Posted on 07/20/2015 3:21:27 AM PDT by markomalley
There is bizarre trend in modern academic Biblical exegesis. Modern critical methods of studying the scriptures have concluded in the 20th century that by man’s own light, most of what is recounted in the Gospels did not actually happen. Textual, form, source, literary, redaction, and historical criticism draw inductive conclusions based on observable phenomena to pronounce millennia of solid Church teaching inaccurate. The entire academic venture is grounded in skepticism and scientific reductionism. By their methods and standards, it is true that we can be certain of nothing historically, but we ought not to take the reductive and skeptical conclusions for whole and integral truth.
Scriptural studies from the early Church, had always operated under the true assumption that the Gospels writers were the inspired instruments of God unerringly conveying the Gospel Truth. Christ our Lord, born of the Father before all ages, came down from heaven and became man. He lived, preached, healed, died and is risen! Only some of the events of His life were actually recorded by the Gospel authors, for as John tells us in his Gospel, 21:25, “there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” It is foolish to assume that less and not more actually happened in Christ’s life.
We ought to take into account the mass of evidence available to us by the proper use of the intellect and due regard for the marvels of revelation to discern what actually happened. To corroborate this position we have countless excellent saints, scholars, theologians and Popes who throughout the ages have commented authoritatively and articulately on the actual events of Christ’s Life. Let us consider the temptation of Christ by Satan in the wilderness. The new Biblical exegetes attempting to demythologize the Gospels deny that the temptation ever happened. Perhaps a look at what the finest Church Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas had to say about the temptation might allay some fear that the modern skeptics are right, for surely they merely stumble in the dark.
In part 3, Question 41 of his masterpiece The Summa Theologica, Aquinas answers four questions about Christ’s temptation. First, whether or not it “was becoming that Christ should be Tempted?” Then, the role of the desert in Christ’s temptation. After that, the time of the temptation and finally, the mode and order of the temptation. In doing so, Aquinas’ conclusions imply the historical veracity of Christ’s temptation.
Aquinas gives four reasons as to why it was in fact becoming that Christ should be tempted. He tells us that Christ desired to be tempted so that we might be strengthened against the temptations that inevitably assail the faithful. He quotes Gregory the Great who said in a homily “It was not unworthy of our Redeemer to wish to be tempted, who came also to be slain; in order that by His temptations He might conquer our temptations just as by His death He overcame our death.” Christ overcame death by His resurrection, surely overcoming temptations is of a lesser magnitude.
Secondly, Christ endured temptation that by His example no holy man would find himself above the possibility of temptation. If the perfect Christ was tempted, so are all men. Christ chose to be tempted after His baptism because as Hilary says “The temptations of the devil assail those principally who are sanctified, for he desires, above all, to overcome the holy.” We are often stricken by trial and temptation immediately after conversion. Christ tell us; “take up your cross and follow me.” Christ carried His cross as He asks us to. He suffered temptation as we do. To suggest that He did not in fact suffer the temptation in the desert is to deny Christ’s example to us.
Aquinas’ final two reasons in this first article confirm that Christ actually experienced the temptation after His baptism. St. Augustine wrote in On The Trinity, that Christ endured the temptation “that He might be our Mediator in overcoming temptation, not only by helping us, but also by giving us an example.” If it never happened, Christ could not be an example. Finally, Aquinas tells us Christ’s temptation was to “fill us with confidence in His mercy. Hence it is written Hebrews 4:15, “We have not a high-priest, who cannot have compassion on our infirmities, but one tempted in all things like as we are, without sin.” For all the above analysis and reasons, it is plain that St. Thomas Aquinas was certain that Christ endured the temptation in the desert.
St. Thomas considers the place where Christ was tempted, the desert. He begins article 2 by explaining that Christ, by His own free will, allowed himself to be tempted by the devil, otherwise there is no way the devil would have ever come near Him. He continues to explain that the “devil prefers to assail a man who is alone, for, as it is written (Ecclesiastes 4:12),”if a man prevail against one, two shall withstand him.” And so it was that Christ went out into the desert, as to a field of battle, to be tempted there by the devil.” Here we can clearly see, surmise and meditate on the fact that it was the will of the Father that Christ be tempted. He set up the right conditions so that for our own salvation we might have the perfect model to imitate.
To illuminate the meaning of Christ’s purposeful actions, Aquinas quotes St. Ambrose who is commenting on Luke 4:1 where it is written that “Christ was led into the desert for the purpose of provoking the devil.” If Christ himself had not done spiritual combat with Satan, we would not have our model for victory. Ambrose continues that “Christ in doing this set forth the mystery of Adam’s delivery from exile,” who had been expelled from paradise into the desert, and “set an example to us, by showing that the devil envies those who strive for better things.” Aquinas, with support from St. Ambrose and sacred scriptures, lends credence to the real fact that Christ did in fact endure the temptation in the desert.
Aquinas’ third article concerns three reasons it was becoming for Christ to experience the temptation after a 40 day fast. First of all, we are all in need of an example of fasting. We can hardly contemplate Christ’s temptation without thinking of the kind of hunger that might accompany 40 days without food. By His example, we are armed with awareness of the necessity of fasting to be able to resist temptation, for denying our appetites is akin to the fight against temptation.
Secondly, Christ demonstrates by His fast that the devil assaults even those faithful souls who fast. As Chrysostom said of Christ’s fasting in a homily, it was “to instruct thee how great a good is fasting, and how it is a most powerful shield against the devil; and that after baptism thou shouldst give thyself up, not to luxury, but to fasting; for this cause Christ fasted, not as needing it Himself, but as teaching us.”
Thirdly, it was Christ’s hunger that drew the devil in and to tempt Him first with satisfying His hunger. As St. Hilary said “it was not because He was overcome by want of food, but because He abandoned His manhood to its nature. For the devil was to be conquered, not by God, but by the flesh.” Considering the above three reasons for the temptation following the fast it is absurd to assume that Christ did not fast and did not face the temptation just because we cannot find material evidence for it. As faithful Catholics, it treads a dangerous line to question the veracity of the suffering our Lord endured for our sakes based on such narrow considerations as the modern exegetes use.
Aquinas said the devil’s temptations take the form of suggestions and these suggestions from Satan are not made to all people in the same way, they “must arise from those things towards which each one has an inclination. Consequently the devil does not straight away tempt the spiritual man to grave sins, but he begins with lighter sins, so as gradually to lead him to those of greater magnitude.” As Gregory the Great said, “vices begin by insinuating themselves into the mind under some specious pretext.” And it is noted here that by this form, Satan tempted our first parents.
Christ’s temptation in the desert illustrates for us the general character of all of Satan’s temptations towards all men for all time from Adam and Eve to the present as the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and to the pride of life. Aquinas explains using Pope Leo’s words that Christ resisted these “temptations by quoting the authority of the law, not by enforcing His power, so as to give more honor to His human nature and a greater punishment to His adversary, since the foe of the human race was vanquished, not as by God, but as by man.” Christ could not conquer Satan by his perfect humanity if He had not in fact, historically experienced the temptation in the desert, it is a bizarre contradiction to suggest it.
St. Thomas Aquinas would hardly have considered the temptation a topic worth memorializing or contemplating had it never happened. If we conclude with the modern exegete that the temptation did not happen, then we must also necessarily say that St. Thomas Aquinas’ work on this matter was done in vain. It is worth noting that if we look at the end of the life of a modern exegete and compare it to the end of St. Thomas’ life, the difference could not be greater. The modern exegete demythologizes the Gospels and ends in the darkness of disbelief as demonstrated by Albert Schweitzer and Rudolf Bultmann. On the other hand, St. Thomas Aquinas, having been gifted the Beatific Vision, could no longer suffer the mundane, even his own inspired writing projects. He ended certain of the joyful knowledge of the incarnate Christ and the sure prospect of ending face to face with God for all eternity.
It is disconcerting that there is a veritable army of modern exegetes who use reductive modern critical methods of interpretation to conclude that events like the temptation in the desert never happened. Their appeal is alluring because it plays on our disordered desire to be the arbiters of truth. If we choose to side with the modern exegetes, we ought to keep in mind that we rule against the entirety of revelation by the tradition of countless saints in heaven, the Church fathers, doctors, Popes and theologians.
The preponderance of historical evidence and consensus is in accord with the sacred scriptures conveyed by the Magisterium of Holy Mother Church. Christ was tempted in the desert by Satan, for the redemption and fulfillment of the first Adam who fell when faced with his temptation, then as a foreshadowing of Christ’s passion, and finally as a guide for us from the perfect teacher on the temptations the faithful will have to face as we observe that the fullness of time unfolds the events of Salvation History. To conclude that it never happened is an offense against the authority and integrity of The Father, Son and Holy Spirit and all who know, love and serve our Trinitarian Lord. Let us choose the saints over the modern exegetes, it is an eternally better choice.
Fascinating.
For later.
Indeed, as in Scripture Christ is set forth as the only heavenly and all-sufficient mediator btwn God and man, (1Tim. 2:5) who "ever liveth to make intercession" for the saints. (Heb. 7:25) And who is uniquely qualified to help as He alone was "in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." (Hebrews 4:15)
Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. (Hebrews 4:16)
If I only took advantage of so great grace more, even in fair weather.
. Aquinas explains using Pope Leo’s words that Christ resisted these “temptations by quoting the authority of the law, not by enforcing His power, so as to give more honor to His human nature and a greater punishment to His adversary, since the foe of the human race was vanquished, not as by God, but as by man.”
Actually the devil invoked Scripture, which the Lord quoted in return, (Dt 8:3; 6:13,16), as both understood its supreme authority.
It is disconcerting that there is a veritable army of modern exegetes who use reductive modern critical methods of interpretation to conclude that events like the temptation in the desert never happened. Their appeal is alluring because it plays on our disordered desire to be the arbiters of truth. If we choose to side with the modern exegetes, we ought to keep in mind that we rule against the entirety of revelation by the tradition of countless saints in heaven, the Church fathers, doctors, Popes and theologians.
And then there is the modern scholarship such as has been expressed in NAB study helps and certain notes for decades, which many Catholics oppose, as do conservative Prots against the liberal scholarship going under that name.
Good point.
Hebrews 2:14-18 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.
Hebrews 4:15-16 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.
“...invoked Scripture...both understood its supreme authority...”
Jesus Himself is the Supreme Authority.
The BIBLE on Christ’s temptation:
Of course, but the context ("for it is written") was that of the express transcendent revelation of His Truth, and the Lord Himself established His Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.
>>>>>>And then there is the modern scholarship such as has been expressed in NAB study helps and certain notes for decades, which many Catholics oppose, as do conservative Prots against the liberal scholarship going under that name.
The translation is flat, the footnotes are atrocious (some would say heretical), however, the cross references are useful.
I personally prefer the RSV for study and the Douay for general reading purposes. If I want to go back to the original language, I like using Perseus.
“...the Lord Himself established His Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.”
Not necessarily. An equally valid position (from the bible) says that He established His Truth claims directly from His Father, or to put it another way, His power comes straight from God the Father without the need of a “scripture middleman”.
John 13:3
Matthew 28:18
John 20:21
On topic:
This is an excellent article and thanks for posting:
“It is disconcerting that there is a veritable army of modern exegetes who use reductive modern critical methods of interpretation to conclude that events like the temptation never happned”
These modern exegetes also try to explain away the miracles.
It is actually very very dangerous even more than simply disconcerting.
St. Thomas Aquinas ora pro nobis.
Why do these modern scripture scholars wish to deconstruct the bible and try to “prove” there were no miracles?
The magisterium has always taught since the Apostles themselves that God is the principle author of the bible and because the Trinity is Truth itself (John 14:6) and cannot teach anything untrue, the bible is free from error in everything that it asserts to be true.
CCC 101-14
Modern scripture exegesis is suspect, to put it mildly.
As St. Thomas Aquinas states: Hebrews 4:15 proves the temptation happened beyond doubt.
I was not aware of that but this a little informative:
It is not really helpful for Bible study per se. It is helpful for comparative literature reasons. In other words, it can be helpful for looking up how words are used in other bodies of classical literature. You have access to the Liddell-Scott lexicon. You can access the Symth classical grammar which being old still is fairly standard in scholarship. You can access the Vulgate and click on words to get their morphologies if you're big into Latin. In other words, Perseus is not really a Bible study site, but it can be used to increase your knowledge of the Greek language and grammar and maybe even just some of the thought world of ancient times.
Here is a link to the the material that Perseus hosts http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...on:Greco-Roman
If what you want to do is track down words or citations from BDAG or Kittel you can do this via Perseus rather easily as long as Perseus has the source. Perseus is not housing the Loeb Classical Library online. However, they do have many of the older Loebs online. They do not have every single Greek (or Roman author), but they do have many of the major ones. This would not replace a university/seminary library, but it can help ease the pain if you move far away from one. Generally if you're looking something up from BDAG or Kittel they will give you a line or book reference to the Greek work. All you would do is follow this up through Perseus. If you're looking for every Greek work written, you'd have to move away from Perseus and start eyeing the TLG (http://www.tlg.uci.edu/) but now you're talking big time money. - Michael Hanel; http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/showthread.php?1157-Using-Perseus-in-Bible-Study
While we know His power comes straight from God, and if there was no prior revelation the Son could establish the validity of His claims simply by holiness, wisdom and supernatural attestation, yet since by this means (Moses etc.) God had expressly revealed His word on a corporate level, and recorded that in a transcendent medium (writing), then the Lord who claimed to be of that God needed to manifest conflation with it.
Before Scripture began to be written God expressly (doing beyond natural revelation) revealed Himself and will in a very limited degree to a very limited amount of people. But when He began to address an entire nation then He commanded and inspired His word to be written.
And which, as it was written, became the transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing Truth claims, as is abundantly evidenced , by which oral preaching of the word was examined by.
Therefore, from rebuking the devil by the Scriptures at the beginning of His ministry, Mt. 4) to rebuking the historical magisterium, (Mt. 22) to validating His Messianic fulfillment to His disciples, (Lk. 24:27,44) it was not appeal to rabbi so and so but to the Scriptures.
While this does not exclude the leading of the Spirit, and the oral preaching of the word, of Scriptural Truths by the whole church, nor the magisterial office, and teachers, etc., it makes all subject to what is written, to the only tangible extensive body of Truth that is wholly inspired of God.
Ok fine. And He was the Word made flesh too.
Did He argue == "listen to me, I am the Supreme Authority"?
Not at all.
He did not in that instance which was under discussion, cite his own personal authority, or 'position of' authority.
It's just the way it is.
The devil invoked Scripture? The devil twisted the Scripture. Christ was teaching what to expect.... Look what the devil offered Christ if Christ would bend His knee to the devil.
“...when He began to address an entire nation then He commanded and inspired His word to be written”.
Interesting. For consideration:
Israel was an entire nation that received instruction directly from God orally through Moses. Some of this was written down but the Oral Torah was passed down orally for many generations. The written law and the Oral Torah were equally important and parallel to each other.
Also I am not aware of anywhere in the NT that Jesus instructed his disciples to write things down. 2 John 12 in fact speaking face to face and preaching was the preferred method of teaching in those illiterate times.
A stong Oral Law together with the Written Law was the system of the Jewish people.
Why would the early Jews who became the very first Christians suddenly change this concept to only written? The Sermon on the Mount refers to Oral Tradition in the section on lust as well as prayer. Jesus had no problem using Oral Tradition as a source -
There are a lot of good references out there to assist with exegesis. Obviously, Strong's is a tremendous source, though the dictionary is rather abbreviated (thus using with Perseus and their references to LSJ). But, honestly, I have to be careful when using online sources.
For example, Blue Letter Bible is a good reference; however, I would hesitate to recommend it to my fellow Catholics as the commentary is deeply flawed (from my perspective, of course). For example, the in-depth Lexicon they use for Greek is Thayer. Joseph Thayer was, as far as I understand, a Unitarian and I have, over the years, seen examples where that has infiltrated his definitions. Much of the commentary on the site seems to me (and your mileage may vary) a bit "Scofield-ish." (e.g., dispensationalist). Obviously, as a Catholic, I'm neither a fan of Darby nor of dispensationalism (not trying to offend you with those statements if you are).
That's what I see with a lot of the online sources. They are useful for scans ("Where does it say that, again?"), but I am very careful when looking at many of the in-depth "Bible dictionaries" or "Critical Lexicons".
You mean you really want to make the Oral Torah as defined by Jews, which is used to define such things as what constitutes keeping the Sabbath holy, of equal authority with Scripture? Where oh where do you see this?
According to Jewish tradition, the Oral Torah was passed down orally in an unbroken chain from generation to generation until its contents were finally committed to writing following the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, when Jewish civilization was faced with an existential threat.[1]
The major repositories of the Oral Torah are the Mishnah, compiled between 200–220 CE by Rabbi Yehudah haNasi, and the Gemara, a series of running commentaries and debates concerning the Mishnah, which together are the Talmud, the preeminent text of Rabbinic Judaism. In fact, two "versions" of the Talmud exist: one produced in Jerusalem c. 300-350 CE (the Jerusalem Talmud), and second, more extensive Talmud compiled in Babylonia and published c. 450-500 CE (the Babylonian Talmud).
The fact is that the "Oral Law" contains things which the Lord reproved by Scripture, and also contains many examples of superstition and nonsense. And Rome has her counterpart, if not as extensive.
Also I am not aware of anywhere in the NT that Jesus instructed his disciples to write things down.
Other Caths have said the like, which is consistent with Scripture being at best a second-class authority in Catholicism (for as per Cath. teaching, it only has any authority as Rome defines and explains it) but the Lord did indeed instruct words of revelation to be written, to representative churches no less,
Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. (Revelation 1:11)
Moreover, since the Holy Spirit says what the Lord Jesus tells Him to say, then by Him the Lord told every single writer to pen His words, making Christ, whom Caths say never commanded anything to be written, the author of the entire NT!
Certainly Scripture does not contain all that can be know, nor has any church provided that, but what is written is set forth as the perpetual means by which souls may be saved and edified.
And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (John 20:30-31)
Which wholly inspired word of God enables the oral preaching of Scriptural Truths, and by which all Truth claims are tested. Nor can even the claimed "infallible" statements of Rome which purport to convey what oral tradition teaches claim to be wholly inspired of God, and thus they cannot be equal in authority.
In addition, nowhere is OT oral tradition appealed to as authoritative proof of the claims of Christ, which Scripture is as being the inspired word of God, and nowhere is any previous holy teaching of Scripture censored as not being of God, while what was considered to be part of OT tradition is reproved by Scripture, (Mk. 7:2-16) which is what is invoked for support of NT oral preaching, showing its supremacy.
Certainly events, practices and teachings of oral teaching can be and were sanctioned, as can even sayings by pagans, and even typical Christian wedding ceremonies have much that was imported from foreign cultures, but all such are subject to examination of Scripture for conflict in order for them to be sanctioned.
A stong Oral Law together with the Written Law was the system of the Jewish people.
Under the magisterium, whereby they opposed Christ as breaking their tradition, as does Catholics against those who prove all things by Scripture as supreme.
Why would the early Jews who became the very first Christians suddenly change this concept to only written?
Because the concept of Oral Tradition being equal with Scripture according as the magisterium said so was contrary to Christ, and how the NT church began.
Note that oral preaching of Scriptural Truths, subject to testing by Scripture, is not the same as a magisterium assuming ensured veracity so that whatever they say Oral T consists of and means is infallible Truth. That novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility is what RCs must establish as Scriptural and being essential for discernment of Truth, without appeal to Tradition as authoritative (which would be circular).
The Sermon on the Mount refers to Oral Tradition in the section on lust as well as prayer.
Actually, it refers to Scripture, which is the original source of any Talmudic wisdom that the Lord is seen expressing (or which happened to be similar to what the Lord said), which in turn Christ as the Word of God was the OT source of, under the Father.
Jesus had no problem using Oral Tradition as a source -
Actually he had no problem reproving Oral Tradition by Scripture (but never Scripture by Oral T), as well as affirming Scriptural Truths that some of Oral Tradition expressed (which SS preachers can also do), or which looked like He affirmed as it happened to conflate with Christ,
Which simply does not make Oral T equal with Scripture under an infallible magisterium, which effectively is the supreme authority for Rome, similar to cults such as the Mormons.
Yes, the devil invoked Scripture in twisting its meaning, and the Lord reproved Him by the correct use of Scripture, not by appeal to any authority of men or extraScriptural words as equal in authority, though Scriptural Truths can be so expressed.
“..making Oral Torah equal...”
I did not make Oral Torah equal - my point was only that oral and written tradition was the norm. The idea of an oral tradition should be considered perfectly acceptable and not treated as an anomaly. Jesus used it (oral tradition - the bible refers to this -see Sermon on the Mount) to reprove and to preach so he picked and chose, but used it. That was my point.
I was simply showing that the Oral Tradition was VERY important to the nation of Israel until the generation of 70 A.D.. - as you say. That is a long time.
The jump in logic that I was making Jewish oral tradition equal to written was your conclusion but not my point.
Interestingly, Martin Luther translated his Wittenberg bible and excluded the so called apocrypha from his canon - which was compiled by the very Jewish magisterium that used the Oral Teachings that were discarded. You are having it both ways from the same (Jewish) magisterium.
Catholics use the older Alexandrian canon that Christ Himself used.
“wholly inspired word of God enables the preaching of Scriptural Proofs ...”
The reality is actually:
Scriptural proofs were enabled by the preaching of the wholly inspired word of God (by the Apostles orally THEN written down)
BECAUSE the oral preaching came first.
Show me exactly when and where (from history with an extant example) the first canon of the bible appeared without the deuterocanonical books and where such a bible lists its own canon. Remember that the Jamnian Council was compiled by the Jewish magisterium that you (correctly) ignore when they produced the mishnah. Show this outside of the canon compiled by the Catholic Councils which settled the Canon (a process) of Rome 382; Hippo 393; Carthage 397; Nicea II 797; Florence 1442; Trent 1546.
Also for a good faith discussion you could have skipped the “cult” and pagan and Mormon references because they are incorrect. Catholics are totally Christian and have the correct understanding and belief in the Trinity - in fact we were martyred and killed defending the Nicene Creed that first laid out the doctrine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.