Category: Prophecy

La Salette Apparition – Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World

In 1846, two French children reported an apparition of the Virgin Mary, who gave them warnings for the world and secrets for the children. Jimmy Akin and Dom Bettinelli look at the approval of the apparition by the local bishop and the controversy that has continued to this day.

Links for this episode:

Mysterious Headlines

Direct Link to the Episode.

Subscribe on iTunes. | Other Ways to Subscribe.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

John Hendrix, The Tennessee Prophet – Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World

John Hendrix, The Tennessee Prophet

A very religious man in Tennessee named John Hendrix made some remarkable prophecies in 1915 after experiencing tragedy and turning to God. Jimmy Akin and Dom Bettinelli discuss Hendrix, his startling prophecies that concerned his hometown, the US, and the whole world, and how they apparently came true in some cases decades later.

Links for this episode:

Mysterious Headlines

Direct Link to the Episode.

Subscribe on iTunes. | Other Ways to Subscribe.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Secret No More

After reading the secret, the Holy Father realized the connection between the assassination attempt and Fatima. He has since consistently attributed his survival of the gunshot wound to the intercession of Our Lady of Fatima. 

For years I have had a special devotion to Our Lady of Fatima. Of all the recent Marian apparitions, Fatima has spoken to me the most. Like millions of others, I had often wondered about the contents of the “third secret of Fatima,” which is more properly termed the third part of the secret of Fatima.

When the Holy See released the text of the 83-year-old third secret June 26, it was as part of a booklet prepared by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith titled The Message of Fatima (MF). I wasn’t the only one surprised at its contents. It did not contain prophecies of the end of the world, of a great apostasy, or many of the other things it had been rumored to contain. However, I was not disappointed. (Relieved would be a better word.) And it gave me a new appreciation of the Church’s struggle with Communism and of the current pontiff by showing me the view from heaven.

What Happened at Fatima, Portugal

Lucia dos Santos—the only Fatima seer alive today—is in many ways the “core” visionary of Fatima. She says she experienced supernatural visitations as early as 1915, two years before the famous appearances of the Virgin Mary. In 1917, she and two of her cousins, Francisco and Jacinta Marto, were working as shepherds tending their families’ flocks. On May 13, 1917, the three children saw an apparition of Our Lady. She told them, among other things, that she would return once a month for six months.

At Our Lady’s third appearance, on July 13, Lucia was shown the secret of Fatima. She reportedly turned pale and cried out with fear, calling Our Lady by name. There was a thunderclap, and the vision ended.

The children again saw the Virgin on September 13. In the sixth and final appearance, on October 13, a dramatic outward sign was given to those gathered to witness the event. After the clouds of a rainstorm parted, numerous witnesses—some as far as 40 miles away—reported seeing the sun dance, spin, and send out colored rays of light.

Meanwhile, as World War I raged across Europe, an epidemic of Spanish flu swept the globe. It erupted in America and was spread by soldiers being sent to distant lands. This epidemic killed an estimated 20,000,000 people. Among them were Franciso and Jacinta, who contracted the illness in 1918 and died in 1919 and 1920, respectively. Lucia entered the convent.

On June 13, 1929, at the convent chapel in Tuy, Spain, Lucia had another mystical experience in which she saw the Trinity and the Blessed Virgin. Mary told her, “The moment has come in which God asks the Holy Father in union with all the bishops of the world to make the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, promising to save it by this means” (S. Zimdars-Schwartz, Encountering Mary, 197).

On October 13, 1930, the bishop of Leiria (now Leiria-Fatima) proclaimed the apparitions at Fatima authentic and worthy of assent.

The Secret Is Written Down

Between 1935 and 1941, on the orders of her superiors, Sr. Lucia wrote four memoirs of the Fatima events. In the third of these, she recorded the first two parts of the secret, explaining that there was a third part she was not yet permitted by heaven to reveal. In the Fourth Memoir, she added a sentence to the end of the second part of the secret: “In Portugal, the dogma of the faith will always be preserved, etc.” This sentence has been the basis for much speculation that the third part of the secret concerned a great apostasy. Sr. Lucia also noted that in writing the secret in the Fourth Memoir, “With the exception of that part of the Secret which I am not permitted to reveal at present, I shall say everything. I shall not knowingly omit anything, though I suppose I may forget just a few small details of minor importance.”

Upon the publication of the Third and Fourth Memoirs, the world became aware of the secret of Fatima and its three parts, including Our Lady’s request that Russia be consecrated (entrusted) to her Immaculate Heart by the pope and the bishops of the world. On October 31, 1942, Pius XII consecrated not only Russia but the whole world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. What was missing, though, was the involvement of the world’s bishops.

In 1943, the bishop of Leiria ordered Sr. Lucia to put the third secret of Fatima in writing. She did not feel at liberty to do so until 1944. It was then placed a wax-sealed envelope on which Sr. Lucia wrote that it should not be opened until 1960.

The “Third Secret” and the Popes

The secret remained with the bishop of Leiria until 1957, when it was requested (along with photocopies of Sr. Lucia’s other writings) by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. According to Cardinal Bertone the secret was read by both Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI (see MF, “Introduction”). “John Paul II, for his part, asked for the envelope containing the third part of the ‘secret’ following the assassination attempt on 13 May 1981” (ibid.). He read it sometime between July 18 and August 11.

It is significant that John Paul II did not read the secret until after the assassination attempt was made on his life. He notes in Crossing the Threshold of Hope (1994), “And thus we come to May 13, 1981, when I was wounded by gunshots fired in St. Peter’s Square. At first, I did not pay attention to the fact that the assassination attempt had occurred on the exact anniversary of the day Mary appeared to the three children at Fatima in Portugal and spoke to them the words that now, at the end of this century, seem to be close to their fulfillment” (221).

After reading the secret, the Holy Father realized the connection between the assassination attempt and Fatima. He has since consistently attributed his survival of the gunshot wound to the intercession of Our Lady of Fatima. “It was a mother’s hand that guided the bullet’s path,” he said, “and in his throes the Pope halted at the threshold of death” (Meditation from the Policlinico Gemelli to the Italian Bishops, May 13, 1994).

As had Pius XII, John Paul II decided to consecrate not only Russia but also the entire world to her Immaculate Heart. After he read the third part of the secret in July, he decided to journey to Fatima on May 13, 1982, and there performed the Act of Entrustment.

This act, however, did not appear to satisfy the requested consecration, and so, “on 25 March 1984 in Saint Peter’s Square, while recalling the fiat uttered by Mary at the Annunciation, the Holy Father, in spiritual union with the bishops of the world, who had been ‘convoked’ beforehand, entrusted all men and women and all peoples to the Immaculate Heart of Mary” (Bertone, MF).

“Sister Lucia personally confirmed that this solemn and universal act of consecration corresponded to what Our Lady wished (‘Yes it has been done just as Our Lady asked, on 25 March 1984’: Letter of 8 November 1989). Hence any further discussion or request is without basis” (Bertone, MF).

The Fall of Communism

After it became public that there was a secret of Fatima and that it mentioned Russia, many pondered Fatima in the light of Russian Communism.

Nineteen seventeen was a year of turmoil for Russia. Besides fighting in World War I, the country experienced two civil wars known as the February Revolution and the October Revolution. The former led to the creation of a provisional government that proved unstable. On October 24–25, less than two weeks after the final appearance of Our Lady of Fatima, the second revolution resulted in the creation of the Soviet government.

In the ensuing years, Russia expanded its sphere of influence, exporting Communist ideology and revolution to other lands and martyring Christians wherever it spread. Once Pope John Paul II’s 1984 consecration took place, first the Soviet bloc and then the USSR itself crumbled from a variety of social, political, and economic factors.

As the Pope himself noted, “And what are we to say of the three children from Fatima who suddenly, on the eve of the outbreak of the October Revolution, heard: ‘Russia will convert’ and ‘In the end, my [Immaculate] Heart will triumph’ . . . ? They could not have invented those predictions. They did not know enough about history or geography, much less the social movements and ideological developments. And nevertheless it happened just as they had said” (CTH, 131; emphasis in original).

Though he did not reveal the third part of the secret until this year, six years earlier John Paul II hinted at its contents. Immediately after he meditated on the fall of Communism in connection with Fatima, he went on to write:

“Perhaps this is also why the Pope was called from a ‘faraway country,’ perhaps this is why it was necessary for the assassination attempt to be made in t. Peter’s Square precisely on May 13,1981, the anniversary of the first apparition at Fatima – so that all could become more transparent and comprehensible, so that the voice of god which speaks in human history through the ‘signs of the times’ could be more easily heard and understood” (CHT, 131-132).

By the year 2000, the Holy Father felt able to reveal the final part of Fatima’s secret, since “the events to which the third part of the ‘secret’ of Fatima refers now seem part of the past” (Sodano, MF, “Announcement”). The pontiff selected the beatification of Francisco and Jacinta on May 13, 2000 in Portugal as the occasion to announce this fact.

Interpreting the Secret

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the CDF, points out that the key to the apparition of Fatima is its call to repentance and conversion (MF, “Theological Commentary”). All three parts of the secret serve to motivate the individual to repentance, and they do so in a dramatic way.

The first part of the secret—the vision of hell—is the most important, for it reveals to individuals the tragic consequences of failure to repent and what awaits them in the invisible world if they are not converted.

In the second part, Mary says, “You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart.” Speaking of devotion to the Immaculate Heart as a means of salvation is not part of our cultural vocabulary and is easily misunderstood. Some anti-Catholics have even taken it as a false gospel replacing the gospel of Christ. It is no such thing, as Cardinal Ratzinger explains:

“According to Matthew 5:8, the ‘immaculate heart’ is a heart which, with God’s grace, has come to perfect interior unity and therefore ‘sees God.’ To be ‘devoted’ to the Immaculate Heart of Mary means therefore to embrace this attitude of heart, which makes the fiat —‘your will be done’—the defining center of one’s whole life. It might be objected that we should not place a human being between ourselves and Christ. But then we remember that Paul did not hesitate to say to his communities: ‘imitate me’ (1 Cor. 4:16; Phil. 3:17; 1 Thess. 1:6; 2 Thess. 3:7, 9)” (op. cit.).

After explaining the vision of hell, Mary spoke of a war that “will break out during the pontificate of Pius XI.” This latter war, of course, was World War II, which Sr. Lucia reckoned as having been occasioned by the annexation of Austria by Germany during the reign of Pius XI (J. de Marchi, Temoignages sur les apparitions de Fatima, 346).

Sr. Lucia understood the night of the “unknown light” mentioned by Our Lady to be January 25, 1938, when Europe was witness to a spectacular nighttime display of light in the sky. In her third memoir she wrote, “Your Excellency is not unaware that, a few years ago, God manifested that sign, which astronomers chose to call an aurora borealis. . . . God made use of this to make me understand that his justice was about to strike the guilty nations.”

Much has been made of the statement “Russia will be converted.” Many people have assumed this meant the Russian people as a whole would become Catholic. But the language of the text does not require this: The Portuguese word converterá doesn’t necessarily mean converted to the Catholic faith. It can mean simply that Russia will stop its warlike behavior, and thus “there will be peace.” This interpretation seems to be the one understood by John Paul II in a passage cited above from Crossing the Threshold of Hope.

The Third Part

In reading the third part of the secret, it is important to understand that its imagery is similar to that of many prophecies in the Bible in four key ways.

First, its depiction of events is non-literal. When it describes the pope’s ascent to the foot of a cross, it can be seen as symbolic of the continual struggle of the pope to follow Christ.

Second, it compresses events that occur over many years and in many places into a single image. The third secret of Fatima is essentially an icon of the twentieth-century conflict between the Church and Communist Russia. And, like any icon, the elements that it shows us must be meditated upon in a kind of timeless fashion.

Third, the third secret is written according to the language of appearances. It describes things as they appeared in the vision, not necessarily as they are in reality. We see this mode of speech (called “phenomenological language”) in the Bible, for example, when Scripture speaks of the sun rising and setting. The sun appears to move around the earth, though in reality it is the motion of the earth around the sun that causes this phenomenon.

Fourth, scriptural prophecies often can be changed by the response of human free will. For instance, when Jonah preached destruction to Nineveh and it repented, God spared it. Similarly, in Scripture, God declares, “If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will repent of the evil that I intended to do to it” (Jer. 18:7–8).

In one crucial respect, the secret of Fatima is unlike any of the biblical prophecies: It is not divinely inspired. While it is the product of God’s grace, God does not guarantee the exact wording or even every element of the text the way he does with the statements of Scripture.

In a letter to John Paul II date May 12, 1982, Sr. Lucia wrote: “The third part of the secret refers to Our Lady’s words [in the second part]: ‘If not, [Russia] will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred; the Holy Father will have much to suffer; various nations will be annihilated’ (13-VII-1917)” (MF, Introduction).

In interpreting the third part of the secret, the angel with the flaming sword clearly represents the judgment that would fall on the world were it not for the intercession of Mary (and, of course, the intercession of others, though here it is Mary with whom we are concerned). For many years it was rumored that the third part of the secret involved the possibility of a nuclear war. If there is anything in the text that suggests this, it is the flames of the sword, which Sr. Lucia noted “looked as though they would set the world on fire.”

In Scripture, fire tends to be an image of judgment or conflict in general. In his commentary on the angel’s flaming sword, however, Cardinal Ratzinger seems to allude to nuclear war: “Today the prospect that the world might be reduced to ashes by a sea of fire no longer seems pure fantasy: Man himself, with his inventions, has forged the flaming sword” (ibid.). In the 1984 consecration of the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the second of Pope John Paul II’s specific petitions was, “From incalculable self-destruction, from every kind of war, deliver us” (Sodano, MF, “Introduction”).

The angel then signifies the means by which the judgment is averted: “Pointing to the earth with his right hand, the Angel cried out in a loud voice: ‘Penance, Penance, Penance!’”

The seers then saw in the unapproachable light of God a reflection of someone who, Lucia says, ‘we had the impression . . . was the holy father.’”

With the pope were others climbing a mountain to a rough-hewn cross. Mountains are traditional places where man meets with God, the difficult process of ascending the mountain suggesting the perseverance required to follow God. The ruggedness of the cross depicted in the vision evokes the harshness of the sufferings of Christ and those who share in his sufferings.

The journey of the pope and those with him through the half-ruined city suggests that the Church must pass through the destruction that accompanies war, and it evokes the suffering of the pontiff in witnessing this destruction but being unable to stop it. This reflects the experience of many twentieth-century popes.

Then comes the part of the vision reflecting the attempted assassination on Pope John Paul II. It shows that he, like numerous other members of the Church, must face the possibility of martyrdom in the conflict between the Church and Russian Communism. (There are, in fact, significant indications that the would-be papal assassin, Mehmet Ali Agca, was on a mission sponsored by the Russian secret police, the KGB.)

There are two.aspects of this part of the secret that will be seized upon by those who wish to challenge the Holy See’s interpretation. First, the killers are described as a group of soldiers using guns and arrows, not as a lone gunman who is not a soldier.

The response to this objection is simple. The third part of the secret simply describes one group of people killing another group. The soldiers in the vision represent all those who have been used by Communists to martyr or attempt to martyr Catholics, and those being killed represent all Catholics who suffer in this way at the hands of Communists. The vision thus indicates that the Holy Father will himself be a victim of this violence, though without indicating the particular means by which it will be brought to bear upon him.

Critics of the Holy See’s interpretation will also point to the fact that Pope John Paul II did not die. To this there are a couple of responses:

(1) If in the vision Lucia saw the pope being shot and falling over, she might well have thought that he had been killed even though in reality he would only be gravely wounded.

(2) The intercession of Mary may have changed what would have happened. “That here ‘a mother’s hand’ had deflected the fateful bullet only shows once more that there is no immutable destiny, that faith and prayer are forces which can influence history and that in the end prayer is more powerful than bullets and faith more powerful than armies” (Ratzinger, MF, op. cit.).

In the final image of the two angels, an aspersorium can refer to a stoup, basin, or vessel used to hold holy water, or it can refer to the.aspergill used to sprinkle holy water. Either way, the angels using the blood of the martyrs to sprinkle the souls going to God gives us a powerful symbol of salvation, of the honor shows to the martyrs by God, and of the significance of their blood. Cardinal Ratzinger points out: “Therefore, the vision of the third part of the ‘secret,’so distressing at first, concludes with an image of hope: No suffering is in vain, and it is a suffering Church, a Church of martyrs, which becomes a sign-post for man in his search for God” (op. cit.).

Apologetic Fallout

Having looked at the entire secret of Fatima, it remains for us to assess a few questions and apologetic issues that remain in the wake of the release of its final part:

1) Has the Vatican revealed the whole of the secret?
Yes. Any accusation to the contrary is simply not credible. John Paul II clearly believes that the third secret of Fatima is crucial to understanding his own pontificate. He is specially invested in the third secret, and, if he says that he has released the full text of the document, then he has. No one with an accurate appraisal of the moral character of John Paul II could think otherwise.

2) Why does the end of the second part of the secret not flow seamlessly into the third?
Because the third part was written more than three years after the first two. Though the three parts describe a single event, they were not composed as a single narrative. For whatever reason, when Sr. Lucia wrote down the third part of the secret she chose not to write it in a way that fit seamlessly with her previous narrative.

3) Wouldn’t it have been of use for people to have known the secret much sooner? 
Sr. Lucia herself explained: “It may be . . . that some people think that I should have made known all this some time ago, because they consider that it would have been twice as valuable years beforehand. This would have been the case, if God had willed to present me to the world as a prophetess. But I believe that God had no such intention, when he made known these things to me. If that had been the case, I think that, in 1917, when He ordered me to keep silence . . . He would, on the contrary, have ordered me to speak” (Third Memoir, 115).

This highlights the error of those who have insisted that the Virgin Mary demanded that the third part of the secret be read to the world by 1960 at the latest. When queried about this, Sr. Lucia replied: “It was not Our Lady. I fixed the date because I had the intuition that before 1960 it would not be understood but that only later would it be understood” (Bertone, MF, “Conversation”).

4) To what does the triumph of Mary’s Immaculate Heart refer?
Cardinal Ratzinger explains, “The Heart open to God, purified by contemplation of God, is stronger than guns and weapons of every kind. The fiat of Mary, the word of her heart, has changed the history of the world, because it brought the Savior into the world ” (op. cit.).

5) Are other interpretations of the “third secret” possible?
Since the Holy See has not infallibly defined the subject, other interpretations are possible. This does not mean that other interpretations are rational—at least if they depart from the main lines of the interpretation given by the Holy See.

The reason has to do with the nature of private revelation. Since it is principally for the benefit of the individuals directly involved, they are the most likely to interpret it properly. In this case, both Sr. Lucia and the Holy Father are in agreement that the interpretation offered in The Message of Fatima is the correct one. Those of us who are not principals have little reason to question the judgment of those for whom the revelation was given.

Bottom line: If they’re satisfied, we should be.

Getting Fatima Right

In 1915, as World War I raged in Europe, a Portuguese girl saw something strange in the sky.

The girl—Lucia dos Santos—was seven years old and lived near the town of Fatima. One day, as she was tending her family’s sheep along with three other girls, they began to say the rosary and saw a strange sight.

In the second of four memoirs she would write, Lucia recalled: “We saw a figure poised in the air above the trees; it looked like a statue made of snow, rendered almost transparent by the rays of the sun.” She also wrote, “It looked like a person wrapped up in a sheet.”

They did not know what to make of the sight, and it vanished when they finished praying. The same thing happened on two more occasions.

The angel of peace

In the spring of 1916, Lucia and her cousins Francisco and Jacinta Martos (then 7 and 6) began seeing an angel.

It appeared as “a young man, about fourteen or fifteen years old, whiter than snow, transparent as crystal when the sun shines through it, and of great beauty.”

The angel identified itself as “the angel of peace” and as the guardian angel of Portugal. Lucia understood it to be the same figure she had seen in the sky.

The angel appeared to the children on three occasions, taught them prayers, and during the last appearance showed them a host and chalice that hung miraculously in the air. It then gave them Holy Communion.

‘I am from heaven’

On May 13, 1917, the three were again tending their sheep when they perceived what they thought was a flash of lightning. As they hurried home, there was another flash, and they beheld a beautiful woman in a hemlock tree that grew in a field known as the Cova da Iria.

“We beheld a Lady all dressed in white. She was more brilliant than the sun and radiated a light more clear and intense than a crystal glass filled with sparkling water, when the rays of the burning sun shine through it” (Fourth Memoir).

When asked where she was from, the Lady replied, “I am from heaven.” She requested that the children return to the spot once a month for six months.

She also informed the children that they would go to heaven, and she asked if they were wiling to offer themselves to God and bear the sufferings he would send them, in reparation for sin and the conversion of sinners. They replied they would.

She also told them: “Pray the rosary every day, in order to obtain peace for the world and the end of the war.”

“Jesus wishes to make use of you”

When the Lady reappeared the next month, Lucia asked her to take the three children to heaven, and she replied, “I will take Jacinta and Francisco soon. But you are to stay here some time longer. Jesus wishes to make use of you to make me known and loved. He wants to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart.”

This prediction was fulfilled. In 1918, toward the end of the war, a global flu pandemic took the lives of millions. Among them were Francisco, who died in 1919, and Jacinta, who died in 1920. Lucia would not die until 2005 at the age of 97.

A secret revealed

At the July apparition, the Lady promised that, in October, she would identify herself and perform a miracle so that all might see and believe.

She also gave the children a secret, which included a vision of hell that caused Lucia to cry out. Afterward, the Lady said:

“You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace. The war is going to end; but if people do not cease offending God, a worse one will break out during the pontificate of Pius XI. When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that this is the great sign given you by God that he is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions of the Church and of the Holy Father.

“To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturdays. If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated. In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and she will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world. In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved; etc. . . . Do not tell this to anybody.”

Arrested

The children were prevented from returning to the site on August 13 because the local mayor—an opponent of the apparitions—had the young visionaries arrested. Despite threatening them, he was unable to get them either to admit that they were lying or to reveal the secret.

Pilgrims who had gathered at the site of the apparitions reported strange phenomena. Some said they saw a blue and white cloud descend and then ascend again, some reported lightning, and some reported seeing our Lady.

‘A chapel that is to be built’

Since the children had not been able to come to the site of the apparitions on August 13, the Lady appeared to them a few days later.

When asked what should be done with money that pilgrims were leaving at the apparition site, she indicated that two processional litters should be made for the feast of Our Lady of the Rosary, adding, “What is left over will help toward the construction of a chapel that is to be built here.”

On September 13, large crowds of pilgrims greeted the children and urged them to present their petitions to the Lady.

As the children and the crowd prayed the rosary, she appeared, this time promising, “In October our Lord will come, as well as Our Lady of Dolors and Our Lady of Carmel. Saint Joseph will appear with the Child Jesus to bless the world.”

The miracle of the sun

On October 13, the Lady said, “I am the Lady of the Rosary. Continue always to pray the rosary every day. The war is going to end, and the soldiers will soon return to their homes.”

According to Lucia, the Lady opened her hands, “made them reflect on the sun, and as she ascended, the reflection of her own light continued to be projected on the sun itself.”

Lucia then called for people to look at the sun, and an event called “the miracle of the sun” occurred. Although not everyone claimed to see the phenomenon, numerous individuals reported that the sun appeared to change colors, spin, and “dance” in the sky.

In the wake of this event, the children reported visions of St. Joseph, the Child Jesus, and our Lady in various guises, including Our Lady of Dolors and Our Lady of Carmel, as had been promised.

First Saturdays devotion

In the July 1917 apparition, the Lady had indicated that she would request a devotion involving the First Saturdays of the months.

This request was made on December 10, 1925, when Lucia was a novice among the Dorothean Sisters. On that day, Sr. Lucia experienced an apparition of the Virgin Mary and the Child Jesus, in which Mary said:

“All those who during five months, on the first Saturday, go to confession, receive Holy Communion, say a rosary, and keep me company for fifteen minutes, meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the rosary for the intention of making reparation to me, I promise to assist them at the hour of death, with all the graces necessary for the salvation of their souls” (Documents on Fatima & the Memoirs of Sister Lucia, 279-280).

On January 15, 1926, she experienced an apparition of the Child Jesus, asking if she had spread this devotion, which has come to be known as the First Saturdays devotion.

Consecration requested, apparitions approved

The July 1917 apparition also indicated a request would be made for the consecration of Russia, and this was done on June 13, 1929. On that night, Sr. Lucia experience a vision of the Holy Trinity and the Virgin Mary, in which Mary said:

“The moment has come in which God asks the Holy Father, in union with all the bishops of the world, to make the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, promising to save it by this means” (Documents on Fatima & the Memoirs of Sister Lucia, 393-394).

On October 13, 1930, the bishop of Leiria, Portugal—in whose territory Fatima lies—granted formal approval for the 1917 apparitions, declaring “as worthy of credence the visions of the children in the Cova da Iria, parish of Fatima, of this diocese, on the thirteenth day of each month from May to October 1917” (Documents on Fatima & the Memoirs of Sister Lucia, 290).

“An unknown light”

In the July 1917 apparition, the Lady stated that the war (World War I) would end but that a worse one could break out in the reign of Pius XI, who would not be elected until 1922. The sign presaging this event was to be “a night illumined by an unknown light.”

On the night of January 25-26, 1938, an extraordinary display of the aurora borealis was widely visible in Europe. In her Third Memoir, Sr. Lucia interpreted this as the sign indicating the new war was close.

World War II broke out the following year.

The third part of the secret

Between 1935 and 1941, Sr. Lucia wrote a series of four memoirs concerning the 1917 apparitions and her cousins.

In the Third Memoir, she revealed the first two parts of the secret they had been given on July 13, 1917: the vision of hell and the material concerning Russia and the pope, along with the forthcoming requests for the First Saturdays devotion and the consecration of Russia.

However, she did not reveal the third part at that time. On January 3, 1944, at the request of her bishop, Sr. Lucia did record it, placing the text in a sealed envelope, which in 1957 was transferred to the Holy See.

Before giving the sealed envelope containing the third part of the “secret” to the then bishop of Leiria-Fatima, Sr. Lucia wrote on the outside envelope that it could be opened only after 1960, either by the patriarch of Lisbon or the bishop of Leiria. Archbishop Bertone therefore asked: “Why only after 1960? Was it our Lady who fixed that date?” Sr. Lucia replied: “It was not our Lady. I fixed the date because I had the intuition that before 1960 it would not be understood, but that only later would it be understood” (The Message of Fatima; all subsequent quotations are taken from this document).

When 1960 came, the Holy See chose not to reveal the third part of the secret.

Assassination attempt

On May 13, 1981—the anniversary of the first Fatima apparition—a Turkish man named Mehmet Ali Agca shot John Paul II in St. Peter’s Square. The pope almost died from the wound, but surgeons were able to save his life.

Though Agca has repeatedly changed his story, it is widely thought he was acting on behalf of Communist forces wishing to neutralize the Polish pope, who went on to play a key role in the downfall of Soviet Communism.

On July 18, 1981, John Paul II read the third part of the secret for the first time and learned what it contained.

The consecration performed

As early as 1942, Pius XII consecrated the entire world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and in 1952 he specifically consecrated Russia.

Following the assassination, while he was still recuperating, John Paul II had a special act of entrustment performed on June 7, 1981, and it was repeated in Fatima on May 13, 1982.

However, there was a question of whether these fulfilled the request made by the Virgin Mary, as she had asked that the pope perform the consecration “in union with all the bishops of the world.”

Consequently, “in order to respond more fully to the requests of ‘our Lady’ . . . on 25 March 1984 in St. Peter’s Square, while recalling the fiat uttered by Mary at the Annunciation, the Holy Father, in spiritual union with the bishops of the world, who had been ‘convoked’ beforehand, entrusted all men and women and all peoples to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.”

Subsequently, in a letter dated November 8, 1989, Sr. Lucia confirmed that the consecration had been done, writing, “Yes, it has been done just as our Lady asked, on 25 March 1984.”

The fall of communism

The Cold War, which began in the wake of World War II, was a tense period. It saw various conflicts; national borders were redrawn (“various nations will be annihilated”), and the world itself was threatened by the prospect of nuclear war.

In 1989, the Soviet bloc collapsed, and in 1991 the Soviet Union itself dissolved, with the Communist Party losing power in Russia.

Beatification and disclosure

In 2000, John Paul II beatified Francisco and Jacinta. He also decided that the time had come to release the third part of the secret, and the Holy See issued The Message of Fatima, which contained it along with supporting documents.

The third part of the secret turned out to be a vision of destruction in which an assassination attempt was made on the pope. Others also were martyred.

Interpreting the secret

The first part of the secret was a vision of hell, the ultimate consequence of human sin, and the second and third parts contained references to how human sin would play out in the course of the twentieth century.

The Lady referred to the end of World War I and the outbreak of World War II.

According to Sr. Lucia, “The third part of the secret refers to our Lady’s words: ‘If not, [Russia] will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred; the Holy Father will have much to suffer; various nations will be annihilated.’”

The third part of the secret therefore seems to refer in a special way to the Cold War and the persecution of the Church by atheistic Communism.

“The vision of Fatima concerns above all the war waged by atheistic systems against the Church and Christians, and it describes the immense suffering endured by the witnesses of the faith in the last century of the second millennium. It is an interminable Way of the Cross led by the popes of the twentieth century.”

The assassination attempt on John Paul II on the anniversary of the first Fatima apparition, along with his act of consecration and his role in the fall of Soviet Communism, seems to indicate that he, in a special way, was tied to the fulfillment of the prophecy.

John Paul II regarded the fact he survived the assassination attempt as a special grace. “Sr. Lucia was in full agreement with the pope’s claim that ‘it was a mother’s hand that guided the bullet’s path and in his throes the pope halted at the threshold of death.’”

The significance of Fatima

The Church teaches that private revelations like Fatima do not have the same status as the public revelation God has given us in Scripture and Tradition.

The latter requires the assent of faith, but private revelations—even when approved—do not. The “ecclesiastical approval of a private revelation has three elements: the message contains nothing contrary to faith or morals; it is lawful to make it public; and the faithful are authorized to accept it with prudence.”

The purpose of private revelation is to help people live the Faith in particular circumstances, such as the conflicts that affected the Church in the twentieth century. However, even when these circumstances are past, apparitions can have an enduring value going forward.

In The Message of Fatima, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) wrote:

Insofar as individual events are described, they belong to the past. Those who expected exciting apocalyptic revelations about the end of the world or the future course of history are bound to be disappointed. Fatima does not satisfy our curiosity in this way, just as Christian faith in general cannot be reduced to an object of mere curiosity. What remains was already evident when we began our reflections on the text of the “secret”: the exhortation to prayer as the path of “salvation for souls” and, likewise, the summons to penance and conversion (ibid.).

What Every Catholic Should Know About Obadiah

A Short Book

Obadiah is only 21 verses long, which makes it the shortest book of the Old Testament.

Because it’s so short, it doesn’t contain as much data as other books, and that means we have less to work with when answering important questions about it, like who wrote it and when.

As a result, scholars have taken a wide variety of positions on the book, and the debate has been vigorous.

 

The Author

Obadiah doesn’t tell us anything about its author except his name, and even that is uncertain, because vowels can be added to the Hebrew letters in more than one way, so that it either means “Worshipper of Yahweh” or “Servant of Yahweh.”

Obadiah was a very common name in the Old Testament, and scholars think that the Obadiah who wrote the book is not mentioned elsewhere. We know him only from his own book.

He apparently was a prophet from the southern kingdom of Judah, for reasons we are just about to see.

 

What Is This Book About?

Obadiah consists of a single, sustained prophecy of God’s coming judgment on the nation of Edom for its wrongs against Judah.

Edom was a kindred nation to Israel. The latter was descended from the patriarch Jacob (akaIsrael), while the former was descended from his brother Esau (aka Edom).

The sibling rivalry between Jacob and Esau are reflected in the subsequent history of the nations that sprang from them, and they were often hostile toward each other—a hostility made more bitter by the fact they regarded each other as kindred.

At one point, King David conquered them (2 Sam. 8:14), but they later rebelled (2 Kings 8:22).

The Edomites lived in a mountainous hill country to the south of Israel. But, in the 400s B.C., another people—the Nabateans—invaded their territory and pushed them west (this will be important later).

When Alexander the Great conquered the area, the name Edom was Hellenized to become Idumea.

 

Relation to Other Books

In the Hebrew Bible, Obadiah is part of the collected edition known as The Twelve (i.e., the 12 minor prophets).

At some point, someone selected these 12 short works and put them together to form a whole.

The number 12 in this case is significant: The compiler likely picked these 12 books out of a larger body of prophetic writings in order to reflect the 12 tribes of Israel, and thus a kind of wholeness.

The Twelve—in a certain way—stand for the whole of the prophetic tradition, or at least the whole of the lesser prophets God sent to his people.

There are also clear links between Obadiah and other books. It contains passages which clearly echo things said in other prophetic books.

This could mean:

  1. Obadiah is quoting from one or more other prophets (making his ministry later than theirs)
  2. Other prophets are quoting from Obadiah (making his ministry earlier than theirs)
  3. The prophets are quoting from a common (lost) prophetic tradition
  4. God revealed the same thing more than once

Each of these is possible, and the parallel passages have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

In doing so, the passages that show the greatest degree of verbal similarity are most likely taken to indicate some form of literary dependence. If the similarities of wording and structure of the parallels are extensive, it suggests option 1 or 2.

The most significant parallel is between Obadiah 1-9 and Jeremiah 49:7-16. The two passages extensively share themes and wording, suggesting that one author is writing with direct knowledge of the other.

But who’s cribbing? Is Obadiah copying Jeremiah or the other way around?

Various factors, which we will cover below, suggest that Jeremiah is the earlier text, and Obadiah is writing in light of it.

 

Date

The date of the book is highly debated, with some scholars placing it as early as the ninth century B.C. (i.e., the 800s) and as late as the fourth century B.C. (i.e., the 300s).

Both of these extremes are unlikely, and we will look at the date of the book further as we proceed.

 

The Prophecy Begins (v. 1)

The book begins as follows:

The vision of Obadiah.

Thus says the Lord GOD concerning Edom:

We have heard tidings from the Lord, and a messenger has been sent among the nations: “Rise up! let us rise against her [i.e., Edom] for battle!”

The opening phrase—“the vision of Obadiah”—could mean that Obadiah only had this one vision or that this was the most significant vision of his ministry.

The latter possibility seems more likely since, if Obadiah only had a single vision in his whole career as a prophet, it would be less likely that this vision would become well-known enough to stand out against other revelations of the time and be included in The Twelve.

There were many minor prophets in this historical period—including many mentioned in Scripture whose works were not included in the Bible—and the fact Obadiah achieved such high status suggests that the prophet in question had a more substantial career, even if this was his principal (or only) literary work.

What we have is thus Obadiah’s most important vision, and possibly the only one that was ever committed to writing.

In Obadiah, God announces a coming judgment: A coalition from “among the nations” will rise up to do battle against Edom.

Taking the verse in a straightforward sense, word has already spread that the nations are gathering against Edom (“we have heard . . . a messenger has been sent among the nations”).

This suggests that the book was written after the attack (or preparations for it) were in motion but before its final outcome was accomplished.

 

The Predicted Outcome (v. 2)

The next verses announces what the outcome of the invasion will be: God will make Edom “small among the nations” with the result that it “shall be utterly despised.”

Smallness can be understood in terms of numerical size (depopulation), loss of influence (economic or political), or both.

In the ancient world, loss of these forms of status resulted in contempt. Numerically large, economically powerful, and politically influential nations despised numerically small, economically weak and politically impotent ones.

 

Edom’s Self-Deception (vv. 3-4).

God now reveals the arrogant self-deception that accompanies Edom’s fall.

The Edomites have prided themselves on the natural defenses their homeland has: They “live in the clefts of the rock” and their “dwelling is high.”

Having the high ground has always been a military advantage, which is why fortresses are often built on hills and why defensive structures are built with high walls: It is easier to project force down onto an attacker than up onto a target.

Various cities in Edom also could only be reached through narrow, winding passes with stone walls on both sides (i.e., “the clefts of the rock”). (There is also a mocking pun here; the Hebrew word for “rock”—sela‘—sounds like the name of the Edomite capital city, Sela. More puns will follow.)

In view of the inaccessible heights they occupied, the Edomites thus reasoned, “Who will bring me down to the ground?”

The answer is: Yahweh will. In fact, he had done so before, when David conquered the Edomites, so their homeland is not an impregnable fortress.

The prophet thus declares, poetically, “Though you soar aloft like the eagle, though your nest is set among the stars, then I will bring you down, says the Lord” (v. 4).

 

Edom’s Treasures Lost (vv. 5-6)

Obadiah describes the extent of the economic devastation that Edom will suffer by making two comparisons.

First, he notes that if thieves or plunderers suddenly strike a location, they will only steal what they can carry off with them.

Second, he notes that when grape gatherers harvest a vineyard, they inevitably leave behind some of the fruit.

By contrast, those who attack Edom will defeat it so thoroughly that they have time to make a thorough search for anything valuable. Edom’s treasures will be “sought out” and carted off, leaving the natives destitute.

 

Betrayed by Allies (v. 7)

In the ancient world, alliances could change suddenly, and this has happened to Edom.

The prophet declares how the nation’s own allies have deceived it and set a trap for it—something which they had not expected and which seemed to make no sense to the Edomites (“there is no understanding of it”).

This surprise reversal of affairs thus brings about a bitter defeat for the Edomites as their former confederates prevail against them.

 

The Wise and the Mighty Destroyed (vv. 8-9)

God indicates that “on that day” (i.e., when Edom is attacked and defeated), he will “destroy the wise men out of Edom”—a phrase which is poetically paralleled with the statement that he will destroy “understanding out of Mount Esau.”

“Mount Esau” is more wordplay. There was a famous mountain in Edomite territory known as Mount Seir (Gen. 36:8-9, Ezek. 35:2-3), and the prophet has rearranged the first two Hebrew letters of “Seir” (sin and ayin) to make it “Esau,” the patriarch from whom the Edomites descended.

Edomites had a reputation for being wise (cf. Jer. 49:7), and the loss of their wise men would be bitterly ironic.

The fundamental message here is that Edom’s wisemen—i.e., its leaders—will be killed, resulting in its army being “decapitated” in modern terms. As a result of this loss of leadership, its army will be disorganized and its mighty men “shall be dismayed” and will be “cut off by slaughter.” The death of the wise thus leads to the death of the mighty.

This passage invokes “Teman,” who was originally a grandson of Esau (Gen. 36:10-11). However by Obadiah’s time, his name had been given to either a city or a region within Edom (Ezek. 25:13, Amos 1:12).

 

The Cause Revealed (vv. 10-14)

The prophet now reveals the cause of Edom’s misfortunes: They are being betrayed by their allies because they first betrayed their own kinsmen in Judah. Calamity is coming upon them “for the violence done to your brother Jacob” (v. 10).

Obadiah speaks of an earlier time when strangers carried off Jacob’s wealth and entered Jerusalem’s gates. This is a probable reference to the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem. Instead of acting like kinsmen on that day, the Edomites refused to help and acted like foreigners (v. 11).

Worse, they undertook a series of positively hostile actions toward their Judahite kinsmen. In the day of Jacob’s calamity, the Edomites gloated, rejoiced and boasted (v. 12), they entered Jacob’s gates and looted (v. 13), and they stood at the crossroads to “cut off” (intercept? kill?) Judahite fugitives and “deliver up” those who survived the Babylonian assault (v. 14).

Precisely what is meant by the reference to Edomites entering Jacob’s gates and looting is unclear. Edom did not have the power to overcome Jerusalem by itself, which is why their allies (the Babylonians) are presented as the active agents in the siege of Jerusalem.

Consequently, some have proposed (1) that the Edomites assisted the Babylonians with the siege or (2) that they entered and looted after the Babylonians were finished with their own looting or (3) that they attacked and looted other Jewish settlements but not Jerusalem itself.

 

Judgment on the Nations (vv. 15-16)

Obadiah announces that “the day of the Lord is near upon all the nations.”

In the New Testament, the phrase “the day of the Lord” is associated with the end of the world (cf. 1 Cor. 5:5, 2 Cor. 1:14, 2 Pet. 3:10, etc.). However, in the Old Testament it has a much wider range of usage.

Most fundamentally, “the day of the Lord” refers to a time when Yahweh decisively intervenes in the affairs of men—either to carry out a blessing or a curse.

Notice that the day of the Lord in this case is said to be “near” and “upon all the nations.” In other words: God will soon mete out justice to the nations that have harmed Judah.

Obadiah thus declares to the nations, “As you have done, it shall be done to you, your deeds shall return on your own head.”

He then uses the metaphorical image of drinking both to signify what the nations have done wrong and how judgment shall be brought upon them. He first alludes to how the nations “have drunk upon my holy mountain” (i.e., Mount Zion in Jerusalem) and predicts that they will drink further: “all the nations round about shall drink.”

This continued drinking shall become the means of their own punishment, for “they shall drink, and stagger, and shall be as though they had not been.” The image is of a person who starts drinking and proceeds to get so drunk that he passes out and dies.

What does the image of drinking signify in this passage? It could be violence: The nations indulged in violence on Mount Zion, and they will keep indulging in violence until they are overcome by it. In that case, the thought would essentially mirror Jesus’ warning that those who live by the sword will die by the sword (Matt. 26:52).

However, there is another possibility. Drinking is also used as a metaphor for judgment, and the thought here may be that the nations executed judgment on Judah for its sins, but now they will experience judgment for their own sins.

This may reflect a thought elsewhere in the minor prophets—that God was only a little angry with his people and that the nations he used to punish them went too far and sinned by inflicting too much damage (Zech. 1:15).

 

Mount Zion Restored (vv. 17)

Although the nations will experience violent destruction, God assures his people that “in Mount Zion there shall be those that escape”—a surviving remnant will be left.

Furthermore Mount Zion “shall be holy”—a prediction of the restoration of the Temple.

And God’s people will reclaim their homeland, for “the house of Jacob shall possess their own possessions.”

Here “the house of Jacob” could be restricted just to the southern kingdom of Judah or it could refer to the entire family of Jacob, including Judah along with the northern kingdom of Israel.

 

Israel’s Military Might (v. 18)

Here we are told that the house of Jacob will be a fire and the house of Joseph a flame.

Joseph was one of Jacob’s most prominent sons and the patriarch of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, who were dominant in the northern kingdom of Israel. “The house of Joseph” thus refers to the northern kingdom.

In contrast, “the house of Jacob” could be used either to refer to the southern kingdom or to both kingdoms. Regardless of whether “the house of Jacob” is here used in the more restrictive sense, both kingdoms are clearly under discussion.

The fact they are said to be fire and flame indicate that they will have military might and will be used to punish the Edomites for their transgressions, for “they shall burn them and consume them.”

Obadiah then concludes that—in contrasts to the houses of Jacob and Joseph—“there shall be no survivor to the house of Esau.”

This is a case of hyperbole. Edom will not be fully destroyed, for the prophecy began merely by saying that Edom will be made small (v. 2), and it will end by saying that God’s people will end up ruling Mount Esau (v. 21).

 

Territorial Expansion (vv. 19-20)

Obadiah now covers in more detail the people’s recovery of their land predicted in v. 17. To understand this, we need to grasp several geographical terms:

  • The Negeb: A desert region in the south of Israel, near Edom.
  • The Shephelah: A lowland or foothills region bordering the land of the Philistines.
  • The land of the Philistines: Part of the coast of Israel that had been conquered by the invading sea people, the Philistines.
  • The land of Ephraim: Specifically, the territory of the tribe of Ephraim, but more generally the whole of the northern kingdom of Israel.
  • The land of Samaria: Another way of referring to the northern kingdom, which had Samaria as its capital city.
  • Gilead: A region on the east side of the Jordan river, originally occupied by the Hebrew tribes of Manasseh, Reuben and Gad.
  • Halah: A region in Assyria where some Israelites had been deported (2 Kings 17:6).
  • Phoenicia (lit., “Canaan up to Zarephath”): A coastal region to the north of Israel.
  • Zarephath: A city in the southern part of Phoenician territory, between Tyre and Sidon. This territory was within the ideal limits of the tribe of Asher’s territory (Josh. 19:24-29).
  • Sepharad: Most likely, a Median city where some Hebrews had been deported, though also possibly Sardis in Asia Minor.

With these terms in mind, we can understand how Obadiah describes God’s people reclaiming their land.

Jews who have been forced to live in the Negeb desert will come to control Edomite territory (“Mount Esau”), while those in the Shephelah lowland will recapture the territory taken by the Philistines, as well as the rest of the territory of the northern kingdom (the land of Ephraim/Samaria).

Scholars have generally thought that the last part of v. 19 contains a textual corruption. Benjamin was a tribe in the southern kingdom of Judah and had no historic claim on Gilead.

Hypothetically, this could indicate an expansion into new territory, but most interpreters have seen it differently and proposed alternate readings. One suggestion is that it refers to the retaking of parts of both Benjamin’s traditional territory and Gilead (Douglas Stuart, Word Biblical Commentary at v. 19). There are also other suggestions.

The beginning of v. 20 is understood in different ways. In the RSV, it speaks of “the exiles in Halah who are of the people of Israel” taking territory that rightfully belonged to Asher (Phoenicia as far as Zarephath).

However, the Hebrew of this verse is notoriously hard to translate, and others render the verse differently. One alternative is “the exiles in this army who are of the people of Israel.”

Either way, the first half of the verse refers to returning exiles from the northern kingdom retaking land that is rightfully theirs. By contrast, the second half of the verse speaks of returning exiles from the southern kingdom doing the same thing.

Thus it says that “the exiles of Jerusalem who are in Sepharad” will take the cities in the Negeb.

In this effort, God’s people are retaking land that is properly theirs—and that was once part of their land in David’s time.

The one possible exception is the reference to the inhabitants of the Negeb taking “Mount Esau”—i.e., Mount Seir. The status of Judah’s claim to this territory is unclear.

On the one hand, Deuteronomy 2:4-5 assigns Mount Seir to the Edomites as their rightful territory. On the other hand, Judah’s ideal border is said to extend to Mount Seir (Josh. 15:10).

Balaam also prophesied that Israel would dispossess Seir (Num. 24:17), and the principle of retributive justice is in play here: Edom took Judean territory, so Judah can legitimately take Edomite territory.

It also should be pointed out that the reference to the Judeans “possessing” Mount Esau does not necessarily mean annexing it to their territory. The Hebrew verb (yarash) has a variety of meanings, and it could simply refer to having military victory over it or reducing it to the status of a client state.

 

The Kingdom Shall Be the Lord’s (v. 21)

The final verse of the book refers to a group of people who “shall go up to Mount Zion.”

In many translations, this group of people are described as “saviors” or “deliverers”—the idea being that they are mighty men through whom God provides deliverance from enemies.

However, other translations describe this group as “those who have been saved.”

Both groups have been mentioned before, with mighty military men being in focus in vv. 18-20 and with surviving exiles mentioned in vv. 17 and 20.

Whichever way the verse should be translated, it says that this group will “go up to Mount Zion to rule Mount Esau”—i.e., the Edomites will become subject to God’s people.

The book concludes with the affirmation that “the kingdom shall be the Lord’s”—that is, God will be in control of all, and his people can look forward to his just and merciful reign.

 

Dating the Book of Obadiah

Now that we have reviewed the contents of Obadiah, we are in a better position to address the controversial question of its date.

While we can’t be certain on this issue and other dates—both earlier and later are possible—the following seems to be the most reasonable option.

The earliest possible date for the work is the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem. Obadiah speaks of there being exiles from both Israel and Jerusalem (v. 20), indicating that it took place after the Assyrian conquest of Israel in 723 B.C. and the Babylonian conquests of Jerusalem in 605 and 597 B.C.

The latter conquests are the only ones in which the Edomites are known to have played a role (see Psa. 137:7, Lam. 4:18-22, Ezek. 25:12-14, 35:5, 15; cf. 1 Esd. 4:45).

The latest possible date for the book would be the betrayal and conquest of Edom by its allies (vv. 1, 7), and in particular by the Babylonians.

This event is not recorded in the Bible but it is found in Babylonian records, which indicate that the last full king of Babylon—Nabonidus—undertook a military expedition against Edom in late 553 B.C (see Paul Raabe, Anchor Yale Bible: Obadiah, 54-55).

The probable date for Obadiah is thus sometime between 597 and 553 B.C.—and probably closer to the latter date since v. 1 seems to indicate that the campaign against Edom is already in preparation.

Obadiah thus seems to be later than the prophecy of Jeremiah, who ceased prophesying shortly after the conquest of Jerusalem in 597 B.C.

 

The Fulfillment of Obadiah’s Prophecies

Beyond the betrayal of Edom by its former allies, Obadiah also predicts:

  • the day of the Lord to repay the nations for their misdeeds (v. 15)
  • that exiles of Israel and Judah will return (v. 20),
  • that they will reclaim their former territories (vv. 17-19)
  • that they will defeat and of Edom (v. 18, 21).

 

The Day of the Lord

The first of these is often taken to be a reference to an eschatological event, where God metes judgment to all the nations all at once, but this is an unnecessary supposition.

Given its context, the passage is most naturally understood to mean that whenever a nation commits wrongs (and in particular, against God’s people), the Lord will soon bring them to justice—a phenomenon we see played out repeatedly in Scripture.

 

The Return of the Exiles

The exiles of Judah began to return in the 530s B.C., during the reign of Cyrus the Persian (2 Chr. 36:22-23, Ezr. 1:1-11).

The return of exiles from Israel requires more study to document:

  • We do have indications that many natives of the northern kingdom remained in their land at the time of the Assyrian Captivity (Amos 5:1-3, cf. 2 Chron. 34:1-6). This is to be expected since no deportation is likely to completely depopulate a land, especially in the less-efficient ancient world. Almost certainly, any deportation would involve removing the citizens with higher social status while leaving behind the small and the weak (cf. 2 Kings 24:14).
  • We also have indications that, later on, God’s people included members who were descended from the northern tribes (Luke 2:36), and that the overall community regarded itself as still having 12 tribes (Acts 26:7, Jas. 1:1).

While the Bible documents that there were Israelites still living in Palestine after the fall of the northern kingdom, it is harder to document a return of some of these exiles.

Nevertheless, the Chronicler speaks of the time when—after “Judah was taken into exile in Babylon because of their unfaithfulness”—the exiles began “to dwell again in their possessions in their cities,” and he remarks that “some of the people of Judah, Benjamin, Ephraim, and Manasseh dwelt in Jerusalem” (1 Chron. 9:1-3; cf. Ezra 6:17, 8:35). Ephraim and Manasseh were two of the northern tribes, and they were so prominent among them this passage likely uses them as symbols of the entire northern confederation.

Josephus also mentions a return of northerners. First, he records that members of these northern tribes were living in Media (Jewish Antiquities 9:14:1[278-279]). He later recounts the letter in Cyrus’s successor Xerxes (aka Artaxerxes, Ahasuerus) commissioned the scribe Ezra to take others and return to Jerusalem (Ezra 7). Josephus notes that Ezra had this letter read to his coreligionists in Media and that, although the majority stayed there, “many” rejoiced at the prospect of returning to their homeland and did so, coming first to Babylon to join Ezra’s company of returnees (Jewish Antiquities 11:5:2[132-133]). He thus records a body of Israelites returning with the Judahites at the time of Ezra.

We also know of later travel by Median Israelites to Judah and Jerusalem. Indeed, it was common in the Second Temple period for pilgrims from Media to come to Jerusalem for the festivals (cf. Acts 2:9). Some of these travelers undoubtedly would have decided to resettle in their homeland.

Returns of these kinds may be seen as fulfilling Obadiah’s and the other prophets’ predictions of Israelite exiles returning. (For more on the status of these tribes, see Richard Bauckham, Gospel Women, ch. 4).

 

Reclaiming the Territories

This occurred over a period of time as exiles came back to the land, and it culminated after the Maccabees began their rebellion, which threw off foreign government and re-established an independent Jewish state.

For example, Gilead was conquered by Judah Maccabee (1 Macc. 5:24-52), and the land of the Philistines was included in the coastal area given to Simon Maccabee to govern (1 Macc. 11:59).

 

Judgment on Edom

This judgment received at least a partial fulfillment in the time of Judah Maccabee, who defeated “the sons of Esau in Idumea” (1 Macc. 5:3).

There was a complete conquest of the Edomites in 125 B.C. by the Jewish ruler John Hyrcanus, who then required them to convert to Judaism or leave their land. They chose the former (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 13:9:1[257-258]). This is why Herod the Great—an Idumean—could become the king of the Jews in Jesus’ time.

 

New Testament and Christological Significance

The book of Obadiah is so short that it is not quoted in the New Testament, and the fact its prophecies are so specific to Edom means that their literal fulfillment lies in the past.

However, with regard to the spiritual sense of the text, various interpreters have seen Edom as a symbol of evil and have thus understood the book as containing a typological prophecy of the ultimate defeat of evil.

In particular, the statement in the book’s final verse that “the kingdom shall be the Lord’s” has been taken as a prophecy of the Lord’s ultimate conquest of all evil in the final kingdom of Christ.

Domitian and the Persecution That Didn’t Happen

DOMITIANIt’s common to encounter claims that the Roman emperor Domitian was a major persecutor of Christians and that he demanded divine worship, insisting on being called “Lord and God.”

It’s even common to hear these “facts” cited as important keys for determining the date and meaning of the book of Revelation, with Domitian serving as its famous “beast.”

But there’s a problem. Here are the real facts . . .

 

The Real Domitian

Domitian reigned between A.D. 81 and 96, and like all of the Roman emperors in this period, he had flaws.

Ancient authors even accuse him of being responsible for the death of his brother, Titus, who had preceded him in office.

He also angered the aristocracy, and he was eventually assassinated by court officials.

However, ancient Roman authors don’t accuse him of being the kind of monster that Caligula or Nero were.

Neither do the earliest Christian sources accuse him of instituting a major persecution of the Faith.

 

A False Narrative Develops

Biblical Archaeology Review recently ran a piece in which biblical scholar Mark Wilson looked at the origin of how the idea of a Domitianic persecution developed. He writes:

Eusebius in his Church History (CH) provides the first reference to Domitian persecuting the church.

Writing over three centuries later in the early fourth century C.E., this ancient Christian historian first quotes Melito of Sardis, who mentioned that Domitian brought slanderous accusations against Christians (CH 4.26.9).

He also cites Tertullian, who claimed that Domitian was cruel like the emperor Nero (r. 54–68 C.E.), but that Domitian was more intelligent, so he ceased his cruelty and recalled the Christians he had exiled (CH 3.20.9).

Eusebius also quotes Irenaeus, who claimed Domitian’s persecution consisted only of John’s banishment to Patmos and the exile of other Christians to the island of Pontia (CH 3.18.1, 5).

Despite these cautious statements by three earlier authors, Eusebius then spun his own alternative fact by claiming that Domitian, like Nero, had “stirred up persecution against us” (“anekinei diōgmon”; CH 3.17).

From here the tradition was enlarged by Orosius (d. 420 C.E.), who, in his History Against the Pagans, wrote that Domitian issued edicts for a general and cruel persecution (7.10.5).

Despite a lack of evidence, [Roman historian Brian] Jones observes that the tradition concerning Domitian’s persecution persists: “From a frail, almost non-existent basis, it gradually developed and grew large.”

Melito of Sardis and Irenaeus of Lyons were individuals who wrote in the late second century, less than a hundred years after Domitian’s reign, and Tertullian wrote at the end of the second and the beginning of the third centuries. They report only that he slandered Christians and exiled some. If they don’t provide evidence of a wide-scale persecution, then it’s very unlikely there was one. Furthermore:

No pagan writer of the time ever accused Domitian, as they had Nero, of persecuting Christians. Pliny [the Younger], for example, served as a lawyer under Domitian and wrote in a letter to Trajan (r. 98–117 C.E.) that he was never present at the trial of a Christian (Letters 10.96.1). This is a strange claim for one of Domitian’s former officials if Christian persecution were so prevalent.

 

“Lord and God”?

What about the claim that Domitian insisted on being worshipped as a god during his lifetime and even demanded the title “Lord and God” (Latin, Dominus et Deus)? Wilson writes:

The poet Statius (Silvae 1.6.83–84) states that Domitian rejected the title Dominus as his predecessor Augustus (the first Roman emperor) had done.

The historian Suetonius (Life of Domitian 13.2) does report that Domitian dictated a letter that began, “Our Lord and Master orders . . . ,” but it was only his sycophantic officials who began to address him in this way.

The story was again embellished by later historians to the point that Domitian is said to have ordered its use.

Jones thinks the story incredible because Domitian was known for his habitual attention to theological detail in traditional Roman worship, so he would not have adopted such inflammatory divine language.

After their deaths, the best that emperors could hope for was to be called Divus (Divine), not Deus (God).

If Domitian were such a megalomaniac who ordered worship to himself, why haven’t any inscriptions been found using this formula?

In fact, no epigraphic evidence exists attesting to Christians being forced to call him “Lord and God.”

 

The Last Refuge of a Failing Hypothesis

Wilson writes:

[Biblical scholar] Leonard Thompson notes that a more critical reading of Eusebius raises doubts about a widespread persecution of Christians under Domitian. He concludes that “most modern commentators no longer accept a Domitianic persecution of Christians.”

However, that hasn’t stopped some from trying to rescue the hypothesis:

Some writers consider Revelation as a source for a persecution by Domitian, although John never identifies a specific emperor. If so, then Revelation would be the only ancient source pointing to such a persecution.

This is a sign of a failing hypothesis: Using the very data that the hypothesis was supposed to illuminate to prop it up instead.

Revelation contains many things that are unclear, and the Domitianic hypothesis was supposed to be a historical certainty that could unlock Revelation and make its meaning clear. Instead, after we realized we don’t have evidence for a Domitianic persecution, the ambiguities in Revelation are now being used to prop up the idea that one occurred.

This is circular reasoning.

 

Breaking out of the Circle

In fact, we have good evidence that Revelation was written well before Domitian’s reign.

First, in Revelation 11:1-2, John is told:

Rise and measure the temple of God and the altar and those who worship there, but do not measure the court outside the temple; leave that out, for it is given over to the nations, and they will trample over the holy city for forty-two months.

This is an unambiguous reference to the temple in Jerusalem. It describes the temple as still in operation (“those who worship there”). But the temple was destroyed by Roman forces in August of A.D. 70, indicating that Revelation was written before this date.

Second, in Revelation 13:18, we read:

This calls for wisdom: let him who has understanding reckon the number of the beast, for it is a human number [lit., “the number of a man”], its number is six hundred and sixty-six.

A few manuscripts give the number as 616 instead of 666.

From elsewhere in Revelation, we learn that the beast is linked to a line of kings that rules the world, that it demands worship, and that it persecutes Christians. This sounds very much like the line of Roman emperors—especially Caligula and Nero, who portrayed themselves as living gods—and it so happens that both 666 and 616 are the numbers you get when you add up the letters in different ways of spelling “Nero Caesar.”

Nero—the fifth Roman emperor—reigned from A.D. 54 to 68, which suggests that he was or had been on the scene, allowing the original readers to calculate his number.

That would put the writing of Revelation sometime between A.D. 54 and 70. But can we be more specific? We can.

Third, in Revelation 17:9-10 we read:

This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads [of the beast] are seven mountains on which the woman is seated; they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, and when he comes he must remain only a little while.

The most natural reading of this is that the kings are the line of Roman emperors, who reigned from Rome’s famous seven hills. The first five emperors were Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero. These are the five who are fallen.

The “one [who] is” would be the sixth emperor—Galba—who reigned from June of 68 to January of 69.

The “other [who] has not yet come” would be the seventh emperor—Otho—and he did, indeed, reign “only a little while,” from January of 69 to April of 69—just three months.

This would put the writing of Revelation during the reign of Galba, between June of 68 and January of 69.

Once we detach Revelation from the idea of a non-existent, lethal persecution under Domitian, so much falls into place.

Will the Jerusalem Temple Be Rebuilt?

western wallJesus prophesied that the Jerusalem temple would be destroyed within a generation, and it was.

Jewish rebels began a war against the Romans in A.D. 66, and four years later the temple lay in ruins.

Will it ever be rebuilt?

Many Jews and Christians think so, even claiming that this must happen for certain prophecies to be fulfilled.

Tom Nash isn’t one of them, however. In a recent article at Catholic World Report, he argues that the temple will not be rebuilt.

Let’s look at what he has to say . . .

 

Advocates of Rebuilding the Temple

Nash takes a special interest in a group of people known as premillennialists, who believe that—after the Second Coming—Jesus will reign on earth for a thousand years or more before the Last Judgment and the beginning of the eternal order.

In recent years, many premillennialists have also belonged to a school of thought known as dispensationalism, and dispensationalists commonly have certain additional beliefs, including:

  • There will be a rapture of believers several years before the Second Coming
  • The Jerusalem temple will be rebuilt before the Second Coming
  • The Antichrist will proclaim himself to be God in the Jerusalem temple
  • After the Second Coming there will also be a temple in Jerusalem (either the same one, reconsecrated, or a new one)
  • During the millennium, animal sacrifices will be offered at this temple in memory of what Jesus did on the cross

Nash doesn’t make this clear, but historic premillennialists would not endorse all of these ideas.

As some of their characteristic beliefs indicate, dispensationalists hold that the Jerusalem temple will be rebuilt in order for certain prophecies to be fulfilled.

They are not the only ones, however. As Nash indicates, many Jews also believe that there will be a future temple. Some think that this will not happen until the future, messianic age. Others think that it could happen sooner.

There also is a division between Jews who would favor reinstituting animal sacrifices at the temple and those who would prefer it to serve simply as a house of prayer.

 

Catholic Teaching

The Catholic Church has rejected premillennialism (see CCC 676, where it is rejected under the name “millenarianism”).

It believes that there will be a future appearing of Antichrist, which will precede the Second Coming. When Jesus returns, however, the Last Judgment and the eternal order will begin immediately.

The Church does not take a position on whether there will be a rebuilt temple.

Nash’s view that there will not be one is a legitimate theological opinion. However, so is the contrary.

As we will see, respected Catholics have advocated the view there will be a future temple.

 

The Fulfillment Argument

In his article, Nash cites several factors pointing to the fact that Jesus fulfilled the sacrificial system of the Old Testament, and so animal sacrifices are no longer necessary.

One could quibble with the details of some of his arguments (e.g., exactly what it meant when the temple veil was torn in two can be debated), but his fundamental conclusion is correct: Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament sacrificial economy.

One can even strengthen his argument, for Jesus not only predicted the destruction of the temple (Mark 13), he also identified himself with the temple (John 2:13-22). The destruction of the Jewish temple thus in some ways parallels the destruction of Jesus’ body on the cross, and Jesus takes the place of the Jerusalem temple for Christians (Rev. 21:22).

The main difficulty comes when Nash draws his conclusion:

So to think that God would authorize the reinstitution of Temple sacrifices is to misunderstand his salvific work and also, unwittingly, blaspheme Jesus, who rendered void the need for such inferior sacrifices.

Blasphemy (even unwitting) is a harsh charge, and it is not clear that it would be warranted in the case of dispensationalists. They think millennial sacrifices will not be needed in themselves but that they will be a way God has chosen to commemorate of what Jesus did on the cross.

Catholics make even stronger claims than this regarding the Eucharist, which not only commemorates but re-presents the sacrifice of the cross.

However, the key problem is that Nash seems to assume that God must “authorize the reinstitution of Temple sacrifices” for the temple to be rebuilt.

Many things happen in God’s prophetic plan that aren’t positively willed by God (e.g., the appearance of Antichrist and his evil activities).

Jesus certainly fulfilled the Old Testament sacrificial economy, and God does not will that animal sacrifices resume, but that doesn’t mean that at some point some Jews won’t build a temple in Jerusalem—whether as a house of prayer or a house of sacrifice.

Thus, if there are prophecies of a future temple, they need to be taken seriously.

 

The Julian Argument

Nash also cites the example of the Roman emperor Julian the Apostate, who tried to rebuild the temple in A.D. 363 but who was thwarted, with reports of unusual and possibly supernatural events playing a role in his decision to cease his efforts.

This failed attempt to rebuild could be taken as evidence for Nash’s position, but it could also be taken as evidence that it was not God’s will to allow the temple to be rebuilt then.

Julian the Apostate can be seen as a forerunner of Antichrist, and his plan to rebuild the temple as a foreshadowing of what Antichrist will do.

Julian simply didn’t get to carry the project through because it wasn’t yet God’s time.

 

St. Paul on the Temple

Are there prophecies that point to a future temple? A famous passage in St. Paul reads:

Let no one deceive you in any way; for [the day of our Lord Jesus Christ] will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition,  who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God (2 Thess. 2:3-4).

Interpreters have proposed a number of possibilities for what temple Paul is referring to, including God’s heavenly temple, the Church, or a purely metaphorical temple.

However, one of the strongest possibilities is that he was referring to the Jerusalem temple.

This is especially likely given the recent background to this letter, which was written around A.D. 50.

Less than a decade earlier, the Roman emperor Caligula, who claimed divine honors, attempted to have his statue put in the Jerusalem temple—an event that was prevented by Caligula’s assassination.

This plan produced a major convulsion in the Jewish community, and the thought of a satanic “man of lawlessness” taking his seat “in the temple of God” and “proclaiming himself to be God” is naturally understood in terms of a world ruler doing this in the Jerusalem temple.

Since this didn’t happen before A.D. 70, the prophecy could point to a future temple—and Caligula, like Julian, could be a forerunner of Antichrist.

 

Church Fathers Weigh In

So what happened after the temple was destroyed? How did the Church Fathers interpret Paul’s prophecy?

They had a variety of views. Some thought the passage applied to the Church, but others simply inferred that the temple would be rebuilt and that the Antichrist would take his seat in Jerusalem.

Advocates of this view include:

We thus have a mixed tradition, with some Fathers and doctors (Cyril is a doctor of the Church) advocating the view that Paul’s prophecy points to a future Jerusalem temple.

Nash’s view that the temple will not be rebuilt should not be ruled out, but in light of Paul’s prophecy, its historical background, and the mixed tradition in the Church Fathers, the possibility of a future temple should be taken seriously.

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.

9 things to know and share about the “Third Secret” of Fatima

The "Third Secret" of Fatima is the most famous private revelation of the 20th century. Here are 9 things to know and share with friends about it . . .

The apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima are famous for the three-part “secret” they conveyed.

Of these, the “third secret” is the most famous, because it was kept confidential at the Vatican for many years.

Only a few popes and a select few others read it–until the year 2000, when Pope John Paul II published it for the whole world to read.

Here are 9 things to know and share with friends about it . . .

 

NOTE: We’ve already looked at the apparitions at Fatima in general and at the first two parts of the secret. For information on that, you should click here.

 

1) What is the third part of the secret or “third secret”?

Here is what Sr. Lucia wrote:

After the two parts which I have already explained, at the left of Our Lady and a little above, we saw an Angel with a flaming sword in his left hand; flashing, it gave out flames that looked as though they would set the world on fire; but they died out in contact with the splendour that Our Lady radiated towards him from her right hand: pointing to the earth with his right hand, the Angel cried out in a loud voice: ‘Penance, Penance, Penance!’

And we saw in an immense light that is God: ‘something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it’ a Bishop dressed in White ‘we had the impression that it was the holy father’.

Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions.

Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God [The Message of Fatima [MF], “Third Part of the ‘Secret'”].

 

2) What does the secret refer to?

In a letter to John Paul II date May 12, 1982, Sr. Lucia wrote:

“The third part of the secret refers to Our Lady’s words [in the second part of the secret]: ‘If not, [Russia] will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred; the Holy Father will have much to suffer; various nations will be annihilated’ (13-VII-1917)” (MF, Introduction).

In general terms, then, the third part of the secret refers to the twentieth-century conflict between the Church and Communist Russia.

 

3) What does the angel with the flaming sword symbolize?

KEEP READING.

9 things to know and share about Fatima

On May 13, 1917, the three "little shepherds" received a powerful revelation from Our Lady of Fatima. Here are 9 things to know and share with friends . . .

May 13 is the optional memorial of Our Lady of Fatima.

Fatima is the most prominent approved apparition of the 20th century.

It became famous the world over, particular for its three “secrets.”

The third and final secret was kept in the Vatican for many years, but in 2000, it was released to the world by John Paul II.

Here are 9 things to know and share with friends . . .

 

1) What happened at Fatima, Portugal?

A young shepherd girl, Lucia dos Santos, said that she experienced supernatural visitations as early as 1915, two years before the famous appearances of the Virgin Mary.

In 1917, she and two of her cousins, Francisco and Jacinta Marto, were working as shepherds tending their families’ flocks. On May 13, 1917, the three children saw an apparition of Our Lady. She told them, among other things, that she would return once a month for six months.

At Our Lady’s third appearance, on July 13, Lucia was shown the secret of Fatima. She reportedly turned pale and cried out with fear, calling Our Lady by name. There was a thunderclap, and the vision ended.

The children again saw the Virgin on September 13. In the sixth and final appearance, on October 13, a dramatic outward sign was given to those gathered to witness the event. After the clouds of a rainstorm parted, numerous witnesses—some as far as 40 miles away—reported seeing the sun dance, spin, and send out colored rays of light.

 

2) What happened after the main apparitions?

As World War I raged across Europe, an epidemic of Spanish flu swept the globe. It erupted in America and was spread by soldiers being sent to distant lands. This epidemic killed an estimated twenty million people.

Among them were Franciso and Jacinta, who contracted the illness in 1918 and died in 1919 and 1920, respectively. Lucia entered the convent.

On June 13, 1929, at the convent chapel in Tuy, Spain, Lucia had another mystical experience in which she saw the Trinity and the Blessed Virgin. Mary told her:

“The moment has come in which God asks the Holy Father in union with all the bishops of the world to make the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, promising to save it by this means” (S. Zimdars-Schwartz, Encountering Mary, 197).

On October 13, 1930, the bishop of Leiria (now Leiria-Fatima) proclaimed the apparitions at Fatima authentic and worthy of assent.

 

3) How was the “secret” of Fatima written down?

KEEP READING.