The Sacrificial New Testament Priesthood in Malachi 3

Yesterday was Candlemas, also called the Feast of the Presentation of Jesus at the Temple.  The First Reading, fittingly, is a prophesy about how the Christ will visit the Second Temple (Malachi 3:1-4):

Michael Pacher, Presentation of Christ (1481)

Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the LORD, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.

But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap:

And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness.

Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the LORD, as in the days of old, and as in former years.

I've spoken about this passage recently, in the context of Christ's fulfillment of it.  But yesterday, my dad mentioned something staring me in the face, which I'd repeatedly overlooked:  Malachi 3 says that Christ established a priesthood.  And not just any priesthood, but a sacrificial one.  And this sacrificial priesthood is clearly made up of more than just Him.  All of this points pretty clearly to, not only the Catholic priesthood, but the Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass.

Nor is this passage some sort of outlier.  Rather, on multiple occasions, this New Covenant priesthood was prophesied.  My favorite example comes from the last chapter of Isaiah (Is. 66:18-21):

Ferdinand Georg Waldmüller, Extreme Unction (1846)

For I know their works and their thoughts: it shall come, that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come, and see my glory. 

And I will set a sign among them, and I will send those that escape of them unto the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, that draw the bow, to Tubal, and Javan, to the isles afar off, that have not heard my fame, neither have seen my glory; and they shall declare my glory among the Gentiles.

And they shall bring all your brethren for an offering unto the LORD out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the LORD, as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the LORD. 

And I will also take of them for priests and for Levites, saith the LORD.

That last line is even clearer in the NIV: “And I will select some of them also to be priests and Levites," says the LORD.”

These passages are a real problem for Protestants, who tend to claim either that every Christian's a priest (due to the priesthood of all believers), or that only Christ is (since He's the sole High Priest).   Here's a typical anti-Catholic site arguing, without any sense of irony, that the Catholic priesthood is invalid both because we're all priests and none of us are:

St. Josemaría Escrivá at Mass (1971)

Jesus Christ’s unending priesthood cannot be transferred to any other person, as stated in Hebrews 7:24, “But this man [Jesus Christ], because He continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.” Thus Rome’s sacrament of “Holy Orders”, which claims to pass on Christ’s sacrificial priesthood by “sacerdotal consecration”, is a tradition of men that contradicts revealed Biblical truth.

The Roman Catholic church does not have Christ’s New Testament sacrificial priesthood let alone any higher grade of bishop. The Catholic priesthood is created in order to perpetuate her seven physical sacraments, which she claims are necessary for salvation. The whole life of the Church of Rome revolves around her Bishops and Priests and the sacraments that they perform. 

According to the Bible all believers have immediate access to God in the Lord Christ Jesus; all share in the royal priesthood of praise. (I Peter 2:9)

This argument basically refutes itself. If believers sharing in the royal priesthood aren't sharing in Christ's priesthood, whose priesthood are they sharing in? Is there some other source of priesthood other than Christ in the New Covenant?

But in any case, that's just not what Scripture says. Sure, nobody but Christ is the High Priest. And sure, all Christians, through Baptism, have some share in Christ's priesthood. But Scripture is just as clear that there's also a sense in which some (but not all) believers take part in a sacrificial priesthood like what the Levites had in the Old Covenant. I've addressed this point in more depth before, but had never realized that Malachi 3:3-4 was directly on point.

On one narrow point, I do agree with the anti-Catholic site I quoted above: the whole life of the Church of Rome does revolve around the Sacraments. And these Sacraments (particularly the Eucharist) require a sacrificial priesthood. It just so happens that Christ gave us just that, as Scripture promised He would.

The Anti-Choice Backlash to Susan G. Komen

There's been a huge media outcry over Susan G. Komen's decision to cut off funding to most Planned Parenthood affiliates.  Set aside whatever you may think about the morality of abortion, or whether it should be legal, or whether you love or loathe Planned Parenthood.

Since money is fungible, the millions of dollars that Susan G. Komen has given to Planned Parenthood over the years has helped subsidize innumerable abortions, whether we want it to or not.  That's just the way money works: if someone picks up the tab for dinner, you can use your dinner money to buy something else, like dessert.  Only in Planned Parenthood's case, that money's going towards abortion, not dessert.  And according to a recent Congressional investigation, PP may also have been using that money to violate a slew of laws.

Quite sensibly, pro-lifers who want to joint the fight against breast cancer are unhappy about this.  There should be a way to fight breast cancer without undermining the pro-life movement.  It's just that simple. Certainly, a person can hate both cancer and abortion, right?


But it isn't just that pro-lifers couldn't donate to Komen without donating to Planned Parenthood.  It's that all sorts of products, from Kellogg's Cereal to Dannon yogurt to Quilted Northern toilet paper are connected with Komen.  So unless you were incredibly careful, picking up groceries resulted in money getting sent to Planned Parenthood.  I realize that this sounds indirect, but Kellogg alone has given Komen $11 million.  So in the aggregate, we're talking about a huge transfer of wealth from consumers (many of whom are pro-life) buying everyday goods to Komen, and from Komen to Planned Parenthood.

If those who are for legalized abortion take the “pro-choice” label serious (rather than considering themselves “pro-abortion”), this should be troubling.  People who just want to buy cereal or fight breast cancer are being dragged into supporting Planned Parenthood against their will.  The response is that a number of pro-lifers responded by boycotting Komen, and any products supporting Komen.

What Komen's done now is very simple:

• Where there's an alternative to Planned Parenthood, Komen is funding that alternative instead.  So the money is still going to fight against breast cancer.  It's just going to less controversial providers.  So the Planned Parenthood claim that Komen is cutting off mammograms is a lie.  The mammograms will still happen . PP just won't get their usual cut.
  
• In fact, in many cases, the money will be better spent, because Komen will be paying for services directly, rather than paying for what are called pass-throughs.  Right now, Komen frequently pays PP for mammograms that PP doesn't even provide -- PP then pays someone else to actually do the work (essentially, sub-contracting the work). By paying these people directly, Komen's just cutting Planned Parenthood out as a middle-man.  If we're really concerned about money going to fight breast cancer, that's a good thing, right?
  
• In areas where the only provider of breast cancer services is Planned Parenthood, Planned Parenthood still gets the money.  The three areas where this is the case are Northern Colorado, Waco, Texas, and Orange County, California.
  
• In the process, Komen becomes substantially more attractive to pro-life consumers and donors.  

So just to recap: Komen isn't slowing down the flow of money to fight breast cancer; and nobody is stopping pro-choicers from donating to Planned Parenthood as much as they please.  Komen's not even cutting all ties to Planned Parenthood.  Everything it's done is completely sensible, regardless of one's views on Planned Parenthood or abortion.

Given this, the response has been ridiculous.  Top Susan G. Komen officials have resigned in protest, and panicked pro-choicers have given hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations, with huge donations by the 1%:

Michael Bloomberg

Planned Parenthood Federation of American received $400,000 from 6,000 donors as of Feb. 1, said Shawn Rhea, a spokeswoman, and the group said yesterday pledges were coming at such a pace they couldn’t immediately update the amount. Three large donors also surfaced: The Amy and Lee Fikes’ Foundation, run by the head of closely held Bonanza Oil Co. in Dallas, promised $250,000; New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said he would match the next $250,000; and Credo, a phone company, pledged $200,000.

Meanwhile, boycotts of Komen (and of all of the companies who donate to Komen) are being formed, and even a former Komen board member is now trying to get people to stop donating to the cause.  So more money to Planned Parenthood, and less money to fight breast cancer.  Am I the only one who finds this response insane, even for those who are for legalized abortion?

One of the editoralists for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution has noted that this is egregious behavior:

To act as if stopping the funding is any more “political” than the original decision to begin the funding is absurd. 

If you disagree, tell me this: How exactly could Komen have decided to part ways with Planned Parenthood [t]hat wouldn’t have been decried as “political”? Having giv[en] to Planned Parenthood once, was Komen bound either to continue giving forever or to suffer a smear campaign by Planned Parenthood and its supporters once it stopped? 

If so, that’s not advising Komen to “stay out of politics.” It’s mob-style blackmail. Nice little charity you’ve got there. Shame if anything happened to it.

So if Komen won't give huge amounts of money to the nation's largest (and extremely profitable) abortion provider, breast cancer suffers.

Now, the obvious objection is that pro-lifers did the same thing, right? Wrong.  If the Komen foundation started funding Operation Rescue or a similarly avidly pro-life organization, I'd completely understand why pro-choicers wouldn't want their breast cancer donations going there.  I'd disagree, but I'd understand it.  But that's not what's happening.  Komen's simply trying to get out of abortion politics, and make themselves a charity that anyone can support, regardless of their views on abortion.

Today, the side calling itself pro-choice has made it clear that Komen support the nation's largest abortion provider or else.  They're trying to twist the arm of the breast-cancer charity into “donating.”  Already, numerous members of Congress have applied pressured to Komen to try to force them to reverse their decision, and the Susan G. Komen website was hacked.  This is not pro-choice.  It's anti-choice, and pro-abortion.

Update: Komen Stupak'd.  Sad to see.

Update 2: Maybe not? News reports are mixed as to what Komen's stance is on Planned Parenthood right now. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Air-Conditioned Atheism, the U.S. Bishops, and the HHS Mandate

Archbishop Chaput's talk at the Cardinal O’Connor Conference on Life this year is a must-read for anyone concerned with abortion, or with religious freedom. In it, he speaks rather movingly about children with Down Syndrome, and about the increased risk they face of being aborted (a theme I hit on here).  But one of the most jarring things he said was about religious freedom in America:

Catholics need to wake up from the illusion that the America we now live in – not the America of our nostalgia or imagination or best ideals, but the real America we live in here and now – is somehow friendly to our faith. What we’re watching emerge in this country is a new kind of paganism, an atheism with air-conditioning and digital TV. And it is neither tolerant nor morally neutral. [...]

My point is this: Evil talks about tolerance only when it’s weak. When it gains the upper hand, its vanity always requires the destruction of the good and the innocent, because the example of good and innocent lives is an ongoing witness against it. So it always has been. So it always will be. And America has no special immunity to becoming an enemy of its own founding beliefs about human freedom, human dignity, the limited power of the state, and the sovereignty of God.

(h/t Giovanni's Notizblog).

Two days prior to Chaput's speech, the intolerance of evil was on full display, when the Department of Health and Human Services mandated that religious charities and hospitals must provide coverage for contraception, sterilization, and abortion, starting next year:

Birth Control Review (1919)

On Jan. 20 the Department of Health and Human Services finalized a rule requiring “preventive care” insurance coverage for sterilizations and contraception, including the abortifacient drug Ella. While the mandate has a religious exemption, the exemption will not cover many Catholic health care systems, colleges, and charities.

Over one hundred Catholic bishops have published statements objecting to the mandate and asking Catholics to voice their opposition.

The mere fact that over a hundred bishops have already spoken out on this issue should tell you just how severe it is.  Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska, describes the situation bluntly:

As you know, the buying of health insurance by every citizen of the USA is now compulsory by federal law.  The same law gives to the Cabinet Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority over all health insurance.  The present Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, a bitter fallen-away Catholic, now requires that all insurance, even when privately issued, must carry coverage for evil and grave sin.  This means that all our Catholic schools, hospitals, social service agencies, and the like will be forced to participate in evil.  The Catholic Church has pleaded with President Obama to rescind this edict, but all pleas have been met with scorn and have fallen on deaf ears.

And Roger Cardinal Mahony, who was perhaps the first to respond, said, “I cannot imagine a more direct and frontal attack on freedom of conscience than this ruling today.”

And that's exactly right.  Regardless of what you think about contraception and abortion, forcing a religious organization to act in opposition to its religion is diabolical, and affront against the First Amendment.  (After all, forcing a Jewish food kitchen to carry bacon is repugnant, regardless of your views on the merits of bacon).

Wojciech Stattler, Maccabees (1842)

Secretary Sebelius, in an act of mockery, said that those who might qualify for a conscientious exemption (almost no one), have one year to comply, but during that year, they must “refer” people to the insurance that covers wicked deads.  We cannot and will not comply with this unjust decree.  Like the martyrs of old, we must be prepared to accept suffering which could include heavy fines and imprisonment.  Our American religious liberty is in grave jeopardy. 

All Catholics are asked to pray and do penance that this matter may be resolved.  All should contact their elected representatives to protest this outrage and to insist on the passage of the “Respect for Conscience” act which is now before Congress.

I note in passing that Sebelius only has the power to do this because of Obamacare. So to those Catholics and pro-lifers who claimed that the law would be fine, now might be a good time to rethink your support.*

*I say this not as a smug “Toldya so,” although I did (and more importantly, the bishops did), but as someone who made the mistake of voting for Sebelius as governor of Kansas back in 2004, deluding myself into thinking that her views on abortion would be irrelevant as governor of a red state. Mea culpa!

Is Prayer to the Saints Pointless?

In my experience, Catholic-Protestant dialogues about praying to Saints tend to have two steps. In the first stage, prayer to the Saints is viewed as something suspect, or even evil. In the second stage, prayer to the Saints seems harmless, but also pointless.  Let's address each stage in turn.  

Is Prayer to the Saints Evil?

Nikolay Ge, Witch of Endor (1857)

The first of these objections is simple enough.  The Old Testament prohibits divination, witchcraft and mediums (Deuteronomy 18:10).  This is why King Saul was sinning when he visited the witch of Endor, and persuaded her to conjure up the spirit of the deceased prophet Samuel (1 Sam. 28).

But the difference between praying to the Saints and conjuring up the dead is exactly the same as the difference between magic and miracles.  Magic is condemned in Scripture as well (Rev. 21:8), and precisely for this reason: it seeks to achieve the supernatural by working around God, or by trying to force His hand. J.K. Rowling, the author of Harry Potter, admitted as much in an interview with Oprah, saying, “I'm not saying I believe magic is real—I don't. But that's the perennial appeal of magic—the idea that we ourselves have power and we can shape our world.”  That's a good definition of magic, and also what makes the appeal of magic so dangerous.  It's Lucifer's non serviam all over again: we've got magic, who needs God?

Moses and Aaron before Pharaoh: An Allegory of the Dinteville Family (1537)

With miracles, you accomplish the exact same things, but going through God, rather than around Him.  The clearest contrast is when Moses faces off with the Egyptian magicians in the Book of Exodus. When Moses and Aaron unleashed the ten plagues, the magicians would attempt to imitate it through magic -- sometimes successfully (Exodus 7:10-12; 20-22; Ex. 8:6-7, 16-19; Ex. 9:10-11).  My point is that the godly and the sinful thing may look similar, but they're very different morally.  Since miracles involve working through God, they're tied to faith, and seeking God's gifts.  Since magic involves trying to work around Him, they're tied to rebellion, and trying to steal God's power.  Even if the end result is the same, it makes a big difference whether we got there by seeking a gift or stealing.

Having said all that, I understand that to Protestant eyes, a Catholic praying to Mary probably looks a bit like Saul conjuring up Samuel.  But with Catholic prayer, we're going through God, not around Him.  For example, the Rosary begins, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” followed by the Apostle's Creed, and the Our Father.  The only way that the Saints can hear us is through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Is Prayer to the Saints Pointless?

Even assuming the person you're speaking to can accept the idea that going around God is sinful and going through God isn't, you're not quite home free yet.  More than once, I've found myself explaining this, only to have the other person say something along the lines of, “So let me get this straight.  When you pray a Hail Mary, you're offering up prayer through God to Mary, asking Mary to pray to God for something.  Why not just ask God yourself, directly?”  The whole thing seems needlessly indirect.

Philippe de Champaigne, Anne of Austria and Her Children
at Prayer with St. Benedict and St. Scholastica, (1646)

One answer to this is simply that we think that the prayers of the Saints in glory are more efficacious than the prayers of those of us still mired in sin.  Certainly, James 5:16 ties the effectiveness of prayer with the righteousness of the person praying it.

But perhaps the better answer is simply this: all prayer is indirect.  The clearest example comes from Matthew 6:7-13, in which Jesus says,

And in praying do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard for their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. Pray then like this:  

Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, On earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread;
And forgive us our debts, As we also have forgiven our debtors;
And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil.

Did you catch that?  Immediately before introducing us to the Lord's Prayer, Jesus reminds us that our Father already knows what we need before we ask Him.  If we're concerned with efficiency, then, that sounds like a good reason to cut out prayer all together.  After all, God doesn't just know what we need before we ask.  He also knows what we need better than we do.  But Jesus doesn't say, “Therefore, don’t worry about praying.”  He says, “Pray, then, like this.”

Philippe de Champaigne, The Annunciation (1644)

Or to take another example, think of all of the times that God communicates with man through angels.  Does an omnipresent God need to send a messenger?  Of course not. But He routinely does so in both the Old and New Testament.

Clearly, then, prayer isn't simply about identifying the solutions to problems as efficiently as we can: God can do that just fine on His own.  Rather, it's a transformative process that helps to do at least two things: conform our wills with God's, and draw us into closer union with one another.  With that in mind, consider a few examples of prayer from Scripture:


Genesis 18:17-19:29.  God tells Abraham that He plans to destroy the city of Sodom for its sinfulness.  Abraham then intercedes on behalf of the city, essentially bartering with God until He agrees that if there are even ten righteous people in the entire city, He won't destroy it.  There aren't, so Sodom gets destroyed, but as a blessing to Abraham, God saves his nephew Lot, along with Lot's family.  This is captured beautifully in Gen. 19:29, “So when God destroyed the cities of the plain, He remembered Abraham, and He brought Lot out of the catastrophe that overthrew the cities where Lot had lived.”  So rather than God negotiating directly with Lot, He goes to Lot's holier uncle, Abraham.  Abraham's intercession saves Lot.


Deuteronomy 9:16-21.  When Israel, including the high priest Aaron, fall into idolatry, it's through the intercession of Moses that they're saved, after Moses fasted and prayed for forty days and forty nights.

Albrecht Dürer, Mary Praying (1518)

1 Kings 2:13-25.  When Adonijah has a big favor to ask of his brother, King Solomon, he accomplishes it by asking Solomon's mother, Bathsheba, who then asks Solomon on his behalf. In this case, things don't work out well for Adonijah (he's asking for Abishag's hand in marriage, and Solomon immediately realizes that he's plotting a coup and has him killed).  But it's clear why he chooses such an indirect way.  By going to the king's mother, Bathsheba, the king is more likely to grant the request.  Indeed, when Bathsheba enters the room, King Solomon honors her by rising from his throne and bowing to her, telling her that he'll grant her whatever she asks (1 Kings 2:19-20).  Christ is greater than Solomon (Mt. 12:42), but doesn't love His Mother any less.


Luke 16:19-31.  The parable of Lazarus and the rich man, in which the rich man prays to Abraham, asking him for relief from the torments of Hades, and asking Abraham to send Lazarus to warn the man's brothers of the consequences of their sin.


Luke 22:31-32.  Jesus tells Simon Peter that Satan desires to sift all of the Apostles like wheat.  Jesus then says that He has prayed for Peter (personally),  “that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”  Clearly, Christ could have prayed for all of the Apostles directly.  But He chooses to fortify them through Peter instead.

Philippe de Champaigne, St. Paul (1640s)

Romans 15:30.  Paul asks the Roman Christians to pray for him.  And look at the way he describes it:  “I urge you, brothers and sisters, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to join me in my struggle by praying to God for me.”  So intercessory prayer draws Christians closer together with one another in Christ.  Just as Paul sought to have the Roman Christians united to his struggles through intercessory prayer, Catholics today seek to have the Saints in Heaven united to their struggles in the same way.

This final point gets us to the heart of an often-overlooked part of salvation.  We're not just saved as individuals detached from one another.  We're part of a larger Body of Christ, as St. Paul tells us (1 Corinthians 12:27; Ephesians 3:6).  Trying to have Christ without the Church is trying to have the Head without the Body (Eph. 5:24), or trying to dissolve the mystical union between the Bridegroom and the Bride (Eph. 5:25-32).  It can't be done.  For the same reason, Communion with Christ is Communion with the Saints (1 Cor. 10:16-17).  

But the Church doesn't just consist of those on Earth: She's also present in Heaven (Revelation 21:2).  Given all of this, and particularly in light of Paul's description of the unifying effects of intercessory prayer in Romans 15:30, we should unite ourselves with the rest of the Body of Christ through prayer.  We should freely ask others (whether in Heaven or on Earth) for their prayers, and we should offer our prayers for their intentions as well.  In this way, we grow closer to bother God and our neighbor.

This, I think, is the key to understanding prayer.  It's not about efficiency, or of drawing the shortest distance between points A and B.  Instead, it creates a beautiful and complex web, enveloping us ever-tighter within God's saving grasp, and drawing us nearer to one another.

Three Prophesies About Christ That Couldn't Have Been Made Up

In the New Testament, Jesus is depicted as fulfilling numerous Old Testament Messianic prophesies.  These prophesies provide objective verification that He is Who He claims to be.  But how can we know that these things really happened?  In other words, how do we know that the New Testament writers didn't just make up these details, to make Jesus look like the Messiah?

I want to suggest three sets of prophesies that the New Testament writers couldn't have manipulated, because they were outside of their control.

(1) Israel Would Be Under Roman Control 

Julius Caesar

In Daniel 2, the prophet Daniel interprets a dream that the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar had.  In the interpretation, Daniel prophesies that there will be four succeeding kingdoms (starting with the Babylonians).  In the fourth of these, “the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people” (Dan. 2:44).  Historically, we can say that the four kingdoms to rule over Israel are Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome.

Rome, the fourth kingdom, rules Jewish Israel from 64 B.C. until about 70 A.D.(when the Jews are sent into Diaspora, and Israel is crushed).  That's a fairly tiny window for the Messiah to arrive, yet Christ lived, died, and was resurrected during this span.  Now, obviously, the New Testament writers couldn't have controlled whether or not the Romans controlled Israel during this period.  More on that here.

(2) The Christ Would Die from Crucifixion

Callisto Piazza,
Nailing of Christ to the Cross (1538)

Psalm 22 is one of the Messianic Psalms, and the one that we're told that Christ quoted on the Cross (Mark 15:34, quoting Ps. 22:1).  The Psalm was written centuries before the advent of crucifixion.  Yet a Crucifixion scene seems to be vividly depicted.  In Ps. 22:16-18, the Speaker cries out,

 Dogs surround me,a pack of villains encircles me; they pierce my hands and my feet.  All my bones are on display; people stare and gloat over me.  They divide my clothes among themand cast lots for my garment.

That sounds a lot like Crucifixion: after all, how many other forms of capital punishment involve being stripped, having your hands and feet pierced. and being put on public display?  What's more remarkable is that we know that the Romans relied heavily upon crucifixion in the first century.

So Psalm 22 appears to predict a form of capital punishment that wouldn't exist for centuries, this form of capital punishment was used by the Romans in the first century, and would certainly have been used upon Christ for His alleged crimes.  None of these are facts that the New Testament writers could have controlled.  Put another way, had the Death of Christ taken place at virtually any other time or place, it's hard to imagine a scenario in which His Death would have fit Psalm 22 so believably.

Matthias Grünewald, The Crucifixion (1515) (detail)

Nor is it just Psalm 22: one of the constant themes of the New Testament is that Jesus is the sinless Lamb of God (John 1:36; Revelation 7:17), prefigured by the Passover lamb (Exodus 12; 1 Corinthians 5:7).  Yet one of the requirements of the Passover Lamb is that none of its bones could be broken -- this symbolized its perfection (Ex. 12:46).  The Apostle John tells us that Jesus fulfilled even this detail at the Crucifixion (John 19:36).  And with a Crucifixion, that's quite believable. But what other form of execution would have so neatly fit all of these prophesies?

Here, the evidence is so strong that it was once thought that the evidence was forged.  Psalm 22:16 literally says that “they dug my hands and my feet,” a very graphic image of being nailed to the Cross.   Skeptics used to think that Christian forgers had changed the Hebrew (from ka’ari, “like a lion,” to ka’aru, “they dug”) to make this sound prophetic.  Today, we know that isn't true: a first-century parchment was found, proving that the passage wasn't some later forgery.

(3) The Second Temple Would Still Be Standing

The Dome of the Rock (background) and the Wailing Wall (foreground)

The Old Testament contains a number of prophesies about the Second Temple.  The most important of the prophesies are these two:

• Haggai 2:1-9 promises that, while smaller in size than its predecessor, the Second Temple would exceed the First Temple in glory.
• Malachi 3:1 tells us that the reason for this is that “the Lord you are seeking will come to His Temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come.”

We're told in the New Testament that Christ fulfills this, entering the Temple, driving out the money-lenders, and declaring it His House, and a House of prayer (Matthew 21:12-13).  Again, the fulfillment is perfect: He is both the Message and the Messenger, and He's the only possible Messiah who could call the Second Temple His Temple, since it was created for Him (and at His command).

But the Second Temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D.  All that remains is the Wailing wall, what used to be the western wall of the Temple.  So if the Messiah didn't come by 70, it seems these prophesies were wrong.  Once again, whether the Temple stood or fell was outside of the New Testament authors' control.  But we again see a clear Messianic window: if the Messiah didn't come by 70, He wasn't coming.

Conclusion

This is just the tip of the iceberg.  Plenty of other prophetic passages pointing to the same time period (Dr. Taylor Marshall mentions another: the 490 years from King Artaxerxes to Christ prophesied in Dan. 9:24-27).  If the New Testament authors were con men, they were insanely lucky con men, since the stars aligned just perfectly for them to convincingly claim that Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophesies.  To be sure, we can't go back and verify that each of the events that they're describing occurred.  But the events which we do know -- for example, that the Old Testament predates the time of Christ, that Someone named Jesus lived in the early first century, that the Romans used crucifixion to punish certain crimes, that the Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D., etc. -- all match up perfectly. 

My challenge, to anyone who thinks that the Gospel accounts are mythologies, and that Jesus is simply a fictional character created to fulfill these events, duplicate it.  Who else in history (either real historical figures, or someone imaginary) fits these prophesies, and the innumerable other Old Testament Messianic prophesies? 

Steve Martin v. John Dominic Crossan

A while back, I wrote a post on the historical accuracy of Luke 2:2.  In a nutshell, some Biblical critics claim that the global census that St. Luke describes (in Lk. 2:1-2) as occurring during the reign of Herod the Great didn't happen.  I think that Mark Shea does a great job of answering this, using a stand-up sketch by comedian Steve Martin to show the absurdity of the skeptic's argument:

Comedian Steve Martin used to do a routine in which he smiled broadly with that distinct smile of his and said, “Remember a couple of years back when the earth (wry pause)... exploded? Remember how they built that giant space ark and loaded all of humanity into it, but the government decided not to tell the stupid people what was going on so that they wouldn’t panic…..” The light of understanding would then break across his face as he surveyed the faces of the audience and he would quickly backtrack saying, “Oooooooh! Uh….. Never mind!” 

I can’t help but think of that as I read [John Dominic] Crossan’s take on Luke. We are being asked to believe that the gospels are works of cunning fiction by people laboring under some huge need to bring others under the spell of their delusion of a Risen Christ. Part of their messianic delusion requires them to link the Nazarene carpenter with King David by portraying him as born in “the city of David”, Bethlehem. And so they do what to get Jesus there in time for his birth and debut as the Son of David?

Well, a lot of options are open to the creative gospel writer whose only goal is to write a tall tale. You could just say that Mary’s grandmother took sick and she went to visit her. You could claim that Joseph bought a plot of land and didn’t want to leave Mary behind while he went to inspect it. You could cook up an angelic visitation commanding the Holy Family to go to Bethlehem and wait for their son to be born. Any of these stories have the tremendous advantage of being extremely hard to refute decades after the event. And since you’ve already stuffed your gospel full of miracles, what’s one more angel?

But no, according to Crossan, Luke tells the equivalent of Martin’s space ark story: “Remember, a few decades back when the entire world was enrolled for taxation?” He invites, not just somebody to refute it, but everybody in his entire audience. That’s an awfully strange thing to do if the enrollment never happened and an awfully odd way to establish the bona fides of your main character.

Now, realize that even Crossan admits that the Gospel of Luke was written in the first century. So the people reading it would know whether or not this enormous event had or hadn't occurred.   And this is true for countless other New Testament historical claims: these claims were easily falsifiable in the first century: that hundreds of people claimed to have seen the risen Christ (1 Cor. 15:6), that St. Peter preached about the Empty Tomb in Jerusalem, on Pentecost, only a few months after Easter (Acts 2:14-40), etc.  That they were taken as historical fact is evidence that they were, in fact, historical fact.  And this, in turn, makes a solid case in favor of Christianity.

Ten Tips for Successful Catholic Blogging

A couple of readers have asked for tips in starting out in Catholic blogging. I don't have any great secrets, and can think of plenty of people more qualified than myself to answer, but here are the things that I wish I had known (or thought of) back when I was first beginning.  I'll mention up front that I haven't always done everything on this list -- some of these are areas where I'm aware I need to improve.

5 Tips for Starting Your Blog

Lionello Spada, St. Jerome (1610)

1. Why do you feel called to blog?  Start by asking yourself this question.  What do you feel like God is calling you to do?  What are you hoping to get out of it?  How serious are you in your commitment?  Pray on this.
   
   
2. What do you love or hate about other blogs?  This is the easiest way of figuring out which things to do, or to avoid.  Chances are, the things you really like or really hate are going to be things other people really love or hate.  Regardless, you don't want to be the kind of blogger that you can't stand.  I believe it was C.S. Lewis who pointed out that true humility is a trait we admire in others, while neglecting it in ourselves.  Whoever it was, it's a sound point.  We can often see the flaws and the strengths of our neighbor more clearer than we can see them in ourselves.
   
   
3. Figure out your “genre.” Sin is monotonous: the pleasures of the earth are finite, and end in nihilism, as nearly any addict can tell you.  Sanctity, in contrast, is vibrant and unbounded, since it's a love affair with the Infinite.  Are you going to write about canon law?  Parenting?  Art and beauty?  Apologetics?  Catholicism and politics?  Liturgy? Pro-life and social justice issues?  Before you write a masterpiece, you need to figure out your “genre.”  Some blogs are able to cover multiple genres well, but many aren't.  For example, think long and hard about getting into the weeds on political issues on which Catholics can take either side.  This can be either a good way of stimulating discussion on the dual roles of faith and politics, or a quick way of alienating even other Catholics.
   
   
4. Set a tone.  I think that the most successful blogs are somewhat predictable: regular readers have a feel for what they're getting.  This includes the topics or genres covered, but it also includes how you cover them.  For example, how much of the blog will be able your own experiences?  Figure out if you're more like Augustine or Aquinas. But it's much more than that.  Look at the contrasts in how  John the Baptist and John the Apostle present the Gospel.  Same content, different tone.
   
   



Jacob Wrestles with the Angel (1866)

5. Choose a name wisely.  Names are incredibly important in Scripture (e.g., Gen. 17:4-5, Gen. 32:28, Mt. 16:17-19, Rev. 2:17), and in the life of the Church (particularly at Baptism and Confirmation), and should tell us something about you.  The same holds true for your blog's title and for the titles of your posts, particularly since these are the things people see before they enter your site.  This is usually all the advertisement you get.
   
   Personally, I try to keep things relatively lighthearted, while addressing serious topics.  The original names I was mulling over for this blog (like Catholic Defense or Catholicism Contra Mundum, etc.) sounded too boring, stern, or pretentious.  Finally, I asked my Calvinist friend Don for suggestions, who without skipping a beat, answered, “Shameless Popery.”  That name captured the feel of the blog better than anything I could have come up with.
   
   My point is this: a blog named To View the World Through Blood-Colored Lenses evokes a very different feel than a blog named Little Catholic Bubble.  It's likely to appeal to a different crowd, even before anyone opens the page.  

5 Tips for Keeping Up Your Blog

The internet is filled with abandoned blogs, tiny ghost towns lining the sides of the Information Superhighway.  What do you need to do to avoid consigning your own blog to an early death?

Diego Velázquez, Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (1618)

1. Fill up.  You can only give what you've received.  When I find myself getting snarky, or running out of ideas for things to talk about, or finding myself unable to turn my idea into a a coherent post, that's usually a good sign that my tanks are running low.  I need to step away from the computer, spend some time at Mass, in prayer, or doing some spiritual reading, and fill up those tanks.  This both revitalizes the spirit, and frequently inspires good posts.  Martin Luther is reported to have said, “Work, work, from early until late. In fact, I have so much to do that I shall spend the first three hours in prayer.” We could benefit from a similar attitude: everything, including blogging, goes better with prayer.
   
   Cutting out prayer time with God because you want to blog about Catholicism is like saving time on a long roadtrip by not stopping for gas: it may seem smart in the moment, but it won't end well.  Worse, it may be a sign that you're trying to be the Messiah -- trying to save people through your own intellect or rhetorical skills.  You can't.  Only God saves.  The best we can hope for is that, like St. Paul in today's First Reading, we can be a “chosen instrument” in God's plan of salvation (Acts 9:15).
   
   
2. Consistency.  This is the single most important distinctive in blogging, in my opinion.  I try to post daily (or nearly so) every Monday through Friday.  Missing a day or two is fine, but if you don't post anything for a few weeks, people will move on.  The reader base that you spent months building up can be lost very quickly through inactivity.  So if you do need to take an extended break (eventually, almost everyone does), and want readers to be there when you get back, try to let them know ahead of time.
   
   This also means that you can't afford to be a perfectionist.  You can't spent two weeks on each post to make sure they're perfect.  Give what you can, and leave the rest to God.  You'll surprised by the results.  I have posts that I spent hours painstakingly researching that nobody seemed to care for, and posts that I rushed through in a few minutes that took off like hotcakes.  For example, one of my more popular recent posts was this one: it's only four paragraphs long, and consists primarily of my reaction to a First Things article and a Catholic Vote post.  I almost didn't publish it, because it didn't seem to have a point.  I suspect this is all another way of God reminding me that He's the one in control, not me.
   
   



Valentin de Boulogne, Saint Paul Writing His Epistles (1620)

3. Content.  This is hopefully obvious, but your blog isn't all sizzle.  It needs some steak for people to come back for more.  Keeping your audience in mind, along with your purpose in writing the blog (see above), write the posts that you would want to read.  Write the posts that you think other people need to hear.
   
   Don't wait until you're the perfect Catholic Saint / encyclopedia: this blog has helped me grow as a Catholic.   Things that seem obvious to you may seem insightful to those just discovering Catholicism.  Those who are spiritual infants, just learning to walk in the faith, may find it easier to learn from a toddler than from a sprinter.  Keep the Catechism and Catholic Encyclopedia close if you're not sure about what you're saying (or just don't say it), be prepared to apologize and fix errors, and cast out into the deep.  Having said that, don't contradict or undermine the Church, and don't dwell on disciplines you wish She would change.  You should be building up the Body of Christ, not grumbling (1 Cor. 10:10).
   
   You should aim for a mix of your own content, and your reactions to other people's posts.  You also don't have to dominate the discussion.  Sometimes, it's enough to just get the conversation going.
   
   



Giovanni Lorenzo Bernini, The Ecstasy of St. Theresa (1652)

4. Beauty.  This is something I realized far too late in the game.  If you read my older posts, they're often just walls of text.  Now, I try to enhance the post with Catholic art and even the occasional video.  You can find plenty of art for free, from places like Wikimedia Commons.  If nothing else, just use a site like Biblical Art, and find relevant art by Scripture passage.  And remember, we're Catholics; we believe that all beauty points to God.  On a related note, see how your blog looks in different Internet browsers, different sized windows, and on smart phones.
   
   
5. Marketing. Even if you're doing everything perfectly, you may be ignored.  It helps to talk to more successful bloggers, particularly those who are good about promoting upstarts.  Mark Shea, for example, was the first to plug my blog, and Pat Madrid linked to me early on (on his old blog).
   
   Two people you should know about, who do an amazing job of directing traffic towards Catholic blogs: Tito Edwards, who runs The Pulp.it, and has a recurring Register feature highlighting Catholic blogging, and Kevin Knight of New Advent.  You'll know when they link to you because hundreds (or even thousands) of people suddenly show up.  I was blessed in that they found me, but I don't think it's wrong to send your particularly good posts to them in the hope of getting a plug.  After all, you're writing this stuff for people to read, right?

There's much more that can be said: how active to be in the comments, how to handle rude or blasphemous commenters, whether sleep is really as important as people claim, etc. Feel free to continue the discussion in the comments. Honestly, though, Jen Fulwiler understands this all better than I do, and wrote a two-part series on blogging here and here. So maybe you should check her out, instead?

Finally, heed the words of St. Peter: “Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins” (1 Peter 4:8).

P.S.  Please, feel free to post links to your own Catholic blogs in the comments, particularly if you're just starting out!  If you'd prefer, link to a specific post or two you'd especially like to share.

The Annual March for Life Media Blackout

This picture is one of numerous great shots highlighted by Matt Cassens on his blog St. Blogustine (which I note in passing is an excellent name for a blog).  Contrast it with Newsweek's spin from 2010, in an article entitled, Who’s Missing at the 'Roe v. Wade' Anniversary Demonstrations? Young Women.  The article rhetorically asked, “where are the young, vibrant women supporting their pro-life or pro-choice positions? Likely, they’re at home.”

In lieu of doing their own reporting, Christian Science Monitor shamelessly regurgitated Newsweek's outright false claims: “According to Newsweek, demonstrators on both sides were mostly from the baby boomer generation.”  I mean, just look at all those Baby Boomers.  Wait, I don't actually see any in that shot.  In fact, I'm not sure I've seen a single March for Life picture from the last ten years containing more than a few dozen people in which most of those in the shot were Baby Boomers.  And in the four years that I marched, I can attest that the ratio of young people to Baby Boomers is staggering.  The youth own this movement.

So the media coverage has long been riddled with lies and distortions.  If you ever want to be in the press, an easy way to do it is to be a pro-choice counter-protester at the March for Life.  Each year, a few dozen show up, and each year, seemingly every one of them gets a close-framed shot that make them seem to be part of a huge pro-choice contingent.  In the Monitor article I mentioned above, the accompanying photo showed four pro-choicers and a single pro-lifer.  That huge protest of hundreds of thousands of people?  Ignored in favor of a few dozen (literally!) counter-protesters.

But as bad as media distortions are (and they really do seem intentional here: the photographers had to have noticed an enormous procession of people passing them by), the worst is the outright media blackout.  For five years straight, the New York Times has refused to run anything on the March for Life.  This year, they were forced to indirectly acknowledge the March's existence, because Senator Rand Paul was detained on his way to the March, after he refused a TSA patdown.  The last thing Senator Paul had tweeted before his detainment:

@SenRandPaulSenator Rand Paul 

Today I'll speak to the March for Life in DC. A nation cannot long endure w/o respect for the right to Life. Our Liberty depends on it. #ky

So you can't really cover Senator Paul's detainment without acknowledging the March for Life, since it's part of the story.  Unless you're CBS:

Paul said he was "detained" at a small cubicle and couldn't make his flight to Washington for a Senate vote scheduled later in the day.

And where was Paul headed before that vote, I wonder?  CBS doesn't give us any clues.  Because this isn't news (be sure to watch the time lapse video -- it's the best way of grasping just how enormous the March actually is):

P.S. My friend Matt Balan offers an extreme example from this year's coverage.