[In honor of Santa Claus (i.e., St. Nicholas) punching Arius at the Council of Nicea in 325 for denying the divinity of Christ. Yes, yes, I know, the story is historically dubious, and certainly not to be imitated in any case, but still...]
Deck the heretic in folly falalalalalalala!
Lest the flock be melancholy falalalalalalala!
The Trinity now do affirm ye falalalalalalala!
The Three in One and One in Three falalalalalalala!"
Thursday, December 7, 2017
Sunday, March 19, 2017
Praying to Saints and 1 Timothy 2:5
Objection: Does not the Catholic practice of praying to saints contradict 1 Timothy 2:5: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”?
Recall first of all what Catholics mean by “praying to the saints”: they are using the word “pray” in the older sense of the term, in which “pray” simply meant to “ask”. (One sees this usage in the King James Bible; for instance, Gen 24:17) In other words, when Catholics “pray” to the saints, they are asking the saints something, namely, for the saints to pray for them. Just as we may ask our friends here on earth to pray for us, so we may ask those in heaven to pray for us. That is, in substance, all “praying to the saints” consists of.
Now, there are various objections people do raise to this practice, of course, which need to be addressed at some point. At the moment, however, I will limit myself to the one presented in the above question. And when we understand what is actually meant by "praying to the saints", it becomes clear that the aspect of the practice which is supposed by the objection above to violate the passage from 1 Timothy (the saints being “mediators” by interceding for us) would in fact apply just as much to asking fellow Christians on earth to pray for us. After all, in that respect both practices are exactly the same: they both consist of asking others to intercede for us. If 1 Timothy 2:5 condemns the one practice, then it condemns the other for the very same reason.
Should we therefore refrain from asking others on earth to pray for us? No. After all, there are various passages in the New Testament that presuppose it is perfectly acceptable and praiseworthy to pray for others. Thus, we see Jesus tell us to pray even for our enemies in the Sermon on the Mount (which Stephen did in Acts 7 when he was being stoned). Or again, when Peter was put in prison by Herod, “prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for him” (Acts 12:5). So, too, Paul quite often asks for prayers on his behalf from others (i.e. Rom 15:30-32; Eph 6:18-20; Col 4:3-4, etc.). In no case is that seen as contradicting Christ’s unqiue mediatorship. Perhaps most importantly (from the perspective of the present question), we see that in the immediate context of the “one mediator” passage, Paul is exhorting intercession to be made for others!
Paul seems to explain himself by continuing in verse six that Christ is the one mediator in the sense of being the one “who gave himself a ransom for all”. In other words, Christ is the one mediator in that it was His death on the cross that reconciles us to the Father. By being both fully God as well as fully man, Christ’s sacrifice was of infinite value, and therefore the source of our redemption. “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” (1 John 2:2) Or, as the book of Hebrews describes His unique mediatorship: “And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.” (Heb 9:15) That being the case, we also read: “Wherefore he is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.” (Heb 7:25)
No mere creature, however exalted, is or could possibly be a mediator in that sense. Only Christ can, for only Christ’s sacrifice is of infinite value, and therefore able to atone for our sins.
But this does not entail that others cannot be “mediators” in a subordinate sense in various ways, ones that are rooted and gain value from being united to Christ’s unique mediatorship. Hence, asking others to pray for us (whether those on earth or in heaven), far from contradicting Christ’s position as the one mediator, in fact presupposes it, because it is rooted in His mediatorship.
Recall first of all what Catholics mean by “praying to the saints”: they are using the word “pray” in the older sense of the term, in which “pray” simply meant to “ask”. (One sees this usage in the King James Bible; for instance, Gen 24:17) In other words, when Catholics “pray” to the saints, they are asking the saints something, namely, for the saints to pray for them. Just as we may ask our friends here on earth to pray for us, so we may ask those in heaven to pray for us. That is, in substance, all “praying to the saints” consists of.
Now, there are various objections people do raise to this practice, of course, which need to be addressed at some point. At the moment, however, I will limit myself to the one presented in the above question. And when we understand what is actually meant by "praying to the saints", it becomes clear that the aspect of the practice which is supposed by the objection above to violate the passage from 1 Timothy (the saints being “mediators” by interceding for us) would in fact apply just as much to asking fellow Christians on earth to pray for us. After all, in that respect both practices are exactly the same: they both consist of asking others to intercede for us. If 1 Timothy 2:5 condemns the one practice, then it condemns the other for the very same reason.
Should we therefore refrain from asking others on earth to pray for us? No. After all, there are various passages in the New Testament that presuppose it is perfectly acceptable and praiseworthy to pray for others. Thus, we see Jesus tell us to pray even for our enemies in the Sermon on the Mount (which Stephen did in Acts 7 when he was being stoned). Or again, when Peter was put in prison by Herod, “prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for him” (Acts 12:5). So, too, Paul quite often asks for prayers on his behalf from others (i.e. Rom 15:30-32; Eph 6:18-20; Col 4:3-4, etc.). In no case is that seen as contradicting Christ’s unqiue mediatorship. Perhaps most importantly (from the perspective of the present question), we see that in the immediate context of the “one mediator” passage, Paul is exhorting intercession to be made for others!
I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. (1 Tim 2:1-6)Clearly then, when Paul writes that Christ is the “one mediator”, he does not mean that we cannot intercede for each other, for otherwise he would be contradicting what he just wrote four verses earlier. In what respect is Christ the “one mediator between God and men” then?
Paul seems to explain himself by continuing in verse six that Christ is the one mediator in the sense of being the one “who gave himself a ransom for all”. In other words, Christ is the one mediator in that it was His death on the cross that reconciles us to the Father. By being both fully God as well as fully man, Christ’s sacrifice was of infinite value, and therefore the source of our redemption. “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” (1 John 2:2) Or, as the book of Hebrews describes His unique mediatorship: “And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.” (Heb 9:15) That being the case, we also read: “Wherefore he is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.” (Heb 7:25)
No mere creature, however exalted, is or could possibly be a mediator in that sense. Only Christ can, for only Christ’s sacrifice is of infinite value, and therefore able to atone for our sins.
But this does not entail that others cannot be “mediators” in a subordinate sense in various ways, ones that are rooted and gain value from being united to Christ’s unique mediatorship. Hence, asking others to pray for us (whether those on earth or in heaven), far from contradicting Christ’s position as the one mediator, in fact presupposes it, because it is rooted in His mediatorship.
Sunday, March 12, 2017
"Call No Man On Earth Father"
Objection: Why do Catholics call priests “Father” when in Matthew 23:9 Jesus states “And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.”
An interesting bit of trivia I once encountered is that the third century Christian writer Origen reportedly castrated himself, apparently taking literally our Lord’s statement concerning those who “have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.” (Such an action is all the more surprising given Origen's reputation for applying allegorical methods of interpretation to the Scriptures.) Regardless, however, of the particular circumstances of that incident, it is useful for illustrating the dangers of approaching Scripture with a remorselessly literal interpretation at all times. One could choose other examples as well, such as Christ’s commands to pluck out our eyes or cut off our hands if they offend us. In those passages, we all realize that He is using hyperbole, and that to take such verses in a strictly literal manner is to do damage to the point that is being taught, and is to in fact distort the meaning of Scripture.
Yet we also realize that other parts of Scripture are indeed to be taken literally. For instance, when the Gospels record the virgin birth of Christ, or Paul affirms the historicity of the Resurrection, such statements are to be taken literally; to do otherwise is to spurn the word of God in favor of our own ideas. So the question we must ask ourselves is this: what kind of statement does Matthew 23:9 qualify as? Should we interpret it strictly literally, or is Jesus (as when He states to mutilate ourselves in the examples cited above) simply using a hyperbole to make a larger point? I think other passages of Scripture make it clear that He is speaking hyperbolically, but first let us discuss the most fundamental problem (apart from what else Scripture says) with taking the former approach instead.
The obvious objection to taking His words strictly literally is to note that under such a scenario, we would be forbidden to call even our male parent “Father”. Few are willing to go to that extreme, of course, but even those who would bite the bullet and start referring to their male parent differently (say, by his given name) still face an obstacle: they would be depriving the term “father” of any source of meaning as an analogy to be applied to God. What would saying God is our “Father” mean if we have no human person we refer to as father? For while like all analogies it is imperfect (human fatherhood bearing only a faint likeness to the divine fatherhood from which it is derived), nevertheless it is the shadow of the divine fatherhood found in human fathers that helps us to comprehend in a dim way God’s fatherhood. That is why Christ refers to God as our Father in the first place. If we destroy the notion of human fatherhood, then the word “father” can no longer function as an analogy, and simply becomes a meaningless term to us.
Most people would acknowledge this problem, and therefore maintain that the prohibition of using the term “father” only applies in a religious context. Yet is such a distinction justified? If one is to insist on taking the text strictly literally, simply based on the words of the text (no more and no less), then the command would appear to be absolute. Therefore, by acknowledging exceptions (as in the case of biological fatherhood), it becomes clear that those objecting to the Catholic practice already recognize that Jesus has something more fundamental in view than simply prohibiting using a certain term in reference to other people. They already partially acknowledge that Jesus's words are to that extent not to be taken absolutely literally, but are hyperbolic. The question then becomes: why should we take them literally when applied in a religious context?
For, after all, the writers of the New Testament had no difficulty in the concept of spiritual fatherhood as applied to men as well as to God. Thus, Paul refers to Abraham as “the father of us all” (Rom 4:16-17), including the Gentiles, and that obviously being in a religious sense (for he was not the father of the Gentiles in a biological sense). Paul also states concerning himself in 1 Corinthians 4:15 that “though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.” He refers to Timothy as “my own son in the faith” (1 Tim 1:2), and Onesimus as “my son...whom I have begotten in my bonds” (Phmn 10). So, too, John refers to others as his spiritual children (cf. 1 John 2:1; 2 John 1; 3 John 4). One could go on, but that makes it clear that the idea of men who are spiritual fathers is well established in the New Testament as legitimate.
Still, some may maintain that even though spiritual fatherhood may be acknowledged, using the word “Father” as a title is nevertheless forbidden. This distinction, besides suffering from the same difficulty as noted above as not being rooted in the actual words of the text (and so what is the basis for it?), would also prove too much (and therefore, as the saying goes, would prove nothing.) For Jesus also states in context not to call any man “Rabbi”, which simply means "teacher" or "doctor". Yet how few object to calling others "Teacher" or "Doctor" as a title! And, again, Jesus forbids us to call others “Master”. And yet, the title "Mister" is derived from the word "Master". Are we therefore forbidden to call other men "Mister" as well? (“Fred Roger’s Neighborhood” does certainly have a different ring to it!)
In short, most of the time nobody takes the words of Matthew 23:9 literally. In fact, it seems the only time they are ever taken literally is when the subject of Catholics addressing priests as “Father” comes up, but the rest of the time the hyperbolic nature of the command is acknowledged. It would seem, therefore, with no better reasons being given for any distinction, that Christ's words should not be taken literally then, either.
But if the text is simply a hyperbole emphasizing a larger point (as in the other examples of Jesus’s use of hyperbole noted above), what is the point he is trying to hammer home? It would appear from the context to be this: that we should allow no man to take the place of God’s supreme fatherhood. “One is your father which is in heaven”, in that God is the source of all fatherhood. No man (such as a priest or Pharisee in Jesus’s time, or in a modern-day context for Catholics, no priest, pastor, bishop, or pope, for that matter) has any claim that would trump God’s supreme fatherhood.
But that does not mean they cannot share in His fatherhood in a subordinate position, just as our own natural fathers do. Just as Christ is the “one mediator between God and men” (cf. 1 Tim 2:5), yet that does not prevent others from partaking in that one mediatorship in a subordinate position by praying for others, for instance (cf. 1 Tim 2:1), but is rather the basis for it, so too is the case here. Others can be fathers subordinately only by God sharing His own fatherhood with them, "from whom all fatherhood in heaven and on earth receives it name" (Eph 3:15), and in no other way [1].
But cut off from that source, they cease to have any claim to being acknowledged as "father". One should not call any man "father" whose fatherhood is not in fact sourced in some way, and therefore an acknowledgement of, God’s supreme fatherhood, thereby eliminating any basis for pride and Pharisaical self-satisfaction.
[1] Confraternity Version. Some translations render this verse something like "from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named" (ESV). However, as a textual note to this verse in the ESV states, "the Greek word patria in verse 15 is closely related to the word for Father in verse 14."
An interesting bit of trivia I once encountered is that the third century Christian writer Origen reportedly castrated himself, apparently taking literally our Lord’s statement concerning those who “have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.” (Such an action is all the more surprising given Origen's reputation for applying allegorical methods of interpretation to the Scriptures.) Regardless, however, of the particular circumstances of that incident, it is useful for illustrating the dangers of approaching Scripture with a remorselessly literal interpretation at all times. One could choose other examples as well, such as Christ’s commands to pluck out our eyes or cut off our hands if they offend us. In those passages, we all realize that He is using hyperbole, and that to take such verses in a strictly literal manner is to do damage to the point that is being taught, and is to in fact distort the meaning of Scripture.
Yet we also realize that other parts of Scripture are indeed to be taken literally. For instance, when the Gospels record the virgin birth of Christ, or Paul affirms the historicity of the Resurrection, such statements are to be taken literally; to do otherwise is to spurn the word of God in favor of our own ideas. So the question we must ask ourselves is this: what kind of statement does Matthew 23:9 qualify as? Should we interpret it strictly literally, or is Jesus (as when He states to mutilate ourselves in the examples cited above) simply using a hyperbole to make a larger point? I think other passages of Scripture make it clear that He is speaking hyperbolically, but first let us discuss the most fundamental problem (apart from what else Scripture says) with taking the former approach instead.
The obvious objection to taking His words strictly literally is to note that under such a scenario, we would be forbidden to call even our male parent “Father”. Few are willing to go to that extreme, of course, but even those who would bite the bullet and start referring to their male parent differently (say, by his given name) still face an obstacle: they would be depriving the term “father” of any source of meaning as an analogy to be applied to God. What would saying God is our “Father” mean if we have no human person we refer to as father? For while like all analogies it is imperfect (human fatherhood bearing only a faint likeness to the divine fatherhood from which it is derived), nevertheless it is the shadow of the divine fatherhood found in human fathers that helps us to comprehend in a dim way God’s fatherhood. That is why Christ refers to God as our Father in the first place. If we destroy the notion of human fatherhood, then the word “father” can no longer function as an analogy, and simply becomes a meaningless term to us.
Most people would acknowledge this problem, and therefore maintain that the prohibition of using the term “father” only applies in a religious context. Yet is such a distinction justified? If one is to insist on taking the text strictly literally, simply based on the words of the text (no more and no less), then the command would appear to be absolute. Therefore, by acknowledging exceptions (as in the case of biological fatherhood), it becomes clear that those objecting to the Catholic practice already recognize that Jesus has something more fundamental in view than simply prohibiting using a certain term in reference to other people. They already partially acknowledge that Jesus's words are to that extent not to be taken absolutely literally, but are hyperbolic. The question then becomes: why should we take them literally when applied in a religious context?
For, after all, the writers of the New Testament had no difficulty in the concept of spiritual fatherhood as applied to men as well as to God. Thus, Paul refers to Abraham as “the father of us all” (Rom 4:16-17), including the Gentiles, and that obviously being in a religious sense (for he was not the father of the Gentiles in a biological sense). Paul also states concerning himself in 1 Corinthians 4:15 that “though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.” He refers to Timothy as “my own son in the faith” (1 Tim 1:2), and Onesimus as “my son...whom I have begotten in my bonds” (Phmn 10). So, too, John refers to others as his spiritual children (cf. 1 John 2:1; 2 John 1; 3 John 4). One could go on, but that makes it clear that the idea of men who are spiritual fathers is well established in the New Testament as legitimate.
Still, some may maintain that even though spiritual fatherhood may be acknowledged, using the word “Father” as a title is nevertheless forbidden. This distinction, besides suffering from the same difficulty as noted above as not being rooted in the actual words of the text (and so what is the basis for it?), would also prove too much (and therefore, as the saying goes, would prove nothing.) For Jesus also states in context not to call any man “Rabbi”, which simply means "teacher" or "doctor". Yet how few object to calling others "Teacher" or "Doctor" as a title! And, again, Jesus forbids us to call others “Master”. And yet, the title "Mister" is derived from the word "Master". Are we therefore forbidden to call other men "Mister" as well? (“Fred Roger’s Neighborhood” does certainly have a different ring to it!)
In short, most of the time nobody takes the words of Matthew 23:9 literally. In fact, it seems the only time they are ever taken literally is when the subject of Catholics addressing priests as “Father” comes up, but the rest of the time the hyperbolic nature of the command is acknowledged. It would seem, therefore, with no better reasons being given for any distinction, that Christ's words should not be taken literally then, either.
But if the text is simply a hyperbole emphasizing a larger point (as in the other examples of Jesus’s use of hyperbole noted above), what is the point he is trying to hammer home? It would appear from the context to be this: that we should allow no man to take the place of God’s supreme fatherhood. “One is your father which is in heaven”, in that God is the source of all fatherhood. No man (such as a priest or Pharisee in Jesus’s time, or in a modern-day context for Catholics, no priest, pastor, bishop, or pope, for that matter) has any claim that would trump God’s supreme fatherhood.
But that does not mean they cannot share in His fatherhood in a subordinate position, just as our own natural fathers do. Just as Christ is the “one mediator between God and men” (cf. 1 Tim 2:5), yet that does not prevent others from partaking in that one mediatorship in a subordinate position by praying for others, for instance (cf. 1 Tim 2:1), but is rather the basis for it, so too is the case here. Others can be fathers subordinately only by God sharing His own fatherhood with them, "from whom all fatherhood in heaven and on earth receives it name" (Eph 3:15), and in no other way [1].
But cut off from that source, they cease to have any claim to being acknowledged as "father". One should not call any man "father" whose fatherhood is not in fact sourced in some way, and therefore an acknowledgement of, God’s supreme fatherhood, thereby eliminating any basis for pride and Pharisaical self-satisfaction.
Notes
____________
[1] Confraternity Version. Some translations render this verse something like "from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named" (ESV). However, as a textual note to this verse in the ESV states, "the Greek word patria in verse 15 is closely related to the word for Father in verse 14."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)