THE LIVING GOD
(c)Copyright,1993 by William G.Most
I - Revelation
1)Natural Knowledge of God
Vatican I defined (DS 3026) defined that the existence of God
can be known with certainty through the use of natural reason.
Problem: How can the Church define anything about revelation,
when the right of the Church to teach needs first to be
established from revelation found in Scripture? Is there not a
vicious circle?
Solution: We begin with the Gospels, but do not at first look
upon them as sacred or inspired. We treat them as ancient
documents, and give them the same sort of checking we give other
ancient documents -- transmission of the text shown by textual
criticism -- Is it possible to have any reliable history at all
(historicism)? -- Can one trust even eyewitnesses? --What is the
genre of the Gospels -- Can one distinguish between facts and
interpretations,i.e.is there such a thing as a non-interpreted
statement? (Distinguish simple physical facts from complex
realities, and note that some things are so simply perceived
there is no room for interpretation, e.g., if a leper stands
before Jesus, asks to be healed, and He says: I will it: be
healed.) --Did the authors live at a time when information was to
be had -- Did they have motive to report accurately.--
The foregoing are preliminaries. Once we know that the
Gospels can give us at least a few simple physically observable
facts, we look for and find six of them: (1) There was a man
named Jesus; (2) He claimed to be a messenger sent by God; (3)
He did enough to prove this, by miracles in contexts such that a
connection was established between the claim and the miracle. (On
the side: show by modern instances, Lanciano, Lourdes, Guadalupe
-- that miracles are possible because science proves they do
happen - contrast view of R.Bultmann,who said: "Conclusive
knowledge is impossible in any science or philosophy" [Kerygma
and Myth ,ed.H.W.Bartsch, tr. R.H.Fuller, N.Y., Harper & Row,
Torchbooks, 1961, 2d ed. volume I- hereafter KM -KM 195] and "It
is impossible to use electric light and wireless...and at the
same time to believe in the New Testament world of spirits and
miracles."[KM 5]; (4) As expected, He had an inner circle to
whom He spoke more; (5) Also as expected, He told them to
continue His work, His teaching; (6)He also - a thing one would
expect if the messenger from God had the means to do it -
promised God would protect their teaching: "He who hears
you,hears me"(Lk 10.16).--- After this point, that body,
commissioned to teach by a messenger from God, and promised
protection on its teaching, can tell us that Scripture is
inspired, and that it contains revelation. There is no other
means to know which books are inspired - cf.Luther,Calvin,and
Gerald Birney Smith in Biblical World 37 (1910) pp.19-29.Cf.
W.Most. Free From All Error hereafter FFAE Cap 2.
So the Epistle to the Romans is inspired, and it tells us in
1.20 that we can know the existence of God by thinking about His
works in creation. Hence Vatican I could define that God can be
known in this way.
The Council did not specify which proofs are valid -
philosophers work on that, but must admit that in some way it can
be proved.
Did St.Paul mean formal argumentation - or just thinking in
general on creation? Unclear. But the intricate structure of
creation, observed by the naked eye, or with the help of modern
science, reveals the wonders of design, which suppose a designer.
Cf.on complexity of creation:E.S.Ayensu (Smithsonian Institution)
and Philip Whitfield (King's College,Univ.of London), Editors,
The Rhythms of Life, Crown Publishers,NY.1981.
This does not rule in or out theistic evolution. It of course
rules out atheistic evolution. (More on evolution later, in unit
III).
Ontological Argument: The most famous form of it comes from
St.Anselm in 11th century. In his Proslogium, chapter 2, he
argues: "Certainly that than which a greater cannot be thought of
cannot exist in the intellect alone. For if it exists in the
intellect alone it can be thought of as also existing in the
world of reality -- which is greater. If therefore, that than
which a greater cannot be thought of, exists solely in the
intellect, the very thing than which a greater cannot be thought
of, is that than which a greater can be thought of. But this
surely cannot be. [It is a direct contradiction]. Without a
doubt, therefore, there exists something than which a greater
cannot be thought of, both in the world of the intellect and the
world of reality". The trouble is that the idea does not
guarantee the extramental existence of the Being.
St.Thomas :Specially famous are the five ways of St.Thomas
Aquinas, Summa I.2.3.
Aristotelian Proof: Aristotle himself did not develop this
argument as we are giving it, but it is based on his own
principles: 1.Something has a change -- it rises from Potency to
Act.- It cannot rise on its own, for it cannot give itself the
extra being it does not yet have.( We call it a rise since at the
top of the rise, after the change, more or higher being is
present - before the change there was a privation to be filled).
2.So it needs to get its actuality from another being
or source that is already in act, i.e, has the added being. But
that being earlier had to get up from potency to act - and so on,
but not infinitely, or we would never have a solution to the
problem.
3.So finally, we need to find a being that does not
have the problem of getting up to act, because it simply is Act:
That is the First Cause, or Ultimate Mover, or God. (If it had
potency, it would still have the problem of getting up to act,
and so we would not yet have reached the answer to our problem).
4.What is this Act like:
a)It is unmoved - for it has no potency, and
potency is needed for anything to be moved. b)It is
eternal- (Taking eternity in strict sense of a duration with no
change, with everything simultaneously present). Time is a
measure of change - no potency = no change.
c) It is Infinite. Potency is not only capacity but
limit - a 12 oz.glass has a potency for 12 oz, but it also is
limited to 12 oz.
d)It is One - If there were two Infinites, they
would coincide.
e)It is Spiritual - Matter is potency. This First
Cause has no potency, and so, no matter.
f) It is the cause of existence of all else - To
reach existence is a rise from potency to act. That rise needs
the First Cause. -- So, we see another reason why the First Cause
is Infinite -- The rise from zero to something is an infinite
rise.
NOTE:1.All this reasoning can be made without
becoming religious; to be religious we would have to add
reverence or worship. We have given a purely intellectual
exercise. Hence to say there was creation, is not necessarily
religious.-- Further, the translation of Genesis 1.1 is
debatable. It could also be:"When God set about to form heaven
and earth."
2.Aristotle was uncertain how many unmoved
movers there are. He used two starting points (a)From Reason: he
said that if a simpler answer will do, it is better, (b) From
Astronomy: he said in Meta 12.6.1073b that the number of unmoved
movers,"must be investigated by the aid of that branch of
mathematical science which is most akin to philosophy, i.e.,
astronomy." Astronomy in his day held for many spheres in the
skies. Unclear how many Aristotle thought, probably either 49 or
55. See G.E.LLoyd, Aristotle,The Growth and Structure of His
Thought (Cambridge,1968)pp.148-53.
2)Man's need of revelation:
a)Some truths are inaccessible to human knowledge,e.g.,the
Holy Trinity.To know these,revelation is indispensable.
b)Some truths can be known by reason,but only with difficulty
.
1)Plato,Phaedo 85 D: Simmias says, after trying to
follow difficult arguments: "I think, as you probably do, that to
know clearly about such matters in this present life is either
impossible, or altogether difficult...for it is necessary to do
one of two things: either to find where truth is, or if that be
impossible, to pick the best and hardest to refute of human
reasonings, and to sail through life as it were dangerously, on a
raft, unless he could make his journey more safely and less
dangerously on some more secure conveyance, a divine revelation."
2)Aristotle wrote (Meta 2.1): " The search for truth is
in a way hard,in a way easy.A sign of this is the fact that no
one gets it fully, but we do not all miss it altogether."
3)History of Philosophy: Shows that no matter what
standard we would use to grade a philosopher ,most of them of all
times get less than 60% of the truth.-- This does not mean give
up - it means be very careful - and, like Simmias, wish for a
divine revelation. We have that. We can compare truths reached by
reason with revelation - this is like looking up the answers in
the back of a mathematics book.
In this sense, we can have a Catholic philosophy. Problem:
can there be such, since philosophy uses only reason, not
authority? Yes, if we work the way we do with a math book. If we
are working in philosophy we try to work by reason first, as in
the math book, we work problems without looking in the back. If
we are in theology, we use revelation first.
4)Eunomius (follower of Arius). He seems to have said
that we can completely understand God in this life, in that he
insisted divinity consists in being agennetos -- no other
designations count. -- Was answered by St.Basil and St.Gregory of
Nyssa in their Against Eunomius. Cf.Gregory,Book II: "They
maintain that the divine nature is simply being agennetos per se,
and declare this to be sovereign and supreme, and they make this
word comprehend the whole greatness of divinity."
Note: There are two similar Greek words: agennetos,from
gennao to beget; an agenetos from ginomai (= older gignomai) to
become,to be born. Both were used alike before the Council of
Nicea. Thus the Creed from Nicea has (DS 125) gennethenta ou
poiethenta: begotten,not made). Compare Creed of Constantinople
DS 130.
The Fathers,in contrast to the errors of Eunomius
understood God is inexpressible:
a)Arnobius,Against Nations 1.31:"To understand you, we
must be silent, and for fallible conjecture to trace you even
vaguely, nothing must even be whispered."
b)Pseudo-Dionysius,Mystical Theology 1.2:God is best known by
"unknowing".
c)St.Gregory of Nyssa,Life of Moses PG 44.376:"The true
vision of the One we seek, the true seeing, consists in this: in
not seeing. For the One Sought is beyond all knowledge."
d)St.Augustine,De Doctrina Christiana 1.6.6:"He must
not even be called inexpressible, for when we say that word we
say something." e)St.Thomas Aquinas (In:Maritain,
Angelic Doctor,S.W.London,1933 p.51): "Such things have been
revealed to me that the things I have written and taught seem
slight to me." He never went back to his Summa after that
revelation. f)Plato,Republic 6.509B:Good (which he
probably identifies with God) is "beyond being".
5)St.Thomas Aquinas.Summa I.1.1."It was necessary for
human salvation that there be a certain doctrine according to
divine revelation, in addition to philosophical disciplines....
First, because man is ordered to God as to a certain end which
goes beyond the comprehension of reason...But the end should be
known to men in advance, who should order their intentions and
actions to the goal... even for those things which can be
investigated by human reason it was necessary that man be
instructed by divine revelation.For the truth about God which can
be investigated by reason would be known by few,and for a long
time,with a mixture of many errors."
6)Salvation of Infidels.The above comments of St.Thomas
might tempt one to think there is no hope of salvation for those
who do not know the Church.We must not take his images like a
picture of a material road.The real question on reaching the goal
is this:What does God want me to do? God makes this essential
known within each one by the moral law known in conscience,as we
see from the following:
a)St.Justin Martyr in his Apology 1.46 wrote "Christ is
the Logos (Divine "Word] of which the whole race of men
partake.Those who lived according to Logos are Christians even if
they were considered atheists, such as, among the Greeks,
Socrates and Heraclitus. In Apology 2.10 he ads that the Logos
is within each one of us. Now, the Logos,a Spirit,does not take
up place. When we say a Spirit is present we say it is producing
an effect there.What effect? We turn next to Romans 2: 14-16.
b)Romans 2.14-16:"The gentiles who do not have the
law,do by nature the things of the law.They show the work of the
law written on their hearts,while their conscience bears witness
along with [their good life,or: with the law,in their hearts] and
their thoughts will in turn either accuse or even defend them on
the day on which God will judge the secret things of
men,according to my Gospel,through Jesus Christ."
COMMENT 1:Some commentators refuse to admit Paul teaches
gentiles can be saved - they do not see that Paul alternates
between de facto and focused views. In a focused view of the law
(As if we are loking through a tube,and so see only the things
within the circle made by te tube) , for example,Paul would
say:The law makes heavy demands -gives no strength - to be under
heavy demands without strength makes a fall certain.Hence he can
saw dresdful things about the law: no on can keep; it is the
ministry of condemnation etc. In the factual view he talks
differently: The law makes heavy demands, gives no strength - BUT
-- off to the side,in no relation to the law there is grace given
even in anticipation of Christ. With it, one need not fall etc.
In fact he calls the law a great privilege of the people of God
e.g,in Romans 3 and 9 ,and says in Phil 3:6 that he kept it
perfectly. Here he uses a de facto view. This is supported by the
Magisterium texts we shall shortly quote.
COMMENT 2:Some think Socrates was homosexual.Far from it.
PLato frequently quotes Socrates as sayaingathat the manawho
seeks the truth,to be a philosopher, must have as litle as
possible to do with the things of the body: Phaedo 82-83;66;
Republic 485-86,519.
c)Pius IX, Quanto conficiamur moerore,August
10,1862:"God...in His supreme goodness and clemency,by no means
allows anyone to be punished with eternal punishments,who does
not have the guilt of voluntary fault.But it is also a Catholic
dogma that no one outside the Catholic Church can be saved,and
that those who are contumacious against the authority of the same
Church [and ] definitions and who are obstinately [pertinaciter]
separated from the unity of the Church and from the Roman
Pontiff...cannot obtain eternal salvation."
COMMENT: Pius IX stresses need of the Church,and at the same
time,the truth [in saying that this point "is also a Catholic
dogma,he implies that the fact that no one is lost without grave
personal fault is also a Catholic dogma.He does not explain HOW
this works out.He makes clear that if someone keeps the moral law
as he knows it,he will actually be saved- so that somehow-- he
does not say how-- this requirement of membership will be
fulfilled.He does help,however,by noting that only those who are
obstinately and contumaciously rejecting the Church are lost.
This implies that those who reject in good faith,without
obstinacy,can be saved For full treatment of the solution,cf.the
Appendix to W.Most, Our Father's Plan.
d) Holy Office,by order of Pius XII,in a letter of
August 9,1949, and basing itself on teaching in Mystici
Corporis,condemned L.Feeney:"It is not always required that one
be actually incorporated as a member of the Church,but this at
least is required: that one adhere to it in wish and desire.It is
not always necessary that this be explicit...but when a man
labors under invincible ignorance,God accepts even an implicit
will,called by that name because it is contained in the good
disposition of soul in which a man wills to conform his will to
the will of God." Pius XII,in Mystici Corporis had taught that a
man can be "ordered to the Church by a certain desire and wish of
which he is not aware."(DS 3821).
e) Vatican II,On the Church #16:"For they who
without their own fault do not know of the Gospel of Christ and
His Church,but yet seek God with sincere heart,and try,under the
influence of grace,to carry out His will in practice, known to
them through the dictate of conscience,can attain eternal
salvation."
f)John Paul II,Redemptoris missio, Dec.7,1990:"The
universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to
those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the
Church. Since salvation is offered to all,it must be made
concretely available to all.But it is clear that today, as in the
past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or
accept the Gospel Revelation or to enter the Church.... For such
people, salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace
which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church,does
not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in
a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material
situation."
NOTE:We compare St.Justin Martyr,Apology 1.46 with
the above, and note it carries same ideas as Romans 2.14-16:
"Christ is the Logos [Divine Word], of whom the whole race of men
partake.Those who lived according to Logos are Christians,even if
they were considered atheists,such as,among the Greeks,Socrates
and Heraclitus."
The above texts show merely the FACT that some can
be saved without formal entry into the Church. As to thee HOW.we
will add theological reasoning later, in speaking of the election
of Israel.
3)The concept of salvation history;words and deeds of God
In studying any part of Scripture,we must first deterine the
literary genre. The case of Genesis 1-11 is special. Starting
with chapter 12 man think the genre shifts to epic.
Genre of Genesis 1-11:
(1) Pius XII,Humani generis,DS 3898:"We must deplore a
certain way of interpreting the historical books of the Old
Testament too freely. The first 11 chapters of Genesis,though
they do not strictly conform to the rules of historical writing
used by the great Greek and Latin historians or historians of our
time, yet pertain to history in a true sense, to be further
studied and determined by Scripture scholars."
COMMENT: We could satisfy this requirement by saying
that these chapters do report, by the vehicle of stories, things
that really happened -- in this way they do pertain to history in
a true sense. Chiefly the following: God made all things; in some
special way He made the first human pair; He gave them some sort
of command (we do not know its nature),they violated it,and
fell from His favor. (Note that favor even though the word is not
used in the text, would be chen in Hebrew, which is the closest
word to grace. Hence they lost grace,and did not have it to pass
on to their descendants.(Cf. New Catholic Encyclopedia
s.v."grace,in the Bible"). So original sin is contained in the
narrative. Really, if we said God did no more than smile at a
person,and gave him nothing, and the person could do good by his
own power - it would be Pelagianism. Hence favor must imply
grace.
(2) John Paul II,Audience of Sept 19,1979: "The whole
archaic form of the narrative...manifests its primitive mythical
character." In note 1, he cites at length P.Ricoeur,speaking of
"the Adamic myth". However, on Nov 7,1979 the Pope also
said:"...the term 'myth' does not designate a fabulous content,
but merely an archaic way of expressing a deeper content." Also
in note 1 on Sept 19: "If in the language of the rationalism of
the 19th century, the term 'myth' indicated what was not
contained in reality...the 20th century as modified the concept
of myth.... M.Eliade discovers in myth the structure of the
reality that is inaccessible to rational and empirical
investigation. Myth, in fact, transforms the event into a
category and makes us capable of perceiving the transcendental
reality."
ADDENDUM: On Sept 12,1979:"...the first account of man's
creation is chronologically later than the second.The origin of
this latter is much more remote. This more ancient text is
defined as 'Yahwist.'" -- In note 1 on Nov.7: "After the
creation of the woman, the Bible text continues to call the first
man 'adam (with the definite article), thus expressing his
'corporate personality', since he has become the 'father of
mankind', its progenitor and representative...." -- God called
Adam after the fall and Adam replied: "I was afraid because I
was naked, and I hid myself."-
It is easy to gather what the inspired writer meant to
convey by this narrative. Before the sin, Adam was naked; after
the fall, the same. But before the fall it did not bother him,
afterwards it did. Clearly, the sex drive, the most rebellious of
all, had begun to assert itself. Before the fall Adam must have
had some gift that made it easy to keep all drives in proper
balance. Each was good in itself, but each would work blindly,
without regard for the other drives or for the whole person.
So,as we said,a coordinating gift was needed. It used to be
called the Gift of Integrity.
History of the term salvation history
1)W.Vatke,a disciple of Hegel,in his The Religion of
Israel,1835 spoke of Heilsgeschichte [salvation history]:True
religion he said was revealed slowly, going through the stages of
simile, allegory, myth, and climaxing in the historical
revelation of Jesus Christ.
2) J.T.Beck,1804-78 in reacting against rationalistic
biblical interpretation dropped the dictation theory of
inspiration, said that the Bible is an organic whole and that the
unity and continuity of the OT are to be found in salvation
history. 3)J.von Hofmann,1810-77,similarly viewed the OT
as a the history of salvation.
Stages of salvation history
There are two separate,though related,developments we
must follow: (1)The prophecies of eternal salvation for all
through the Messiah. (2)The choice of Israel as God's special
people--a help to eternal salvation.The word salvation has three
meanings in Scripture: (a)rescue from temporal evils; (b)entry
into the Church of the NT; (c)Final eternal salvation: heaven.
The promise of the Messiah actually referred to eternal
salvation.The Jews,and perhaps the Sacred Writers too,seem not to
have understood this fact at first.They tended to think of the
Messiah as going to rescue them from temporal evils.And the
promises God made at Sinai,choosing them as a special
people,literally referred at first to temporal things - the land
plus added favor.As the centuries went on, the tendency grew to
reinterpret the promise to refer to eternal life,as St.Paul
does,for example,in Galatians 3.15ss.Yet the Apostles seem to
have taken the Messiah as a temporal savior,and hence did not
grasp His prophecies about His death and resurrection.
We will consider each current separately.(Choice or
election will be later on)
(1)Prophecies of the Messiah
We will make much use of the Targums here. They are ancient
Aramaic versions of th Old Testament,mostly free,and with
fill-ins which show how the Jews understood them without seeing
them fulfilled in Christ.
Date of the Targums.Many scholars today ignore the
Targums,out of ignorance or because they think the dates too
uncertain. Some of these same exegetes say the OT prophecies of
the Messiah are so vague one can get something out of them only
by hindsight,e.g.,R.E.Brown,The Virginal Conception & Bodily
Resurrection of Jesus,Paulist,1973,pp.15-16. But we can be
sure of an early date of at least the Messianic prophecies in
them for the following reasons:
a)Jacob Neusner,in Messiah in Context made a
complete survey of all Jewish literature after 70 AD up to and
including the Babylonian Talmud (completed 500-600 AD).He found
that up to,not including that Talmud,there was scant interest in
the Messiah.In the Talmud interest revived,but even then,the only
one of the great prophecies spoken of was that the Messiah would
be of the line of David. It is hardly conceivable that these
Targums on the prophecies could have been composed in a period
when there was no,or later,little interest in the material they
covered.
b)Samson Levey, The Messiah,An Aramaic
Interpretation, Hebrew Union College,1974, helps us to know that
the rabbis even steered clear of some Messianic things in the
Targums. Ps.80,15-18 asked God to visit this vine "and the stock
which your right hand has planted.... Let your hand be upon the
man of your right hand,upon the son of man whom you have
strengthened for yourself." Levey comments (pp.119-20):"It would
appear that the Targum takes the Messiah to be the son of
God,which is much too anthropomorphic and Christological to be
acceptable in Jewish exegesis." He notes that neither the earlier
nor the later rabbis picked up this interpretation of the
Targum.Instead,he says that some of the later rabbis "carefully
steer clear of any messianic interpetation" from the Targum for
this passage.So the Targum interpretation could hardly have been
written at that period.
Interestingly,Ps 80,as cited above,even uses the words son
of man to refer to the Messiah. Not for certain,but probably,the
rabbis would not have written this Targumic line after Jesus
began to use the expression to refer to Himself.
Similarly Ps 45,7-8 says:"Your throne,God is ever and
ever.... God your God has anointed you with the oil of
rejoicing." Even though some think that Psalm was occasioned by
the marriage of Joram to Athalaia,the Targum saw it as
messianic.Levey even remarks (pp.111-12) that the Hebrew word for
king, melech "in verses 2,6,12,15 and 16 is understood as God."
And the passage in general means the Messiah according to the
Targum,Yet:"Rabbinic views of this Psalm are not Messianic."
Again,this Targumic passage could not have been written late.
In 445 BC,Ezra may have begun the practice of giving an Aramaic
paraphrase after the reading of the Hebrew Scriptures. In
Nehemiah 8:7-8:[while Ezra read the Law] "...the Levites helped
the people to understand the law.... And they read from the
book,from the law of God,clearly,and they gave the sense,so that
the people understood the reading."-- There must have been period
of oral Targums before they were written down.
Regardless of the date of the Targums,they surely show the
ancient Jewish understanding made without the use of
hindsight,without seeing them fulfilled in Jesus,whom they hated.
We have the following Targums on the Pentateuch:
Onkelos,Pseudo- Jonathan,Neofiti,and Fragmentary Targum (also
called Jerusalem Targum. For the prophets,we have Targum
Jonathan. For the prophets: Targum Jonathan. For the
Hagiographa,Aramaic renderings did evolve except for Daniel and
Ezra-Nehemiah.
We will now examine the chief messianic prophecies,with the
help of the Targums and the Magisterium.
Genesis 3:15
(a)Targums: Fragmentary Targum says God will put enmity
between the serpent and the woman,and between the offspring of
serpent's children and hers. When the woman's children toil at
Torah and keep it,they will strike the serpent on the head and
kill it; when they refuse to toil, the serpent's offspring will
bite their heel. "There will be a remedy for the children of the
woman,but for you [serpent], there will be no remedy. They will
make peace with one another in the days of the King Messiah."
Pseudo-Jonathan is about the same.Neofiti is about same but uses
singular: "There will be a remedy [for his wound] for the son of
the woman,but for you,serpent,no remedy."--Onkelos,as so
often,does not speak of a messianic nature.
Neusner, Messiah in Context,p.242:"In the days of the
King Messiah,the enmity between the serpent and woman will come
to an end Gen 3:15....)"
NOTE:The Jews seem on the whole not to have
thought of original sin, from this verse or elsewhere. However it
is easy to see: God had given our first parents not only human
nature,but also grace and the gift of integrity.They lost all but
human nature by their fall - so they lost His favor,and therefore
did not have grace - and so did not have that to pass on to their
children. To arrive in this world without favor/grace is the same