"I see men; but they look like trees, walking." (Mark 8:24)
Here’s a quick update for folks who may be wondering how my recent eye surgery went.
First, thank you for your prayers! They’ve been a huge help!
The second eye surgery did not go as well as the first.
I could tell, while the surgery was in progress, that the emotional temperature of the room went up, and the surgical staff was showing signs of concern.
The surgeon was even stomping (repeatedly) on what I assume was a metallic foot pedal trying to get the equipment to work properly.
I was even concerned that they were going to abort the surgery part way through, but they didn’t.
They got it done.
The problem, it turned out, was that my second cataract was much larger than the first and, since I am not elderly, it was not brittle and did not shatter when they applied ultrasound to it.
Instead, the surgeon said the next day, it was like using a jackhammer to chip away at hardened leather.
The pieces of the cataract were also sticky, they said, and they kept clogging up the tube used to remove them. It clogged three times, which they said has never happened before.
As a result of the amount of energy they had to pump into my eye to get the job done, the surface of the eye became inflamed, and so even though they got the original lens out and the new one put in, I didn’t have 20/20 vision the next day the way I did with the first eye.
Instead, my vision has continued to be blurry as the eye heals and the inflammation goes down.
I have often thought of the line from the Gospels where Jesus heals a blind man partially and he says that he now sees people, but they look like trees walking around. Then Jesus heals him fully.
The good news in my case is that the eye is healing. Although for the first few days I wasn’t sure how much my vision was improving, it has now begun to improve more rapidly. In fact, in the last 24 hours it has improved markedly, to the point that I can now see lines of text and even read very large words (like the JimmyAkin.com at the top of my web site).
The bad news is that if it heals to the point that the images coming through it are as crystal-clear as those from the first eye then I am very likely to have double vision, which would require additional measures (possibly including surgery).
Still, my vision situation is vastly better than it was a month ago.
I continue to marvel at how clear and sharp and colorful everything is (at least out of the first eye). Often I just look around and marvel at the world and how gorgeous it is.
So I am very thankful to God that my vision has improved so dramatically, and I am very thankful to all who have prayed for my vision.
Please keep me in your prayers as the healing continues!
Was this all there was? Or was there a "miracle of sharing"?
Of all the many miracles Jesus performed during his earthly ministry (that is, before his passion, death, and Resurrection), there is one that stands out: the feeding of the five thousands.
Unlike any other miracle from his ministry, this one is recorded in all four gospels is the feeding of the five thousand.
You would think that people would have a handle on the fact that this was a miracle–an unmistakable supernatural intervention in the order of nature.
Yet every year we are subjected to homilies that try to explain it away as a natural event, suggesting that all Jesus really did was motivate people to share the food that they had with them, so it was really a “miracle of sharing” rather than a miraculous multiplication of loaves.
I’ve written about the subject before, but let’s see what Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul II have to say about the matter . . .
Does this piece of papyrus prove that Jesus had a wife?
The New York Times is carrying a story of a scholar who has a piece of papyrus which refers to Jesus having a wife.
She’s even dubbed it “The Gospel of Jesus’s Wife.”
Isn’t that “special.”
Does this mean that Dan Brown was right all along? That Jesus was married? To Mary Magdalen even?
Are we going to have to deal with all that nonsense again?
Before things get too far out of hand, let’s take a look at this issue and what it means . . .
The Basic Facts
According to the NYT:
A historian of early Christianity at Harvard Divinity School has identified a scrap of papyrus that she says was written in Coptic in the fourth century and contains a phrase never seen in any piece of Scripture: “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife …’ ”
The faded papyrus fragment is smaller than a business card, with eight lines on one side, in black ink legible under a magnifying glass. Just below the line about Jesus having a wife, the papyrus includes a second provocative clause that purportedly says, “she will be able to be my disciple.”
The finding was made public in Rome on Tuesday at an international meeting of Coptic scholars by Karen L. King, a historian who has published several books about new Gospel discoveries and is the first woman to hold the nation’s oldest endowed chair, the Hollis professor of divinity.
The provenance of the papyrus fragment is a mystery, and its owner has asked to remain anonymous [Source].
Okay, let’s stop right there. That leads to the very first question . . .
I just wanted to put up a note letting people know the status of my vision issues.
As you may know, I had cataract surgery on my right eye a month ago, and the results were excellent. I went from legally blind to 20/20 vision (i.e., normal vision, not perfect vision) in less than a day. (In fact, as soon as they put in my new lens, as far as I can tell.)
Now it is time for surgery on my left eye.
I will be having that done Tuesday afternoon at 3:30 p.m. Pacific.
The procedure is expected to take about 20-30 minutes.
I very much appreciate all the prayers people have said for me and my vision, and I would like to request them once again.
The surgery itself should go fine. Cataract surgery is very safe and effective today.
But because of factors particular to my case, there is a non-trivial chance that I will end up with double vision.
When I asked the surgeon what the odds are, he said he couldn’t tell and assigned the odds at “fifty-fifty,” though I hope that he was being medically cautious in that.
If I do end up with double vision, it may be temporary or permanent.
If permanent, it may require treatment by wearing special glasses or by surgery on the muscles around my eye, which would require a different kind of specialist.
On the other hand, when the left eye comes back online, my brain may say, “Hey! New data! Great! Let’s match this up in 3-D!”
In that case I’ll have the wonders of depth perception again.
I’m very much hoping for the latter outcome, and so I would very much appreciate your prayers.
The ancient world was very far from being politically correct by modern standards, and as a result, the Bible contains passages that seem politically incorrect today.
For example, in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, St. Paul seems to suggest that women should be totally silent in church.
Is this true?
If so, how do we square it with the practice of the Church today?
I would appreciate your thoughts on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. This is difficult to address in front of a group of women.
I understand the difficulty.
Reading the Passage Itself
Let’s begin by looking at what the passage says, with a bit of the immediate context:
1 Corinthians 14
[33b] As in all the churches of the saints,
[34] the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.
[35] If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church
[36] What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached?
[37] If any one thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord.
[38] If any one does not recognize this, he is not recognized.
The immediate context does not, in this case, make things easier. It actually seems to make them harder.
St. Paul appears to “up the ante” by saying that this is a commandment from the Lord (Jesus himself), and that anyone who rejects this view should have his view rejected.
But perhaps the broader context of St. Paul’s thought may put things in a different light.
And, in fact, it does. Even just a few chapters earlier in 1 Corinthians, St. Paul indicates that women do not have to remain literally silent in church . . .
It has been a couple of weeks since the last edition of The Weekly Benedict. While the Pope has been on vacation apparently so have the English translators for the Vatican. So this is a catch up edition with the translations released this week.
How did ancient Rome influence the Bible and the gospel story itself? The essential facts every Christian needs to know!The Bible records a number of ancient civilizations. Perhaps the most famous of these is ancient Rome.
By the time of the New Testament, Rome was the major world power, and it was in control of the Holy Land during the entire earthly life of Jesus and during the lives of his immediate followers.
Jesus was born during the reign of the Roman emperor Augustus. He was crucified during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberius. The book of Acts records the Roman emperor Claudius by name. And both St. Peter and St. Paul were martyred at Rome by the Emperor Nero.
It is clear that the Romans were extraordinarily important to the world in which the New Testament was written.
All that makes it worth asking: Who were the Romans, and where did their civilization come from?
The Legendary Founding
The answer is shrouded in the mists of time, and ancient legends get in the way of an exact knowledge of the facts.
According to the Romans’ own account, the city of Rome was founded in the wake of the famous Trojan War.
Specifically, it was founded on April 21st in 753 B.C. by two twins named Romulus and Remus.
These two twins were supposedly the grandsons of an earlier king—Numitor—but they were raised by a she-wolf, and so they were feral children.
When they founded the city of Rome they had a quarrel, and Romulus killed Remus. Romulus thus became the sole and original king of Rome.
The Roman Kingdom
This led to a period known as “the Roman kindom,” in which Rome was ruled by a series of kings.
This period is supposed to have lasted from the founding in 753 B.C. until about 509 B.C.
It is characterized by the fact that Rome was ruled by kings, just like other peoples were. During this time seven kings supposedly reigned over Rome, beginning with Romulus and ending with Tarquinius Superbus, or “Tarquin the Proud.”
Eventually, however, the people of Rome were fed up with their kings and overthrew them, leading to a new period in the history of Rome.
The Roman Republic
This led to the “Roman Republic,” a period in which Rome lacked a monarch.
The word “republic” comes from the Latin res publica,which means “public thing”—a reference to the fact that how the state was governed was now a public thing rather than a matter for just the kings.
To replace the kings, power was divided between two men, known as consuls, who were elected every year and had significant checks on their powers, including term limits.
The Roman Republic lasted from the overthrow of the kings around 509 B.C. until the first century B.C.
The Roman Empire
The Romans found that their system of divided government, with power split up among the consuls and other government officials, was at times unwieldy.
As a result, in times of crisis, they sometimes appointed dictators—men who could run the state as single individuals, but only for a limited period prescribed by law, to keep the dictator from turning into a tyrant.
Eventually this system broke down, when one particular dictator—Julius Caesar—engineered a situation in which he was proclaimed “dictator in perpetuity.”
That was too close to the idea of kingship, and the situation didn’t last long. He was quickly assassinated by a conspiracy in the Senate.
His heir was a man named Octavian, and he eventually accumulated as much power as Julius Caesar had possessed—and more.
Some wanted him to be given the title “king,” but Octavian knew that would be dangerous, so he allowed the Roman Senate to vote him different titles.
One title became the name he is known by today: Augustus.
The other was a military title that meant “commander.” In Latin this word is imperator, and from it we get the English word emperor.
Augustus this became the first of the Roman emperors, and the Roman empire was born.
Rome and the Life of Jesus
Rome had been accumulating power through conquest even since the time of the Roman kings, and by the reign of Augustus Caesar it had become the dominant power in Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East.
They were in political control of the Holy Land at the time Jesus was born, and it was they who had appointed Herod as “king of the Jews.” It was also Augustus Caesar who called for the enrollment that led Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem.
The impact of the Romans on the gospel story is thus apparent right from the beginning.
Their impact was still present at the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, when other members of the Herod family were ruling parts of his kingdom, and when the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, agreed to have Jesus crucified.
“We Have No King But Caesar”
It is ironic that, at the time of Jesus’ Passion, the crowds cried, “We have no king but Caesar!”
The Roman ruler of the day was Augustus’s successor, Tiberius Caesar, and he did not technically have the title “king.” The Romans were too proud of having overthrown their kings for that. But the emperors were functioning as kings, and it was obvious to everyone.
The Empire Strikes Back
The power of the emperors continued to have an impact on the early Church. Just a few decades later it was the Emperor Nero who put St. Peter and St. Paul to death at Rome.
Later emperors launched the persecutions that martyred so many early Christians—and paradoxically caused the Church to grow, until the Roman empire itself was converted to Christ.
The Roman empire was something that the first Christians had to deal with constantly. It loomed over their lives and tried to destroy them and their faith.
It will help us all understand and appreciate our faith better if we know something about the Roman empire and the impact it had on the Bible and the early Church.
Learning More
The persecution by the Roman authorities is a big part of what the book of Revelation is about.
If you’d like to learn more about that, I’d like to invite you to join my my Secret Information Club at www.SecretInfoClub.com.
It’s a service I operate by email which is absolutely free. I send out information on a variety of fascinating topics connected with the Catholic faith.
The very first thing you’ll get if you sign up is an “interview” I did with Pope Benedict on the book of Revelation. What I did was compose questions about the book of Revelation and take the answers from his writings.
He has a lot of interesting things to say!
If you’d like to find out what they are, just sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy sign-up form:
One of the distinctive Protestant principles is expressed in the slogan sola scriptura, which is Latin for “by Scripture only.” The idea is that every teaching on faith or morals must be directly or indirectly based on the Scriptures.
That leads to the common question, “Where’s that in the Bible?”
It’s an important question. In fact, it’s a question that needs to be asked about the doctrine of sola scriptura itself. Because if every teaching on faith or morals has to be based on the Bible then sola scriptura must be based on the Bible.
If it’s not, then it is a self-refuting claim and is false.
So what passages do Protestant Christians appeal to in support of sola scriptura?
Berean Christianity!
One that is sometimes cited is Acts 17, which deals with an incident that happened when St. Paul preached in the Jewish synagogue in the Greek city of Berea.
St. Luke writes:
Acts 17
[11] Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
Many in the Protestant community have found this an inspiring story, and some have even named their ministries after the Berean Jews. If you go online you can find all kinds of Berean churches, schools, ministries, and bookstores.
The idea is that we should imitate the Berean Jews and take a skeptical attitude of theological ideas we are presented with. Instead of just accepting them, we should search the Scriptures daily to see if what we are being told is true or not. If it’s not, then we should not accept it.
If that’s what the passage means—if it is commending the Bereans for their skeptical attitude and refusal to believe a teaching unless it can be found in Scripture—then this would be good evidence for sola scriptura.
But that’s not what it means, and it’s easy to show that.
What About Thessalonica?
You’ll notice that Acts 17:11 says that the Berean Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, which raises an immediate question: “What were the Thessalonian Jews like?”
If they are less noble in contrast to the skeptical Bereans, presumably they were credulous individuals who accepted what they were told without Scriptural proof.
That’s not what they were like at all. To see this, let’s back up to the beginning of the chapter, where we read:
Acts 17
[1] Now when [Paul and his companions] had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews.
[2] And Paul went in, as was his custom, and for three weeks he argued with them from the scriptures,
[3] explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.”
[4] And some of them were persuaded, and joined Paul and Silas; as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women.
[5] But the Jews were jealous, and taking some wicked fellows of the rabble, they gathered a crowd, set the city in an uproar, and attacked the house of Jason, seeking to bring them out to the people.
[6] And when they could not find them, they dragged Jason and some of the brethren before the city authorities, crying, “These men who have turned the world upside down have come here also,
[7] and Jason has received them; and they are all acting against the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus.”
[8] And the people and the city authorities were disturbed when they heard this.
[9] And when they had taken security from Jason and the rest, they let them go.
[10] The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Beroea; and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue.
It’s in that context that we now return to the verse where we started:
[11] Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
The Real Reason the Bereans Were Praised?
So the contrast isn’t between the skeptical Bereans, who insisted on Scriptural proof of what Paul was saying, and the credulous Thessalonians, who accepted it without question.
Instead, the contrast is between the open-minded Bereans, who were willing and eager to examine the Scriptures and see if what Paul was saying was true, versus the hostile Thessalonians, who started a riot and got Paul in trouble with the authorities, even though he had proved from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ.
This understanding is confirmed by the following verses, where we read:
[12] Many of [the Bereans] therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men.
[13] But when the Jews of Thessalonica learned that the word of God was proclaimed by Paul at Beroea also, they came there too, stirring up and inciting the crowds.
[14] Then the brethren immediately sent Paul off on his way to the sea, but Silas and Timothy remained there.
So the Thessalonians forced Paul to flee Berea, just as they had forced him to flee from their own town.
Thus it wasn’t the Bereans who were skeptical. It was the Thessalonians.
“By the Old Testament Alone?”
There is also another reason why this passage isn’t a good proof text for sola scriptura, which is this: The Christian faith contains doctrines that aren’t found in the Old Testament.
What’s why even those who favor doing theology “by Scripture alone” don’t favor doing it “by the Old Testament alone.”
While the Old Testament does contain prophecies that point forward to Jesus as the Messiah, the Christ, it doesn’t contain the whole of the Christian faith.
What the Berean Jews were willing to do, therefore, was to open-mindedly look at the Old Testament Scriptures, see if they confirmed Paul’s preaching that Jesus was the Messiah, and then go on to accept the new, Christian revelation that Paul also imparted.
And he imparted it by preaching, because the books of the New Testament were not all written yet.
The True Attitude of Berean and Thessalonian Christians
If we were to follow the example of the Bereans, we would look at whether the Scriptures we do have support a particular message and, if they do, then be willing to accept further revelation not found in those Scriptures.
We would, ironically, embrace the attitude of those at Thessalonica who did accept the Christian faith, for in 2 Thessalonians 2, St. Paul told them:
2 Thessialonians 2
[15] So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
In other words, we would recognize the authority of all of the traditions passed on from Christ and the apostles, whether they were written or not.
And this is what the Catholic Church says we should do.
Learning More
If you’d like to learn more about these and other matters, I’d like to invite you to join my Secret Information Club at www.SecretInfoClub.com.
It’s a service I operate by email which is absolutely free. I send out fascinating information on a variety of topics connected with the Catholic faith.
The very first thing you’ll get if you sign up is an “interview” I did with Pope Benedict on the book of Revelation. What I did was compose questions about the book of Revelation and take the answers from his writings.
He has a lot of interesting things to say!
If you’d like to find out what they are, just sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy sign up form:
The Virgin of Guadalupe displays the sun, moon, and stars symbolism of the Woman of Revelation 12
The book of Revelation contains a passage in which St. John sees a great sign in the sky. He wrote:
And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.
She brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne [Rev. 12:1, 5].
Who is this mysterious Woman clothed in the sun?
In the following video–and the accompanying audio (see the bottom of the post)–we explore that question and look at different theories that have been proposed.
In particular, we look at the view advanced by Pope Benedict XVI, both in his personal writing and in his teaching as pope.
The answer may surprise you!
Is She the Virgin Mary?
Note that the Woman gives birth to a male child who is to rule the nations with a rod of iron. That’s a reference to the Messianic prophecy in Psalm 2, where we read:
Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage,
and the ends of the earth your possession.
You shall break them with a rod of iron [Ps. 2:8-9].
Jesus fulfilled this Messianic prophecy.
The fact that the male child is caught up to the throne of God is a reference to Jesus’ Ascension into heaven, so we have another confirmation that the male child is Jesus.
And since the Woman who gives birth to him is his Mother, we could infer that the Woman here is Jesus’ mother, the Virgin Mary.
But there is more to the story.
Is She Israel . . . or the Church?
The symbolism connected with the Woman is drawn from the book of Genesis, where the patriarch Joseph has a dream involving the sun, the moon, and the stars.
Then he dreamed another dream, and told it to his brothers, and said, “Behold, I have dreamed another dream; and behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were bowing down to me.”
But when he told it to his father and to his brothers, his father rebuked him, and said to him, “What is this dream that you have dreamed? Shall I and your mother and your brothers indeed come to bow ourselves to the ground before you?” [Gen. 37:9-10].
The symbolism of the sun, moon, and twelve stars comes from Genesis, where it refers to the family of Jacob and the twelve patriarchs, who headed the twelve tribes of Israel.
That has led some to say that the Woman in Revelation 12 is Israel.
You could go further and note that the Church is the spiritual Israel. So some have suggested that the Woman as the Church.
Figuring out Which View is True
Which view is true?
Is the Woman Mary?
Is the Woman Israel?
Is the Woman the Church?
You could try to solve this problem by making some of the symbols primary and some secondary.
For example, you could make the Woman’s role as the mother of Jesus primary, so she’s his literal mother, Mary, and the sun, moon, and stars imagery only means that Mary was a Jewish woman.
Or you could make the sun, moon, and stars imagery primary and say that she’s Israel, and the fact that Mary was the particular Jewish woman who gave birth to Jesus is secondary.
Either/Or Vs. Both/And
We don’t have to make that choice, because if you study the way symbolism is used in the book of Revelation, it often uses a single symbol points to more than one thing.
For example, Revelation 17 tells us what the seven heads of the beast represents:
This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the [Whore of Babylon] is seated; they are also seven kings (Rev. 17:9-10).
If the seven heads can be seven mountains and seven kings then the Woman clothed with the sun might be the Virgin Mary and Israel and the Church.
Pope Benedict’s View
That’s what Pope Benedict suggests. In his book Jesus of Nazareth, volume 2, he writes:
When the Book of Revelation speaks of the great sign of a Woman appearing in heaven, she is understood to represent all Israel, indeed, the whole Church. . . .
On the basis of the “corporate personality” model—in keeping with biblical thought—the early Church had no difficulty recognizing in the Woman, on the one hand, Mary herself and, on the other hand, transcending time, the Church, bride and mother, in which the mystery of Mary spreads out into history [Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth 2:222].
On another occasion, Pope Benedict said:
This Woman represents Mary, the Mother of the Redeemer, but at the same time she also represents the whole Church, the People of God of all times, the Church which in all ages, with great suffering, brings forth Christ ever anew [General Audience, Aug. 23, 2006].
As Pope Benedict shows us, we don’t have to make a forced choice between the possible meanings of what the Woman represents.
In keeping with the richness of the way Revelation uses symbolism, to use Pope Benedict’s phrases, she can be Mary and “all Israel” and “the whole Church” in different ways.
Learning More
If you’d like to learn more about what Pope Benedict says about the book of Revelation, I’d like to invite you to join my Secret Information Club at www.SecretInfoClub.com.
The very first thing you’ll get is a free “interview” with Pope Benedict where I composed the questions and took the answers from his writings.
He has lots of interesting things to say!
You’ll also get lots of additional information on fascinating topics, absolutely FREE, so you should join now using this handy form:
