deacon pedro

First published March 30, 2009

Last time I looked at the issue of reading the Gospels literally and briefly looked at how and why the Gospels may have been written. When you read the Gospels, it’s not so much the facts, but the message that matters.

Peter Kreeft in his book You Can Understand the Bible (Ignatius Press) clarifies this point further. The term “Gospel” has a wider meaning than simply the four books written by the four Evangelists. The “Gospel” means the good news contained within these volumes: the real events in which God’s plan of salvation was fulfilled. This Gospel was preached, believed and lived for, years before any books were ever written. Kreeft writes that the Gospel, as our link to Christ, “was first forged in the living Church, shaped in their prayer life, meditation, practice and preaching prior to any of the written texts we now possess. The Gospels are four of the books that the Church wrote and uses to teach us.”

And so, the Catholic Church teaches a close relationship between Sacred Scripture and Tradition (Catechism of the Catholic Church (herein CCC) paragraph 80). The Second Vatican Council Document, Dei Verbum (herein DV), reads:

Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort (DV 10).

Does this mean that the events described in the Gospels are not necessarily true? Perhaps not in the factual sense of “true.” Something can be “truth” and not be fact. If a three-year-old child indicates that his dad is forty feet tall, clearly this is not “true.” But the “truth” of the statement is that from the point of view of a three-year-old, his Dad is a giant. And so, while his statement is not factually true, it does hold a certain degree of truth. It is the same with Scriptures. While some of the events may not be described factually, the truth to which they point is “true”.

Let me give you an example: Whether Jesus fed 3000 or 5000 (Matthew 14:13-21) or whether he was visited by wise men who gave him gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh (Matthew 2:11-13) is not really the point of those stories. It may be true (factually) but what’s important is the truth to which the stories point: for example, Jesus multiplies what we have to offer (in the multiplication of the fishes and loaves story) and Jesus is King (gold), Priest (frankincense) and Sacrifice (Myrrh). The Gospels are about quality, not quantity.

The Catholic Church believes and teaches that God is the author of Sacred Scripture (CCC 105) for “all scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16 ). The Church teaches that the:

…Holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself. In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted (DV 11).

This means that everything in both the Old and New Testaments must be ascribed to the Holy Spirit and be held as Truth without error that God wished to put into sacred writings “for the sake of salvation” (DV 11). The document continues:

However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words (DV 12).

And so, we are called to use our God-given reason to interpret Scripture as best we can because:

God, the beginning and end of all things, can be known with certainty from created reality by the light of human reason (see Rom. 1:20); but teaches that it is through His revelation that those religious truths which are by their nature accessible to human reason can be known by all men with ease, with solid certitude and with no trace of error, even in this present state of the human race (DV 6).

Next time we’ll look at some practical ways that we can read and interpret Sacred Scripture.

First published March 25, 2009

In my new-found love for reading the Bible, I’ve decided to share with you the occasional discoveries I make, in the hopes that you too will find a passion for reading Scriptures. In fact, this may be a good Lenten resolution as you journey towards Holy Week. The question of today is this: Should we read the Bible literally? In particular, can we read the Gospels literally?

There is no question about it: the Gospels can be read literally. Throughout the last two centuries, thousands have, and scores of volumes have been written to make this case: If the Gospels (in effect, the whole Bible) are the “word of God”, how can they not be true? And that’s the real question: Are the Gospels true? The issue is not one of literal understanding, but one of authority; one of meaning and truth.

So, let’s look at the Gospels.

At first glance, even before you read the Gospels, you will notice that there are four accounts of the life of Christ. These are called the “Gospels”, a word adapted from the old English, “godspel”, meaning “good message”. It comes from the Greek “euangelion” which translates as “reward for bringing good news,” from where the Latin word “evangelium” comes. This is the first clue to the Gospels: They are good news.

The second clue is found in the fact that there are four narratives: Why not combine all of them into one, clear, succinct, non-contradictory narrative? A look at the book of Genesis makes me ask the same question. There are two completely different creation stories. Does that mean that one is true and the other one isn’t? Can it mean that they are both true? Can it mean that they are included to make it very clear to the reader that they are not intended as historical, factual, chronological and scientific truth, but rather serve a different purpose?
While I will not go as far as saying that the four Gospels narratives contradict each other, they do tell the story, each from a different point of view. Why then, include all four, as separate narratives? It is clear to me that the purpose is to point to different aspects of the same story. I don’t think this takes away from the truth of the story; rather it helps the reader understand the story at different levels.

Think of it this way: If we were to round up four witnesses to a crime, we would expect there to be inconsistencies in their retelling of the event. Each would tell the story from their own point of view, based on their own prejudices, bias and experience. Plus, each would be able to add a different perspective to the story. If the four versions were exactly the same, any investigator would suspect corroboration. They would doubt the accuracy, because it is impossible for four different people to recall an event in the same exact way. If you watched the movie Vantage Point, you know what I mean.

Add to that the fact that the Gospels were written in a language that is not the mother tongue of the writers (except Luke, whose mother tongue is clearly Greek) and that at least two of the writers (Mark and Luke) were not personal eyewitnesses of the accounts. They had to rely on third-parties. Even for Matthew and John, if in fact they were first-hand witnesses of the events, to write something 40-50 years after the fact, with factual accuracy, is a difficult task.

But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Why were the Gospels written? According to most biblical scholars, the four Gospels were written at different times for different purposes. According to Peter Kreeft, in his book, You Can Understand the Bible, (published by Ignatius Press) Matthew wrote primarily for Jews (his account may have even been written in Hebrew first), Mark wrote for Romans, Luke for Greeks and John wrote for everyone.

Most scholars agree that Matthew’s Gospel, dated at about 70-100 AD, seems to be concerned mainly with how Jesus is the Messiah. He seems concerned with how Jesus fulfills Old Testament Prophecies. Tradition attributes this Gospel to Matthew, the disciple who was a tax-collector. Gary Wills, in What the Gospels Meant (Penguin Books), sees Matthew as the book of the teaching body of Jesus as it shows Jesus mostly in instruction.

Mark , dated to the late 60s-early 70s AD omits those things that would be meaningful only to Jews. According to Kreeft, Romans were concerned with “getting things done” and so that is how Mark presents the story of Jesus. Mark is said to have been a disciple of Peter, and if so, it is possible that his accounts are based on Peter’s own recollections (although not everyone agrees). The brevity of the Gospel, the “sticking to the facts” and the urgency in the writing (The words “immediately” and “at once” occur in Mark’s gospel forty-two times) seem to imply a need to get the message disseminated as quickly as possible. Wills sees Mark as the book of the suffering body of Jesus, as in it we find Jesus present in persecution.
Luke was a Greek doctor (Colossians 4:14; 2 Timothy 4:11; Philemon 1:24), a gentile convert and a disciple of Paul. His Gospel is dated to the 80s, early 90s AD and seems to be writing mainly for Greek converts (again, not everyone agrees). He writes his Gospel to someone named Theophilus so that “you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed”( Luke 1:4 ). Luke seems to emphasise Jesus’ humanity: his compassion and his feelings. According to Gary Wills, Luke shows Jesus mostly in consolation, and so he sees it as the book of the reconciling body of Christ.

The Gospel of John is traditionally set apart from the first three, which are termed as the “synoptic Gospels,” because of its radical difference in style and approach. According to early Church Father Irinaeus (ca. 180) the author of the Gospel of John is the disciple John, the “disciple Jesus loved”( John 19:26 ), the brother of James, son of Zebedee, who lived in Ephesus, the whom Jesus included in his close circle of friends. It is said to have been written between 80 and 110 AD. John makes his purpose for writing very clear: “these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the son of God and that through believing your may have life in his name” (John 20:31 ). According to Peter Kreeft, John makes a strong case for our salvation. He is not concerned so much with the facts of the life of Jesus, but rather that Jesus is God incarnate. Wills agrees in that John shows Jesus present in mystical exaltation. He thus refers to the Gospel of John as the book of the mystical body of Jesus.

Now, I am not an expert, but this is what I’ve discovered from reading a bit. Thousands of books have been written as to why the Gospels were written, but my purpose here is just to show that four completely different persons, having had four completely different post-resurrection experiences, writing under four different realities, had to produce four different versions of the same story.

What most scholars do agree on is that the early telling of the “good news” of the story of Jesus centred on his passion and resurrection, and so, they were almost built upon backwards. The Gospels begin with creed, a belief in Jesus’ divinity, his meaning, and all biographical memories are fitted to them later, when the Gospels are written. Gary Wills concludes: “those biographical memories were present from the outset, but were put in order only as they conformed to the most important fact about Jesus – that his resurrection proved that he was the Messiah.”

Another point to consider is that, were the Gospels to be written in our day, the approach would have been quite different. We cannot see them as history as that term is understood today. Gary Wills explains: “They are not history at all. They are not drawn from firsthand testimony or documents. They do not use archives – for instance, court records for the trial of Jesus, birth records for his genealogy, or chronological markers for his time line.” They are more prayer, than biography.

What does this mean for us as we read the Gospels? Does it mean that each Gospel writer was “adapting” facts so as to meet his own agenda or the agenda of their community? What does it make out of the claim that the Bible is “the word of God” and that it is “inspired by God”?

To answer this, we must turn to another question: How were the Gospels written? The second ending of the Gospel of Mark (traditionally understood as an addition, probably not even written by Mark, but written in the second century and appended later so as to soften the first abrupt ending of Mark) concludes with Christ’s great commission: “Go into the all world and proclaim the good news to the whole creation.” ( Mark 16:15 ) This was the disciples’ first and foremost mission: to “tell the good news.” According to the Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels, (Approved by Paul VI, on April 21, 1964) the apostles would have taken seriously this command and therefore faithfully recounted Jesus’ life and words (See Acts 10:36-41 ), taking into account the circumstances of their hearers. Also, after the resurrection, the divinity of Christ understood, each pre-resurrection story would have been infused with a post-resurrection bias. Just as Jesus, after the resurrection had interpreted scriptures to the disciples (see Luke 24:27, 45), now they too “interpreted” his words and deeds according to the needs of their listeners. And so, the earliest form of “telling the Good News” is of catechetical nature, to teach, and not of biographical or historical nature. These teachings would have been not only preserved as an oral “history” and as instruction, but also integrated into early forms of liturgy, hymns and prayers.

The Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels continues to explain that as the twelve apostles, and all first-hand eye witnesses of the accounts began to grow old and die, there was a need to “draw up a narrative” and write it down. Each writer (or schools of writers) followed the method most suitable to the special purposes they had (as briefly speculated above). The Instruction says: “They selected certain things out of the many which had been handed on; some they synthesized, some they explained with an eye to the situation of the churches, painstakingly using every means of bringing home to their readers the solid truth of the things in which they had been instructed.” And so, events may not be arranged chronologically, but logically, according to topic or theme and some details of the stories may have been added to make a particular point, rather than to express a fact of what really happened.

Let me give you an example: Think of Peter’s response to Jesus’ “who do men say that I am” at Caesarea Philippi, described in Matt 16: 13-16, Mark 8:27-30 and in Luke 9:18-20. Mark ends the passage with Peter confessing that Jesus is “the Messiah (the Christ).” Luke has him say “the Messiah (or the Christ) of God” and Matthew has Peter saying, “You are the Messiah (or Christ), the Son of the Living God.” What did Peter really say? The point is that no matter what really transcribed between Peter and Jesus at Caesarea Philippi, the Gospel writers want to make clear that Jesus is the “Messiah”, the “Messiah of God” and the “Christ, the Son of the Living God”, respectively.

So, next time you read the Gospels (or any part of the Bible), think of it as a teaching document, not as a historical document. Don’t ask, “what really happened”, but, “what does this mean, what does it mean about how Jesus acts in my life today?” That’s how the Gospels really speak to us today.

Next time, we’ll look at what the Catholic Church says about how we must read Sacred Scriptures in the context of Church tradition.

First published December 21, 2008

The creation narratives in Genesis are probably the best recognised stories of the whole Bible, yet at the same time, perhaps the most misunderstood. For Christians, the story of Adam and Eve reveal to us the relationship between God and humans, between male and female, about sexuality, togetherness and separation from God. Christian scholars throughout the centuries have referred to the third Chapter of Genesis in order to explain our human brokenness and frailty. It is used to explain the nature of sin and the devices of the tempter. Pope John Paul II used the Genesis story as a springboard to make the case for his Theology of the Body catechesis on Marriage, Sex and Love. St. Augustine developed the concept of original sin using the story of Adam and Eve’s fall. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the first sin was that of disobedience triggered by Adam and Eve’s desire to “become like God”. Thus Adam and Eve immediately lost for themselves and all their descendants the original grace of holiness and justice (Catechism of the Catholic Church #396-403, #415-417). Thus Genesis 3, for many, is the basis of moral teaching and understanding. For others, it explains the relationship between men and women, and still for others, who infuse it with Christological meaning, see in it the first mention of the Bible’s redemptive message, in fact, the first mention or insinuation of the messianic salvation (Genesis 3:15).

Don Francisco

The shortest question in the Torah is God’s first question. Adam and Eve have just eaten some fruit from the forbidden tree and, sensing God’s presence in the Garden of Eden, they hide among the trees. While they are hiding, God asks Adam a question, which in Hebrew is a one-word question “Ayeka?” In English it means, “Where are you?” For those pondering the meaning of life, clearly this is not a new question.

Christian singer and songwriter Don Francisco wrote the following song: “Adam, Where Are You?”

Unashamed and naked in a garden that has never seen the rain,
Rulers of a kingdom, full of joy — never marred by any pain,
The morning all around them seems to celebrate the life they’ve just begun;
And in the majesty of innocence the king and queen come walking in the sun

But the master of deception now begins with his dissection of the Word
And with all of his craft and subtlety the serpent twists the simple truths they’ve heard,
While hanging in the balance is a world that has been placed at their command
And all their unborn children die as both of them bow down to Satan’s hand.

And just before the evening in the cool of the day, they hear the voice of God as He is walking
And they can’t abide His presence, so they try to hide away;
But still they hear the sound as He is calling:

“Adam, Adam, where are you?

In the stifling heat of summer now the gardener and his wife are in the field
And it seems that thorns and thistles are the only crop his struggles ever yield
He eats his meals in sorrow ’til he sinks into the dust whence he came
But all down through the ages he can hear his Maker calling out his name.

“Adam, Adam, where are you?

And though the curse has long be broken Adams’ sons are still the prisoners of their fears
Rushing helter skelter to destruction with their fingers in their ears
While the Fathers voice is calling with an urgency I’ve never heard before
“Won’t you come in from the darkness now before it’s time to finally close the door!”

“Adam, Adam, where are you?
Adam, Adam, I love you!”

For Don Francisco, the climax of the story is God’s question, “where are you?” It is a feeling of desperate longing and almost sad – a parent searching for a lost child in the midst of a multitude. But this God/parent does not give up. Even though Adam’s sons are “still the victims of their fears” and are “running to destruction with their fingers in their ears”, the Father’s voice is calling with unrestrained urgency, “where are you? Come in from the darkness! I love you.” This is the story of the prodigal son, the story of the lost sheep, of the widow looking for her lost coin, the story of the Hound of Heaven, the story of salvation.

Don Francisco infuses the Garden of Eden story with a salvific message, a message of redemption and of hope. Even though commentary by Don Francisco on his lyrics or message is not available, it is clear by the text of his other songs that this is a resonant message of his ministry. He has a song titled, “I Don’t Care where you’ve Been Sleeping” that reads:

And although you’ve chosen darkness with its miseries and fears,
Although you’ve gone so far from Me and wasted all those years
Even though my name’s been spattered by the mire in which you lie
I’d take you back this instant if you’d turn to Me and cry.

I don’t care where you’ve been sleeping, I don’t care who’s made your bed
I’ve already gave My life to set you free;
There’s no sin you could imagine that is stronger than my love,
And it’s all yours if you’ll come home again to Me

This is the message of “ayeka?” God does not need to know where we are. He knows. But we need to know where we are. God gives us the opportunity, as He gave Adam and Eve, to come clean, to tell him where we are, to come up with a “speech from the Throne”, or a “state of the union” address, to see where we are: where we came from and where we are going. The Catholic Church teaches about Grace and gives us the tools to continually strive to receive God’s Grace. We believe that once we were in a state of original grace. Adam and Eve did not need the Sacraments – Original Sin is the state of deprivation of original holiness and justice (CCC #417). At one point everything was united with God. Clearly, we see, by looking around us and through our own experience that this is no longer the case. It is apparent that the author of Genesis also did not see a world that was united with God. We live in a world that is fragmented, separate from God, and our quest to “know, love and serve God” is in fact our desire to get back to the Garden of Eden, to get back to that state of unity with God to which Sacraments point. Furthermore, the physicality of the Sacraments, the required matter, indicates that despite our current human state, there are glimpses of Eden in our physicality. We are created in the image of God and His image is still in us, despite Adam and Eve’s disobedience. We are not completely separated from God. And every time we choose away from God, He calls to us “ayeka?” to give us the opportunity to turn back to him and say “sorry”. This was perhaps Adam and Eve’s greatest fall. Twice God gave Adam the opportunity to repent. First Adam deflects the question and then passes the blame. I wonder how different the story had been, had Adam responded to God’s, “ayeka?” with a “Here I am. I’m sorry. We ate from the tree you forbade, but it won’t happen again.”

And isn’t this the story of our lives? We live in a world that is unable to feel shame. We are a people that has gone to great extents to re-define good and evil so as to suit our own petty selfish needs, because facing God, answering his “ayeka?” is too painful and too much work. However, humans are continually choosing between good and evil, between life and death. The reality is that we humans are lost without God. And God is continually pursuing us, loving us, searching for us, hoping that we will finally come home before it’s time to finally close the door.

As we move through the Advent Season, it is most appropriate that we ask the questions, “Where am I?” What have I done? Where am I going? How has this year been? How did I live today? How was I in bondage today? How was I blameless before God? These are all “ayeka?” But in asking, the danger, as what happened to Adam and Eve, is to hide rather than answer, to flee rather than face, to evade rather than accept responsibility for what we have done and for what we have left undone.

Recently, at the Canadian Youth Workers Conference I was speaking to a representative of the Gideons International in Canada who showed me their newest pamphlet, titled, “Where is the map?” This is a perfect image for all of us who strive to “get back in to Eden.” But, if we don’t know where we are going, how do we know which map to use? Catholic singer/songwriter Sarah Hart in her song: “Any Road” says, “Any road will do if you have no destination, but really where are you, if any road will do?”

It is my prayer and hope that all of us are able to choose the right destination, and using the right map, we can choose the right road, so we know at all times where we are. Then when God asks of us, “ayeka?” we’ll be able to answer, not like Adam and Eve, but like Abraham, like Samuel and like Mary, “Here I am, Lord. Amen. Let your will be done.”

Pedro