The Bible In One Year Day 26 (Genesis 49 - 50, Job 41 - 42, Psalms 17)

  You may subscribe yourself at the Ascension site here and receive notifications in your email, or just follow along on my blog.  Bible in One Year Readings Index 

The end of Genesis 

But Joseph replied to them: "Have no fear. Can I take the place of God?  Even though you meant harm to me, God meant it for good, to achieve his present end, the survival of many people.  Therefore have no fear. I will provide for you and for your children.  By thus speaking kindly to them, he reassured them.  (Genesis 50: 19 - 21)

God Responds to Job 

 

The Lesson of Job 
Commentary Saint Joseph Edition New American Bible 

The lesson is that even the just may suffer, and their sufferings are a test of their fidelity.  They shall be rewarded in the end.  Man's finite mind cannot probe the depths of the divine omniscience that governs the world.  The problems we encounter can be solved by a broader and deeper awareness of God's power, presence, and wisdom.  

+++

A Daily Defense 

DAY 26 The Book of Acts and History

CHALLENGE: “Acts is not a reliable account of the history of the early Church. It is a work of ideology.” 

DEFENSE: Acts is an extremely reliable history. Every historian has a point of view, and the fact that Luke was writing from a Christian point of view does not mean he was inaccurate. 

The book of Acts is based on the evidence of eyewitnesses, like Luke’s Gospel (Luke 1:2). It is easy to tell who the eyewitnesses in Acts were: Peter is a major source for chapters 1 to 12, Paul for chapters 13 to 28, Philip for chapter 8, and Priscilla and Aquila for chapter 18. Luke himself was an eyewitness for what scholars call the “we” passages, where the narration switches from third person to first, describing what “we” did (16:10–17, 20:5–15, 21:1–18, 27:1 28:16).

Luke’s attention to detail is shown in many ways. For example, in chronicling the travels of Paul, he gives specific information about the time it took to arrive at different locations. 

This information is accurate, and it could not have simply been looked up in a reference work in the ancient world. This suggests Luke or someone in Paul’s circle kept a travel diary. The fact that Luke does not give parallel information about travel times in the first part of the book, when Peter dominates the narrative, shows that Luke was faithful to his sources. He used the information they provided and did not invent such details. 

The archaeologist Sir William Ramsay, initially a skeptic of Acts, reviewed the evidence and concluded: Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy; he is possessed of the true historic sense; he fixes his mind on the idea and plan that rules in the evolution of history; and proportions the scale of his treatment to the importance of each incident. He seizes the important and critical events and shows their true nature at greater length, while he touches lightly or omits entirely much that was valueless for his purpose. In short, this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians (The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, chapter 18). 

Jimmy Akin, A Daily Defense: 365 Days (Plus One) to Becoming a Better Apologist

The Bible In One Year Day 24 (Genesis 45 - 46, Job 37 - 38, Proverbs 4:20 -27)

 You may subscribe yourself at the Ascension site here and receive notifications in your email, or just follow along on my blog. Bible in One Year Readings Index 

 Commentary on the Book of Job 

Saint Joseph Edition The New American Bible 

The debate which ensues consists of three cycles of speeches. (Cycle One Job 3; Cycle Two Job 15; Cycle Three Job 22) Job's friends insists that his plight can only be a punishment for personal wrongdoing and an invitation from God to repentance.  Job rejects their inadequate explanation and calls for a response from God himself.  At this point the speeches of a youth named Elihu interrupts the development (Job 32 - 37).

In response to Job's plea that he be allowed to see God and hear from him the cause of his suffering, God answers, not by justifying his action before men, but by referring to his own omniscience and almighty power.  Job is content with this.  He recovers his attitude of humility and trust in God, which is deepened now and strengthened by his experience of sufferings.  

Joseph with Jacob in Egypt ( Jacopo da Pontormo)

Day 24 Tears of Joy 

A Commentary 
 Understanding the Scriptures - The Didache Series (Chapter 6, page 123)

In time we can discover that God in his almighty providence can bring a good from the consequences of an evil, even a moral evil, caused by his creatures:  "It was not you", said Joseph to his brothers "who sent me here, but..God. You meant evil against me; but God meant it for good to bring it about that any people should be kept alive."  (Gen 45:8;50:20;)

From the greatest moral evil ever committed - the rejection and murder of God's only Son, caused by the sins of all men - God, by his grace that "abounded all the more"  (Rom 5:20), brought the greatest of goods: the glorification of Christ and our redemption. But for all that, evil never becomes a good (CCC 312). 

When Jacob heard that Joseph was still alive, he could hardly believe it.  But God spoke to him in a vision once again, telling him to go down to Egypt.  It was part of God's plan. 

So Jacob went down to Egypt, and the whole family - seventy people, counting sons and grandsons - was reunited.  Pharaoh gave Joseph's family the best grazing land in the country, and they grew even richer  So, contrary to what we might have expected, the book of Genesis ends, not in the Promised Land of Canaan, but in the foreign land of Egypt.  

+++

A Daily Defense 

DAY 24 The Moral Argument

CHALLENGE: “Why shouldn’t I believe in scientific materialism—the view that only physical matter and energy exist and that science is the key to all knowledge?”

DEFENSE: Because morality points us beyond the purely material and beyond what science is capable of establishing. 

Moral values are real. Some things are objectively right and some are objectively wrong. Showing compassion for the poor and the weak is good; torturing babies for fun is evil. Belief in moral values is a human universal that exists in all cultures. It is built into human nature, and it cannot be suppressed.

Even those who profess philosophies denying moral realism cannot maintain the pretense. They invariably slip back into realist thinking and language, expressing either appreciation for acts they sense are good or outrage at acts they sense are evil.

But science is not capable of establishing moral values (one of several limitations it has; see Day 333). It may be capable of studying what people consider morally good and bad, but it is not capable of establishing what is morally good and bad. This is known in philosophy as the “is-ought problem.”

Certain statements are descriptive, describing the way the world is. Others are prescriptive, describing the way the world ought to be. Science is capable of investigating the former, but it does not have the ability to investigate the latter. As philosophers have often put it, you cannot derive an ought-statement from an is statement.

The reason is that science involves an empirical methodology—one based on things that can be detected and measured by the physical senses or by physical extensions of them (e.g., telescopes, microscopes, radio wave detectors). 

But moral good and evil cannot be detected and measured in this way. They are non-empirical qualities. You cannot detect moral goodness with a technical instrument or torture someone in a lab and use an evil-ometer to determine how bad the act is. 

We thus have good reason, based on the universal human belief in moral realism, to hold that moral values are objectively real, but they transcend the empirical. This shows that there is a transcendental realm that goes beyond the purely material and the abilities of science. 

Jimmy Akin, A Daily Defense: 365 Days (Plus One) to Becoming a Better Apologist

The Bible In One Year Day 23 (Genesis 43 - 44, Job 35 - 36, Proverbs 4: 10-19)

  You may subscribe yourself at the Ascension site here and receive notifications in your email, or just follow along on my blog.  Bible in One Year Readings Index 

Goblet Found in Benjamin's Sack (Alexander Ivanov)

Day 23 Judah Changes  

A Daily Defense 

DAY 23 Who Bought the Field of Blood? 

CHALLENGE: “Matthew and Luke contradict each other. Matthew says that the Jewish priests bought the field of blood (Matt. 27:7–8), whereas Luke says that Judas Iscariot did (Acts 1:18–19).”

 

DEFENSE: Matthew and Luke are in fundamental agreement, and there are many ways the different attributions can be explained. Both authors agree that Judas Iscariot’s betrayal led to a field in the area of Jerusalem becoming known as the field of blood. Both also say that this field was paid for with the money that the chief priests had given Judas to betray Jesus. Both are thus agreed about the basic facts. How, then, can we account for the different way the two authors describe the purchase of the field?

 

One proposal is that the reference in Acts (“Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness”) is meant to be ironic rather than literal. It occurs in a speech that Peter is making, and it has been suggested that Peter merely meant that Judas got his just deserts. The money he originally meant to spend on himself ended up paying for a graveyard. This is possible, but as we observe elsewhere (see Day 124), the biblical authors sometimes omit the agents who perform an action in order to bring out the significance of the principal figures with respect to whom the action is performed.

 

Thus we read that Moses built the tabernacle (2 Chron. 1:3) and Solomon built the temple (1 Kings 6:1–38), though in reality both were built by workmen acting on the leaders’ behalf (Exod. 38:22–23; 1 Kings 7:13–45). Sometimes the agents get mentioned and sometimes they don’t. It is therefore possible that Matthew chose to mention the role of the priests: They were the agents who actually bought the field.

 

By contrast, Luke wants to bring out the significance of the fact that it was Judas’s money, without going into the mechanics of how the transaction was made. He thus omitted reference to the priests and only mentioned Judas. Or this choice may have been made by someone earlier in the chain of tradition than Luke, who simply reported the tradition as he had it. Either way, it would be in keeping with the known practice of omitting agents to bring out the significance of the principals.

Jimmy Akin, A Daily Defense: 365 Days (Plus One) to Becoming a Better Apologist

The Bible In One Year Day 22 (Genesis 41 - 42, Job 33 - 34, Proverbs 4: 1-9)

 You may subscribe yourself at the Ascension site here and receive notifications in your email, or just follow along on my blog. Bible in One Year Readings Index 

Joseph receives his Brothers (Francesco Bacchiacca)

Joseph Interpreting Pharaoh's Dream (Anthonie van Blocklandt)

Joseph and his Brothers (Abraham Bloemaert)

Day 22 Go To Joseph 

A Commentary 
 God Turns Evil into an Instrument of Salvation
Understanding the Scriptures -

The Didache Series (Chapter 6, page 122)

After years of service, Joseph rose to become the prime minister to the Pharaoh, the king of Egypt. Inspired by God, Joseph was able to predict that seven years of plenty would be followed by seven years of famine.  Under his wise government, Egypt stored up so much grain in the years of plenty that the Egyptians had more than enough food during the famine.  The rest of the world, however, was starving. 

Foreigners who wanted to by grain had to buy it through Pharaoh's chief minister, Zaphenathpaneah.  What Jacob's sons did not know as the Zaphenathpaneah was the Egyptian name that Pharaoh had given to their brother Joseph. He recognized them right away:  they were older, but they dressed and talked the way he remembered them.  There they were his brothers, bowing down before him - just as the dream had foretold all those years before. 

Joseph on the other hand was dressed like an Egyptian nobleman and spoke Egyptian through an interpreter.  

Joseph did not reveal himself right away.  He played some tricks on his brothers, making them suffer a bit for what they had done to him.  When he finally did decide to tell them who he was, they were afraid of him.  After all, he was the second most powerful man in the world.  If he wanted to take his revenge, he could.  But Joseph reassured them "and now do not be distressed, or angry with yourselves, because you sold me here; for God sent me before you to preserve life."  

God brought good out of evil.  Joseph's brothers had betrayed and sold him, but God had used that betrayal to save the whole family.  For that reason, early Christians saw Joseph as a "type" of Christ.  Jesus Christ also would be betrayed by his own people, and God would use that betrayal to save the very people who betrayed him.  

The Ghent Altarpiece (Virgin Mary detail by Jan van Eyck)

A Daily Defense 

DAY 22 “Queen of Heaven” Condemned? 

CHALLENGE:  “Catholics should not regard Mary as the “Queen of Heaven.” The Bible speaks of devotion to the Queen of Heaven and condemns it in unequivocal terms (Jer. 7:18, 44:17–19, 25).”

DEFENSE:  The “Queen of Heaven” that Jeremiah refers to is not Mary. Therefore, he was not condemning Marian devotion. The fact that Jeremiah was not referring to Mary is obvious, since he was writing around 600 B.C., not the first century A.D. In his day, the title “Queen of Heaven” was used to refer to various pagan deities. There were many such deities, as every pagan pantheon had a major, ruling deity who was depicted as a king in heaven. Correspondingly, various goddesses were regarded as queens in heaven. Scholars are not sure which of these deities Jeremiah was referring to. It may have been a Canaanite goddess such as Ashtoreth (the wife of Ba’al), Asherah (the wife of El), or the warrior goddess Anat.

Whichever he meant, it is clear that the condemned devotion was taking place in his own day, for Jeremiah refers to it as “what they are doing in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem” (Jer. 7:17). He also promises that God’s wrath would fall on members of his own generation as a result of this practice (Jer. 44:24–30). The fact that “Queen of Heaven” was used for a pagan deity in Jeremiah’s day does not mean that it can’t also have a legitimate use. 

Words and phrases gain their meaning and connotations from the way they are used in a particular community, and they are not permanently ruined just because pagans once used them. As noted, the same pagan pantheons that had Queens of Heaven also had Kings of Heaven, but that didn’t stop the biblical authors from referring to the true God as a King (Ps. 29:10, 47:2, 6–7, 103:19; Isa. 6:5; Mal. 1:14; 1 Tim. 1:17; Rev. 15:3, etc.). They even used the exact title “King of Heaven” for him (Dan. 4:37; Tob. 1:18, 13:7). The question thus is not whether “Queen of Heaven” was once used for a pagan deity, but whether it can have a different and appropriate sense. As we discuss elsewhere, it can (see Day 64).

Jimmy Akin, A Daily Defense: 365 Days (Plus One) to Becoming a Better Apologist

The Bible In One Year Day 20 (Genesis 38, Job 29 - 30, Proverbs 3:28 - 32)

 You may subscribe yourself at the Ascension site here and receive notifications in your email, or just follow along on my blog.  Bible in One Year Readings Index 

Judah and Tamar (school of Rembrandt)

Day 20 Judah and Tamar

A Daily Defense 

Day 20 Baptism and Salvation 

CHALLENGE:  “Baptism is not needed for salvation. It is a symbolic ritual that represents an inward change that has already taken place.” 

DEFENSE:  The New Testament links baptism to salvation. Baptism is not just a ritual. It communicates God’s graces, such as the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Thus Peter told the crowd on the day of Pentecost: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38).

Similarly, when he was converted to the Faith, Paul was told: “Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16). 

In his letters, Peter explicitly connected baptism with salvation. Comparing baptism to how eight people were saved in Noah’s Ark, he writes: “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 3:21).

Baptism does not save because it makes us physically cleaner, he says. Rather it “now saves you” because it involves “an appeal to God for a clear conscience,” which is granted to us “through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” 

The New Testament also indicates that baptism is the means by which we are regenerated or “born again.” Jesus taught: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God. . . . Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:3, 5). Paul agrees, saying that “he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5). 

Baptism thus places us in the state of salvation. Baptism is a normative necessity but not an absolute one. To deliberately refuse baptism is to refuse salvation on the terms God offers it, but God can save those who are not baptized through no fault of their own (CCC 1257–61).

Jimmy Akin, A Daily Defense: 365 Days (Plus One) to Becoming a Better Apologist

The Bible In One Year Day 18 (Genesis 35 - 36, Job 25 - 26, Proverbs 3:19-24)

 You may subscribe yourself at the Ascension site here and receive notifications in your email, or just follow along on my blog.  Bible in One Year Readings Index 

Jacob Wrestles with the Angel (Rembrandt) 

Day 18 The Heart of Israel 

A Daily Defense
DAY 18 The End of the World in the First Century?
CHALLENGE:  “Early Christians believed that the world would end shortly after Jesus’ ministry. It didn’t. Therefore, Christianity is false.” 

DEFENSE;  This overestimates belief in an imminent end. It also confuses hope and expectation with assertion. The idea that the early Christians believed in an imminent end of the world has been exaggerated due to a misreading of key texts in the teaching of Jesus (see Days 69, 104, 154, and 167). 

Having said that, some did hope for or even expect an early end. Thus in 1 Thessalonians 4:17, Paul refers to “we who are alive” at the end, suggesting he hoped to be alive at the end. But he did not assert that he would be alive then.

Elsewhere, he questioned whether he would be (Phil. 1:20–24, 2:17; cf. 2 Cor. 5:6–9), and by the end of his life he was certain he would not (2 Tim. 4:6–10). This illustrates the difference between a hope or an expectation on the one hand and an assertion on the other. 

Early Christians like Paul may have entertained the hope that Christ would soon return, they may even have expected it, but this is not the same as asserting that it would happen then. The Church holds that those things “asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit” (Vatican II, Dei Verbum 11), but things they merely hoped or expected and did not assert are not assertions of the Holy Spirit.

As a result, Scripture can reveal the hopes and expectations of ancient writers without claiming that these would come to pass. The book of Revelation also made it clear that a long period of time would pass before the end. Although the book stresses that most of its vision would take place soon (Rev. 1:1, 22:6), it also indicated a millennium (symbolic of a long period of time) would occur before the end (Rev. 20:1–6). 

Jimmy Akin, A Daily Defense: 365 Days (Plus One) to Becoming a Better Apologist

The Bible In One Year Day 17 (Genesis 33 - 34, Job 23 - 24, Proverbs 3:13-18)

 You may subscribe yourself at the Ascension site here and receive notifications in your email, or just follow along on my blog.  Bible in One Year Readings Index 

Day 17 Jacob Meets Esau 

Reconciliation of Jacob and Esau (Peter Paul Rubens)

A Daily DefenseDAY 17 Abortion and Scripture
CHALLENGE: “Catholics shouldn’t oppose abortion. The Bible never says anything about abortion or when we get our souls.”

DEFENSE:  This objection supposes that we need the Bible to address the subject. We don’t. First, reason alone is capable of establishing that the unborn are innocent human beings and thus have a right to life (see Days 70, 88, 185, 191, and 202).

Second, Catholics are not Protestants and do not have to verify everything from Scripture alone (see Day 5; cf. CCC 2270–75). 

Third, Scripture contains principles that apply to the question of abortion. The most fundamental principle is in the Ten Commandments: “You shall not kill” (Exod. 20:13; Deut. 5:17).

Though the King James Version and older translations use the word “kill” in this passage, the Hebrew term ( ratsakh ) has a more specialized meaning. Thus many modern translations render the commandment “You shall not murder” or “You shall not commit murder.”

The Ten Commandments do not explicitly apply this principle to unborn children, but the Bible recognizes that they are, in fact, children, and that they must be protected: When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage [literally, “and her children go out”], and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

The fact that the unborn are, indeed, children—and that we ourselves were in our mother’s wombs comes out in a particularly touching way in Scripture, such as when the Psalms declare: O Lord, you have searched me and known me! . . . For thou didst form my inward parts, thou didst knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise thee, for thou are fearful and wonderful (Ps. 139:1, 13–14; see also Job 31:14–15, Jeremiah 1:4–5). 

Scripture also notes that the spirit is what keeps the body alive, so that “the body apart from the spirit is dead” (James 2:26). Since a living human being is present from the moment of conception, the soul is present from that time as well (cf. CCC 365).

Jimmy Akin, A Daily Defense: 365 Days (Plus One) to Becoming a Better Apologist

The Bible In One Year Day 15 (Genesis 29 - 30, Job 19 - 20, Proverbs 3: 5-8)

You may subscribe yourself at the Ascension site here and receive notifications in your email, or just follow along on my blog.  Bible in One Year Readings Index 

The Meeting of Jacob and Rachel (William Dyce)

Day 15 Leah Feels Unloved

Jacob's falls in love with the lovely Rachel and works seven years to earn her as his bride  Laban pulls a fast one on him, switching his old daughter Leah for Rachel on the wedding night.  Jacob accuses him of deceit and there is rich irony in Laban's reply:  "It is not so done in our country, to give the younger before the first born."  (Genesis 29:26).  Jacob, who had deceived his own brother and father to take the rights of the firstborn, is deceived himself into taking the firstborn.  He must work another seven years for Rachel.  

Jacob Reproaching Laban for giving him Leah (Hendrick ter Brughen)

                                                    DAY 15 The Anointing of the Sick 

CHALLENGE “The sacrament of the anointing of the sick has no biblical basis; it is a human invention.” 

DEFENSE:  The anointing of the sick is recorded in the Bible. The practice of anointing the sick as a means of miraculous healing was already part of the Christian movement during the earthly ministry of Christ. Jesus performed many exorcisms and healings, and he commissioned the apostles to continue this miraculous ministry, using anointing as one of their methods.

Thus in Mark we read how Jesus sent the Twelve on a preaching and miracle-working mission and “they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many that were sick and healed them” (Mark 6:13).

The anointing of the sick continued to be used later in the apostolic age. Thus in the letter of James we read: “Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven” (James 5:14–15). 

It is this passage in particular from which the Church draws its understanding of the anointing of the sick: “The first grace of this sacrament is one of strengthening, peace, and courage to overcome the difficulties that go with the condition of serious illness or the frailty of old age. 

This grace is a gift of the Holy Spirit, who renews trust and faith in God and strengthens against the temptations of the evil one, the temptation to discouragement and anguish in the face of death. This assistance from the Lord by the power of his Spirit is meant to lead the sick person to healing of the soul, but also of the body if such is God’s will. Furthermore, ‘if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven’ ” (CCC 1520). 

Note that James says that the sick person is to call for “the elders [Greek, presbuteroi ] of the Church.” Presbuteros is the Greek word from which the English word “priest” is derived. Since the anointing of the sick is part of the ministry of the presbuteroi, “only priests (bishops and presbyters) are ministers of the anointing of the sick” (CCC 1516).

Jimmy Akin, A Daily Defense: 365 Days (Plus One) to Becoming a Better Apologist

The Bible In One Year Day 13 (Genesis 25-26, Job 15-16, Proverbs 2:20-22)

 You may subscribe yourself at the Ascension site here and receive notifications in your email, or just follow along on my blog.  Bible in One Year Readings Index 

Esau Selling His Birthright (Hendrick ter Brugghen)

Thus you will walk in the ways of the good
    and keep to the paths of the righteous.
 For the upright will live in the land,
    and the blameless will remain in it;
but the wicked will be cut off from the land,
    and the unfaithful will be torn from it. (Proverbs 2:20 -22) 

Day 13 Esau Sells His Birthright 

Notes from The Great Adventure Session 5 Patriarchs

The lives of these early people often exhibit what will be true of the nations that come from them. In Genesis 25, the Lord tells Rebekah the twins jostling in her womb will become two struggling nations, and that the nation that springs from the elder will be weaker and will serve the nation that comes from the younger. 

Jacob means he grasps the heal or, figuratively, he deceives. And from the moment of Jacob's birth, he is grasping at what belongs to his older brother: first his heel, then his birthright, and finally their father's blessings. 

Esau is no match for Jacob's cunning. He is more interested in satisfying his immediate physical needs than in hanging on to his birthright, and Jacob is able to wrest it from him for a pot of stew.

Later he and Rebekah trick Isaac into giving him the blessing as well. The boys struggle from day one, and the younger is coming out on top.

God chooses Jacob not because of his faithfulness or his behavior; not because of anything he's done, either good or bad. He chooses Jacob while Jacob is still in his mother's womb. God chose Jacob before he'd had a chance to do anything good or bad to show that God's people did not rise "naturally" or according to worldly skill or wisdom but because of His initiative. They were not chosen because they were better than others but simply out of what the Catechism calls God's "sheer gratuitous love."

Catechism of the Catholic Church  

218:  In the course of its history, Israel was able to discover that God had only one reason to reveal himself to them, a single motive for choosing them from among all peoples as his special possession:  his sheer gratuitous love.  And thanks to the prophets Israel understood that it was again out of love that God never stopped saving them and pardoning their unfaithfulness and sins.  

Romans 9: 10 - 16 

...Rebekah's children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac.  Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad - in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls, she was told, "The older will serve the younger."  Just as it is written:  "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."  What then shall we say?  Is God unjust?  Not at all!  For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on who I have mercy, and I will have compassion on who I have compassion."  It does not therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God's mercy.  

***

DAY 13 Original Sin and Justice 

CHALLENGE:  “Original sin is unjust. How could a good God punish us for something done by our ancestors?” 

DEFENSE: This misunderstands what original sin is. God doesn't punish us because of what Adam did. 

Genesis 1 and 2 depict God creating mankind in a state that was “very good” (Gen. 1:31). “As long as he remained in the divine intimacy, man would not have to suffer or die. The inner harmony of the human person, the harmony between man and woman, and finally the harmony between the first couple and all creation, comprised the state called ‘original justice’ ” (CCC 376).

But man turned away from union with God through sin, which Genesis depicts as the act of eating the forbidden fruit (CCC

390). 

If Adam and Eve had remained in original justice, their descendants would have been born in it as well. However, having lost this through sin, their descendants are born deprived of original holiness

and justice. Thus we are said to be born in original sin. 

However, we are not personally guilty of Adam’s sin, and God does not hold us accountable for it. 

“Original sin is called ‘sin’ only in an analogical sense: It is a sin ‘contracted’ and not ‘committed’—a state and not an act” (CCC 404).

“Original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice” (CCC 405). 

Although it is not a personal fault, original sin has consequences for human nature, which is “wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering, and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin—an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence” (CCC 405). 

The situation is like that of a rich man who gambles away his fortune and is unable to pass it on to his children. The gambler was personally at fault, but his children experience the deprivation and

poverty that his actions brought about. In the same way, God gave our first parents an abundance of spiritual riches that they lost through their own folly. The fault was theirs, but we are born in spiritual poverty and out of divine intimacy. 

Jimmy Akin, A Daily Defense: 365 Days (Plus One) to Becoming a Better Apologist

The Bible In One Year - Day 12 (Genesis 24, Job 13-14, Proverbs 2:16-19)

 You may subscribe yourself at the Ascension site here and receive notifications in your email, or just follow along on my blog.  Bible in One Year Readings Index 

Wisdom will save you from evil people, from those whose words are twisted. (Proverbs 2:16)

The Servant and Rebekah (Benjamin West)

Day 12 Isaac and Rebekah

A Commentary
Finding a Wife for IsaacUnderstanding the Scriptures - The Didache Series (Chapter 6, p 108  - 109)

All God's promises to Abraham were to fulfilled through Isaac. The only way to keep Isaac from falling into idolatry, Abraham had decided, was to keep him away from the Canaanites.  Abraham's servant was sent back to Nahor to find a wife for Isaac.  

Abraham's servant saw the women gathering at the will and prayed to God to guide him, "Let the maiden to whom I shall say, "Pray, let down your jar that I may drink," and who shall say, "Drink and I will water your camels' - let her be the one whom thou hast appointed for thy servant Isaac." 

One did arrive and do this exactly.  The young woman was Rebekah, the granddaughter of Nahor, Abraham's brother.  Her brother Laban was the head of the household now and when Abraham's servant came to his house, he told Laban how Abraham had prospered and what his mission was.   Rebekah agreed to leave her home and return with Abraham's servant. When she met Isaac they married. 

The Meeting of Isaac and Rebekah ( Giovanni Castiglione)

+++

A Daily Defense
DAY 12 “The Word Was God” 

CHALLENGE:  “Jesus is not God. John 1:1 shouldn’t be translated ‘the Word was God’ but ‘the Word was a god.’” 

DEFENSE: What the Gospel says about Jesus makes this translation impossible. It is true that Greek lacks the
indefinite article (“a,” “an”), and so translators must decide whether to add it in English. However,
one cannot simply assert that it should be added in a particular case. One needs proof from the context. 

Considered apart from its context, the Greek phrase normally translated “the Word was God”
(theos ē n ho logos ) could be rendered a number of ways. However, the thing that determines which

translations are accurate is the context—what else the Gospel of John has to say that has a bearing on

the meaning of this phrase. When this is taken into account, it is clear that any translation of John 1:1

that would reduce the Word to the status of a created being, such as a finite “god” inferior to the true

God, is inaccurate. The Gospel of John repeatedly emphasizes the full divinity of Christ. 

John is explicit about the matter when he states, “This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill

him, because he not only broke the sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal

with God” (John 5:18). 

Similarly, when Jesus is asked how he could have seen Abraham, he replies, “Before Abraham

was, I am ” (John 8:58), using the same Greek phrase for “ I am ” ( eg ō eimi ) used in the Greek Old

Testament when God declares his name to Moses and tells him, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘ I

am has sent me to you ’ ” (Exod. 3:14). Jesus’ audience understood that he was claiming to be God,

“so they took up stones to throw at him” (John 8:59). 

Later Jesus declares, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30).  And after the Resurrection, 

Thomas declares him to be, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28). This

reference is particularly significant, because it serves as the bookend for John 1:1’s statement “the

Word was God.” The two declarations frame the Gospel of John’s teaching on Jesus’ divinity. 

Jimmy Akin, A Daily Defense: 365 Days (Plus One) to Becoming a Better Apologist

The Bible In One Year - Day 11 (Genesis 22-23, Job 11-12, Proverbs 2:9-15)

 You may subscribe yourself at the Ascension site here and receive notifications in your email, or just follow along on my blog.  Bible in One Year Readings Index 

Then you will understand what is right and just

    and fair—every good path.

10 

For wisdom will enter your heart,

    and knowledge will be pleasant to your soul.

11 

Discretion will protect you,

    and understanding will guard you.  (Proverbs 2:9-11)

Day 11 The Sacrifice of Isaac 

 

The Binding of Isaac Genesis Chapter 22

In this passage, Abraham is called by God to take his only son to the land of Moriah and offer him as a sacrifice. This sounds as if God is asking for a human sacrifice, something that existed at the time of Abraham, but was repugnant to the Hebrews and against the will of God.

Was God asking for something that was against His own Commandment’s? On the surface it appears so. But sometimes, well maybe most times, God’s commands are opaque to us, in other words they are not transparent or easily understood. So how do we come to terms with God’s request of Abraham?

Rewind a few chapters to the three promises God made to Abraham, which would set in motion the course of salvation history coming to fulfillment in the Pascal Mystery; suffering, death and resurrection of Christ. “I will make of you a great nation…I will make your name great…All the communities of the earth shall find blessings in you.” (Genesis 12:2-3)

At the time God made these promises, Abraham and Sarah his wife were childless and well beyond child bearing years. Abraham then inquires, “O Lord God, what good will your gifts be, if I keep on being childless? (Genesis 15:2) To which God replies, “Look up at the sky and count the stars, if you can. Just so shall your descendants be.” (Genesis 15:5)

Time passes and Abraham and Sarah still have no children. Sarah suggests that Abraham take her maidservant Hagar.  Abraham agrees and at the age of 86 fathers Ishmael with Hagar. Yet, Sarah is not as excited as she thought she would be over the birth of Ishmael to Hagar.

Years later, in God’s timing, He blesses Abraham and Sarah with a son. (Genesis: 21:5) More years pass and Abraham, Sarah and Isaac are very happy. Then one day God calls to Abraham asking him to “Take your son Isaac, your only one, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah. There you shall offer him up as a holocaust.” (Genesis 22:2) 

Here is where the real depth of Abraham's faith is revealed.  Abraham would certainly rather have offered himself as a sacrifice rather than his only son.  But Abraham simply responds by saddling his donkey and taking his son Isaac and wood he cut for the offering to do as God has asked.  

The people who lived around the ancient Israelites practiced human sacrifice all the time.  Bu did God really want Abraham to sacrifice Isaac? No God did not want the sacrifice of Isaac, nor would the sacrifice of Isaac, or any of the animal sacrifices performed by the high priest in the Temple suffice. The only sacrifice that would break the chain of sin and death would be the sacrifice of the Perfect Lamb of God, Jesus.

God commands Abraham (Domenichino)

At the place where God had commanded Abraham to make a holocaust, Isaac said, “Here is the fire and the wood, but where is the sheep for the holocaust?” “Son,” Abraham answered, “God himself will provide the sheep for the holocaust.” (Genesis 22:7-8) 

Now at this time Isaac is not a little boy but rather a strong man.  Abraham is an old man and has left his servants behind.  If Isaac wanted to fight back he could have.  Yet he submits trusting in his father and in God.  Isaac allows his hands to be bound. 

Abraham continues in obedience to God, trusting him even to the moment of raising the knife to slaughter his son. At that moment Abraham hears, “Do not do the least thing to him. I know now how devoted you are to God, since you did not withhold from me your own beloved son.” (Genesis 22:12) “As Abraham looked about, he spied a ram caught by its horns in the thicket. So he went and took the ram and offered it up as a holocaust in place of his son.” (Genesis 22:13)

Sacrifice of Isaac (Caravaggio)

For Christians, the story has far more significance. The Church Fathers saw the sacrifice of Isaac as a type of the sacrifice of Christ.  

Isaac:  A father offers his beloved son; the son submits to the father's will; Isaac carries the wood for his own sacrifice; God himself provides the sacrifice. 

Christ: The Father offers his beloved Son; The Son submits to the Father's will; Jesus carries his own wooden cross; God himself provides the perfect sacrifice. 

The mountains of Moriah were the hills around Jerusalem  On one of the peaks, Solomon's Temple would later be built, where the whole nation of Israel would offer its sacrifices to God. It is this same Temple built on Mount Moriah, that Jesus would be dedicated to God (Luke 2:22-38), drive out the money-changers (John 2:14), and teach (John 7:14).  It  would be on Golgotha, a hillside near this Temple that Jesus would offer himself as the last sacrifice.  

+++
A Daily Defense

DAY 11 Science and the Supernatural 

CHALLENGE: "Science cannot accept the supernatural. The natural world is all there is.” 

DEFENSE: At best, this leads to a reductionist understanding of science. At worst, it reflects intellectual prejudice. 

The term “nature” is often used to refer to the visible world we see around us (i.e., the world detectible by the senses and by scientific instruments).  The supernatural then would be anything that falls outside of the visible would.  

On this understanding, the assertion that science can’t accept the supernatural would mean that science cannot deal with anything outside of the visible world.  It would not mean, however, that there is nothing outside the visible world.  Just because we can't detect something with the senses doesn't mean that it isn't real.  There could be vast realms outside the visible world that would be inaccessible to science on this understanding.  

Further, those realms might be capable of interacting with the visible world, which would pose a challenge for science.  We might be able to see visible effects of causes in the non-visible world, but science would not be able to explain the effects by their true causes, which it would be forbidden to discuss.  

Sometimes people use "nature" to refer to everything that exists.  On this understanding, one could assert that nature is all there is, but this also would not mean that the visible world is all that exists. There still could be vast realms not accessible to the senses.  They might even interact with the visible world.  Using "nature" to refer to everything that exists just reclassifies things that would otherwise be called supernatural as exotic parts of nature. 

The claim that the visible world is all that exists is simply an assertion. It is not a scientific claim because it cannot be verified by science.  If science, by its nature, is limited to examining the visible universe, then there is no way to perform a set of observations and experiments proving that there are no realms outside the visible universe.  The assertion that only the visible world is real thus would be a matter of unscientific  prejudice against the idea there is anything outside the visible world. 

Jimmy Akin, A Daily Defense: 365 Days (Plus One) to Becoming a Better Apologist