Beautiful verses

[MaxRosen]

For the first 60 years of my life I never read the NT. Actually that understates the case. I never read much of the OT either.

I came to read the NT in a rather strange way. One night I dreamt I was reading it. When I woke up all I remembered was that I had been reading the NT. I did not remember a word of what I had supposedly read which is hardly surprising under the circumstances.

Later that day, browsing in a second hand bookshop, I came across a rather battered copy of the NIV study bible. Not my usual fare but for $5 I didn’t think I could go wrong.

Well I was hooked. The NT is an AMAZING collection of books.

Yes there is much I don’t understand. But there is also much I think I do understand. Contemplate these beautiful verses from Romans 12 (I‘ve cut and pasted from Bible Gateway)

1 Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. 2 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.

Here’s an excerpt from the commentary at the bottom of the page:

Living sacrifices. In contrast to dead animal sacrifices, or perhaps living in the sense of having the new life in the Holy Spirit (see 6:4)

When I turn to Romans 6:4 I find:

4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

As I read this Christians are called upon to offer themselves as a sacrifice just as Jesus offered himself.

Much of this board is taken in discussing what people don’t understand. How about spending a bit of time discussing, in a respectful manner, what we do understand?

Or, at least, what we think we understand.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

As I read this Christians are called upon to offer themselves as a sacrifice just as Jesus offered himself.

Much of this board is taken in discussing what people don’t understand. How about spending a bit of time discussing, in a respectful manner, what we do understand?

Or, at least, what we think we understand.

Hmm. I think you’re close. We are to offer ourselves to God as a sacrifice with and through his son Jesus Christ. A living sacrifice; a sacrifice of disunity into unity.

What do you see in those passages? or what puzzles you about them?

 

[DianaCC]

How about spending a bit of time discussing, in a respectful manner, what we do understand?

Go for it.

 

[MaxRosen]

Huiou Theou

I’m not so much puzzled as awestruck by their beauty.

Thanks Diana

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Huiou Theou

I’m not so much puzzled as awestruck by their beauty.

Thanks Diana

In that case, it’s the former “what do you see?”
How do you feel about this idea of sacrifice, and how does it fit into your world?
I know a bit about how it fits in mine.

Peace to you,
–Andrew

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

For the first 60 years of my life I never read the NT. Actually that understates the case. I never read much of the OT either.

I came to read the NT in a rather strange way. One night I dreamt I was reading it. When I woke up all I remembered was that I had been reading the NT. I did not remember a word of what I had supposedly read which is hardly surprising under the circumstances.

Later that day, browsing in a second hand bookshop, I came across a rather battered copy of the NIV study bible. Not my usual fare but for $5 I didn’t think I could go wrong.

Well I was hooked. The NT is an AMAZING collection of books.

Yes there is much I don’t understand. But there is also much I think I do understand. Contemplate these beautiful verses from Romans 12 (I‘ve cut and pasted from Bible Gateway)

Here’s an excerpt from the commentary at the bottom of the page:

When I turn to Romans 6:4 I find:

As I read this Christians are called upon to offer themselves as a sacrifice just as Jesus offered himself.

Much of this board is taken in discussing what people don’t understand. How about spending a bit of time discussing, in a respectful manner, what we do understand?

Or, at least, what we think we understand.

Count on me.

 

[MaxRosen]

Hi Andrew,

You ask:

How do you feel about this idea of sacrifice, and how does it fit into your world?

Given the nature of Jesus’ sacrifice I find the idea terrifying.

 

[JohnMPhilomena]

So Max, do you view your sudden “urge” to read the NT as a call to conversion to Christianity? Is that why you are terrified by Jesus’ sacrifice?

You know, very few of us are called to physically lay down our lives for others, but we are called to transform our lives into the service of others and put other people’s needs ahead of our own - helping the poor, raising a family, becoming a teacher, whatever your vocation is. If we do it with love of others, then we become what God wants us to be.

 

[fhansen]

Huiou Theou

I’m not so much puzzled as awestruck by their beauty.

Thanks Diana

Yes, that’s what drew me-and kept me-immersed in the NT for many years. You just don’t find anything quite like it anywhere else.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi Andrew,

You ask:

Given the nature of Jesus’ sacrifice I find the idea terrifying.

Hmm, The nature of Jesus’ sacrifice? His sacrifice is of his flesh, so that we who have sinful flesh might be made into his flesh; just as a husband gives a wife his flesh, (seminal), and she gives hers to him (cf: Genesis, man is made from the “sllme” or “slip” of the earth); so too God wished to form us into his bride, the people of God, but without sexual union; for he is taking men and women alike in the only other way known – eg: one modeled on Adam the first man who was cast into a deep sleep – and flesh from his side was made into a partner suitable for him.

It is in this way, that men and women alike become his bride, his “people” without any kind of perversion. You and I have to chew, or work things with lips, to make something our own body – bringing it into the dark recesses of our body for natural assimilation and formation.

But not Jesus – At one point, he does it with bread without chewing – making it his body without visible violence; no lip service there – but at another point he does it in a painful and brutal way on the cross. The common thing between the two is that it does not end in death; He does not loose his body because we gain his flesh and he does not lay down except to rise up again with us included.

My part in this sacrifice is being formed into his bride; which doesn’t sound quite so painful as being surgically opened without anesthetic. I mean, Eve didn’t recall anything until she woke up – and so far, it hasn’t hurt much that I have noticed physically.

I suppose, I do sometimes worry that there might be more to it than I can see, but everyone dies at least once. I figure I’ll just make the best of my options.

What terrifies you about the nature of his sacrifice?

 

[Carolus_Martell]

I agree with Max and his ‘beautiful verses’ comments. Almost all of my exposure is from daily readings.

This past Sundays reading was one of my favorites… 'O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! “For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?”…

Sadly I admit I rarely read the bible but do use it to reference quotes I hear from time to time.

 

[MaxRosen]

Huiou Theou, JohnMPhilomena

You ask why the verses I quoted are terrifying.

I think they need to be read in conjunction with verses such as:

(Mt 10:37-39)

37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

(Mt 16:24)

24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.

Jesus seems to be calling for TOTAL commitment. Christianity is not like Islam where for the most part you can follow certain rituals and that’s it.

I accept that in practice few people are called upon to lay down their lives. But with their constant references to a cross and sacrifice Jesus and Paul seem to be suggesting that every Christian must be prepared to do so. In fact a Christian has to choose a cross over his or her own family.

To me the phrase “take up your cross” suggests abandoning yourself to the service of Jesus irregardless of where that may lead. And it MAY lead to some pretty unpleasant places. You don’t know in advance.

How many of us really can abandon ourselves?

How many of us have ever actually abandoned ourselves?

 

[JohnMPhilomena]

MaxRosen:

Jesus seems to be calling for TOTAL commitment. Christianity is not like Islam where for the most part you can follow certain rituals and that’s it.

I accept that in practice few people are called upon to lay down their lives. But with their constant references to a cross and sacrifice Jesus and Paul seem to be suggesting that every Christian must be prepared to do so. In fact a Christian has to choose a cross over his or her own family.

To me the phrase “take up your cross” suggests abandoning yourself to the service of Jesus irregardless of where that may lead. And it MAY lead to some pretty unpleasant places. You don’t know in advance.

How many of us really can abandon ourselves?

How many of us have ever actually abandoned ourselves?

Max,

I agree that there is much beauty in the scriptures, but they can be difficult to interpret. So, when reading the bible, there must be a basic understanding of the church teaching on subjects.

(Mt 10:37-39)
37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

This verse doesn’t mean you should not love your parents, but rather, you should not let your parents get between you and God.

I think maybe you are using too strict of an interpretation of these things. If you are truly living the life you were meant to live, you would not be abandoning yourself at all. You would be one with God’s plan.

He just wants us to do everything with love. He wants us to do a good job at work - not to please our employer, but out of love for Him. He wants us to focus less on ourselves and more on others. What we do for others, we do for Him.

So, reading the scriptures can be wonderful, but at times there can be many different interpretations. When this is the case, I fall back on the Church Catechism.

And don’t worry if you fall short. We all do. Christ calls us to perfection, but few of us will be perfect. It’s a constant struggle to improve. The sacraments help - Holy Communion, Confession (sacrament of reconciliation). So we struggle, we fall, we get back up. We beg for forgiveness. We trust that we will be forgiven. Jesus paid for our imperfections. His mercy is like an ocean compared to a few grains of sand.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Huiou Theou, JohnMPhilomena

You ask why the verses I quoted are terrifying.

I think they need to be read in conjunction with verses such as:
(Mt 10:37-39)
(Mt 16:24)

Yes, I understand.

Jesus seems to be calling for TOTAL commitment. Christianity is not like Islam where for the most part you can follow certain rituals and that’s it.

I accept that in practice few people are called upon to lay down their lives. But with their constant references to a cross and sacrifice Jesus and Paul seem to be suggesting that every Christian must be prepared to do so. In fact a Christian has to choose a cross over his or her own family.

I think you are very observant max. It will never be that few people are called to lay down their lives, though. I’ve had mine destroyed over the issue that you mention – but it wouldn’t have mattered if I was any other religion. What matters is commitment in marriage; and the value of a promise, and the maturity and growth of the friends become spouses.

Many years ago I married a woman whom I gave my whole heart; I wanted to raise kids in a certain way for love of God – and we spoke of these things and she was all agreement. After many years of marriage, and my own laying my life down for her and the children – eg: when a murderer was running loose around our house, I stood in the doorway so that he had to go through me to get to my kids or wife; when a large dog went amok, I put myself between him and my son so that I would be chewed up before my son. These were moments that I had to lay my life down, but out of God’s mercy their ending was not my destruction.
However, to my total dismay – the promises my wife made to me on the day of our wedding were mostly empty fantasy for her. As long as times were good for her, she was good; but when integrity was required over promises when her extended family became unstable — led to total breakdown of our relationship; I can not be destroyed from without; threats from rich employers, attacks and theft, are things I can handle in stride as long as my core family is safe – but to be betrayed by one’s own wife from inside was totally beyond my strength.

She loved her mother, father, and drug doing sister – her faithless sister, and all their carelessness more than my love for her; and more than our kids. She refused to move the children out of danger when it was her family – and she began systematically to use my fears as threats betraying me on one promise after another. The whole reason that I married her, has been demolished.

There are many women who would have been more worthy than she of being my wife. Nothing hurt more than accusations from her that I wasn’t “laying my life down for her” when I had prepared to do the ultimate sacrifice at least once already and she refused even to listen to sound council.

I don’t see that it is any different between any husband or wife, or any God and people, that one spouse should do his part in excess – and the other still prefer others over him and his light burdens. That they should make life with him impossible in order to have things which are good for only one spouse and which drag the other through misery and mud.

In the ten commandments, God wrote on hardened stone, with his finger – you are to honor mother and father. And indeed, I would have made sure – and may still make sure that my misguided inlaws are cared for in their old age. An honorarium is money for the care of parents; it is not right to give one’s money away even to religion or charity in order to spite one’s parents in their needy last days (korban). But at the same time, if they are more important than a spouse – to the point where they come first over the spouse – it were better for that person never to marry at all. They can’t have a true marriage – only one of convenience.

To me the phrase “take up your cross” suggests abandoning yourself to the service of Jesus irregardless of where that may lead. And it MAY lead to some pretty unpleasant places. You don’t know in advance.

Yes it does. But the alternative leads to unpleasant places as well.

How many of us really can abandon ourselves?

My wife has not been able to, to this day. I have done my best, and I don’t know that I can say I have “abandoned” myself.

There is a direct connection, not obvious perhaps, between sacrifice and communication. If you wish to talk with me, you must sacrifice some of your time – some of the power of your brain – some of the space in your memory – for what I say. If there is no sacrifice, you can never really know me. The same is true for any other two people – interaction and cooperation require sacrifice; the size of the sacrifice is determined to some degree by the differences between the two people trying to communicate. The more alike you are to the one you communicate with, the less difficult will be the task of understanding that person.

How many of us have ever actually abandoned ourselves?

I don’t know. What would you use to measure this?

 

[MaxRosen]

Hi JohnMPhilomena.

You wrote:

…but they [scriptural verses] can be difficult to interpret. So, when reading the bible, there must be a basic understanding of the church teaching on subjects.

I’d be interested to know what are the Roman Catholic Church’s teachings on the specific verses I quoted.

I did not interpret Mt 10:37:39 to mean you should not love your parents. But I do interpret them to mean, as you put it, that you should let nothing, not even your parents, get in the way of a commitment to Jesus.

Huiou Theou

I’m sorry to hear about your unhappy marriage. It sounds dreadful. I realise Catholics do not divorce but if she never intended to keep her marriage vows is there a case for an annulment?

There is a sort of “self-sacrifice / submission to the will of God” theme that runs through the NT. Consider Rom 9:19-25

19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25 As he says in Hosea:

“I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people;
and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,”

My study Bible says:

The analogy between God and the potter and between man and the pot should not be pressed to the extreme. The main point is the sovereign freedom of God in dealing with man.

Fair enough but no one can deny these are hard verses. Does anyone know what the Catholic Church’s teachings on these verses are?

Or consider the example of Stephen who, I believe, is regarded as the first Christian martyr.

59 While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60 Then he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he fell asleep.

(Acts 7:59-60)

What does the Catholic Church teach about this?

By “abandon yourself” I mean disregard yourself entirely and focus on serving God. I do NOT mean doing silly things like neglecting your own health or personal hygiene. But if the choice is between your own welfare and answering the call of God the teaching of the NT is that you must choose the latter.

At the same time I think you need to be sure you know what the will of God is. You should not decide in isolation that you know what God wants you to do.

I do NOT believe the God depicted in the NT would ever want you to embark on either a crusade or a Jihad.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Huiou Theou

I’m sorry to hear about your unhappy marriage. It sounds dreadful. I realise Catholics do not divorce but if she never intended to keep her marriage vows is there a case for an annulment?

Yes, but I don’t have the heart to pursue it. I’ve already had a priest that sat on annulment tribunerals tell her that what she was doing was in violation of her marriage vows; and her sister, for similar reasons, has already had her marriage declared null (with the caveat from the tribuneral that she never try to marry again.)
But I have kids, and such an annulment won’t give me back what I have lost – so really I’d rather just hope for a miracle; and even if it doesn’t come – I can be content with lesser goals. She will at least be cared for, and my kids are smart and are figuring out what happened;

There is a sort of “self-sacrifice / submission to the will of God” theme that runs through the NT. Consider Rom 9:19-25

Doing a quick check, those verses are not discussed in the major teaching texts that I have from the Catholic Church. But, going a little farther —
Those words aren’t the originals; If you flip to Isaiah chapter 45:8-13; You will find that Paul is quoting the prophet’s words; so the context of them can be seen.

The particular chapter starts out with King Cyrus, whom is a pagan/persian king whom God allows to overcome Israel for her sins, and much of the world surrounding her. The particular words starting at Isaiah 45:9 are the one’s St. Paul quotes exactly; and the church teaches on reconciliation beginning in Isaiah 45:8. (CCC 2795) “… But conversion of heart, then, enables us to return to the Father, to Heaven, In Christ then, Heaven and Earth are reconciled. (Isaiah 45:8)”

This is what Isaiah says in verse 8, before the quote of St. Paul:
8: You heavens, send dew from above, you skies, pour down upon us the rain we long for, him, the Just One (or Justice); may he, the Savior, spring from the closed womb of earth, and with him let right order take its being.

*9: I, the Lord, have made my servant what he is. At his peril does man, poor shard of earthly clay, bandy words with his own Fashioner; shall the clay dare ask the potter who moulds it, **what ails thee? or Or tell him he is no craftsman? Strange if a man should be asked by his own son, why he begot him, or a woman, why she gave birth! **Thus says the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, and Israel’s maker, Of me you must learn, what times they be that are coming; trust me to do what I will with my sons, with my own creatures.
…

Continued…

 

[Huiou_Theou]

So, Max, there are probably many sermons on the passage from various Catholic preachers throughout history, but it isn’t a passage that the Church as a whole focuses on when speaking about submission to God. I’m not sure exactly what you’re thinking about these passages, so I am going to sketch (you can skim if I am not following your interest correctly) a bit about them to give fuel for thought.

The original text Paul is quoting was delivered to King Cyrus, whom God was letting know he would be permitted to conquer Israel – but the purpose of the original quote is to aid Cyrus in seeing the truth of his conquest (who gave it to him) so that he might not become too proud.

Cyrus, as I recall, actually did heed God’s instruction – and is associated with the restoration of Israel after the Babylonian captivity. Eg: Israel was in Babylonian captivity, Cyrus conquered them both; and these harsh sounding words ended up being a blessing to king Cyrus; and through him to Israel.

In the Context of Romans, Paul is recounting the history of Israel, and in particular this passage points out that a pagan king – minded God more than Israel did.

Paul himself is writing to a mixed community with very nationalistic Jewish converts, and Gentiles – and they are bickering over who is “better”. The details, I don’t fully know – but St. Paul’s purpose, here, is to SILENCE both side’s arrogance by using history to shame them both.

St. Paul’s writing is one of the more difficult to follow because, as he admits himself, his writing style is poor/unrefined. AND There are a very large number of old testament references that need to be traced out to understand his thought.

Reflecting backward on the theme of reconciliation that the church ties to this passage, and your question about submission – I’d like to rewind just a little:
Romans 9:10 which prefixes the passage you are interested in;

The two historical figures Esau and Jacob were rival brothers; one had to be the head and the other the second son for authority purposes as the father aged; So God ordained that (arbitrarily) Jacob should get the better of the deal; and St. Paul’s purpose here is to insure that we recognize the gift was arbitrary; No submission to God was involved in his choosing Jacob over Esau. (whom he gave this small blessing)

To grasp the wider context, Esau (as the nation EDOM) NEVER historically, served Jacob who became the nation – Israel – This prophecy of God was made only during a short period of months, while their father was still alive, and that the ordering of sons made a difference;

It was through Rebekka – the mother, and most holy of the Patriarch’s wifes in her overall actions – set Jacob up to receive the blessing by trickery; This is important to grasp, for it ties into the theme of reconciliation – for Jacob, now having the blessing of the elder brother, was responsible for Esau; and in Genesis chapter 32, God’s choice of Jacob leads to a great blessing of Esau. In no way other than a short period of time, did God give more to Jacob than to Esau the person. But God DID order his “sons” with respect to their responsibilities and particular blessings and times of blessing.

The phrase, “I have loved Jacob, and hated (loved less) Esau” found in Romans 9:13 is nonsensical without understanding that Esau was blessed mightily through Jacob. This small preference of which son would be responsible is actually Ironic humor – for the phrase “I hated Esau” is actually quoted from Malachi, where Jacob’s children are about to be punished for squandering that extra privilege over Esau in later days. They are BOTH going to be punished for sinning, Jacob AND Esau – and that “little” preference God showed Jacob is going to be reversed; though it was not Given to Esau who was also unworthy – but eventually, as Paul points out – it is given to Cyrus to re-establish Israel; as we learn in Isaiah 48:8.

So in the first section of Romans 9, Jacob AND Esau, God showed mercy to both. He was more merciful to Jacob, but he was merciful. Then Paul moves to another historical example – Pharaoh – and Pharaoh continued to talk back to God, lesson after lesson, and God* was merciful with him* – but ultimately; Pharaoh was unsuitable material to make anything but wrath out of; Pharaoh is the one who “talked back” to God incessantly.

The church talks about reconciliation – and with Jacob and Esau it is easy to see; but with Pharaoh it isn’t so easy to see; Pharaoh is the opposite of King Cyrus; and without reading the background of both kings – one can easily miss the Jewish Ironic humor that is the basis of St. Paul’s writing.

Clay mined from rivers, or slip & slime from father to wife, is raw material. It has in it, sometimes, rocks – sand, imperfections. These things aren’t the potters making – he simply takes the clay and makes the best he can out of what it is. The problem with living creatures, and sons, is that God can be insulted by them and rebuked by their arrogance for trying to do them a good turn. That is what the submission is about; and it is really as the church teaches – about reconciliation.
Overcoming of Defects is the purpose of submission. God’s purposes can be achieved in multiple ways – but failing to trust him is only going to limit the gentleness with which he can work with us.

I’m not quite sure with St. Stephen, exactly what you are thinking of either – so I’ll stop for now, and let you guide the conversation a bit more.

 

[MaxRosen]

Huiou Theou

I think the bottom line is that I’m getting myself confused. What I need is the Dummies Guide to the Catholic interpretation of the Bible.

Any suggestions?

 

[MorningSong51]

Huiou Theou

I think the bottom line is that I’m getting myself confused. What I need is the Dummies Guide to the Catholic interpretation of the Bible.

Any suggestions?

Hi Diana,

I love your sign in - and also note of Jewish (nominally). You started a good thread and here are some suggestions ( I had the same question years ago).


How to Use the CCSS for Personal Lectio Divina (PDF)

To use the Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture for individual lectio divina, begin with a prayer asking the Lord to speak to you today through his word.

Series Description

and here’s a sample: catholicscripturecommentary.com/images/pdf-downloads/02-corinthians/StegmanSecondCorinthiansIntroductionTOC.pdf

I really hope this helps out. Let me know
Mary

 

[MorningSong51]

Huiou Theou

I think the bottom line is that I’m getting myself confused. What I need is the Dummies Guide to the Catholic interpretation of the Bible.

Any suggestions?

One last thought and also a good read:

According to Jean Leclercq, OSB, the founders of the medieval tradition of Lectio Divina were Saint Benedict and Pope Gregory I. However, the methods that they employed had precedents in the biblical period both in Hebrew and Greek. A text that combines these traditions is Romans 10:8 where Apostle Paul refers to the presence of God’s word in the believer’s “mouth or heart”. It was the recitation of the biblical text that provided the rationale for Lectio Divina.[1]

Daily life in a Benedictine monastery consisted of three elements: liturgical prayer, manual labor and Lectio Divina, a quiet prayerful reading of the Bible.[2] This slow and thoughtful reading of Scripture, and the ensuing pondering of its meaning, was their meditation. This spiritual practice is called “divine reading” or “sacred reading”, or lectio divina…

In September 2005, Pope Benedict XVI stated:

"I would like in particular to recall and recommend the ancient tradition of Lectio divina: the diligent reading of Sacred Scripture accompanied by prayer brings about that intimate dialogue in ***which the person reading hears God who is speaking, and in praying, responds to him with trusting openness of heart (cf. Dei Verbum, n. 25)***. If it is effectively promoted, this practice will bring to the Church - I am convinced of it - a new spiritual springtime." Link - [Lectio Divina](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lectio_Divina)