Day 4: O Clavis David (O Key of David)

Tonight's O Antiphon is “O Clavis David,” which means “O Key of David.”  It's a reference to Isaiah 22:19-23, and the rise and fall of a man named Eliakim.  In this passage, God removes Shebna from his position of power as Master of the Palace, replacing him with Eliakim:

Peter Paul Reubens, St. Peter (1612)

I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station. In that day I will call my servant Eli'akim the son of Hili'ah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.

And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father's house."

What an amazing prophesy!  There are two images here: the Key of David, which refers to authority over the House of Israel, and the Peg, which refers to Eliakim's longevity.  And it's to a man named Eliakim, whose very name means “God will raise up.”  How fitting, right?  Well, let's read the next thing that He prophesies (Isaiah 22:24-25):

And they will hang on him the whole weight of his father's house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons. In that day, says the LORD of hosts, the peg that was fastened in a sure place will give way; and it will be cut down and fall, and the burden that was upon it will be cut off, for the LORD has spoken.

Wow.  The radical juxtaposition of these two prophesies should leave us a bit unsettled.  God is choosing to empower Eliakim, despite knowing that Eliakim will ultimately disappoint Him, and will be set aside. The pressures of the office will eventually prove to be too much for him, and Eliakim's glory will fade.

This seems pretty bleak.  I'm reminded of three things:

• First, of Percy Blythe Shell's sonnet Ozymandias.  The poem tells of a traveler discovering a plaque reading, "My name is Ozymandias, king of kings :Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"   But he finds the plaque within the midst of a colossal wreck.  All that's left of Ozymandias' empire is ruins.
  
• Second, of modern politics.  We Americans cast our hopes onto the latest politician, only to find them burn out in disgrace, unable to shoulder the burdens of success.  We hurry to place a key on the next man's shoulder, only to watch him crumple from the weight.
  
• Finally, of The Myth of Sisyphus.  Albert Camus, the atheistic French existentialist, declared life to be meaningless.  He compared it to the Greek myth of Sisyphus, who was cursed by the gods to continually push a boulder up a mountain.  Yet every time he made it to the top of the hill, the boulder would roll back down, and he'd have to start over.  That, to Camus, was life.  A constant and meaningless struggle.  

As I said, all of this seems intensely dark.  God permits men to rise and fall, and we're left wondering at the meaning.  But this apparent meaningless isn't the final word.  Christ is.

Lorenzo Veneziano,
Christ Giving the Keys to St Peter (1370)

When Christ enters the picture, we see the Key of David finally enter into safe hands, of the One who won't “be cut down and fall,” as Eliakim was. Israel will no longer be left to the whims of the ambitious, but will be governed by the eternal God.  And He puts in place an Apostle, St. Peter, giving him the keys (Mt. 16:18-19):

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

So the Keys, the very symbol of authority, were handed to the first pope, Peter.  But what makes this so radically different from the time of Eliakim is that instead of prophesying Peter's downfall, He declares that “the gates of Hades will not overcome.”  While Israel was tossed back and forth, the Church is built upon Rock.

And why won't the Gates of Hell overcome?  Because while Christ gives Peter the Keys, He doesn't lose them Himself.  In other words, Jesus doesn't become any less God because He entrusts Peter with authority.  Peter's not stealing Christ's power.  Christ is working through Peter.  We see this from the Book of Revelation, which clearly shows us that Christ hasn't lost His Authority.  In the Book of Revelation,  Christ presents Himself this way: as “He who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens” (Rev. 3:7), and declares, “I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.” (Rev. 1:7)  As He promises the Apostles: “And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age” (Mt. 28:20).  Empires rise and fall, but the Church stays on forever, because Christ is King.  This is why participation in the life of the Church is a participation in the eternal Kingdom of God.  And it's one more reason to be thankful for Christmas, the birth of Our King.

The traditional Latin Antiphon is:

O Clavis David, et sceptrum domus Israel,
qui aperis, et nemo claudit; claudis, et nemo aperuit:
veni, et educ vinctum de domo carceris,
sedentem in tenebris, et umbra mortis.

Which means, in English:

O Key of David, and Sceptre of the House of Israel,
That openeth and no man shutteth, and shutteth and no man openeth,
Come to liberate the prisoner from the prison,
and them that sit in darkness, and in the shadow of death.

It corresponds to the fifth verse from O Come, O Come Emmanuel:

O Come, Thou Key of David, come,
and open wide our heav'nly home,
make safe the way that leads on high,
that we no more have cause to sigh.

And the English version used in the Antiphon today:

O Key of David, O royal Power of Israel,
controlling at your will the gate of heaven:
Come, break down the prison walls of death
for those who dwell in darkness and the shadow of death;
and lead your captive people into freedom.

And finally, here are the Dominican student brothers at Blackfriars in Oxford singing the Latin plainchant:

Bloodless Persecution: Ten Easy Steps to Marginalize and Silence Traditional Christians

Phil Robertson

The latest religious freedom dust-up involves the suspension of Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty, after A&E discovered to its shock that one of the conservative Evangelicals they'd been profiling wasn't in favor of homosexuality (quelle horreur!). In one regard, it's reasonable to be upset: we now live in an age in which it's frequently illegal to fire someone for living a homosexual lifestyle, but perfectly legal to fire someone for criticizing homosexual lifestyles.

At the same time, let's acknowledge three things. First, the First Amendment protects you from governmental persecution, not private-sector job termination. There's no First Amendment right to have your own reality TV show, thank God. Second, businesses should have a right to fire people publicly advocating beliefs contrary to that organization's principles. Even secular businesses should be allowed to have moral viewpoints, and act accordingly (including in hiring and firing): that's one of the points at the heart of much of this HHS litigation. Businesses should be allowed to be conscientious. The problem here isn't that A&E has values, but that we dislike their values. Third, and most importantly, this isn't Christian persecution, at least not when it's compared to the more egregious stuff, like church lootings and burnings, priests being murdered, and the rest.

But even though the push against Christianity isn't a particularly-violent one in the United States, it's no less effective for that reason. On the contrary, I would suggest that there are ten steps that are being taken, or will soon be taken, to ensure that Christianity is isolated and alienated, and Christians are non-violently coerced to abandon their beliefs:

Step 1: Find the Worst Representatives Possible for Orthodox Beliefs.

There are smart, erudite advocates for traditional marriage, like Robert P. George, Sherif Girgis and Ryan T. Anderson. And then there are hateful lunatics like Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church. Obviously, focus the spotlight on the latter group. The same thing is true across the board: when you present the pro-life side, the religious side, the anti-HHS side, etc., don't choose anyone actually credible: choose someone who is a widely-rejected fringe figure. Barring that, choose random people off the street to interview.

Make sure that when people think of the pro-life movement or traditional marriage movement, they associate it with people who are well outside the mainstream: if you can find hypocrites (like pro-marriage advocates in revolving door marriages), all the better.

Step 2: Declare Your Own Victory Inevitable.

The mainstream media does a lot of work to make it seem that it is only a matter of time before gay marriage and secularism are the norms. In a piece entitled “Same-Sex Marriage Legalization Seen as ‘Inevitable’ to Most Americans,” Time worked to reinforce the inevitability narrative on gay marriage: “It looks like Americans are finally accepting gay marriage, even if nearly half still don’t approve of the same-sex unions.” Did you get that? Finally.

There are three purposes to declaring your victory inevitable: (1) motivate your supports; (2) demoralize your opponents, and (3) claim the moral high ground. The first two are obvious, but the third reason is odd. Why should “we're going to win” translate into “and therefore, we're right”?

Because for many, including the president and his media, change is good, in and of itself, because history always marches onwards and upwards. This is why President Obama famously described his views on gay marriage as “evolving,” a descriptor that caught on to describe the American public's views, as well. And it's why the gay rights group HRC has shirts declaring the wearer “On the Right Side of History,” a phrase that the president uses incessantly, on almost every topic.

In this view, which owes a large philosophical debt to G.W.F. Hegel, history keeps getting better and better. It's the whole basis of the “progressive” movement, and is reflected in MSNBC's “Lean Forward” slogan, as well as the president's own “Change” campaign slogan. But it's a tragically naïve view of history, particularly for anyone surviving the twentieth century, the bloodiest century in history:

Modern developments, whether that be the Holocaust, the massive death toll from abortion, AIDS, international sex slavery, widespread environmental destruction, growing rich-poor gaps, nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and any number of other phenomena debunk the myth of progressivism. As the old German proverb says, “To change and to change for the better are two different things.” Worse, this myth serves to justify a might makes right mentality: if you have the power to alter history, you can declare yourself the righteous victor, simply for being on the “right side of history.”

So the inevitability claim isn't really true, and even if it were true, it wouldn't actually prove that its advocates were right, only powerful. But nevertheless, it is an effective strategy to demoralize and undermine traditional views (which by definition, are old, and therefore inferior to newer views).

Step 3: Shout Us Down with Name Calling.

Instead of winning the debate, simply declare the debate over. Call anyone who disagrees with you names: misogynist, homophobe, bigot, etc. Declare our views “hate.” The advantage of this rhetorical strategy is that it frees you from any need for you to rationally approach the topic.

If someone, say, points out that embryology proves that the fertilized egg is a living being distinct from his mother, call them a sexist. It might be science, but it's sexist science. Or if someone points out that virtually all cultures in history (regardless of religion) shared a similar understanding of marriage (an understanding of marriage being jettisoned, without serious debate or introspection, by the gay marriage movement), call them homophobic. Their points about history don't need to be answered, because they arise out of some psychological "phobia."

To say that a person's views are misogynistic, homophobic and bigoted is to say that they are beneath debate. These views are ungoodthink, and anyone holding them isn't just wrong: they're evil. If you do this loudly enough for a long enough time, you can force your opponents into submission. They won't agree with you, but they'll be too afraid to speak up and say otherwise.

Step 4: Declare Our Beliefs Unspeakable.

Shh!

This step is simple: declare a position too political for church, and too religious for politics. For example, when pro-life politicians try to stem the tide of abortion (which results in the death of millions of unborn children), they're accused of trying to create a theocracy. So it's too religious for politics! But there are perennial lawsuits to strip the Catholic Church of her tax-exempt status for speaking out too loudly about abortion. It's too political for religion! In other words, there is no acceptable sphere to present these beliefs. Nobody is allowed to challenge the New Orthodoxy.

This trick is even cleverer than it seems, because it only works in one direction. When President Obama announced his support for gay marriage, he claimed he was influenced by Christ to do so, and that's fine. And Michelle Obama used Jesus as an example of the model American citizen at a religious-political rally in African Methodist Episcopal church. That's fine, too. But when a politician cites Christ in his opposition to gay marriage, or uses Jesus to mobilize conservative believers, that's theocracy.

The rationale works something like this: if a religious believer holds a political position consistent with his religious views, he must be "imposing his religion," and that's bad. But if a religious believer holds a political position inconsistent with his religious views, that's fine. He's being publicly-minded. And of courses, nonbelievers can impose whatever views they happen to have, since they're not coming from religion. So everyone can push for their own positions, unless they're a believer who actually believes his religion.

Step 5: Abandon Any Pretense of Media Neutrality.

In August, there was the case of ABC News editor Don Ennis, who acknowledged that he was a man, after spending 14 years living as a transvestite and insisting people call him Dawn. Ennis promised: “Even though I will not wear the wig or the makeup or the skirts again, I promise to remain a strong straight ally, a supporter of diversity and an advocate for equal rights and other LGBT issues including same-sex marriage.” Again, this is a news editor for one of the largest news organizations in the country, promising to serve as an advocate, rather than (say) a neutral reporter or something. That's not unusual: news outlets are increasingly embracing the so-called LGBT agenda explicitly, leaving no question as to their sympathies.

For most things, the media at least gives the pretense of trying to present both sides. But on a handful of issues, where one side is morally odious, they don't bother. You'll be hard pressed to find a mainstream piece presenting al Qaeda or the KKK in a positive (or neutral) light. And that's where the opponents of Christianity want to push any who believes in traditional marriage: so far outside of the mainstream that their views don't even need to be taken seriously (or presented fairly).

Step 6: Come After Our Tax-Exemption.

Although the origins of tax-exemption for religious organizations are murky, it appears to be a recognition by the government that they needed to take their hands off the Church: and implicitly, a recognition that the State wasn't greater than God or the Church. That's a recognition that many people refuse to make now. As a result, tax exemption has become a tool for easy extortion: get in line, or it's gonna cost you, Christians!

The ACLU is already doing this: suing the Catholic Church, in order to force them to either provide abortions at our hospitals, or lose our tax-exempt status. I already alluded to a similar lawsuit brought back in the 1980s trying to force us to stop talking about abortion, or lose our tax-exempt status.

Step 7: Come After Our State and Federal Funding.

If Christians won't participate in abortion, gay marriage, and gay adoption, strip them of their ability to receive state and federal funding.

First, present such funding as if it is a gift from the government to Christian organizations, rather than what it really is (a collaboration between the two for a common goal, like poverty reduction, or adoption, or care of migrants, etc.). Then insist that any organizations receiving even a cent of federal funding actively advance principles that they find anathema: order adoption agencies to give kids to gay couples, order Catholic charitable agencies to provide abortions, etc. If you're lucky, you might even coerce some of them to abandon their Christians principles. More likely, you'll just push them out of the pool of organizations that the government can work with.

The downside to this, of course, is that religious groups typically get these contracts because they're the most efficient. By removing them from the pool of candidates, you're removing the cream from the crop, and resigning your social services to suboptimal standards. So some immigrants, orphans, and battered and sex-trafficked women might suffer. But I suppose that's a small price to pay to push religious organizations out of the public square.

Step 8: Come After Christian Social Programs.

Louis Gallait, Monk Feeding the Poor (1845)

Steps 5 and 6 do a good job of knee-capping religious organizations financially, and hindering their missions. But if you feel particularly ambitious, you can go even further, as the District of Columbia recently did. It ordered all adoption agencies to place kids with gay couples. It didn't matter if you took a dime of governmental funding or not. Anyone who insists on placing foster kids with a mother and a father is legally barred from working in D.C. The result was as intended: Catholic Charities had to close its adoption agency.

This gives you an opportunity to make religious groups look bad: surely, if they really cared about the poor, or kids, or whoever is the served population, they would have abandoned those pesky religious principles, and given in to the government's demands. If you do this often enough, legally barring churches from serving others, you can then accuse them of hypocrisy, for not practicing what they preach (because you've made it illegal to practice in a way consistent with the preaching).

Step 9: Close Employment off to Professing Christians.

To go a step yet further, force individual believers to act contrary to their beliefs, or lose their jobs. When they complain, glibly suggest that they shouldn't have been in that line of business in the first place.

Those who support Robertson's firing from Duck Dynasty should be asked: if a person holding (and vocalizing) his views on homosexuality shouldn't be employed in entertainment, are there any sectors in which he should be allowed to be employed? Or should such people be barred from all employment?

That's where this road leads. Don't want to have to work for gay weddings? Shouldn't be in the wedding industry. Don't want to assist in abortions? Shouldn't work in an emergeceny room. Don't want to distribute contraception or abortificants? Shouldn't be a pharmacist (or work in medicine at all). Don't want to pay for insurance coverage for your employees' contraception and abortificants? Shouldn't own a business. Don't want to give Planned Parenthood access to indoctrinate the kids you're teaching? Shouldn't be a teacher. You get the point: one profession after another is closed off. At the end of this, maybe we'll be allowed to make furniture along with the Amish. But other than that, we'll be barred from nearly everything.

Step 10: Remove All Vestiges of Christianity from the Public Square.

Throughout all of this, leave the private square alone. Let people say and believe (just about) whatever they want at church, and in the privacy of their own home. As long as you do this, it'll look like there's no persecution. You avoid anything messy, like martyrs.

But make sure that these religious views have no acceptable place in the public square. If believers want to participate in public - by holding political office, or a job, or just voicing an opinion publicly - demand that it be strictly secular, devoid of any religious influence at all. In this way, you can ensure that ordinary people are rarely exposed to religious views (and when they are, these views seem irrelevant, because they're not allowed to influence the public square), and that the culture actively cultivates something contrary to Christianity.

Conclusion

The whole point of persecuting Christianity is to render it irrelevant. And that, it would seem, can be accomplished more effectively using bloodless means. We need look no further than the Muslim domination of southern Spain, beginning in 709. When the Islamic invaders first conquered southern Spain, they spread their faith by the sword, and were relatively unsuccessful. When they did meet success, it was through a less violent means of coercion, and over several years (even generations). They imposed a system of dhimmitude, in which Catholics could practice their faith if they paid a tax and were subject to a wide series of restrictions. 

On paper, there was no persecution: just a series of restrictions that isolated Catholics from public office and much of secular society. Over time, the populace simply grew cold towards Christianity, and tens of thousands of Catholics abandoned the faith. It was simply easier to abandon the faith. That example still seems to me to be more extreme than what we're currently seeing in our country, but it remains instructive. It shows that it's altogether possible to push Christianity into the fringes of society without any sort of violent oppression of the religion. 

In the case of Muslim Spaniards, this was more or less an overt thing. In the case of American secularists, it's often less overt. Indeed, I have no doubt that many of the people engaged in pushing Christianity to the margins would deny that they are doing any such thing. Equally, I have no doubt that some of them really do have this as an endgoal. But can we at least have an honest conversation, and admit that this is what it is going on, and what will continue to go on unless Christians do more to resist it?

Day 3: O Radix Jesse (O Root of Jesse)

Tonight's O Antiphon is “O Radix Jesse,” which means “O Root (or Shoot, or Flower) of Jesse.”  In other words, the Messiah will come from Jesse's lineage.  We hear this title for the Messiah in Isaiah 11:10: “In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his place of rest will be glorious.”  St. Paul applies this verse to Jesus in Romans 15:12.

But Isaiah 11:10 isn't the only place we see a reference to the Root of Jesse.  A few verses prior, we also see reference to it in Isaiah 11:1-5, the same passage that points to the Messiah as Sapientia (Wisdom) and Adonai (Lord).  I personally prefer the Douay-Rheims translation of Isaiah 11:1, which reads, “And there shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise up out of his root.”

So the Messiah will be both the Flower of David (or Branch of David) and the Root of David.  But how can this be?  Jesus points out this paradox Himself, when He spoke about the Messiah's relationship to David in Mark 12:35-37,

Christ the True Vine, Greek Icon (16th c.)

While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, “Why do the teachers of the law say that the Messiah is the son of David? David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared:“‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.”’ David himself calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?” The large crowd listened to him with delight.

And in Revelation 22:16, we hear:

“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”

The answer, of course, is found in the Incarnation.  St. Luke lays the answer out in the genealogy of Jesus (Lk. 3:23-38), tracing Jesus' lineage back through Jesse (Lk. 3:31), all the way to Adam, who he describes as the “son of God” (Lk. 3:38).  In other words, Jesus is the Creator of Jesse, and of all mankind (John 1:3).  In that sense, He's the Root of Jesse, and the Root of David, and in a certain sense, their Ancestor.  But He's also their Descendant through the Incarnation.  He chooses to be born of Mary, who is married to St. Joseph, of the lineage of Jesse and David (see Lk. 3:31 and Mt. 1:5-6).  This detail is so important to the understanding of Who Christ Is that it's the first thing St. Matthew tells us in his Gospel.  The first lines we read are: “A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Mt. 1:1).

There's an incredibly beautiful 16th century hymn about this prophesy, Es ist ein Ros entsprungen, which means literally, “A Rose has sprung up.”  Protestants purged the parts about Mary, leaving us with a still beautiful hymn, Lo, How a Rose E'er blooming.  You can listen to the traditional version here, or Sufjan Stephen's rendition here.  And you can find the lyrics to both versions here.

The traditional Latin Antiphon is:

O Radix Jesse, qui stas in signum populorum,super quem continebunt reges os suum,quem gentes deprecabuntur:veni ad liberandum nos, jam noli tardare.

Which means, in English:

O Root of Jesse, which standest for an Ensign of the people,
At Whom the kings shall shut their mouths,
Whom the Gentiles shall seek,
Come to deliver us, do not tarry.

It corresponds to the fourth verse from O Come, O Come Emmanuel:

O Come, Thou Rod of Jesse's stem,
from ev'ry foe deliver them
that trust Thy mighty power to save,
and give them vict'ry o'er the grave.

And the English version used in the Antiphon today:

O Flower of Jesse’s stem,you have been raised up as a sign for all peoples;
kings stand silent in your presence;
the nations bow down in worship before you.
Come, let nothing keep you from coming to our aid.

And finally, here are the Dominican student brothers at Blackfriars in Oxford singing the Latin plainchant:

This series was initially posted in Advent 2011.

Day 2: O Adonai (O Lord)

Tonight's O Antiphon is “O Adonai,” which means “O Lord,” and is one of the Divine titles used in the Old Testament.  Because the name YHWH was considered too sacred to even speak, pious Jews would often replace the Name with Adonai, meaning Lord, instead.  In Isaiah 33:22, the prophet Isaiah says:

For the Lord is our judge,
the Lord is our lawgiver,
the Lord is our king: he will save us.

He uses the word YHWH there, but it would have been spoken as Adonai.  Bear that in mind when reading Isaiah 11:1-5, and its promise of the coming Messiah.  Again, I've bolded the relevant part for today's Antiphon:

Then a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse,
And a branch from his roots will bear fruit.
The Spirit of the LORD will rest on Him,
The spirit of wisdom and understanding,
The spirit of counsel and strength,
The spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD.
And He will delight in the fear of the LORD,
And He will not judge by what His eyes see,
Nor make a decision by what His ears hear;
But with righteousness He will judge the poor,
And decide with fairness for the afflicted of the earth;
And He will strike the earth with the rod of His mouth,
And with the breath of His lips He will slay the wicked.
Also righteousness will be the belt about His loins,
And faithfulness the belt about His waist.

In other words, Isaiah is promising that the coming Messiah will do the things that Adonai does, serving as Judge (John 9:39), King (Luke 23:3) and Lawgiver (Matthew 5:21-48).  Jesus fulfills each of these (as the Scriptures I just cited to show), as we'll see more clearly at the Final Judgment (Revelation 19:15-16).

All of this points to something even more radical: the coming Messiah would be the Lord, Adonai, God Himself.  The New Testament shows us clearly  how this was fulfilled (Philippians 2:5-11):

Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.  

Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

St. Paul is referencing another part of Isaiah (Isaiah 45:22-23), in which God Himself says:

Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth;
For I am God, and there is no other.
I have sworn by Myself,
The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness
And will not turn back,
That to Me every knee will bow,
every tongue will swear allegiance.

By applying this passage to Jesus, St. Paul is making it pretty clear that Jesus Christ is not from God, but IS God.   He IS Adonai, YHWH.

The traditional Latin Antiphon is:

O Adonai, et dux domus Israel,
qui Moyse in igne flammae rubi apparuisti,
et ei in Sina legem dedisti:
veni ad redimendum nos in brachio extento.

Which means, in English:

O Adonai, and ruler of the House of Israel, Who didst appear unto Moses in the burning bush, and gavest him the law in Sinai, Come to redeem us with an outstretched arm!

It corresponds to the third verse from O Come, O Come Emmanuel:

O Come, O Come, Thou Lord of might,
Who to thy tribes on Sinai's height
in ancient times didst give the law,
in cloud, and majesty, and awe.

And the English version used in the Antiphon today:

O Sacred Lord of ancient Israel,
Who showed yourself to Moses in the burning bush,
Who gave him the holy law on Sinai mountain:
Come, stretch out your mighty hand to set us free.

And finally, here are the Dominican student brothers at Blackfriars in Oxford singing the Latin plainchant:

This series was initially posted in Advent 2011.

Day 1: O Sapientia (O Wisdom)

Tonight's O Antiphon is “O Sapientia,” which means “O Wisdom.” All of the first three O Antiphons are tied to the Messianic prophesy in Isaiah 11:1-5.  I've bolded the relevant part for today's Antiphon:

Then a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse,
And a branch from his roots will bear fruit.
The Spirit of the LORD will rest on Him,
The spirit of wisdom and understanding,
The spirit of counsel and strength,
The spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD.
And He will delight in the fear of the LORD,
And He will not judge by what His eyes see,
Nor make a decision by what His ears hear;
But with righteousness He will judge the poor,
And decide with fairness for the afflicted of the earth;
And He will strike the earth with the rod of His mouth,
And with the breath of His lips He will slay the wicked.
Also righteousness will be the belt about His loins,
And faithfulness the belt about His waist.

This passage in fulfilled in a particular way in Jesus' Baptism in the Jordan (Matthew 3:16-17), where we see the Holy Spirit descend and rest on Christ.  But even prior to this, Jesus is the Wisdom of God, which is why St. John describes Him as the Logos of God in John 1:1-3.  St. Paul also contrasts worldly wisdom and Godly Wisdom, personified in Jesus Christ, in 1 Cor. 1:25-31:

For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God. But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, so that, just as it is written, “Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

The traditional Latin Antiphon is:

O Sapientia, quae ex ore Altissimi prodisti,
attingens a fine usque ad finem fortiter,
suaviter disponensque omnia:
veni ad docendum nos viam prudentiae.

Which means, in English:

O Wisdom that comest out of the mouth of the Most High,
that reachest from one end to another,
and orderest all things mightily and sweetly,
Come to teach us the way of prudence!

It corresponds to the second verse from O Come, O Come Emmanuel:

O Come, Thou Wisdom, from on high,
and order all things far and nigh;
to us the path of knowledge show,
and teach us in her ways to go.

And the English version used in the Antiphon today:

O Wisdom, O holy Word of God,
you govern all creation with your strong yet tender care:
Come and show your people the way to salvation.

And finally, here are the Dominican student brothers at Blackfriars in Oxford singing the Latin plainchant:

This series was initially posted in Advent 2011.

The Virgin Mary and the Indwelling of the Holy Trinity

Mikhail Nesterov, The Annunciation (19th c.)

Christ promises a sort of Trinitarian in-dwelling for those who persevere in love and obedience: “If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him” (John 14:23). The Immaculate Virgin Mary is the exemplar of this Trinitarian in-dwelling, as we see from the Annunciation.

I am thankful to Fr. Randy Soto, who showed in his homily this morning how the angel Gabriel's message to Mary consists of three distinct parts (each of which she responds to separately), and relating the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Mary and the Father (Luke 1:26-29):

In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” 

But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be.

It's interesting that Mary isn't described as being troubled the appearance of an angel (which would be normal: Matthew 28:5; Luke 1:13). Rather, Luke says that she was troubled by the saying, and wondered what it might mean. Luke doesn't tell us why she was greatly troubled, but let me propose one possibility.

The angel calls Mary by the title Kecharitomene, or “Full of Grace,” a reference to her Immaculate Conception (which is why, confusingly, this is the Gospel for the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception).

And then he tells her, “the Lord is with you,” a reference to Nathan's message to King David, after the king wanted to build the Temple (2 Sam. 7:3).  It was Nathan giving a green light to proceed with the Temple, but has to backtrack on this, after God puts a stop to the plans. Elsewhere, we're told that this is because the blood on David's hands made him unworthy to build the temple (1 Chronicles 28:3).

So now, the angel Gabriel is giving the green light to Mary to build the Temple (John 2:21), after declaring her sinless. An astute Jew would recognize this for what it is: a Messianic promise.

Mary and the Son (Luke 1:30-34):

Bartolomé Esteban Murillo, The Annunciation (1660)

And the angel said to her,“Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.

He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High;
and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David,
and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever;
and of his kingdom there will be no end.” 

And Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no husband?”

So having found favor with the Father, Mary is promised that she will bear the Son, Jesus. This raises an obvious question: how can will that occur, given that Mary is a perpetual Virgin?

Mary and the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35-38):

And the angel said to her,

“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.  

And behold, your kinswoman Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. For with God nothing will be impossible.” 

And Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.

So Mary finds favor with the Father, bears the Son, and is overshadowed by the Trinity. This is what I mean by saying that she is the exemplar of Trinitarian indwelling: after all, she literally grew the Son of God in her body.

Immaculate Mary, hope of Christians, pray for us!

Does 1 Maccabees Deny Its Own Inspiration?

Wojciech Stattler, Maccabees (1842)

In arguing against the Deuterocanon (the so-called “Apocrypha”), Protestant apologists take frequent recourse to the following three verses from 1 Maccabees that allegedly “prove” that no prophets exist at the time that the Deuterocanon was written:

• “So they tore down the altar, and stored the stones in a convenient place on the temple hill until there should come a prophet to tell what to do with them.” (1 Maccabees 4:45b-46).
  
  
• “Thus there was great distress in Israel, such as had not been since the time that prophets ceased to appear among them.” (1 Maccabees 9:27).
  
  
• “And the Jews and their priests decided that Simon should be their leader and high priest for ever, until a trustworthy prophet should arise...” (1 Maccabees 14:41).

So, for example, C. Michael Patton uses 1 Maccabees 9:27 to argue that “The Apocrypha itself attests to the absence of prophets in its own time.” His view of the argument is a fairly modest one: “Although I don’t think this is the greatest argument, it does hold some value.”

Somewhat less modestly, CARM claims, in a section entitled “Not Prophetic,” that these verses disprove the prophetic status of any of the Deuterocanonical Books:

The Apocryphal books do not share many of the chararacteristics of the Canonical books: they are not prophetic, there is no supernatural confirmation of any of the apocryphal writers works, there is no predictive prophecy, there is no new Messianic truth revealed, they are not cited as authoritative by any prophetic book written after them, and they even acknowledge that there were no prophets in Israel at their time (cf. 1 Macc. 9:27; 14:41).

Let Us Reason Ministries goes further yet, using 1 Maccabees 9:27 and 14:41 to support the Protestant notion of an “intertestamental period” in which God and the prophets went silent for about four centuries prior to the birth of Christ:

Some of these books are traced to the inter-testamental period such as Maccabees. There were 400 years of silence in the inter- testamental period where God did not speak nor have prophets. 1 Maccabees 9:27 and 14:41 tell us the prophets ceased to appear among the people. So the book of Maccabees as well as the Apocrypha could never be considered inspired scripture equal to the Old Testament these books were always held as historical writings with some questionable accuracy not as inspire writ. If God was silent in this inter testament period, no inspiration or prophetic writing, where does this put the Apocrypha?

Bible.ca goes the furthest, to claiming that these verses show that “The apocryphal books themselves make reference to what we call the Silent 400 years, where there was no prophets of God to write inspired materials.”

So the Protestant argument is presented in somewhat different ways, from a weak-but-interesting argument against the canonicity of the Deuterocanon (Patton's view), to textual proof of a 400 year period of prophetic and Scriptural silence, rendering canonicity impossible (Let Us Reason and Bible.ca's view). So what can we say in response to all of this? Let's take the argument apart, piece by piece.

The Three Logical Non Sequiturs

Nuremberg Chronicles, Maccabees (1493)

The Protestant argument, written out, would look like this:

• (a) 1 Maccabees refers to a time in the past that there were no prophets.
• (b) Therefore, there must not have been prophets at the time that 1 Maccabees was written. [Let Us Reason and Bible.ca take this argument even further, and say that there must not have been prophets for a 400 year stretch].
• (c) Since there were no prophets at the time that 1 Maccabees was written, the Book must not be inspired.
• (d) Since 1 Maccabees is uninspired, the entire Deuterocanon must not be inspired.

Presented in that way, it should be clear that the argument proceeds from a true premise, (a), to three non-sequiturs. Nothing in (a) proves (b), nothing in (b) proves (c), and nothing in (c) proves (d).

Non-Sequitur 1: From the Past to the Present

None of the verses actually support the claim that 1 Maccabees was written during a time without prophets. Let's review those verses again. This time, notice that all three of them are presented in the past tense:

• “So they tore down the altar, and stored the stones in a convenient place on the temple hill until there should come a prophet to tell what to do with them.” (1 Maccabees 4:45b-46).
  
  
• “Thus there was great distress in Israel, such as had not been since the time that prophets ceased to appear among them.” (1 Maccabees 9:27).
  
  
• “And the Jews and their priests decided that Simon should be their leader and high priest for ever, until a trustworthy prophet should arise...” (1 Maccabees 14:41).

Judas Maccabeus (10th c.)

In other words, the inspired author is recalling a time in the past when there were no prophets. Nothing in there suggests that there were no prophets at the time 1 Maccabees was written, much less that the prophetic age had permanently ceased. For example, if I wrote “in 1800, electrical lights and the Internet didn't exist,” would that prove that I don't have electrical lights or the Internet now? Of course not.

In fact, both 1 Macc. 4:46 and 1 Macc. 14:41 suggest that the people expected another prophet to arise soon, at least within the lifetime of Simon the high priest. And the inspired author speaks of there having been a lack of prophets “among them” (1 Maccabees 9:27), not “among us.” There's no sense that either the people or the inspired author think that the prophetic age has simply closed.

So what's really going on behind the scenes in this argument? As I mentioned in Tuesday's post, many Protestants believe (or assume) that there was an “intertestamental period” of “400 years of silence,” in which all revelation (including both prophets and Scripture) ceased. But if you don't read that (false, anti-Scriptural) assumption into the text, you'll find that it doesn't say anything like what its advocates claim.

So, in short, modern Protestants are reading into these passages an obviously-false doctrine (intertestamental silence) that wasn't held by the inspired author of 1 Maccabees. Without assuming that doctrine to be true, there's no way to get from (a) to (b), from prophetic silence in the past, to prophetic silence in the present.

Non-Sequitur 2: From Prophecy to Inspiration (The Problem of Psalm 74:9)

Let's assume for a moment that last point is wrong: that there really was no active prophet at the time 1 Maccabees was written. What then? Does that mean that inspired Scripture cannot be written during this period?

Absolutely not. Psalm 74:9 is inspired, yet apparently written at a time without prophets:

We do not see our signs;
there is no longer any prophet,
and there is none among us who knows how long.

If you remember nothing else from this post, remember this verse. It shows (1) that even during the prophetic age, there were times without an active prophet, and (2) that an active prophet was not needed in order to have an inspired author. 

Remember that the Jews only considered one of the three sections of the Jewish canon “prophetic.” Yet all three sections are inspired. Those two terms do not mean the same thing (except to some Protestants). If Sacred Scripture could only be authored by a Prophet, then Protestants would seemingly have to reject the Psalms (or at least Psalm 74, and anything else written in that time period).

So, short of rejecting both 1 Maccabees and Psalms, the obvious conclusion is that this argument conflates prophecy and inspiration. The presence or absence of prophets doesn't tell us if the Book is inspired.

In other words, there is no way to get from (b) to (c), from a lack of prophets to a lack of inspiration.

Non-Sequitur 3: From 1 Maccabees to the Rest of the Deuterocanon

Introduction to the Book of Sirach,
Codex Sinaticus (4th c.)

Recall the earlier claim from CARM:

The Apocryphal books do not share many of the chararacteristics of the Canonical books: they are not prophetic, there is no supernatural confirmation of any of the apocryphal writers works, there is no predictive prophecy, there is no new Messianic truth revealed, they are not cited as authoritative by any prophetic book written after them, and they even acknowledge that there were no prophets in Israel at their time (cf. 1 Macc. 9:27; 14:41).

This argument assumes that because one Book, 1 Maccabees, describes a time in the past that there were no prophets, that this means that “they,” the “Apocryphal Books” collectively, acknowledge that there was no prophet in Israel at the time when any of them were written, and that none of the Books are therefore inspired.

But this is obviously a logical fallacy: why would rejecting 1 Maccabees mean you reject any other Deuterocanonical Book? The argument doesn't hold at all. There's no way to get from (c) to (d), from rejecting 1 Maccabees to rejecting all seven disputed Books.

In addition, it's utterly false that the Deuterocanonical Books, taken as a whole, “are not prophetic, there is no supernatural confirmation of any of the apocryphal writers works, there is no predictive prophecy, there is no new Messianic truth revealed,” etc. Like the rest of the Old Testament, the Deuterocanon contains Books which look forward (prophetic) and backwards (historical).

CARM suggests that the Deuterocanonical Books differ from “the Canonical Books” because they are “not prophetic,” but this isn't even a good description of the Books that they do accept. Elsewhere, CARM admits that only 17 Books of the 39-Book Protestant Old Testament are prophetic. That's fewer than half.

Both Jews and Christians distinguish between prophetic and historical Books, yet both categories are considered inspired and canonical. Books like 1 Maccabees and 1 Kings are historical.  Other Books, like the Book of Wisdom, are prophetic, looking forward.

And we see that Wisdom does contain Messianic prophesies, of the very sort that CARM blanket-denies exist. For example, Wisdom 2:12-20 contains a prophesy of the Passion of Christ, describing the wicked as plotting against the Righteous One in this way:

“Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training.  

He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father.  

Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; for if the righteous man is God’s son, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected.”

Matthew 27:37-43 contains the fulfillment of this prophecy:

And over his head they put the charge against him, which read, “This is Jesus the King of the Jews.” Then two robbers were crucified with him, one on the right and one on the left. And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads and saying, “You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross.” So also the chief priests, with the scribes and elders, mocked him, saying, “He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him; for he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’”

This, by itself, shows the inspiration of the Book of Wisdom. It taught Christ, prior to Christ, and was confirmed by the New Testament. So CARM is just wrong on this score. The Deuterocanon, taken as a whole, does contain Christological prophesies, ones that came true.