Month: October 2006

Hebrews 6:4-6 and 1 John 1:9

A reader writes:

I was discussing with a Protestant the other day, refuting the notion of
"once saved always saved."  He threw out Hebrews 6:4-6 and it stumped me.
He stated that the "if they fall away" (NIV) is rhetorical, thus it must
mean you can not fall away.  The verse to me says if you lose your
salvation, you’re toast.  So regardless I’m totally confused.

He also used 1 John 1:9, stating that if you confess your sins, God will
clense you of ALL (past, present and future) unrighteousness.

Will you please explain Hebrew 6:4-6 and 1 John 1:9 in their proper
context?

Okay, let’s deal with first things first: First, here is how the NIV renders Hebrews 6:4-6:

It is impossible for those
who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who
have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

Now: The NIV translation (which also is in the RSV) "if they fall away" is flatly erroneous. It’s not what the Greek says. Period. For purposes of comparison, here is the passage is rendered by the New American Standard Bible (not to be confused with the New American Bible), which renders the phrase in question correctly:

For in the case of those who have once been enlightened [and] have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.

You’ll note that I’ve annotated this a bit by putting one of the words translated "and" in brackets and making three of the others blue. The one I’ve put in brackets isn’t the normal Greek word for "and"; it’s a different word (te) that can mean the same thing. The other three time the word appears it is the ordinary Greek word for "and" (kai), which is one of the most familiar words there is in Greek. In fact, after the Greek equivalent for "the," the Greek equivalent for "and" is the single most common word in the Greek New Testament.

Kai is not the normal Greek word for "if." That’s a different word entirely (ei).

Like most words, kai can be rendered more than one way in English. In addition to "and," depending on the context, it can also be rendered things like "but," "even," "also," and "too." And like with the Latin construction et X et Y, if in Greek you see the construction kai X kai Y then we’d normally render it "both X and Y" in English, so kai can also sometimes be translated "both" (in this construction, anyway).

But I am unaware of any time in the New Testament (or elsewhere) that it means "if."

Even if it could mean "if," though, it doesn’t in this case. In context we have a series of phrases being joined together by kai and the first two occurrences clearly mean "and." What’s more these occur in a sequence that begins with another word also meaning "and" (te). It is completely gratuitous to shift from the reading "and" for the final phrase to something like "if."

What we’ve got here is a sequence of items that all collectively describe a group of people: those who have (a) been enlightened and (b) tasted the heavenly gift and (c) been made partakers of the Holy Spirit and (d) have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come and (e) have fallen away.

Items (a) through (d) in the sequence clearly describe Christians. (a) probably describes acceptance of the Christian faith. (b) may well refer to the Eucharist. (c) means that they have received the Holy Spirit in Christian initiation. And (d) means they have been exposed to the Scriptures (or the word of God more widely conceived or Jesus) and the spiritual gifts of the Christian community. At least, it’s extraordinarily hard to see how this sequence could be referring to anybody but Christians.

And then the final element in the chain–(e)–tells us that they can fall away. Right there is a big problem for a number of variants of eternal security, particularly perseverance of the saints.

But a supporter of eternal security may turn around and say, "Okay, that is a problem. But the rest of the verse presents one for you as a Catholic since it says you can’t get people who fulfill (a) through (e) to repent, so if you’ve been an authentic Christian and fallen away then you’re toast. There’s no way to repent afterwards."

Well, the author of Hebrews is certainly pessimistic about the salvation of such individuals, but there are two things that need to be kept in mind:

First, the context he is talking in deals with the question of first century Jewish Christians who apostatize from the Christian faith and go back to Judaism.  In fact, the main point of the book of Hebrews is to warn Jewish Christians (the Hebrews of the title) not to abandon Christianity and go back to Judaism, which some did under persecution.

Given that–or related to that–we’re led to the second thing that needs to be kept in mind: There is a question here of what mode of language the author is using. In particular: Is he speaking technically or practically?

If he is speaking technically–offering the kind of absolute axiom that one would find in a systematic theology–then he would indeed mean that if you fall away from Christianity then you won’t repent afterwards. Your mind will be locked on evil such that you can’t (or won’t) change it, as happens with those in hell.

But normally the authors of Scripture are not speaking technically. That’s one of the reasons Scripture does not read like a systematic theology. You can’t approach a given passage with the assumption that it must be a set of exceptionless theological axioms. To do that is to commit what I’ve called the "technical statement fallacy."

Instead, you have to recognize the flexibility and partialness of the way the authors of Scripture express themselves, as well as the fact that they are often speaking in practical terms and may use expressions of speech that are hyperbolic.

That’s what I think is happening in this passage: The author of Hebrews isn’t making a technical statement about getting apostates to repent. He’s making a practical one, and in so doing he’s expressing himself somewhat hyperbolically.

He even signals this, after making the dramatic statement that you can’t get apostates to repent, by explaining the grounds for the assertion: They (the Jewish Christians who have gone back to Judaism) can’t be brought back to repentance because (a) they crucify Christ again to themselves (meaning: in their hearts) and (b) they openly put Christ to shame. What he means by this is that, after having been followers of Christ, they then turn their backs on him and say that he was a false Messiah who deserved what he got by being crucified (that’s how they crucify him "again . . . to themselves") and they then start publicly condemning him in the Jewish community (that’s the putting him to an open shame).

The author then, in subsequent verses, goes on to compare such people to hardened ground that won’t soak up rain, conveying the idea that they are so hard of heart at this point that you won’t be able to bring them back to repentance and faith in Christ.

Bear in mind that we’re talking about the first century, when becoming a Christian could and did result in being put out of the synagogue, shunned in Jewish society, and basically divorced from your family. If someone has braved all that and tasted all of the heavenly gifts that being a Christian has to offer and still turned his back on Christ and gone back to Judaism, saying that Jesus deserved to be crucified and talking him down in the non-Christian Jewish community to prove their restored loyalty to it then–the author of Hebrews is saying–don’t waste your time on such people. Their hearts are too hard. You won’t–practically speaking–be able to get them to turn back to Christ if they’re really that hard of heart.

Incidentally, the "don’t waste your time on these people" aspect of the passage is also indicated by the way the chapter begins, which involves the author of Hebrews saying "Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to
maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works
and of faith toward God" (6:1)–in other words, "Let’s not be detained by all of the basic, introductory elements of the Christian faith at this point. You’d have to explain a lot of this to ex-Christian Jews to lead them back to the faith, but it isn’t worth it practically speaking. You’d be better off focusing on the matters I want to move on to."

Look at the way verses 1-3 hook up with verses 4-6: The author isn’t introducing the subject of the hard hearted apostates as a subject on it’s own. It’s a justification for moving on in the discussion.

Of course, as Jesus told us, what is impossible with man is still possible with God, and so in his own way God can lead ex-Christians back to the faith–even very hard hearted ones. And human experience does show that apostates both can and do repent again and turn back to Christ, so we have evidence on that front as well that the author of Hebrews is speaking practically rather than technically. The long experience of twenty centuries shows that such reversions are possible, and the Church has recognized them and ministered God’s grace to such reverts by the sacrament of penance.

So I hope that helps you on that passage. Now, about 1 John 1:9, I can deal with this one much more succinctly: Your friend’s interpretation of "all unrighteousness" as "all the sins you have committed, you are committing, or you will commit" is unwarranted. The passage is more naturally taken to mean just "all the sins you have committed."

Otherwise Jesus would not have taught us to pray "forgive us our debts" as part of the model Christian prayer (and it does say "debts" in the Greek; "trespasses" is a clarification of what he means in the English translation). The fact we regularly pray for forgiveness means we ain’t forgiven for things we haven’t done or haven’t repented of yet. We need to be forgiven anew as we commit new sins. That’s the whole point of the clause.

Further, 1 John is written to Christians, not to people who need to come to Christ. That means that when John says " If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will  forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1:9) that he is talking to Christians about their ongoing need to confess their sins and receive God’s forgiveness and cleansing.

The passage itself thus is proof against the interpretation your friend is offering: Rather than meaning we’ll be forgiven for all our sins, including our future ones, the verse means that we have a continuing need to be forgiven as we commit new sins, and we can be assured of God’s forgiveness because he will be faithful to his promise to forgive if we confess our sins.

Which is good news for everybody–even hard hearted apostates.

The Tearing Of The Veil

A reader writes:

I once had a friend ask me why Catholics confess their
sins to a priest, using the fact that the temple
curtain was torn in two when Jesus was crucified as an
example of the fact that nothing should keep us from
confessing our sins directly to Jesus. How was this an
incorrect understanding of the tearing of the temple
curtain and what is the correct biblical
understanding?

It seems clear that the tearing of the veil at the Jerusalem temple when Christ died is meant to have symbolic significance. The question is: What significance does it have? What message is being communicated by this?

Your friend is apparently trying to read a very narrow message into the tearing of the veil: The fact that it is torn means that we should confess our sins to Jesus instead of a priest. This, or a variant on it, is a common interpretation in Protestant circles. One does periodically hear claims that because the veil was torn in two we should confess to God rather than to priests.

But is this really a plausible interpretation? Were Jews in the habit of confessing to priests prior to this point so that the original witnesses to the tearing of the veil would understand the message? If not, then this would be an anachronistic interpretation to take a controversy that arose in later centuries and try to read it back onto the gospel record of this event.

In fact, it appears that a confession of sorts that took place in the offering of sacrifices for sin (more info here from Pope Shenouda III of the Coptic Church), but it is not clear to what extent the confession was viewed as being made to the priest. It was something that the penitent did as part of his bringing a sacrifice to make atonement for his sins, and the priest was in the vicinity since he had to do certain things with the animal’s blood, but the principle action seems to have been confession to God, or simply to identify the sin with the animal so as to mark out what sin its sacrifice was meant to atone for.

The dominant element in this exchange is not the confession–and thus not the thing that the original witnesses of the tearing of the veil would have thought of in seeking to interpret the event. The dominant element was the sacrifice of the animal to make atonement for sin. This is the thing the original witnesses would have used in seeking to understand the significant of the rending of the veil.

Consider it: Up to now people have been making sin offerings on the Temple Mount by taking animals there and killing them. Then, at the very moment the Lamb of God dies on Golgotha, the veil is torn in the temple.

What lesson would you take away from that as a first century Jew accustomed to making animal sacrifices for your sins?

It seems to me that the most likely interpretation is that the definitive Sacrifice has now been made and thus there is no need to continue with the animal sacrifices at the temple. At least that would be the most plausible interpretation if we seek to relate the event to the individual atonement of sins. It could also have a larger message, like the passing away of the temple cultus and the Mosaic order in general or God’s judgment on the temple and its leaders who supported the killing of the Messiah or any number of other things.

In view of this, it seems anachronistic to read the event in terms of the issue of whether one confesses to a priest.

Indeed, that subject is dealt with by Jesus in the post-resurrection accounts, where he explicitly instructs his ministers to forgive or retain sins (John 20:21-23). As I’ve often pointed out, since mosts priets aren’t telepathic, if they’re going to know about the sin and whether it should be forgiven or retained (based on your repentance or lack thereof), you’re going to need to tell them about it. Hence: confession.

Good News, Everybody!

Al-Qa’eda’s having more problems!

Yes, despite current talk of the Global War on Terror being a breeding ground for new bin Ladens, the organization’s leadership sees it as weak and beset by problems. A document recently released by CENTCOM explores some of the problems. The document was discovered in a safe house in Iraq used by ex-terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Like the letter to him from Ayman al-Zawahiri that was discovered a while back (you know, the one begging Zarqawi to send a donation since the senior leadership of the organization was short on cash), the newly-released document passes on advice from senior management to Zarqawi in the form of politely phrased criticism.

Now that he’s been shuffled off this mortal coil with extreme prejudice, Zarqawi is no longer able to heed that advice, of course, but what makes the letter fascinating is what it reveals about the weakened, damanged state of al-Qa’eda.

It also seems to indicate that the senior leadership of the organization is, or at least was, in Waziristan, just as many have suspected.

The document reveals a view of American and coalition forces that is quite heartening: "the enemy isn’t easy, for he is great and numerous and he can take quite a bit of punishment as well." And it indicates that the boys in Waziristan are themselves " occupied with  vicious enemies" and that "all the mujahidin are still weak" and that they "have not yet reached a level of stability" after our attacks.

YEE-HAW!

Hit ’em again! Harder! Harder!

GET THE STORY.
 
A special thanks to all our men and women in uniform, without whom this would not have been possible.

Parental Advice & The Seal Of Confession

A reader writes:

If the parent of an adult knew his son was going to confession,
and told the priest in advance, instructing the priest what kind of
advice to give his adult son, and if the priest cooperated in
giving that advice, does that violate the seal of confession in some
way? 

Given only the facts that you mention, the answer is that this would not violate the seal of confession.

For a violation of the seal to occur the priest must, in one way or another, disclose both the identity of the penitent and the sin that was confessed. It is not sufficient for a violation of the seal to simply say merely "John Smith came to me for confession" or merely "Someone confessed to me the sin of adultery." However, if the identity of the penitent can be linked with the sin confessed then there is a violation, even if the linkage is accomplished in a roundabout way (e.g., "’John Smith came to me for confession and someone–wink, wink, nudge, nudge–confessed the sin of adultery").

N.B.: While saying "John Smith came to me for confession" does not violate the seal, the disclosure of even this amount of information would give Rome the willies in most circumstances.

From the above it is clear that no violation of the seal occurs if a priest merely listens to advice regarding what he ought to say to a penitent. As long as he (directly or indirectly) discloses no information about the penitent that can be linked to what the penitent confesses then the seal is not violated.

This is a very dangerous situation, however, because a priest listening to such advice might even inadvertently disclose such information–e.g., by thoughtlessly saying, "Good idea; I’ll mention that next time," or even too enthusiastically saying "Thanks!" or just nodding at the wrong moment or appearing too interested in the advice or even just listening to it for long enough that the mere fact of listening sends the signal that the advice is relevant to what he experiences in the confessional with the penitent. Any of these–if the advice concerned a sin that the penitent was likely to confess–would allow the identity of the penitent and the nature of the sins confessed to be linked, and thus some form of violation would occur.

The safest thing for a priest to do if offered such advice by a parent (or anybody else) would be to refuse to listen to it.

Failing that, the priest would need to set up clear and explicit hedges to block the inference that the parent’s advice was relevant–e.g., "I have to inform you that I can in no way confirm anything that your child may confess to me. I will listen to what you have to say, and I will hear you out regardless of whether what you say is relevant to your child’s confessions or not. Nothing about the fact that I listen to you or how I respond can be construed as an endorsement of the idea that you are saying anything at all that is relevant. In fact, I may deliberately assume facial expressions that would be misleading on this point, just to keep the matter confused."

That, however, is a very unsafe course, and it would be better for the priest to refuse to listen to the advice.

The above deals with situations in which the priest could only have learned about the sin confessed in the sacramental forum. If the same sin was known to be known to the priest from independent sources, the situation would be different.

For example (and to use an uncommonly clear example for purposes of illustration), suppose the priest was in a bookstore with the parent and the child. While there, the priest and the parent mutually witness the child take a book off the shelf, slip it under his shirt, and walk out of the store without paying. So both the parent and the priest unambiguously know about the sin without the sacrament being involved. If the parent then turns to the priest and says, "You should know that Johnny suffers from kleptomania. He’s receiving psychological treatment for it and often feels very guilty afterwards about what he has done. If this comes up in confession then you ought to tell him to listen to what his therapist is telling him to help him get over the problem" then the priest wouldn’t need to go through the elaborate rigamarole I described above. In this situation saying, "Okay; good idea" wouldn’t betray anything that the priest had learned in confession. Indeed, the confession wouldn’t have occurred yet.

Between these extremes is a spectrum. In drawing a line on the spectrum regarding what the priest can’t do without violating the seal, the line is to be drawn at the priest doing something that discloses information about what the penitent has told him in past confessions. This can happen either directly (e.g., "Thanks! Johnny confesses that to me all the time!") or indirectly (e.g., implying that Johnny may well confess this in the future, when the only ground the priest may be thought to have for supposing this is likely to be past confessions). In evaluating where the line is to be drawn in practical terms, the priest must err on the side of caution and do all that he can to not reveal information about past confessions, either directly or indirectly. In practice, refusing to listen to parental advice is likely to be the best way to do that.

However, if he has listened to the advice then the fact that he acts on it does not violate the seal. The seal protects information from going out of the confessional, not into it. If a priest hears good advice, from whatever source, that may be useful to him in confession (whether it is reading a moral theology manual or listening to an overly-intrusive parent) then there is no violation of the seal if he acts on that advice.

Would the priest not at least be under obligation to inform the
penitent that he had spoken to his parents?

There is no canonical obligation in this regard. A priest is not bound to disclose to the penitent the sources that inform whatever advice he gives in the sacramental forum. Just as he isn’t canonically obligated to tell the penitent what moral theology manual his advice comes from, he also isn’t obligated to say whether a particular person (parent or otherwise) gave him the advice that he chooses to pass on.

One might argue that there is a moral or prudential obligation to tell the penitent that a parent has been talking to him–lest this fact come out later and cause a family ruction–but the same argument could be made that he should not reveal this on moral/prudential grounds (i.e., a family ruction would be more likely if he told on the parent).

Blog Operations Note

Lately I’ve been fielding a bunch of canon law questions. I want to make sure that–to the best of my ability–I answer the questions folks are interested in, but it’s struck me that we haven’t had many biblical questions lately, and I’d like to increase the ratio of them that I’m doing, if possible. I’m therefore inviting biblical questions in particular at the time. 

If you have one, feel free to e-mail.

The BBC Hullabaloo

I’ve had several requests for a response to the recent BBC documentary segment Sex Crimes and the Vatican (click the link to watch it), and I plan on dealing with it soon. In fact, I’m working on the issue now.

Unfortunately, there is so much material I need to evaluate that, given the methodical way I work on such matters, it’s going to take me a few days. (I like to engage such situations loaded for bear.)

In the meantime, though, I’d like to provide some links to responses that others have prepared.

FIRST, CHECK OUT ED PETERS’ RESPONSE.

ALSO, CHECK OUT A STATEMENT FROM THE DIOCESE OF BIRMINGHAM (THE ONE IN ENGLAND, NOT ALABAMA)

AND HERE’S AMY ON THE SUBJECT.

More from JA.O soon.

Confirmation: Valid Or Invalid?

A reader writes:

I have recently come into the Catholic Church, but I have some concerns about the validity of my confirmation.  During RCIA when we were learning about the Sacrament of Reconciliation, the deacon/instructor told us, upon being questioned about it, that none of us were able to receive absolution if we went to confession as we were not yet Catholics.

This is false. The deacon did not know what he was talking about.

I was baptized in a different denomination, and upon doing some research I’ve found that there is in fact an expectation and an obligation that before one can be confirmed, one must first go to confession.

Correct.  Those who have already been baptized are expected to go to confession prior to their reception into the Catholic Church to make sure that they are in a state of grace at the time that they receive the other sacraments of initiation (confirmation and the Eucharist).

Given these circumstances and the fact that I didn’t know of the obligation to go to confession before confirmation, was my confirmation valid?  If not, what do I do?

Your confirmation was valid. While confirmation is one of the sacraments of the living (meaning: the spiritually alive, those who are in a state of grace), it requires the state of grace for liceity (lawfulness) and not for validity. Therefore, even if you were not in a state of grace at the time you received confirmation, you still would have received it validly.

This is a good thing considering the number of co-ed sleepovers that are being conducted as part of misguided confirmation preparation with teenagers.

The same thing is true for marriage and holy orders–the state of grace is required for liceity but not validity. Otherwise we’d never know who was really confirmed or married or ordained, because we could never be sure who was or wasn’t in a state of grace at the time.

Now, for a person to knowingly receive one of these sacraments in a state of mortal sin would be the sin of sacrelige, but since you (a) may have been in a state of grace at the time and (b) were doing what you were told in innocent ignorance of the need to go to confession, you are not culpable for that.

Also, on a side note, what exactly am I required to confess? Do I confess mortal sins since my baptism, or since I was not aware of the Church’s teaching regarding mortal sin, do I only confess those mortal sins that I can recall since I became explicitly aware of the Church’s teaching?

Confessions prior to reception into the Church should cover the mortal sins committed since one’s baptism. Baptism deals with mortal sins committed prior to its reception (if any), and confession deals with those committed after baptism.

What you should do at this point, if you have not already confessed these sins, is include them in your next confession. If there was a lengthy period between your baptism and your reception into the Church, so that there are a lot of sins to confession, you should make a special appointment for your next confession since it may take some time. This is better than showing up at an ordinary confession time and having everyone else wait in line for a long time. If you make an appointment, you also will be able to take whatever time you need without feeling time pressure.

To prepare for this confession, you probably should use a published examination of conscience to help you figure out what you need to confess.

You do not, however, need to refrain from receiving the Eucharist until you can make this confession. The sacrament of confession forgives all mortal sins unless some are deliberately held back. Since you didn’t culpably hold anything back, you have already been forgiven for these sins and restored to a state of grace. You still need to mention these sins in your next confession, but the situation is sacramentally equivalent to having forgotten to mention a mortal sin when you were last in confession. The sin was forgiven and still needs to be mentioned in your next confession, but you are in a state of grace and can receive the Eucharist.

Hope this helps!

20

What’s This? Mark II

Hipponetta
SDG here with a personalized follow-up to JIMMY’S "WHAT’S THIS?" POST, which highlighted the Photoshop "cloning" technique on display HERE. (Tip of the Yankee cap to the reader who also pointed out THIS SIMILAR SITE.)

Being somewhat proficient (though hardly an expert) at this kind of Photoshopping, I was inspired to take a shot at creating a similar hybrid myself.

Incidentally, since I’m not aware of anyone having undertaken to name this particular breed of hybrid before now, I hereby dub my creature a "hipponetta." (No, it’s not part hippopotamus; "hippo" is Greek for "horse" — "hippopotamus" means "river horse" — and "netta" is Greek for "duck." The same use of "hippo" is found in "hippogriff," a mythical cross between a horse and the similarly mythical griffin.)

Anyway, while I’m pleased with the results, I’m aware that my image is far from a perfect illusion. The main problem is that the "found" images I started with — taken from MorgueFile.com, an excellent website for royalty-free images — weren’t perfect matches to begin with, and couldn’t entirely be reconciled. My hybrid image is really an impossible mishmash of two different perspectives as well as different animal parts, and it only works to the extent that you don’t notice or don’t pay attention.

What I’m most pleased with is the way I was able to apply the texture of the duck’s chest and neck feathers to the shape, features and highlighting of the horse’s chest and neck. I’d never tried anything like that before, and I think it came out pretty well.

All in all, it was a lot of fun, and in a way even the imperfections make it more so, at least to me.

GET A BETTER LOOK AT THE HIPPONETTA.

REVISIT THOSE OTHER TWO SITES.