Posted on 01/03/2018 10:28:23 AM PST by Salvation
Yesterday we continued our meditation on the Eighth Day of Christmas by pondering the meaning of the Lord’s circumcision, which occurred on that day. In today’s post we consider another thing that took place on the same day: The name “Jesus” was announced and ascribed to Him.
Was this really the best name for Him? Why did the angel say that He should be called Jesus? Was He not referred to by other names (e.g., Emmanuel) in the Old Testament? What is the significance of the name “Jesus”?
St. Thomas Aquinas, through his Summa Theologiae, will be our teacher in this analysis. His teachings are presented below in bold, black italics, while my commentary appears in plain, red text. St. Thomas takes up the following question:
Whether His name was suitably given to Christ? (Summa Theologiae III, Q 37, Art 2).
A name should answer to the nature of a thing. This is clear in the names of genera and species, as stated Metaph. iv: “Since a name is but an expression of the definition” which designates a thing’s proper nature.
Now, the names of individual men are always taken from some property of the men to whom they are given. Either in regard to time; thus men are named after the Saints on whose feasts they are born: or in respect of some blood relation; thus a son is named after his father or some other relation; and thus the kinsfolk of John the Baptist wished to call him “by his father’s name Zachary,” not by the name John, because “there” was “none of” his “kindred that” was “called by this name,” as related Luke 1:59-61. Or, again, from some occurrence; thus Joseph “called the name of” the “first-born Manasses, saying: God hath made me to forget all my labors” (Genesis 41:51). Or, again, from some quality of the person who receives the name; thus it is written (Genesis 25:25) that “he that came forth first was red and hairy like a skin; and his name was called Esau,” which is interpreted “red.”
But names given to men by God always signify some gratuitous gift bestowed on them by Him; thus it was said to Abraham (Genesis 17:5): “Thou shalt be called Abraham; because I have made thee a father of many nations”: and it was said to Peter (Matthew 16:18): “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church.” Since, therefore, this prerogative of grace was bestowed on the Man Christ that through Him all men might be saved, therefore He was becomingly named Jesus, i.e. Savior: the angel having foretold this name not only to His Mother, but also to Joseph, who was to be his foster father.
This line of reasoning raises another question, which St. Thomas now takes up by articulating an objection to the fact that He was named Jesus rather than something else (e.g., Emmanuel):
It would seem that an unsuitable name was given to Christ. For the Gospel reality should correspond to the prophetic foretelling. But the prophets foretold [other names] for Christ: for it is written (Isaiah 7:14): “Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and His name shall be called Emmanuel”; and (Isaiah 8:3): “Call His name, Hasten to take away the spoils; Make haste to take away the prey”; and (Isaiah 9:6): “His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace”; and (Zechariah 6:12): “Behold a Man, the Orient is His name.” Thus it was unsuitable that His name should be called Jesus (Objection 1).
All these names in some way mean the same as Jesus, which means “salvation.” For the name “Emmanuel, which being interpreted is ‘God with us,’” designates the cause of salvation, which is the union of the Divine and human natures in the Person of the Son of God, the result of which union was that “God is with us.”
When it was said, “Call his name, Hasten to take away,” etc., these words indicate from what He saved us, viz. from the devil, whose spoils He took away, according to Colossians 2:15: “Despoiling the principalities and powers, He hath exposed them confidently.”
When it was said, “His name shall be called Wonderful,” etc., the way and term of our salvation are pointed out: inasmuch as “by the wonderful counsel and might of the Godhead we are brought to the inheritance of the life to come,” in which the children of God will enjoy “perfect peace” under “God their Prince.”
When it was said, “Behold a Man, the Orient is His name,” reference is made to the same, as in the first, viz. to the mystery of the Incarnation, by reason of which “to the righteous a light is risen up in darkness” (Psalm 111:4). (Reply to Objection 1).
The key to interpreting Scripture is doing so within the context of the entirety of Scripture. One must read Scripture with the Church, not apart from it. God is not in the business of contradicting Himself.
“Jesus” (God saves) pretty well sums it up!
Because God, through Gabriel, told Mary what to name the child, and Mary obeyed. EOT.
What are you talking about? The word catholic is just a translation of the ancient Greek word katholikos (latin: catholicus) which means universal or "according to the whole". It started being used to refer to the Christian church in the second century to emphasize the universal nature of the church. It wasn't until much later that it began being used to describe the Roman Catholic denomination.
St. Augustine used it.
I'm sure he did, it had been in use for some time by then, especially in Egyptian Coptic Christian and North African Christian communities like Hippo where Augustine ministered.
Please allow me to provide some needed background.
First, the obvious: everything that's in big-T tradition is the common patrimony of both the Orthodox and the Catholics, since the Orthodox WERE Catholics --- and the Catholics WERE Orthodox (that is a paradoxical way of saying, we were all in communion with each other) --- for a millennium.
(Note: You seem to have the Byzantines mixed with the Orthodox. Byzantines are now Catholics, Orthodox are not. In any case, the whole lot of us were together for 1000 years.)
The constitutive elements of Big-T Tradition are the same in Greek and Latin, East and West.
The main elements of Apostolic Tradition are these:
That constitutes a preliminary outline of what comprises capital-T Tradition.
Keep in mind that the early creeds and synods, and the Nicene Council, historically *preceded* the canon of Scripture.
Read that again: the creeds preceded the canon of Scripture.
Do you understand what that means? It means the canon was formed based on what the Church already believed in her creeds: these creeds provided the criteria which tested and verified the authenticity of various purported Scriptures (and not vice-versa).
Therefore to accept Scripture is to accept Tradition.
Hit the delete button on Tradition, and Scripture disappears from your screen.
The creeds are a good way to "see" the content. Orthodoxy and Catholicism have the Creeds (Apostles Creed, Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, Athanasian Creed) in common, as well as the first seven Ecumenical Councils and all the Fathers of the Church from the first millennium of Christianity.
As for Immaculate Conception: consider Mary as Immaculata and as Panagia. Different languages, similar devotion. I see here convergence, not basic disagreement.
I wouldn't worry about it. I have it on good authority that the Messiah is a Baptist. That ought to really frost people, hah.
Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
Luke 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
It's a weird little world out there..
**The Catholic Church protected it and very carefully proclaimed, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, what needed to be in the NT. And yes, the Church authorized what books would be part of the canon.**
Egypt preserved the witness of God (Abraham, and later Jacob) from famine.
The king of the Philistines preserved the witnesses of God (Abraham, then Isaac) from famine.
Elijah was preserved from famine by ravens, then a Gentile widow.
The Christ child was preserved from death threat by being hidden in Egypt.
**....Perpetual Virginity? Nope.
Papal Supremacy? Nope.
The Assumption? Nope?......**
You forgot:
Venerating, praying or bowing to graven images (and road-salt stained viaducts)? Nope.
Side note: I’m in favor of expanding the forum sidebar to sub-sections, for example:
Religion:
1. Catholic caucus
2. Everybody else
That would really speed up the quick look at the religion postings for people like me, by not having to scroll down through the daily untouchable doc dumps, to see something meant for anyone.
About the painting,.....
It that really what Mary looked like? Or do we look for another?
.
He wasn’t named “Jesus,” he was named “Yehoshua” (Yah saves).
The pharisees created the term “Jesus” with their acronym YSHU (Yemach Shema Uzikro) which means may his name be lost and never recalled.
The Greeks depended on the Pharisees for their translations, and got pranked!
.
This reading has given clarity to the topic. Very informative.
Symbolic.
Symbolic of the literal truth expressed in this tagline.
Do you understand what that means? It means the canon was formed based on what the Church already believed in her creeds: these creeds provided the criteria which tested and verified the authenticity of various purported Scriptures (and not vice-versa).
Not for Roman Catholicism. Their Canon was formalized at Trent.
I refer you back to my #24 post for the time frames of the various books of the NT.
They were in place before Nicea (325)....presuming you're referencing the 325 version of the Creed and not the 381 version of the Creed.
The Creeds reflect what was believed by the early church. It is not Scripture.
Emphasis again on Mary I see....:)
I see you never call her Blessed.
I know exactly what it means. It means the Catholic church's entire foundation if its very own traditions NOT Scripture, as some Catholics claim.
It means that the Catholic church makes Scripture subservient to the Catholic church instead of it being the true and living word of God, able to stand on its own.
Therefore to accept Scripture is to accept Tradition.
Nonsense. RF rules prevent me from stating what that statement truly is, but it is complete and unadulterated garbage.
Hit the delete button on Tradition, and Scripture disappears from your screen.
Jesus didn't think so. He condemned tradition in the strongest terms and appealed to Scripture constantly. HE thought it was above tradition.
Matthew 15:1-9 Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” He answered them,
“And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,” he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”
Mark 7:1-13 Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands properly, holding to the tradition of the elders, and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches. And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?”
And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,“‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”
And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban”’ (that is, given to God) then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”
By your statement, you have just told us that the Catholic church has made null the Word of God, Scripture, by the traditions of man.
The Catholic church has done the very thing that Jesus condemned that the pharisees were doing.
It's absolutely appalling.
Which again, puts Mary above Jesus.
I accord to Mary what Luke did... 48“For He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave; For behold, from this time on all generations will count me blessed. Luke 1:48 NASB
Mary will be counted as blessed....not called Blessed. There is a difference in how Luke portrays Mary's statement and how Roman Catholicism portrays Mary's statement.
I'll take Luke's account over Rome's any day of the week.
Prior to that Scripture was dominant.
Mary was amazingly blessed by God to bear Messiah.
Scripture never says she is blessed to a place above other woman, but "blessed among women."
Of all women, she alone was selected to bear Messiah.
She isn't above anyone else. Scripture doesn't say this.
As to "calling her Blessed," literally the Greek says...
"For He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave;
For behold, from this time on all generations will count me blessed."
It doesn't say everyone is to call her "Blessed Mary."
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.