlightened Israelites, likely family of the prophet Job. The Star of the Magi - the Glory of the Lord. The resplendent Christ Child appeared again, with his holy Mother, at Pontevedra, Spain, 10th December, 1925 “elevated on a luminous cloud”. We read about it at: https://fatima.org/news-views/the-apparition-of-our-lady-and-the-child-jesus-at-pontevedra/ On July 13, 1917, Our Lady promised at Fatima: “If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved … I shall come to ask for the Consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturdays.” As Fatima scholar Frère Michel de la Sainte Trinité tells us, this first secret of Our Lady “is a sure and easy way of tearing souls away from the danger of hell: first our own, then those of our neighbors, and even the souls of the greatest sinners, for the mercy and power of the Immaculate Heart of Mary are without limits.” …. Circumstances of the Apparition …. The promise of Our Lady to return was fulfilled in December 1925, when 18-year-old Lucia was a postulant at the Dorothean convent in Pontevedra, Spain. It was here, during an apparition of the Child Jesus and Our Lady, that She revealed the first part of God’s plan for the salvation of sinners: the reparatory Communion of the First Saturdays of the month. Lucia narrated what happened, speaking of herself in the third person – perhaps, in humility, to divert attention from her role in the event: “On December 10, 1925, the Most Holy Virgin appeared to her [Lucia], and by Her side, elevated on a luminous cloud, was the Child Jesus. The Most Holy Virgin rested Her hand on her shoulder, and as She did so, She showed her a heart encircled by thorns, which She was holding in Her other hand. At the same time, the Child said: “‘Have compassion on the Heart of your Most Holy Mother, covered with thorns, with which ungrateful men pierce It at every moment, and there is no one to make an act of reparation to remove them.’ “Then the Most Holy Virgin said: “‘Look, My daughter, at My Heart, surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce Me at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You at least try to console Me and announce in My name that I promise to assist at the moment of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, shall confess … receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary, and keep Me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary, with the intention of making reparation to Me.’” The Great Promise and Its Conditions As Fatima author, Mark Fellows, noted: “The Blessed Virgin did more than ask for reparatory Communion and devotions on five First Saturdays: She promised Heaven to those who practiced this devotion sincerely and with a spirit of reparation. Those who wonder whether it is Mary’s place to promise eternal salvation to anyone forget one of Her illustrious titles: Mediatrix of all Graces.” …. Our Lady promises the grace of final perseverance – the most sublime of all graces – to all those who devoutly practice this devotion. The disproportion between the little requested and the immense grace promised reveals the great power of intercession granted to the Blessed Virgin Mary for the salvation of souls. Furthermore, this promise also contains a missionary aspect. The devotion of reparation is recommended as a means of converting sinners in the greatest danger of being lost. Much has been written on the Five First Saturdays devotion. Therefore, here I provide only a brief summary of the conditions. For more information, see The Magnificent Promise for the Five First Saturdays (Section III, pp. 8-16). …. 1. The First Saturday of five consecutive months: This request was the culmination of a whole movement of devotion, consistent with a series of papal decisions giving the forerunners of this new devotion: a. The 15 Saturdays in honor of Our Lady of the Most Holy Rosary (plenary indulgence granted by Pope Leo XIII, 1889). b. The 12 First Saturdays of the month (officially approved by Pope St. Pius X, 1905). c. The Devotion of Reparation on the First Saturdays of the month (new indulgences granted by Pius X, 1912). At Pontevedra we see two new elements: the reduction of the number of Saturdays required; and assurance of receiving at the moment of death “all the graces necessary for salvation,” instead of merely indulgences for the remission of punishment for sins already pardoned. Knowing our inconstancy, Our Lady asks for only five Saturdays – the number of decades on our Rosary. 2. Confession: Though the confession is not required to be made on the First Saturday itself … it is preferable – as far as possible – that it be made on a day close to the First Saturday. 3. Communion of Reparation: Frère Michel tells us: “The Communion of Reparation, of course, is the most important act of the devotion of Reparation. All the other acts center around it. To understand its meaning and significance, it must be considered in relation with the miraculous Communion of autumn 1916; already this Communion was completely oriented to the idea of Reparation, thanks to the words of the Angel.” …. 4. Recitation of the Rosary: In each of the six apparitions of 1917, Our Lady asked the children to pray the Rosary every day. 5. The 15-minute meditation on the 15 Mysteries of the Rosary: In addition to praying the Rosary, Our Lady asks for a separate 15 minutes of meditation on the Mysteries of the Rosary. But, as Sister Lucia has explained, not all 15 Mysteries need to be meditated upon each month. One may, by their choice, meditate on only some of the Mysteries each month. …. 6. The intention of making Reparation: As Sister Lucia has written, this condition is the principal one, and concerns the general intention with which all the other five conditions must be fulfilled. They must each be accomplished “in the spirit of Reparation” towards the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Without this general intention, without the desire to make Reparation to Our Lady to console Her, all these external acts are by themselves insufficient to obtain the magnificent promise of obtaining, at the moment of death, all the graces necessary for salvation. ….

Matthew, in his Genealogy, may not have omitted any king of Judah

by Damien F. Mackey “Had Matthew included all these names, the generations would have numbered twenty instead of fourteen. Fourteen, for Matthew’s purposes, was very important (cf. Matt 1:17)”. Mitch Chase A typical assessment of Matthew the Evangelist’s list of the Kings of Judah (1:7-11) – and one with which I would fully have agreed some time ago – is clearly laid out in this short piece (2013) by Mitch Chase: https://mitchchase.wordpress.com/2013/12/07/why-are-there-missing-kings-in-matthew-1/ Why Are There Missing Kings in Matthew 1? Matthew’s genealogy is edited, and by that I mean he has omitted certain kings in the second section (Matt 1:6b-11). Here are his fourteen generations represented by names: Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asaph, Jehoshaphat, Joram, Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amos, Josiah, and Jechoniah. In 2 Kings, it is clear that between the reigns of Joram and Uzziah are three other kings: Ahaziah (2 Kgs 8:25-29), Jehoash (2 Kgs 12:1-21), and Amaziah (2 Kgs 14:1-22). Matthew condenses the genealogy by omitting these three rulers. This is not historical ignorance or oversight. Matthew explains in 1:17 that he has a numerical design to the genealogy of 1:2-16. And since he wants to show fourteen generations, some kings have to be left out. Ahaziah, Jehoash, and Amaziah were all evil kings, so we’re not missing anything edifying. They were a trinity to ignore! Then between Josiah and Jechoniah (aka Jehoiachin), Matthew omits Jehoahaz (2 Kgs 23:31-34) and Jehoiakim (2 Kgs 24:1-2). Again the reason appears to be his literary design. The last reigning king in the Davidic line before the exile was not Jechoniah, however. It was Zedekiah, Jechoniah’s uncle. Zedekiah, then, is another Matthean omission. Why leave out the last king of Judah? Grant Osborne is probably right: Matthew believed the Babylonian exile began under Jechoniah’s reign and so focused on him (Matthew, ZECNT, 66-67). In summary, what were the omissions Matthew made in the second section of his genealogy (Matt 1:6b-11)? (1) Ahaziah (2) Jehoash (3) Amaziah (4) Jehoahaz (5) Jehoiakim (6) Zedekiah Had Matthew included all these names, the generations would have numbered twenty instead of fourteen. Fourteen, for Matthew’s purposes, was very important (cf. Matt 1:17). [End of quote] I would no longer accept this method of appraisal. Firstly, I have by now written several articles identifying Mitch Chase’s (2) Jehoash, and (3) Amaziah, as, respectively, Uzziah and Jotham. For example: Early prophet Zechariah may forge a link with Joash, Uzziah of Judah (7) Early prophet Zechariah may forge a link with Joash, Uzziah of Judah | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And Mitch Chase’s (5) Jehoiakim, I have identified with Manasseh. For example: Matthew’s Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah far from straightforward (7) Matthew's Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah far from straightforward | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu As for Mitch Chase’s (1) Ahaziah, (4) Jehoahaz, and (6) Zedekiah, I have until very recently given very little consideration to these names. But that has now changed, with a recent article of mine being about (4) Jehoahaz, appearing in Matthew’s list, so I suggest, under two alter ego names: Amon and Jehoiachin. Thus: Whatever did happen to King Jehoahaz of Judah? (7) Whatever did happen to King Jehoahaz of Judah? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And I hope shortly to do a similar type of resuscitation with Mitch Chase’s (1) Ahaziah. As for Mitch Chase’s (6) Zedekiah, only a few days ago I had written this about him: I am not interested, since Matthew appears to have deliberately omitted him. For, as Mitch Chase himself has rightly noted: “Why leave out the last king of Judah? Grant Osborne is probably right: Matthew believed the Babylonian exile began under Jechoniah’s [Jehoiachin’s] reign and so focused on him (Matthew, ZECNT, 66-67)”. As in the cases of Jehoahaz and Ahaziah, I am now having serious second thoughts as well about Zedekiah - that he may, in fact, be a duplicate of Manasseh (= Jehoiakim). While I am well aware that any attempt to identify Zedekiah as Manasseh/Jehoiakim will encounter some awkward chronological difficulties, there initially do appear to be certain promising points of comparison. For instance: - Original name, Manasseh, Mattaniah (for Zedekiah) has phonetic (if not meaning) similarity; - Jehoiakim, Zedekiah reigned for 11 years; - Jehoiakim, Zedekiah had Egypt as an ally; - Jehoiakim, Zedekiah fully wicked; - Jehoiakim, Zedekiah revolted against King Nebuchednezzar and went into captivity. So, rather than lean on the latter part of the quote above: “Matthew believed the Babylonian exile began under Jechoniah’s [Jehoiachin’s] reign and so focused on him”, I may now be more inclined to lean on its first part: “Why leave out the last king of Judah?” [Meaning Zedekiah – but who may not have been the last]. I am now disinclined, as well, to think that the number 14 was important to Matthew, as Mitch Chase thinks: “Had Matthew included all these names, the generations would have numbered twenty instead of fourteen. Fourteen, for Matthew’s purposes, was very important (cf. Matt 1:17)”. I now think that this may have been an artificial gloss later attached to the Genealogy. Whilst I am now inclined to believe that no Kings of Judah may have been omitted from Matthew’s genealogical list, I am of the opinion that there are some unwarranted duplications in the text as we now have it: (Tentatively) I think that Abijah was the same as Asa; (Confidently) I think that Hezekiah was Josiah; and that Amon (Haman) was Jehoiachin.

Tuesday, February 20, 2024

Whatever did happen to King Jehoahaz of Judah?

by Damien F. Mackey To get right to the point: King Jehoahaz of Judah has not been omitted from Matthew’s Genealogy at all. He is there under two alter ego names: Amon and Jehoiachin. And Amon-Jehoiachin is the Haman of the Book of Esther. The record of the life of Jehoahaz, qua Jehoahaz, can be read in a paltry few verses in 2 Kings 23:30-34 and in 2 Chronicles 36:1-4. 2 Kings 30 …. And the people of the land took Jehoahaz son of Josiah and anointed him and made him king in place of his father. Jehoahaz King of Judah 31 Jehoahaz was twenty-three years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. His mother’s name was Hamutal daughter of Jeremiah; she was from Libnah. 32 He did evil in the eyes of the LORD, just as his predecessors had done. 33 Pharaoh Necho put him in chains at Riblah in the land of Hamath so that he might not reign in Jerusalem, and he imposed on Judah a levy of a hundred talents of silver and a talent of gold. 34 Pharaoh Necho made Eliakim son of Josiah king in place of his father Josiah and changed Eliakim’s name to Jehoiakim. But he took Jehoahaz and carried him off to Egypt, and there he died. 2 Chronicles 1 And the people of the land took Jehoahaz [Joahaz] son of Josiah and made him king in Jerusalem in place of his father. Jehoahaz King of Judah 2 Jehoahaz was twenty-three years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. 3 The king of Egypt dethroned him in Jerusalem and imposed on Judah a levy of a hundred talents of silver and a talent of gold. 4 The king of Egypt made Eliakim, a brother of Jehoahaz, king over Judah and Jerusalem and changed Eliakim’s name to Jehoiakim. But Necho took Eliakim’s brother Jehoahaz and carried him off to Egypt. These two mini biographies provide us with almost the same details, and wording, but also with a few important variations from the one to the other. Matthew the Evangelist, in his Genealogy of the Kings of Judah (1:7-11), completely omits Jehoahaz, qua Jehoahaz, even though the latter did actually reign for a short period of time in Jerusalem. I am using the phrase “Jehoahaz, qua Jehoahaz”, because, although we know extremely little about this king under that name, there is, so I believe, far more to King Jehoahaz of Judah than is given in the two OT sections above (2 Kings and 2 Chronicles). King Jehoahaz (var. Joahaz, 2 Chronicles 36:1) of Judah was, in fact, a highly significant person in the history of Israel, as we are going to learn. To get right to the point: King Jehoahaz of Judah has not been omitted from Matthew’s Genealogy at all. He is there under two alter ego names: Amon and Jehoiachin. And Amon-Jehoiachin is the Haman of the Book of Esther: King Amon's descent into Aman (Haman) (4) King Amon’s descent into Aman (Haman) | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Jehoahaz as Haman-Amon-Jehoiachin Points in favour • Chronologically, Jehoahaz was contemporaneous with Jehoiachin. • Like Jehoiachin, Jehoahaz “reigned in Jerusalem three months” (cf. 2 Kings 24:8; 23:31). • Very much like Amon, “twenty-two years old” (2 Kings 21:19), Jehoahaz “was twenty-three years old when he became king” (23:31). • The mother of Jehoahaz was Hamutal (2 Kings 23:31), whom I have identified as the Hammedatha in Esther 3:1: “Haman son of Hammedatha”. • Jehoahaz, who “did evil in the eyes of the LORD, just as his predecessors had done” (23:32), was, in this regard, just like Amon (21:20) and Jehoiachin (24:9). I had identified the name “Haman” (var. Aman) of the Book of Esther as Egyptian, Amon – and rightly, I think: Evil persecutor of the Jews, Haman, had Egyptian name (7) Evil persecutor of the Jews, Haman, had Egyptian name | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu My case would now be strengthened considerably if - as I am now arguing - Haman was the same as King Jehoahaz of Judah, who was actually taken captive into Egypt by pharaoh Necho. So we have some welcome coincidences here, further enhancing my previous articles of revision: Jehoahaz/Jehoiachin reigned for “three months”; Jehoahaz’s mother was Hamutal, identified as Haman’s parent, Hammedatha; Jehoahaz was taken captive to Egypt, so an Egyptian name could be expected. Points not in favour • Whilst Jehoiachin, Jehoahaz “reigned in Jerusalem three months” (cf. 2 Kings 24:8; 23:31), Amon “reigned in Jerusalem two years” (21:19). • Very much like Amon, “twenty-two years old” (2 Kings 21:19), Jehoahaz “was twenty-three years old when he became king” (23:31), but Jehoiachin “was eighteen years old when he became king” (24:8). • The mother of Jehoahaz was Hamutal (2 Kings 23:31), but she is not given as the mother of Amon, of Jehoiachin. • Jehoahaz died in Egypt according to 23:34, whereas Haman died in Susa. The rather slight differences in lengths of reign could be accounted for by co-regency. Amon, Jehoiachin, Jehoahaz – all young at the beginning of reign. The mother is admittedly problematical. Hamutal, for Jehoahaz, is not matched by: (Amon) “His mother’s name was Meshullemeth daughter of Haruz; she was from Jotbah” (21;19). (Jehoiachin) “His mother’s name was Nehushta daughter of Elnathan; she was from Jerusalem” (24:8). Grandmother, aunt, may perhaps also be applicable here. We know how tricky genealogies can be. The 2 Chronicles version of Jehoahaz does not mention that he died in Egypt.

Saturday, February 17, 2024

Matthew’s Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah far from straightforward

by Damien F. Mackey “For those who study deeply into the Gospel text, Matthew’s prologue, contained in his first two chapters, is one of the most masterful pieces of writing ever presented to human eyes. The genealogy with which this prologue begins displays its full share of wondrous artistry, but so subtle is its turn that many commentators have failed to grasp the logic that it implies.”. Monsignor John McCarthy Here I am interested only in Matthew 1:7-11, referring to the Kings of Judah. Previously, while I had always been loathe to relinquish the two mighty kings of Judah, Joash and Amaziah (who are not listed), I had acquiesced in the face of good scholarly arguments urging for an understanding of what Matthew himself was trying to tell us. And so I had written as follows on Matthew’s Genealogy, with deference especially to the excellent scholar Monsignor John McCarthy of Sedes Sapientiae (the Vatican): …. [Here firstly quoting Bernard Sadler, “The Structure of Matthew - The structure Saint Matthew gave his gospel” (Sydney, 2013): http://www.structureofmatthew.com/The%20Structure%20of%20Matthew.pdf Understanding the structure of the gospel and how Matthew ordered the various parts to each other and to the whole is important, because unless this structure is correctly understood what Matthew is saying is likely to be misunderstood. Understanding the gospel‘s structure will not prevent readers or commentators making errors of interpretation but misunderstanding the structure certainly will not help. The purpose of this book is threefold: to explain the basic structure Matthew used composing his gospel; to present outlines showing how this basic structure is found throughout the gospel; and to provide a gospel text laid out using those structures. Basic structure Now, contrary to modern perceptions, early Greek versions do show the structure — but not the way modern readers expect. Matthew wrote his gospel in paragraphs grouped into larger symmetrical units called chiasms. A chiasm is a passage of several paragraphs (or other units) so written that the last paragraph of the chiasm is linked to the first paragraph, the second-last paragraph is linked to the second paragraph, and so on. It is the linking of paragraphs this way that binds them together as a chiasm. A chiasm usually has a freestanding central paragraph about which the others are arrayed. Chiasm is the only structure Matthew used in his gospel. The linking of the paragraphs of a chiasm is done by parallelism. Parallelism consists in the repetition of words or phrases. A differently inflected form of a word may be used and occasionally a synonym is used; for example, Matthew uses the word treasures in 6:19 and repeats it in 7:6 as pearls. Sometimes two words are repeated in reverse order to produce what is called inverted parallelism. There are other kinds of chiasms and other uses of parallelism in Hebrew literature but here we are considering only those Matthew used to shape his gospel. …. Wise words indeed by Bernard Sadler (RIP). I next proceeded to: Matthew’s Genealogy of Jesus Christ Question: What does Saint Matthew have to say about Our Lord‘s Genealogy? A merely superficial reading of this text (Matthew 1:6-17) will not suffice to unravel its profound meaning. According to Monsignor John McCarthy, in his Introduction to “The Historical Meaning of the Forty-two Generations in Matthew 1:17” (http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt13.html): For those who study deeply into the Gospel text, Matthew’s prologue, contained in his first two chapters, is one of the most masterful pieces of writing ever presented to human eyes. The genealogy with which this prologue begins displays its full share of wondrous artistry, but so subtle is its turn that many commentators have failed to grasp the logic that it implies. …. [End of quote] In my comment on this, I showed my reluctance to have certain major kings missing from this genealogy: Deep study is indeed required to grasp the logic of it all, because it appears that Matthew has, within his neat triple arrangement of “fourteen generations” (1:17): “Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah” completely dumped four kings of Judah whose history is written in Kings and Chronicles. Those familiar with the sequence of the kings of Judah as recorded in Kings and Chronicles will be struck by the fact that Matthew 1 is missing these: Ahaziah; Joash (Jehoash); and Amaziah, three virtually successive kings - Matthew understandably omits the usurping Queen Athaliah before Joash - and later, Jehoiakim. Four in all! …. What is going on here? Was Saint Matthew the Evangelist mathematically deficient, somewhat like the schoolboy whose ‘sum of all fears’ is actually the fear of all sums? Even a mathematical dope, however, can probably manage to ‘doctor’ basic figures in order to arrive at a pre-determined number! Monsignor McCarthy, when discussing Fr. Raymond Brown’s attempted resolution of this textual difficulty, begins by asking the same question: Could Matthew count? Raymond Brown, reading Matthew's genealogy from the viewpoint of a modern reader, does not plainly see fourteen generations in each of the three sets of names, but by using ingenuity he can "salvage Matthew's reputation as a mathematician." He cautions, for one thing, that we should not expect too much logic in Matthew's reasoning, since omissions are frequently made in tribal genealogies "for reasons that do not seem logical to the Western scientific mind" (pp. 82-84). …. [End of quotes] On the face of things - or, as Monsignor McCarthy puts it – “reading Matthew's genealogy from the viewpoint of a modern reader” - what Saint Matthew may seem to have done would be like, say, a horse owner whose nag had come fourth in the Melbourne Cup, who later decided to re-write the story by completely ignoring any reference to the first three winners (trifecta), so that his horse now came in ‘first’. We however, believing the Scriptures to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, cannot simply leave it at that: a supposed problem of the sacred writer’s own making. Though this is apparently where the more liberally-minded commentators are prepared to leave matters in the case of a scriptural difficulty that it is beyond their wisdom to solve; thereby, as Monsignor McCarthy writes with reference to Fr. Brown, leaving things “in a very precarious state” (see below). … with Fr. Brown, there is a failure to attempt to “salvage” the sacred text. Rightly, therefore, does Monsignor McCarthy proceed to suggest: Brown's reasoning leaves a big problem. In the light of the deficiencies that he sees in Matthew's counting, how can one seriously believe that Matthew really shows by his 3 x 14 pattern that "God planned from the beginning and with precision the Messiah's origins" …? What kind of precision is this? And what could the number fourteen seriously mean in the message of Matthew? Brown believes that for Matthew fourteen was, indeed, "the magic number" … but he cannot surmise what that number was supposed to mean. He knows of no special symbolism attached to the number fourteen, and, therefore, he cannot grasp at all the point that Matthew is trying to make. So, rather than "salvage" Matthew's reputation as a theologian, Brown leaves Matthew's theology of 3 x 14 generations in a very precarious state. [End of quote] Monsignor McCarthy will, like Bernard Sadler above, seek to determine what Matthew himself is saying. Thus: Let us look at the plain message of the text of Mt 1:17 Contrary to what Fr. Brown had imagined: ― Matthew is not plainly saying that there were fourteen immediate biological generations in each period. In fact, when in his opening verse Matthew speaks of Jesus as "Son of David, son of Abraham," he is setting up a definition of terms which enlarges the notion of a generation. The Evangelist’s ways are not our ways - not how we might operate in a modern context. Accordingly, Monsignor McCarthy will allow Matthew to speak for himself: Just as Matthew can use the word 'son' to mean any descendant in the direct line, so can he use the word 'begot' to mean any ancestor in the direct line. Therefore, he does not err in saying in the second set of names that "Joram [Jehoram] begot Oziah [Uzziah]" (Mt 1:8), even though there were three immediate biological generations in between. Matthew is saying that there were fourteen undisqualified generations in each period of time, and his point has force as long as there is a discernible reason for omitting some of the immediate generations in keeping with the purpose of his writing. [End of quote] This brings us to that exceedingly interesting matter of the “discernible reason for omitting some of the immediate generations”. For, how to justify bundling out of a genealogical list two such mighty Judaean kings as Jehoash [Joash] and Amaziah? Between them they occupied the throne of Jerusalem for about three quarters of a century! Well, say some liberals, Matthew was using faulty king lists. No, say some conservatives, those omitted kings of Judah were very evil, and that is why Matthew had chosen to ignore them. But, can that really be the case? 2 Kings 12:2: ― “[Jehoash] did what was right in the eyes of the Lord all the years Jehoiada the priest instructed him”. 2 Kings 14:3: ― “[Amaziah] did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, but not as his father David had done. In everything he followed the example of his father Joash”. Why, then, does Matthew’s Genealogy include the likes of Jehoram (Joram), and Ahaz (Achaz), for instance, about whom Kings and Chronicles have nothing whatsoever favourable to say? 2 Chronicles 21:6 – “[Jehoram] followed the ways of the kings of Israel, as Ahab’s family had done, because his wife was Ahab’s daughter. So he did what the Lord considered evil”. 2 Kings 16:2-4 ― “Unlike David his father, [Ahaz] did not do what was right in the eyes of the Lord his God. He followed the ways of the kings of Israel and even sacrificed his son in the fire, engaging in the detestable practices of the nations the Lord had driven out before the Israelites”. Monsignor John McCarthy, wisely basing himself upon the [Church] Fathers, seems to have come up with a plausible explanation for why these particular kings were omitted from the genealogy, and why the name of the wicked Jehoram, for instance, was genealogically preserved: Regarding the second set of "fourteen" generations, we read that "Joram begot Oziah" (Mt 1:18). But we know that Joram was actually the great-great-grandfather of Oziah, because Oziah is another name for Azariah (cf. 2 Chr 26:1; 2 Kg [4 Kg] 14:21), and in 1 Chr 3:11-12 we read: "and Joram begot Ochoziah, from whom sprang Joas[h], and his son Amasiah begot Azariah." Hence, Matthew omits the generations of Ochoziah, Joas, and Amasiah from his list, and the judgments given in the Old Testament upon these people may tell us why. St. Jerome … sees a reason in the fact that Joram married Athalia, the daughter of Jezebel of Sidon, who drew him deeper and deeper into the practices of idolatry, and that the three generations of sons succeeding him continued in the worship of idols. In the very first of the Ten Commandments given by God through Moses on Mount Sinai it was stated: "Thou shalt not have foreign gods before me. ... Thou shalt not adore or serve them. I am the Lord thy God, powerful and jealous, visiting the iniquity of fathers upon their children unto the third and fourth generation of those that hate me, and showing mercy unto thousands to those that love me and keep my commandments" (Ex 20:3-6). Now Solomon was a sinner and an idolater (1 Kg f3 Kg] 11: 7-8), but he had a good man for his father and was therefore not punished in his own generation (1 Kg [3 Kg] 11:12). St. Augustine … points out that the same was true of Joram, who had Josaphat for his father, and therefore did not have his name removed from Matthew's genealogy (cf. 2 Chr 21:7). St. John Chrysostom … adds the further reason that the Lord had ordered the house of Ahab to be extirpated from the face of the earth (2 Kg [4 Kg] 9:8), and the three kings eliminated by Matthew were, as descendants of Athalia, of the seed of Ahab. Jehu eradicated the worship of Baal from Israel, but he did not forsake the golden calves in Bethel and Dan. Nevertheless, the Lord said to him: "Because you have diligently performed what was right and pleasing in my eyes and have done to the house of Ahab in keeping with everything that was in my heart, your children shall sit upon the throne of Israel unto the fourth generation (2 Kg [4 Kg] 10:28-31). So it is interesting to note that while these generations of Jehu were inserted into the royal lineage of Israel, the three generations of Ahab were taken out of the genealogy of Jesus by the judgment of God through the inspired pen of St. Matthew. [End of quote] According to the revision that I have undertaken, though, there is no reason for major kings like Joash [Jehoash] and Amaziah to be dumped. (I can accept, perhaps, that the ephemeral and idolatrous Ahaziah, son of queen Athaliah, might be bypassed). Nor have Joash and Amaziah been dumped, for I find them in their alter egos, respectively, Uzziah and Jotham. The King Joash, who would ultimately murder the holy prophet Zechariah, son of Jehoiada, was the same as the King Uzziah who would, for a time, come under the spiritual influence of that Zechariah, “who instructed him in the fear of God” (cf. 2 Chronicles 24:22; 26:5). Similarly, the seemingly missing King Jehoiakim can be found in his alter ego, Manasseh: Manasseh - Jehoiakim (7) Manasseh - Jehoiakim | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu So far, I have explained that some apparently missing kings (except for Ahaziah?) are not actually missing from Matthew’s genealogical list. But, then, another problem presents itself according to my revision. There are duplicated kings as well in Matthew’s list as we currently have it. Thus: Potentially Abijah is Asa (common mother, Maacah); Hezekiah is certainly Josiah; and Amon is certainly Jeconiah. For an explanation of each of these three sets, see e.g. my articles, respectively: Maacah mother of Abijah, Asa (5) Maacah mother of Abijah, Asa | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Damien F. Mackey’s A Tale of Two Theses (5) Damien F. Mackey’s A Tale of Two Theses | Damien Mackey – Academia.edu and: King Amon’s descent into Aman (Haman) (5) King Amon's descent into Aman (Haman) | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu When this revision is brought into effect, then we do not end up with the requisite fourteen kings. How many kings does this give us? Including David, whom some don’t, we get only twelve kings: 1. David; 2. Solomon; 3. Rehoboam; 4. Asa (Abijah); 5. Jehoshaphat; 6. Jehoram; 7. Uzziah (Joash); 8. Jotham (Amaziah); 9. Ahaz; 10. Hezekiah (Josiah); 11. Manasseh (Jehoiakim); 12. Amon (Jehoiachin). Or thirteen if my Abijah = Asa is rejected. May I be so bold as to ask if verse 17: “Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah”, which occurs only once, may be a neat mathematical gloss that was not actually part of the original text? An artificial construct, perhaps? After all, what vital significance did the number “fourteen” have in the Bible, anyway?

Friday, February 16, 2024

Divine Mercy loathes tepidity, lukewarmness

‘I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold— I am about to spit you out of my mouth’. Revelation 3:15-16 For the ninth day, Christ asked Saint Faustina to pray for the sake of all the souls who have become lukewarm in their belief. She recorded the following words of Our Lord in her diary: “Today bring to Me the Souls who have become Lukewarm, and immerse them in the abyss of My mercy. These souls wound My Heart most painfully. My soul suffered the most dreadful loathing in the Garden of Olives because of lukewarm souls. They were the reason I cried out: ‘Father, take this cup away from Me, if it be Your will.’ For them, the last hope of salvation is to run to My mercy.” Divine Mercy Novena Taken from: https://www.thedivinemercy.org/articles/when-lukewarm-soul-reheated When a Lukewarm Soul is Reheated MAY 07 2019 David Van Sise, a recovering lukewarm soul, knows all about that particular character flaw that keeps some souls from stepping out in faith. He knows, for instance, what Jesus told St. Faustina about lukewarm souls - that "My soul suffered the most dreadful loathing in the Garden of Olives because of lukewarm souls" (Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska, 1228). And how does the Lord define lukewarm souls? As "souls who thwart My efforts" (Diary, 1682). Thwarting Jesus' efforts certainly was never David's intention. But in retrospect, a spiritually lukewarm David Van Sise meant that, among other things, Jesus' Divine Mercy message wasn't reaching certain hardened criminals in a New Jersey maximum security federal prison. That's no longer the case. David, an insurance industry executive from East Windsor, New Jersey, now engages in prison ministry, each week going cell to cell helping the greatest of sinners come to know of God's love for them. His own lukewarm faith began heating up in 2014 when he discovered a Marian Press pamphlet explaining the Divine Mercy Chaplet. "It spoke to my heart," said David. "I said to my wife, Chrystyna, 'This St. Faustina - she has a Diary, too.' Chrystyna said, 'I know,' and she pulled it out and handed it to me. I just kept reading and reading the Diary. I'm still reading it." He felt the call to learn every-thing he could about Divine Mercy. Eventually, he learned of the National Shrine of The Divine Mercy. He and Chrystyna visited. During Mass, he felt the Lord speak to his heart, telling him to come to the Shrine on the first Sunday of every month and to bring people with him. He's been doing that ever since. "I went from being a lukewarm Catholic, raised in the faith, but I didn't live my faith," he said. "I lived as if I wasn't worthy of God's love. But then I read the Diary and came to know that God's mercy is for everybody - the greater the sinner, the greater the right I have to His mercy (see Diary, 723). I realized He never turned His back to me. He was waiting for me with His arms stretched." During the Church's extraordinary Jubilee Year of Mercy three years ago, David vowed to obey the command Jesus gave to the world through St. Faustina when He said, "I demand from you deeds of mercy, which are to arise out of love for Me" (Diary, 742). He decided to spend the year engaging in each of the works of mercy. But when he got to "Visit the imprisoned," he seized up. "That's just not for me," he concluded. But he eventually went to a workshop led by prison ministers and felt called to help out. Now he looks forward to his weekly prison visits. Each week, in the prison's toughest section, he goes cell to cell and offers himself as a merciful presence and listening ear. He offers the inmates materials on Divine Mercy and Our Lady. He offers to pray for them. "I make the Sign of the Cross, and I do my best to ask the Lord to speak through me and give me the words that are going to bring some light to them," David says. "And many times afterwards they're like, 'Wow, man. Thanks a lot. That was really good.'" Why does he choose to minister to an inmate population whom society has declared the worst of the worst? "What I see is that they thirst for something," David says. "They have an emptiness in their hearts, and many of them have spent their whole lives filling that with drugs, alcohol, pornography, and other vices, and there's never been an opportunity for them to put anything good inside that emptiness." He has witnessed conversions. Mostly, he's witnessed inmates finding comfort in the simple fact that someone cares and that Jesus never gives up on us.

“Sacred Heart of Jesus, burning with love of us, inflame our hearts with love of Thee”

by Damien F. Mackey “May we stand within the fire Of your Sacred Heart, and raise To our God in joyful choir All creation’s song of praise”. James P. McAuley Professor James P. McAuley, the author of this great hymn to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, biblically symbolised in this stanza by king Nebuchednezzar’s Fiery Furnace (Daniel 3:8-38), was my teacher of English around 1970, when I was doing a Bachelor of Arts degree at the University of Tasmania. I recall that professor McAuley was an extremely rigorous teacher, invariably returning one’s essays covered with his red inked, highly-critical comments. For more, see my article: MEMORIES OF AUSTRALIAN POET, PROFESSOR JAMES P. MCAULEY (5) Memories of Australian poet, professor James P. McAuley | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu His mystical hymn (Jesus, in Your Heart We Find, Gather Australia, 464) reads in full: Jesus, in your heart we find Love of the Father and mankind. These two loves to us impart – Divine love in a human heart. May we stand within the fire Of your Sacred Heart, and raise To our God in joyful choir All creation’s song of praise. In our hearts from roots of pride Deadly growths of evil flower; But from Jesus’ wounded side Streams the sacramental power. To the depths within your heart Draw us with divine desire, Hide us, heal us, and impart Your own love’s transforming fire. The fiercely anti-Communist James McAuley, who was born in Sydney (Australia) in 1917 (my father William was born in Tasmania that very same year), moved to Hobart (Tasmania) in 1960, where his large family stayed for a time with our large family, in Lenah Valley. This fact never gets mentioned in any of the biographies of the professor that I have read. However, I certainly recall the cramped accommodation endured at the time, and some of the incidents associated with it all. The McAuley family became prominent musically (even including drums in the choir) in our local parish church, appropriately Sacred Heart, in New Town. Here is one brief biography of “James McAuley (1917 - 1976)”: https://www.poetrylibrary.edu.au/poets/mcauley-james James McAuley was born in Lakemba, in the western suburbs of Sydney, in 1917, the son of grazier and real estate speculator, Patrick McAuley, and his wife Mary (née Judge). He spent most of his childhood at Homebush, where the family moved after his father’s retirement, and attended Homebush Public School. Displaying early literary and musical talents, McAuley was sent to the selective public school Fort Street Boys High School, where he became school captain and won prizes for his writing; a number of his earliest poems appeared in the school magazine, The Fortian. In 1935 he matriculated to the University of Sydney, where he studied English and philosophy. At university he continued to hone his poetic craft, contributing poems to the student magazine Hermes, where he also became one of the editors. After graduating with a B.A. (Hons) in 1938, he went on to complete an M.A., writing a thesis on the influence of symbolism in English, French and German literature. From the late 1930s he supported himself in various tutoring and teaching positions, and in 1942 took up a teacher’s scholarship, completed a Diploma of Education and was appointed to Newcastle Boys Junior High School. In June 1942 he married a fellow teacher, Norma Elizabeth Abernethy. In January 1943, McAuley was called up for national service in the Militia, and quickly transferred to the Australian Imperial Force. In January 1944 he was commissioned in the Melbourne-based Army Directorate of Civil Affairs, where he renewed his association with another Fort Street graduate, Harold Stewart. While working at the Army Directorate in 1944, McAuley and Stewart concocted the ‘Ern Malley’ hoax, intending to expose what they saw as a lack of meaning in modernist literature and art. The target of the hoax was Max Harris, the Adelaide-based editor of Angry Penguins magazine and champion of literary modernism. When Harris took the bait and published the poems of ‘Ern Malley,’ Stewart and McAuley were (eventually) revealed as the actual authors, and admitted having concocted a fictitious identity for ‘Ern’ and using partly random composition methods to produce the poems. While the hoax did cause significant embarrassment to Harris—and has been seen by some as inhibiting the development of literary modernism in Australia—the poems of ‘Ern Malley’ have remained in print and continue to be a subject of significant critical debate: a consequence Stewart and McAuley surely did not intend. In 1946, McAuley published his first collection of poetry (in his own name), Under Aldebaran. After the war, McAuley became a lecturer at the Australian School of Pacific Administration, first in Canberra then Sydney, a position he retained until 1959. While at the School he became deeply interested in the then Australian administered Territory of Papua and New Guinea, and was profoundly influenced by the Roman Catholic missionary archbishop Alain Marie Guynot de Boismenu (1870–1953). In 1952, McAuley converted to Catholicism, which would henceforth have a defining influence on his intellectual life. Immersing himself in Cold War politics, he became associated with the radical Catholic ideologue B.A. Santamaria, and was instrumental in the anti-Communist agitation that split the Labor movement and resulted in formation of the Democratic Labor Party in the mid-1950s. In 1955, he joined the Australian branch of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, a conservative, anti-Communist organisation, funded in part by the CIA, and became editor of its journal, Quadrant. McAuley’s reputation as a poet was furthered with the publication of his second collection, A Vision of Ceremony, in 1956, and his credentials as a conservative public intellectual were bolstered by the publication of a collection of critical essays, The End of Modernity: Essays on Literature, Art and Culture (1959). In 1960 McAuley and his family moved to Hobart, where he took up a position at the University of Tasmania, and the following year he was appointed to the chair of English at the University. Despite his academic duties he continued to write and publish poetry, including his epic poem Captain Quiros (1964), and the collection Surprises of the Sun (1969), which included a poem sequence ‘On the Western Line,’ based on McAuley’s childhood experiences in the Western suburbs of Sydney. During the 1960s he also published a number of critical works, including a monograph on the work of Christopher Brennan (1963), a general introduction to poetics, A Primer of English Versification (1966), and a book-length study of Australian poetry entitled The Personal Element in Australian Poetry (1970). He did not abandon his interest in politics, publishing and organising in support of Australian involvement in the Vietnam War. In 1970, McAuley was diagnosed with bowel cancer. After recovering from the illness, he devoted increased time and energy to ensuring his literary legacy. His Collected Poems appeared in 1971, and was a joint winner of the Grace Leven Prize in that year. In 1975, he published a second collection of his essays, The Grammar of the Real: Selected Prose, 1959–1974, and a collection of his critical work on Australian poetry, A Map of Australian Verse: The Twentieth Century. Two collections of his later poetry appeared in 1976: Time Given: Poems 1970–1976, and Music Late at Night: Poems 1970–1973. Early in 1976, McAuley was diagnosed with liver cancer; he died on 15 October that year, in Hobart. His posthumous publications included the poetry collection, ‘A World of its Own’ (1977), a collection of his writing edited by his long-time friend Leonie Kramer (James McAuley: Poetry, Essays and Personal Commentary, UQP, 1988), and a revised volume of his Collected Poems (1994). A significant and often controversial figure in the Australian post-War literary landscape, McAuley’s achievement as a poet has in recent years often been overshadowed by debates over his role as a right-wing intellectual. While unquestionably seen as a major Australian poet in his own time, it is a lasting irony that critical interest in McAuley’s work since his death has been largely eclipsed by the interest in his short-lived creation ‘Ern Malley.’ [End of quote] It is rumoured that McAuley, when told that he would need to have part of his colon removed, and ever the grammarian, quipped: “Better a semi-colon than a full stop!” The Fiery Heart of Jesus Catholics, particularly, like to see in king Nebuchednezzar’s Fiery Furnace, in which the three youths sang their hymns of praise to God the Creator, a symbol of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. For, those who choose to live mystically within the fiery Heart of Jesus are not harmed, but, instead, are filled with inexpressible joy and an exuberant praise of God. There is a saying that we must either burn within the Heart of Jesus, or we burn outside of It. The latter is a most harmful and unpleasant burning. And it can be fully realised in Hell. Stephen Beale has written an article (2018) for the purpose of “Explaining the strange symbolism of the Sacred Heart”: https://aleteia.org/2018/06/08/explaining-the-strange-symbolism-of-the-sacred-heart/ What do the flames, light, arrows, and crown of thorns mean? The Sacred Heart is among the most familiar and moving of Catholic devotional images. But its symbolism can also be strange. As we mark the Feast of the Sacred Heart early this month, here is a look at the explanation behind some of the features of the Sacred Heart. The flames. The Sacred Heart most obviously brings to mind the Passion of Christ on the cross. There is the crown of thorns, the cross, usually atop the heart, and the wound from the spear that pierced His side. But why is the Sacred Heart always shown as if it’s on fire? That certainly did not happen at the crucifixion. There are three reasons behind this. First, we have to remember that Christ’s self-offering on the cross was the one-time perfect consummation of all the sacrifices of the Old Testament. This necessarily includes burnt offerings, which were the highest form of sacrifices in ancient Israel, according to The Jewish Encyclopedia. An early form of such sacrifices was what Abraham set out to do with Isaac, hence the wood he had his son collect beforehand. Second, fire is always associated with the essence of divinity in the Old Testament. Think back to the burning bush that spoke to Moses, the cloud of fire that settled on Sinai, and the flames from above that consumed the sacrifice of Elijah. This explanation fits with the gospel account of the crucifixion, in which the piercing of Christ’s side revealed His heart at the same time that the curtain of the temple was torn, unveiling the holy of holies where God was present. Finally, the image of fire associated with heart represents Christ’s passionate love for us. One 19th-century French devotional card has these words arched above the Sacred Heart—Voilà ce Cœur qui a tant aimé les hommes, which roughly translates to: “Here is the heart that loved men so much.” One traditional exclamation is, “Sacred Heart of Jesus, burning with love of us, inflame our hearts with love of Thee.” We see this actually happen in the gospels, where the disciples on the road to Emmaus realized that their hearts had been “burning” after their encounter with Jesus. …. The rays of light. Look closer at the image of the Sacred Heart. There is something else framing it besides the flames. They are rays of light. In John 8:12, Christ declares that He is the “light of the world.” In Revelation 21:23, we are told that in the new Jerusalem at the end of times there will be no light from the sun or moon because the Lamb of God—that is, Jesus—will be its source of light. Light, like fire, is a symbol of divinity. Think of the Transfiguration and the blinding light that Paul experienced on the road to Damascus. As the light of the world, Christ is also the one who “enlightens” us, revealing God to us. The Sacred Heart constitutes the climax of divine self-revelation, showing us the depths of God’s love for us. …. The arrows. The crown of thorns and the spear make sense. But sometimes the Sacred Heart is also depicted with arrows. Again, that’s not something we find in the gospels. One explanation is that the arrow represents sin. This is reportedly what our Lord Himself said in a private revelation to St. Mary of St. Peter. (See here for more.) The arrow could also draw upon an ancient Roman metaphor for love, which, according to ancient myth, occurred when the god Cupid shot an arrow through the hearts of lovers (as this author points out). The crown of thorns. Unlike the arrows, the crown of thorns is reported in the gospels. But in traditional images it encircles the Sacred Heart, whereas in Scripture the crown was fixed to Jesus’ head. One traditional account offers this interpretation, describing those who are devoted to it: “They saw the crown transferred from His head to His heart; they felt that its sharp points had always pierced there; they understood that the Passion was the crucifixion of a heart” (The Heart of the Gospel: Traits of the Sacred Heart by Francis Patrick Donnelly, published in 1911 by the Apostleship of Prayer). In other words, wrapping the crown around the heart emphasizes the fact that Christ felt His wounds to the depths of His heart. Moreover, after the resurrection, the crown of thorns becomes a crown of victory. Donnelly hints at this as well: “From the weapons of His enemy, from cross and crown and opened Heart, our conquering leader fashioned a trophy which was the best testimony of His love.” In ancient gladiatorial contests, the victor was crowned. In the Revelation 19:12, Christ wears “many crowns” and believers who are victorious over sin and Satan will receive the “crown of life” (Revelation 2:10). Finally, according to St. Margaret Mary Alacoque, the seventeenth French nun who helped start the devotion, the points of the thorns are the many individual sins of people, pricking the heart of Jesus. As she put it in a letter, recounting the personal vision she had received, “I saw this divine Heart as on a throne of flames, more brilliant than the sun and transparent as crystal. It had Its adorable wound and was encircled with a crown of thorns, which signified the pricks our sins caused Him.” The cross. Like the thorns, the cross is both rooted in the gospels but also displayed in a way that does not follow them in every detail. There is almost an inversion of the crucifixion. In the gospels, Christ hung on the cross, His heart correspondingly dwarfed by its beams. But in images of the Sacred Heart, it is now enlarged and the cross has shrunk. Moreover, rather than the heart being nailed to the cross, the cross now seems ‘planted’ in the heart—as St. Margaret Mary Alacoque put it—if to say to us that the entire reality of the crucifixion derives its meaning from and—cannot be understood apart from—the heart of Jesus. As Donnelly wrote, “The Heart [is] … forever supporting the weight of a Cross.” Truly, it is the heart of Jesus that makes the cross meaningful for us today.