GODLINESS AT HOME

GODLINESS AT HOME

1 Peter 3:1-2

Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behaviour of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. (NIVUK)

Read the verses around this Bible passage from the Internet Bible: in English, and many other languages

In the previous chapter (1 Peter 2:1-25), we have seen the need to submit to Christ, the government, the church and our human employers - even if that involved suffering for belonging to Jesus.  Peter's reason was that Christ submitted to the suffering of the cross, in order to set us free from sin to serve the Lord.  In the same wicked world, we will suffer too when we identify closely with Jesus.  Now Peter’s teaching focuses on the home and marriage, especially where one partner follows Jesus and the other does not. Although human pride resents the idea of submission, it is an essential Biblical principle of willingly putting yourself under the authority of another.  Submission can be forced onto people, and that always looks ugly; but God's plan is for us to choose to submit out of reverence for Christ (Ephesians 5:21).  At home, cultural differences may allow wives to have either a lot of freedom, or only a little.  But Peter is not reflecting 1st century culture, or prescribing a cultural style.  In instructing wives to submit he is not demanding subjugation, the obliteration of personal identity or the denial of the responsibility to make personal decisions. Peter is saying that as Christ submitted Himself to Father God as a willing choice and as the church chooses to place itself under the headship of Christ, so the wife finds her fulfilment in accepting the headship of her husband (Ephesians 5:22-33), even if he is not a believer.  Peter is not asking Christian wives to nag or force their unbelieving husbands into faith in Jesus.  Rather he is teaching that unbelieving husbands will be motivated to enquire about the gospel when they see it lived out at home. Conversely, a rebellious and argumentative wife is no advertisement for the gospel: and the same is true for husbands! Love is always best expressed in submission and sacrifice.  It is the free, willing and glad surrender of personal rights in order to give another person the best that can be given.  It was like that for Jesus too.  This passage is not saying that wives should be oppressed or in any way enslaved; but rather it is a healthy reminder that proud assertion and arrogant defiance have no place in gospel ministry.  In the home environment, godliness is best demonstrated in purity and gracious honour.  Although people may think that faith in Jesus is foolish, watching holiness lived out at close-quarters is the ultimate compelling evidence that Jesus really does transform lives; and it leads others to desire Him for themselves.

Father God. Thank You that Jesus Christ’s submission to You did not demean Him but rather enabled Him to fulfil His true purpose on earth. Forgive me for my pride in refusing to submit to other people, even to others in my family. Despite the cultural models of family life around me, may I honour You by submitting to the needs of others at home: not because it is my duty, but because I want to love them for Your sake. Please show me the way back to pleasing You through the example of Jesus who sacrificed everything for me. In His Name. Amen.

SLAVERY

TOUGH WORK

1 Peter 2:18

Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. (NIVUK)

Slavery has been abolished in many parts of the world... officially.  But hard and harsh employments persist, sometimes in the most surprising places.  The smiling management face may hide a mean heart, or years of traditional worker-abuse might have become accepted as normality. There is nothing new in this, and although we hope that generous and friendly employers predominate, nevertheless, it is a tough life at work for some. So, Peter addresses an important question, ‘How should a believer respond to being harshly treated at work?’ The law may give rights to workers, but the court is not a good place to build relationships for Christ.  Running away can relieve an immediate problem but cannot secure the future. Peter's advice is to stay and learn submission. You can almost hear his readers say, ‘But I am forced to submit, and it is unjust!’  However, there is a huge difference between the resentment of unwilling submission, and a deliberate choice to put yourself under another's authority.  Take Jesus as an example: He was not forced to the cross.  He willingly submitted Himself to His Father's will and chose to undergo the suffering, in obedience, out of love and with joy (Hebrews 12:2). Jesus’ example is the key to understanding how to relate with injustice.  Although He was God in a human body, Jesus had no problem in becoming a servant, submitting Himself to Father God (Philippians 2:3-8).  Although crucifixion was shameful and dreadfully painful, Jesus endured it with joy because He knew that in the end He would be with His Father.  Hebrews 12:2-3 tells us that Christ’s motivation - to please His Father - needs to be ours.  Indeed, without that eternal perspective every injustice will only make us resentful and bitter. The Christian finds joy in following the same principle. We belong to the Lord.  Because He has bought us, He owns us.  We are also called to serve Him, and so in that sense, He is our Boss as well as our God.  We are engaged in His family business.  He wants to use every one of our daily encounters to demonstrate His love, power, mercy and grace, to us, and to those around us.  The way we react to personal injustice therefore shows how much or little we love and trust the Lord.  The 'extra mile' (Matthew 5:40-42) we travel for our unreasonable manager shows that he/she does not own us - we do it for the Lord. He will reward us (Matthew 5:12). So, every day we are working for God (Colossians 3:23); and our human employment is the opportunity to prove it.

Lord God Almighty. Thank You for calling me to work with You in Your family business, to rescue sinners and glorify Your Name. Forgive me when resentment rises in me, because I have been treated unjustly, and I allow bitterness and hatred to develop. When people oppress me, help me to remember how some of the powerful, rich and religious people treated Jesus. May my love for You grow more and more, so that I am willing to submit myself to whatever You command, and to do so without bitterness, resentment or fear. In Jesus’ Name. Amen.

NEWMAN, ST. JOHN HENRY: GOOD FRIDAY

None Was Equal to the Weight but God

St. John Henry Newman

FRIDAY, APRIL 10, 2020

He had, my dear brethren, to bear the weight of sin; He had to bear your sins; He had to bear the sins of the whole world. Sin is an easy thing to us; we think little of it; we do not understand how the Creator can think much of it; we cannot bring our imagination to believe that it deserves retribution, and, when even in this world punishments follow upon it, we explain them away or turn our minds from them.

But consider what sin is in itself; it is rebellion against God; it is a traitor’s act who aims at the overthrow and death of His sovereign; it is that, if I may use a strong expression, which, could the Divine Governor of the world cease to be, would be sufficient to bring it about.

Sin is the mortal enemy of the All-holy, so that He and it cannot be together; and as the All-holy drives it from His presence into the outer darkness, so, if God could be less than God, it is sin that would have power to make Him less. And here observe, my brethren, that when once Almighty Love, by taking flesh, entered this created system, and submitted Himself to its laws, then forthwith this antagonist of good and truth, taking advantage of the opportunity, flew at that flesh which He had taken, and fixed on it, and was its death.

The envy of the Pharisees, the treachery of Judas, and the madness of the people, were but the instrument or the expression of the enmity which sin felt towards Eternal Purity as soon as, in infinite mercy towards men, He put Himself within its reach. Sin could not touch His Divine Majesty; but it could assail Him in that way in which He allowed Himself to be assailed, that is, through the medium of His humanity. And in the issue, in the death of God incarnate, you are but taught, my brethren, what sin is in itself, and what it was which then was falling, in its hour and in its strength, upon His human nature, when He allowed that nature to be so filled with horror and dismay at the very anticipation.

There, then, in that most awful hour, knelt the Saviour of the world, putting off the defences of His divinity, dismissing His reluctant Angels, who in myriads were ready at His call, and opening His arms, baring His breast, sinless as He was, to the assault of His foe – of a foe whose breath was a pestilence, and whose embrace was an agony. There He knelt, motionless and still, while the vile and horrible fiend clad His spirit in a robe steeped in all that is hateful and heinous in human crime, which clung close round His heart, and filled His conscience, and found its way into every sense and pore of His mind, and spread over Him a moral leprosy, till He almost felt Himself to be that which He never could be, and which His foe would fain have made Him.

Oh, the horror, when He looked, and did not know Himself, and felt as a foul and loathsome sinner, from His vivid perception of that mass of corruption which poured over His head and ran down even to the skirts of His garments! Oh, the distraction, when He found His eyes, and hands, and feet, and lips, and heart, as if the members of the Evil One, and not of God!

*

Are these the hands of the Immaculate Lamb of God, once innocent, but now red with ten thousand barbarous deeds of blood? Are these His lips, not uttering prayer, and praise, and holy blessings, but as if defiled with oaths, and blasphemies, and doctrines of devils? Or His eyes, profaned as they are by all the evil visions and idolatrous fascinations for which men have abandoned their adorable Creator? And His ears, they ring with sounds of revelry and of strife; and His heart is frozen with avarice, and cruelty, and unbelief; and His very memory is laden with every sin which has been committed since the fall, in all regions of the earth, with the pride of the old giants, and the lusts of the five cities, and the obduracy of Egypt, and the ambition of Babel, and the unthankfulness and scorn of Israel.

Oh, who does not know the misery of a haunting thought which comes again and again, in spite of rejection, to annoy, if it cannot seduce? Or of some odious and sickening imagination, in no sense one’s own, but forced upon the mind from without? Or of evil knowledge, gained with or without a man’s fault, but which he would give a great price to be rid of at once and for ever? And adversaries such as these gather around Thee, Blessed Lord, in millions now; they come in troops more numerous than the locust or the palmerworm, or the plagues of hail, and flies, and frogs, which were sent against Pharaoh.

Of the living and of the dead and of the as yet unborn, of the lost and of the saved, of Thy people and of strangers, of sinners and of saints, all sins are there. Thy dearest are there, Thy saints and Thy chosen are upon Thee; Thy three Apostles, Peter, James, and John; but not as comforters, but as accusers, like the friends of Job, “sprinkling dust towards heaven,” and heaping curses on Thy head. All are there but one; one only is not there, one only; for she who had no part in sin, she only could console Thee, and therefore she is not nigh.

She will be near Thee on the Cross, she is separated from Thee in the garden. She has been Thy companion and Thy confidant through Thy life, she interchanged with Thee the pure thoughts and holy meditations of thirty years; but her virgin ear may not take in, nor may her immaculate heart conceive, what now is in vision before Thee.

None was equal to the weight but God; sometimes before Thy saints Thou hast brought the image of a single sin, as it appears in the light of Thy countenance, or of venial sins, not mortal; and they have told us that the sight did all but kill them, nay, would have killed them, had it not been instantly withdrawn.

The Mother of God, for all her sanctity, nay by reason of it, could not have borne even one brood of that innumerable progeny of Satan which now compasses Thee about. It is the long history of a world, and God alone can bear the load of it. Hopes blighted, vows broken, lights quenched, warnings scorned, opportunities lost; the innocent betrayed, the young hardened, the penitent relapsing, the just overcome, the aged failing; the sophistry of misbelief, the wilfulness of passion, the obduracy of pride, the tyranny of habit, the canker of remorse, the wasting fever of care, the anguish of shame, the pining of disappointment, the sickness of despair; such cruel, such pitiable spectacles, such heartrending, revolting, detestable, maddening scenes; nay, the haggard faces, the convulsed lips, the flushed cheek, the dark brow of the willing slaves of evil, they are all before Him now; they are upon Him and in Him.

They are with Him instead of that ineffable peace which has inhabited His soul since the moment of His conception. They are upon Him, they are all but His own; He cries to His Father as if He were the criminal, not the victim; His agony takes the form of guilt and compunction. He is doing penance, He is making confession, He is exercising contrition, with a reality and a virtue infinitely greater than that of all saints and penitents together; for He is the One Victim for us all, the sole Satisfaction, the real Penitent, all but the real sinner. . . .

He has not yet exhausted that full chalice, from which at first His natural infirmity shrank. The seizure and the arraignment, and the buffeting, and the prison, and the trial, and the mocking, and the passing to and fro, and the scourging, and the crown of thorns, and the slow march to Calvary, and the crucifixion, these are all to come. A night and a day, hour after hour, is slowly to run out before the end comes, and the satisfaction is completed.

And then, when the appointed moment arrived, and He gave the word, as His passion had begun with His soul, with the soul did it end. He did not die of bodily exhaustion, or of bodily pain; at His will His tormented Heart broke, and He commended His Spirit to the Father.

– from Discourse 16

CATHOLICS AND THE BIBLE

CATHOLICS AND THE BIBLE

Catholics are often accused of arguing in a “vicious circle,” proving the Bible by the Church, and the Church by the Bible. We must be careful to avoid this by explaining that we put the Church before the Bible because the Church existed first and wrote and compiled the Bible. The authority of the Bible depends on that of the Church. Then we use the Bible to prove the Church; we use it not as an inspired volume, but merely as a historical document. From the Gospels as historical documents we learn that Christ founded a Church, but the authority of the Gospels as inspired writings rests on the word of the Church.

We can define the Bible as “a collection of writings, which the Church of God has solemnly recognized as inspired” (Catholic Encyclopedia). What is the non-Catholic’s definition? Paul says, indeed: “All Scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16, 17). But he gives no list of Scriptures nor any method for discerning which they are.

The Scriptures themselves assert that they are incomplete and send us to the Church. “Many other signs also did Jesus . . . which are not written.” (John 20:30). “Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest ?” . . . . “How can I, unless some man show me” (Acts 8:30, 31).

It is impossible to get unanimity of impression in different ages and countries. Books appeal to one date and country, not to another: The Epistle of Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, and several gospels at first thought inspired were rejected by the Church. On the other hand, the Books of Kings, Chronicles, and Ecclesiastes are disputed by modern critics as not containing ” heavenly matter,” yet are accepted by the Church as part of the organic whole—for the Bible is an organic whole, and many parts lose their meaning if severed. Each age and nation and temperament, by their interpretation, would (and in Protestantism do) practically make a different Bible, when, leaving ancient authority, they test each part by their subjective feelings.

No internal evidence could prove inspiration, because inspiration is essentially a supernatural fact. It is objective, not subjective. It is simply that God said this thing in this way. It may not appeal to me personally—parts of it may not be meant especially for me—but God wished to say it for some person or time. Therefore the inspiration can only be known upon some authority sent from God. The only possible competent authority would be either Christ or his apostles or the successors of the apostles—that is to say, Christ’s Church. All Christians appeal in fact to some authority behind the Bible (e.g., Luther claimed to alter the canon of Scripture, and Lutherans accepted this on his authority). Christ nowhere told men to go to a book to learn his doctrine. He himself wrote nothing down. But he did say to Peter: “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church” (Matt. 16:18); and to Peter and the rest of the apostles: “Go ye teaching therefore all nations” (Matt. 28:19). “He that hears you, hears me, he that despises you, despises me, he that despises me despises him that sent me” (Luke 10:16). The apostles went forth and taught according to Christ’s command. They ordained others to succeed them. Much of his teaching they handed down in their tradition only—that divinely protected living memory of the Church. Much they committed to writing and collected together by degrees.

Though collections of sacred writings, varying in extent, existed in the various local Churches of Christendom, the canon or official list of Scripture was only compiled by the Church toward the end of the fourth century—at Hippo in 393, Carthage in 397, whence it was sent to Rome for confirmation in 419. The Bible may be called the notebook of the Church, and she has always claimed to be the guardian, exponent, and interpreter of it. . . .

As then, so today, private judgment leads to wild chaos in interpretation. But further, the rejection of the Bible has come directly from the claim of heretics to make it the sole rule of faith. The Bible is often obscure—a daily rule of faith and action must be clear —hence arose impatience of delays and obscurities.

Two schools came from Protestantism: Believers in an almost wooden theory of verbal inspiration making no allowance for the human instrument (e.g., various translations, slight discrepancies in different accounts of the same scene, texts from the Old Testament quoted with slight verbal inaccuracies in the New Testament); believers in absolutely unchecked freedom of criticism, neglecting the divine inspiration.

The Church insists on both the divine and human: “In interpreting the Bible scientifically, its twofold character must always be kept in view: It is a divine book, in so far as it has God for its author, it is a human book, in so far as it is written by men for men. In its human character the Bible is subject to the same rules of interpretation as profane books but in its Divine character it is given into the custody of the Church to be kept and explained, so that it needs special rules of hermeneutics” (Catholic Encyclopedia 5:696).

The Church maintains absolutely the inspiration of Scripture. The [First] Vatican Council thus defines it: “These books are held by the Church as sacred and canonical, not as having been composed by merely human labour, and afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation without error, but because written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author and have been transmitted to the Church as such.”

She maintains also the sovereignty of truth in every sphere: “All truth is orthodox.” Truths cannot be contradictory. But time and patience are sometimes needed to bring home their full bearing and mutual harmony. We must remember that the Church is often asked to accept as truth theories which are only imperfectly worked out or are full of errors. She rightly insists on waiting until the chaff and wheat have been sifted. She will not accept hypotheses as proved facts.

For a Christian face to face with a Bible passage the question “Is it true?” does not arise; God wrote it, and he cannot lie. The question in every instance is only, “What does it mean, what did the biblical author, inspired by, God, wish to convey and teach?” Now to ascertain this the guidance of the Church is essential, and time and patience are often needed.

Leo XIII’s encyclical on Scripture (Providentissimus Deus) tells us that it is not the aim of the inspired writers to teach us science or history: “[The Holy Ghost] who spoke by them did not intend to teach men these things, things in no way profitable to salvation. Hence they described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language or in terms which were commonly used at the time and which, in many instances, are in daily use to this day even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers (as the Angelic Doctor reminds us) ‘went by what visibly appeared’ or put down what God, speaking to men, signified in a way men could understand and were accustomed to.”

It is the office of the Church’s theologians and Scripture students to ascertain how far statements in the Bible apparently scientific are bound up with those sacred truths which the writer is inspired to deliver, and in that sense they are to be understood. Until any question arises we accept these statements in their simple meaning. When a question arises we await the Church’s interpretation. Thus the troubles about the Copernican system struck a severe blow to Protestant dependence on the Bible, but have not affected Catholic belief. Galileo’s condemnation was a mere incident, which had no permanent result on Catholic belief in inspiration, because Catholics had the Church behind the Bible and knew that, whether quickly or slowly, she would give them an interpretation and explanation.

Thus, while outside the Church excessive dependence on the unsupported letter of Scripture has led to such a reaction that people are giving up the Bible altogether, the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, keeps for her children the treasure she originally gave them.

But are her children even allowed access to this treasure? Are Catholics allowed to read the Bible? Let’s look.

Pre-reformation literature is saturated with Bible quotations. Much that is left to us consists either of books of the Bible or breviaries which are almost wholly made up of Scripture. The sermon literature of the Middle Ages was a mosaic of Scripture texts. Preachers used the Bible much more than is customary today in any pulpit. Half an hour’s perusal of the sermons of a Bernard or a Bonaventure shows us that the preachers almost thought in Scripture texts. For those who could not read, the Church provided a knowledge of the Bible by means of mystery plays, illustrated editions of parts or the whole of it in paintings, sculptures, and stained glass windows: The statuary of one great cathedral is known as the “Bible of Amiens.” Of the Bible in pictures, the Synod of Arras (1025) said: “The illiterate contemplated in the lineaments of painting what they, having never learnt to read, could not discern in writing.” To the man of the Middle Ages the Bible was a living reality.

Today, priests are obliged to read Scripture in their Office, or daily prayers, for about an hour and a half every day. The laity are more than encouraged, they are urged to read the Bible. By Pius VI (1778), by Pius VII (1820), they were earnestly exhorted to read it, by Leo XIII a special blessing was given to all who would read the Gospels for at least a quarter of an hour daily. Benedict XV (himself the founder of the Society of St. Jerome for distributing the Gospels in Italian, which sells great numbers every year) sent, by the Cardinal Secretary of State, the following message to the Catholic Truth Society: “It was with no little gladness of heart that the Holy Father learned of the work of the Society and of its diligence in spreading far and wide copies of the Holy Gospels, as well as of the other books of the Holy Scriptures, and in multiplying them so as to reach all men of good will. Most lovingly therefore His Holiness blesses all who have put their hand to this very excellent work; and he earnestly exhorts them to persevere with ardour in so holy an enterprise.” . . .

What has caused the general impression that the Church does not wish her children to read the Bible?

Her claim to guide and teach them in the reading and interpretation of it: Danger is incurred in many ways by putting the Bible, without guidance, into the hands of children or the unlearned. (No one would maintain that the Old Testament in its entirety is suitable for the young even to read; again, some explanation is absolutely necessary for many parts of both Old and New Testaments.)

Her refusal to allow her children to use false and incomplete translations. At one time Bible translations were falsified in the interest of certain heresies. William Tyndale, for example, always substituted the word “congregation” for ” Church” and “ordinance” for “tradition” because of the Catholic connotation attached to these words. He also translated “Little children, keep yourselves from images”; instead of using the more accurate rendering ” idols.”; Again the authorized Anglican version translated 1 Corinthians 11:27 as ” and drink this cup,” so that the Catholic custom of Communion under one kind should seem to be condemned by it. The Revised Version has corrected this, and the text now stands” or drink this cup.”

The harm done by bad translations and by want of an interpreter may be specially seen if we examine the efforts of various Bible societies and non-Catholic missionaries in the last century. In China, India, and elsewhere, they either altered the Catholic versions or wrote new ones in various dialects before they had acquired real knowledge of the language into which they were translating; these they scattered broadcast, without explanation. Educated natives declared that in many cases the translations were so bad as to make absolute nonsense and in other cases were even blasphemous. They derived from them nothing but contempt for Christianity. Moreover, the way in which these sacred books were distributed shocked all, especially the Muslims, who declared nothing would induce them to give the Koran to anyone unless they were certain it would be treated respectfully. These Bibles were often used as wrappings for drugs and other merchandise, wallpapers, or covers for cartridges (See Marshall’s Christian Missions, vol. 1. chap. 1).

It may, perhaps, be allowed that at some periods and in some countries this caution of the Church has been carried to excess, but in the long run the realization of the existence of difficulties and of the need of an interpreter has preserved the Bible for Catholics when others are losing it.

Next we ask, how should Catholics read the Bible? Ordinary Catholics should be guided by the Church in reading it. Let us begin with the missal. Then, for those who have time, the breviary shows us the Church’s mind from the beautiful way in which the Scriptures, the lives of the saints, and the thoughts of the great Doctors and Fathers are brought together in a living unity. By following the seasons year by year in missal and breviary, we are using one of our most precious Catholic privileges. The meaning of the great feasts becomes more actual to us and illustrates the Bible for us.

We can, of course, read the Bible as literature, as a series of documents of surpassing human interest.

Our chief profit, not for ourselves only, but also in our work for others, will lie in reading it devotionally.

Some must, of course, undertake the work of the revision of texts, higher criticism, etc., but this is the office of experts.

If we are to understand a book, we want to know the aim for which it was written; if to understand a man, we ask what is the leading thought and aim of his life. In trying to grasp a system of thought we look for that which is central and around which all else is grouped.

What is the centre of the Bible? The Son of God made Man for us. It is only in the light of that central Figure that we can understand the Old Testament, as well as the New. All the great personalities of the Old Testament are vivid to us chiefly as types of him. He speaks through the words of prophet and of patriarch. His voice is heard in the psalms of David. The whole of the Old Testament is a looking forward to and a preparation for Christ’s coming. The New Testament looks back and tells the history of that coming and of the fulfilment of Christ’s mission in his Church, and then looks forward once more to that glorious second coming, when all things shall be made visibly subject to him, and God shall be all in all.

Stretching across the mountains and the plains of Israel, dimly visible at times, at times clearly seen, goes that Way which is also the Truth and the Life. And in one simple sentence Christ tells us his divine secret: “Before Abraham was made, I am.” It is this that gives the Bible its amazing unity; it is in his light that we see light, and the Bible becomes alive to us read in that light which is the life of men.