What's your interpretation of Genesis 1:2?

Faith & Science Conversation
22

The apocryphal books were deemed to be (if I might quote from the preface in the Geneva Bible published in 1560)

“books proceeding from godly men, received to be read for the advancement and furtherance of the knowledge of history and for the instruction of godly manners” but not “to prove any point of Christian religion save in so much as they had the consent of the other scriptures called canonical to confirm the same.”

Martin Luther, for instance, translated Wisdom of Solomon (a Hellenistic Jewish text composed circa 150 BCE - early 1st century BCE that is considered to be sacred scripture by Catholics) in 1529 for inclusion in his German Bible, penning a lengthy preface to the book. Luther rejected the canonicity of Wisdom but placed a very high value on the book itself for Christian growth. Here is a selection from his much more extensive preface:

“[T]here are many good things in this book, and it is well worth reading . . . It pleases me beyond measure that the author here extols the Word of God so highly, and ascribes to the Word all the wonders God has performed, both on enemies and in his saints.

This is the foremost reason why it is well to read this book: one may learn to fear and trust God. To that end may he graciously help us. Amen.” (Luther’s Works, vol. 35, pp. 343-345).

In this respect, the apochrypha were viewed by traditional Protestants - Calvinists, Lutherans, Anglicans etc. - as possessing genuine value in terms of understanding the historical context in which the New Testament scriptures were written (since they are intertestamental and indispensable for a proper awareness of Second Temple Judaism) and because they were deemed to be good devotional texts written by “godly” people, for the purpose of instructing one in edifying morals.

The final criterion for inclusion in bible translations was that the apocrypha could serve to “confirm” certain interpretations of scriptural verses. They were not to be used to establish anything doctrinal in their own right, however, or to be read out publicly in church as part of the lectionary.

It is disappointing that a great many contemporary Evangelicals dispense with the apochrypha altogether, because they really are essential in contexualizing scripture.

In order to engage in an informed exegesis of the introductory chapter from the Epistle to the Romans, for example, it is essential for the exegete to have some familiarity with the source of Paul’s thinking in these passages. And in these verses, practically every biblical scholar worth their salt has determined that Paul is heavily dependant upon Wisdom of Solomon i.e.

Stephen Barton., Where Shall Wisdom Be Found? Wisdom in the Bible (2005) p. 112:

“Wisdom of Solomon is an important background source for Paul’s thought in Romans, especially in his condemnation of human sin and idolatry in Rom 1.18-32. Likewise, his account of the ruler’s authority as God-given in Romans 13 owes much to Wisdom 6.1-11”

This is but one instance among many.

I am actually a Roman Catholic myself, so to me the deuterocanon is sacred scripture.

Oddly enough, and quite unlike 2 Maccabees which clearly affirms creation ex nihilo, Wisdom of Solomon appears to teach creation from chaotic pre-existing matter:

Wisdom 11:17

“For your all-powerful hand, which created the world out of formless matter”

Here the writer seems to be assuming that the world was created from pre— existing but unformed matter.

There has been no end to debate among Catholic scholars about how best to square this with our dogma of creation from nothing. I believe the main argument is that God originally created “everything” out of nothing but intended for the universe to exist initially, in its primordial state, as formless matter before arranging itself into structure and complexity (or something of that ilk).

23

I believe this statement describe the pre-Big Bang singularity. I find Genesis 1 aligned with science.

24

The Anglican 39 Articles of Religion explain that these books are fine for instruction but not for establishing doctrine:

And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following: The Third Book of Esdras, Baruch the Prophet, The Fourth Book of Esdras, The Song of the Three Children, The Book of Tobias, The Story of Susanna, The Book of Judith, Of Bel and the Dragon, The rest of the Book of Esther, The Prayer of Manasses, The Book of Wisdom, The First Book of Maccabees, Jesus the Son of Sirach, The Second Book of Maccabees.

Apocryphal readings are sometimes used in Anglican/Episcopal services. The book of Baruch was once used to instruct new Christians. The Jews don’t consider the Apocryphal books to be canonical, and that is why Hanukkah is only a minor religious holiday for them. (The story of Hanukkah is told in Maccabees).

2 Maccabees 12:46 gives Catholics their only really good verse for their doctrine of purgatory and paying for the forgiveness of sins (indulgences) : “Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from sin.” Note that the Orthodox accept the Apocryphal books as canonical but do NOT believe in purgatory. Go figure!

25

Just a note from the Wiki article on purgatory:

“While the Eastern Orthodox Church rejects the term “purgatory”, it acknowledges an intermediate state after death. … Also, the Orthodox Church does not believe in indulgences as remissions from purgatorial punishment.”

26

The Eastern Orthodox concept of the intermediate state is one of peace. But purgatory is…well, purgatory. Pain and suffering.

1 Like
27

I think it is a tad reductionist to equate the Catholic belief in purgatory with nothing but ‘pain and suffering’. Purgatory is not viewed as some kind of quasi-hell or poor relation to Gehenna. Rather, it is a state of being (not a place) for those who are saved/redeemed (in the ultimate sense) as opposed to the damned, which has far more to do with “purification” through an encounter with the divine love: the God described in scripture as being akin to an all-consuming fire (Hebrews 12:29).

Saint Catherine of Genoa (1447-1510) wrote a famous “Treatise on Purgatory” which has deeply influenced the theological development in understanding of this doctrine among Catholics.

In this text, St. Catherine claimed to experience purgatory in this life, as explained at the start of the Treatise by one of her disciples:

"…This holy soul, while still in the flesh, was placed in the purgatory of the burning love of God, in whose flames she was purified from every stain, so that when she passed from this life she might be ready to enter the presence of God, her most sweet love.

By means of that flame of love she comprehended in her own soul the condition of the souls of the faithful in purgatory, where they are purified from the rust and stain of sins, from which they have not been cleansed in this world.

And as in the purgatory of that divine flame she was united with the divine love and satisfied with all that was accomplished in her, she was enabled to comprehend the state of the souls in purgatory and thus discovered concerning it:

"There is no peace to be compared with that of the souls in purgatory, save that of the saints in paradise, and this peace is ever augmented by the inflowing of God into these souls, which increases in proportion as the impediments to it are removed.

The rust of sin is the impediment, and this the fire continually consumes, so that the soul in this state is continually opening itself to admit the divine communication…but as to the will, so united is it to God by pure charity, and so satisfied to be under his divine appointment, that these souls can never say their pains are pains…

The soul, leaving the body, and not finding in herself that purity in which she was created, and seeing also the hindrances which prevent her union with God, conscious also that purgatory only can remove them, casts herself quickly and willingly therein…

I see that as far as God is concerned, paradise has no gates, but he who will may enter. For God is all mercy, and his open arms are ever extended to receive us into his glory. But I see that the divine essence is so pure–purer than the imagination can conceive–that the soul, finding in itself the slightest imperfection, would rather cast itself into a thousand hells than appear, so stained, in the presence of the divine majesty. Knowing, then, that purgatory was intended for her cleaning, she throws herself therein, and finds there that great mercy, the removal of her stains.

I know that the greatest misery of the souls in purgatory is to behold in themselves aught that displeases God, and to discover that, in spite of his goodness, they had consented to it. And this is because, being in the state of grace, they see the reality and the importance of the impediments which hinder their approach to God"…"

Purgatory is described as “the burning love of God” characterised by a surpassing feeling of “peace” without compare, apart from the Beatific Vision in heaven itself. The “pain” aspect of it is not some punishment from God but rather the introspective awareness of “not finding in oneself that purity in which she was created, and seeing also the hindrances which prevent her union with God”.

It can be read in full here:

Properly understood, purgatory is not all that dissimilar from the Eastern Orthodox doctrine concerning the intermediate state.

28

So why would Catholics work so hard to escape the flames of Purgatory? What about the poor souls in Purgatory? Why spend money on indulgences and masses for the dead? Have you informed the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church that they don’t differ on this matter?

Hell, maybe hell isn’t so bad either. Isn’t the company said to be better down there?

3 Likes
29

There is a theological problem also: purgatory is supposed to purge people of certain types of sin. But Protestants believe that the blood of Jesus covers our sins.

2 Likes
30

Thank you for your agreement.

31

Catholics don’t work hard to escape the flames of purgatory.

It is rather the case that it is obviously immeasurably better to enjoy the direct Beatific Vision in heaven, as opposed to existing in a lesser, intermediate state involving purification.

32

The souls in purgatory have already been redeemed by Christ during their lives. It is an intermediate state of being for people already saved, not for the damned.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), purgatory is a “final purification” (CCC 1031) which is afforded to “all who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified” so that they might “achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven” (CCC 1030).

So I agree with you that the blood of Jesus covers our sins.

But that does not mean that we are necessarily ready to “see” God as He is in Himself (Divine Essence).

In terms of Eastern Orthodoxy, the Confession of Patriarch Dositheus (1672) defines Hades in terms virtually indistinguishable from the Latin purgatory.

Bishop Kallistos included the Confession of Dositheus in his list of “the chief Orthodox doctrinal statements since 787” in the book The Orthodox Church.

Here is the relevant article, no.18:

We believe that the souls of those that have fallen asleep are either at rest or in torment, according to each hath wrought. For when they are separated from their bodies, they depart immediately either to joy or to sorrow and lamentation; though confessedly neither their enjoyment nor condemnation are complete. For, after the common resurrection, when the soul shall be united with the body, with which it had behaved itself well or ill, each shall receive the completion of either enjoyment or of condemnation. Such as though involved in mortal sins have not departed in despair but have, while still living in the body, repented, though without bringing any fruits of repentance — by pouring forth tears, by kneeling while watching in prayers, by afflicting themselves, by relieving the poor, and in fine by showing forth by their works their love towards God and their neighbor, and which the Catholic Church hath from the beginning rightly called satisfaction — of these and such like the souls depart into Hades…

But they are aware of their future release from thence, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness through the prayers of the priests and the good works which the relative of each perform for their departed — especially the unbloody Sacrifice availing the highest degree — which each offers particularly for his relatives that have fallen asleep, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church offers daily for all alike. (Decree XVII).

Notice the emphasis placed by the Confession upon the efficacy of prayers by the priests, masses held for the dead and good works by their living relatives in delivering the departed dead from Hades to the beatific joy in heaven.

33

Catholics really do work hard to escape from purgatory and they used to pay good money, too. Don’t you know about indulgences? It was a way to pay for escaping the punishment of purgatory. (All major credit cards were accepted.) Purgatory was hardly an inconvenient 6-hour stop-over at Salt Lake City on the flight to heaven. The sale of indulgences helped to finance the building of St. Peter’s in Rome and helped bring about the Protestant reformation.

1 Like
34

I’m well aware of the sale of papal indulgences, which was an abuse of power and a legitimate source of concern for the Protestant Reformers.

Indulgences were not originally sold, nor were they designed to be. It was a reprehensible practice by corrupt ecclesiastical officials.

But the point remains that people seek indulgences (not of the paid variety), ostensibly, on the assumption that they are among the saved but will have to go through purgatory post-mortem, so they aspire to lessen their time of purification for whatever (venial) sinful acts they apprehend might prevent them from participating in the joy of heaven immediately after death.

The “punishment” dimension to purgatory was already explained in my quotation from St. Catherine of Genoa above as follows: “the greatest misery of the souls in purgatory is to behold in themselves aught that displeases God, and to discover that, in spite of his goodness, they had consented to it.”

The whole point here, in terms of purgatory, is that we pray for the deceased so that they may attain the beatific vision of God in the Communion of Saints (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1032).

In this respect it is no different from the Orthodox Confession of Dositheus above, as I argued earlier.

To be honest, I’m not particularly interested in engaging in apologetics on behalf of Catholicism since I completely respect Protestant criticisms of the purgatory doctrine, anyway. I’m not interested in trying to justify it or any other Catholic belief to my Protestant brethren either.

I find intra-Christian doctrinal disputes to be rather tedious affairs, since they are arcane to most ordinary people and far removed from their daily lives.

35

There is no use in sugarcoating purgatory. It is punishment for sin. Sin that apparently the blood of Jesus can’t do anything about. It’s like saying that a colonoscopy without anesthesia is not so bad.

1 Like
36

I’m not sugar-coating it, just explaining to you how many contemporary Catholics understand purgatory, in a similar manner to St. Catherine of Genoa, who is particularly regarded in my Church for her contribution to generations of theological reflection and development of doctrine on the nature and purpose of purgatory.

That you don’t happen to like my understanding of it - and hers - is entirely beside the point that many Catholics do interpret it in this way, myself and the previous Pope Benedict XVI (in his encyclical Spe Salvi) included.

I’m not asking or inviting you to believe in purgatory, merely explaining how your particular slant on it is rather significantly different than mine.

The spiritual, purifying pain and suffering of “beholding in oneself aught that displeases God” in a period of encounter and reflection in an intermediate state following death but prior to beatitude in heaven, and as a preparation for seeing God in his own divine essence unveiled, is no less real simply because it isn’t the same as the kind of external fiery torments you envisage Catholic purgatory as entailing. And this applies in kind to the associated peace that you omit from mention with reference to purgatory.

While they were not discussing purgatory but rather hell, your words bring to my mind a few statements by two well-regarded mystics in my Church:

"…The vengeful God
of wrath and punishment
is a mere fairytale.
It simply is the Me
that makes me fail.

God stands far above the anger,
rage and indignation
ascribed to Him by primitive imagination

All heaven’s glory is within
and so is hell’s fierce burning.
You must yourself decide
in which direction
you are turning

No evil wills our God. Planned he the sinner’s end
And our unhappiness, he were not God, my friend.

If looking at the sun should rob you of your sight,
That would be fault of eyes, and not of the great light…"

  • Angelus Silesius (1624 - 1677), Polish-German Catholic mystic & poet

“…The common belief about God, that He is a great Taskmaster, whose function is to reward or punish, is cast out by perfect love; and in this sense the spiritual man does divest himself of God as conceived of by most people…”

  • Blessed Henry Suso (c. 1296-1366), German Catholic mystic & Dominican priest
37

I had forgotten how inconsistent some Church writings on such things are:

[a] We believe that the souls of those that have fallen asleep are either at rest or in torment, according to each hath wrought.
(Okay… fair enough)

[b] For when they are separated from their bodies, they depart immediately either to joy or to sorrow and lamentation; though confessedly neither their enjoyment nor condemnation are complete.
(So, after having fallen asleep, they are experiencing either joy or sorrow … while they are sleeping. So this Joy or Sorrow is like a dream or a nightmare?)

[c] For, after the common resurrection, [which comes after a time of being asleep either at rest or in torment[
when the soul shall be united with the body, with which it had behaved itself well or ill, each shall receive the completion of either enjoyment or of condemnation. (In Heaven or in Hell.)

[d] [Those] … involved in mortal sins have not departed in despair but have, while still living in the body, repented, though without bringing any fruits of repentance — by pouring forth tears, by kneeling while watching in prayers, by afflicting themselves, by relieving the poor, and in fine by showing forth by their works their love towards God and their neighbor, and which the Catholic Church hath from the beginning rightly called satisfaction — of these and such like the souls depart into Hades… (those guilty of mortal sins, who have demonstrated merit through righteous behavior go to Hades, but …)

[e] But they are aware of their future release from thence, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness through the prayers of the priests and the good works which the relative of each perform for their departed — especially the unbloody Sacrifice availing the highest degree — which each offers particularly for his relatives that have fallen asleep, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church offers daily for all alike. (Decree XVII).
(this is about earthly intercessions to shorten one’s time in Hades after the General Resurrection).

@Vouthon

Where’s the part about purgatory?

38

The description of a certain group of people in “Hades” in the Orthodox Confession involves them being “delivered” from it into heaven “by the Supreme Goodness through the prayers of the priests and the good works which the relative of each perform for their departed”, referring in this case to people who aren’t damned to hell but “were involved in mortal sins [but] have not departed in despair but have, while still living in the body, repented, though without bringing any fruits of repentance”…umm, which is basically purgatory and purification after death to enter heaven pretty much in a nutshell, only Orthodox-style with their own particular slant on the afterlife.

It need not be explicitly called purgatory or have utilized the exact same images, or indeed chronology, as in Latin theology to be essentially comparable. Many Eastern Orthodox theologians have recognized that this article is basically akin to Catholic purgatory, differences aside.

Btw there is no Hades after the general resurrection in Orthodoxy. It’s an intermediate state prior to the Last Judgement.

39

I see… I was confused there.

I thought the big paragraph was from the Roman Catholic view… now I understand that it is Eastern Orthodox…and in various ways comparable to sections of the Roman Catholic theology.

Thank you for your clarification, @Vouthon

40

No worries, glad I was able to clarify it for you!

41

I’m not saying I don’t like your understanding. It’s fine. After all, plenty of modern Catholics would also like to see married priests, female priests, and an acceptance of artificial birth control. But when I’m talking about Purgatory, I’m speaking of the traditional Roman Catholic understanding of it. It’s not a secret. Anybody can go to the Catholic Encyclopedia and look up the entry on purgatory. Or better yet, talk to a priest or a research librarian. If your own understanding is different, that’s fine. Even C.S. Lewis, who wasn’t even a Catholic, believed in a kind of purgatory, comparing it to taking of dirty clothes. As for me, I don’t even believe in Purgatory at all.

Is your vision of purgatory in discussion at official Roman Catholic / Eastern Orthodox talks?

2 Likes