The question of why God required to sacrifice himself for man is one of the richest theological questions in Christianity. Let’s look at why Jesus gave himself up as a Sacrifice of Atonement for our sins.

MAN’S NATURAL STATE- AGENCY & PURPOSE

We begin in the first part with a general look at anthropology and whether we can make some sense of man’s place in the Universe.

Hopefully Unhappy

Of all creatures, it is only human beings that do not know their purpose and need to perform the exercise of “finding” it, and always with varying results. Humans are all seeking something without knowing what it is, and that thing they call “happiness”. Humans are not necessarily always conscious of having a purpose, but they are vertainly conscious of wanting to reach a certain state of the perfection of satisfaction which they call the state of being “happy”. So we can say that man porposes the movement from unhappiness to happiness. This provides the motive for all human acts, in however misdirected a manner it might be. So that’s a rough sketch of man’s mental make-up in terms of what drives him along the journey of a rational being. It is simple based on this to see that a journey that is imsdirected does not produce the desired end of hapiness while that journey that pursues that which truly satisfies does. In a truly philosophical argument though, it is only possible to hypothesise that such a thing even exists as “the thing that truly satisfies”. In our religous argument however, we discuss one that we believe does so. In the sense that all are searching for happiness, it is also true to state that all humans are unhappy. What assuages the universal state of unhappiness is that which is called “hope”, which is a virtue. The quest for happiness must involve every aspect of one’s life, since parts of one’s life left unhappy will simply hinder any happiness gained by other parts. Thus the quest for happiness is pervasive, including the whole of man’s being, one does not journey without being completely present. Finally, the quest for happiness must involve every aspect of one’s life, since parts of one’s life left unhappy will simply hinder any happiness gained by other parts. Thus the quest for happiness is pervasive, including the whole of man’s being, since one does not journey without being completely present on it.

Natural Purpose

“Evolutionism” or “Darwinism” if taken literally and as a sufficient explanation of natural biology would mean that the purpose of life is life itself. When life asks itself why it is alive, the answer it receives is “so that it can live” or perhaps as it can be worded for presentation at a scientific conference: “for the preservation of the genome”. We become like St. Paul’s “boxers beating the air” (1 Cor 9:26) The object of life is the same as its subject, if “Darwinism” is to be believed as self-explanatory. 

But to propose a theory is to propose a “mechanism” or “means” whereby something is achieved by and for some other thing. The only thing on the beginning of Evolution is physical substances, an undifferentiated mass of elements and heat, representative of the whole Universe. Evolution then becomes a means whereby the unthinking Universe achieves and accomplishes sentience, or consciousness, not singly, but as multiple disparate individual loci of sentience (consciousness). That incredible first atom which in its infinity contained the whole Universe, and yet not a single thought, had to rely on biological evolution to develop loci of thought. There cannot in any of this be any purpose, at least not as applies to that initial atom (I’m speaking of the so-called Big Bang singularity). Purpose cannot apply to the unthinking. Purpose begins with sentience.

The purpose of a human being must necessarily be identical to the purpose of every other human being, for were this not true then we would have to write a separate essay for every individual, which would be absurd, and also did the purpose of some individuals supersede others then some individuals would only serve the purpose of others, and I would be writing a book on slavery! So we have two pre-conditions, first that the purpose of every individual is the same, and second, that the purpose cannot be an individual. It must lie outside all individuals. Purpose is either the gene pool, or else it is something beyond everything else.

Transcendence and Emptiness

If there was ever a good coin analogy, then it is the question of purpose, for the lack of purpose is despair, and it is a despair that hasn’t dimmed over the ages. If ancient man looked up with terror at the thundering skies, then modern man has the entire Universe to be terrified of. This quest is the unique portion of a conscious, sentient and self-aware being, and the human organism, it is a question that defines humanity.

Robert Bolt says in the introduction to his play, “A Man for all Seasons”, “When we ask ourselves “What am I?” we may answer “ I am a man” but are conscious that it’s a silly answer because we don’t know what kind of thing that might be(…) if we are anything. But if anything, then nothing, and it is not everyone who can live with that, though it is our true present position. Hence our willingness to locate ourselves from something that is certainly larger than ourselves, the society that contains us. But society can only have as much idea as we have what we are about, for it has only our brains to think with, And the individual who tries to plot his position by reference to our society finds no fixed points, but only the vaunted absence of them, ‘freedom’ and ‘opportunity’: Freedom for what, opportunity to do what, is nowhere indicated.”

A colleague once remarked that one does not require Faith to be amazed by the world and the Universe around us. “Yes!”, I answered “But is it amazing enough?” Beauty is only beautiful in comparison with something that is not, or is ugly. What is it in nature that is beautiful, or what makes nature beautiful? The very beauty of nature can be oppressive. One might find the view from the top of a cliff stunning as long as one has not ascended with the aim of jumping off it, and the vastness of space can be awe-inspiring as long as one hasn’t run out of air.

In order to know what our purpose is, we need to know who we are. How does man experience him/herself? Karl Rahner says: “In the fact that man raises analytical questions about himself and opens himself to the unlimited horizons of such questions, he has already transcended himself and every conceivable element of such an analysis or of an empirical reconstruction of himself. In doing this he is affirming himself as more than the sum of such analysable components of his reality. Precisely this consciousness of himself, this confrontation with the totality of his conditions, and this very being-conditioned show him to be more than the sum of his factors (…) a finite system cannot confront itself in its totality” (FCF, 29)

Thus Rahner makes the assertion that man is “greater than the sum of his parts”, and that he is simply not amenable to empirical analysis (we have already described how empiricism fails as a description of reality in the first section). In the case of man, we simply cannot define him. Rahner goes on to make the startling insight that man is “a being with in infinite horizon”. As he says: “Man can place everything in question. In his openness to anything and everything, whatever can come to expression can be at least a question to him. In the fact that he affirms the possibility of a merely finite horizon of questioning, this horizon is already surpassed. And man shows himself to be a being with an infinite horizon (…) the infinite horizon of human questioning is experienced as a horizon which recedes further and the further the more answers man can discover (…) every goal that he can point to in knowledge and in action is always relativized, is always a provisional step. Every answer is just the beginning of a new question (…) he necessarily places every sought after result in question. He always situates it in a broader horizon which looms before him in its vastness.” (Rahner, FCF,pg.)

Man, although in a shadowy, impoverished and vague sense is able to conceive of infinity. Of course that is not to way that he can command the boundaries of an infinite storehouse of knowledge. Man is “aware” of infinity, but experiences it mainly as a question.  Josef Pieper states:

“…the boundlessness of man’s craving for happiness, a boundlessness which can almost be terrifying, and which apparently, only dreams and fairy tales can fulfil. That craving remains inspite of all forms of the “despair of weakness”, that despair which means that we do not want to be ourselves …having a good time because tomorrow we’ll all be dead”- all these secularised formulas represent, if they are conceived or sought as ultimate goals, varieties of loss and despair (…) the finite spirit, by the very fact that it is spirit, is related to the whole of reality. It is required by its nature to deal with everything that is, with the totality of being, of truth, of good. But this means that the finite spirit by virtue of its essence is unquenchable and insatiable- unless it partakes of God” (p.40). He further dwells upon the question of what it is that Human beings “hunger” for and states “he ancients conceived the whole energy of the human state as a hunger. Hunger for what? For being, for undiminished actuality, for complete realisation- which is not attainable in the individual’s isolated existence, for it can only be secured by taking into the self the universal reality. Hunger is directed toward the real universe, and the universe in its literal sense, toward the whole of being, toward everything that exists…” (Happiness and Contemplation p.64)

Free Will, Agency and Responsibility

Morality is the capacity to choose one thing over another thing and therefore a sense of free choice is inherent to it. Choice can only exist in a Universe in which things have differing values for were it not so, and all things equal or equivalent in value, choice could only be illusory. In such a Universe in fact, all would in fact be both valueless and meaningless. Morality is choosing those things that are meaningful.

As real and autonomous, man is a moral agent, so also he can love: “Insofar as man is a transcendent being, he is confronted by himself, is responsible for himself, and hence is person and subject. For it is only in the presence of the infinity of being (…) that an existent is in a position and has a standpoint from out of which he can assume responsibility for himself (Rahner FCF, 34)

God does not create what is really only but part of Him, for this would not be creation at all, for God exists already. God is a successful creator and competently creates what is really different from Him. Thus man has true “individuality” in that he is created as truly “individuated”. Man can only be responsible if he can consider and call into question the entirety of himself, (something in legal parlance that would be called “capacity”). This capacity to step out of himself and place the whole of himself under the scrutiny of himself is in neuroscience best described as “agency”. Man only has capacity and responsibility inasmuch as he can view himself as an agent, an entity that can be called into question that is himself and all of himself. As in Kierkegaard’s famous formula of the self, “the self is that which relates the self to itself”.

Karl Rahner writes that it is precisely in our difference that lies our autonomy and freedom, and yet we are dependent because what is different on God is dependent upon God as the term of his existence. “…by the very fact that God establishes the creature and its difference from himself, the creature is a genuine reality different from God, and not mere appearance behind which God and his own reality hide. (…) We and the existents of our world really and truly are different from God (…) Creation is the only and unique and incomparable mode which (…) both retains it as its creation and sets it free in its own autonomy…” (FCF 78, 79).

Fr. Rahner says that by this “transcendence”, by which we mean that man is laid open to an infinite vista in his subjective experience,  “…we mean also and just as much transcendence of freedom, of willing and of love. This transcendence which is constitutive of the subject as a free and personal subject of action with an unlimited realm of action (…) but is (this transcendence) the condition of possibility for a subject being present to himself and just as basically and originally being present to another subject. But for a subject who is present to himself to affirm freely vis a vis another subject means ultimately to love. Hence when we reflect here upon transcendence as will and freedom, we must also take into account the character of the term and source of transcendence as love. It is a term which possesses absolute freedom, and this term is at work in freedom and in love… (FCF,65) Thus man experiences himself as a responsible agent, by virtue of his agency. Man through his transcendence is laid open to infinity, and at the same time he is not infinity itself, and so he is faced with an infinite question. Everyone is looking for something, and all experience a “yearning” or “longing”, but they don’t know what for. They call this thing “happiness”. No matter how intelligent an animal, all it does is what every other animal does, but better. It is only man who in his intelligence can do what is worst, for him and for all around him. Man can make a highly complex and intelligent choice for evil, man has this authentic choice as the mark of his humanity. We speak more of the Free Will of man in the relevant section.

“I, from where, where, where to, how? This is the whole of philosophy: existence, origin, place, the end, the means.” —Joseph Joubert (1754-1824), Pensées, 12, 1

“This is important: a man who is distant from God is also distant from himself, alienated from himself, and can only find himself by encountering God. In this way he will come back to himself, to his true self, to his true identity.” —Pope Benedict XVI, General Audience, June 30, 2008.

Free Will and Goodness in Man

St Paul says that we must “die with Christ” (Rom. 6) and “be buried with Him” if we are to have any hope at all of life. But this would imply that there is something, if not everything in us that needs to be utterly destroyed, hence the finality of the word chosen by the writer of the Epistle: “die”. Does man have a nature that is intrinsically evil as given to him by God? Man is certainly not the source of all goodness, nor is he the source of knowledge and wisdom. We can therefore state that if there is any “inherent” goodness in man, it is so only inasmuch as he is given the ability “seek” the source of goodness. Inasmuch as man is a being with this ability to seek the Good, man is a “good being”.  And just as man alone able to choose the end for which he is created and his purpose, so also he alone of all animals is able to refuse that end. All animals seek the good for which they are created and so are good, only man is able to choose not to seek the source of good, but to seek himself instead, to be “self-seeking” This is what needs to die in us, and precisely that which man requires saving from, the propensity to seek ourselves, which is sin.

St Thomas describes Free Will thus, as the clear knowledge of the end, and the ability to consciously choose it. It is really the only credible definition of Free Will ever given:

“But those things which have a knowledge of the end are said to move themselves because there is in them a principle by which they not only act but also act for an end. (…) the voluntary is defined not only as having “a principle within” the agent, but also as implying “knowledge.” Therefore, since man especially knows the end of his work, and moves himself, in his acts especially is the voluntary to be found.… it is essential to the voluntary act that its principle be within the agent, together with some knowledge of the end. Now knowledge of the end is twofold; perfect and imperfect. Perfect knowledge of the end consists in not only apprehending the thing which is the end, but also in knowing it under the aspect of end, and the relationship of the means to that end. And such knowledge belongs to none but the rational nature. But imperfect knowledge of the end consists in mere apprehension of the end, without knowing it under the aspect of end, or the relationship of an act to the end. Such knowledge of the end is exercised by irrational animals, through their senses and their natural estimative power…” [STII-1,Q.6,Art.1& 2, co.]

See, while freedom is the ability to choose, yet freedom is not the ability to deny God, since God is the ground for that freedom, every freedom is given to man only in God. And indeed although man does have the capacity to deny God, in doing so, he also denies that which gives him the capacity for freedom- thereby depriving himself of it. We receive freedom, as Fr. Rahner says, in our experience of transcendence as spiritual beings. It is only in man’s experience of infinite transcendence which we have been describing, that he experiences the possibility of knowledge of finite objects and the freedom to choose or deny them subjectively. Man’s transcendence gives him the possibility of categories and thereby knowledge itself, man’s “unlimited transcendence towards being as such and hence indifference toward any particular finite object within the horizon of this absolute transcendence only insofar as this transcendence in every act concerned with a finite object is directed toward the ultimate unity of being as such” (CoF,96) What Fr’ Rahner means is that we are only able to make specific choices because we have an infinite vista. We can define an object as finite because we are aware in some sense of the infinite and this gives us the ability to deny that object which is freedom, or Free Will “God is present unthematically in the very act of freedom as its supporting ground and ultimate orientation (…) furthermore (freedom’s) presence is the condition of such a transcendence that is given always only as the condition of the possibility of categorical knowledge and not my itself alone. One can never go directly towards it (…) it is decisive for the Christian understanding of freedom however, that this freedom is not only made possible by God and is not only related to him as the supporting horizon of freedom of choice in categories, but that it is freedom vis-à-vis God himself. This is the frightening mystery of freedom in the Christian understanding. Where God is understood in categories as merely one reality among others, as one of the many objects of freedom of choice (…) the statement that freedom of choice is choice even with regard to God would present no particular difficulty. That freedom however is freedom vis-a -vis its all supporting ground itself, that in other words is can culplably deny the very condition of its own possibility (…) is the extreme statement about the nature of created freedom (…) this freedom implies the possibility of a yes or no towards its own horizon…” (CoF 96, from TI-VI)

Fr. Rahner writes beautifully about freedom as he continues: “the human person by his freedom of being, is always the incomparable being who cannot be adequately classified into any system and who cannot be adequately subsumed under any one concept. He is in an original sense the untouchable, but therefore also the lonely and insecure, a burden to himself, who cannot by any means “absolve” himself from this once-and-for-all lonely self-being and who can never “unload” himself on others. Hence freedom is also originally not primarily concerned with this or that which one can do or not do. It is not originally the capacity of choosing any object whatsoever or the ability of adopting an individual attitude toward this or that thing. Freedom is rather the freedom of self-understanding, the possibility of saying yes or no to oneself, the possibility of deciding for or against oneself, … Freedom, precisely speaking- is not the possibility of always being able to do something else, the possibility of infinite revision, but the capacity to do something uniquely final…(p103 CoF) (…) Freedom achieves unique and permanent finality…” (109).

Love, on the other hand, is choosing to give our assent to that very term of our transcendence, which is God. The ultimate reality which is God creates man in his autonomy, and also as we have seen, bestows himself upon him. And while it is true that man can reject the very ground of his existence, so also he can assent to it. This assent in freedom is the assent of his whole being toward that transcendent, and because it is the manner of true freedom, the ultimate exercise of one’s freedom is in the acceptance of and assent to man’s transcendent term which is God. Because this is a complete assent in the ultimate exercise of Freedom, it has a finality and permanence to it, or it would not be completely free. Fr. Rahner writes: “The identification of the act of love and the moment of reality in time cannot take place unless we enter into it with our whole heart, our whole soul, our whole mind and strength, that is to say, unless we entirely spend ourselves in this act of loving freedom, making it final and irrevocable. Such an act of love can be attained but rarely, indeed only once, and this forever.”(CoF,112)

St. Paul says in 2 Phil., “Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ…” Jesus seeks not his own but His Father’s Will. Thus our goodness in in seeking the Will of God. That part of our Will that is not for God, lies outside Heaven.  St. Pope John Paul II says:  “…the most significant characteristics of that inner life are the sense of truth and the sense of freedom…truth is a condition of freedom, for if a man can preserve his freedom in relation to the objects which thrust themselves on him…without this activity he would inevitably be determined by them: the goods would take possession and determine totally the character of his actions and the whole direction of his activity. His ability to discover the truth gives man the possibility of self-determination (…)the value of a person is closely bound up with freedom, that which bears the mark not of free commitment, but of determination and compulsion, cannot be acknowledged as love lacks its essential character…a really free commitment of the will is only possible on the basis of truth.” (Love and Responsibility, Ignatius Press p. 115,117)

Sin not only prevents man from doing good, it blinds him also to the very presence of good and to the awareness of its nature. Like an addict in the clutch of a powerful drug, the sinner cannot see any goodness outside the drug rush which becomes his highest attainable good. Why is it that Jesus becoming human helps us to change our sinful ways.

Indeed, “God is the absolute person who stands in absolute freedom vis-à-vis everything he establishes as different from himself (…) God is absolute being, the absolute ground, the absolute mystery, the absolute good, the absolute and ultimate horizon within which human existence is lived out in freedom, knowledge and action”(Rahner FCF,73)

The Debt of Sin, and Redemption from it

To be Saved from Ourselves

Whatever other uncertainties there might exist, we can have certainty in at least one thing: the foolishness of man- one only needs to take a look around. The action of God in man is to turn man away from all else, and to Himself. God “saves” man from himself; there is nothing else that he needs saving from, for it is nothing but himself which keeps him from God. It only requires a cursory look at false religions and religious cults that spirng up to be able to tell that man is so depraved as to seek even God as a means in his selfish pursuit of pleasure, and create religions for this deluded purpose.

This is the correct context for understanding the Messianic Prophecies of the Bible: Israel is to be saved from sins, rather than from their enemies, because it was their sins that separated them from God. God is not one to miss the point of the matter, or administer the cure for the wrong disease! God saves man from being self-serving.

“This purely human person cannot surmise and seize his mission, or God’s will for him, or the idea God has of him, through his own “autonomous” power: man must open up to something that is infused into him from above, something that is laid upon him as a task. Whether he is aware of it or not, this opening up has the quality of prayer. Man must open himself up to the law of the Good and he knows that he is never identical to it. The area between the conscious subject and his ultimate destination is sacred: it is the realm of the divine” (Balthasar, TD3DP p.510)

Thus there is no other meaning of the spiritual life but this, to “put to death our desires for the flesh”. As Paul puts it: Rom. 8:5-8 “For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit^* set their minds on the things of the Spirit.^* To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit^* is life and peace. For this reason the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law—indeed it cannot, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.”

Awareness of Sin, and our Ability for Repentance

Man cannot Comprehend the Magnitude of Sin, so where is repentance? True repentance must match the magnitude of the sin, else it is not repentance at all. Man’s effort at repentance will always be infinitely below the repentance that is required of him. Because sin is committed primarily against holiness and nothing else. The holiness of God is infinite and therefore man’s sin assumes an infinite magnitude. Although this can be written, it cannot be understood. In order to comprehend the enormity of the evil of sin, we would have to be able to comprehend the greatness of the purity of God, the state of fallenness is measured against that which still stands. Jut as we could not know what iron was until we were capable of purifying its ore, or one who has always lived in the polluted city air could not evenknow what clean air is, man’s purity is so far from the purity of God that he cannot comprehend the great evil of even the smallest sin against Him. Not knowing the greatness of the offense, how can any man know if is repentance has been sufficient or that it were even possible to be the case, will he not always fall infinitely short. If a man has felt sorry, but not sorry enough, can this even be called repentance?

Can man even know when he has sinned? On the contrary from teh spiritual standpoint, most men will believe even their sins to be virtues since the impure man cannot comprehend purity. Most sins of man will pass without notice, and even his virtues are tainted by impure motives. This occurs both at a personal level, and also at the level of an entire philosophical construct can be in the dark with regards to the nature of sin.

Thus man is capable neither of perceiving the sin in his actions, nor of repenting of those actions on his own strength and comprehension. Even the acts that man considered virtuous are tainted by impure motives. Thus, the Mercy of God could not possibly be consequent upon man’s repentance, that would be absurd. Rather, God in his infinite Mercy, enables man to come to a comprehension of his own sin, and of God’s own unspeakable Purity, or at least of an appreciation of the infinite divide that separates them. It is only thhrough such an appreciation that that true repentance could ever become possible.

The debt owed is related specifically to the injustice of robbing God of love and obedience due to him, be it in the treatment of his creatures. The debt owed is not proportioned to the dignity of the offender, but to that of the one offended. Killing an innocent child is not the same as the killing of a dangerous drug kingpin. The offence is proportioned to the dignity of the one offended.

The magnitude of the smallest offence against God is infinite, for the innocence and dignity of God is infinite. For a human being to even begin to “pay” for their sin, they would need to undo the damage they perpetrated in the first place, for what else does “payment” mean? A repentant killer for example would have to bring his victim back to life, for that was the loss incurred. Do not victim’s families state at interviews outside the courtrooms “nothing can bring him/her back to us”. This is true, not even the courts and the entire justice system of the country “pay the price” for sin, least of all one man.

St. Aquinas states: “…He properly atones for an offense who offers something which the offended one loves equally, or even more than he detested the offense.” [STIII,Q48,Art.2co.]

Sin is primarily an affront not to man but to God. Sin is the deficit of the love that is rightfully due to God, be it in the manner that we treat his creatures. Therefore sin is an injustice to God first and foremost. We primarily owe to God the debt of love and obedience in love, the violation of this is the basis of sin, and no other. Thus again, no human can “pay for sins”, were we to try, we could only “pay” what we thought they were worth, and sin from arrogance again in thinking that it were enough. This would be analogous to prisoners could pass sentencing upon themselves, and we should have no need for jails, because they would rarely even consider their deeds criminal.

“There is no human work or natural virtue that can dispose us to the gift of righteousness…the reason for this is two-fold. First, we are not able to give ourselves what we don’t have, and we don’t naturally possess elevation to the state of grace, and second, we’re wounded by sin and indisposed to the rightly ordered knowledge of God” -Fr. Petri, Thomistic Institute

“Man was held captive on account of sin in two ways: first of all, by the bondage of sin, because (John 8:34- “everyone who sins is a slave to sin…”) and (2 Peter 2:19- “people are slaves to whatever has mastered them”). Since, then, the devil had overcome man by inducing him to sin, man was subject to the devil’s bondage. Secondly, as to the debt of punishment, to the payment of which man was held fast by God’s justice: and this, too, is a kind of bondage, since it savors of bondage for a man to suffer what he does not wish, just as it is the free man’s condition to apply himself to what he wills….” [STIII Q48, Art.4]

Love Desires Conversion of the Beloved, but Conversion comes at a Price

The Thrice Merciful God is not merely the gate-keeper of Heaven rather He is one who rides out like a Warrior to save his people (Isaiah 42:13). Mercy is not a God who opens his doors to sinners, it is the God who loves those who sin so as to will and enable their conversion (only love wills conversion). Thus the magnitude of Mercy is not merely the degree of difficulty (“price”) involved in overlooking a man’s sins, it is the much greater degree of difficulty involved in converting the sinful man by loving him/her.

Great sin is only converted through great love. This is certain, for love and sin are natural opposites: “But God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us.” (Rom 5:8) This is what the mercy of God consists in, in that he shows mercy to the sinner, when he is still a sinner, not at the time of repenting, for no one can repent unless for mercy first shown. Like a parent that visits their child in jail, God’s mercy is in this that he shows love to the sinner in his/her sin. Love shown in the face of hatred is a sacrifice.

Let us quote at this point the Gospel of Matthew, wherein Jesus, for the first time in the history of humanity introduces with conviction, the concept of the Perfection of God that the believer is called to. Perfection is only possible for the sinful human being, when he has reached that which he is called to, and achieved his calling: perfect union with God.

“But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers and sisters,  what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (5:45-48)

Sin causes great suffering, suffering both for the sinner and for the victim of sin, and God’s great mercy reaches out to both. It is to the great Mercy of God that he truly grieves for his children on Earth, just as an earthly father might. And even as an earthly parent seeks their wayward child in love, and showers their affection in the hope of love returned, so God showers love on the sinner, and the greatest of love, which is death “greater love hath no man than he give his life for his friends”. The gift of everything is the sacrifice of one’s life.

Like the victim that visits their assailant, or the assailant of their loved one in prison, forgiveness of God brings repentance in man that is wrought through love. Love is what converts a sinner, and love always comes at a price. This is the “price to pay” for sin, and thus in order to understand this we have to do not more than to reflect upon the parent that visits their reprobate child in prison, or a family that reaches out in love to their child who has been radicalized. There is no arguing the fact that it indeed cost God a great deal in order to create man from all the villainy that was perpetrated by man and provoked the portentous verse “God regretted it”. It is then hardly a surprise that it would cost God a great deal in order to convert man.

Jesus “died for our sins”. What this means is that by Christ’s death we are made pure: “for our sins” implying “for to remedy our sins”, and therefore for to purify us through love. Thus the concept of “payment for sins” is that which is sacrificed to man by a loving God, rather than that which is sacrificed by man to an angry God, and its purpose is Sanctification- the benefit of man, not of the Deity. And although God requires nothing for himself, yet sacrifice is rightly the “requirement” of God’s Justice, because God owes it to his Justice to right every wrong. It would not be fitting had God left this issues of Sin unresolved.

“…With regard to the work of Salvation: “…this requires a divine Person who has freely entered into a conscious subject and is thus made able to share solidarity with all other (sinful) conscious subjects; indeed he must manifest this solidarity if he is to carry the burden…” (Balthasar p513): the Prince must become a Pauper.

“He properly atones for an offense who offers something which the offended one loves equally, or even more than he detested the offense. But by suffering out of love and obedience, Christ gave more to God than was required to compensate for the offense of the whole human race. First of all, because of the exceeding charity from which He suffered; secondly, on account of the dignity of His life which He laid down in atonement, for it was the life of one who was God and man; thirdly, on account of the extent of the Passion, and the greatness of the grief endured, as stated above (III:46:6). And therefore Christ’s Passion was not only a sufficient but a superabundant atonement for the sins of the human race; according to 1 John 2:2:

“He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world (…) Christ’s love is greater than his slayer’s malice” [III Q.48 Art.2].

St Paul exults:

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies (oiktirmos- compassion, pity [mercy] 5occ.) and the God of all consolation (paraklesis. 29occ.encouragement, comfort), who consoles us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to console those who are in any affliction with the consolation with which we ourselves are consoled by God. For just as the sufferings of Christ are abundant for us, so also our consolation is abundant through Christ. If we are being afflicted, it is for your consolation and salvation; if we are being consoled, it is for your consolation, which you experience when you patiently endure the same sufferings that we are also suffering. Our hope for you is unshaken, for we know that as you share in our sufferings, so also you share in our consolation.” (2Cor.1:3-7)

That the Sacrifice is Flesh

“…And this is a most perfect sacrifice. First of all, since being flesh of human nature, it is fittingly offered for men, and is partaken of by them under the Sacrament. Secondly, because being passible and mortal, it was fit for immolation. Thirdly, because, being sinless, it had virtue to cleanse from sins. Fourthly, because, being the offeror’s own flesh, it was acceptable to God on account of His charity in offering up His own flesh.

Hence it is that Augustine says (De Trin. iv): “What else could be so fittingly partaken of by men, or offered up for men, as human flesh? What else could be so appropriate for this immolation as mortal flesh? What else is there so clean for cleansing mortals as the flesh born in the womb without fleshly concupiscence, and coming from a virginal womb? What could be so favorably offered and accepted as the flesh of our sacrifice, which was made the body of our Priest?” [ST III Q.48 a.3,ad1]

But God’s love for us is this, that although our sins are truly abhorrent, he makes himself subject to that depravity just as we are, suffering its effects as we do. That is why the sacrifice of God is in the Flesh. God our Creator loves his Creation so, that he experiences Creation himself out of this love. Our loving God did nor create that which He would not endure himself. When God created us in love, the Sacrifice of Love is not unknown to His Wisdom.

“Christ’s Passion delivered us from the devil, inasmuch as in Christ’s Passion he exceeded the limit of power assigned him by God, by conspiring to bring about Christ’s death, Who, being sinless, did not deserve to die. Hence Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, cap. xiv): “The devil was vanquished by Christ’s justice: because, while discovering in Him nothing deserving of death, nevertheless he slew Him. And it is certainly just that the debtors whom he held captive should be set at liberty since they believed in Him whom the devil slew, though He was no debtor.” [ST III Q49 Art 2]

St Alphonsus Liguori says in a sermon: “Has not God in fact won himself a claim on all our love? From all eternity he has loved us (…) But he did not wish to give to us only beautiful creatures; the truth is that to win for himself our love, he went so far as to bestow upon us the fulness of himself (…) by giving us his Son, whom he did not spare precisely so that he might spare us, he bestowed on us at once every good: grace, love and heaven…”

“What I learned without self-interest I pass on without reserve: I do not intend to hide her riches. For she is an inexhaustible treasure to men…” Wisdom 7:13.

Finally the author of Hebrews observes that that which is replaced must be of the like kind as that which was lost: “Since, therefore, the children share (κεκοινώνηκεν) flesh and blood, he himself likewise shared (μετέσχεν) the same things, (…)Therefore he had to become like (ὁμοιωθῆναι) his brethren in every respect, so that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest (ἀρχιερεὺς) in the service of God, to make a sacrifice of atonement (ἱλάσκεσθαι- single occ.) for the sins of the people.” (Heb.2:14a,17) The fruit of the Sacrifice of Jesus is that by it “many children may be brought to glory” (Heb.2:10) and in it we may “approach the throne of grace with boldness” (Heb. 4:16).

Why does God die for Sin? the Satisfaction of Justice

So why did God have to die for us rather than “just forgive” the offence it constituted toward himself? Though human words will never encompass the magnitude of divine Wisdom in this loving act, we can certainly draw rich spiritual fruit from contemplating it. We can already see from the above that “just forgiveness” does not remedy the corruption of our souls.

In showing his great love Jesus enables our own conversion, as we have been discussing. This in the first sense constitutes a “philosophical conversion” of our hearts. But that acceptance of God under the aspect of Love constitutes an authentic acceptance, because it is really is God under that loving aspect, and moreover, our hearts are rightly disposed in love to accept him. This authentic acceptance is that which enables the transformation of our souls.

On one hand it might be said that God did not really need to die for the sake of his own Justice, while on the other hand in himself paying the price of all sin, in deigning to be its victim on the Cross, Jesus makes possible that voluntary transformation in us to glory which would be seemingly otherwise impossible. We could not possibly “want to be like God”, so much as having been given God in this sense of having-loved-to-the-end, to imitate.

It might be right to say in a sense that it was not absolutely necessary for God to satisfy his own Justice in this manner, while in another sense, why would God not annihilate injustice in the most fitting and glorious way possible, which is by becoming himself its victim. God gives an infinitely glorious response to the infinity of all the sin of history, and the one prevails over the other, because it is yet infinitely the greater. God “satisfies” justice, and he does so superabundantly. If the visual representation of it, like the movie The Passion of Christ, directed by Mel Gibson is jarring, it is difficult to see how “satisfaction” of something as vile as sin could fail to be jarring. Any concept of satisfaction is bound to be gruelling especially for sinners to contemplate.

Does this then deal with sin in all its aspects? Let us renumerate- we have discussed the offence toward God and how God although some might argue could choose to “do nothing, just forgive” approach to this, actually deems that the manner of satisfaction is to bear the brunt of that offence in concreto, not in mere abstract sense. In doing so, satisfaction is made both for the offence to man as well as for the offence to God. To man, because all though we do not merit anything in and of ourselves, yet God loves us unconditionally and takes every offence against his children personally “the insults of those who insult you fall upon me” (Ps.69:9). God predicates the evil of every sinful offence in the world upon his Person. Think not of ourselves but perhaps a baby that has been abused by their parents or kidnappers- Jesus takes that offense to innocence upon his Person on the Cross.

But more than that, the justice that is due to God is satisfied. Because in Jesus it is true, and only in him, that God’s Commandments and God’s Law is perfectly obeyed, such that not a letter is allowed to fall to the ground, unto death (Phil.2:8). How is justice satisfied in us? in accepting in Faith that we had rejected in sinning- God himself.

We’ve explained everything here that required explanation. When it says in Romans 4:4 “blessed is the man to whom his sin is not imputed/reckoned (λογίσηται- reckon/ consider)” is means exactly what it says, that our sins re forgiven- were they not, they would be considered indeed, which is where they belong in the case of the unforgiven. “For our sakes he who had no sin became sin…” again is beautiful poetry, but it hardly means that the Substance of God became the substance of sin! It could only mean precisely that which we have just described, that Christ became a victim of all the sin in the world, and so also for when it is said “cursed is every man who is hung upon cross” (Gal.3:13).

In Mercy God satisfies Justice Himself, enduring Hatred

“God has done what the law (…) could not do (…) by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us” (Rom. 8:3,4). Fr. Regi Mani says, how tormented we feel by even a single sin of our own. In the Garden, Jesus was given to suffer simultaneously the mental torment of all the sins of the world that have ever been committed. Thus “bearing our sins”, He stood trial before the pharisees and Pilate like a common criminal. He stands in the place of us, who should have been there instead.  In his cry from the Cross “my God, my God why have you forsaken me”, Fr. Mani continues, Jesus is suffering the pain of separation from God that the sinner experiences,  which is caused by his sin and indeed is the worst pain of all. Justice is doing or giving to a person what that person is due. Mercy is on the other hand, is giving to someone what they are not due but rather surpassing it. In Jesus both justice and mercy are fulfilled. Jesus stands between God and us; in Him God’s justice is fulfilled. So what flows from Jesus to us is mercy, He becomes the channel of Divine Mercy.“Consequently he is able for all time to save those who approach God through Him since he always lives to make intercession for us” (Heb.7:25).

God is most merciful, so merciful so as to bear the consequence of the greatest possible affront. But mercy comes at a price to the merciful. The price of an affront against God is infinite, and so also does God in his infinite Mercy pay a price of infinite magnitude. It is senseless to call that mercy which comes at no cost. “The Father’s glory, Christ our light, With love and mercy comes to span, The vast abyss of sin between, The holiness of God and man…”– Morning Prayer in Stanbrook Abbey hymnal.

The Love Engendered is Transformational

Only perfect purity can make it right for us to stand before God, since its lack- impurity is what makes the same impossible. Purification involves pain and some sacrifice, even as impurity is an inability to endure the same. That is, the impure lack the ability to enduring pain and sacrifice in the pursuit of good, just as the pure possess that ability. Heaven will not be filled with those who do not love much.

No human can attain this “right-ness” in and of his own efforts (Pelagianism), for he can never love others as God loves them or us, nor love God as much as we should or as God loves himself. God endures the “deficit” of love himself, in enduring the pain that is caused by it’s lack. Thus God bears the moral consequences of his own decision to create. It is precisely this which answers the question posed by the problem of evil- if God “let evil in” in creating the world, then he let it in upon himself primarily: “even the hairs of your head are all numbered” (Lk.12:7).

“Christ’s Passion is applied to us even through faith, that we may share in its fruits, according to Romans 3:25: “Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood…” (…) thus Christ’s Passion may be applied to us, not only as to our minds, but also as to our hearts. And even in this way sins are forgiven through the power of the Passion of Christ. [STIII Art.1,ad.5]

God will do all he needs to do to purify us, and what he does is give us Jesus. We are acceptable to God through his Mercy if we trust that he loves us enough to do this for us. Yet it may be asked- how is it that God’s acting righteously and in purity transfers onto us and mamkes us pure (what is sometimes called the “imputation” of righteousness)? The love that is engendered in us is the same love with which God loves himself, and with which each of the divine Persons love each other and with which God loves us. We are not simply given to love in this manner in a notional or conceptual sense, on the contrary it is given in a transformational sense. This transformation in love from within, womething for which there does not exist any human analogue, is only possible if we accept Jesus’ Sacrifice for us on Love. Finally, you might hear the objection that it is not fitting that one man suffer in the place of another. This is one of the weaker objections that can be made because indeed, we do willingly suffer for our loved ones and try to make up for their shortcomings all the time, this is a natural loving instinct. The sentiment is that through our actions they might experience an inner conversion themselves. This and nothing else is precisely the sentiment at the heart of the Atoning Sacrifice that expiates our sins.

The Right Worship of God

Finally at the culmination of this discussion of God’s action in man, we might be able to say that through it, man is truly able to offer “right worship” to God, which is the object and purpose of creation. As Pope Benedict XVI says,

“Thus in his body, “ a new obedience becomes possible, an obedience that surpasses all human fulfilment of the commandments…to put it another way, our own morality is insufficient for the for the proper worship of God.” (JoN, p.235) He notes that while animal sacrifice that could only ever have been a symbol for “It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” (Heb. 10:4).  “true priesthood is therefore ministry of word and sacrament that transforms people into an offering to God” (p 238). “The Son becomes man and in his body bears the whole of humanity back to God” (p 235). Jesus himself renounces every worldly consideration on the Cross. He teaches us and enables us to be like God through the imitation of Him.

Fr. Rahner therefore gives this beautiful definition of Christianity:

“Christianity is the assent on the part of the whole community (church) formulated and held explicitly by that community to the absolute mystery which exercises an inescapable power in and over our existence, and which we call God. It is our assent to that mystery as pardoning us and admitting us to share in its own divinity; it is that mystery as imparting itself to us in a history shaped by our own free decisions as an intelligent being; and this self-bestowal of God in Jesus Christ manifested itself as finally and irrevocably victorious in history” (pg.45 CoF).

Why Sacrifice, why not “Just Forgive”?

You will hear the objection from faiths that do not have the doctrine of Christian atonement as: “no one can pay for your sins but you”, and thus our reply would be that in fact “no one can pay for your sins, not even you. If there is a payment to be made, only God can even comprehend what it is” But if it is the concept of vicarious atonement per sethat is being questioned, then the concept itself is certainly not hard to grasp: parents bear the physical burdens of their children all day long and all the night long, as an example. It would seem that our Spiritual Father in Heaven would help us to bear our spiritual needs, and much more than our imperfect and sinful earthly parents. That burden if there is indeed a burden, is the burden of sin, either that or there is no burden at all. The Truth is this: if Jesus did not carry our burdens, the whole world would be in Hell Whoever rejects him cannot be saved, because you have rejected God. It’s very simple. We need God: if this assertion is true, then it is Jesus who is the help which God sends. “Helping”, “carrying our burdens” is the same thing. If we reject Jesus, we reject the help of Go, and our burden remains. Similarly, another objection is that God did not require to do “any of this”, again referring to the Christian atonement. The problem here again is that we cannot do anything, and in fact God, on the contrary needs to do “all of this”. We are to be saved from ourselves, not by ourselves.

We cannot possibily know if there was another way to save us, for we can barely even comprehend the way in which he has done it in the first place! And were we to consider the fact that the means God chose involved nothing but undergoing pain himself, what exaxctly is the complaint? For the suffering that we endure is caused by us, not God, but the suffering of God was caused by us too. Had God done nothing, all the suffering of man would have continued unabated and enhanced, yet in the means that God devised for our Salvation, He increased none but his own suffering, and provided the greatest means of lessening the suffering in the worldby inspiration through it. The objection that an omnipotent God must be able to forgive without requiring to sacrifice himself is incorrectly framed. Omnipotence is the ability to do something and God is able to purify us in whatever manner he chooses and thinks best. God does not need anything external to himself in order to accomplish this, hence again there is no violation of omnipotence.

The power of God’s Love on the Cross is greater than the power that fear and the sword hold over man, and what it accomplishes is that which the latter two can not: It purifies Man from sin. A religion that only looks to convert at all costs, ignores the soul that requires conversion in the first place. Only Love is pure, hence only love is the cure for sin. So the omnipotent God does forgive sin, and this is how he does it. Where’s the problem? Is it that sinners don’t LIKE how it’s done? Isn’t it obvious that sinners would not like the thing that prevents them sinning?

Are a family’s problems solved when a wife forgives the cheating of her husband? Of course not. Without purification, forgiveness does not benefit the recipient, rather a forgiving spirit is the fruit of purity.

St Thomas in III Q.46, Art.2 first comments on why Jesus’ Atoning Sacrifice was not necessary for the angels:

“the sin of the angels was irreparable; not so the sin of the first man (I,Q.64,A.2 Rep.3)”

Further, although Christians say that the Crucifixion satisfied for God’s Justice, yet:

“…if He had willed to free man from sin without any satisfaction, He would not have acted against justice…He is the sovereign and common good of the whole Universe. Consequently, if He forgave sin, which has the formality of a fault in that it is committed against himself, He wrongs no one”

He goes on to discuss the reasons why God deemed this a fitting remedy:

“…In the first place, man knows thereby how much God loves him, and is thereby stirred to love Him in return, and herein lies the perfection of human salvation; hence the Apostle says (Romans 5:8): “God commendeth (NRSV: “proves”, NIV: “demonstrates”) his charity towards us; for when as yet we were sinners . . . Christ died for us.” [Art.3] Secondly, because thereby He set us an example of obedience, humility, constancy, justice, and the other virtues displayed in the Passion, which are requisite for man’s salvation. Hence it is written (1 Peter 2:21): “Christ also suffered for us, leaving you an example that you should follow in His steps.” Thirdly, because Christ by His Passion not only delivered man from sin, but also merited justifying grace for him and the glory of bliss…” (This is discussed in the next paragraph)

When it is asked: “How could God possibly let His Son suffer etc etc?” such a  question simply does not take the end into account, an end that transcends any end conceived of in any other tradition that God plans for man in love.

Fourthly, because by this man is all the more bound to refrain from sin, according to 1 Cor. 6:20: “You are bought with a great price: glorify and bear God in your body.” Fifthly, because it redounded to man’s greater dignity, that as man was overcome and deceived by the devil, so also it should be a man that should overthrow the devil; and as man deserved death, so a man by dying should vanquish death. Hence it is written (1 Corinthians 15:57): “Thanks be to God who hath given us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.” (he adds in Rep. Obj.3 “This was also a fitting means of overthrowing the pride of the devil, “who is a deserter from justice, and covetous of sway…It was accordingly more fitting that we should be delivered by Christ’s Passion than simply by God’s good-will.”

In St Thomas’ elucidation of the Temptation of Christ he says wonderfully:

“Christ came to destroy the works of the devil, not by powerful deeds, but rather by suffering from him and his members, so as to conquer the devil by righteousness, not by power; thus Augustine says (De Trin. xiii) that “the devil was to be overcome, not by the power of God, but by righteousness…” [STIII Q41 Art.1 ad.2] “Let us test him…so that we may find out how gentle he is.” (Wisdom 3:19) Evil is conquered by the gentleness of our God, that gentleness on the Cross which is “to those who are being saved, the power of God” (Cor 1:18) “But, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 1), by the mystery of the Incarnation are made known at once the goodness, the wisdom, the justice, and the power or might of God–“His goodness, for He did not despise the weakness of His own handiwork; His justice, since, on man’s defeat, He caused the tyrant to be overcome by none other than man, and yet He did not snatch men forcibly from death; His wisdom, for He found a suitable discharge for a most heavy debt; His power, or infinite might, for there is nothing greater than for God to become incarnate . . .”

The Simple Economy of Salvation: Garbage out, God in

Christianity proposes to be a true bridge from man to God, one that truly bridges the chasm between creature and Creator. After all this is the meaning of religion itself: to “relate”. And this mutual sacrifice is the manner in which we might have a relationship with God, for are not all relationships based on sacrifice, and a relationship be impossible without it? “…God is not far from anyone in respect of space, but by condition.”-Venerable Bede, Commentary on the Letter of Saint James, Ch.4, PL 9. In the imitation of Christ’s life, we join ourselves to Christ’s own Sacrifice, and it is therefore the “SAME PERFECT SACRIFICE” (Mal.1:11, Rom.12:1) as his own. The Will of God is this, that “you shall the love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your strength”. And in this perfect giving of ourselves to God with Christ, we are also enabled to perfectly receive God. This is the fullness of “participation in God”, being as St. Paul says “filled with the fullness of God” (hina perothete eis pan to pleroma tou Theou) and again “…And to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, so that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.” (Ephesians 3:19,20). The indwelling of God in us cannot fail to transform us into the very image of God (2Cor.3:18) so that we may “participate in the divine nature” (2Pet.1:4), even through prior to any such action, we could never even have conceived of such a state or even teh possibility of it: “Now to him who by the power at work within us is able to accomplish abundantly far more than all we can ask or imagine” Eph 3:20

“…having been made perfect (through suffering and obedience- my addition), he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him…” (Hebrews 5:9). God could not suffer as God, but as Man, he suffered and thus “was made perfect” “because of his “reverent submission”. In obedience to God therefore, we too are “made perfect” through suffering. In Christ, we happen to have a God who “IS LOVE” (1Jn.4:8) and as love, “POURS HIMSELF” (Rom. 5:5) into us, a participation, when we as recipient vessels desire none but him through Faith.

“…is still the God of the Old covenants. The God who has always been sending forth his word and his Spirit (and without God’s word and his Spirit, no covenant with man would have been possible). But the Word had not yet definitively stepped over to man’s side to be recognisable as a  divine Person, and the Spirit that rested on man had not finally penetrated his heart (this remained a prophecy)…so that it could be experienced as an infallible, divine cry of prayer coming from the depths of his heart (…) Christians are admitted to the “marvellous light” (1 Pet2:9) of him in whom “are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col2:3). They “have received” the Spirit who “searches everything, even the depths of God” and knows the thoughts of God” so that they “may understand the gifts bestowed on us by God” (1Cor2:10-12). This means that it is possible to have infinite progress with the New Covenant: the Fathers (Irenaeus, Gregory of Nyssa. Augustine) frequently speak of it….ever-deeper insight into the profound mystery of God…” with all the saints” into the dimensions of “the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God” (Eph 3:18f”) (Balthasar TD3, p.514)

The imitation of Christ is an imitation and thereby a participation in the very Love of the Son for the Father, which is the Life of God itself (1Jn. 4:8,16). In opening ourselves to the divine Virtues, through the negation of self in the denial of all, and to the point of the loss of everything, we are able to receive those virtues, leaving no obstacle in our hearts to their receipt. That is really the simplicity of the equation, or the “economy” of Salvation: garbage out of our hearts (Phil.3:8), God into it. This is how God enables us to participate in his own Virtues which is his own Life, “God is Love”: “for the love of God is poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which is given us” (Rom.5:5).

GOD GIVEN TO US AS LOVE

The Mercy and Romance of Creation and Redemption

God’s message to man is Gods’ great love for the World. God’s existence is evident from the existence of Love. God brings to those suffering the greatest comfort, which is the comfort of being truly loved. God brings his loving comfort both to those who are truly hated and to those who hate truly.

“One who has been tempted in every way as we are, yet without sin….” (Heb.4:15)- Jesus in his humanity suffers every suffering of the human state. The expression of Mercy is a true expression, that is given by God who is truly merciful– this is the Sacrifice of God and this is why God had to die. Man is saved not merely because he believes God can be, rather faced with the truth of God’s infinite goodness, mercy and love, he is brought face to face with the true depths of the abyss of sin, and so to the possibiilty of true repentance.

“Here, it is how the Three Divine Persons looked at all the plain or circuit of all the world, full of men, and how, seeing that all were going down to Hell, it is determined in Their Eternity, that the Second Person shall become man to save the human race, and so, the fullness of times being come, They sent the Angel St. Gabriel to Our Lady…” -St Ignatius of Loyola, Spiritual Exercises, contemplation on the Incarnation.

Thus true Faith is believing in a merciful God, while disbelief is not merely the rejection of an acstract possibility, but rather the rejection of every possibility of Love and Mercy itself. But true mercy is the ability to suffer loss for love (Phil 2:6-8). God cradles sinners in his outstretched arms upon the Cross, in that same merciful love with which he cradles us since our birth, so to be cradled in his Beauty in the Everlasting and to Everlasting. “Love it was that made us, and it was Love that Saved Us”: This wonderful refrain has remained with me from a very early age. It succinctly encapsulates both the secret of our creation and that of our redemption, and the fact that they are the same. Creation “ex nihilo”, impressive as the phrase is, is in fact the driest possible description of Creation. Ex nihilo creation is a negative assertion, it merely indicates that God did not create creation out of creation, saying nothing about how God did create. The answer to that is “out of love”.

Now every dramatic “love story” has two halves- the part that’s pleasant, and the part that’s not. Put simply, because it really is simple, the part that involves receiving feels pleasant, while the part that involves sacrificing and giving feels hard. These used to be quite well represented in the old Bollywood movies I watched in the cinema in my childhood where the two halves of the movie were separated by an interval. Invariably all the comedy and courtship happened in the first half, (making me really want to stay) and all the trial and tribulation in the second (making me want to leave, because it became overwrought, predictable and terribly unlikely. But the first half of a romance consists of “courtship”, while in the second, the relationship stands the test of time. All the drama of the stories ever written in the world put together are far exceeded by the drama of God creating human beings “in his image and likeness” and forging His covenant with them in the OT, and then dramatic keeping it in the NT “in his blood”. God courts us in the first part, and then God’s love stands the test of time, that’s the hard part.

But in the sacrifice of a parent for their child, the sacrifice takes place even before the child is born, and before the child is conceived in the womb, for before any of that takes place, the child is conceived and accepted in the mind of the parent, and future sacrifices are contemplated and in a measure, accepted, inasmuch as it is possible to do so in a dim and semi-aware sense. The sacrifice has already begun, a sacrifice that the offspring cannot bring about themselves, because it is not their prerogative to effect, or even to accept. To use the analogy from Creation again, our creation even in a biological sense was not complete when we left our mother’s womb, even though we were a fully formed babe. (Rom 8:21). There is much more “formation” that will come in the years of nurturing, instruction and example of and by our parents.

This is why we simply do not see Creation simply as an outburst of activity, but rather a dramatic outburst of loving creativity. Creation brought us forth, but it also engendered all the great drama of life, because there was drama inherent in the act itself. God in a dramatic loving decision, freely chooses to give life to those very persons who would slay Him. The pinnacle of drama is sacrifice, this is why we have discussed the Creation in this unlikely place. Few are really appreciative of what went into bringing the forth into existence. As a parent might say to their children “You’ll never know what it took to bring you forth, and you’ll never know what it took to raise you up.”

Jesus faced the same injustice that every man faces, when he died, for inflicted suffering is a gross injustice. Is it really that hard to accept that God would show to a crazy world rife with injustice the true meaning of Life, by suffering for another’s sake? After all, self-sacrifice is the opposite of injustice. Thus the Christian paradigm yields a deity who rather than express an abstract discomfiture with suffering, rather is the concrete reality of one that does the utmost to put an end to it. That’s how easy it is to understand the Christian nature of God, or rather, that’s how easy he makes it for us. The Atoning Sacrifice accords the Greatest Glory to God; through this God receives his full due, both from himself and through him through us, the Atoning Sacrifice of Christ truly accords to God the greatest glory possible.

Even the OT speaks of Fulfilment in God’s Presence

Even in the OT, devotion to God is merely to “be in God’s Presence”, to worship, to serve…if you read the Psalms. there’s no notion of “I’m coming to enjoy the physical stuff”, that’s not really an onus. In the NT, going through to John, the focus is on achieving oneness with God, which is the theme that continues through St. Paul’s writings, of being “in Christ”, transformation “into the image” of God (2 Cor. 3:18), participating in the life of God (2 Pet 1:4). You can Even see the scene as it plays out in Revelations where the activity is worship singing praise, prostrating before God. There’s no ongoing biological activity. Jesus effectively contradicts any interpretation of angels as sexual creatures in mark 12:25. The whole “sons of God” incident is a one-off in Genesis 6, it doesn’t really colour Christian theology in the manner that the sexual jinn colour Muslim metaphysical universe (even Muslims believe angels are sexual creatures, they don’t even have free will for you, how are they supposed to consent? Yes we will have bodies, but not necessarily sexual.

There is not a single verse in the Bible that talks about the quality of the food or the scenery or the women. Read the Beatitudes in three Gospels and tell me what you find: “Blessed are the pure in Heart, for they shall SEE God”. God alone is enough. What does Jesus say “that my Joy might be in you so that your JOY might be complete” (Jn 15:11). God himself is our joy “that my joy might be in you”, “completing” our joy. “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Enter into the joy of your master!’”(Matt 25:21) Even in the Psalms of King David this comes through clearly “In the Lord’s own house shall I dwell all the days of my life” (Ps 23) or “One thing I asked of the LORD, that will I seek after: to live in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the LORD, and to inquire in his temple.” (Ps 27:4)

The primary function of religion is purity, and this is the manner in which it is fulfilled in the Christian faith. All else in religion that does not take this movement toward purity into account is truly the material of empty ritual and superstition, and the target of the rightful derision of those that do not believe in God.

God gives Himself as a Grace and Revelation

Through the “offer” of God to man, it is made possible for man to offer Himself to God. In this sense, the first to sacrifice is not of man but God, in the act of Revealing himself, and even before, in the act of Creating us. By it, man is made able himself to sacrifice. Thus we see how there is a two-way sacrificial act. Sacrifice is the giving of oneself or something that is part of oneself to another. Man could never give himself to God, did God not first give Himself to man. It is not man that invented the art of giving but the trinitarian Deity in the eternal act of total self-giving of the Three Persons mutually, thus God alone is truly “High Priest” and in him man might be a priest at all. That is the primordial “sacrifice” on which all the economy of Creation and Redemption is aligned because it is the type of the Deity himself.

Christianity’s is true religion inasmuch as in it God is truly made “approachable” (Heb.4:16 proserchometha…meta parresias). Thus the prophets did not primarily prophesy the arrival of more prophets but the arrival of God. In Christ, God Himself is given to man as the “Way” (Jn 14:6). Thus Christianity rather than the revelation of a communication detatched from the deity, rather is the revealing of the Deity himself. Christianity is God’s gift of Himself to the world. In Karl Rahner’s words, in Christianity “the Gift is the same as the Giver”. Christianity does not merely reveal God’s advice, but the reveals God.

Man can have no purity without an authentic experience of God. That authentic experience of God for men is none other than Jesus. No man can experience transcendence, after all that is the reason it is called that in the first place and yet in the God-Man bridges transcendence and immanence this is made possible. The great Mercy of God is evident to man in his great and voluntary descent from the very Heights of the Heavenly Throne where he is eternally worshipped by the most magnificent of creatures, down to the ignominy and abject humiliation from th basest of his creatures. The manner in which God is treated in the latter case, then is a reflection of the manner in which creatures receive love and goodness in their natural state. All the Glory of God is given to man in Human form as only God can give it: in humility, secrecy and perfect peace. By doing this, God saves us from the temptation of not wanting to be like him and share in his life, our natural inclination to reject true love.

God does not reveal mere words on a page but rather he reveals himself. So also God does not merely “send help”, but He himself is “sent”. This is the basis of the Christian doctrine of Grace. Jesus constitutes God’s grace for us, God became Man as a Grace for us, and no other reason. Prof. Jessica Murdoch notes in a lecture at the Thomistic Institute, that when Jesus says that he will give to us “living water”: “Non living water is not connected to its source. We find this water after the rains collected into ponds and cisterns. But living water is connected to its source and flows from it. The Grace of God is called “living water” because Grace is given to us in such to us in such a way that the source of the grace is also given….” She also quotes Romans 5:5 “the love of God is poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us”.

We have already written about how God gives us himself, and not just words on a page. The beginning of this great romance of God with His creature, indeed like any good love story, begins- with introductions. Pope Benedict XVI says that it is in revealing His name, “which is a name and non-name”, a giving and at the same time a refusing to give a name, that God makes himself accessible to us, and at the same time marks himself off from the pagan “earthy” gods with human names that surround Israel. At the same time he remarks, (p.143):

“a name creates the possibility of address of invocation. It ucreates a relationship…God…puts himself within reach of our invocation…He has made himself accessible and therefore vulnerable as well…The process that was brought to completion in the Incarnation had begun with the giving of the divine name. When we come to hear Jesus’ high-priestly prayer we will see that he presents himself there as the new Moses: “I have manifested thy name to…men” (Jn17:6). What began at the burning bush at the Sinai desert comes to fulfilment at the burning bush of the Cross. God has now made himself accessible in his incarnate Son…the name of God can now be misused and so God himself can be sullied.”

It is God who stoops from across the infinite chasm, because He is God. The first two words of the Lord’s Prayer, as Pope Benedict quotes Reinhold Schneider: “The Our Father begins with a great consolation: we are allowed to say ‘Father’. This one word contains the whole history of Redemption”. God’s great and unexplained desire to live in the midst of His people (Lev 26:11-12, Jer 32:38, Is 52 11,12, Cor 16:17,18). In true religion, God is no more revealed as a blinding light of obscurity as in the past (Heb. 12:18-21, 2 Cor3:15) but rather as that Light presented temporally in history “…a body you have prepared for me…” (Heb.10:5).

Love is God’s Revelation

Of all things, it is only love that cannot be bartered and commodified. This is why Salvation can never be a deserved payment or restitution for works done, like a paycheck. One can neither buy god nor Heaven! And of all things it is only love that can be desired “unselfishly”, since love is not a “zero-sum game”: Love can be given or taken and yet is not consumed, again, because it alone is not commodifiable. Love is infinite. If there was one thing that man needed to know from all ages, it was that love existed, mankind already had every possibly conceivable variety of god claim existing, he did not merely require yet another one of those, yet another claimant to the “chosen people” ot eh “true God”. God does not say to the uninitiated man, “Do you want me? Then give up your life!” (Jn 12:25,15:13), until God has given man a taste of that Love which is better than life (Ps. 63:3). It is only God, who lacks nothing himself, who can love unselfishly and without any motive of secondary gain. Jacques Maritain speaks of the love which:

“goes out to all without injuring the natural rights of anyone-the love which joins us, above being, to the first principle of being, pours out upon creatures with a divine force: it breaks down every obstacle and melts every coldness; it opens up a new world which reveals the divine attributes in a more profound, an unsuspected manner, a world in which beings not only know one another but recognize one another; it makes us will good to our enemies. Thus must we affirm, faced as we are with the delinquencies of sentimentality and the naturalist cult of the human species, the true nature of divine love…” (TAD Book I, 1)

I honestly don’t know where I got this from or if its my own:

Love is the world’s pure positive.

Which creates without consuming

enhances, without utilising,

that joy never regretted,

that consumes to regenerate,

utilises to lovingly unite,

and regrets only to purify.

 “…he first loved us.” (1 Jn 4:19)

The Love of God

In the account of Jesus’ Baptism in the river Jordan, when the voice of the Father from Heaven calls Jesus His Son, “My Beloved” or “whom I love” (Matt 3:17), He is describing not the Son, but Himself. This is also seen in the parable of the landlord: “He had one left to send, a son, whom he loved.” (Mk 1:12). Consider how would we introduce our own child to our friends, would we not say something like “This is my son, the doctor…or the engineer, or this is my son, he’s really good at the piano, or at sport…Similarly had various titles to confer upon His own Son…”Mighty God”, or “Wonderful Counsellor”, or “Prince of Peace”…But He chooses just one… “Beloved”. God the Father says to St Catherine of Siena (Spiritual Dialogue) “The soul cannot live without love. It always wants something to love. Because love is the stuff that it is made of. It was out of love that I created her”. Christianity is like a “tyranny of love”! As God says “for the LORD.  God’s Love is truly prodigal. No wonder St Catherine calls God a “mad lover”.

From the Spiritual Dialogue of St Catherine of Siena 14:30:

“…In mercy You kept company with Your creatures. 0 mad lover! It was not enough for you to take on our humanity: You had to die as well! Nor was death enough: You descended to the depths to summon our holy ancestors…” 14:153 “…O eternal, infinite Good! O mad lover! And you have need of your creature? It seems so to me, for You act as if You could not live without her, in spite of the fact that You are Life itself, and everything has life from You and nothing can have life without You. Why then are You so mad? Because You have fallen in love with what You have made! You are pleased and delighted over her within Yourself, as if You were drunk [with desire] for her salvation. She runs away from You and You go looking for her. She strays and You draw closer to her. You clothed Yourself in our humanity, and nearer than that You could not have come…”

“…And I will take you for my wife forever; I will take you for my wife in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love, and in mercy. I will take you for my wife in faithfulness; and you shall know the Lord. On that day I will answer, says the Lord, I will answer the heavens and they shall answer the earth…” (Hosea 2:18-22)

“I have called you by name, you are mine…” Is 43:1

“because you are precious in my sight, and I love you” Is 43:4

I”I have carved you on the palms of my hands” Is 49:16

“(Jesus) emptied himself” Phil2:7

“I am poured out like water” Ps 22:14

Jer 31:4 “a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband…”

Jer:32:41 “I will rejoice in doing good to them, and I will plant them in this land in faithfulness, with all my heard and all my soul”

Is 66:11,3 “that you may nurse and be satisfied from her consoling breast; that you may drink deeply with delight from her glorious bosom….As a mother comforts her child so I will comfort you;  you shall be comforted in Jerusalem.”

Jesus incredibly beautiful discourse in the Gospel of Matthew extending over three chapters from 5 to 8, for a total of 111 verses and contains in it the famous Sermon on the Mount. There is nothing in world writings that even approaches the sort of outlandish and seemingly rash promises contained therein and the completely self-effacing sacrifices that are demanded. Perhaps it is true to state that the key to the whole discourse, a gem in the heritage of world literature is hidden at the end of Chapter 5 (v.44,45): “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect”.  Jesus says “But I say to you, Love your enemies (ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν) and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven”. It is this quality of mercy that makes us likened to God.

Fr. Rahner, Absolute Love

Fr. Rahner describes how love is made possible by the God-Man Jesus:

“…the saying (in Matt 25) of Jesus that he himself is truly loved in every neighbour (…) says that an absolute love that gives itself radically and unconditionally to another person affirms Christ implicitly in faith and love. And this is correct. For a merely finite and ever unreliable person cannot by himself justify the sense of the absolute love which is given him, a love in which a person “involves” and risks himself absolutely for the other person. By himself he could only be loved with reservations and in a “love” in which the lover either makes reservations or risks himself absolutely on what is possibly meaningless. If this dilemma were only to be overcome by an appeal to God himself (…) this would possibly be possible in the abstract and “speculatively” from the perspective of a universal concept of absolute love (…) this love wants more than just a guarantee which remains transcendent to it. It wants a unity between the love of God and the love of neighbour in which even though this might merely be unthematic, love of neighbour is love of God and only in this way is it completely absolute. But this means that it is searching for a God-Man, that is, for someone who as man can be loved with the absoluteness of love for God. But it is not searching for him as an idea, because ideas cannot be loved; but rather as a reality, whether it is already present or still to come. This reflection presupposes of course, that the human race forms a unity, and that true love is not individualistic and exclusive, but rather that with all of its necessary concreteness it is always ready to encompass everything. And conversely: love for everything must always become concrete in the love of a concrete individual. Consequently, in the single human race the God-Man makes possible the absoluteness of the love of a concrete individual.”

“…And for this reason such love for another person, which is the mediation of the love of God and forms and ultimately inseparable unity with it, can be directed to Jesus. A person can love him as a true man in the most proper and vital meaning of this word. Indeed because of who the God-Man is, this love is even the absolute instance of love in which love for a man and love for God find their most radical unity and mediate each other mutually. Jesus is the most concrete absolute, and there is in love for him that love reaches the most absolute concreteness and absence of ambiguity which it seeks by its very nature. For love is not a movement towards and abstract ideal, but towards concrete, individual and irreducible uniqueness, and this very love finds in its Thou the absolute expanse of incomprehensible mystery.” (Rahner FCF, 295, 310).

To Love us In Meekness and Humility

“…all of us are constantly inclined to ask the question that Saint Jude Thaddaeus put to Jesus during the Last Supper: “Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?” (Jn 14:22)…It is part of the mystery of God that he acts so gently, that he only gradually builds up his history within the great history of mankind; that he becomes a man and so can be overlooked by his contemporaries and by the divisive forces within history; that he suffers and dies and that, having risen again, he chooses to come to mankind only through the faith of the disciples to whom he reveals himself; that he continues to knock gently at the doors of our hearts and slowly opens our eyes if we open our doors to him. And yet, is this not truly the divine way? Not to overwhelm with external power but to but to give freedom, to offer and elicit love…” (JoNII,276)

As in the wonderful words of the carol:

“O little town of Bethlehem
How still we see thee lie
Above thy deep and dreamless sleep
The silent stars go by
Yet in thy dark streets shineth
The everlasting Light
The hopes and fears of all the years
Are met in thee tonight”

Romano Guardini writes: “…None of the great things in the human life spring from the intellect; every one of them spring from the heart and its love. If even human love has its own reasoning, comprehensible only to the heart that is open to it, how much truer must this be of God’s love! When it is the depth and power of God that stirs, it there anything of which love is incapable? The glory of it is overwhelming that to all who do not accept love as an absolute point of departure, its manifestations must seem the most senseless folly.” (The Lord, pg.17)

Misericordiae Vultus of Pope Francis 5,6: “It is proper to God to exercise mercy, and he manifests his omnipotence particularly in this way”. Saint Thomas Aquinas’ words show that God’s mercy, rather than a sign of weakness, is the mark of his omnipotence.

Pastor Iuventus writes in the Catholic Herald Apr 18 2014 Jesus knows that his hour has come and that the Father has put all things into his hands. This is what gives the night it’s serenity. Jesus is in total control and this is the key to understanding the mysteries. The one who has all things in his hands chooses to give all things away for love of me. The God who deserves my worship and honour chooses to kneel and serve me. 

A striking feature of the Gospels is that it is not Jesus who clearly states His divinity, but the Gospel writers. Jesus refrains from and seems reticent when it comes to ever using the specific three words, “I am God” in his own mouth during his earthly ministry even when pressed John 8:25 “Who ‘’are you?”, Luke 22:67 “If you are the Christ, tell us” “Show us a sign” etc. He forbids the evil spirits from saying who He is, and even Simon Peter from repeating his famous confession (Matt16:22). Even after the Resurrection the number of witnesses is restricted to “those who were pre-ordained”. Philip inquires of our Lord as to “Will you appear only to us?” “Why not to these others?” , and so does Jude Thaddeus as in the quote above.

Jesus tells his apostles the reason for His secrecy in a cryptic answer in Matt 13:13-15 …For this people’s heart has grown dull, and their ears are hard of hearing, and they have shut their eyes; so that they might not look with their eyes, and listen with their ears, and understand with their heart and turn—and I would heal them.” Jesus is making it clear that there is intentionally a certain veil over the Revelation. In Luke Jesus answers, “If I tell you, you would not believe me” And at the parable of the sower He explains “ the secrets of the kingdom are not given…” There is, from the outset, a certain audience that the Gospel is pitched to, it is a treasure that will be found, only by those who are seeking it.

If you expected Jesus to behave like every other God-man, ring-leader, politician, and claimant to the throne that ever lived and follow the well-trodden prototype, then the God that you are seeking is other than the one I present. Put simply, Jesus is not clannish, He is not power hungry, and not a land-grabber or property mogul, or dynastic. God owns the whole world. (Psalm 50:12) “If I was hungry, I would not tell you”, therefore he is not here to “establish His kingdom on Earth”. He is here to establish it in our hearts, and an invitation to Paradise.

“He lies…in a situation where all his energies are exhausted as he bears the brunt of all powers hostile to God. His fate surpasses human tragedy; it is the super-tragedy of ultimate “God-forsakenness”(…) and so, as the matrix of all possible dramas, He embodies the absolute drama in his own person, in his personal mission…” (Balthasar TD3, 162)

Fr Ronald Rolheiser writes, “We are forever looking for something beyond what God gives us. But we should know from the very way that God was born into the world that faith needs to ground itself on something that is quiet and undramatic. Jesus, as we know was born into the world with no fanfare and power: a baby lying helpless in the straw, another child among millions. Then, during his ministry, he never performed miracles to prove his divinity, but only as acts of compassion or to reveal something about God. His ministry, like his birth wasn’t an attempt to prove God’s existence (beyond doubt), It was to teach us what God is like and that God loves us unconditionally…”(Catholic Herald Apr. 25 2014)

…God lies deep inside us, deep inside, but in a way that’s almost non-existent, almost unfelt, largely unnoticed and easily ignored. However while that presence is never overpowering, it has within it a gentle unremitting imperative, a compulsion towards something higher, which invites us to draw upon it. And, if we do draw upon it, it gushes up in us an infinite stream that instructs us, nurtures us and fills is with endless energy. This is important for understanding Faith. God lies inside us as an invitation that fully respects our freedom, never overpowers us, but also never goes away. It lies there precisely like a baby lies helpless in the straw, gently beckoning us, but helpless in itself to make us pick it up.

“All religions other than the Catholic religion are in more or less narrow and servile fashion, according as there metaphysical level is high or low, integral parts of certain definite cultures, particular to certain ethnic climates in certain historical formations. Only the Catholic religion, because it is supernatural and proceeds from the riven Heart of God dying upon the cross, is absolutely and rigorously transcendental, supra-cultural, supra-racial, and supra-national.” (Jacques Maritain, TAD p. 97)                                  

Recall all the times you have heard persons say “I will believe in God if He shows Himself to me…etc.” God has answered that question in the heart of every human being. The mission of Jesus is a “manifestation” of how the meek, the humble and the weak are made strong and upheld. The nations are watching as this tiny Jewish nation, invincible when their faith is strong against vastly mightier adversaries, yet just as easily brushed aside when they abandon the Lord’s ways. The pattern is unmistakeable and oft-repeated. How will this puny nation in the centre of a highly disputed and sought after land be saved? It is obvious for this very reason that most of all they need saving from themselves. God is telling the world, of its utter dependence upon Him. From the beginning it was a story of the weak overcoming the strong. From the stories of Gilead, and Sampson, the Exodus from Egypt, to the war of Hezekiah against the mighty Assyrians. In the end it is God himself who takes on the mantle of weakness, being born as a helpless babe. The great powers of the world then are observing their little gold-fish bowl, taunting as did Senacherib: “your God cannot save you from my hand!…”. All the while God the message couldn’t be clearer: God wants man’s acceptance, not his assistance: “I do not desire holocaust, but a broken spirit…”

Fr. Rahner wirtes about the life of Jesus: “He passes up everything that we consider necessary to mamke our life abundant and full (…) He passes up marriage, art, and even friendship (…) he does not pursue politics or science, he does not solve any of the social problems of the time. He showed no resentment toward these things, He did not despise them. He just did not busy himself with them. The only thing that we can say about Jesus is that he was a very pious man (…) we would like to find some traits in Jesus’ life that would make him a bit more congenial, but we find none of this! What Paul said of Jesus is very true. “He humbled himself” (…)Jesus …passes up everything. At the most, he allows himself a simple pleasure occasionally: a banquest, a deep fridnship with John, a look at the temple- but even in this case it is his disciples who call his attention to the beautiful building. He is silent and passes by like one for whom everything in a certain sense is already dead (…) It is difficult for us to accept the fact that Jesus really cannot so anything else but save souls…” (CoF,290)

I once heard a devout Hindu person speak of how he read the Bible for the first time and couldn’t help but exclaim to himself;: “The key difference here is the verse “…and they took him away to be crucified”. Every religion would like to think that it is about love, understanding, helping the poor and turning the other cheek… but here is an “Avataar” of God one who is actually living out those values. If this is false then surely all religion must be false and we needn’t worry about religion anymore…”

God, the Servant- King

“He simultaneously opens up the greatest possible intimacy and the greatest possible distance (in Christ’s dereliction on the Cross) between God and man; thus he does not decide the course of the play in advance but gives man an otherwise unheard-of freedom to decide for or against the God who has so committed himself.” (Balthasar TDP, 21)

The story of the Bible and the reason for its enduring appeal among the people is that it is both the simplest and the most beautiful human story told: that of the king who braved death for the love of his poor subjects, who relinquished his crown for a time to live in poverty among them, and in time of battle lead the charge courageously form the front. In all the mystery of the Incarnation also lies unspeakable beauty, for no human mind could possibly have conceived of the story of Christmas. Jesus tells that same story again, this time in a parable:  A landowner sacrifices his only beloved son in a hopeless atempt to persuade his wayward tenants to reform. In the parables of the lost coin and the lost sheep Jesus conveys the sheer vigour and force with which God comes searching for us, giving scant regard for his own personal security. In order to show us how to love, God shows us what love is.

And thus it is that we have a God who would wash the feet of his disciples, serve the servants, “resist the proud”, befriend sinners, go after the one lost sheep, raise up the lowly. Pride is remedied through the humiliation of God himself. Man can no more raise his head in pride in response neither to God or to his fellow-man. After all on the Cross, God bowed down His holy head to us and died. The famous kenosis “emptying” of Phil 2:7 is Jesus’ response to the attack of Satan. The emptying of pride is our Path to Salvation. And does Jesus thereby not teach us obedience which is the remedy to pride, by showing us His own obedience to the Father. This is not a contrived obedience, it is the Eternal relationship of the Son the Father that we are allowed to glimpse temporally and share in eternally thereby.

On the day before His Holy Passion, Jesus performs the simplest of tasks with minimum of fuss: He who has delivered singular sermon in history, about how the “meek shall inherit the Earth” rises without a word from the meal, takes off his outer garments and wraps a towel around his waist, and washes his disciples’ feet. When Peter resists, Jesus says to Him with alarming clarity, “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me.” Many are those that object to the originality of the Christian story, claiming the myths of apparently dying and resurrecting pagan deities, floods and creation epics. But never, not in history nor in mythology, fact or fable, has a king washed the feet of his servants. This is no novelty but rather the consistent theme in Jesus’ teaching, “that last will be first…” and “The poor in spirit…theirs is the Kingdom…”, or “I have not come to be serve but to serve…”. There is no pretence in this kingship, and in this sense this king is truly King, because He is the King of Hearts, only Jesus truly rules the hearts of his people, calling forth and engendering a loyalty that is unattached and untainted. This is the ideal king who till rule over a truly ideal Kingdom.

“There is only one thing which is generally secure from plagiarism — self-denial.” —G. K. Chesterton, The Illustrated London News, September 2, 1911.

Familiarity of Family

“People confuse love with a sentiment, or with sympathy. Love is nothing but an interior force that leads one to give oneself.” -St. Theresa of Calcutta.

God isn’t merely here on vacation from Heaven, perhaps in order to take in Earth’s natural beauty, and so on. God came for each one of us specifically and solely. You are the most beautiful thing in the whole world for him. Do we not think that our own baby’s face is the most beautiful thing in the whole wide world? Did you gaze fascinatedly at your baby’s tiny feet and bathe them tenderly? How do you think then, Jesus might have felt when He washed the feet of the Twelve, and knowing that there would be none to protect his own feet, soon to be cruelly pierced. Mr Big, an American 90’s rock band had a song which went: “Everything you’re looking for, you will find in me. I’ll be everything you want, everything you need. I’ll be your Daddy, (2Cor6:18“I will be your Father and you will be my people…”) …your brother, (“I do not call you servants, but I call you friends…” Jn 15:15), your lover (Is 54:5” For your Maker is your husband– the LORD Almighty is his name”), …and your little boy!” (“For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given…” (Is 9).

And in this is truly engendered love for oneself and love for others. For not only is God’s presence infinitely greater than one can ever know, but one is completely known by Him. One will never know another person better, than to know that they are a Child of God, that God’s Presence dwells in them, that they are a Temple of the Lord, the Lord’s “delight” and His “treasured possession”. Has there ever been higher praise of a Human Being!

Until one knows who one is, one rarely shows an inclination in knowing anyone other than oneself. This is quite possibly because the soul strains to know itself as a first priority. And the more one knows oneself the more one wants to know others. This is why the dignity that we are accorded in the BIble of being beloved children of God and made in his image is both entirely unique and central to Faith.

Jesus thus brings to us the familiarity of family, but I would say that most of all and primarily, as He himself says, He comes to show us the Father. Fr. Rahner describes it best:

“Thus he encouraged us to believe in him as Son, to call the abyss of mystery Father, to realize both our origin and our future in this world alone, and thus to measure the dimensions of our dignity, of our task, of the danger and experience of our life. True, only the crucified is the Son. But he is also the sign that we are all truly children of God and dare and must call Father this true God himself (…) Because he is the Son, we are empowered to set aside the daily experience of the absurdity and torment of this life, to realize the true ground of this experience and to change it into an incomprehensible but blissful mystery by calling it Father.” (CoF 258, taken from “Grace in Freedom”) In that same passage, Fr. Rahner relates: “Now there we may find a man who called himself simply the Son, and who said “Father” when he expressed the mystery of his life. He spoke of the father when he saw the lilies of the field in their beauty, or when his heart overflowed in prayer, when he thought of the hunger and need of human beings and longed for the consummation that ends all the transitoriness of this empty and guilty existence. With touching tenderness he called this dark, abysmal mystery, which he knew to be such, Abba (which we ought almost to translate as “daddy”). And he called it thus not only when beauty and hope helped him to overcome the incomprehensibility of existence in this world, but also when he met the darkness of death and the cup in which was distilled all the guilt, vanity, and emptiness of this world was placed at his lips and  he could only repeat the desperate words of the Psalmist “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” But even then that other, all embracing word was present to him, which sheltered even this forsakenness: “Father, into your hands I commend my life”

“Jesus is a real, genuine, and finite man with his own experiences, in adoration before the incomprehensibility of God, a free and obedient man, like us in all things…” (CoF 284 from TI IX 165-169)…he has accepted death. Therefore this must be more that merely a descent into empty meaninglessness. He has accepted the state of being forsaken. Therefore the overwhelming sense of loneliness must still contain hidden within itself the promise of God’s blessed nearness. HE has accepted total failure. Therefore defeat can be a victory. He has accepted abandonment by God. Therefore God is near even when we believe ourselves to have been abandoned by him. He has accepted all things, therefore all things are redeemed (…) let us be silent in order that we can listen, and so. Hear just this one word issuing from the lethal  darkness of this man in the moment of his death: “Father into your hands I commend my spirit (…) He has drained the cup of life, almost to the last dregs. All is darkness without and within. He is alone with the suffocating malice of the entire world, which is stupid and at the same time diabolically malignant. He knows that the guilt of the word which clutches ravenously for his heart and life, is not the sort of misunderstanding that turns out on closer examination to be a harmless mistake. It is the incomprehensible guilt which leads to condemnation. He is alone with this. The light of his Father’s nearness is transformed, so to say, into the dark fire of judgement. There is only abandonment and powerlessness left, burning and yet unutterably dead. Death in its stark reality had penetrated into his heart and pierced its way into the into the innermost depths of his human life- death as absolute. “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Cof 301 from TI VII 136-39)

“…then we encounter in his obedience the silent, incomprehensible yes to his end, to an excruciating death in abandonment. We encounter in this death a yes to all that everyone really despises, a yes to that which no one can take from another, one’s death, a death through which one already attains the Father…” (CoF 303 from Spiritual Exercises 236-40)

Richter, on the Familial Covenants of Ancient Israel and the Bible

The work of Sandra Richter is particularly edifying and perspicuous on this issue. In the first chapter of The Epic of Eden she describes the family societal structure in ancient Israel. The destiny of women in this patriarchal society is completely dependent upon the male members, so much so that a woman without husband, father, son (through death or barrenness) can be dependent upon the charity of strangers without which she would starve. God in the Old Testament is already taking measures to ensure the protection of the “widow and the orphan” (eg.Lev 19:9, 23:22; Dt 24:1). Richter explores the kind of insecurities that a woman must have faced, imagine a young teenage girl expected to start a new life in a large extended family system. But in the very first book of the Bible, God is already doing something different, saying not to the woman but also to the man “for this reason a man leaves his house and cleaves to his wife so that the two become one flesh”. Jesus reiterates this in the Gospels in asserting that all the cultural injustices faced were not God’s doing but rather “because of the hardness of your hearts”.

Richter describes how the joint family lives under one compound or courtyard, with the individual dwellings, the common workplaces and even the stables of the animals within (this can keep the area warm!), and into which new family members are incorporated. We must have this in view when we read John 14:2, rather than envisioning isolated houses scattered upon an estate that we are used to “In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?” The word for “rooms” here is mon-ay, which is only used one other time, and a few verses later in the chapter again with Jesus speaking of himself and the Father making a dwelling-place in the soul of the human believer (v.23). Thus “mansions” is a somewhat generous translation, rather “abode” or “dwelling place” seems accurate. The word in any case is from the verb meno, meaning “to remain, abide”.

Richter goes on to speak of the concept of redemption in this patriarchal culture. When an oldest brother, the heir dies, it is the duty of the next-in -ine to redeem the widow by bearing a son for her. This serves to protect the widow. The first-born gets a double portion of the father’s inheritance, and is especially favored in his upbringing and grooming and apprenticeship, because he will one day take on the role of patriarch himself, and be responsible for the family. Thus it is that Tamar can lay a claim of protection upon Judah and Ruth upon Boaz. This is why Judah can say, inspite of Tamar’s audacious plot to procure justice “indeed she is more righteous than I” (Gen 38:26). Richter makes the point that this act of redemption on the part of the male relative is not without sacrifice because the inheritance will pass to the next in line, rather than to him. Thus in the case of Judah’s own son, Onan is reluctant to fulfil this very duty, and we can assume that it is for this reason. Thus Richter brings out the redeeming action of God through his Son’s Sacrificial act.

In the third chapter, Richter speaks of covenant relationships in the ANE, narrating with examples how political covenants were made between suzerain and vassal states. These were marked by swearing an oath of loyalty to the terms of the agreement in the presence of the deities. The overlord would promise protection in return for the loyalty of the vassal based upon these terms of tribute. The sacrificed animal came to represent the consequences of the violation of the treaty for the vassal and Richter gives an example of how the vassal would be required to walk between the cut parts of the solemn sacrifice, pronouncing his acceptance of these consequences. This very process came to be called “cutting a covenant” (carat berit) referring to the cutting of the animals. When God cuts a covenant with Abraham however, incredibly it is not Abraham but the flaming torch that passes between the pieces of the cut animals, as though God is once again indicating that he is turning tradition around with the suzerain rather than the vassal bearing the consequences of the broken covenant. Covenant making is a manner of incorporating into family that which is not biological family. Richter for this reason asserts that for these reasons the best way to translate the hesed in Hebrew is “covenant love” rather than “loving kindness, faithfulness” which can perhaps fail to denote the familial nature of the bond.

God Dignifies the Human Form in Making it his Own

The nature of sin is such is that it can only be remedied through the proximity of love, just as a mother smothering their child with kisses can evoke only one response. The preface for Christmas  “For in the mystery of the Word made flesh a new light of your glory has shone upon the eyes of our mind so that as we recognise in Him God made visible we may be caught up through Him in love of things invisible”

“…but he bears also the Likeness of Him who is, and if he preserves that Likeness through constant contemplation, then this nature is deprived of its power and he remains incorrupt” St. Athanasius, On the Incarnation Ch.1

“He became Himself an object for the senses, so that those who were seeking God in sensible things might apprehend the Father through the works which He, the Word of God, did in the body” St Athanasius, On the Incarnation Chap. 3

Human nature, by the very fact that it was assumed (in the Incarnation), not absorbed, in him, has been raised in us also to a dignity beyond compare. For, by his Incarnation, he, the son of God, in a certain way united himself with each man” Redemptor hominis Pope St John Paul II

Pope Saint Leo the Great, expresses this beautifully in a letter:

“Lowliness is assumed by majesty, weakness by power, mortality by eternity. To pay the debt of our sinful state, a nature that was incapable of suffering was joined to one that could suffer. Thus, in keeping with the healing that we needed, one and the same mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ, was able to die in one nature, and unable to die in the other. He who is true God was therefore born in the complete and perfect nature of a true man, whole in his own nature, whole in ours. By our nature we mean what the Creator had fashioned in us from the beginning, and took to himself in order to restore it. For in the Saviour there was no trace of what the deceiver introduced and man, being misled, allowed to enter. It does not follow that because he submitted to sharing in our human weakness he therefore shared in our sins. He took the nature of a servant without stain of sin, enlarging our humanity without diminishing his divinity. He emptied himself; though invisible he made himself visible, though Creator and Lord of all things he chose to be one of us mortal men. Yet this was the condescension of compassion, not the loss of omnipotence. So he who in the nature of God had created man, became in the nature of a servant, man himself. Thus the Son of God enters this lowly world. He comes down from the throne of heaven, yet does not separate himself from the Father’s glory. He is born in a new condition, by a new birth. He was born in a new condition, for, invisible in his own nature, he became visible in ours. Beyond our grasp, he chose to come within our grasp. Existing before time began, he began to exist at a moment in time. Lord of the universe, he hid his infinite glory and took the nature of a servant. Incapable of suffering as God, he did not refuse to be a man, capable of suffering.

Immortal, he chose to be subject to the laws of death. He who is true God is also true man. There is no falsehood in this unity as long as the lowliness of man and the pre-eminence of God coexist in mutual relationship. As God does not change by his condescension, so man is not swallowed up by being exalted. Each nature exercises its own activity, in communion with the other. The Word does what is proper to the Word, the flesh fulfils what is proper to the flesh. One nature is resplendent with miracles, the other falls victim to injuries. As the Word does not lose equality with the Father’s glory, so the flesh does not leave behind the nature of our race. One and the same person – this must be said over and over again – is truly the Son of God and truly the son of man. He is God in virtue of the fact that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He is man in virtue of the fact that the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.”

The Gift of a Child-like Love of God, which is Worship, to “Adore”

How does it feel when your child calls out your name? How sweet the sound when God will call you by the same. “Samuel!” (1Sam 3:10). “But now thus says the Lord, he who created you, O Jacob, he who formed you, O Israel: Do not fear, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name, you are mine.” (Isaiah 43:1)

My name never sounded better than when my daughter mispronounced it! God has blessed me with the sweetest little baby girl, Anna, and we are also at the time of writing this expecting our second child in a month’s time. When I look at Anna playing innocently. In her diapers, mouthing meaningless but happy “goo”s and “ga”s,  playing with her fingers, crawling aimlessly and carefree along the floor, indescribably beautiful and sweet is one’s child to their own parent.

This is how our heavenly Father sees us. To him we are unspeakably sweet, he looks at us exceedingly tenderly, and he loves us very dearly. But all our grandest schemes, all our clever plans all our inventions, all the scientific discoveries we make and the things that we build are of no benefit to Him whatsoever, we are all like little children to him playing with our towers of blocks. God loves in the same manner even the greatest of tyrants in history, and like children throwing tantrums, his concern is that they will do themselves an injury.

When Anna would wake up in the morning as a baby, the wife and I are already downstairs, and she cries bitterly in bed as a result. All it took was for one of us to poke our heads in and pick her up. A child is completely satisfied by the knowledge of their parents’ love, and this is all the child’s happiness. Utter fright, insecurity and despair is changed into total contentment. And as the day goes by, the child will undergo hurts, when it falls when walking and playing, but each time all it needs to regain its composure is its parents’ arms. A child cannot know its Creator. But God has given us parents as a substitute.

When my little baby boy stares back at me without self-consciousness, I see a memory of original innocence that was untainted by shame. When I see how he is totally dependent on me, even to be held up sitting, picked up from where he lies, or turned back over onto his tummy, I am reminded of how totally dependent we are on God. When I see someone play with a child, persons who might normally be sullen and grumpy with nothing nice to say, critical, sharp-tongues, nagging, or, completely drop their guard, start to laugh aloud and play, say kind things and be complementary. I’ve seen the most sullen personalities change with parenthood. This is what one does when one in the presence of extreme innocence and beauty, when no threat is perceived, neither any hidden intent and a beauty for which there is no explanation, only silence. Is this not how we will be in presence of the beatific vision, when in the presence of infinite goodness and beauty we will be completely unaffected by sin forevermore. When one is with a child, one forgets oneself.

One is no more self-conscious, one is no more worried, but lost in the unspeakable beauty of the moment. One can stare into a child’s eyes without self-consciousness or shame, or without wondering that the child will be offending by one’s gaze. One knows that one is not being judged. One also knows that the child does not fear being judged. One knows that one is not been taken advantage of, one also knows that the child does not fear being taken advantage of. One trusts and knows that one is trusted. Compared to the pleasure of your child’s company, every other pleasure seems jaded. Indeed, cuddling one’s child is an incomparable pleasure.

But we may also speak of other loves. Let me remember the sweetness of a woman’s presence, the radiance of her smile, the gentleness of her intention, the kindness in her concern, the grace of her demeanour, the beauty of her body, the softness of her embrace, the way that light itself seems to bounce softly of her and turn into something that it was not before to behold in glistening, twinkling and sparkling. Let this be a foretaste of the ineffable sweetness (dolcedo ineffabilis) of our Lord’s presence.

There are lovely examples of brotherly love in the Bible. Jonathan loved David ‘as himself’. He goes against his own father, who is the powerful and victorious king of Israel, in spite of being heir, and incurs his wrath Saul at one point actually throwing a spear at him. Yet he is not spiteful of his father and dies on the battle field at his father’s side, defending Israel. This is a pre-figurement of St John’s love for Jesus, which kept him close to Jesus’ breast, so close that he is not detached in love right up to the end at the foot of the Cross.

As I cradle my child in my arms, and cover him with kisses. Everywhere he turns to there is waiting for him a kiss and the security of a gentle and firm embrace. Every time he looks there is waiting for him a look in return. Every time he speaks there is acknowledgement and response. Every time he needs help it is given. So I too was raised with immense affection, care and concern. And now I feel love for myself and affection for others. I do not feel a compulsion to harm others for my own betterment, for I was never harmed for a family member’s betterment growing up. I do not see others as enemies and competitors as I was never seen by my family as an enemy or competitor. I would rather co-operate and rise together than forge ahead on my own. I would rather have a cup of tea in company than expensive pleasures in isolation.

I would rather travel to meet family than to see places. My parents pursued no personal pleasures themselves other than those innocent ones they could share with their young brood. They enjoyed the pleasures in the company of their young ones to the neglect of pleasures of their own mutual company. I look at reasons why I am humbly not instinctively violent or malicious or abrasive, and I think that I was never violently, maliciously or abrasively treated. How can I possibly give myself credit for having a natural affection for others?

Man is never more loving than when he is loving God. Can any woman evoke such ardent devotion in a man, (and vice versa)? Can a dictator command such rapturous praise? It is clear that God brings out the one emotion that is most desirable in a human being: Love, and that in it’s most pure form: which is Worship, because that is when he is most absorbed in love and least self-absorbed like the sullen person who is presented with the child to play with that we described. Man is never more loving than when he is worshipping, he is never more devoted than when he is praising, he is never more grateful than when he is giving thanks to God. We were made for God: Our hearts were made for You. That’s why they do not love, until they love You.

From Fr Ronald Rolheiser’s blog: “Bernard Lonergan, the much-esteemed theologian and philosopher, suggests that human soul does not come into the world as a tabla rasa, a pure, clean sheet of paper onto which anything can be written. Rather, for him, we are born with the brand of the first principles indelibly stamped inside our souls. What does he mean by this?  Classical theology and philosophy name four things that they call transcendental, meaning that they are somehow true of everything that exists, namely, oneness, truth, goodness, and beauty. Everything that exists somehow bears these four qualities. However these qualities are perfect only inside of God. God, alone, is perfect oneness, perfect truth, perfect goodness, and perfect beauty. However, for Lonergan, God brands these four things, in their perfection, into the core of the human soul.

Hence we come into the world already knowing, however dimly, perfect oneness, perfect truth, perfect goodness, and perfect beauty because they already lie inside us like an inerasable brand. Thus we can tell right from wrong because we already know perfect truth and goodness in the core of our souls, just as we also instinctively recognize love and beauty because we already know them in a perfect way, however darkly, inside ourselves. In this life, we don’t learn truth, we recognize it; we don’t learn love, we recognize it; and we don’t learn what is good, we recognize it. We recognize these because we already possess them in the core of our souls.

Some mystics gave this a mythical expression: They taught that the human soul comes from God and that the last thing that God does before putting a soul into the body is to kiss the soul. The soul then goes through life always dimly remembering that kiss, a kiss of perfect love, and the soul measures all of life’s loves and kisses against that primordial perfect kiss (…) We nurse an unconscious memory of once having known love, goodness, and beauty perfectly. Hence things will ring true or false, depending upon whether or not they are measuring up to the love, goodness, and beauty that already reside in a perfect form at the core of our souls.

And that core, that center, that place in our souls where we have been branded with the first principles and where we unconsciously remember the kiss of God before we were born, is the real seat of that congenital ache inside us which, in this life, can never be fully assuaged. We bear the dark memory, as Henri Nouwen says, of once having been caressed by hands far gentler than we ever meet in this life. Our souls dimly remember once having known perfect love and perfect beauty.  But, in this life, we never quite encounter that perfection, even as we forever ache for someone or something to meet us at that depth. This creates in us a moral loneliness, a longing for what we term a soulmate, namely, a longing for someone who can genuinely recognize, share, and respect what’s deepest in us.”

SANCTIFICATION IN VIRTUE

How does God make the Impossible Possible for Man?- through the Perfect Sacrifice.

There are perhaps two basic tenets that are most important if the Christian position is to be understood. The first is that there is an infinite difference between the purity of God and man. This one might find in any religion, since it is at face value merely a means of speaking in the superlative with regards to God. Unfortunately the entailments of this are rarely appreciated elsewhere other than in the Christian faith. That brings us to the sceond tenet: as a result of God’s transcendent purity, man is wholly unsuited to stand in his presence. Thus as God warns: “no man can see me and live” (Ex 33:20). And the third, just like the second, flows from a full acceptance of the first: no effort of man, in and of itself can ever remedy this situation. This might seemmatural, but for those for hom this is a new notion: if a creature possessedthat means by which to attain the putiry of the Creator, that would mean that he possessed the purity of the Creator (which were the means by which he could attain to that purity), thus violating the first tenet. It is easy to see this also in analogy: nothing can effect a change in itself into an ontologically higher order of being. A horse will never find a way to become human, nor pebbles to become dogs, and so on. A man cannot repent for his moral shortcomings, if he does not have the insight to see that they are shortcomings in the first place. Our own subjective opinions of what we think we did wrong will always be inadequate and when compared to God’s knowledge of your imperfections, grossly inadequate. Nature can only attain to anything different from itself, or which is not already innate to it, but the putiry of God is not innate to the human nature or it would violate the first tenet, as we have been saying- humans would possess the innate purity of God.

Were God not inaccessible He would not be God, and yet were God not accessible, there would be no religion. Religion simply defined, is the name of this impossible task, to “relate” to God. Christians exclusivist claims are a direct implication of the singular nature of the task involved. It would seem inconceivable that there be two ways of accomplishing the impossible, given that it is highly unlikely that there be even one. This is why without Jesus, man does not even know where he is to go, leave alone how to get there (Jn 14:5). Christianity is the answer to the existential challenge faced by all flesh: is it possible for man to be immortal? Thus Christianity is not primarily a bastion against other religions, it is primarily a bastion against disbelief. On the other hand, this too is certain- that there are many ways down the paths of man’s pride. Any whiff of a second path to God must be tested against the significantly higher probability that is it in reality only one more of these that that has been found.

Yet while holding to the absolute transcendence of God’s purity, the Christian faith also holds as a central tenet that man will indeed, not of his on effort, but of God’s action in him, be made suitable to stand in God’s Presence, the very thing that we have just said could not possible be. This will not be through an obviation of the need to aquire great purity, but rather through its enabling. In some way, and against every possibility, man will be given that which is not innate to his nature. St. John says: “we shall be like him because we shall see him” (1Jn 3:2), indicating once again that in order to be with him, that is “see him”, we must become “like God”. We call this “sanctification”. But now we have left ourselves the task of describing how that can be. The short answer is this: in order to make the impossible possible for man, God will perform that which is equally impossible, but in the reverse direction- he will perform that which is impossible for himself. Because remember, the action is primarily one of God, it is a divine act and not a creaturely one. In order that man be made like God, God will become like man, and in order that man dwell in God, God will dwell in man. The former act is received passively, but the latter is given and is performed actively.

God sacrificing himself for humanity is best described a “divine condescension”, a willing humiliation, in which God not only takes the form of an ontologically inferior and contingent being in all its vulnerability but having done so, he does not cling to the pride and dignity of that state either, rather he renounces it too: “…but I am a worm and no man, scorned and despised by the people …” (Ps 22:6, cf. Phil 3); “for I am gentle and humble of heart “ (Matt.11:29). Such an act of love is qualitatively of a transcendent order. After all, it is not merely man renouncing his dignity, nor even is it merely God renouncing his dignity, rather it is God renouncing the dignity of a man. Such an ontological renunciation should be quite impossible in the ordinary course of events. Thus as acts of love go, this is one that is miraculous in every sense, after all, the miracolous is that which should be impossible under ordinary expectations and circumstances. Further, when man offers something to God, the act will always carry the mark of imperfection, tainted as it is by the sinful nature of the giver and his own selfish self-interest in doing it, is the inescapable consequence of the creaturely state. God, on the other hand having no needs, cannot therefore have any self-interest, even in loving. Thus God’s Sacrifice is always perfect, and a perfect act of Love. Thus the miraculous act of divine condescension for man’s benefit is truly a transcendent, miracilous and perfect act and offering. There is one thing that is perfect in God’s creation and it is his own act within history, his own perfect loving act and his offering to man. Being given as it is to man he may make of himself a perfect offering to God. Man is not fit to stand in God’s presence, except with a perfect offering of himself. or in other words, man could not possibly stand in God’s presence precisely because he cannot make of himself a perfect offering- this is made possible for him in Christ.

In Believing what God is like, we might be given to be What he is Like

Being unable even to conceive of the nature of God’s love and purity, man cannot also comprehend this loving act of God’s Sacrifice. However when we do accept the truth of God’s loving act in Jesus, we open ourselves to Grace: “the love of God is poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which is given us” (Rom 5:5). God will not give us that which we do not believe in, for were he to do so, we would not also beleive that we have received it. We are given to truly love God, with that same love of God we ourselves have received. All religion is an imitation of a some person, yet that religion which is the imitation of God is the perfection of religion itself. In other words, when we deny the immensity of the Sacrifice of God as the remedy for sin, we deny the enormity of sin itself and in that we deny the magnificence of God’s own holiness and purity which is that which sin is commited against. Just in belittling God’s sacrifice for sin, we belittle the holiness of God against whom the sin is comitted. The reason that so great a sarcrifice is demanded is precisely because God is so great and holy. One that says “God did not need to die to bring me to repentance” has not come to repentance after all, since to diminish the need for the sacrifice for sins is merely to seek to diminish the magnitude of one’s sin and the sin of the world.

God reaches out to man at all stages of sin, by suffering the effects of sin himself: He is stolen from by a thief (Judas steals from the treasury), he is ridiculed by the proud (Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes, kings, prelates), betrayed by the kiss of a friend,, abandoned and denied by other friends, blasphemed by unbelievers and killed by murderers. This is the immense love shown by Christ in making himself that visible sign of the “curse” of sin, and the violation of sweet innocence. In this, the penitent experiences not only guilt and remorse for his sins, but the great trust in the mercy of God whereby he might even in the state of the greatest depravity be reformed. The love that God shows in order to save us is truly prodigal. God, whose power is greater than the Universe, shows Mercy so as to spare his own captors, truly it is from infinite to infinite, since from infinite power God will spare the infinite insult.

One of my favorite hymns, (and my all-time favorite tenor part!), penned by the great St. Alphonsus Liguori, beautifully translated by Edmund Vaughan goes (I quote just four of seven verses):

O Bond of love that dost unite
The servant to his living Lord;
Could I dare live and not requite
Such love – then death were meet reward:
I cannot live unless to prove
Some love for such unmeasured love.

My dearest God! Who dost so bind
my heart with countless claims to Thee!
O Sweetest love, my soul shall find
In Thy dear bonds true liberty.
Thyself Thou hast bestowed on me;
Thine, Thine for ever I will be.

O Sweetest dart of love Divine!
If I have sinned, then vengeance take;
Come pierce this guilty heart of mine,
And let it die for His dear sake
Who once expired on Calvary,
His heart pierced through for love of me.

Beloved Lord, in Heaven above
There, Jesus, Thou awaitest me,
To gaze on Thee with endless love;
Yes, thus I hope, thus shall it be:
For how can He deny me Heaven,
Who here on earth Himself hath given?

And when we have believed in what God is like, then God grants for us to become that which he is like. St Paul says: “…but he disciplines us for our good, in order that we may share his holiness.” (Heb. 12:10) and “Pursue (…) the holiness without which no one will see the Lord” (Heb.12:14b), and “For all…fall short of the glory of God” (Rom.3:23); Yet as we are called to be “united with Christ in a death like his”, we are being called into an imitation of that infinite mercy of God himself “who makes his rain to fall on the righteous as well as the unrighteous” and in this, to be like him.

Virtue and its development

The “religious journey”, which the point of religious adherence, is not a journey traversed in space but rather in virtue. Such journey should at the very least be aspirationally present in a religion, else it is simply a false right off the blocks. If there is anything that makes man unfit for the presence of God, it is the lack of virtue, which is sin and impurity. Therefore if the point of religion is union with God, then it is hard to see what else might be the goal of the religious life if not to perfect virtue.

In sacrificing oneself in order to serve God, we are merely giving to him what is truly His anyway, which is ourselves. Thus, even when we lose eerything, we lose nothing, because it never was our own (2Cor 6:10). Virtue is performing acts with the right intention, because it is the intellect that is the seat of virtue and intent. This object of any intention can vary, from God in the case of religion, to the nation in nationalism or fascism, the proletariat in socialism, or the race is racism, and so on, even though the action be the same. The sacrifice that is with the intention of giving back to God leads to the development of virtue. The economy of life of a religious persons is re-oriented with God as the point of reference. His whole life is “made sacred”, in this offering. That offering might be ritualized in the manner of significating and as a reminder for that man in prayer or in the communal worship of the community. In this sense every prayer can be seen as a ritual, that of the internal or external speech that bears no referent in this world, rather only the hope of being heard by the Creator.

“What does worship really mean?” asks Pope Benedict XVI, “how is it different from the circle of giving and receiving that characterised the pre-Christian world of worship? (…) Belonging to God has nothing to do with destruction or non-being; it is rather a way of being….”true sacrifice is the civitas Dei, that is, love transformed mankind, the divinisation of creation and the surrender of all things to God: “God all in all” That is the purpose of the world. That is the essence of sacrifice and worship” (SoL, 26).

Unity with God’s Will annihilates Material Desire

Christianity is this single concept, that God is so Beautiful in his love, that to be away from Him for a moment is surely Hell. In Christianity the Beauty of God transcends every other imaginable good. Thus the pleasure in the immense Beauty of God annihilates even the possibility of pleasure in the material not because those things lose what goodness there is in them, but simply because they are so greatly outshined by the good that is God, like flashlights in the Sun. God is the sufficient, single and superabundant cause of our eternal joy also, and it is the typical deception of false religion that there is necessary satisfaction in aught else in the afterlife. Certainly it is only the beauty of God that can singularly annihilate every material desire or need. Indeed, were anything able to compete with the Glory of God in the everlasting, then indeed God could not be so glorious as to be God, and if aught else were to compete with God’s desirability then sin wouls continue to hold its grip over created things even in Heaven.

And thus already here on Earth, the foretaste of God’s beauty given us in his Son works to release us from sin. Desiring nothing but God, our will only wills God and so is aligned with God’s own Will, which is his unselfish desire for his own goodness and holiness. To be united in will is to desire the same thing (Rom. 12:2). Needless to add, desiring only holiness, no more does man desire sin. In this sense we “die” even before we die inasmuch as we die to the world, or the desire for aught that is in it (Lk. 9:23, Mt. 16:24 “…let him deny himself…and follow me”; Rom. 6:6 “…our old self was crucified with him, so that the body of sin might be destroyed…”. Rather, we live united with the same desires and “mission” of Christ.

When we die, we do so willing what Christ willed, and for what Christ willed: “For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God ” (Col.3:3). That which desired aught else was dead already, so that what remains is our will for Him which is Eternal Life (Jn 17:3 “and this is eternal life, to know you…”). Having been one with Christ in life, so also we will truly also be one with him in death “for me to live is Christ and to die is gain” (Phil 1:21). In fact, there is nothing else that we can offer to God but our will, which means our will is only for him- what else can God possibly require from us but our total submission to him? When we surrender our will with Christ as in the Garden, “not my will but yours be done” our union is complete, or at least it is begun.

For God’s part, when we thusly accept him, then he condescends to share His own life with us: “…it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me…” Gal 2:20. When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with Him in glory” (Col. 3:4) “Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus” (Ph. 2:5) “clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus” (Rom 12:4). God being immaterial and therefore pure intellect, union with him is truly none other than union of the Will, which is his Intellect. When Jesus says “My food is to do the will of him who sent me…” (John 4:34a), clearly, there is no will in him apart from the will of and for God, and thus he can truly call it his “food”, for it is literally what sustains him in denial of all else and what he is substantially, as the Son of the Father.

There are those who suppose that all men will be saved. Were this the case then, Heaven should have no gates. Those theologians that hold that all humans will eventually reach heaven must surely extend this supposed charity to Satan and his angels also. As it is, there is very much a Gate, and it is Jesus himself (Jn.10:9).

“For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his ” (Rom.6:5). NIV, NRSV, NASB, NKJV all translate “alla kai” as “certainly also” (D-R, KJV -“also”). “Alla kai” indicates a strong association between the antecedent and the consequent. The corollary is that without union with the Gate in death, one will not have union in the Resurrection in his Life. This is in fact stated is such a conditional manner not once but FIVE times if we quote the entire passage between verses 3 and 11:

“Do you not know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we were buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life.

(v.5) For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 

(v.6) We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be destroyed, so we might no longer be enslaved to sin. (v.7) For whoever has died is freed from sin. 

(v.8) But if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 

(v.9-11) “We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. The death he died, he died to sin once for all, but the life he lives, he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.”

We read in the Old Testament:

“I will give them a heart to know that I am the Lord; and they shall be my people and I will be their God, for they shall return to me with their whole heart.” (Jer.24:7);

“Steadfast love and faithfulness will meet; righteousness and peace will kiss each other” (Psalm 85:10)

A Participation in virtues on the Cross

And our suffering in this manner we are not alone, but rather united to God. How so? Because we are exercising the same virtues that He himself exercised in His own state of helplessness. Christ exercised the same virtues in his humanity which we exercise through Faith in him, these virtues in his Humanity flow from his relationship to the Father, for they are his love for the God the Father. The supernatural virtues of Faith are derived from the Love of Christ for God the Father and their perfect loving relationship. God wants us to be like him, but it is impossible for us to be like him “As He is in Glory”. God remedies this by becoming one of us and making it possible now for us to “be like him on the Cross”. St. Paul says: “I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death…” (Phil.3:10, also 1Pet.4:13 “sharing Christ’s sufferings- koinoneite tois tou Christou pathemasin) This awesome mystery can only mean that although we cannot be like God, radiant in his Glory and Majesty, yet it is not untrue to say what we are given to “be like him” in his death and humiliation.

This is why St Paul can say “we…were baptised into his death…if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will also be united with him in a resurrection like his” (6:3,5) This verse is a clear “if…then” conditional- If our death is “like his”, then our resurrection will be like his too. What is it for Christians to undergo a “death like Christ’s”? As the famous third verse from Philippians goes “Christ emptied himself, not clinging to equality with God…” Christ’s relinquished his Godly privilege, and in doing so calls us to relinquish our niggardly human privilege, and what pride we have in it. Jesus did not just empty himself of his divinity, he empties himself on he Cross also of his humanity “no one takes it from me, I lay it down of my own accord”.

To undergo a death like Christ is to exhibit the same virtues that Christ exhibited in his Passion which are his gentleness, humility, and love in the face of our own sufferings. Thereby man is brought into a true participation in the Divine Life of the Holy Trinity as we Love with the Trinitarian love of the Son for the Father, that love that is “poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which is given us”. Our own self-regard no longer presents an obstacle to that divine infusion of love.

In an excerpt from one of his sermons, St Augustine sermon says:

“He had no power of himself to die for us: he had to take from us our mortal flesh. This was the way in which, though immortal, he was able to die; the way in which he chose to give life to mortal men: he would first share with us, and then enable us to share with him. Of ourselves we had no power to live, nor did he of himself have the power to die. In other words, he performed the most wonderful exchange with us. Through us, he died; through him, we shall live”.

In opening ourselves to the divine virtues, through the negation of self in the denial of all to the point of the loss of everything (Phil.3:8). What we are receiving is God himself, the Real Presence of God-who-is-Spirit (Jn.4:24) to our spirit, the spirit which is our seat of virtue.

Christ perfected us and sanctified us, removing all sin form us: Hebrews 10:10,14 “And it is by God’s will that we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all….But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, (…) For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.” This is the “new and living way” “through the veil” which Jesus has “opened up for us”, “which is his body”:”Therefore, my friends, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain (that is, through his flesh)” (Hebrews 10:19,20) Christ entered Heaven, “on our behalf”: For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made by human hands, a mere copy of the true one, but he entered into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. (9:24) and “So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new.” (2 Cor 5:17, also see 4:16)

Why else does Paul have this stress on teaching, preaching and boasting in “nothing but the Cross”. As he says “may I never boast of anything except the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me and I to the world” (Gal (Gal.6:14) and “for I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1Cor.2:2);  “but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles” (1Cor.1:22-25)

Love Engendered as it is Given

Fr. Rahner writes:

“The mystery which we call God gives himself in his divine existence, gives himself to us for our own in a genuine act of self-bestowal. He himself is the grace of our existence. We shall say therefore that what we mean by creation is that the divine being freely “exteriorises” his own activity so as to produce non-divine being, but does this solely in order to produce the necessary prior conditions for his own divine self-bestowal in that free and un-merited love that is identical with himself. He does this is order to raise up beings who can stand in a personal relationship to himself and so receive his message, and on whom he can bestow not only finite and created being distinct from himself, but himself as well. In this way he himself becomes both giver and gift, and even more the actual source of the human being’s own capacity to receive him as gift.” (CoF p.47 from TI-VII)

“If…we search”, Fr. Rahner continues, “for the historical personality who permits us to trust that in him our hope is fulfilled, then we cannot find any other name except the one presented by the witness of the apostles…in Jesus God has answered the question that the human person constitutes in his unlimited, incomprehensible nature…Jesus is the ultimate answer that can never be surpassed, because every conceivable question is annihilated in His death and he is the one answer to the all-encompassing question of human existence in that he is the risen one….” “…the salvific presence of God in the flesh, that is, within human history- the perennial stumbling block of all philosophy and autonomous mysticism..”  “In Jesus destiny, every human philosophy receives for the first time a truly specific and concrete form…” (…) For what does Christianity really declare? Nothing else, after all, than that the great mystery remains eternally a mystery, but that this mystery wishes to communicate himself in absolute self-communication- as the infinite, incomprehensible and inexpressible being whose name is God…this nearness has become a reality not only in what we call “grace” but also in the tangible reality of the one whom we call the Godman…” (CoF pgs.63-4,68, from TI-XVI).

Josef Pieper writes “…Divine revelation is not an announcement of a report on reality, but the imparting of the reality itself.” (Ch. 8, Anthology)

“The Lord, your God, is in your midst, a warrior who gives victory; he will rejoice over you with gladness, he will renew you in his love; he will exult over you with loud singing as on a day of festival.” -Zephaniah 3:17

“Kneel!”, his executioners commanded, and God obeyed, willingly going down on both knees and bowing his head over the pillar, all the while as saying, “Now will you love me?”

“…in order to secure the effects of Christ’s Passion, we must be likened unto Him…” [STIII Art.3]

Thus it is that Jesus is able to make the seemingly outlandish demands of us: “Love your enemies…if you love those who love you what good is that?…”, “If you so much as look at a woman with lust, you will be guilty…” and “if you call your brother “fool”..” “bless and don’t curse them (those who curse you)…do good to those who harm you…” Love is all Jesus wanted to prove to the world, and for us to take out into the world: “by this might all men know that you are my disciples…”.

“…The hope of the world took refuge on a raft (…) For blessed is the wood by which righteousness comes.” (Wis 14:7).

Faith forged in Suffering

To suffer is to suffer some loss, and is the simplest definition of suffering. Suffering in the face of death brings the fear of the loss of everything, while the suffering of pain brings the loss of physical security. In a state of loss we are rendered needy, and in the loss of everything we are totally and utterly dependent. Thus suffering actually opens the door to faith in the reality of God, for our utter neediness and dependence upon him is the only true reality.

As we become aware of our total dependence upon God in a state of pure Faith, we become open to receive his gifts. God gives to us the supernatural virtues of Faith Love and Hope. After all, faith hope and love are faith in, hope for, and love of God. Faith and Hope are both virtues of a dependent state, of dependency, they are not virtues of independency. (In Heaven we will require neither, as St. Paul says “only love remains…”) However it is in this awareness and acceptance we receive God, for the acceptance of our dependence on God  is the acceptance of God himself “…and hope does not disappoint us, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit that has been given to us.” (Rom. 5:5). Thus the rightly called “supernatural virtues” of Faith, Hope and Love do not correspond to the secular human virtues of the same name, nor those in any other religion either. The reason is that Christian faith hope and love, is faith in, hope for and love of Jesus specifically.

Christian faith is in a God who “as good as dead” upon the Cross, bringing it in line with the notion of faith based on vulnerability, the characteristic of the entire prophetic cycle. Abraham believed, as the author of the book of Hebrews writes, “although his body was as good as dead”, and although “Sarah womb is as good as dead”, and further he became willing to give up his son Isaac for dead, in faith. Thus is a faith that is in a state of deprivation of every co-ordinate of human strength.

We are dependent for everything upon an omnipotent God, who gives to us everything precisely through his omnipotence. Suffering, through bringing us into the clear awareness of this reality, which is the only true reality, then clears the way for our attainment of that same reality, which is God, through such an awareness. This is the primary meaning of suffering.

Aquinas’ Reflection on Christ’s Spiritual Suffering

St. Aquinas provides a profound meditation on the actual nature of the sufferings of Christ which are not immediately apparent to the reader. He first considers that Jesus’ Body being perfect, would have a perfectly acute sensitivity to pain too: “…His body was endowed with a most perfect constitution, since it was fashioned miraculously by the operation of the Holy Ghost; just as some other things made by miracles are better than others, as Chrysostom says, respecting the wine into which Christ changed the water at the wedding-feast. And, consequently, Christ’s sense of touch, the sensitiveness of which is the reason for our feeling pain, was most acute (…) His soul likewise, from its interior powers, apprehended most vehemently all the causes of sadness….” Further, St. Thomas considers that as a consequence of the purity of Jesus’ soul, Christian writers will say that Christ’s greatest sufferings on the Cross were not his physical sufferings, great as they were, but rather his spiritual sufferings. “…Christ grieved not only over the loss of His own bodily life, but also over the sins of all others. And this grief in Christ surpassed all grief of every contrite heart, both because it flowed from a greater wisdom and charity, by which the pang of contrition is intensified, and because He grieved at the one time for all sins, according to Isaiah 53:4: “Surely He hath carried our sorrows”. [STIII Q.46]. It is written in the Gospels about Jesus’ Agony in the Garden while he is praying to the Father: “He began to be deeply sorrowful and distressed (grieved and agitated NRSV) (Gk: λυπεῖσθαι καὶ ἀδημονεῖν” and says “My soul is very sorrowful (Περίλυπός) even unto death”.

St Thomas considers even further that Jesus’ soul would suffer spiritual sadness for the sins of men in a manner not mitigated from distraction by his physical sufferings. A person tormented by pain might find he is unable to have higher spiritual considerations, not so Jesus: “…In other sufferers the interior sadness is mitigated, and even the exterior suffering, from some consideration of reason, by some derivation or redundance from the higher powers into the lower; but it was not so with the suffering Christ, because “He permitted each one of His powers to exercise its proper function (…) And what is meant by this is that in ordinary men, when the lower powers i.e. physical pain are in extremis, that is they are suffering to their utmost, there is some relief from the suffering of the higher intellectual powers, which are effectually clouded… not so in Christ….”

St Thomas concludes his contemplation with the following reflection on the aspects of Jesus’ complete humiliation for our sakes: “…Now in His Passion Christ humbled Himself beneath His dignity in four respects. In the first place as to His Passion and death, to which He was not bound; secondly, as to the place, since His body was laid in a sepulchre and His soul in hell; thirdly, as to the shame and mockeries He endured; fourthly, as to His being delivered up to man’s power..”[STII Q.49 Art. 6].

The Purpose of our Bodies and Families

God as insufficient- a spiritual oversight

Angels lack a physical body, and yet we have no reason to believe they are deprived of the pleasures of Heaven (It might be useful to note that Muslims might not quite agree with the “lack a physical body” phraseology here, but that is largely due to semantic differences in the use of spirit-flesh dichotomy in that tradition. In any case, however without rabbit-trailing into those aspects, we can agree that angels lack sexual or sensual natures and/or lives, which is what is pertinent here). From this itself it would seem reasonable to conclude that sensuality could not possibly be an essential or vital component of heavenly pleasure, unless we are to believe that angels are deprived of some essential element of joy in God’s presence, and that being sex, of all things.

Any theology that does not teach a sex-less afterlife would therefore seem to commit the primary oversight of holding that God is not enough to completely satisfy every creaturely desire (as he does with the angels). Again, for the sake of those from other religious traditions: when we say “God is enough”, we mean the experience of God in an unmediated fashion, rather than the experience of anything that he creates. So we are not saying God is enough to give us x, y and z which satisfy us, rather that there is nothing he requires to do but be who he is in order to satisfy us.

The Qur’an as a contrast

Islam offers a useful contrast, with the Qur’anic onus on mediate pleasures in Heaven (one can look at Qur’anic verses 37:48,49; 38:51,52; 44:54; 52:20; 55:54-59, 72-78; 56:22,35-8 and 78:32-33). . In addition there are numerous verses that speak of the other sensual pleasures, pleasant gardens, food and drink and other creature comforts, which I do not list here.

Of the other world religions, this kind of belief in a predominanatly sensual Heaven is closest to the belief of Jehovah’s Witnesses (at the same time, some within the latter might take an agnostic view towards the presence of the sexual act). Other than that some prominent strands of Hinduism focus on sensuality perhaps the most prominent of these being the ISKCON, popularly recogniable from the “Hare Rama” movement which became prominent in the 60s and the “hippie” age.

Christianity on the other hand certainly contains the scriptural and theological premises and foundation whereby such the assertion might be made that God is enough, rather it is sex that is not enough, which is the whole point of the afterlife in it.

There are various responses I have had from Muslims regarding this, and I can only guess depends on which scholar you read. But these are the main forms the responses take:

• “The sexual enticements are intended for those who are not of a pious/spiritual bent of mind, so that at least it will make them start believing in Allah because of the sex.”

Not having a spirituality/piety is the criteria from distinguishing those that go to Hell from those that do not. In the absence of this it is hard to know what distinguishes sin from virtue. That makes it an absurd reply. If anyone has trouble with that please try and give some actual reasons, and I’ll reply

• “The real motivation in the Qur’an really is “seeking the face of Allah”.

I address this reply in this article. Essentially: a close reading of the text should demonstrate that God is indeed not the primary motivator. Furthermore, a comparison to the Christian scriptures will help Muslims to see how a religious text that is truly focussed on God might read.

• “So what if God provides sex as the primary motivation for us, and so what if there is sex in Heaven”.

The response to that is a different article, so do let me know if you’re interested.

• “The sex is intended allegorically, not literally”.

I would reply that this would seem disingenuous and would still seem like an enticement, which is the first reply.

• The fifth type is a confused mix of the first four.

As I said, I only reply to the second response here in this article

What of the Qur’anic verses that speak of “seeking God’s face”?

When the Qur’an says “for the sake of the face of Allah” in certain verses, this must be interpreted along with all of the verses in it that deal with the issue of motivation.

When we do examine these verses we find that even when Quran speaks of “seeking the countenance of Allah”, it never says that the joy of heaven consists in this. When Quran speaks specifically of the rewards of heaven on the other hand, it always talks of sensuality and only. This is the issue here. There are other corroborating points to consider here.

Firstly, even when the Qur’an relates chosen Biblical verses in which persons actually see God, for example when it says that Moses “saw God face to face”, this is never taken as aspirational, rather it is a side issue. Contrast this with the Bible where when Moses emerges from the tent beaming with the reflected glory of God so that the people cannot even look at him.

Further, Islam is unclear as to whether Allah is even really present in Janna. This means that the question of inhabiting the same realm as the Creator is not an Islamic concept anyway. In Islam there always remains a distance between Allah and the believers, and this is the reason believers can only ever be called “slaves”.

One can, not unreasonably, conclude from all of the foregoing that this phrase is a literary device rather than literal. It is given to mean “seek the pleasure of the deity”. The act of turning the face toward the supplicant can be seen as a gesture and sign of the pleasure of the king, and his approval. 

These are the verses that speak of “seeking the countenance of Allah”:

“So give to the kinsman his due, and to the needy, and to the wayfarer. That is best for those who seek Allah’s Countenance. And such are they who are successful.” [Surah al-Room 38:30]

“A spring of which the [righteous] servants of Allah will drink; they will make it gush forth in force [and abundance]. They [are those who] fulfill [their] vows and fear a Day whose evil will be widespread. And they give food in spite of love for it to the needy, the orphan, and the captive, [Saying], “We feed you only for the countenance of Allah . We wish not from you reward or gratitude.”” (Surah al-Insaan 76:9)

“[He] who gives [from] his wealth to purify himself And not [giving] for anyone who has [done him] a favor to be rewarded But only seeking the countenance of his Lord, Most High.” [Q.92:19-21]

“do not drive away those who call upon the Lord morning and evening, seeking nothing but his Face (wajhahu- his face)” (Q 6:52a).

The BIble, in Contrast

In the Old Testament, King David states:

“One thing have I asked of the Lord,
    that will I seek after;
that I may dwell in the house of the Lord
    all the days of my life,
to behold the beauty of the Lord,
    and to inquire in his temple.” (Ps 28:4)

The Bible has tantalizing encounters between man and God, the sheer awe of which completely obviate and relegate to triviality any need for questions as to “what else” is on the menu (the stand-out examples are those of Moses, Isaiah and Ezekiel). Also resulting from this and corroborating the former assertion, the Bible is so bereft of sensual offerings that when a couple of tmes “feasting” is referred to it is not hard to see this as allegory. The manner in which these seeming material delights are sparse, out of focus and unstressed in the Bible. For example, Psalm 36:8,9 would seem to come closest, but even here, it is not evdent that the quality of physical experiences is what is in view, judge for yourselves:

“They feast on the abundance of your house,
    and you give them drink from the river of your delights.
For with you is the fountain of life;
    in your light we see light.”

Rather, the Old Testament is largely completely silent on the topic of the specific pleasures of the afterlife and carries the obvious implication that in the light of the majesty of God these did not even merit discussing- which is precisely the Christian view. Do we really turn up at Heaven’s gate only to inquire about the menu?

The New Testament on the other hand builds and enriches this theme, being founded upon the notion of the developement of virtue and purity in imitation of Jesus’ life, in preparation for our meeting with God. It is this meeing with God which is the reward and the sufficient motivation for the renunciation of every other pleasure. As Jesus says, we will receive “…a hundredfold now in this age—houses, brothers and sisters, mothers and children, and fields, with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life…” (Mk.10:30, Lk.18:30).

A Cradle for Virtue

Using Islam as a contrast once again- I would typically be asked by Muslims as to why then do we have physical bodies in the first place. This question presumes that the mere possession of genitalia implies the necessity of their gratification.

First let us examine what “purity” might entail. Necessarily for man, purity consists in and only in relationship with God. Man has nothing in and of himself, and therefore he can only increase in worth through increasing in proximity, which is relationship with his Creator (when we get close to someone, it is relationship with them which gets deeper and more involved). the only manner in which we can get nearer to God is by increasing in goodness and virtue. Although everything gets hotly contested in theological debates with other traditions, such assertions are not really up for dispute and I do not need to provide a lengthy defence here. For example, we can derive such an assertion merely from the corollary that those that increase in evil will surely rupture their relationship with God. A priori there is nothing other than virtue which might be taken as a yardstick for purity and nothing other than purity that can be taken as a yardstick for nearness to God.

The family and societal life that God gives us to live is precisely that state in which we receive the virtues and are trained in the discipline of their practise. But of these, it is the family life that is most intimate to us, and by dint of that the most challenging and most vital to our spiritual growth. As someone (Aquinas?) once said, a virtue is exercised when one is faced with its opposite, that is, it’s corresponding vice. For example, when the temptation is to tun away, those that stay put will increase in courage, or when the temptation is to turn a blind eye, those that stop and help increase in the exercise of charity, or when faced with the greatest suffering and persecution those that hold fast to their beliefs, increase in faith and so on.

Of all places, it is in family that we are faced with the greatest temptations of anger, hatred, greed, envy, and lust thereby receiving also the opportunity to grow in the corresponding virtues of gentleness, humility, temperance. Thus these virtues are developed precisely in that significant relationship which we are given to live out in faithfulness, which is our married lives.

There is no way to purity for us that is not linked to those who are given to be nearest to us, as though purity were unrelated to personal relationships, for purity is not found in a vacuum. But the road to purity is for us a foretaste of the relationship we are called into with God himself.

The words of the Shema Israel prayer: “you shall love the Lord your God with all you heart, with all your mind and with all your strength” (Dt. 6:5, Luk.10:27) only have meaning when we aspire to have that same loving attitude to those around us, and the more that we do so, the more honor we give to God. As the Bible teaches: “If anyone says, “I love God,” but hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.” (1Jn. 4:20).

Divorce, the Rupture of Virtue

The Christian teaching is one in which we directly increase in love for God merely through something so simple as our relations with the one next to us. As Jesus says famously “you did it to me” (Mt.25:40,45 cf.Act.9:5). The kind of hatred that leads to divorce leads to the removal of the possibility of learning the virtues of sacrificial love in family that we are given. Failure to compromise personal desires in family living with the resultant marital rupture causes harm not only to the spousal partners, but also to the children. Fractured upbringing through the discontinuation and/or interruption of the parental relationship causes significant harm and fails to convey to the children important lessons in loving relationships and self-sacrifice. And yet the greatest moral teaching that a parent can convey is how to love in face of difficulties. Charty can only be truly and lovingly be performed as arising from virtue engendered in and practised towards those nearest to us. Else all charity becomes detached and no more than an effort to fulfil religious edicts for one’s own satisfaction and exaltation.

The provision of easy divorce on the other hand, creates a cultural atmosphere contrary to compromise and sacrifice. Relationships based on the availability of easy divorce are akin to the serial live-in relationships of western secularists. Were religious relationships no different from secular relationships then it is hard to see what the point of religious teaching was, and so it is all the more shocking that such a difference is found nowhere but in the Christian religion in doctrines like the sanctity and indissolubility of marriage. The theological danger of such relationships is to shift the onus from self-sacrifice on to utilitarianism and commodification, which is more or less the difference between religion and irreligion anyway. Polygamous relationships suffer from the same problem, with the difference that it has multiple partners running in parallel in addition to in series.

It is not a hard to see that such compromise of the holy purpose of the body and of marriage would be precisely what the Devil intended and his exact design. Or what other design would the Devil have other than one which turned worship away from God and toward the worship of self. If God is meant to teach us love, then he teaches it in a family, and in the love of a family. That’s why the teaching about family is the most important teaching in a religion, for without it we cannot learn to love God. Where else can one learn to love, in a temple sermon?

Marriage is that relationship where one learns to be perfect like God, through aspiring to love perfectly. If one cannot forgive the person closest to them, how then can one truly forgive anyone else? Marriage is the most loving relationship because it calls for greatest love and humility. This in turn is because it involves the greatest proximity possible for two human individuals, where all the living systems are shared, including time, space, and money. Nothing could possibly call for greater tolerance, as a result.

The Place of Sex, and what is Lust

We’ll repeat what we said before: the cardinal error of all theologies that propose sensual heavenly satisfactions is essentially the spiritual oversight that God is not sufficient for us. Sensuality is a feature of temporality, all living beings require their senses in order to navigate the physical world. Christianity holds that the purpose of the temporal world is to point and guide us to that which is beyond it, which is eternal Life.

Sex- Expression of Love, Corruption of Love

It should be obvious that sex is not only the greatest pleasure available to humans, but also consequently the greatest temptation and corrupter for them. Again, it is only natural that the greatest obsession for human beings is also what is most able to corrupt them. It only requires a glance at the culture in the West to appreciate the power that sex holds over people. Or again, the recognition that sex is the greatest corrupter of human hearts can be seen in the manner that Islamic countries attempt the total veiling of their women.

Sex is primarily the act and expression of love, and it is the pinnacle of intimacy of one human being with another. As a result, there is no greater corrupter of the love of a woman than the love of sex with a woman, which is lust. This is the root of every sexual sin and deviancy. This is the reason that a marriage cannot merely be based on the love of the sex involved, for this is the same as the basis for a commercial transaction with a prostitute.

Again, although this might seem obvious to most practising Christians, I have often struggled to get this across in conversations because many have come to see sex as a sort of essential driver in a marriage without which one is left with a broken engine, as though sex is the very thing that keeps the spark and flame of marriage alive. Again, sex is merely the result and expression of the love that is in a marriage. This is the reason that sex comes after marriage, not before. Sex is simply not indispensable in a marriage, rather it is marriage that is indispensable to humanity.

That which corrupts a relationship, just as in religion or anything else, is misuse. In a healthy relationship the other is cherished, and such a relationship will indeed remain pure. No human being wants to be cherished for their sexual potential, rather humans requiring cherishing for “who they are”. Making sex the foundation for a relationship is no different from making money its focus: take the example of a relationship which breaks down because due to dissatisfaction with the spouse’s earning capacity. Anything that substitutes itself for the chief focus of a relationship which is the person, is what corrupts a relationship. Because sex is the closest surrogate to a person, it can confuse people, in the same manner that financial considerations can. To those who remain unconvinced, the best writings on the topic to ever have been penned are the late Pope John Paul II’s writings, particularly Love and Responsibility and Theology of the Body.

Against the same sex, one can commits the sins of greed, pride and anger. Against the opposite sex however, one commits all of these above with the addition of lust, or sexual objectification. Finally, it seems that evolutionarily lust is a greater temptation for the male than it is for the female. This is seemingly an evolutionary remnant from the animal kingdom in which the males vie for the female also and take up the active role in copulation at the end of the mating ritual. But a female is able to use this to their advantage, and joins in the sin in this manner.

As result of all the foregoing it would only seem fitting then that sex be protected by exclusivity so that it cannot be corrupted by desire. This is only possible in a marriage that is fully committed to the loving act of self-giving, into which children can be born. Such a child then is the result of true love rather than of merely lustful feeling, and that child will then be truly loved in turn, rather than be a byproduct of a degrading emotion felt for another. And having received what is truly loving, such an emption will also be engendered within that child towards others.

For men, lust for power and sex go together, it doesn’t take a genius to understand this although a woman might struggle to get this. When men defend, it is for their homes and families. But when men initiate aggression, it is for power. Power is not like wanting Duracell batteries. There is a reason that men want power to dominate over others. You can’t eat money. There is a reason you want other people’s money too. It’s for what power can bring and what money can buy. Ultimately what power obtains and money buys is not mere food, for man does not live to eat. The deepest desire of the soul is companionship and the most intimate form of companionship is not friendship, it is with the opposite sex. Money and power obtain a distorted surrogate of companionship that sinful man cannot differentiate from the genuine thing, but it brings a temporary satisfaction nonetheless. We call this “lust”, and its satisfaction.

THE PROBLEMS OF POLYGAMY

A polygamous marriage will entail competitiveness rather than love, beginning with wives competing with for the husband’s bed so that they might bear children, to competition between children for the paternal favour. In a monogamous and indissoluble marriage, the desires are protected through removal of other options, so to speak, while in polygamous soluble marriages in contrast, the desires run the risk of being given free rein. Polygamous marriages were never envisioned with a view to exclusivity, and this is the reason that indissolubility was never a feature found in them. In fact polygamous marriages never possessed a particular spiritual vision, and it is not surprising that although the patriarchs may have practised it, there is no clear teaching from God regarding it. It seems to have merely been taken on from the locally prevalent customs rather than divinely decreed.

This is not a problem for Christianity, since we do not hold the patriarchs to the uniquely Christian teachings that were revealed only with the advent of Jesus. The problems of polygamy again, are quite obvious, and if one were still conflicted in this, then know that in even most modern Muslims, like those who live in Western countries do not believe it is suitable for the present day or want it for themselves. Polygamy ends up being akin to keeping buffaloes, there is no requirement for a moral law that restricts a man to only one. Essentially it reduces the worth of a woman by setting up an inherently unequal relationship at the basis of human and family life. It is suitable for us to be unequally yoked to God, but not to each other, because God can truly love us all equally and in a magnitude that is undiminished by how many of us there are, we cannot.

God establishes man with the capacity and the circumstances that are conducive to his spiritual growth. Thus it is in the family that a child experiences love, when he is given the experiences of the undivided and unconditional love of his parents, so also it is in a committed relationship with his spouse that a man learns about the unconditional and undivided love that he is called to give, which is his highest spiritual calling.

Further as we will discuss also later, sexual joy is maximised in a monogamous relatonship in which the affections are not divided and the devotion of each of the spouses for the other is total. Moreover it is not hard to also see that the intensity of the brief pleasure surge of sex might not really weigh as a greater joy than a relationship in which one is truly loved, cherished and cared for, but there seems to wither be the assumption in these philosophies that it is, or the joy of pure love is ignored altogether in them.

In summary, if the meaning of sex changes apart from its role in family, then the meaning of family changes too. The meaning of both is transcended in Heaven where there is neither reproduction nor the raising of children.

“SO WHAT ARE GENITALS FOR ?”, AND THAT LOVE IS PURE JOY.

You will hear the “so what are genitals for?” objection from those that believe in a sexual Heaven, which begs the question of what any of our bodies parts will be for in Heaven all. This seems to presume that each part of our body were to serve the same purpose in Heaven that it used to serve on Earth. The answer lies in reflecting upon what the genitals were for on Earth in the first place. What most such philosophies tend to lack is the appreciation that the whole point of Heaven is that the referents there are changed, from being the self on Earth, to God in Heaven. But let’s look at the whole body, since that is what the objection is based upon, and its desires. What is the heart going to be for, will it be necessary for it to pump blood round the body, and similarly also the liver and kidneys and so on. What about our legs will we really need those to navigate Heaven? And what about our toes and toe-nails, will we require our nails to protect our toes from getting stubbed on heavenly coffee tables and our fingers from getting jammed in heavenly door-hinges? It is probably not incorrect to surmise that as with the other organs like the liver, kidneys, pancreas, adrenals, even the functions of that mostvaunted of organs, our brains, will be taken over by the faculties of the soul. What will the eyes and ears be for, will there really be hearing through sound-wave data, or a perception that transcends both hearing and sight? It seems more correct to presume that the soul perceives God directly rather than that the cells and neurons in the brain be simply given enhanced ability to process “divine data”. These are questions we might not always dwell upon, but it is worth bringing them up for when a question like “so what are genitals for?” is asked. What use is any of the human apertunres (I count 7 for male and 8 for female, incuding 2 ears, not includig glandular apertures like sweat, sebum and mammary) where there is no air and no food ingestion, digestion, excretion.

I think the worry of those that ask this question is that the mere presence of genitalia will mean that the urges related to them will be irresistible to them as they were on Earth. First of all this is a very male concern. But male polemicists that make this claim should not merely assume that women will feel the same way about their own bodies. It is a common error for men to merely extrapolate their desires and drives onto women, and for women to go along with those, in excahange for the security that the male provides. But when all the organs are considered as we have just done, it seems more sensible that at the most these might serve, if anything, as a reminder of what lives we lived and the route which brought us to heaven. the sex organs, like the Wounds of Christ will be like the trophies of the path that brought us to Heaven, not because they were vanquished, but because the disordered desires related to them were vanquished. The organs themselves in doing so, were celebrated. Those organs like the stomach and the genitals will cease to be a temptation. At the same time, rather than persist as a sort of fond longing, they will serve as a reflection of how much greater is the transcendent pleasure in God’s Presence, and how those primitive and bestial desires ultimately pointed us to the fulfilment of what was really our greatest desire. We will not be stimulated by dopaminergic responses in Heaven, God does not require to employ these. We describe the true joy of Heaven in a following section.

“For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.” (1Jn.2:16)

In summary, if our genitalia do persist in Heaven there is no necessity that they should also be functional nor should the desires associated with them continue to be desirable any more than even digestive and excretory functions should continue any longer. There is no a priori requirement to use a different metric for the one set of organ systems and a different one for the others. Those that place a premium on sexual gratification in Heaven also seemingly assume the premise that sex really is the greatest earthly pleasure, when it fact it is actually the love in a relationship that makes sex even slightly pleasurable and without which sex brings feeling of the greatest possible resentment, remorse, self-loathing and despair. All of these are also reasons why sexual joy is maximised in a monogamous relationship in which the affections are not divided and the devotion of each of the spouses for the other is total. It is not hard to also see that the intensity of the brief pleasure surge in a sexual encounter does not really weigh as a greater joy than a relationship in which one is truly loved, cherished and cared for.

We can quote here from St. Paul:

““All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything. “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food”—and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power.” (1Cor.6:12-14)

WHAT DOES JESUS SAY?

This is why Jesus says that there is no divorce, NO MAN can issue such a certificate:

i“However, from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” (Mk.10:6-9)

and

“I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

And no lust for the true believer:

“27You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Mt.5:28)

CONCLUSION

A religion that provides a false motive is necessarily false itself. False motivations are the manner in which every spiritual deception operates. My assertion is that the Qur’an provides such a false motivation to its prospective adherents and in fact makes such motivations central in the religion. This in turn has ramifications that pervade all the religious teaching in Islam and affect the attitudes toward weaker sex, children and the unbeliever.

Our Transformation and Union with God

In this final part we look at man’s relationship with God, how it is redeemed by God, in justice and mercy, granting to man the holiness and purity by which he might finally be united to his creator.

“Spirituality” as the Prerequisite for Morality, Purity, Holiness

Holiness/ Purity/ Sanctity/ Justification/ Righteousness/ Perfection- all the same esentially

The inevitable conclusion that we will draw in this section is that there cannot be any holiness, purity, or indeed morality without “spirituality”, and to avoid ambiguity, we use “spirituality” in the sense that Paul uses it in passages like Rom.8 and 1Cor.2.

The Biblical use of Holiness/Purity/Sanctity

It’s worth reflecting on these bibical concepts due to their centrality (this is also in my Corinthians Bible study). Holiness/ purity/ sanctity/ justification/ righteousness/ perfection are all just really synonyms for the kind of goal God has in mind for us, in effect different manners of expressing the perfection of God himself, since after all, God calls us to imitate and be like him inasmuch as it is possible for a creature. Any distinction in these terms is merely in the manner of usage, for example, “justification” refers to a passive action, while the others which refer more to a stable state, can also be changed into passive verbs with the addition of “-ification”.

NJBC notes in the commentary on 1 Thesselonians “in the Hellenistic world “blameless was used to describe people of exeptional character. Within the NT “blameless” is a Pauline word (2:10); six of its 8 uses are found in his letters” (p.1723) and notes with ref. to v.4:3-8 “holiness (hagiasmos) is a cultic term which means “belonging to God”, “serving God’s purpose” (p.1724). The NT uses n. dikaiosyne for righteousness, and v. dikaioo for justification. Holiness is hagios (n., 243 occ.) while sanctification is hagioo (v.) and hagiazo. Hagiazo- 28 occ.: Mt.6:9, Lk.11:12 “hallowed by thy name”, Jn.10:36 “whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world”; Jn.17:17 “sanctify them in truth”; 17:19 “for theri sakes I sanctify myself that they may be also sanctified in the truth”; Acts 20:32; 26:18 “all those who have been sanctified”; Rom.15:16 “sanctified by the Holy Spirit” 1Cor.1:2 “who have been sanctified in Christ”; 1Cor.6:11 “but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ…”; Eph.5:26 “so that he might sanctify her having cleansed her by the washing of the water of the word” 1Thes5:23 “May the God of peace sanctify you wholly…blameless for the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ”. Then we have all the occ. of hagiazo in Hebrews, which are mostly in relation to Christ sanctifying his followers: “for the one who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one Father” (Heb.2:11); “…how much more will he blood of Christ purify your conscience from dead works…” (Heb.9:13,14); “…it is by God’s will that we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Christ once and for all…Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins…” (Heb.10:12,14); “…the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified…” (10:29) “Therefore Jesus suffered outside the city gate in order to sanctify the people by his own blood” (13:12) “those who have spurned the Son of God, profaned the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of Grace?”. Finally 1Pet.3:15 “sanctify Christ as Lord” and Rev.22:11 “he that is hole let him be holy still”.

Purification is “cleansing- katharsis” [eg.2Cor.7:1]. “Perfection” is- teleiotes (end, 19 occ.,: Mt.5:48×2, 19:21, Rom.12:2; 1Cor2:6, 14:20;Eph.4:13; Php3:15; Col.1:28,4:12; Heb.5:14,9:11; Jam.1:4×2,1:17,1:25, 3:2, 1Jn.4:18, see section on the purification of conscience).

Related words are amomos (blameless/unblemished, 9occ.: Eph.1:4, 5:27; Phil.2:15, Col.1;22; Heb.9:14, 1Pet.1:19; Jud.1:24; Rev.14:5, 18:13 from momos, blame, 1occ.), anenkletos (blameless. 5occ.: 1Cor.1:8; Col1:22; Tim.3:10; Tit.1:6, 1:7), and the much less common eilikrines (pure, 2occ.Phi;1:10, 2Pet.3:1) and aproskpos (blameless, 3occ., Act.24;16; 1Cor.10:32; Phil.1:10, from proskopto- strike, stumble).

Whatever the aspect, the OT seemingly only has one word: kadosh (eg. Is.6:3 holy God, Deut 18:19, holy people kadosh am, holy place). Kadosh n.-118occ., plus v.-175 occ. kadash– to consecrate, set apart etc. There are 5 central verses on the theme- three in Lev., and one each in Gen. and Deut.:

Lev.19:2 ““Speak to all the congregation of the people of Israel and say to them, You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy”; Lev.11:44 “For I am the Lord your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. You shall not defile yourselves with any swarming thing that crawls on the ground.” Lev.20:26 “You shall be holy to me, for I the Lord am holy and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be mine”; Gen.17:1 “When Abram was ninety-nine years old the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless” and finallly, Deut.18:13 “You shall be blameless before the Lord your God…” In addition, we also see the command to distance ourselves from the unholy: “Isaiah 52:11 “Depart, depart, go out from there; touch no unclean thing; go out from the midst of her; purify yourselves, you who bear the vessels of the Lord” (cf.Num.16:26)

These roots are useful to note, as they prevents us from rabbit-trailing down spirals led by poorly informed preachers. God is one and his perfection is one. The only thing not one about God is persons. We don’t go to heaven with some mash-up of 5 different things. In the end all the virtues are love and God is love, so it’s not really a pizza-pie situation. Other religions can struggle with this, because “purity” can become related to ceremonial duties that externally prepare oneself for prayer, and separate from sanctity as obedience to prescribed laws and spirituality really as an ill-defined term that loosely connotes pious sentiment, but we need to be careful to avoid these traps, the differences between religions can be subtle on the surface.

But we were to reflect on the central narrative of holiness and the nucleus of it in the Bible, we see the startling exhortation to man to aspire to the “holiness/ perfection of God”, through Jesus’ action and stemming from his desire to present us as such to his Father.

In the NT, we have Jesus quoted as saying:“You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”; (Lk.6:36) “Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.”

This is reflected in Paul’s as well as other Biblical epistles. They are all enumerated in the word study above, and I quote a handful here:

2Cor.6:17-7:1 “Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you, and I will be your Father and you shall be my sons and daughters. Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God” 1Pet.1:15-16 “but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.”” James 1:4 “And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing”; Eph.5:1-2 “Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us…” 1Jn.3:3 “And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure.” 2 Cor.7:1 “Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God.” Phip.3:12-15 “Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own…”

Scriptural teaching on Spirituality

Paul descibes in Romans 8 what it is to live “according to the spirit” kata pneuma and again in 1Cor.2:14,15 (both quoted below), which is the pursuit of God for-his-own-sake and in denial of all else. This is played out in his numerous writings where he does indeed gives all else up, even basic human conforts, if only for the privilege of knowing and following Jesus and imitating his life especially 1Cor.4:9-13; 2Cor.4:7-16; 2Cor.6:4-10; and 2Cor.12:7-10. “I want to know Christ (tou gnonai auton Phil,3:10)”, Paul says, as he determines to give up all else as “rubbish” and “dung”. In relinquishing desire of all else is the relation of God, which is what this mutual “knowing” is “I shall know fully as I am fully known (epignosomai kathos kai epignosthen 1Cor.13:12)”. We do not know God until out desire is for him too, and in exclusion of all else. We’ve looked at this in detail in the previous sections, and seen how this is the firm conclusion that we can reach.

This is directly echoing Jesus’ most prominent teachings in the Gospels: Mt.16:24 (if any want to become my followers leth them deny themselves, take up their cross and follow me- Εἴ τις θέλει ὀπίσω μου ἐλθεῖν, ἀπαρνησάσθω ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἀράτω τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἀκολουθείτω μοι.); Mt.19:21 (“ei theleis teleios einai- if you want to be perfect…); Lk.16:24 (only one thing is necessary- ὀλίγων / ἑνὸς δέ ἐστιν χρεία (ἢ ἑνός)), Jn.16:33 “…In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.””; Jn.17:14,16 “the world has hated them because they do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to the world…”

Without holiness there is no hope for union with God, because holiness itself is that union. A deficiency of such a path is typical of man-made religion. That is the most expedient lens to use while choosing one’s religion, and why I see no reason to change mine: If the primary text omits the primary purpose of religion, then one has reason to doubt its divine origin. And by that I do not mean the writings of later commentators and mystics- people say a lot of things, who can keep track of or investigate their sources and motivations.

The Problem of Amorality

We do not, in the primary religious texts of the major extra-Christian world religion, find the notion of the pure desire for God in and for himself in exclusion of other desires. This is significant because indeed, the Cause of Evil is a heart that is divided before God. The God of the Bible is a “Jealous God” (El-Qanna), implying that he wants all our desire for him alone. The reason for this is not hard to understand, There are only two points on a moral compass: self or God- everything south of God is self. A moral compass directed at self is pleasure-seeking, while one directed to God seeks him instead, and he is enough, even enough pleasure. It is quite obvious that the pursuit of the pleasures of the flesh are the cause of every evil on Earth (1Jn.2:16,17).

Thus it cannot possibly be the case that Heaven consist in the acquisition of the same fleshly desires that drew us away from God while we were on Earth, as though there were no real difference between heavenly and earthly pursuits (Mt.6:19-21; Lk.12:33,34; Rom.8:5), or as though the only difference between sinners and saints were that sinners did on Earth that which saints did in Heaven. On the contrary, Heaven is the eternal freedom from the temptation of the lesser desires that kept us away from experiencing true joy, that is why its Heavenly. Heaven was never inended to imply unhindered access to earthly pleasures.

In Christianity we are thus given a coherent definition of that which perplexes the rest of the world and its religions and is drowned in a morass of subjectivity. Morally justifiable decisions are those taken in self-denial, or in placing the other before the self. In contrast therefore, every other philosophy is “amoral”, if you took you compass out, it would flutter, and point mostly south. The version of morality that we do get in other religions is “divine command theory”, where morality is inscrutable apart from the fact that it’s teachings happen to be found in a particular religious text. In the Christian religion, the moral referent is always to do with that which is the most loving (eg. Jn.13:35, 1Jn2:11; Mk12:30,31; Mt.5:43-48; Rom.12:21).

The pursuit of an absolute and unhindered love (Jn.13:34-35, 3:16) cannot exist in a religion lacking such an objective morality. Christianity, on the other hand is the love which never ends (1Cor.13:8; 1Jn4:8,16). Some forms of oriental religion like trantra don’t even bother with pretence, the pursuit of sex is not only part of spirituality, it is spirituality itself. But without a moral referent, where is the objection to it? St. Paul is very clear that those bent on sensual pursuits would not even recognise that which came from God. Anything north of the self is “foolishness” to them. They even mock the Christian Heaven without realizing that the quality of Heaven in Christianity is that it is not earthy:

“Those who are unspiritual do not receive the gifts of God’s Spirit, for they are foolishness to them, and they are unable to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. Those who are spiritual discern all things, (…) “For who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.” (1Cor.2:14,15)

and again:

“…us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit (…) To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For this reason the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God to phronema tes sarkos ekthra ton theon); it does not submit (οὐχ ὑποτάσσεται), to God’s law—indeed it cannot (οὐδὲ γὰρ δύναται), and those who are in the flesh (en sarki vs. enpneumati) cannot please God (Rom.8:4-8).

Christianity as Defining Purity and Holiness

Let us restate our primary contention again- we do not, in the primary text of any extra-Christian religion, find the teaching of the pursuit of God in exclusion and denial of all other desires, such that God is, in and of himself, the primary, sufficient and superabundant joy and fulfilment of the soul. We saw in the previous section that this enabled us to actually define morality. Now we see that this also enables us to define “purity” and “sanctity”. Purity is the state of the desire for God that is unblemished by any competing desires or temptations, like the pure white lamb that God demanded of the Israelites. one that is exclusive of all other desires as truly “pure” (Is.52:11, 2Cor.6:17-18). Again, in the absence of such a criterion, as we have seen, one does not have any objective reference for purity, holiness and sanctity. It is hardly surprising to find that in general, terms like “purity” or “holiness” are simply not elaborated upon in non-Christian primary texts. I might add a discussion on the salient features of what we do find in these in the appendix.

Ultimately there just ceases to be any hope for union with the Creator, because what is being practised is ad hoc, and serving someone’s agenda. There are no competing affections in true spirituality, and the this is the entire point of the spiritual journey. This is why Jesus can say: “Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple…” (Lk.14:26) meaning that nothing can hinder one from the pursuit of virtue, not even one’s selfish clinging on to life itself. The primary consideration of God in Christianity is the conversion of the heart, not merely the conversion to a religion: “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh (Ez.36:26).

Only that is holy which is the will of God. The will of God is for himself, his own goodness and beauty, since he is perfectly self-sufficient, why should be desire aught else. This is why Jesus says “only God is good” (Mk.10:8), because all else is impure unless it is in him and for him. Thus holiness for us too is our desire only for God, for why should we desire anything else. This is the true intellectual “union” which we find in Christianity, since ourselves and God will the same thing: God. How incredible is it that the creature and Creator share the same will! “But we have the mind of Christ (hymeis de nun Christou echomen 1Cor.2:16”. And because God himself is intellectual being, Christianity is union with God himself, in the best sense that a wretched creature can possibly hope to describe it, and yet it is true.

There is no other definition of purity and holiness apart from this, and no other definition of impurity and the unholy apart from a deviation from this.

When the Conscience is Purified, Sin is Vanquished, and we may Approach God

Christianity consists of, in the words of the author of Hebrews, the “perfection/ purification of the conscience” (katherei/teleiosai ten syneidesin hymon Heb.9:14/ 9:9), which is made possible by Christ’s Sacrifice of love. That is Christ “compels us” (he gar agape Christou synechei [12occ.] hymas, 2Cor.5:14) through his example (hypodeigma, 6occ.,Jn13:15, from hypodeknumi 6occ.) to follow his display of perfection (Mt.16:24-26; Phil.3:9-11; Rom.6:8), and this becomes our spiritual pursuit of holiness. Thus purified, we may “approach God (engizomen to theo)” (7:19, 25) “approach the throne of grace with boldness (proserchometha meta parresias)” (4:16); “in fullness of faith (proserchometha en plerophoria pisteos)” (10:22). The NBC21C (p.1869) notes in the commentary on Revelations 7:9-17: “the multitude stands before God’s throne day and night. This signifies that teh greatest blessing is to be in God’s presence (cf.22:3-4). They also serve God in his temple. Serving in the temple symbolises closeness to God (cf. 3:12).”

The corollary is that a deity that does not love absolutely, does not inspire absolute love for him either. How can a creature display greater virtue than the Creator? Thus in Christianity alone is made possible this “purification/perfection of the conscience” (Heb.9:9,14), so that we “no longer have any consciousness of sin” (Heb.10:2 medemian echein eti synedeisin hamartion).

The conscience perfected, has desire for God alone. Nothing else can serve to achieve such perfection of the conscience:“…gifts and sacrifices are offered…cannot perfect the conscience of the worshipper (me dynamemai kata seneidesin teleiosai ton latreuonta-Heb 9:9)“; rather it is only Christ: “…the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, (will) purify our conscience from dead works to worship the living God (kathariei ten syneidesin hemon apo nekron ergon eis to lateruein Theo zonti- Heb.9:14)”.

This is the crux: those who are cleansed by God will achieve the state wherein there ceases to be any even any consciousness of sin or sinning. The true victory over sin where it has finally “lost its sting” is when it truly fades into irrelevance. Sin will cease to exist for us, just as it never existed in the conscience of God anyway (Heb.10:2). This is beatitude and eternal happiness, and Heaven where there is no longer pain of sin, we are truly now “dead to sin, but alive to God” (Rom.6:11). What else is the earth but a cauldron of pain, so also what else is Heaven but the freedom from it.

Only thus having been cleansed and purified, shall we be able to approach God: “let us approach with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean (rherantismenoi tas cardias- rhantizo, to sprinkle, 4occ., all in Heb.) from an evil conscience (apo syneideseos poneras) and our bodies washed with pure water (lelousmenoi to soma hydati katharo- louo, wash,5occ.).” (Heb 10:22). Thus cleansed, might we “share in God’s holiness”, which is to participate in his own Life: “But he disciplines us for our good, in order that we may share his holiness (eis to metabalein [metalambano 7occ.]tes hagiotetos autou)” (Heb 12:10, rhantismon 2occ., 1Pet.2).

In 2 Peter we see koinonia with reference to the intimacy of our relationship with God:

“His divine power has given us everything needed for life and godliness (…) so that through (his promises) you may (…) become participants of the divine nature (θείας κοινωνοὶ φύσεως)” (2Pet.1:3,4). Such a “participation” implies an indwelling since it is the nature that is being participated in.

Trying to find the roots of koinonia

The word itself can be translated as “participation”, “sharing” or “communion” (in a French Bible I found “au benefice du/la communion”, and in Spanish “comunione”). I am not aware that there is an equivalent word in the Hebrew Bible. I found paras פָרַס (Is.58:7), which in every other instance is literally dividing (eg. the hoof), while in Proverb 14:10 we have עָרַב arab, 23 occ, which every other time is used for literally pledging.

The English “communion” as far as I can tell is simply a transliteration from Greek, a spiritual word not used in routine language, rather when it does get used it tends to have some quasi-spiritual context, to denote some ineffable dimension of a relationship, and in derived words like “commune” with similar implications. The Latin for communication is communicationem; and communion is communionem, roots of both being obscure, though we’d be tempted to see “con (together)” and “union (unos for one)”. Thus if anything, it is a “together union”, or a doubly emphatic union, even if that is not evident in the Greek root.

Gr. “koinos”, the closest word (14occ.) is used in the Bible either for unclean/defiled or for “common”, more or less the exact antonym to hagios or sacred. Strong’s 2839, notes with Thayer that koinonos is used for a partaker in the classical Gr. authors. “Partake” thus also seems an appropriate translation, with “part” and “taking” serving to imply give and take.

Koinonia in the NT

I put the total usage of “κοινωνοὶ (koinonoi)” in all its forms at 33 occ.: Koinonos- 10occ., koinonia- 9occ., koinonian- 7occ., koinonias- 3occ., koinonoi- 6occ, then kononeite, koinoneitw (imperatives), koinountes (prtcpl.), koinounikos, koinonon (1), koinonos (2).

Thus we see in Christianity, the use of a unique spiritual word to express the intimacy of relation of God and his creature, which simply does not appear in other religions because they are not focussed on relationship. Christianity in stark contrast to all other writing is so intimate in its relationshio that common language simply does not suffice. Christianity necessitates a doubly emphatic union, “con” “union”, which is an ontological sharing in the very substance, a reality of the metaphors used by lovers in a effort to describe an aspiration idealised perfection of an abstract concept, a desire “to be one”, “together forever”, “united to one’s lover”, made reality in Christianity.

Thus in Corinthians St Paul can say that beause Christ loved us “unto death”, that love being so great, literally is that idealised relationship, the sharing “koinonia” in that sacrificial Body and Blood of Christ. This for us is a participation in the divine nature itself (2Pet.1:3,4), in the glory that is to to be revealed (1Pet.5:1). We obtain this through “participation in (Christ’s) sufferings” (Phil. 3:10-11). In all of this we have communion with the Three Persons of God: “fellowship with the Father (1Jn1:3)/ with the Spirit (Phil.2:1)/ with the Son (1Cor.1:9). Further, we have fellowship in the Gospel/ in faith/ with light/ of the believers”. For the sake of completion we also note other usages of koinonia for sharing in general, for eg. of financial contributions/ ministering/ vocation/ crime etc. to make up a total of 33.

IN SUMMARY, in the Christian teaching of absolute love, one that is not seen elsewhere, we find an objective basis for morality, holiness, purity, and spirituality itself, and in attaining this makes us fit for union with God. In this our will comes to be aligned not just with God’s will for us, but with God’s will for himself. In this sense we can already begin to experience and comprehend what union with God truly is, something not constituted in any other religion.

God transforms his Creature into what it Never Was

Christianity is already unique in that there is the assertion that the actual action of bringing man to holiness of not a work of man, rather it is the work of God in man, transforming man into that which he was not before. An creature does not transform itself into anything other than that it already is, as we have already argued in the initial sections. Paul asserts: “May the God of peace himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord JEsus Christ. The one who calls you is faithful and he will do this.” (1Thes.5:23,24). Elsewhere Paul employs energia to denote the act of God in his creature. Here that divine energy institutes grace into the creature: “Of this gospel I was made a minister according to the gift of God’s grace, which was given me by the working of his power” (Eph.3:7); “who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power (energian) that enables him even to subject all things to himself.” (Phil.3:21) and “For this I toil, struggling with all his energy that he powerfully works within me.” (Col.1:29). And indeed there is a profusion of verses of us being called into the glory of God himself (1Pet.5:10; 2Pet.1;3; 1Thes.2:12,14; Rom.8:18,21; 9:4,23; 15:7; 1Cor.2:7; 1Cor.15:43; 2Cor.3:18; Col.1:27; 3:4; 1Pet.5:4;10)

A Reflection on Ephesians’ “present Salvation”

The Jerome also notes: “on the one hand the leter lacks familiar Pauline themes such as justification by faith (see 2:8-9) and wrestling with the law, on the other hand the author espouses salvation as present (1:3-10; 2:4-10) rather than a future eschatology typical of Paul elsewhere.” (1668)

The Jerome lists this in summarising the main theological themes of the letter, that of “present salvation”: “the robust attention given to the poiwer and wisdom of God, the riches and fulness of Christ and the seaing unction of the Holy Spirit provide a solid foundation for what will, in later Christian tradition be defined as the Trinity (…) God raised Jesus and seated him in the heavens (1:20) and has also raised up believers and seated them in the heavens (present salvation! 4:26)…indeed, Christ gave himself up to sanctify and cleanse the assembly that it “might be holy and without blemish” (5:27). The distinctive and defining characteristic of the faithful is their life “in Christ”, This suggests a mystical connection,…the are created “in Christ” (2:10); Christ dwells in thir hearts through faith (3:17)…” (1668)

Again, we see in the Jerome: “God brought believers to life, and seated the in the Heavens (past tense, cf. future tense in Rom.6:4-5). Each of the three Greek verbs has a prefix (syn.), commicating the corporate aspects of God’s actions. Together with one another believers have been given life, raised and enthroned. By bringinf together to life with Christ those who were spiritually dead because of their transgressions (see 2:1), God has dramatically reversed a dismal state of affairs (p1674)…the repeated use of the prefix syn- in several of the compound Greek terms (2:19,21,22) stresses the corporate unity of the members of the household of God. They are sympolitai, “fellow citizens” (2:19), synarmologoumene “held together” (2:22); and synoikidomesthe “built together” (2:22)…”. These endeavours take place in the sphere of Christ, in a dwelling place inhabited by God, in the Spirit (2:22)…”. The last quoted verse Ephesians 2:22 reads from v.21 “in him the whole structure us joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord in whom you also are built together spiritually into a dwelling place for God”.

Receiving is in desiring

Christianity teaches that the soul of man is innately aware that its fulfilment can only lie in God and nothing else, an indication of the state of our natural state of lack and deprivation. One who seeks to normalize this state of lack therefore remains eternally deprived. At the same time, this same awareness is the only thing of any spiritual worth in us, because it is a grace of God that enables us to be open to receive him. Thus it follows what all material desires are worthless except as means to the fulfilment of our one true desire. It also follows that a religion that obfuscates this singularity of our fulfilment, replaces it or adds to it ends which are at cross purposes to God’s own purposes for us.

This Christian “self-knowledge”, that we are nothing without God, and capable only of evil is in direct contrast with some oriental and neo- spiritualities where claims of “innate divinity” and the like. The advantage of the Christian view is that awareness of lack of purity within ourselves creates the possibility of a path to it leading outside ourselves. This means that Christianity can never be self-centered, and in turn creates the very possibility of worship, which can only be “other-centered”. Without this, it is uncertain just what we are being called to by religion. This is also what grants also us dignity as we are being called as children of this “other”, that we worship and that is God.. And this then makes possible in turm “relation”, that one should call and the other respond.

In recognizing how pitiable and utterly helpless we are without God, we desire Him, and in humility we may receive him, since nothing is granted without our will for it. Thus the Creature undergoes that transformation whereby all its desire is only for God. Jesus says “where your treasure is there your heart will be also” Mt.6:21, so if we desire God we will be with him “also (alla kai)”. David exults: “As for me, I shall behold your face in righteousness; when I awake I shall be satisfied, beholding your likeness.” (Ps.17:15), and “Such is the company of those who seek him, who seek the face of the God of Jacob” (Ps.24:6).

Transformed into a New Creation

The transformation God brings about in us is our “new creation”: “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation (ei tis en Christo, kaine ktisis): The old has gone, the new is here!” (NRSV 2 Cor 5:17. RSV/ESV/NKJV- he is a new creation, KJV/NASB/ASV he is a new creature; NIV the new creation has come/DR- if any be in Christ a new creature, the old is gone, the new is here), and again “neither circumsicion on uncircumcision is anything, but a new creation is everythng” (Gal.6:15).

“And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit” ( ἡμεῖς δὲ πάντες ἀνακεκαλυμμένῳ προσώπῳ τὴν δόξαν Κυρίου κατοπτριζόμενοι τὴν αὐτὴν εἰκόνα μεταμορφούμεθα ἀπὸ δόξης εἰς δόξαν, καθάπερ ἀπὸ Κυρίου Πνεύματος 2Cor.3:18); “…to be conformed to the image of his son” (ὅτι οὓς προέγνω, καὶ προώρισεν συμμόρφους τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ Υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ,, Rom.8:29); “Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.” (καὶ μὴ συνσχηματίζεσθε τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ, ἀλλὰ μεταμορφοῦσθε τῇ ἀνακαινώσει τοῦ νοός, εἰς τὸ δοκιμάζειν ὑμᾶς τί τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ, τὸ ἀγαθὸν καὶ εὐάρεστον καὶ τέλειον, Rom.12:1); “…we will also bear the image of the man of heaven” (phoresomen kai ten eikona tou epiouraniou 1Cor.15:49) and “we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye…” (1Cor.15:52). Again, we see in Ephesians “…and to clothe yourself with the new self created according to the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness” (Eph.4:24). We see this again “He will transform the body of our humiliation that it may be conformed to the body of his glory, by the power that also enables him to make all things subject to himself.” (Phil.3:21)

After all even in our suffering we are being transformed into Christ in anticipation of the glory: “to be conformed to the image of his Son” (Rom.8:29); “let us put on/endow ourselves/clothe ourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ (alla endysasthe ton Kyrion Iesoun Christon)…” (Rom 13:14); “as many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ (hosoi gar eis Christon ebaptizesthe, Christon endysasthe)” (Gal.3:27). We are “in Christ” (1Cor.1:2,30), called into “communion with him” (eis koinonian 1Cor.1:9), “we have the mind of Christ” (1Cor2:16), we are “infants in Christ” (1Cor.3:1), implying we are growing to be like him. “God…has shone in our hearts…” (theos…hos elampsen in tais kardias hymas 2Cor.3:6). 2 Cor.12: “the power of Christ may dwell (ἐπισκηνώσῃ, 1occ., epi + skenoo- to make a tent, abide) in me”, “that Christ may dwell (kataoikesei, 45 occ.) in your hearts through faith…” (Eph 3:17), “I am again in the pain of childbirth until Christ is formed in you” (morphothe in hymin Gal.4:19) “it is no longer I who live (zo) but it is Christ who lives in me” (Gal.2:20), Phil. 3:9: “…and (that I may) be found in him…”

Diagramming 3 Transformative passages in 2nd Corinthians

This is at the moment in my commentary 1 & II Corinthians: A Christological Commentary while I update it.

To Love Freely, which is the Joy of God

Sensual heavenly satisfaction commits the cardinal spiritual oversight, that God might not be satisfactoryin and of himself. Heaven is not the fulfilment of our sensual desires, rather it is the fulfilment of our desire for God. It is the release of that tension which is inherent in our physical existence of not being able to see or experience God directly, which is our greatest deprivation, just gaining this is our greatest joy. Sin then, is denying our souls that for which they most yearn for on Earth, while Hell is its definitive deprivation for eternally. Many will find abundant sensual fulfilment here on Earth, and to them the notion of heavenly joy in the absence of these seems necessarily disappointing. In reality of course, the comparison is impossible for us due to the inadequacy of our imaginative faculty. The closest we can get to such an experience is that which we might experience in true love, and again, a religion which does not have the perfection of loving as its focus as Christianity does completes obvliviates any appreciation of heavenly joys and takes away even what foreshadowing of it might still be possible for us. The whole point of faith anyway, is believing that God does not disappoint, for what else does it mean to trust God.

And yet on true reflection we may still see that earthly joys in fact do pale before the joy that we derive from the worship of God even here on Earth- yet how much more in Heaven, where obscurity is no more! “…For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror (di esoptrou [2occ.Jam.1:23] in ainigmati [1.occ] Num.12:8 – “with him I speak face to face (Hb. mouth to mouth) clearly (umar’eh), not in riddles (בְחִידֹ֔ת we’lo behidot)- and he beholds the form of God (utemunat Yahweh yabbit”); then we shall see face to face (prosopon pros prosopon). Now I know in part (arti ginosko in merous); then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known (epingosomai kathos kai epignosthen).” (1Cor.13:12).

For we are made in God’s Image, and our happiness is the same as the happiness of God himself, which is the “Joy” of the Intellect. And just as the Happiness of God is in the contemplation of his own Beauty and Goodness, so shall ours be also. Our deepest yearning is the Worship of the True God, indeed this for us is a celebration, “festivity” or (1 Cor.5:8). In this we are able to enjoy that very happiness which is God’s. This indeed is God’s intention for us: “…Come and share your master’s happiness!” (Matt. 25:23b) and “…so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete” (Jn.15:11).

But this omnipotence of an unconquerable joy is glimpsed by us on earth in unconquerable love. For it is joyous that love if never conquered. Jesus died for us “while we were still sinners” (Rom.5:8)– this was his mercy that his saving action was not conditional upon our repentance. The God of Israel gave the Israelites his Law after he had saved them from the Egyptians, not before, just as his love was not conditional on their following his Commandments either. Thus Jesus explains that we are to be merciful precisely in the manner that God has been merciful to us: “…love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous (…)Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Mt.5:43-48)

The fruit of that mercy is that it enables us to love freely, not even witholding the love reserved for those that do nor love us. To love freely is to share in the Life and Joy of God. The eternal happiness of Heaven is the divine emotion of a God who loves unhindered by any obstacle or condition, for nothing can be a condition or obstacle to him. “So that my joy may be in you, that your joy might be complete” (John 15:11). That is the reason for the joy of God, because there is no impediment or obstacle to his love. Is not happiness the absence of negativity? Thus we may say that nothing can give God a reason to have a defective emotion, or a “put-me-down”.

“Now if we died with Christ we believe that we shall also live with him” (Rom.6:8). Exercising Christ-like virtues is participating in Christ’s own life. In our suffering we aspire to exercise the same virtues that He himself did in his. The virtues of Christ’s humanity flow from his own perfect loving relationship to the Father., if not in Glory, then at least in pain, rejection and humiliation. In exercising divine virtue we are enabled to share in the divine Life, for what else is it for God to live, than to practise his virtue of goodness?

Thus Paul says: “I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death…” (Phil.3:10, also 1Pet.4:13); “we…were baptised into his death…if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will also be united with him in a resurrection like his” (6:3,5). Our own self-regard and self-worship, which are the same thing, no longer presents an obstacle to that divine infusion of love.

“He had no power of himself to die for us: he had to take from us our mortal flesh. This was the way in which, though immortal, he was able to die; the way in which he chose to give life to mortal men: he would first share with us, and then enable us to share with him. Of ourselves we had no power to live, nor did he of himself have the power to die. In other words, he performed the most wonderful exchange with us. Through us, he died; through him, we shall live”. (St Augustine sermon excerpt)

God-in-us, the Pledge of Everlasting Life

So Christianity is not a religion where God creates wind-up toys, which is really what living systems are, and then promises to continue to wind them up an infinite number of times if they do certain things. This is a biological view of infinite temporality, where God winds up each cell “rejuvenating” it, so that the organism lives on, or preventing its systems from running down, like a perfect perpetual frictionless machine.

In Christianity, God in sacrificing for us, also enables us to give ourselves to him. In rending the heavens (aneochthenai ton ouranon- Lk.3:21, cf.Is.64:1 קָרַ֤עְתָּ שָׁמַ֙יִם֙ qarata shamayim) to enter creation, God is opening the gate for us to enter his Life. And through God’s own self-giving sacrifice to us, we are, we can give ourselves to God. There is nothing immortal in us, but the life of the Immortal God. As Paul writes: “…you yourselves are God’s temple, and…God’s Spirit dwells in you?” (1Cor.3:16); “And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you.” (Rom 8:11). This participation in the Immortal God is our own immortality, and nothing else. This is why the Spirit dwelling in us is called our guarantee- this is not a written pledge, but a living peldge. Because the Spirit is guaranteed to be immortal, if he is in us, we also cannot die. If Christianity was not a religion where God dwelt in us, what would it mean to be immortal? “…he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,” (1 Peter 1:3b) and “Now it is God who establishes both us and you in Christ. He anointed us, placed His seal on us, (ἐσφραγίσθητε) and put His Spirit in our hearts as a pledge (ἀρραβὼν) of what is to come.” (2Cor.1:21,22b, also 2Cor.5:5); and: “you were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the pledge of our inheritance “ (1Eph 13b,14a)

And this guarantee is obtained through believing that it is a guarantee in the first place: “Since, then, we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast to our confession…Let us therefore approach the throne of grace with boldness, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.” (Hebrews 4:14-16). Thus in Christianity, it is “Life” that is revealed, the Eternal Life of God: “this life was revealed…we have seen it…” (1Jn.1:2) “That we may be in his true Son, Jesus Christ, this is the true God and eternal life” (1Jn.5:20); “Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” (Jn.17:3)

The distinction between transformational religion and transportational religion separates true religion from all that is mythology. God alone is eternal, he alone is by very nature unchanging eternally and therefore he alone Life eternal. Immortality is not merely man’s natural life as externally extended indefinitely, rather it altered through participation in God, as that which it was not previously. “Immortality” is not a commodity separable from God, rather it is God. To share the immortality of God is to participate is “what-God-is”, which is immortal.

God’s Parental Plan in Creating

The proximity of God to his creature is an “indwelling”, because in love, God is more proximate even than physical proximity. But what can be closer than a physical proximity, if not an indwelling, that in which the barrier of physicality is transcended? Since nothing in creation can present a physical barrier to God, so the only barrier to proximity with him is going to be sin, which is the one thing, and the only thing that is contrary to his nature and abhorrent to him.

In the plane of physical existence, one entity can “enter into” another by only destroying the identity and/or integrity of the other, through disruption of the boundary separating them, in the way that fire or water can pervade another substance and burn or dissolve it. However, we present no such boundary to God, and so nothing needs be disrupted at all. St Aquinas says:

“there is nothing so close to “what is”, than “that by which it is”: “For as the cause of being, the Creator cannot be an extrinsic cause of creatures, since their very to-be is to-be-in-relation to the creator. That is why to-be (esse) is more intimately and profoundly interior to things than anything else, and precisely this “esse” accounts for whatever similarity can be had between creature and creator.”

When God creates, he is not acting in the world, or on the world, rather, he creates out of nothing. Thus God action in creating is not the action of an agent on a patient, rather it is out of nothing. Because creation is out of nothing, God isn’t working on something that already exists in order to change it. Thus any notion of a spatial distance to be bridged between us and God is a result of the manner merely in which we think, rather than anything in reality.

This Christian language of indwelling at which some might baulk when it comes to spiritual matters, actually comes quite naturally to us when it comes to poetic matters. It is after all, the language of a million love songs and enraptured verse, with references to “sharing lives”, “being one in spirit”, “united”, “being inseparable”. It is quite commonplace in the English culture when strangers gaze at a particularly pretty child, to exude, “I want to eat them up”, or that they “loved them to bits” and so on, once again signifying the hopeless desire to break the barriers to keep us apart and be totally assimilated in the other, such each can experience all the joy that is found in the other, possessing them completely and exclusively. Neither is this language also alien to the BIblical authors of course, for the Holy Spirit comes upon persons in the Old Testament already, while it is everywhere in the Gospels and letters of the New Testament. Perhaps we can say that the pinnacle is reached in the Gospels when Jesus expresses his desire “take this…eat it/drink it, this is my Body/my Blood” almost like the newborn babe who unexpectedly says in reply “OK!”

Thus the indwelling of beings is prefigured in the proximity that every parent desires to have with their own child, wanting to give them “the best of themselves” to be “of one mind” with them, to “never let them go”. Human parents and lovers will fail in this, but God does not. God could not make us identical copies of Himself, because that would be polytheism. Rather, he created us to become likened to him in the only way that non-deity can- through participation “…your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is your life is revealed, then you also will be revealed with him in glory” (Col.3:3b,4)

This unmediated and unhindered proximity of God our Creator to us as our ultimate end is the meaning of the Christian life. In the Christian view, creation did not end with the creation of the soul, it ends with the soul’s redemption and sanctification. As is disclosed to St. Catherine of Siena, “…since I have loved both you and others before you were in existence, and that through the ineffable love which I had for you, wishing to recreate you to grace, I have washed you and recreated you in the blood of my only begotten Son, spilt with so great a fire of love…”, or as Paul says: “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. (Gal 2:20); “For me to live is Christ and to die is gain (Phil 1:20). This loving intent of God in creation is described in the Epistles to the Ephesians:

“…according to his counsel and will (11)“for adoption as his children”(5) “he chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world in love” (4) the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure (6) to the praise of his glorious grace (7) his will, according to his good pleasure (9) “To be holy and blameless”, ”before him”(4)

Creation is an intimate interaction, and God cradles it like a mother, for he has a beneficial intent toward it. Were it not so, creation would be throttled and smothered by those very arms that brought it into being, for the lesser cannot withstand the greater. God lets himself be known to us. Should He not, then we would know him not, for the lesser cannot interrogate the greater. But in knowing Him we cannot but benefit. And so it is that the interaction of God does not stop at the point of creation, just as the job of parenting does not end with the birth of the child, rather with the death of the parent. God in perfect creative intent, would intend the perfection of Creation, so that it was like unto Him, and yet not Him. Just as an artist or an architect “gives the best of themselves” to their art, God wills Himself for Creation. This is the description of the loving Will of God: there was love before we loved, and love existed before we did.

This is the secret of Christianity: Man is given immortality through being given to participate in the immortal One. In this indwelling relationship man is given that which is not possible for any creature- to share the substance of another without the destruction of the other’s identity or integrity. In fact this is the very answer to the question: “how does a mortal live eternally”, and only Christianity provides an answer. But it takes some working out to get there, see, if the answer were straightforward, then every religion would have it.

We can read this verse now as applying to all those who accept the Call of God in Christ: “For you are a people holy to the Lord your God; the Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on earth to be his people, his treasured possession” (Dt.7:6, also 10:15) and “Now therefore, if you obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession out of all the peoples. Indeed, the whole earth is mine, but you shall be for me a priestly kingdom and a holy nation.”(Ex 19:5,6) St

Peter in his gloss on these passages tells his readers, “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light” (1Pet 2:9). All of the vast spaces of time and the incremental nature of the teaching itself is for this reason, the gradual unfolding of the Will of God, and His preparation of Him to finally receive it in full. The Old Testament prepares the way for Sacrifice through the institution of the “eternal” (Exodus 12:4,17,24) sacrifice of the Passover called “Passover” precisely, as Jesus is to later reveal, because it is that by which as the Israelites crossed from slavery into freedom and the Promised Land, man is to attain to God. The Old Testament is preparing the people in obedience, in forming them into a people truly united in liturgical and orthodox worship of the Living God  (Ps 51:19, Mal 1:11). It is a preparation for the advent of the Church of Jesus Christ.

Appendix

Does Purification mean we Become God?– Sanctifying Grace

The human soul is rational and has Free Will. It is in this sense that it is “made in the Image of God”. Apart from this God puts in our hearts the desire to seek him. Apart from this there is nothing else. There is something in us that makes us seek God, no one can describe exactly why. Christians might say this is the voice of “conscience”. Apart from that there is nothing. We are nothing in front of the infinite Goodness of God. You could say even less than nothing. Basically just Free Will, and God speaking gently and quietly in our hearts, calling us to him.

At the same time God wants, desires and wills us to be like Him, in the way that it is possible to be like Him for a Creature, which is completely pure, and yet the creature is neither God nor a second God, it is still very much a creature because its purity is upheld in perfection by god, nor through the creature’s own capability.

We are transformed into that which we could never be of our own strength, by God himself working in us. Fr. Totleben explains why in the Catholic tradition this is seen as a created thing called “Sanctifying Grace”. He gives also the analogy of an iron that is heated by the fire. The iron glows red/white hot as long as it is immersed in the fire. That red/white hot quality is wholly the iron, yet it is wholly impossible for the iron except for the fire. That. Fr. Totleben states, in this interview, is Sanctifying Grace. Fr’ Totleben continues: “God doesn’t notice that I’m good and then start to love me. God just loves me, and his love produces in me the good that he loves… some new thing happens inside of me that makes me more and more like him…here the human being is the nature or the substance, the sanctifying grace…is the accident…Thomists are going to very clear to say that sanctifying grace is something created. Palamists (Eastern Orthodox Church adherents) are going to say that if it is created then how does it deify. The Thomistic reply will be that what’s deifying is God operating on you. The deification shows up in your soul by this kind of transformation. Now that transformation isn’t identical with God. It’s a thing that comes to be in time that’s contingent and so it has to be created…”

Letter of St. Bernard

An excerpt from a sermon of St Bernard of Clairvaux:

“Love is sufficient of itself, it gives pleasure by itself and because of itself. It is its own merit, its own reward. Love looks for no cause outside itself, no effect beyond itself. Its profit lies in its practice. I love because I love, I love that I may love.

Love is a great thing so long as it continually returns to its fountainhead, flows back to its source, always drawing from there the water which constantly replenishes it. Of all the movements, sensations and feelings of the soul, love is the only one in which the creature can respond to the Creator and make some sort of similar return however unequal it may be. For when God loves, all he desires is to be loved in return; the sole purpose of his love is to be loved, in the knowledge that those who love him are made happy by their love of him.

The Bridegroom’s love, or rather the love which is the Bridegroom, asks in return nothing but faithful love. Let the beloved, then, love in return. Should not a bride love, and above all, Love’s bride? Could it be that Love not be loved?

Rightly then does she give up all other feelings and give herself wholly to love alone; in giving love back, all she can do is to respond to love. And when she has poured out her whole being in love, what is that in comparison with the unceasing torrent of that original source? Clearly, lover and Love, soul and Word, bride and Bridegroom, creature and Creator do not flow with the same volume; one might as well equate a thirsty man with the fountain.

What then of the bride’s hope, her aching desire, her passionate love, her confident assurance? Is all this to wilt just because she cannot match stride for stride with her giant, any more than she can vie with honey for sweetness, rival the lamb for gentleness, show herself as white as the lily, burn as bright as the sun, be equal in love with him who is Love? No. It is true that the creature loves less because she is less. But if she loves with her whole being, nothing is lacking where everything is given. To love so ardently then is to share the marriage bond; she cannot love so much and not be totally loved, and it is in the perfect union of two hearts that complete and total marriage consists. Or are we to doubt that the soul is loved by the Word first and with a greater love?

“Man is the event of a free, unmerited and forgiving, and absolute self-communication of God” Rahner FtCF 116.  “God loved us into being”, not merely for the purpose of “being”, but for the purpose of “being loved”. Again this should not be hard to see, for we ourselves describe the greatest creative works of art and architecture as “labours of love”. We have described in the introduction that true happiness is related to “relationship”. As supreme Lover and Creator, God in relationship communicates not detatched words, but Himself. The Communion of Persons in the Holy Trinity of God is not a Communication of words, but a communication of the Persons themselves.

Excerpts from Karl Rahner

“Divine self-communication means, then, that God can communicate himself in his own reality to what is not divine without ceasing to be infinite reality and absolute mystery, and without man ceasing to be a finite existent different from God” (FtCf  119) Again as Rahner says: “Christianity can be a relationship to God which is distinguishable and distinct from and radically surpasses every other religion only if it is a profession of faith in this immediacy to God. This immediacy allows God to be God even in and through his true self-communication, to be a God who does not give some numinous, mysterious gift which is different from himself, but who gives himself.”… “What we have said so far about God’s self-communication is attested to in Holy Scripture and in the official teaching of the Church when they say that the justified person truly becomes a child of God; that in him as in a temple dwells the very spirit of God as in really divine gift; that he participates in the divine nature; (…) that what he will one day possess he already had now in all truth, although only in a hidden way…[cf. 2 Cor4:1-4]” (Rahner FtCf 124,125)

“…the event of immediacy to God as man’s fulfilment is prepared for in such a way that we must say of man here and now that he participates in God’s being; that he has been given the divine Spirit who fathoms the depths of God, that he is already God’s son here and now, and what he already is must only become manifest” (Rahner FtCf 120)

“…The man Jesus must be self-revelation of God through who he is and not only through his words, and this he cannot be if precisely this humanity were not the expression of God. (Rahner FtCf 224)

Yet he says, “”…it belongs to the unity of transcendentality and historicity in human existence that this self-communication of God and the hope for it are necessarily mediated historically…” Rahner, 210 FtCF

“The whole of Salvation History is the story of God looking for us: He offers us love and welcomes us with tenderness.”- Pope Francis

Catechism of the Catholic Church 52 God, who “dwells in unapproachable light”, wants to communicate his own divine life to the men he freely created, in order to adopt them as his sons in his only-begotten Son.³ By revealing himself God wishes to make them capable of responding to him, and of knowing him and of loving him far beyond their own natural capacity.

Atoning Sacrifice in other Religions

Finally, it is not as though atonement is a novel concept in Abrahamic religions. The greatest festival of Judaism is Yom Kippur- the Day of Atonement. Here burnt offerings atone for the sins of the people. In Islam as in everything, a shadow of Trinitarian Abrahamic Faith is preserved. In this case it is the surah which goes “Allah ransomed him with a great sacrifice” in relation to preventing the sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham- Allah offers one thing in place of the life of another. In fact in a hadith it is said that Jews and Christians will go to Hell “in place of Muslims”. Same principle, but rather in caricature.

What actually is- the “Reality of Sin”?

Some Christian denominations spend a lot of time wastefully in my view, discussing where the sin goes how it is applied or not applied to a person etc. etc. as though sin were a real thing. Let’s see what it really is and how it is dealt with by God for what it might be.

Sin is not a thing like a dark ball of energy hovering above our heads. There was no great dark orb of negative energy floating above Jesus as he “bore our sins upon the Cross”. What then is the reality of sin? We could say that Sin has an “existence” only in two senses: Firstly, insomuch as the corruption that it causes in our souls. Corruption is a loss of beauty, rather than an addition of ugliness, like a white shirt that becomes moth-eaten, our souls suffer loss in sin That loss of goodness is what makes them evil, and progressively so if the sin that eats into them is not remedied.

Second, sin has “reality” inasmuch as the offence that it constitutes toward God. Sin, as we said elsewhere, is primarily an offence toward God, and then to man, and in that sense it also has an existence as the ripple effects of suffering that it produces in other people’s lives and the world as a whole.

“Everything is said to be true absolutely, in so far as it is related to the intellect from which it depends (…) Thus, then, truth resides primarily in the intellect, and secondarily in things according as they are related to the intellect as their principle. Consequently there are various definitions of truth. Augustine says (De Vera Relig. xxxvi), “Truth is that whereby is made manifest that which is;” and Hilary says (De Trin. v) that “Truth makes being clear and evident”. [STI Q.16, Art.1]…truth is found in the intellect according as it apprehends a thing as it is; and in things according as they have being conformable to an intellect. This is to the greatest degree found in God. For His being is not only conformed to His intellect, but it is the very act of His intellect…He Himself is His own existence and act of understanding. Whence it follows not only that truth is in Him, but that He is truth itself, and the sovereign and first truth. [STI, Q16, Art 5, co.]

But to state the Divine Act of Being in such a way is to state it in a completely dry and featureless manner, and granted that we can say very little about the nature of God or reality, yet we might go further to do our description justice:

The Cross on my Wall

I am a shift worker and there will be nights when my family sleep alone. I am comforted that the last thing that my child sees as she goes to bed and the first thing she sees in the morning is the image of our Crucified Lord. My dear wife did once suggest a ‘Christ-less Cross’, in keeping with her Protestant tradition. After dwelling on it, I feel sure that nothing would comfort me more than this very image. On the Cross there is to be found that ultimate dignity in the face of the ultimate indignity; absolute love in the face of absolute spitting hate; ultimate peace in the face of the ultimate violence. It is all of the things that protect us in the face of all the things that assail us. The greatest malevolent act will be overcome by the greatest act of submission: a God bowed down. There is nothing more threatening on the face of the Earth than man, there is nothing less threatening in the whole world, than the God-Man. I would like nothing more than for my daughter to see this picture of the Man with his arms painfully extended saying “I love you forever!” I will leave her in the embrace of the most powerful Man in the Universe, at his most loving. Were I in the same room, I could not love her more. Though I will not always be with her, I know that He will. And when she looks up at the Cross, she will KNOW. Praise be to God!

Prof. Jessica Murdoch on grace, John chapter 4: “and continues in that same discourse: “What are some of the consequences of this Gospel story of grace that are presented to us in the Gospel story of the woman at the well? First, all graces flow form the Holy Spirit. Thus if the soul is not united with its source, it is not living, but dead. Second, in the case of spiritual adults, living water is  obtained by desiring it, that is, by asking for it. Hence Jesus says “perhaps you would have asked me…”. For this reason we say that justification proceeds by a free act of the will by which we detest sin and desire grace…and third, two things lead to this desire for grace: a knowledge of the good to be desired, Jesus says “if you knew the gift of God” and a knowledge of the giver, Jesus continues, “…and who it is that says to you…”. Summarising this, grace requires that one, we know what it is, two, we know who can give it and three: we ask for it. This is accomplished in the Samaritan woman who asks for what she knows is a good to be desired, “Lord, give me this water…” and who knows who can give it “I perceive you are a prophet”.“

Peace to the Whole World

Certainly wars have been fought over religion, but statistically it is really not very high on the list in terms of numbers of  wars attributable to it (see Axelrod’s encyclopaedia). The main cause of all strife among men is of course, power. But it is necessary also to rank the top contenders for causes of peace and unity in the world, and in this category, one struggles to find any contenders apart from religion. “democracy” makes a strong case, perhaps. Without launching into a political debate of any sort, I will merely describe how religion fulfils, or aims to fulfil this function.

If the first defining moment in our planet’s history was the advent of man, then the second defining moment, is the advent of the God-Man. God drives a wedge into human history, and if that history of man were a book, then God leaves a bookmark in it that is like a flaming torch. Israel provides the very “food” to the already awaiting framework of philosophy of the Greeks, and the infrastructure of Rome: The incredible Roman framework of administration has no philosophy; the incredible philosophy of the Greeks is as yet agnostic towards God (Acts 17:23). This coincides with the mandate to evangelise the world, a mandate that Israel herself never received.

The story of the Good Samaritan in Pope Benedict XVI’s book.  It is exactly this which St Paul speaks in the passage from Ephesians 2:11-20 “…you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us… might reconcile both groups to God in one body through the cross, thus putting to death that hostility through it. So he came and proclaimed peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near; for through him both of us have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God…” (Eph 2:11-20) Were violence the core of a given religion, then that religion spreads at the expense of those to who it is being spread. This places religion as an entity above the entity that is the person, make it a “thing-for-itself”. The answer to how religion must be spread then, is provided at Jesus’ trial, in two short statements to Pilate. It is all that is offered to Pilate in terms of a defence by the condemned man: “if my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight…”(Jn 18:36).

As Pope Benedict XVI says, “No one is fighting for his kingship”, and further, “In addition to the clear delineation of his concept of kingship (no fighting, earthly powerlessness), Jesus had introduced a positive idea,…namely truth” and he goes on to ask, “Can politics accept truth as a “structural category”?” (my quotes). (pg190, 191 Jesus of Nazareth, Joseph Ratzinger Pope Benedict XVI, Bloomsbury Press 2007 PtII). Truth is a “structural category then, the strength of whose structure requires no violence, standing entirely on its own merit in the hearts of men, “as it is in Heaven”. Thus as Pilate could not level an accusation at Jesus for he had to simply admit “I can find no fault in this man”, so also religion can be without blame. Truth can be the only valid reason for adhering to and propagating religion and the only reason that is above blame, for blame is ascribed to falsehood. Thus we see that although the Kingdom of Heaven is not spread by violence, nor protected by a violent fortress, nevertheless there is an uhjiunassailable bulwark, one that no weapon can attain to (…) This is the flag that God plants for us is the ground, the banner of truth.”( Jesus of Nazareth, Joseph Ratzinger Pope Benedict XVI, Bloomsbury Press 2007 pg173 Pt.I).

In commenting on Jesus; commission to his apostles to “drive our demons” Pope Benedict XVI says: “If we belong to Him, everything else loses its power; it loses the allure of divinity. The world is now seen as something rational. It emerges from eternal reason, and this creative reason is the only true power in the world and over the world. Truth-seeking is the essential operation of every religion. The solution the great yawning emptiness that is atheism is not some hair-brained elevator scheme that magically transports you out of the pit, that would be no different than the usual atheistic “fixes” that do not work. The emptiness itself must be answered and defeated.

From the section on unity with God’s will: “John Cutterback says in a reflection on the Cross on the Institute of Catholic Culture 26^th March 2014, “…the wisdom of the Cross: His asking us, drawing us, “do like I do ,be obedient to the Father”- He didn’t even need to. You seek an example of contempt of earthly things, imitate Him how the King of Kings the Lord of Rulers, in whom are all the treasures of wisdom, on the Cross He was stripped naked ridiculed, spat upon bruised, crowned with thorns, given a drink of vinegar and gall, finally put to death. How falsely therefore is one attached to riches and raiment “for they divided my garments amongst them and for my clothing they cast lots”….St Thomas goes through the earthly goods that we might have been distracted by and he points out: any earthly good you are tempted by, as yourself what is Christ’s attitude towards it on the Cross…Are we concerned about what we are going to wear…are we concerned about where we live… are we concerned about what we are going to eat…are we concerned about bodily comforts (…) What a labour! That he had to do all that to set an example for us!”

Fr. Peter Totleben, O.P. on the Pints with Aquinas channel: “The way to think about God in terms of his simplicity, is to start thinking about what does it mean to say that God knows and loves?- The thing that God knows and loves is aimed at himself. What does God know?…The thing that God knows most is himself- that’s the object that’s adequate to his thinking…And what does God love? – he loves himself… Love here is knowledge of the truth and the love of the good, things are attracted by the true and attracted by the good, so if we think of God as supremely true and supremely good then we’ve got to think this way. God knows himself perfectly, and in knowing himself, God knows all of the different ways that he is imitable. He can see in his Essence, the way in which each of us are good. So when God knows himself, he sees Fr. Peter and he sees the special way in which Fr. Peter resembles his beauty, (…and so on, for all created objects) (…) God’s knowing and loving is directed at himself, and in this proceeds the Holy Spirit and the Son. This means that God’s love for us is completely selfless… when I love things I love them at some level because of the good that they can accomplish in me…but God doesn’t use creatures that way…So God’s act of creation is sort of “aside” of God’s knowing and loving himself. God knows and loves himself and in that act of knowing and loving of himself somehow as an excess and overflow, an expression of it, he wills that there be imitations of him that he loves. God’s knowing and loving of creation is an overflow and excess generosity of knowing and loving himself. This is where creation comes from and thus creation is a free act (thus we do not need to consider questions of whether this was the best creation possible etc.) …

The soul is made like to God by grace. Hence for a divine person to be sent to anyone by grace, there must needs be a likening of the soul to the divine person Who is sent, by some gift of grace. (…) Whereas the Son is the Word, not any sort of word, but one Who breathes forth Love. Hence Augustine says (De Trin. ix 10): “The Word we speak of is knowledge with love.” Thus the Son is sent (…) but according to the intellectual illumination, which breaks forth into the affection of love, as is said (John 6:45): “Everyone that hath heard from the Father and hath learned, cometh to Me,” and (Psalm 38:4): “In my meditation a fire shall flame forth.” Thus Augustine plainly says (De Trin. iv, 20): “The Son is sent, whenever He is known and perceived by anyone.” [STI, Q.43, Art.6, ad.2]

Etienne Gilson while being at all times utterly cautious in informing the reader that these are mysteries that are nigh impenetrable, yet ventures to explain: “The only explanation within the reach of human reason: The good naturally tends to diffuse itself outside itself. It’s characteristic is to communicate itself to beings in the measure in which they are capable of receiving it.” (CTPA p.127, STI,19,2) The more perfect a being, the more perfect is the likeness that is diffused, and the hierarchy of creatures in the Universe as a whole in some way reflecting something of the perfection of God. (CTPA p. 153)” it is in conformity with His nature to introduce His likeness perfectly into other beings.”

“There are two reasons why the knowledge of the divine persons was necessary for us. It was necessary for the right idea of creation. The fact of saying that God made all things by His Word excludes the error of those who say that God produced things by necessity.” ST.

“…For St Thomas the affirmation of creation by the Word shows the wisdom of God’s creative activity, by excluding the thesis of a necessary emanation; the affirmation of creation by the Holy Spirit guarantees for its part the free generosity of divine activity (…) In another way, and chiefly, that we may think rightly concerning the salvation of the human race, accomplished by the Incarnate Son, and by the gift of the Holy Ghost.” [ST I, Q.32., Art.3]

In all of Creation it is only human beings who sin, simply because in all of creation only human beings have Free Will. And yet for the same reason it is only human beings that can give God worship since they possess the will to freely do so. In short, human beings are destined to have either the most glorious destiny or the most damnable. Ans sin is freely committed, just as worship too is freely returned. Even before man is created, God knows both that he will sin, and how it is to be remedied- creation was not an act that lacked a resolution. But just as man’s redemption would call for great mercy, so the job of redemption was to be done by the One who is most merciful, God himself. The extent of God’s mercy is limitless, no sin of humanity can defeat it, even as we know that man’s capacity to sin is limitless. Yet the greatest possible mercy is the mercy that is shown to the most abysmal sinner in the darkest possible depths of iniquity.