Matthew 1:24-25: And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife. And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn (Gk. prototokon) son: and he called his name Jesus. (Douay-Rheims)
“Fundamentalists insist that “brethren of the Lord” must be interpreted in the strict sense. They most commonly make two arguments based on Matthew 1:25: “[A]nd he did not know her until (Greek: heos, also translated into English as “till”) she brought forth her firstborn son.” They first argue that the natural inference from “till” is that Joseph and Mary afterward lived together as husband and wife, in the usual sense, and had several children. Otherwise, why would Jesus be called “first-born”? But they are using a narrow, modern meaning of “until.” In the Bible, it means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not imply that the action did happen later.
Consider this line: “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death” (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death?
There is also the burial of Moses. The book of Deuteronomy says that no one knew the location of his grave “until this present day” (Deut. 34:6, Knox). But we know that no one has known since that day either.
You get the idea—nothing can be proved from the use of the word “till” in Matthew 1:25. Recent translations give a better sense of the verse: “He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son” (New American Bible); “He had not known her when she bore a son” (Knox).
Fundamentalists claim Jesus could not be Mary’s “first-born” unless there were other children that followed him. But this shows ignorance of the way the ancient Jews used the term. For them it meant the child that opened the womb (Ex. 13:2; Num. 3:12). The first male child of a marriage was termed the “first-born” even if he turned out to be the only child.”
“Scripture’s statement that Joseph “knew [Mary] not until she brought forth her firstborn” would not necessarily mean they did “know” each other after she brought forth Jesus. Until is often used in Scripture as part of an idiomatic expression similar to our own usage in English. I may say to you, “Until we meet again, God bless you.” Does that necessarily mean after we meet again, God curse you? By no means. A phrase like this is used to emphasize what is being described before the until is fulfilled. It is not intended to say anything about the future beyond that point. Here are some biblical examples:
2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?)
1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?)
1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, “he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”)
In recent years, some have argued that because Matthew 1:25 uses the Greek words heos hou for “until” whereas the texts I mentioned above from the New Testament use heos alone, there is a difference in meaning. The argument goes that Heos hou indicates the action of the first clause does not continue. Thus, Mary and Joseph “not having come together” would have ended after Jesus was born.
The problems with this theory begin with the fact that no available scholarship concurs with it. In fact, the evidence proves the contrary. Heos hou and heos are used interchangeably and have the same meaning. Acts 25:21 should suffice to clear up the matter: “But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of the emperor, I commanded him to be held until (Gk. heos hou) I could send him to Caesar.”
Does this text mean that Paul would not be held in custody after he was “sent” to Caesar? Not according to the biblical record. He would be held in custody while in transit (see Acts 27:1) and after he arrived in Rome for a time (see Acts 28:16). The action of the main clause did not cease with heos hou.”
“The Nicene Creed states that Jesus is “consubstantial with the Father.” This means that Jesus is one in substance with the Father, having full possession of the one divine nature and thus equal to the Father.
But some quasi-Christian sects, such as Jehovah Witnesses, challenge this belief with a variety of bible passages.
One such passage is John 14:28. Jesus says, “The Father is greater than I.” How can Jesus be equal to the Father, so it’s argued, when he explicitly says the Father is greater?
One answer is that Jesus attributes this lesser status to himself insofar as he is man, not God. St. Thomas Aquinas explains,
Thus when he says, the Father is greater than I, he does not mean I, as Son of God, but as Son of man, for in this way he is not only inferior to the Father and the Holy Spirit, but even to the angels: “We see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels” (Heb. 2:9). Again, in some things he was subject to human beings, as his parents (Luke 2:51). Consequently, he is inferior to the Father because of his human nature, but equal because of his divine nature (Commentary on the Gospel of John 14.8).”
“They are not of the world any more than I am of the world. My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of it.” (John 17:14-16)
At one time I believed that I was a member of the only true religious organization on earth. I believed all other religious organizations to be false, even those claiming to be Christian. I now see that my former view was narrow, based on a peculiar perspective of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
The WT approach to what they call “paganism” assumes that God is reacting to the actions of his enemy the devil. After Satan influenced Adam and Eve to sin, “Jehovah” reacted by setting up the ransom arrangement, which included bringing 144,000 from earth to live in heaven. The implication is that if there had been no sin, no humans would have been called to heavenly life, but would have lived forever on earth. In this perspective, the devil is “in the driver’s seat”, calling the shots as it were, which attributes to him much more power than he actually has. God is infinitely more powerful than any creature. He can never be surprised, for he knows everything. The sin of Adam and Eve was not unexpected, which is why Jesus (the name given to God’s Incarnate Son) was known before the founding of the world. (1 Pet 1:20) Since Jesus’ life, death and resurrection, whatever power the devil had over mankind has been severely limited, for he has been completely conquered, and mankind has been set free if they want to be free.
For Jehovah’s Witnesses, all who do not explicitly worship “Jehovah” are considered by default to be worshipers of Satan, therefore anything done by these “pagans” (even including Jews or traditional Christians) is often considered to be false worship, especially if the same actions are performed by Christians. Therefore, there is a very strong tendency among JWs to reject anything that comes from a non-Christian (or even a non-JW) source as “pagan corruption”. That approach makes it very easy to condemn as “pagan” just about any practice that someone at Bethel doesn’t like. Since JWs reject most Christian traditions, too, “true Christianity”, in their view, consists only of the meager stable of distinctly JW practices (door to door literature distribution, attending meetings and conventions, reading and studying WT publications and strict obedience to WT laws). Only those who practice these things are considered by many JWs to be truly “pure”.
In contrast, early Christians (perhaps most notably Justin, who lived in the first half of the second century) recognized and respected those pagan philosophers who had searched for truth using only their natural powers and found some of it, at least. Perhaps the three most famous are Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Thomas Aquinas, very highly regarded by the Catholic Church, harmonized Aristotelian philosophy with Christian teaching in his writings.
Catholics teach that all humans are God’s children, and that any who seek truth will find it, for God gave us intelligence that we might use it to find him. During the course of human history, many have lived by their conscience, to the best of their ability, as attested to by the apostle Paul in his letter to Roman Christians. “That which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made…” (Rom 1:19-20) Paul recognized the religious attributes of the Athenians, as witnessed to by their actions, and an altar “TO AN UNKNOWN GOD” (that altar may have been erected by Socrates). Some Greek poets recognized that “we also are His children.” (Acts 17:28)
Still, Jesus’ followers are to be different from the world around them. About his disciples, he prayed, “They are not of the world any more than I am of the world. My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of it.” (John 17:14-16)
James said that true religion means keeping ourselves “without spot from the world.” I was taught from my youth up that the way to do that was by strict non-participation in a whole list of practices and activities which I believed could contaminate me, including celebrating any birthday or holiday, saluting any nation’s flag, or standing for the singing of the national anthem. Such practices, I was taught, had pagan connections, and participation in them was false worship. As time went on, I began to question the meaning and validity of that view. What, exactly, makes some act or perspective “pagan”? If I perform some act which a pagan also performs, does that also make me a pagan? Can an act or celebration be pagan in itself, so that any practice of it would make one a pagan? I needed to address these questions as I began to associate with Christians who did participate in celebrations with possible pagan connections.
To begin, I needed a definition of what constitutes being a “pagan”. “Paganism, in the broadest sense includes all religions other than the true one revealed by God, and, in a narrower sense, all except Christianity, Judaism, and Mohammedanism. The term is also used as the equivalent of Polytheism. It is derived from the Latin pagus, whence pagani (i.e. those who live in the country), a name given to the country folk who remained heathen after the cities had become Christian. Catholic Encyclopedia https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11388a.htm So the term itself dates from the period when Christianity began expanding outside of Palestine.
Can we, need we, rid ourselves of anything even remotely connected with pagans? What constitutes a meaningful or significant connection? Much of the culture of the whole world has been shaped by pagans in one way or another. In many Western countries, the days of the week and months of the year are named for pagan deities. Money may have symbols on it first used by pagans. Even practices like shaking hands and wearing wedding rings originated among pagans. In a similar vein, an item such as a statue of Buddha, for example may be viewed by some as art but worshiped by others. Do these things constitute a danger to Christians? If so, what is it?
To answer that question, I went in search of indications as to how early Christians handled that issue. Their world, especially outside Palestine, was thoroughly pagan. According to A History of Pagan Europe, pagans hold three characteristics in common:
They believe that in multiple divine beings or gods.
They believe that there is both a male and female divine principle; both God and Goddess.
They believe that all nature is a theophany or manifestation of divinity; that all things, living and nonliving, are divine within themselves, not by virtue of having been created by a divine being.
With this in mind, I began to think less in terms of things being Christian or pagan, and more about the beliefs and behavior of people; in particular how and what they worshiped, what they did and why, especially things done to please or appease their gods. Pagan worship took many forms, including the ritual sacrifice of animals or humans, performing various types of sexual acts, or eating and drinking to excess.
Most pagans did not have a specific moral code such as the one in the Jewish law. In the ancient pagan world, immoral behavior (from a Judeo-Christian perspective) was common. Not only were there few sanctions against it, there was often not even a sense among the general pagan populace that doing such things would in any way affect their standing with their gods. In pagan myths, their gods themselves did the same kinds of things. According to one historian,
“In heathen times, a man would have been regarded as of exceptional goodness if he practiced those homely duties which an ordinary Christian gentleman would now count himself disgraced if he failed in. When Pliny [a first century Roman] set himself to inquire what was the sacramentum [oath, sacraments or sacred rites] administered to Christians at their meetings before daylight, [he learned] that the disciples then pledged themselves to what seems to us very elementary morality, that is, that they were not to rob or steal, not to commit adultery, not to break their word, and if the money of others were entrusted to them, not to appropriate it to themselves.”
From very ancient times, Jews were rightly proud of the high moral standards taught in their Law. Their prophets, from Moses on, spoke out against worship of idols (very often connected to such things as child sacrifice), sexual immorality, murder and such things. Christianity had an even higher standard, for the love taught by Jesus demands that we put the interests of others ahead of our own, even if we suffer inconvenience or loss as a result. That is what comes into focus when Paul considers the issue of contamination by paganism.
One way in which first century Romans worshiped their gods was to bring an animal such as a goat or bull to the temple of a particular god, dedicate it to that deity, then kill and eat it. According to Albert Barnes,
“When those sacrifices were made to pagan gods, a part of the animal was given to the priest that officiated, a part was consumed on the altar, and a part (probably the principal part) was the property of him who offered it. This part was either eaten by him at home, as food which had been in some sense consecrated or blessed by having been offered to an idol; or it was partaken of at a feast in honor of the idol; or it was in some instances exposed for sale in the market in the same way as other meat.” —Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament for 1 Cor 10:27-33
Was there a possibility that a Christian could purchase and eat such meat without contamination? Yes, Paul says, for in itself, the mere act of eating meat is not out of harmony with God’s revealed will nor does it require disobedience to any of God’s direct commands. That was not the issue Paul raises. Instead it was an issue rarely considered by either Jews or pagans—putting others’ rights ahead of our own.
Paul does not tell the Corinthians to avoid being contaminated by contact with an object directly involved in pagan worship or even performing some act also performed by pagans. Instead, he focuses on a Christian’s responsibility to avoid wounding the conscience of another. How could this happen? To a person who considers an idol to be nothing, the meat was in reality not contaminated at all. If an idol or a false god is nothing, meat cannot by either purified or influenced by it. But if someone had often eaten meat consecrated in that very way, the person might still consider eating such meat to be an act of worship to a pagan god. Paul showed that we ought to consider the consciences of others. But he left the decision about eating to the conscience of each individual.
“Everything is permissible”—but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible” —but not everything is constructive. Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others. Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.” If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. But if anyone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience’ sake — the other man’s conscience, I mean, not yours. … So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. —1 Corinthians 10:23-31
What is the point here? A person does not become a sharer in paganism either through contact with items used in pagan worship nor by performing some act also performed by pagans (even if the pagans regard that act to be worship), as long as the activity itself is not in violation of God’s expressed will in regard to the conduct of his servants. What really distinguishes the Christian from the unbeliever is the willingness to put the needs of others ahead of his or her own. Jesus’ teachings ought to have such an influence on us that, not only do we avoid conduct that violates the rights of others (1 Thess 4:1-7), but our attitude changes so much that we take a positive stance, actively looking out for the good of others and putting their needs ahead of our own. (Phil 2:3, 4) The importance of unselfish interest in others, even at great cost to ourselves, is one of the basic lessons of Jesus’ entire life, death and resurrection.
So separation from the world does not mean avoiding any act that “worldly” people do. It means practicing a new kind of behavior, seeking to imitate the unselfishness of our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ. God’s Spirit at work in us produces fruits that are appropriate under all circumstances (Gal 5:22, 23). Our whole focus changes from “ourselves” to “others” as a result of our belief in Jesus Christ. That change, lived out in our lives, makes us very different from the world of ungodly people in which we live.
I once believed that the command to “come out” of Babylon the Great in the Revelation given at the very end of the first century meant avoiding all connections with any “false religion.” But, as explained above, I learned that early Christians did not view “religion” in that way. So what did Babylon represent, and how could we get out of her? The command was addressed to Christians, most of whom were either Jews or closely associated with Jews. They did not interpret Babylon to be a “world empire of false religion.” Nor did they view Judaism as a false religion which they had to abandon when they became Christians, or Jews who still had not accepted Jesus as false worshipers (Rom 3:1, 2). Early Christians understood Babylon to mean Rome; not just the city, but the empire, which included religious, political and commercial elements. It represented “the world” of which Jesus’ kingdom was no part (Jn 18:36). Jesus’ true followers abandon worldly conduct and attitudes, as Paul explains: “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.”—Rom 12:2.
ENCYCLICAL LETTER : SPE SALVI OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF BENEDICT XVI TO THE BISHOPS PRIESTS AND DEACONS MEN AND WOMEN RELIGIOUS AND ALL THE LAY FAITHFUL ON CHRISTIAN HOPE
WE ARE IN EXILE ON OUR WAY TO OUR HOMELAND, THE HEAVENS TO LIVE WITH GOD
St. Faustina’s Way of the Cross
Jesus Is Placed in the Sepulchre
Celebrant: We adore You, O Christ, and we praise You. People: Because by Your holy Cross and Resurrection, You have redeemed the world. Celebrant: They took the body of Jesus and bound It with burial cloths along with the spices, according to the Jewish burial custom. Now in the place where He had been crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had yet been buried. So they laid Jesus there because of the Jewish preparation day; for the tomb was close by (John 19:38-42). Jesus: (Celebrant) But child, you are not yet in your homeland; so go, fortified by My grace, and fight for My kingdom in human souls; fight as a king’s child would; and remember that the days of your exile will pass quickly, and with them the possibility of earning merit for heaven. I expect from you, My child, a great number of souls who will glorify My mercy for all eternity (1489). S. Faustina: (People) Every soul You have entrusted to me, Jesus, I will try to aid with prayer and sacrifice, so that Your grace can work in them. O great lover of souls, my Jesus, I thank You for this immense confidence with which You have deigned to place souls in our care (245). All: Grant, Merciful Lord, that not even one of those souls which You have entrusted to me be lost. Celebrant: You, who suffered wounds for us, People: Christ Jesus, have mercy on us. Sung Verse: Christ, when Thou shalt call me hence, Be Thy Mother my defense, Be Thy Cross my victory.
THE NEW EARTHLY HOPE: The original plan of God was us to live on Earth as in the Garden of Eden
Question: If God wants us to be with him in heaven, why did he put us on Earth?
Answer: The answer to that is that we were not meant to be in heaven. We were meant to live in perfect communion with God and each other on Earth. That is why at the end of time we will be resurrected with glorified bodies and will inhabit a new earth.
What is the New Earth and the New Heaven in Revelations?
1042 At the end of time, the Kingdom of God will come in its fullness. After the universal judgment, the righteous will reign for ever with Christ, glorified in body and soul. The universe itself will be renewed:
The Church . . . will receive her perfection only in the glory of heaven, when will come the time of the renewal of all things. At that time, together with the human race, the universe itself, which is so closely related to man and which attains its destiny through him, will be perfectly re-established in Christ.631
1043 Sacred Scripture calls this mysterious renewal, which will transform humanity and the world, “new heavens and a new earth.”632 It will be the definitive realization of God’s plan to bring under a single head “all things in [Christ], things in heaven and things on earth.”633
1044 In this new universe, the heavenly Jerusalem, God will have his dwelling among men.634 “He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away.”635
1045 For man, this consummation will be the final realization of the unity of the human race, which God willed from creation and of which the pilgrim Church has been “in the nature of sacrament.”636 Those who are united with Christ will form the community of the redeemed, “the holy city” of God, “the Bride, the wife of the Lamb.”637 She will not be wounded any longer by sin, stains, self-love, that destroy or wound the earthly community.638 The beatific vision, in which God opens himself in an inexhaustible way to the elect, will be the ever-flowing well-spring of happiness, peace, and mutual communion.
1046 For the cosmos, Revelation affirms the profound common destiny of the material world and man:
For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God . . . in hope because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay. . . . We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.639
1047 The visible universe, then, is itself destined to be transformed, “so that the world itself, restored to its original state, facing no further obstacles, should be at the service of the just,” sharing their glorification in the risen Jesus Christ.640
1048 “We know neither the moment of the consummation of the earth and of man, nor the way in which the universe will be transformed. The form of this world, distorted by sin, is passing away, and we are taught that God is preparing a new dwelling and a new earth in which righteousness dwells, in which happiness will fill and surpass all the desires of peace arising in the hearts of men.”641
1049 “Far from diminishing our concern to develop this earth, the expectancy of a new earth should spur us on, for it is here that the body of a new human family grows, foreshadowing in some way the age which is to come. That is why, although we must be careful to distinguish earthly progress clearly from the increase of the kingdom of Christ, such progress is of vital concern to the kingdom of God, insofar as it can contribute to the better ordering of human society.”642
1050 “When we have spread on earth the fruits of our nature and our enterprise . . . according to the command of the Lord and in his Spirit, we will find them once again, cleansed this time from the stain of sin, illuminated and transfigured, when Christ presents to his Father an eternal and universal kingdom.”643 God will then be “all in all” in eternal life:644
True and subsistent life consists in this: the Father, through the Son and in the Holy Spirit, pouring out his heavenly gifts on all things without exception. Thanks to his mercy, we too, men that we are, have received the inalienable promise of eternal life.64
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Christian hope is “the theological virtue by which we desire the kingdom of heaven and eternal life as our happiness, placing our trust in Christ’s promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit” (CCC 1817)
ENCYCLICAL LETTER : SPE SALVI OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF BENEDICT XVI TO THE BISHOPS PRIESTS AND DEACONS MEN AND WOMEN RELIGIOUS AND ALL THE LAY FAITHFUL ON CHRISTIAN HOPE
“Did the Catholic Church prohibit the use of the name Jehovah and removed it from its Bibles?”
I discovered to my great surprise that the name “Yahve” or “Yahweh” appears in many Catholic Bibles and this name is read during the Catholic mass in the reading of the Liturgy of the Word or the Liturgy of the Holy Scriptures from the pulpit! It is the case in my very own church!!
“To avoid taking the Holy Name of God in vain and therefore break the 2nd Commandment”, the Catholic Church has taken the same approach as devout Jews who preferred an alternative not to sully the Holy name of God. No one is sure of the exact pronunciation of the original Tetragrammaton YHWH. The scribes “wrote the consonants YHWH using the vowel points for Adonai as a reminder to Jewish lectors to say “Adonai” instead of “Yahweh.” This custom of writing the consonants of one word with the vowels of another is where we get the English word “Jehovah.” In Latin, “YHWH” had become “JHWH,” and when combined with the vowels of Adonai—a, o, and a—it became “Jahowah,” which then became the English “Jehovah.” Some have argued that this usage began in the Christian community as early as the twelfth century, though it is often traced to 1518, when Petrus Galantinus, O.F.M. [a Catholic Franciscan Friar]—the confessor of Pope Leo X—published a book that popularized it.”
If one travels a little around the world, actually many evangelist denominations commonly use the very same name “Jehovah” while the Catholic Liturgy prefers to use “Yahweh” or “THE LORD” for the aforementioned reasons. The JWs are neither the inventors nor the keepers nor the only users of the name Jehovah or Yahweh as most of them proudly believe. For more see https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/yahweh.
Also, JWs love to pride themselves in believing and promoting that they have some kind of primacy on God’s name and that they are the ones who restored it where it was originally in the Bible “7000 times” and therefore give due glory to God. Where the biggest fallacy resides is that they fail to realize that not only the Catholic Church, as the Jews did, always had at heart the First Commandment never to take the Holy Name of God in vain, but also that true worship and giving glory to God start with recognizing Who He is and What He says He is. Rejecting what God Himself explains of Him being a Holy Trinity, God The Father, God The Son and God The Holy Spirit and relegating the Second Person of the Holy Trinity The Logos to the mere status of an angelic creature (JWs have no idea that they are actually. recycling an old Third Century heresy from Arianism) and demoting the Third Person of the Holy Trinity to the rank of a mere force instead of a Person is nothing less than a purely demonic blasphemy and their teachings sully the very Name that they claim to glorify, not to mention the other blasphemies they spread against the Holy Virgin Mary, Mother of God The Son!
The same Greek word “adelphoi” is used in 1 Corinthinas 15: 6. It simply cannot mean “son of the same mother”.
1 CORINTHIANS 15:6
Because of the Bible’s broad semantic range of “brother,” we can rest assured that although St. Paul writes, “[Jesus] appeared to more than five hundred…brothers at the same time” (1 Cor. 15:6), we need not infer from this verse that Mary gave birth to more than 500 children!
“1. The James and Joseph mentioned in Matthew 13:55 are elsewhere (Matt. 27:56, John 19:25) said to be the sons of Mary the wife of Cleophas, not Mary the wife of Joseph. Cleophas and Joseph were different men, so these two Marys were different women. This means James and Joseph couldn’t be Jesus’ brothers german. When Matthew calls them “brothers of the Lord,” he must have in mind some wider usage of “brothers.”
(By the way, notice how many Marys appear in the New Testament: the Virgin Mary, Mary of Cleophas, Mary Magdalene, Mary of Bethany, and possibly one or two more. It is said that the name Mary was held by about one in five women in the Holy Land during our Lord’s time.)
2. From the cross Jesus gave his mother into John’s care, something he would not have done if Mary had other children who could take care of her. It would be strange for our Lord’s last command to be, in effect, a denial of the family relationship, if the “brothers of the Lord” were his brothers in the modern sense. He gave his mother into John’s care precisely because he had no brothers who could assume the duty.
3. The “brothers of the Lord” are never called sons of Mary, although Jesus regularly is called her son. If they also were her sons, why this odd construction? It is not a natural way for the Evangelists to write. You would think that at least one of the Evangelists would have called these men the “sons of Mary,” but not so.
4. John 7:3-4 reports, “His brothers said to him, ‘Leave here and go to Judea, so that your disciples may see the works you are doing. No one works in secret if he wants to be known publicly.’” They were giving him advice about his future. In ancient times, younger brothers never gave older brothers advice on how to live their lives. It was considered rude to do so. (This remains the custom in the Orient and in other parts of the world: younger siblings defer to older siblings.)
This suggests either that the “brothers,” if Mary’s children, were older than Jesus—not possible, since he was the first born—or that they weren’t his brothers at all but were more distant relations, whether older or younger, who would have felt free to give him advice.
5. Answering the angel, Mary asks, “How can this be since I know not man?” If she had been intending to have a “normal” marriage with Joseph, she would have had no need to ask how she would have a child. She would have expected to have children. As a country girl, she certainly knew how babies came about; she wasn’t asking about the mechanics of the thing. Her question makes sense only if she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity.”
When Catholics call Mary the “Blessed Virgin,” they mean she remained a virgin throughout her life. When Protestants refer to Mary as “virgin,” they mean she was a virgin only until Jesus’ birth. They believe that she and Joseph later had children whom Scripture refers to as “the brethren of the Lord.” The disagreement arises over biblical verses that use the terms “brethren,” “brother,” and “sister.”
There are about ten instances in the New Testament where “brothers” and “sisters” of the Lord are mentioned (Matt. 12:46;13:55; Mark 3:31–34; 6:3; Luke 8:19–20; John 2:12; 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5).
When trying to understand these verses, note that the term “brother” (Greek: adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The same goes for “sister” (adelphe) and the plural form “brothers” (adelphoi). The Old Testament shows that “brother” had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as “fathers”) and who are not descended from you (your male descendants are your “sons”), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).
Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s “brother” (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the “brother” of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their “brethren,” the sons of Kish. These “brethren” were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).
The terms “brothers,” “brother,” and “sister” did not refer only to close relatives. Sometimes they meant kinsmen (Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two “brethren” of King Azariah (2 Kgs. 10:13–14).
No Word for Cousin
Because neither Hebrew or Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples) had a special word meaning “cousin,” speakers of those languages could use either the word for “brother” or a circumlocution, such as “the son of my uncle.” But circumlocutions are clumsy, so the Jews often used “brother.”
The writers of the New Testament were brought up using the Aramaic equivalent of “brothers” to mean both cousins and sons of the same father—plus other relatives and even non-relatives. When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the translators of the Septuagint did. (The Septuagint was the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible; it was translated by Hellenistic Jews a century or two before Christ’s birth and was the version of the Bible from which most of the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament are taken.)
In the Septuagint the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which in Greek usually has the narrow meaning that the English “brother” has. Unlike Hebrew or Aramaic, Greek has a separate word for cousin, anepsios, but the translators of the Septuagint used adelphos, even for true cousins.
This same usage was employed by the writers of the New Testament and passed into English translations of the Bible. To determine what “brethren” or “brother” or “sister” means in any one verse, we have to look at the context. When we do that, we see that insuperable problems arise if we assume that Mary had children other than Jesus.
When the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and told her that she would conceive a son, she asked, “How can this be since I have no relations with a man?” (Luke 1:34). From the Church’s earliest days, as the Fathers interpreted this Bible passage, Mary’s question was taken to mean that she had made a vow of lifelong virginity, even in marriage.
If Mary had anticipated having children in the normal way, she would hardly have to ask “how” she was to have a child. Her question makes sense only if there was an apparent conflict between keeping a vow of virginity and acceding to the angel’s request. A careful look at the New Testament shows that Mary kept her vow of virginity and never had any children other than Jesus.
When Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve, the context suggests that he was the only son of Mary and Joseph. There is no hint in this episode of any other children in the family (Luke 2:41–51). Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of Nazareth referred to him as “the son of Mary” (Mark 6:3), not as “a son of Mary.” In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s sons, not even when they are called Jesus’ “brethren.”
Also, the attitude taken by the “brethren of the Lord” implies they are his elders. In ancient and, particularly, in Eastern societies, older sons gave advice to younger, but younger seldom gave advice to older—it was considered disrespectful to do so. But we find Jesus’ “brethren” saying to him that Galilee was no place for him and that he should go to Judea so he could make a name for himself (John 7:3–4). This kind of behavior could make sense for ancient Jews only if the “brethren” were older than Jesus, but that alone eliminates them as his biological brothers, since Jesus was Mary’s “first-born” son (Luke 2:7).
Consider what happened at the foot of the cross. When he was dying, Jesus entrusted his mother to the apostle John (John 19:26–27). The Gospels mention four of his “brethren”: James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. It is hard to imagine why Jesus would have disregarded family ties and made this provision for his mother if these four were also her sons.
Fundamentalist Arguments
Fundamentalists insist that “brethren of the Lord” must be interpreted in the strict sense. They most commonly make two arguments based on Matthew 1:25: “[A]nd he did not know her until (Greek: heos, also translated into English as “till”) she brought forth her firstborn son.” They first argue that the natural inference from “till” is that Joseph and Mary afterward lived together as husband and wife, in the usual sense, and had several children. Otherwise, why would Jesus be called “first-born”? But they are using a narrow, modern meaning of “until.” In the Bible, it means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not imply that the action did happen later.
Consider this line: “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death” (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death?
There is also the burial of Moses. The book of Deuteronomy says that no one knew the location of his grave “until this present day” (Deut. 34:6, Knox). But we know that no one has known since that day either.
You get the idea—nothing can be proved from the use of the word “till” in Matthew 1:25. Recent translations give a better sense of the verse: “He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son” (New American Bible); “He had not known her when she bore a son” (Knox).
Fundamentalists claim Jesus could not be Mary’s “first-born” unless there were other children that followed him. But this shows ignorance of the way the ancient Jews used the term. For them it meant the child that opened the womb (Ex. 13:2; Num. 3:12). The first male child of a marriage was termed the “first-born” even if he turned out to be the only child.
Mary’s Perpetual Virginity
Fundamentalists say it would have been repugnant for Mary and Joseph to enter a marriage and remain celibate. They call such marriages “unnatural” arrangements. Certainly they were unusual, but this was a special family, set aside for the nurturing of the Son of God. No greater dignity could be given to marriage than that.
Backing up the testimony of Scripture regarding Mary’s perpetual virginity is the testimony of the early Christian Church. Consider the controversy between Jerome and Helvidius, writing around 380. Helvidius first brought up the notion that the “brothers of the Lord” were children born to Mary and Joseph after Jesus’ birth. The great Scripture scholar Jerome wrote a reply, a treatise called On the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary. He used not only the scriptural arguments given above, but cited earlier Christian writers, such as Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr.
So, if it is established that the “brethren of the Lord” were not Jesus’ brothers or half-brothers through Mary, who were they?
Prior to the time of Jerome, the standard theory was that they were Jesus’ “brothers” who were sons of Joseph though not of Mary. According to this view, Joseph was a widower at the time he married Mary. He had children from his first marriage (who would be older than Jesus, explaining their attitude toward him). This is mentioned in a number of early Christian writings. One, known as the Protoevangelium of James (A.D. 125) records that Joseph was selected from a group of widowers to serve as the husband/protector of Mary, who was a virgin consecrated to God.
Was James Jesus’s Half Brother?
Today, the most commonly accepted view is that they were Jesus’ cousins. Of the four “brethren” who are named in the Gospels, consider only James; similar reasoning can be used for the other three. We know that James the younger’s mother was named Mary. Look at the descriptions of the women standing beneath the cross: “among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee” (Matt. 27:56); “There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome” (Mark 15:40).
Then look at what John says: “But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene” (John 19:25). If we compare these parallel accounts of the scene of the crucifixion, we see that the mother of James and Joseph must be the wife of Clopas.
An argument against this, though, is that James is elsewhere (Matt. 10:3) described as the son of Alphaeus, which would mean this Mary, whoever she was, was the wife of both Clopas and Alphaeus. But Alphaeus and Clopas are the same person, since the Aramaic name for Alphaeus could be rendered in Greek either as Alphaeus or as Clopas. Another possibility is that Alphaeus took a Greek name similar to his Jewish name, the way that Saul took the name Paul.
So it’s probable that James the younger is the son of Mary and Clopas. The second-century historian Hegesippus explains that Clopas was the brother of Joseph, the foster-father of Jesus. James would thus be Joseph’s nephew and a cousin of Jesus, who was Joseph’s putative son.
This identification of the “brethren of the Lord” as Jesus’ first cousins is open to legitimate question, but our inability to determine for certain their exact status strictly on the basis of the biblical evidence (or lack of it) says nothing at all about the main point, which is that the Bible demonstrates that they were not the Blessed Virgin Mary’s children.
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors. Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827 permission to publish this work is hereby granted. +Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004″
675 Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers.573 The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth574 will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. the supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.575
676 The Antichrist’s deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgement. the Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism,576 especially the “intrinsically perverse” political form of a secular messianism.577
677 The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection.578 The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God’s victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven.579 God’s triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgement after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world.580
Father Chad Ripperger breaks down the End Times
END TIMES
END TIMES – 666 NUMBER – THE MARK OF THE BEAST
DO NOT LOOK FOR THE DAY AND THE HOUR
PRIVATE APPARTITIONS ON END TIMES
ABSOLUTE MUST SEE: GOD WILL PROTECT THE ONES MARKED BY THE SIGN OF THE CROSS
REVELATION” THE SIGN OF PROTECTION IS THE MARK OF THE CROSS
THE ANTICHRIST
ABSOLUTE MUST SEE: MILLENIAL REIGN – THE THOUSAND YEARS
Fr. Joseph Iannuzzi: Christ will reign physically on earth before the final coming. This is heresy.
END TIMES: CROSS IN THE HEAVEN
Evangelio de San Mateo: Después de crucificarlo, los soldados sortearon sus vestiduras y se las repartieron; 36 y sentándose allí, se quedaron para custodiarlo. 37 Colocaron sobre su cabeza una inscripción con el motivo de su condena: «Este es Jesús, el rey de los judíos». 38 Al mismo tiempo, fueron crucificados con él dos bandidos, uno a su derecha y el otro a su izquierda. 39 Los que pasaban, lo insultaban y, moviendo la cabeza, 40 decían: «Tú, que destruyes el Templo y en tres días lo vuelves a edificar, ¡sálvate a ti mismo, si eres Hijo de Dios, y baja de la cruz!». 41 De la misma manera, los sumos sacerdotes, junto con los escribas y los ancianos, se burlaban, diciendo: 42 «¡Ha salvado a otros y no puede salvarse a sí mismo! Es rey de Israel: que baje ahora de la cruz y creeremos en él. 43 Ha confiado en Dios; que él lo libre ahora si lo ama, ya que él dijo: “Yo soy Hijo de Dios”». 44 También lo insultaban los bandidos crucificados con él. (Mt 27, 36-44)
SAINT LOUIS MARIA GRIGNON DE MONTFORT – Del Camino Real de la Santa Cruz
Esta palabra parece dura a muchos: Niégate a ti mismo, toma tu cruz, y sigue a Jesús. Pero mucho más duro será oír aquella postrera palabra: Apartaos de mí, malditos, al fuego eterno. Pues los que ahora oyen y siguen de buena voluntad la palabra de la cruz, no temerán entonces oír la palabra de la eterna condenación. Esta señal de la cruz estará en el cielo, cuando el Señor ven-drá a juzgar. Entonces todos los siervos de la cruz, que se conformaron en la vida con el crucificado, se llegarán a Cristo juez con gran confianza. Pues que así es, ¿por qué teméis tomar la cruz, por la cual se va al reino? En la cruz está la salud, en la cruz la vida, en la cruz está la defensa de los enemigos, en la cruz está la infusión de la suavidad soberana, en la cruz está la fortaleza del corazón, en la cruz está el gozo del espíritu, en la cruz está la suma virtud, en la cruz está la perfección de la santidad. No está la salud del alma, ni la esperanza de la vida eterna, sino en la cruz. Toma, pues, tu cruz, y sigue a Jesús, e irás a la vida eterna. El vino primero, y llevó su cruz y murió en la cruz por ti; porque tú también la lleves, y desees morir en ella. Porque si murieres juntamente con El, vivirás con El. Y si fueres compañero de la pena, lo serás también de la gloria.
END TIMES: A TIME OF PEACE
Satan will be enchained by the Rosary
THE GENTILE TIMES RECONSIDERED
Are We Living in a Special Time?
by Tom Cabeen
A long-standing and very prominent Watchtower teaching is the belief that in 1914 a special period of time Jesus called the “Gentile Times” ended, the “last days” began, and Christ began to rule over the whole earth for the first time since his resurrection and ascension to heaven. Immediately prior to that time, Jesus, in anticipation of his imminent reign, began inspecting the religious organizations of the world to see which one would be his official representative when he began to rule. He examined the teachings of all religions on earth claiming to be Christian and decided that the most “faithful” one (meaning the one with the most correct interpretation of the Bible) was the small group of Charles Russell’s followers, later to be known as Jehovah’s Witnesses. As a result, Watchtower publications teach, shortly after 1914 Jesus committed all the interests of his kingdom into their hands, and they became his only approved channel of communication between God and mankind. If this teaching is true, something very significant changed in 1914. Things must be different since 1914 than they were for the rest of the Christian era. If this is true, that would add some evidence to the idea that, as they claim, the Watchtower Society, with its origins in the nineteenth century, is the only denomination which God approves. On the other hand, if the weight of scriptural and historical evidence points away from this conclusion, any group which proclaims this idea, including the Watchtower Society, is suspect. If we hold the idea that we are now living in a special time, we may have to reevaluate our views. Since its origin, fundamental teachings of the Watchtower Society have been based on and intimately tied to the idea that serious Bible students could determine with reasonable accuracy when Christ would return, either through chronological calculations or observation of unique world events which would serve as a sign of Christ’s imminent return or advent (or both). Generically, Christians who believe that to be possible have been called “Adventists”. First, let us examine the chronology which, according to their claims, establishes that 1914 marked the end of one special time period and the beginning of another. Is Watchtower Chronology Sound? Charles T. Russell borrowed his chronology and methodology from the Second Adventists, after William Miller’s failed attempt at predicting Christ’s return in 1843, based on the same methodology. The calculations are based largely on interpretations of passages in Daniel 4 and Luke 21:24. In brief, Witnesses teach that the “Gentile Times” is a special period of 2,520 years during which God’s kingdom, David’s dynasty, had no king. It supposedly began when Jerusalem was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar and ended in 1914. Considering the importance of the conclusions it supports, the chronology is based on a rather tenuous series of assumptions: First, that the dream Nebuchadnezzar had about becoming a beast for “seven times” (recorded in Daniel 2) does not refer primarily to him (as stated directly in the text), but rather that he, a pagan king, not even a worshiper of Israel’s God, actually represents God’s kingdom. Are We Living in a Special Time? Page 2 of 9 Second, that God’s kingdom or rulership over mankind somehow “ended” when Zerubbabel, a direct descendent of David, was removed from the throne of Jerusalem when it was destroyed by Babylon, and that the kingdom would “begin” again some twenty-five centuries later when Jesus, a descendent of David, began to rule in 1914. The Jews expected a descendent of David to rule as king forever, but the concept of God’s kingdom “ending” and “beginning” is never suggested in the Jewish sacred writings, and in fact directly contradicts Daniel 4:17, which is specifically connected to Nebuchadnezzar’s beastly experience! Third, based on the first assumption, each “time” must represent a special “prophetic” year of 360 days, although no actual earthly year, solar or lunar, has 360 days.1 Seven of these 360-day prophetic years would add up to a total of 2,520 “prophetic” days2 . To make this assumption even more shaky, each of these “prophetic” days in turn must represent a solar year of approximately 365¼ days. Absolutely nothing in Scripture, Jewish tradition, or the writings of early Christians even suggests that we make this complicated series of assumptions and calculations. Fourth, that this period of 2,520 solar years are identical to what Jesus referred to when he used the expression translated “the appointed times of the nations” or “the times of the Gentiles” in Luke 21:24 (“Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled…”), even though Jesus was specifically discussing the future destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD, not its past destruction by Babylon, and despite the fact that there is not a single word in Scripture, Jewish tradition or Christian writings that indicates that the “Gentile times” refer to any time period during which God’s eternal kingdom would be inactive. Fifth, that Jerusalem was actually destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar’s armies in 607 BC. The date for Jerusalem’s destruction is one of the most accurately fixed of ancient history. More, significantly, the historical sources that establish the date for Babylon’s fall in 539 BC, (which date the Watchtower Society does accept and, in fact, which it uses as the starting point for its 1914 calculations) are exactly the same sources that establish 587/6 BC as the date for Jerusalem’s destruction! Several independent lines of evidence (historical, astronomical, archeological, etc.) point to the date of 587/86 BC, not 607 BC, as the date of Jerusalem’s destruction. There is not a single line of historical evidence which supports the 607 BC date. (See The Gentile Times Reconsidered, Carl Olof Jonsson, Commentary Press, 1998 for a detailed discussion of this topic.) 1 The Aramaic word Daniel used for “time” just means a period of time, not always a year. (The word for “year” is different, as used, for example, in Daniel 1:1 ). The word used in Daniel 4 is `idd’n, which , according to the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament means “time, period, span, year, era. … Two basic meanings are equally a ‘point’ in time or a ‘span’ of time.” In this context, a “time” could easily mean a week, a month or a season. 2 A reader pointed out that Revelation 11:2-3 relates “times” to days in a different way: “But as for the courtyard that is outside the temple [sanctuary], cast it clear out and do not measure it, because it has been given to the nations, and they will trample the holy city underfoot for forty-two months. And I will cause my two witnesses to prophesy a thousand two hundred and sixty days dressed in sackcloth.” (NWT) Here the wording is quite similar to that in Luke 21:24: (“Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations”). The Greek word for ”trample” is the same in both passages, and both speak of Jerusalem, the “holy city.” This text describes a period of “trampling” lasting fortytwo months or 1,260 days rather than 2,520! To be consistent, WT theologians should use this passage to determine the length of a “time” rather than Daniel 4. Are We Living in a Special Time? Page 3 of 9 Sixth, that all the plain passages in the Greek Scriptures that clearly state that Jesus began ruling in the first century, such as Matthew 28:18: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me…” don’t really mean what they say. Below is a more extended discussion of the implications of this assumption. Each of the six assumptions listed above are interrelated. All must be true before the Watchtower conclusion can be accepted with any degree of confidence. Again, the veracity of all of them together are absolutely critical to the Watchtower teaching that humankind is living in the time of the end and that the Watchtower Society has been chosen by Jesus Christ as Jehovah’s organization and, as such, His official channel of communication with his faithful people on earth. If any one of them is wrong, the final conclusion is invalid and the Watchtower claim is demonstrably false. It is worth noting that C. T. Russell, founder of Jehovah’s Witnesses, used exactly the same methodology to “prove” that he was living in a special time period, which would end in 1914 with Christ’s return to judge the nations. He also admitted that if any one of the assumptions upon which he based his conclusions were wrong, it would prove his entire approach would be completely invalid. That did, in fact, happen. In time, not only did every one of his assumptions get rejected, Russell’s ending date for the time of the end (1914) became the starting date for the same period, according to current Watchtower teaching. When Did Jesus Begin to Reign? If the Watchtower chronology is invalid and Jesus did not begin reigning in 1914, is he reigning now? If so, when did that reign start? Watchtower publications interpret Hebrews 1:13 (“Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”) as follows: “In 33 C.E., [Jesus] died, was resurrected, and ascended to heaven. … At that time, however, Jesus did not act as King and Judge over the nations. He was seated next to God, awaiting the time to act as King of God’s Kingdom. Paul wrote of him: “With reference to which one of the angels has he ever said: ‘Sit at my right hand, until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet’?” (Hebrews 1:13) Jehovah’s Witnesses have published much evidence that Jesus’ period of waiting expired in 1914, when he became ruler of God’s Kingdom in the invisible heavens.” —The Watchtower, 10/15/95, pg 21, par. 14-16 Hebrews 10: 12, 13 refers to the same action by Jesus, in these words: “But when this priest [Jesus] had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool.” (Emphasis mine.) Here the author quotes from Psalm 110: 13 If this were the only reference to Psalm 110 in the Christian Scriptures, and there was nothing else to indicate otherwise, this verse from Hebrews might be interpreted to mean that the word “waits” in this passage refers to a period of nonrulership, which is exactly how the Watchtower Society interprets it: “Even after Jesus’ resurrection and ascension to heaven, he had to wait at his Father’s right hand until the time came for him to rule as King over mankind. (Hebrews 10:12, 13)” —The Watchtower, 6/15/94, pg 6 But is this how the apostles and early Christians understood the expression “sit at my right 3 “Jehovah declared to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.’” NW Are We Living in a Special Time? Page 4 of 9 hand”? No! Among many ancient peoples, the imagery of a king sitting on the throne of his God was a common way to express that the king ruled with the approval and support of his God, which is consistent with how early Christians understood this phrase.4 This is not the only place where this expression from Psalm 110 is quoted in the Christian Greek Scriptures. This passage from the Hebrew Scriptures is the one most often quoted in Christian Scripture. So we can examine a number of its appearances to correctly establish just how it was used and to what arguments it was applied as support. The Watchtower interpretation that “sitting” meant “waiting” is required by their chronology-based belief that Jesus could not begin his reign until 1914, as discussed above. But it is quite clear from many other passages that the early Christians did not understand the passage to mean that. They understood the phrase “sitting at God’s right hand” to mean that Jesus was already ruling as king. One very clear example of this is Paul’s citation of Psalm 110 in his first letter to the Corinthians while discussing the resurrection. Paul actually substitutes the term “rule as king” for “sit at God’s right hand” in the source from which he quotes: Next, the end, when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. For he must rule as king until [God] has put all enemies under his feet. As the last enemy, death is to be brought to nothing. … But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone. —1 Cor 15:24-28 NW (Italics added.) It is clear from his use of the passage that Paul understood “placing all things under Christ’s feet” to mean rulership. Why should that not be the case, since after his resurrection, Jesus explicitly stated that he had been given “all authority in heaven and on earth.” When Jesus was born, the angel Gabriel said that he would be given the throne of David his forefather, and that he would reign forever. So it would be most natural for the apostles to understand his post-resurrection words to mean that he was reigning as their king, even if the way in which he was to rule turned out to be different from what they expected. The psalmist’s statement that he was to reign in the midst of his enemies is consistent with the idea that his rulership expands until, by the end of his reign, all things are under his feet. A great resurrection occurs at that time; thus death becomes the last enemy to be subject to him. The image is that of a ruler who sits down on his throne, at the right hand of his God, and continues to rule until all things are subject to his power. Afterward, Paul writes, the Son subjects himself to God, the Father. Other passages show that the apostles and early disciples viewed Jesus as ruling as king in their day. Several of these quote Psalm 110. Here are but a few (all quoted from the New World Translation, 1971 ed.): Matt 28:18-20: Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth. Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy 4 See The Gentile Times Reconsidered, 3rd Ed., Carl Olof Jonsson, Commentary Press, 1998, pg 264-270. Are We Living in a Special Time? Page 5 of 9 spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded YOU. And, look! I am with YOU all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.” Mark 16:19: So, then, the Lord Jesus, after having spoken to them, was taken up to heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. John 5:26, 27: For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted also to the Son to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to do judging, because Son of man he is. John 17:1, 2: Jesus spoke these things, and, raising his eyes to heaven, he said: “Father, the hour has come; glorify your son, that your son may glorify you, according as you have given him authority over all flesh, that, as regards the whole [number] whom you have given him, he may give them everlasting life. Col 2:9, 10: …it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily. And so YOU are possessed of a fullness by means of him, who is the head of all government and authority. Acts 17:6, 7: …they dragged Jason and certain brothers to the city rulers, crying out: “These men that have overturned the inhabited earth are present here also, and Jason has received them with hospitality. And all these [men] act in opposition to the decrees of Caesar, saying there is another king, Jesus.” Eph 1:18-23: It is according to the operation of the mightiness of his strength, with which he has operated in the case of the Christ when he raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name named, not only in this system of things, but also in that to come. He also subjected all things under his feet, and made himhead over all things to the congregation, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills up all things in all. Col 1: 12-14: … [The Father] delivered us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of the Son of his love, by means of whom we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of our sins. 1 Pet 3:21, 22: [Baptism] is also now saving YOU, … (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the request made to God for a good conscience,) through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He is at God’s right hand, for he went his way to heaven; and angels and authorities and powers were made subject to him. Viewed in their context, these passages all indicate that early Christians believed Jesus was ruling, not waiting. The entire basis of their confidence in salvation and forgiveness of sins was based on their understanding that they had a ruling high priest who could actively plead for them, that the glorified Jesus was in heaven, sitting at God’s right hand, that is, ruling with His Father’s full support, possessing complete authority to act on their behalf. Are We Living in a Special Time? Page 6 of 9 Are We Living in the “Last Days?” In addition to believing that Jesus was reigning, there is also no doubt that the first Christians believed they were living in the “last days.” Peter, on the occasion of the remarkable events of the first Pentecost after Jesus’ resurrection, quoted Joel’s prophecy as proof of that fact: “This is what was said through the prophet Joel, ‘“And in the last days,” God says, “I shall pour out some of my spirit upon every sort of flesh.” —Acts 2:16,17 The expression “last days” here translates the Greek term eschatais hemerais, an expression used in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures and widely understood by Jews to refer to the Messianic era. (Isa 2:2; Hosea 3:5; Micah 4:1) The introduction of the inspired letter to the Hebrews reflects this perspective: “God, who long ago spoke on many occasions and in many ways to our forefathers by means of the prophets, has at the end of these days spoken to us by means of a Son.” —Heb 1:1, 2 The expression “at the end of these days” in the New World Translation here translates the same Greek words used by Peter at Pentecost (eschatais hemerais: see Kingdom Interlinear), but the expression is translated differently here, so its implications are not immediately apparent to any but the most diligent student. Early Christians did not understand the expression “last days” in the same sense as we might say on a fine day just before we feel the first cool breezes of fall: “These are the last days of summer.” Many Jews believed that human history was divided into two great epochs: the “former days” or period before Messiah’s appearance, and the “latter days” or period after His appearance, that is the “Messianic era”. Since Jesus’ disciples accepted him as their Messiah, they believed that his appearance marked the beginning of the “last days,” in contrast with the “former days” before he appeared. This view was consistent with the Hebrew Scriptures. Many early Jewish Christians had to change their initial perspective on the nature of their Messiah and his rulership. They expected a political savior who would deliver them from subjection to Rome. Instead, Jesus delivered them from sin, death and the devil. His kingdom was quite real, but it was no part of this world. They became part of it by accepting and obeying him as ruler. (Col 1:13) Jesus also revealed to them that he would leave and return again, at an unexpected time. Many early disciples evidently thought the second coming would occur in their lifetime. But as more and more of those who had known Jesus personally, including the apostles, began to die (many as martyrs), and persecution against them intensified, they began to understand that the Messianic era was not to be a time of physical abundance and material blessing (as some Jewish rabbis taught), but would instead be an extended time of tribulation, especially for Christians. Thus, it was appropriate for Paul to warn Timothy: “Know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here.” (2 Tim 3:1) After describing the kind of people that would typify these difficult days, he told Timothy to “turn away” (“be turning yourself away” Kingdom Interlinear) from these people. Clearly he was not warning Timothy to keep away from people who would live centuries in the future. He and Timothy were, in Paul’s view, living in the last days, that is, the Messianic or Christian era. Are We Living in a Special Time? Page 7 of 9 What about the “signs” which Jesus’ predicted? Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus’ prophecy in Matthew 24 (and parallel passages in Mark 13 and Luke 21, sometimes called the “Olivet Discourse” or the “Eschatological Sermon,” from the Greek word for “final things”) describes a series of events which would happen at the time of Jesus’ parousia and serve as a sign that it had begun. The purpose of this document is not to present a detailed verse-by-verse consideration of these passages, but a few comments are appropriate. First, a brief explanation of the Watchtower understanding of the Greek word parousia in Matt. 24:3. The term is usually rendered “coming” or “arrival,” but is translated “presence” in the New World Translation. Late in the nineteenth century, some disappointed Second Adventists, disciples of William Miller, who had expected Jesus to return in 1843, noticed that parousia was translated “presence” in the Emphatic Diaglott, a Greek/English interlinear translation prepared by Benjamin Wilson. Apparently impressed by the chronology enough that they did not want to give up that date, some of them came up with the idea that perhaps Jesus’ second coming or advent really happened in 1843 just as Miller predicted, but invisibly. C. T. Russell was convinced that they were on to something and incorporated their ideas into his own interpretation of the “time of the end”. He saw Jesus’ parousia as a special 40-year period of invisible “presence” during which Russell’s followers, (then called International Bible Students; now Jehovah’s Witnesses) would be in a special relationship with him. Russell saw in the events described in Matt 24:3-14 proof that Jesus had already returned, invisibly. If Jesus’ parousia was actually to be of limited time and invisible, some “sign” might indeed be needed to show that it had begun, but it would be strange for Jesus to choose things which were to be in almost constant evidence during the entire Christian era as a “sign” of some special period at its end. Russell, in fact, pointed to the very same “signs” as proof that Jesus’ parousia started in 1874 that Witnesses point to today, events mentioned in Matthew 24:6-14 (war, pestilence, famine, earthquakes, and others) to prove that Jesus returned invisibly in 1914 and put them in charge of all his kingdom interests on earth. The word parousia, in its most common meaning, meant someone’s bodily presence, but it can also refer to the visit of a royal person, which is consistent with Jesus’ own description of his second coming: “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.” (Matt 25:31, 32) “The Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.”—1 Thess 4:16 In Jesus’ day, many Jews believed that immediately prior to Messiah’s coming there would be a series of calamities. These “woes of the Messiah,” included wars, insurrections, pestilence, famine, earthquakes, and signs or portents from heaven. It is not unlikely that Jesus’ disciples had heard of these predictions. So when they heard him predict the destruction of the temple, Are We Living in a Special Time? Page 8 of 9 they may have been asking, “Is this what we have been told to expect; the woes of the Messiah? Is the destruction of the temple part of that great time of calamity we expect to precede your coming in glory?” If that was the intent of their question, Jesus’ answer was that disasters would definitely come, but they would not be a sign of his return. Jesus started his prophecy by warning them not to be misled, adding that when wars and rumors of wars happened, “see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come.” (Matt 24:6) Other catastrophes would also make their appearance. Even these would only be “the beginning of birth pains.” Rather than confirm that these things would be the immediate precursor to his return and their deliverance, Jesus warned them of increasing persecution and hatred by persons of all the nations, of a great rise in wickedness, and said that they would need endurance. His words did not point toward imminent deliverance, but an extended period of tribulation. The events Jesus mentioned in Matthew 24:3-14 have occurred often throughout the centuries since the days of the apostles. Periodically during those centuries, some Christians have tried to prove that Jesus’ return was imminent by pointing out the prevalence of war, earthquakes, famine, pestilence, and the like, and have been disappointed every single time. Indeed, Jesus’ words have been undergoing fulfillment for nearly two thousand years, and “the end is still to come.”5 Jesus’ words may have been the disciples’ first inkling that the Messianic era would not be the time of great political peace and material prosperity they may have been led to expect by some Jewish teachers. Since evidently they associated the destruction he spoke of with his return, they only asked one question, but Jesus reply encompassed two separate events: first, the destruction of the Jewish temple and second, Jesus’ return or parousia, both of which they may have thought would occur at the same time. Jesus gave them specific instructions about what to do at the time of Jerusalem’s destruction. But at the same time, he warned them that events they might have considered to be “signs” of his parousia were not true signs at all, but false signs, expected by some Jews in connection with the glorious arrival of Messiah, but not relevant to Jesus’ second coming. It is very significant that, rather than giving them a sign which would appear some significant period of time, even years, in advance of his second coming, he instead repeatedly urged them to keep alert, on the watch. He compared his return to the visit of a thief in the night. Thieves do not provide any advance notice before they strike. —Matt 24:43, 44 Conclusion To summarize, there are serious problems with the Watchtower view. First, the idea that anyone can predict by any means when Christ would return is in direct contradiction to Jesus own clearly stated warning that he would return in glory at a time that his disciples did not think it to be. The idea of any kind of sign which would give advance warning of Jesus’ second advent completely contradicts what He clearly said on numerous occasions, that his arrival would be both sudden and unexpected: “Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come.” (Mark 13:33) If we take him at his word, Jesus’ words on the Mount of Olives do not provide a way to predict either an invisible presence or his imminent second coming. Second, the concept of Jesus’ parousia as an invisible event cannot be reconciled with His words: “Look! I am with you always, until the conclusion of the system of things” (Matt 28:19) which clearly show that Jesus would always be invisibly present with his disciples. It also directly contradicts Rev 1:7, which says “Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him,” which clearly states that Jesus’ arrival in glory would be anything but invisible. Third, if we remain true to the original and most direct sense of Scripture, we must conclude that Jesus began ruling in the first century, and that all Christians who lived from the first century until now have been living in the last days ( the Messianic era). Both biblical and historical evidence show that Jesus Christ began to reign in the first century, and that his reign has continued until now, “in the midst of his enemies.” That being so, we must also conclude that the situation that has existed among persons claiming to be Christians is what Jesus expected, and that the way things have developed is in harmony with his sovereign will as king over heaven and earth. Any group which started during the centuries following the apostolic age, then, can make no serious claim to being Jesus’ true church. We have absolutely no reason to conclude that Jesus abandoned his followers to his enemy the devil at the end of the apostolic period, as Russell believed and taught. Nor is there any basis to conclude that near the end of the first century, things somehow got out of Jesus’ control and the whole body of Christ became corrupt and worthless. We must conclude that there have been true followers of Christ all down through the centuries since Jesus walked the earth, and that during the entire Christian era, Christ’s followers would face the same types of difficulties. Each would be required to be faithful and obedient to his Lord in the situation in which each found himself or herself. Second, the concept of Jesus’ parousia as an invisible event cannot be reconciled with His words: “Look! I am with you always, until the conclusion of the system of things” (Matt 28:19 ) which clearly show that Jesus would always be invisibly present with his disciples. It also directly contradicts Rev 1:7, which says “Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him,” which clearly states that Jesus’ parousia would be anything but invisible. Thirdly, if we remain true to the original and most direct sense of Scripture, we must conclude that Jesus began ruling in the first century, and that all Christians who lived from the first century until now have been living in the last days ( the Messianic era). Both biblical and historical evidence show that Jesus Christ began to reign in the first century, and that his reign has continued until now, “in the midst of his enemies.” That being so, we must also conclude that the situation that has existed among persons claiming to be Christians is what Jesus expected, and that the way things have developed is in harmony with his sovereign will as king over heaven and earth. Any group which started during the centuries following the apostolic age, then, can make no serious claim to being Jesus’ true church. We have absolutely no reason to conclude that Jesus abandoned his followers to his enemy the devil at the end of the apostolic period, as Russell believed and taught. There is also no basis to conclude that near the end of the first century, things somehow got out of Jesus’ control and the whole body of Christ became corrupt and worthless. We must conclude that there have been true followers of Christ all down through the centuries since Jesus walked the earth, and that Christians, during the entire Christian era, would face the same types of difficulties. Each would be required to be faithful and obedient to his Lord in the situation in which each found himself or herself.
There has been a surge in interest in topics such as Bible prophecy and the Rapture in the last few years, largely due to the surprising success of the Left Behind series written by two devout Protestants. This article seeks to outline Catholic beliefs about the “last days,” relying on Scripture and the Catechism of the Catholic Church and to compare those teachings with the belief in the Rapture as it is found in the Left Behind books and similar works. Have you ever had non-Catholic friends ask questions such as, “Do Catholics believe in the Rapture?” and “Why doesn’t the Catholic Church interpret the book of Revelation literally?”?
Perhaps you or someone you know has read the best-selling Left Behind books and wants to know if they are “biblically sound.” Maybe you saw a televangelist explaining that Christ will come soon to Rapture Christians from earth, but you’ve never heard your priest talk about it. There has been a surge in interest in topics such as Bible prophecy and the Rapture in the last few years, largely due to the surprising success of the Left Behind series, coauthored by Tim Lahaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, two Fundamentalist Protestant authors.
1 Many Catholics have read the books, and while some recognize that the books do not completely agree with Catholic doctrine, others assume they are compatible. Aren’t the authors devout Christians trying to spread the Gospel?
2 Given this situation, this article seeks to do two things. First, outline Catholic beliefs about the “last days,” relying on Scripture and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Second, compare those teachings with the belief in the Rapture as it is found in the Left Behind books and similar works. Are we living in the “last days”? Are we, as many Christians believe, living in the last days? In fact, the “last days” refers not only to the “end of time,” but to the last two thousand years. Scripture teaches that the Incarnation ushered in “the last days.”
According to Hebrews 1:1-2, “God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.” At Pentecost, Peter preached that “the last days” had arrived, in fulfillment of the words of the prophet Joel: “For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only the third hour of the day; but this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel: ‘And it shall be in the last days,’ God says, that I will pour forth my spirit on all mankind . . .” (Acts 2:15-17; cf. Joel 2:28-32). “The last days” or “the end times,” properly understood, refers to the time of the New Covenant, the gathering together of God’s people in the Church, which is “on earth, the seed and the beginning of the kingdom” (CCC 567, 669; Lumen Gentium) .
The Holy Spirit, the “soul of the Church,” has been and is being poured out, because of the redemptive work of Jesus Christ: The Holy Spirit is at work with the Father and the Son from the beginning to the completion of the plan for our salvation. But in these “end times,” ushered in by the Son’s redeeming Incarnation, the Spirit is revealed and given, recognized and welcomed as a person. Now can this divine plan, accomplished in Christ, the firstborn and head of the new creation, be embodied in mankind by the outpouring of the Spirit: as the Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting (CCC 686).
This understanding of the “last days” differs from that of those who believe in the Rapture. Catholics agree that there will definitely be an “end of time” and that history as we know it will one day be complete. But we also recognize that each of us will face the end of our time on earth, and that this should, in many ways, concern us more than the end of the world (see CCC 1007). Church authority and Bible prophecy How should we understand the Bible’s teaching on the “last days”? For Catholics, the Bible is truly the Word of God, and when the Word of God says that the Church is the Body of Christ (Ephesians 1:22-23; 5:22-33) and the “pillar and support of truth” (1 Timothy 3:15), it points to a key principle: the task of authentically interpreting Scripture belongs to the Church. And the Church has a certain structure, based on Christ’s own choosing of apostles and granting them authority: “For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgment of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God (CCC 119). This does not mean that the Catholic Church has definitively interpreted every single passage of Scripture or that individual Catholics cannot study Scripture for themselves.
On the contrary, the Church has definitively interpreted less than a dozen passages, while encouraging Catholics to read the Bible in light of the “living Tradition of the whole Church” (CCC 113). The issue of authority in interpreting Scripture is important because so much of what passes for “Biblical prophecy” today is really pseudo-Biblical guesswork, noteworthy for its use of sloppy methods, hazy conjecture, and overt sensationalism. Many “prophecy teachers,” especially in the last three decades, have taken passages of Scripture and applied them to current events and people with little or no regard for historical context or original meaning of the texts. This has resulted, for example, in the Antichrist being identified as the Pope, Hitler, Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan, Saddam Hussein, and other, lesser-known people. The puzzling and sometimes shocking images of Revelation are interpreted in clever, bizarre, and often laughable ways. The mark of the beast (Rev. 13:16-18) is seen in bar codes, credit cards, computer chips and laser beams. Most Catholics who encounter such misinterpretations usually scratch their heads and steer clear of the biblical books that deal with apocalyptic themes, Daniel and Revelation. They are content to let their non-Catholic friends battle over these confusing matters. This is unfortunate for a couple of reasons.
First, Catholics should study all of Scripture, including difficult books such as Daniel and Revelation, because God gave it to the Church for that purpose.
Second, the Catholic Church offers two thousand years of reflection and study of Scripture, resulting in a rich, balanced, and nuanced understanding of the whole Bible. If the Catholic Church has the authority that Catholics believe she possesses, then they need to take seriously her understanding of Scripture. At the very least, doing so will help them avoid the serious misunderstandings of some other Christians and will equip Catholics to discuss these misunderstandings with them.
Defining some terms The Left Behind books are based on a theological system known as dispensationalism. This term refers to the belief that God works in history through a series of different epochs, or dispensations. In each of these periods, God tests man in a certain way. Man fails the test, and then God judges man. On this view, man now lives during the “Church Age,” which is so full of apostasy and error that only a remnant of “true believers” remains.
According to dispensationalism, God is pursuing two purposes in history: one involving an earthly people (Israel) and the other, a heavenly people (the Church).
3 Dispensationalists believe that when Jesus Christ came, He offered the earthly people, Israel, a physical, earthly kingdom, but that they rejected Him as their Messiah. Consequently, Jesus formed a heavenly people, the Church, who are not meant to reign here on earth, but will reign with Him in heaven. However, God will still fulfill the many Old Testament promises to Israel, His earthly people, because, dispensationalists insist, those promises were unconditional. When Christ founded the Church, all of those promises were “put on hold” until the heavenly people were removed from the earth in the Rapture. Since Israel has now been reestablished as a nation, most dispensationalists believe that the removal of the Church via the Rapture can occur at any moment. The Rapture will be a secret “snatching up” of all true believers in Christ to heaven; it will be immediately followed according to most dispensationalists by seven years of Tribulation and the reign of the Antichrist. At the end of the Tribulation, Christ will come again to establish an earthly, thousand-year reign, based in Jerusalem, where a new temple (complete with animal sacrifices) will exist.
4 The dispensationalist view of the end times was developed in the 1830s by an ex-Anglican priest named John Nelson Darby, who condemned most of Christendom as apostate and worldly. Dispensationalism subsequently spread throughout the U.S., in the early 1900s, as a result of the popular Scofield Reference Bible, which incorporated dispensationalist ideas into its footnotes. In the 1970s, the doctrine was popularized through the best-selling books such as The Late Great Planet Earth by Hal Lindsey.
5 Some Catholics might dismiss these unusual beliefs as unimportant. But that would be a mistake for a number of reasons. For one thing, despite waning popularity in scholarly theological circles, dispensationalism is still a widespread belief system among Fundamentalists and many Evangelicals, even many of those who are unfamiliar with the term. Another reason is that the vast majority of dispensationalists are either actively opposed to, or are very suspicious of, the Catholic Church. Many of them believe the Catholic Church will play a central role in a coming one world apostate religion. In a sense, this shouldn’t surprise anyone, since the core of dispensationalism is incompatible with Catholic doctrine, even though they are compatible on some secondary issues. Moreover, many Catholics who leave the Church are drawn towards groups that teach dispensationalism in some form or another. The belief in the Rapture is often what attracts these straying Catholics. Finally, through Fundamentalist and conservative Evangelical political activity, dispensationalist ideas and interests have had a significant influence on U.S. foreign policy towards Israel and the Middle East, and on how many of these Christians view the U.S. Many Fundamentalist and Evangelical Christians are staunch allies of Israel for theological, rather than political reasons. Two people of God, or just one? Eschatology, the study of the last things, flows directly from ecclesiology, the doctrine of the Church. This explains some of the significant differences between what Catholics and many Fundamentalists believe about the end of time. While Tim Lahaye, Hal Lindsey, and other dispensationalists teach that God has two people, the Church and Israel, the Catholic Church asserts that God has always had only one people, or family, throughout history. According to Catechism, “This ‘family of God’ is gradually formed and takes shape during the stages of human history, in keeping with the Father’s plan. In fact, ‘already present in figure at the beginning of the world, this Church was prepared in marvelous fashion in the history of the people of Israel . . . . Established in this last age of the world and made manifest in the outpouring of the Spirit, it will be brought to glorious completion at the end of time’” (CCC 759). Therefore, the Catholic Church has always understood herself as being the New Israel (Gal. 6:16; Eph. 2:11-12) and the new People of God (1 Pet. 2:9-10), the recipients of the New Covenant given through Christ (Heb. 8:8-13). The Old Covenant was not rejected by Christ, but fulfilled and taken up into the New Covenant; it concluded with the New Covenant and is included in it. This difference between dispensationalism and Catholic doctrine is the basis for other disagreements, including those involving the Rapture and the nature of the millennium. (Interestingly enough, even Luther and Calvin understood the Church to be the true heir of Israel. They also would have rejected dispensationalism, which only emerged as a method of biblical interpretation in the last two hundred years or so.) Catholic doctrine also teaches that the Church is intimately related to the Kingdom of God. The Church is “ultimately one, holy, catholic, and apostolic in her deepest and ultimate identity, because it is in her that ‘the Kingdom of heaven,’ the ‘Reign of God,’ already exists and will be fulfilled at the end of time” (CCC 865). The Kingdom is not yet complete, but began with the Incarnation and will be fully realized at the end of time: “The kingdom of heaven was inaugurated on earth by Christ. ‘This kingdom shone out before men in the word, in the works and in the presence of Christ.’ The Church is the seed and beginning of this kingdom. Its keys are entrusted to Peter” (CCC 567). In its fullness, the Kingdom is not an earthly reign, but the final triumph of Christ over the power of sin and Satan, culminating in an eternity spent in communion with the Triune God: “The kingdom has come in the person of Christ and grows mysteriously in the hearts of those incorporated into him, until its full eschatological manifestation” (CCC 865). In contrast, dispensationalists believe that the Kingdom will be a thousand-year, earthly reign of Christ, known as the Millennium (from the Latin word for “thousand years”). Belief in a literal thousand-year earthly reign is called millenarianism or millennialism. It has been explicitly rejected by the Catholic Church. In 1944, the Holy Office warned against “. . . the system of mitigated Millenarianism, which teaches . . . that Christ the Lord before the final judgment, whether or not preceded by the resurrection of the many just, will come visibly to rule over this world. . . . The system of mitigated Millenarianism cannot be taught safely” (CCC 676). It is true that some of the early Church Fathers before the fourth century believed in an earthly, millennial reign of Christ. This belief was largely formed in reaction to Gnostics, who taught that Christ and His Kingdom had nothing to do with the physical world since, the Gnostics claimed, it was inherently evil. However, St. Augustine, writing in the late 300s and early 400s, interpreted the reference to a “thousand years” in Revelation 20 as a metaphor for the age of the Church. This would become the accepted belief of the Church, going unchallenged for many centuries. Yet the Catholic Church has never made a formal statement about what the Millennium is, although Augustine’s view has usually been accepted by Catholic theologians.
6 In addition, none of the Church Fathers believed in a secret removal of true believers prior to the Tribulation. On the contrary, they taught that the Church would undergo a period of intense tribulation prior to the Second Coming. The idea of a “secret” Rapture, developed by John Nelson Darby in the 1830s, would have been both foreign and repulsive to the early Christians, as it was bothersome to many of Darby’s Protestant allies.
7 The rapture and the second coming The Church tacitly rejects the “secret” Rapture based on her doctrine of the Church. It has always been Catholic teaching, of course, that Jesus Christ will physically and visibly return to earth. As we say in the Creed each week at Eucharistic Liturgy, “He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end” (cf. CCC 681-682). Yet from the Catholic perspective, the term rapture is problematic. On one hand, it can refer to being taken to be with Christ (1 Thess. 4:17; see CCC 1025). In fact, the term rapture comes from Jerome’s Latin translation of 1 Thes 4:17, meaning “to be caught up.” Catholics believe this will happen at the Second Coming, when our bodies are resurrected (see CCC 989-990).
On the other hand, the term “Rapture” is, in a sense, owned and copyrighted by dispensationalists. In popular discourse, it almost always refers to a secret snatching away of “true believers,” prior to the Tribulation, and distinct from the Second Coming. Since the term Rapture is rarely used in Catholic circles, it is easy to see how confusion among Catholics might arise. But in any case the Rapture, as dispensationalists use the term, is contrary to Catholic belief. Israel, tribulation, and Antichrist Another issue is the fate of Israel. What will happen to Israel in the end? According to the Catechism, “The glorious Messiah’s coming is suspended at every moment of history until His recognition by ‘all Israel’, for ‘a hardening has come upon part of Israel’ in their ‘unbelief’ toward Jesus” (CCC 674). The Church, reflecting upon Romans 9- 11, believes that Israel will somehow come to recognize Christ for who He is. Precisely how this will occur the Church has not said. The Church also says relatively little about the time of trial or tribulation in the final days. The Church will go through the great trial, but we do not know how long it will last. The Catechism declares, “Before Christ’s Second Coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the ‘mystery of iniquity’ in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth” (CCC 675; also see CCC 2642). This time of trial will be at the start of the “last days” in the sense of the end of history: “According to the Lord, the present time is the time of the Spirit and of witness, but also a time still marked by ‘distress’ and the time of evil which does not spare the Church and ushers in the struggles of the last days. It is a time of waiting and watching” (CCC 672). Along with this belief in a time of future testing and trial, the Church teaches that there have been many Antichrists, but there will also be the Antichrist who leads a worldwide system of anti-Christian belief: . . . The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh. . . . The Antichrist’s deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the [end times] judgment. . . . (CCC 675, 676) This last sentence applies to any sort of utopian scheme that ignores man’s fallen nature, the reality of sin, and man’s need for salvation through Christ.
Interpreting the book of Revelation Interpretations of the book of Revelation are, undoubtedly, among the most hotly debated aspects of the Bible. The Catholic Church has not officially interpreted the difficult passages in Revelation. But various Catholic scholars have commented on them, and have debated the various interpretations.
8 There are four main approaches to the book of Revelation: futurist, preterist, historicist and idealist.
Futurists believe that most or all of the book of Revelation has yet to be fulfilled;
preterists say that most or all of it was fulfilled in the first century;
historicists claim that events described in Revelation have been transpiring for the last two thousand years;
and idealists believe that the book of Revelation is allegorical and has little or nothing to do with historical events.
9 The Catholic Church allows a wide range of interpretive possibilities, including forms of futurism, preterism, historicism and idealism. For example, a Catholic may believe the book of Revelation describes the conflict of good and evil as experienced by individual Christians or the Church (idealism), and makes prophetic utterances about events still to occur (futurism), and also refers to events that have already occurred, either in the early Church or later Church history (preterism and historicism). Catholic flexibility here is based on the fact that Scripture, inspired by God, often has different, yet complementary, meanings. From early times, the Church, following the examples of Christ and the Apostles (i.e., Lk 24:25-27; 1 Cor 10:1-4), understood Scripture to have different senses, a literal and a spiritual sense (CCC 115).
As the Catechism explains, the spiritual sense is always rooted in the literal sense: “The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: ‘All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal’” (CCC 116). A common misconception is that Catholics interpret Scripture especially the book of Revelation “symbolically,” while Evangelicals interpret it “literally.” This has often been used to explain why the Catholic Church rejects an earthly, thousand-year reign of Christ. Yet few “literalists” bother to interpret literally other images in Revelation, such as the Beast, the dragon, the locusts, and the four horsemen.
A last word on the last days
In conclusion, it can be seen that the Catholic Church says relatively little about future events leading up to Christ’s Second Coming. Many of her teachings are rejections (either implicit or explicit), not affirmations, of particular beliefs such as the dispensational dichotomy between the Church and Israel, the “secret” Rapture, and the earthly millennial kingdom. What she does teach is quite clear, as well as succinct: there will be a Second Coming, a time of trial which the Church must endure, an Antichrist, a conversion of Israel to Christ, a definitive judgment of all people, and the fulfillment of the Kingdom that has already begun in the Church. Within those parameters, Catholics may freely roam, search the Scriptures, and seek to better understand the Word of God.
Endnotes
The first book of the series, Left Behind: A Novel of the Earth’s Last Days, was published in 1995. Seven books have followed, with the last two, The Indwelling and The Mark, reaching the top of numerous bestsellers lists, including the New York Times, Publishers Weekly, USA Today, and Wall Street Journal. The series has now sold over 30 million copies.
Some Catholics with whom I have corresponded have taken this attitude. One Catholic suggested that we focus on the positive things in the Left Behind series and how to use them to evangelize. This correspondent described it as “paranoid” to try to find anti-Catholicism in the books.
Charles C. Ryrie, a leading dispensationalist of the last forty years, writes, “A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the Church distinct” (Dispensationalism Today[Chicago: Moody Press, 1965], 44). He quotes Lewis S. Chafer, another leading dispensational theologian: “The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity” (Dispensationalism Today, 45).
This belief is held by almost all dispensationalists and is based on their interpretations of Old Testament prophecies. In his commentary Revelation Unveiled(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999), Lahaye explains that the prophet Ezekiel “goes into great detail regarding the matter of worshipping in the Temple, even pointing out that the sacrificial systems will be reestablished. These sacrifices during the millennial Kingdom will be to the nation of Israel what the Lord’s Supper is to the Church today: a reminder of what they have been saved from. No meritorious or efficacious work will be accomplished through these sacrifices. Instead, they will remind Israel repeatedly of their crucified Messiah . . .” (Revelation Unveiled, 341). What Lahaye fails to mention is that Ezekiel never states that the sacrifices will merely be reminders this is a completely unwarranted conclusion and is inconsistent with Lahaye’s supposed “literal” interpretation of Scripture.
Lindsey’s Late Great Planet Earth was the best-selling book of the 1970s, according to the New York Times. Translated into over fifty languages, it has sales of thirty-five million copies. Lindsey has authored close to twenty books and still maintains a high profile in the world of “Bible prophecy.”
In writing about St. Augustine’s view of the millennium, Fr. Vincent P. Miceli, S.J. states that “The real meaning of the thousand years is that the saints are reigning at the present time with Christ in His kingdom the Church. For the Church is now, today, His kingdom” (The Antichrist [Harrison, NY: Roman Catholic Books, 1981], 74).
A minority today among Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, historical premillennialists who do not agree with the dispensational distinction between Israel and the Church, but do believe there will be a literal, one thousand-year reign of Christ on earth.
Highly recommended is the Navarre commentary, Revelation: Texts and Commentaries (Four Courts Press, 1992). Another solid Catholic commentary still in print is Dominican H. M. Feret’s The Apocalypse Explained (Fort Collins, CO: Roman Catholic Books, 1958). An excellent, detailed, and scholarly commentary, written by Presbyterian theologian David Chilton, is The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (Fort Worth, TX: Dominion Press, 1987). Chilton also wrote a shorter, more popular commentary, The Great Tribulation (Fort Worth, TX: Dominion Press, 1987).
A helpful volume is Revelation: Four Views (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1997), a parallel commentary edited by Steve Gregg, an Evangelical teacher. A related work is The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1977), edited by Robert G. Clouse.
“We’re living in the fulfilment of the Book of Revelation…” Fr. Joseph Iannuzzi explains.
Anti-Christ: Who is He? Explaining the Faith with Fr. Chris Alar
SECOND PENTOCOST = CHRIST’S SECOND COMING = EUCHARISTIC REIGN OF CHRIST = TRIUMPH OF IMMACULATE HEART = ERA OF PEACE = WILL DONE ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN = FULFILLMENT OF DIVINE WILL
EUCHARISTIC REIGN = INTERIOR REALITY WHERE WE BECOME LIVING HOSTS
REAL LIFE OR REAL PRESENCE PERPETUATED 24/7
MINUTE 1H12′
2ND PENTECOST
MINUTE 1H15′
Jesus coming to wed the church when she is pure and then it is the end of times
SORROW IN HEAVEN BUT NO PHYSICAL PAIN – SOULS MARTYRED WAITING FOR VINDICATION
THE WEDDING OF THE LAMB: What Really Happened at Cana and Why It Matters: Explaining the Faith with Fr. Chris Alar
“Things will be so bad you won’t be able to go to Church…” Fr. Joseph Iannuzzi explains.
End times – starting at minute 12’13
THE BEASTS OF THE REVELATION: COMMUNISM AND FREEMASONRY
Why a ‘New Earth’ If We’re All Supposed to Be in Heaven?
