Zechariah’s mysterious vision in the Temple: 10 things to know and share

zechariahvisionThe Gospel reading for December 19 contains the familiar story of Zechariah in the temple.

You can read it here.

It is the occasion when the Angel Gabriel appears to him to announce the birth of John the Baptist.

Although the story is familiar, there are some fascinating details in this account, and their significance is not obvious.

Let’s take a look.

Here are 10 things to know and share . . .

 

1. When did this event take place?

Luke begins his narrative “in the days of Herod, king of Judea,” by which he means Herod the Great.

When precisely Herod the Great ruled is disputed. According to a theory introduced a little more than a century ago, Herod reigned from 37 B.C. to 4 B.C.

This view is generally accepted today, but it has been vigorously challenged in favor of a more traditional dating, which would extend Herod’s reign to 1 B.C. (And also place the beginning of his reign in 39 B.C.).

More on that here.

Still, 39-1 B.C. is a long span, and we can narrow it down more precisely.

Once we clear away the error that Herod died in 4 B.C., it becomes clear that Jesus—in keeping with the traditional date given by the Church Fathers—was born in 3/2 B.C.

And since John the Baptist was around 6 months older than Jesus and was in the womb for 9 months, that would put this event around 15 months before the birth of Jesus–some time in 4 or 3 B.C. Most likely, it was in November of 4 B.C.

 

2. Why November of 4 B.C.?

Luke introduces the familiar figures of Zechariah and Elizabeth, who will become the parents of John the Baptist, and informs us that Zechariah is a priest belonging to “the division of Abijah.”

At the time, the Jewish priesthood was organized as twenty four divisions or “courses,” each of which went to serve at the temple twice a year for one week at a time.

The division of Abijah was the eighth of the twenty four courses.

Through a series of complex calculations and arguments that are too detailed to go into here, it is possible to estimate when the course of Abijah was on duty at the temple.

If you want to go into those arguments in all their geeky, chronological goodness, get a copy of Jack Finnegan’s outstanding Handbook of Biblical Chronology (see sections 467-473).

The upshot, though, is that Zechariah likely saw the vision when he was on duty with the rest of the course of Abijah between November 10 and 17 in 4 B.C.

That would put the birth of Jesus in the winter of 3/2 B.C., in keeping with the traditional date.

 

3. How did Zechariah’s vision come about?

Luke tells us:

Now while he was serving as priest before God when his division was on duty, according to the custom of the priesthood, it fell to him by lot to enter the temple of the Lord and burn incense. And the whole multitude of the people were praying outside at the hour of incense [Luke 1:8-10].

You might wonder: Why was Zechariah chosen by lot to offer incense?

The answer is that there were, at this time, as many as 8,000 priests in total, and they could not all offer incense, even when their division was on duty.

KEEP READING.

Gaudete Sunday: 11 things to know and share . . .

gaudetesundayThe third Sunday of Advent is known as “Gaudete Sunday.”

In the readings, we hear about miracles associated with the Messianic age, its coming, and what we need to do to prepare.

We also learn about the doubts of John the Baptist, how he dealt with them, and the blessing that makes us even more fortunate than John was.

Here are 11 things to know and share . . .

 

1) Why is the third Sunday of Lent known as Gaudete Sunday?

Its name is taken from the entrance antiphon of the Mass, which is:

Rejoice in the Lord always; again I say, rejoice.
Indeed, the Lord is near.

This is a quotation from Philippians 4:4-5, and in Latin, the first word of the antiphon is gaudete (Latin, “rejoice”)

 

2) What significance does this have?

Advent is the season of preparing for the arrival of the Lord Jesus (both his first coming and his second coming), and by the third Sunday of Advent, we are most of the way through the season.

Thus it is appropriate to rejoice as we see the goal of the season approaching: “The Lord is near.”

 

3) What is the appropriate liturgical color for this day?

According to the rubrics:

In this mass the color violet or rose is used.

It can thus be either one. It doesn’t have to be rose; it can also be violet.

 

4) What does the first reading say?

KEEP READING.

2nd Sunday of Advent: 9 things to know and share

winnowThis Sunday’s readings take us from Old Testament prophecies of the future Messiah to the union of Jew and Gentile in God’s kingdom.

They also bring us to the herald of Jesus’ earthly ministry and the mysterious image of Jesus’ “winnowing fan.”

Here are 9 things to know and share . . .

 

1) What does the first reading this Sunday say?

The first reading is Isaiah 11:1-10 (you can read it here).

This reading contains the famous Messianic prophesy which begins:

A shoot shall come out from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots.

It continues by describing how the Spirit of the Lord will rest upon him.

The passage stresses that the “shoot” (a future king of the line of David) will judge righteously. It also uses language that will be applied to Jesus in the New Testament, stating:

he shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall kill the wicked.

Then comes the famous passage:

The wolf shall live with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the kid,

the calf and the lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them.

The cow and the bear shall graze, their young shall lie down together;

and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

The prophecy concludes:

They will not hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain;

for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea.

On that day the root of Jesse shall stand as a signal to the peoples; the nations shall inquire of him, and his dwelling shall be glorious.

2) What does this mean?

This prophecy may have had an initial fulfillment in the days after it was first given, in Isaiah’s time. If so then, like many prophecies, it has another, greater fulfillment, which is in the Messiah.

The text depicts the ideal king—the Messiah—who will come as a shoot or branch from the stump of Jesse. That is, he will belong to the line of King David, the son of Jesse.

The Hebrew word for “branch” is netser, and this is part of the background to Matthew’s statement that “He shall be called a Nazarene” (Matt. 2:23), playing on the similarity in sound between netser and nazoraios (an inhabitant of Nazareth).

The language this passage uses to describe how the Spirit of the Lord rests upon the king was later used by the Church to describe the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Endowed with the Spirit as he is, the Messiah will be the ideal king. He will have powerful authority (“he shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth”), but he will use his kingly authority wisely and in the service of justice (“and with the breath of his lips he shall kill the wicked”).

He will not oppress his people. Far from it! Rather, he will inaugurate an era of peace and justice such that it can be depicted as reconciling predators and prey, so that “they will not hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain.”

This will lead to knowledge of the true God spreading all over the world “as the waters cover the sea” and in that day the Messiah—the root of Jesse—shall be a beacon to all peoples, who will turn to him and inquire of him and his wisdom.

These prophecies are fulfilled, in an anticipatory way, with the first advent of the Messiah and the spread of the Christian faith, and they will be definitively fulfilled with the second advent and the eternal order.

 

3) What does the responsorial Psalm for this Sunday say?

KEEP READING.

Do our souls go to sleep when we die?

soul-sleepThere are passages in the Bible that speak of the dead as if they are asleep.

As a result, some Christians have adopted a view known as “soul sleep,” which holds that we are not conscious between our death and resurrection.

This would mean that the intercession of the saints would go out the window.

But are these verses meant to be taken literally?

What evidence do we have?

I go into that in the following video . . .

CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE VIDEO ON YOUTUBE.

By the way, don’t forget to subscribe to my YouTube channel so that you’ll get a shiny new email whenever I post a video!

Also . . .

 

What Now?

If you like the information I’ve presented here, you should join my Secret Information Club.

If you’re not familiar with it, the Secret Information Club is a free service that I operate by email.

I send out information on a variety of fascinating topics connected with the Catholic faith.

In fact, the very first thing you’ll get if you sign up is information about what Pope Benedict said about the book of Revelation.

He had a lot of interesting things to say!

If you’d like to find out what they are, just sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy sign-up form:

Just email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com if you have any difficulty.

In the meantime, what do you think?

Who was John the Baptist? (11 things to know and share)

What do we know about the mysterious John the Baptist? Here are 11 things to and share . . .
What do we know about the mysterious John the Baptist? Here are 11 things to and share . . .

John the Baptist is a mysterious figure in the New Testament.

He was famous in his own day, even before he became the herald of Christ.

We even know about him from outside the New Testament.

His memorial is August 29th, so it’s an excellent time to catch up on him.

Here are 11 things to know and share . . .

 

1) How was John the Baptist related to Jesus?

John was related to Jesus through their mothers. In Luke 1:36, Elizabeth is described as Mary’s “kinswoman,” meaning that they were related in some way through marriage or blood.

Most likely, it was a blood relationship, but neither a particularly close or distant one.

Elizabeth, being elderly, may have been an aunt, great-aunt, or one of the many types of “cousin.” The precise relationship cannot be determined.

This means that Jesus and John were cousins in one or another senses of the term.

 

2) When did John the Baptist’s ministry begin?

Luke gives us an extraordinarily precise date for the beginning of John’s ministry. He writes:

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar . . . the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness; and he went into all the region about the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins [Luke 3:1-3].

“The fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar” is most naturally understood as a reference to A.D. 29.

This is important also because Luke suggests that Jesus’ ministry began shortly after John’s did, which places the likely date of Jesus’ baptism in A.D. 29 or early A.D. 30.

 

3) Why did John come baptizing?

Scripture presents us with several reasons.

He served as the forerunner or herald of the Messiah and was to prepare for him by fulfilling an Elijah-like role by calling the nation to repentance.

In keeping with that, he baptized people as a sign of their repentance.

He also came to identify and announce the Messiah. According to John the Baptist: “I myself did not know him; but for this I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel” (John 1:31).

This identification was made when he baptized Jesus: “I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him; but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God” (1:32-34).

 

4) How did John’s arrest affect Jesus?

KEEP READING.

Did Jesus Exist? An Alternate Approach

jesus_calls_610x300Did Jesus exist?

Discussions of this subject often begin by looking at references to Jesus in early Christian sources.

Either that or they look for references to Jesus in early non-Christian sources.

But there’s another way of looking at the question that is often ignored . . .

 

The Standard Approach

Jesus is obviously mentioned in early Christian sources, such as the gospels, the other writings of the New Testament, and the works of the early Church fathers.

Because these are Christian sources, though, their evidence is sometimes discounted, and so an appeal is made to references in early non-Christian sources that mention Jesus.

He is mentioned, for example, in the writings of a number of Roman writers who lived in the early 100s. He’s also mentioned, somewhat more controversially, in the writings of the first century Jewish historian, Josephus.

But an objection is sometimes made to these sources as well: It is suggested that they don’t represent independent evidence for the existence of Jesus, because the authors in question only know about Jesus from what they have learned from Christians.

In some cases, this may be true. In other cases, it may not be true. Some of these authors may have had access to records that conveyed information about Jesus independent of the Christian movement.

But suppose that they didn’t. Suppose that all of the information presented in these sources is ultimately derived from Christian sources.

This does not leave us at an impasse, because there is another approach to the question that we can take.

 

References to Christianity

Instead of looking, in the first instance, for references to Jesus, we can look at references to the Christian movement itself and see what we can learn about it.

Of course, the same sources that refer to Jesus tend to refer to the Christian movement. That means that we can quickly establish a number of quite early references to Christianity.

It is mentioned by:

  • Suetonius, writing around A.D. 121
  • Tacitus, writing around A.D. 116
  • Pliny the Younger, writing in A.D. 110 or 111
  • The Emperor Trajan, writing back to Pliny in A.D. 110 or 111
  • And Josephus, writing around A.D. 93

The inclusion of Josephus in this list is not dependent on the famous Testimonium Flavianum found in his Antiquities 18:3:3.

Even setting aside that reference, which is partially corrupted, Josephus elsewhere refers to Jesus having followers (noting that he “was called Christ”) in a passage for which we have no evidence of manuscript corruption (Antiquities 20:9:1).

We thus have multiple references for the existence of a Christian movement that date to the end of the first century and the beginning of the second.

 

Geographical Spread

These same references indicate a considerable geographical spread for the movement.

Josephus is writing about events in Judaea, which other sources also indicate was the origin point of the movement.

But Suetonius and Tacitus write about the movement existing at Rome as well.

And Pliny the Younger indicates that it was widespread in Bithynia (in modern northern Turkey).

 

A Recent Movement

Another notable fact about the Christian movement is that it was of recent origin.

This is something also indicated by the same sources, who place its origin in the first century.

Josephus links Jesus to his “brother” James, who died in A.D. 62 (Antiquities 20:9:1).

Pliny is at a loss for how to deal with this religious movement, which is so new that the way to deal with its members is still in the process of being established (Letters 96).

Suetonius specifically says that Christians were a new movement (The Twelve Caesars: Nero 16).

And Tacitus says that Jesus was “executed during the rule of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate” (Annals 15:44).

All of this points to a first century date for the origin of the movement.

 

The Christians Agree

The earliest Christian sources agree with all this. They acknowledge that Christianity began in the first century.

This is significant, because it would not be in the early Christians’ interests to claim this.

Newness is not, on balance, a desirable trait in promoting a religion.

It is much easier to promote a religion if you can claim antiquity for it.

That’s why even religions of indisputably recent origin—including Scientology, Mormonism, and the New Age movement—invariably link themselves to some form of supposed ancient wisdom.

And the early Christians did this, pointing the origins of their movement in Judaism.

They pointed to this as a way of offsetting the fact that their movement had its particular origin just a few years earlier.

We can thus take their testimony of a recent origin as credible, for if the Christian movement had been older, they would have claimed that it was older.

 

Narrowing the Range

We can narrow the range of Christian origins further, though.

Pliny indicates that some of the people he interviewed had been Christians as many as twenty years previously. Working backward from when he was writing, that would suggest Christians in Bithynia by A.D. 90.

Tacitus and Suetonius both speak of Christians being in Rome during the reign of Nero (A.D. 54-68), and Suetonius possibly alludes to them being there during the reign of Claudius (A.D. 41-54; see The Twelve Caesars: Claudius 25).

When we turn to Christian sources, we find Luke indicating that John the Baptist began his ministry in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar (Luke 3:1), which is most naturally taken as a reference to A.D. 28.

This is significant because all four of the gospels indicate that the Christian movement began after the ministry of John the Baptist had begun.

 

A Rapidly Spreading Movement

These sources thus allow us to discern a portrait of a rapidly spreading movement.

It apparently began in the Roman province of Judaea some time in or after A.D. 28.

It spread as far as Rome no later than A.D. 54-68 (and quite possibly earlier).

And it had spread to Bithynia no later than A.D. 90.

This portrait is derived from just a few sources. If we were to allow other first and second century sources to speak, it would be easy to show that the movement was in other places as well, including Syrian Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, Thessalonica, Philippi, and many other locations.

What we see is thus a movement that went from not existing to being dramatically spread around the Roman world in just a few decades.

This tells us something important about the early Christian movement . . .

 

It Was Organized

Movements do not spread that way unless they are organized.

This was particularly the case in the ancient world, where travel was slow, difficult, dangerous, and often expensive.

The spread of Christianity was not an accident. It was the result of a deliberate strategy of evangelization that required significant organization.

This tells us something else . . .

 

It Had Leaders

Organization requires leaders. There have to be people organizing the movement and arranging for its message to spread.

The book of Romans expresses this need from a Christian viewpoint as follows:

Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

But how are they to call on one in whom they have not believed?

And how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard?

And how are they to hear without someone to proclaim him?

And how are they to proclaim him unless they are sent? [Rom. 10:13-15].

 

Developing Organization

Early Christian writings reveal quite a bit about how the Christian movement was organized and how its organization developed during the first century of its existence.

We see it quickly being organized into local groups known as churches.

These had local officers including bishops, priests, and deacons.

The churches themselves, though, tended to be planted, especially in the early days, by individuals known as apostles and evangelists.

The sources we have—including the documents of the New Testament, the writings of the early Church Fathers, and even spurious writings like the Gnostic gospels—indicate that the earliest work was done by those officials who were called “apostles.”

The Greek term for apostle—apostolos—conveys the idea of someone who has been sent, which raises a question . . .

 

Who Did the Sending?

Movements tend to have founders—especially highly organized movements.

Any time you have a sizeable, well-organized movement, there is often a single figure at its inception who played a key role in setting it up, developing its vision, and putting in place the leaders who carried it forward.

Even in movements that form when a number of similarly-minded movements come together and merge, there is usually a single figure who takes the prime leadership role.

So when we see Christianity as a geographically diverse organization that spread remarkably quickly and had leaders known as apostles (“sent ones”) founding local congregations, it’s only natural to look at the movement and ask whether it, too, had such a founding leader.

According to the early Christians, it did, and it is here that we encounter the figure of Jesus.

 

Jesus of Nazareth

The earliest accounts we have agree that Jesus of Nazareth founded the Christian movement, recruited and trained its earliest leaders, and then sent them out as his apostles.

This is simply what you would expect of an organization that displayed the sudden appearance and growth of the Christian movement, and there is no good reason to reject the movement’s own account of its origins on this point.

The sudden appearance and rapid growth of Christianity points to a level of organization and motivation that is most naturally explained by the movement having a single, recent, and charismatic founder.

 

Not Unique to Christianity

This reasoning does not apply just to Christianity. It also applies to other movements that suddenly appear and grow quickly.

For example, it applies to Islam.

Islam did not exist prior to the early A.D. 600s, and within the first 150 years of its existence it spread dramatically, ranging all the way through North Africa, to the Middle East, to India (with a European foothold in Portugal and Spain).

That kind of expansion required organization.

In Islam’s case, the organization was political and military, but it still pointed to the existence of a single, recent, charismatic founder—Muhammad—who established the movement, provided its vision, and gave it its early organization and motivation.

 

The Reality of Jesus

You would expect a movement that began and then spread far and wide in only a few decades to have a founder, and—absent very strong evidence to the contrary—it does not make sense to reject the movement’s claim about who its founder was.

From non-Christian sources alone, we could have predicted that Christianity likely had a founder who lived some time in the first half of the first century.

When we find Christian sources agreeing with this and identifying that founder as Jesus of Nazareth, we have reason to credit this claim and to conclude: Jesus of Nazareth existed.

What did Jesus mean when he said not to judge others? (10 things to know and share)

What did Jesus mean when he said not to judge others? Here are 10 things to know and share . . .
What did Jesus mean when he said not to judge others? Here are 10 things to know and share . . .

Jesus famously said, “Judge not, lest ye be judged.”

Today, some people use this to shut down conversations when the subject turns to sexual morality.

“Didn’t Jesus say not to judge others?” they ask. “Who are you to judge?”

Did Jesus mean his words to be used this way?

If not, what did he mean?

Here are 10 things to know and share . . .

 

1) Not a cover for immoral behavior in general

It’s clear that Jesus did not intend his words to be used as a cover for immoral behavior.

He did not mean them to be used as a conversation stopper to shut down attempts to admonish people engaged in immoral behavior.

In fact, Jesus himself did rather a lot of admonishing regarding proper moral conduct.

That is, in fact, the subject of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), in which the saying occurs.

 

2) Not even a cover for sexual misbehavior

Jesus had quite a bit to say about sexual immortality as well—noting, for example, in the Sermon on the Mount that even being mentally unfaithful was a sin:

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart [Matt. 5:27-28].

 

3) Not a prohibition on admonishing others

Jesus did also not intend his words to be used to stop others from admonishing others when they are committing sinful behavior.

Jesus himself told his ministers:

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you [Matt. 28:19-20].

That would include teaching his commands regarding sexual morality.

Also, admonishing sinners is a spiritual work of mercy that we are to engage in:

My brethren, if any one among you wanders from the truth and some one brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins [Jas. 5:19-20].

 

4) Not an endorsement of moral relativism

Taking Jesus’ teaching out of context, one might try to use it as a pretext for moral relativism—the idea that all moral judgments regarding the conduct of others are to be suspended and each person is to be allowed to define what is morally good for himself.

This is clearly ruled out by what we’ve already seen regarding Jesus’ own teaching on morality and on the need to proclaim them to others.

We do not define moral truth for ourselves. Moral relativism is a false position that is incompatible with the Christian faith.

It is also incompatible with itself. Like all forms of relativism, it is self-contradictory.

If it is wrong to make moral judgments regarding the behavior of others then it would be wrong to judge others for judging!

So what did Jesus mean?

KEEP READING.

14 things you need to know about the new book Zealot

What should you think of the new book Zealot? Here are 14 things to know and share.
What should you think of the new book Zealot? Here are 14 things to know and share.

There’s a new best-seller out there which claims to give us “the real story” on Jesus.

It’s called Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, and it is one in a long line of books challenging the portrait of Jesus given in the gospels.

The author is giving interviews in the major media, promoting his book, and people are asking questions about it and how to respond.

Here are 14 things to know and share . . .

 

1) What is Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth?

It is a book authored by Reza Aslan and published by Random House in July of 2013.

With the power of the Random House marketing machine behind it, the book quickly shot to the top of Amazon’s bestseller list.

The book is billed as a biography of Jesus of Nazareth.

In keeping with Aslan’s creative writing background (see below), much of it is written in a casual, narrative style that does not stop to cite sources, mount arguments, or consider alternative viewpoints.

It reads rather a lot like historical fiction, with Aslan inviting us to imagine the colors of the curtain of the Jerusalem temple, how scene at the temple would have sounded, and even how it would have smelled (rather putrid, according to Aslan).

 

2) Who is Reza Aslan?

Aslan is an associate professor of creative writing at the University of California Riverside. He lives in Hollywood.

He was born in Tehran, Iran but raised in the San Francisco Bay Area.

His family background is Muslim, though not devout.

He himself experienced a conversion to Christianity in his teens but later lost his faith.

He has a doctorate in the sociology of religions from the University of California Santa Barbara.

 

3) Is Aslan trying to hide his Muslim background?

He has been accused of doing so in television interviews, but this seems unfounded.

He certainly does not hide it in the book. In fact, there is an “Author’s Note” at the beginning of Zealot that explains his religious background very forthrightly.

Aslan’s Muslim background is not very relevant to the views he proposes in Zealot, and given the dynamics of TV interviews, it wouldn’t make sense for Aslan to discuss this unless he were specifically asked about it.

 

4) Is Aslan giving us a Muslim re-reading of Jesus?

KEEP READING.

Paradoxical symbols in the Book of Revelation (7 things to know and share!)

The book of Revelation depicts Jesus with a sword issuing from his mouth. What does this mean? And what should we make of the other paradoxical symbols in Revelation?
The book of Revelation depicts Jesus with a sword issuing from his mouth. What does this mean? And what should we make of the other paradoxical symbols in Revelation?

Revelation contains many symbols. Some of them are easy to understand, some are hard, and some are just paradoxical.

Ironically, the paradoxical ones can be particularly easy to figure out.

Here’s what you should know . . .

 

1. What Is a Paradoxical Symbol?

A paradoxical symbol, as I am using the term, is one in which Revelation symbolizes something in a surprising at–at first glance–contradictory way. It involves a reversal of expectations.

These symbols often involve two statements, the first of which sets up certain expectations on the part of the reader and the second which reverses these expectations.

You can see them as a pair of two, seemingly contrary symbols that must be understood together to have a true picture of what is meant.

The best way to explain this is by looking at examples . . .

 

2. The Lion That Is a Lamb

In Revelation 5, one of the twenty-four elders in heaven comes to John, who is weeping because no one can open the scroll that reveals God’s will. The elder says:

“Weep not; lo, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals” [Rev. 5:5].

This draws on symbolism from the book of Genesis where Israel’s son Judah is described as a “young lion” (Genesis 49:9).

The added specification of “the Root of David” makes it clear that the elder is referring to Jesus, the Messiah, who was both from the tribe of Judah and a descendant of David.

We are told that the lion “has conquered,” enabling him to open the scroll.

Based on what John has been told, he (and the reader) could expect him to turn and see Jesus depicted in the form of a lion, a violent, deadly beast who “has conquered”—possibly with bloody claws and fangs.

But when he turns, John sees something very different:

And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders, I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth [Rev. 5:6].

Instead of a conquering lion, John sees a lamb that is “standing, as though it had been slain.”

It is not a powerful, ravening predator with dripping claws and fangs but a weak, vulnerable prey animal that has been mortally wounded.

And yet it stands. This represents Jesus’ resurrection (the Lamb stands) in spite of the fact that he was crucified (“had been slain”).

Here we have a paradox–a juxtaposition of two seemingly contradictory symbols:

  • The Lion: The dangerous predator that conquers (overcomes its prey)
  • The Lamb: The vulnerable prey that is slain (overcome by its conquerors)

To fully understand this symbolism, we have to embrace both images.

It is true that Jesus is a Lion from the tribe of Judah. He has conquered.

But the way he has done these things is surprising and involves a reversal of expectations: He has conquered by assuming a position of vulnerability, by serving as the Lamb, and being slain–and raised again to stand despite this.

This is not the only symbol in Revelation of this type.

 

3. White Robes That Should Be Red

KEEP READING.

Are We Re-Crucifying Jesus in the Mass?

Are we re-crucifying Christ at every Mass?
Are we re-crucifying Christ at every Mass?

Anti-Catholics often charge that Catholics “re-crucify” Jesus through the sacrifice of the Mass.

If we were, that would be a problem, because the Bible repeatedly indicates that Jesus suffered and died “once for all.”

What’s really going on here?

How should we understand the relationship of the Mass to the sacrifice of the Cross?

 

Question from a Reader

Some time ago, I got the following question from a reader:

You know the way non-Catholics always say we are re-doing the crucifixion at every Mass.

I want to say, “No, we’re re-doing the Last Supper (as He said to do).”

At the Last Supper, Christ is pre-presenting the Calvary sacrifice, so if they could participate in it ahead of time, why can’t we participate in it after that time?

So my question is: Is it accurate to say that the Mass is a re-enactment of the Last Supper, rather than of the crucifixion?

There’s a sense in which it’s a re-enactment of both, but I think the reader is on to something here. The way a current Mass re-enacts the two is not the same.

 

Last Supper, Crucifixion, Mass Today

To flesh out the idea, we need to consider the relationship between three events:

·      The Last Supper (a.k.a. The First Mass)

·      The Crucifixion

·      Any particular Mass being held today

Obviously, all three of these are related to each other, but the nature of the relationship differs.

The Masses (the first one and contemporary ones) make present the sacrifice of the Cross in a special sense.

 

The Catechism Speaks

KEEP READING.