Gospel of Matthew, Part 2

Comment #5:

As the introduction in the NAB mentions, Matthew’s Gospel is structured around five discourses that Jesus says. A discourse is a fancy way of saying a sermon. We discussed the Sermon on the Mount. That was the first. Chapter ten comprises the second discourse. It is sometimes identified as the Discourse on the Apostle’s Missions.

Some striking things in that discourse. Jesus instructs them to not “go into pagan territory or enter a Samaritan town” (Matt 10:5). Their mission is to preach to “the lost sheep of Israel” (6). The Gospel of Luke I think had a more international outlook. Matthew is much more concerned with the Jewish people.

Verse seven (“As you go, make this proclamation: ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’”) is the mission, and I believe it is the same in all the Gospels, though I’m not sure if it’s explicitly stated in John. And does is the kingdom of heaven comprise of? For Matthew: “Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, drive out demons” (8). Now this is supposed to be all our missions, though my skill at raising the dead is a bit lacking.

The first half of the discourse considers the mission. The second half considers the reactions the apostles will have to face.

Behold, I am sending you like sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and simple as doves.
But beware of people, for they will hand you over to courts and scourge you in their synagogues,
and you will be led before governors and kings for my sake as a witness before them and the pagans. (16-18)

There seems to be a disconnect for me between the first and the second half of the discourse. If the mission is to cure the sick and the like, why would they be persecuted? Who would persecute anyone that is cleaning lepers and chasing out demons? Now is Jesus predicting his own persecution? Everything He mentions is what will happen to Him.

So why would anyone want to go through these persecutions? In the Sermon on the Mount discourse, people were “blessed” by God if you followed Christ. In this discourse you will tortured. Why would anyone want to do this? Christ tells us: “Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it” (39). And He further explains it with “Whoever receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and whoever receives a righteous man because he is righteous will receive a righteous man’s reward” (41). While it’s not spelled out here, that reward will be salvation.

But then the last verse again seems disconnected from something. “And whoever gives only a cup of cold water to one of these little ones to drink because he is a disciple—amen, I say to you, he will surely not lose his reward” (42). I don’t understand the context. Does anyone?

Kerstin Replied:

Heavenly reward and human reaction, that's the distinction. In other words, following Christ will earn you eternal reward, but don't expect worldly humans to approve.

My Reply:

Yes, but how this "little one" suddenly come into the picture? And why cold water? I understand the reward but the child and water seems to connect to something that is missing. It confuses me.

Kerstin Reply:

Explanation from Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament:

10:42 these little ones: i.e., the apostles. They must rely on the hospitality of others for daily necessities during their mission (10:9 - 11). Service rendered to them is service to Jesus himself (10:40; 25:34 - 36). Children are elsewhere used as examples in Jesus' teaching on the faith in 18: 1 - 4 and 19: 13 - 15).

Oh, I forgot the verse is translated a little differently:

Mt 10:42: "And whoever gives one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he shall not lose his reward."

My Reply:

I never knew that. I'm actually shocked. I took "little ones" for children. OK, that makes sense. Thanks Kerstin.

PS, that is a strange phrase for apostles. Did anyone know this on their own?

Kerstin Reply:

No, LOL! I wonder though, if it is some kind of endearment.

My Reply:

In searching around, I think it means lowly. Children were considered the lowest on a ladder of hierarchy. They essentially had no power or wealth. If that is so, I think a better translation in today's diction would be, "these lowly ones..."

###

Comment #6:

Chapter 13 comprises the third discourse in Matthew’s Gospel, this on the nature of parables.  It’s a very active chapter.  By my count there are fourteen sections to the chapter of a chapter of 58 verses.  I’m amazed at how compressed each section is, averaging a little over four verses per section.  Here’s how I see the chapter divided.

1. Introductory stage directions.

2. The Parable of the Sower.

3. Why He speaks in parables.

4. The privilege granted to disciples.

5. The explanation of the Parable of the Sower

6. The Parable of the Weeds and Wheat.

7. The Parable of the Mustard Seed.

9. The Parable of the Yeast.

10. The fulfillment of prophesy in parables.

11. The explanation of the Weeds and Wheat.

12. Four parables on the nature of heaven.

13. Jesus concludes his discourse.

14. Jesus is rejected in His home town.

Jesus here too as in the Sermon on the Mount sits as He delivers His discourse.  Interestingly here He sits twice, first by the sea and then in a boat.  I imagine the boat is docked or grounded and He uses the boat as a sort of pulpit while the large crowd gathers up to Him.

The discourse alternates between a parable and an explanation, either explanation of a parable or an explanation of why He speaks in parables.  We always speak about how vivid a parable is or how memorable because it’s in story form, but that doesn’t seem to be the reason.  Jesus explains that it has been prophesied in Isaiah that those converted will understand and those not will not (13-15). 

The simplest of parables are nothing more than a simile.  “The kingdom of heaven is like yeast” (33) or “like a buried treasure” (44).  One step up in parable complexity from a simile is an allegory.  The Parable of the Weeds and Wheat is an example.  A parable that is a straight allegory.  The weeds represent the damned and the wheat represent the saved.  On earth the two are intermixed but in heaven they will be sorted out. 

Still another step in complexity from an allegory is a story that seems to alter reality or dislocates the focus.  The parable of the sower is such a complex parable.  For instance there are two dislocations in focus.  At first you think the story is about the sower, and then you think the story is about the seeds, but in fact it’s about the soil.  Could we set up an allegorical equation?  The sower would be a preacher, the seeds are the Word, and the soil would be general population.  In some the seed (the Word) will grow and some not.  The story also alters reality, pushing the conceit to a contortion of sorts.  In this case we could ask, why would a sower of seeds randomly spread seeds about in unknown soils?  A farmer would never do that.  If anything one prepares the soil or even grows seeds in a seedling pack with perfect soil.  The twist in these complex parables are enough to make them startling, mysterious, and perhaps even impenetrable.  These fulfill Isaiah’s prophesy. 

But even the simple similes are in a way dislocating as a means of communicating.  I count about eight parables in chapter thirteen, and they are in one way or another about the nature of heaven.  Now if I were to describe the nature of an island in the south pacific, which could be as close to heaven as we might imagine, I would tell you about the ideal temperature, the pleasing breeze, the fresh sea air, the wonderful trees, and such.  You would get some sort of an idea.  But in these eight parables or so, I don’t see any real sense of what heaven is like.  It’s a pearl, it’s yeast, the weeds won’t exist, it’s like a fishing net.  Frankly I don’t have a clue what heaven is like.  And yet when Jesus asks them do they understand, they say yes.

“Do you understand all these things?” They answered, “Yes.”

And he replied, “Then every scribe who has been instructed in the kingdom of heaven is like the head of a household who brings from his storeroom both the new and the old.”  (51-52)

Do they really understand?  I think they’re just “yessing” Him as one does a teacher you don’t want to disappoint.  And for good measure, Jesus gives them one last parable.  A scribe (which is a teacher) who has been instructed on heaven who as allegory teaches the new (Christ’s Word) and the old (Torah) is compared to “the head of a household.”  How is that?

Irene Replied:

I don't believe that these parables are about heaven, but about the Kingdom of God which Matthew calls the Kingdom of Heaven because it is impermissible to use the name of God for his Jewish readers. The Kingdom of God/Heaven is unfolding among us here on earth. It is not simply a future reality in another realm. Reading these parables that way makes them more accessible for me.

My Reply:

Irene’s comment sent me on a wonderful search for the distinctions between the “Kingdom of God” and the Kingdom of Heaven.”  It never dawn on me that Christ was referring to the earthly kingdom here, the kingdom we are supposed to establish.  I found those that support Irene’s position, but there were others that disagreed. 

For me I don’t know.  Irene’s point is well taken and fits every single parable except the one with fish and nets.  Here’s that entire parable:

Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net thrown into the sea, which collects fish of every kind.

When it is full they haul it ashore and sit down to put what is good into buckets. What is bad they throw away.

Thus it will be at the end of the age. The angels will go out and separate the wicked from the righteous

and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth. (47-50)

Clearly there Christ is speaking about a time of judgement, which would be in the afterlife. 

But then the Parable of the Weeds and Wheat actually makes most sense using Irene’s reading.  While yes the harvest is at a judgement time, and therefore in celestial heaven, the sowing occurs prior, and would seemingly only make sense at an earthly time. 

The other parables can go either way.

The one thing that undermines Irene’s point is that according to Wikipedia entry “Kingdom of heaven (Gospel of Matthew)” a certain Robert Foster is quoted as claiming that Matthew uses “kingdom of God” and “God” in several places, so why would he be adverse here?  Here’s quote in Wikipedia:

Robert Foster rejects this view. He finds the standard explanation hard to believe as Matthew uses the word "God" many other times and even uses the phrase "kingdom of God" four times. Foster argues that, to Matthew, the two concepts were different. For Foster, the word "heaven" had an important role in Matthew's theology and links the phrase especially to "Father in heaven," which Matthew frequently uses to refer to God. Foster argues that the "kingdom of God" represents the earthly domain that Jesus' opponents such as Pharisees thought they resided in, while the "kingdom of heaven" represents the truer spiritual domain of Jesus and his disciples.

I tried to follow the link to Foster’s essay but it was not open to the public.  I’m just going to remain neutral on this.  I can see both being correct.  Perhaps Irene can offer an opinion on why Matthew would use “God” elsewhere but not here.  Either way, I want to thank Irene for enlightening me on this. 

Frances’ Reply:

In regard to the term Kingdom of God (please see Irene's comment in Message 30), I want to refer to the remarks of two scholars: Brant Pitre and the Anglican theologian N.T. Wright (who comes to us with excellent credentials, recommended by Bishop Robert Barron).

In The Case for Jesus, Pitre writes: "If there's anything Jesus loves to talk about in the Gospels, it is the coming of the kingdom of God -- or, in Matthew's Gospel -- the kingdom of heaven.

"Now, the question is: What does Jesus mean when he refers to the kingdom of God? And what does he mean when he says that it is 'at hand?' He seems to assume that his Jewish audience will understand what he's talking about. Today, many people think that the kingdom of God is another way of talking about 'life after death.' And while it's certainly true that the kingdom of God is tied to eternal life, there's more going on here. The very fact that Jesus can talk about the kingdom as 'coming' makes clear that he can't simply referring to what happens after a person dies. So what does he mean when he speaks of the time being fulfilled and the coming of the kingdom being 'at hand?'

"In this case the key to unlocking the meaning of Jesus' otherwise mysterious words can be found by going back to the Old Testament." (Brant Pitre, The Case for Jesus, pp. 104-105)

Now, I'm switching to N.T. Wright, quoting from his book The Day the Revolution Began:

"Among the things that Matthew is saying in his Gospel, it seems clear that he is highlighting the point that the kingdom agenda set out in chapter 5 is not simply an outline for a bracing ethic for Jesus's followers to attempt; it is the dramatic outline of Jesus's own vocation. . . The long story of Israel, sketched by Matthew in terms of the genealogy from Abraham to David, through the exile, to the Messiah, has come to its fulfillment. . . He would stand there unresisting as people slapped and mocked him. He would be compelled to carry his burden to Golgotha. He would find his clothes stripped from him and divided up. . .

My Reply:

It just struck me from today's Mass readings (Nov. 24, 2019), that the good thief on the cross tells Jesus, "Remember me when you come into your kingdom." So clearly he is referring to the kingdom of heaven there. In front of Pilate, Jesus says "my kingdom is not of this world." So where is the kingdom of God? How do those two references to a kingdom that is outside the earth fit with the references from Matthew chapter 13? If the kingdom of God is at hand, where is it?

Frances’ Reply:

Manny, would this help? I’m going to quote from two completely unrelated sources. First, from N.T.Wright:

“For Jesus, the kingdom was coming not in a single move, but in stages, of which his own public career was one, his death and resurrection another, and a still future consummation another. Note that kingdom of heaven is Matthew’s preferred form for the same phrase, following a regular Jewish practice of saying heaven rather than God. It does not refer to a place, but to the fact of God’s becoming king in and through Jesus and his achievement.”

My second reference is from a scholar we don’t ordinarily turn to, but a good one, the late Mircea Eliade who was a distinguished professor of religious studies at the University of Chicago. His History of Religious Ideas was a classic when I was working on my master’s in theology. Here is what Eliade said about the term “kingdom of God”:

“The kingdom of God has already been inaugurated; it is not automatically universally obvious, just as the Messiah, incarnated in the historic personage of Jesus, was not obvious to the majority of Jews — and the divinity of Christ still is not so for nonbelievers. In short, there is here the same dialectical progression that is well known in the history of religions: the epiphany of the sacred in a profane object is at the same time a camouflage: for the sacred is not obvious to all those who approach the object in which it has manifested itself. This time the sacred — the kingdom of God — manifested itself in a human community that was historically circumscribed: the Church.” (Mircea Eliade, A history of Religious Ideas, Volume 2, University of Chicago Press. 1982)…

My Reply:

Yes Frances it really helps. All excellent quotes. Apparently Wright agrees with Irene on Matthew's use of the Kingdom of heaven as really referring to the kingdom of God. However, wouldn't it be more precise to say instead of "the kingdom came" with Christ that the kingdom was started with His coming? At least that's what I take from the first NT Wright quote you provided. It wasn't complete. There's more to come.

Madeleine’s Reply:

My take on the Kingdom is from the prayer Jesus gave us: "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, On earth as it is in heaven..." We become members of the Kingdom by submitting to God's will. " The first phrase can mean the "Kingdom to come" or, keeping in mind that we just celebrated Christ's kingship once again on this earth, wherever there is a gathering of saintly believers, do we not have a piece of God's kingdom available to us now?

Irene’s Reply:

Manny, I can't not think of the 4 places in Matthew's Gospel where he uses "Kingdom of God", so I can't address your question. Maybe as we read through this Gospel we will discover them. I have not heard of the author cited by your wikapedia article. As to your question about the parables that clearly point to a final judgment, I don't think that the kingdom is either earthly or heavenly, either present or future. I understand it to be both. The Kingdom of God/Heaven is wherever God's will is reigning surpreme. Obviously, that is in Heaven. But, it has also been enaugerated on earth and is unfolding through the Church, through Christ's disciples. A parable about final judgment or about its miraculous growth, are equally appropriate, for all is part of the Kingdom.

My Reply:

Irene, that's absolutely brilliant. But of course. It is both! Why didn't I think of that!

My Reply:

Irene I found two. See chapter 19:23-24. Christ uses both, kingdom of heaven and kingdom of God within two verses. The other place is chapter 21:43.

Happy Thanksgiving 2019

I don’t know who still reads my blog, but I miss you all that used to comment here.  I miss visiting the blogs of my blogger friends.  Many of you have stopped blogging,  Blogging seems to be a dying art.  I still use it.  I still think it’s a great way to express oneself, whether people read it or not.  As Shakespeare says, “And yet to times in hope my verse shall stand” (Sonnet 60, l. 13) so too this blog will stand the test of time!

Well, dear friends of past and present, I want to wish you the most glorious of Thanksgiving Days. 

Gospel of Matthew, Part 1

We are reading the Gospel of Matthew over at the Goodreads Catholic Thought book club in preparation for the Year A in the Mass readings.  This will begin a series of my thoughts and comments that I contributed.  First, you can get an introduction the Matthew’s Gospel at the United States Conference of Bishops website under Books of the Bible.  Here for the Gospel of Matthew.  

Comment #1:

There was a discussion on the genealogy in Matthew, and Madeleine noticed the four women Matthew includes.  Madeliene called them the “shady ladies.”

My Reply:

I've seen that too Madeleine. That seems to be standard reading of Matthew's genealogy. The "shady ladies" as you call them (LOL!) may suggest something about the Virgin birth. They are in contrast to the Blessed Mother, who is eternally pure, but in sympathy with them as well given the suspicions surrounding Christ's conception.

My Comment #2:

The book club read Pope BXVI's Infancy Narratives and I just went through the comments and didn't find much of a discussion on the genealogies. But we also read Scott Hahn's Joy to the World and we did discuss the genealogies there. If you want to see what was said, here's the link.

Comment #3:

I’ve wanted to contribute more to the discussion on the early chapters of the Gospel of Matthew, but unfortunately I’ve been busy all week.  But something must be said about the Sermon on the Mount.  It’s one of my favorite parts in the entire New Testament.

It probably wouldn’t hurt to describe the structure of the Sermon.  I see it as divided into six parts.

A. The introductory stage directions (5:1-2)

B. The Beatitudes (5:3-12)

C. The Similes (5:13-16)

D. The Teachings (5:17-7:23)

E. The Conclusion (7:24-27)

F. The concluding stage directions (7:28-29)

When I look at it in this summary way, I’m surprised to find that the Beatitudes are only nine lines.  For some reason it feels like a lot more.

That introductory stage direction (as I call it) has Jesus sitting.  I never really noticed that.  In my imagining of the scene I had Jesus standing.  Perhaps I got it from the movie, Jesus of Nazareth, where He is standing while delivering the sermon.  You can see it here.

Before Jesus gets to His teachings, which are the bulk of the sermon, he provides two similes to describe His followers.  Actually in the NAB translation they are not similes, they are metaphors.  He doesn’t say, “You are like salt.”  Nor “You are like light.”  Those are similes.  He says “You are salt” and “You are light.”  Those are metaphors. I especially like the “You are the light of the world” metaphor.  If you are a perfect follower of Christ, you just shine.

Then the teachings.  I count twenty-two teachings across the three chapters.  I think it’s worth listing them.

1. Teaching about the Old Testament law.

2. Teaching about anger.

3. Teaching about adultery.

4. Teaching about divorce.

5. Teaching about oaths.

6. Teaching about retaliation.

7. Teaching about your enemies.

8. Teaching about almsgiving.

9. Teaching about prayer.

10. Teaching about forgiveness.

11. Teaching about fasting.

12. Teaching about heaven.

13. Teaching about the eye as entry point of light.

14. Teaching about God and money.

15. Teaching about dependence on God.

16. Teaching about judging.

17. Teaching about the holy,

18. Teaching about prayers being answered.

19. Teaching about the golden rule.

20. Teaching about the narrow gate of heaven.

21. Teaching about false prophets.

22. Teaching about true discipleship.

If the beatitudes outline the ideal attributes of a follower of Christ, the teachings seem to show what one has to do to achieve those ideals.  And Jesus wraps it all up in a concluding section with “Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock” (7:24).  It is wisdom to follow Christ, because following Christ is what leads to heaven.

Kerstin’s Reply:

What I noticed reading it this time around, is how quickly in the Gospel of Matthew we get to these teachings. It is in the 5th chapter out of 28. No need for a big preamble, let's get to it!

My Reply to Kerstin:

Yes, Matthew simplifies the narrative. Now here's the controversy on which Gospel came first, Mark or Matthew. Of the stories that are in both Mark and Matthew, Mark has more detail and are longer. If Mark came first, which is what modern scholars believe, Matthew compressed Mark's stories. If Matthew came first, which is the original Church position, then Mark expanded on Matthew's stories. Which is more likely, to expand on stories or to contract stories? For me, if Christ was the son of God, why would I eliminate any detail from a story? I would keep everything. So to me, it seems much more likely that Matthew came first.

When we did the Gospel of Mark two years ago, we got into a little argument over this. Maybe my position is more clear now. But to be up front, most scholars believe Mark came first.

Comment #4:

Christine posted this article on Matthew's Gospel by Edward Sri from the St. Paul Center in a different thread. It should be discussed here. It's very insightful. 

I don't think I ever realized this, but Sri makes a profound point toward the end. Let me quote it.

So when we look upon Jesus in Matthew’s Gospel, we must remember we are encountering the face of God. Indeed, the story in Matthew’s Gospel is the story of the God who is with us in his Son, Jesus Christ. At the start of the Gospel, Jesus is introduced as “Emmanuel.” And the kingdom that Jesus is establishing throughout the Gospel of Matthew is all about bringing people back into union with God—not just the faithful Jews of his day but also the sinners, the outcasts, the suffering, and even the gentiles, the non-Jewish people from all the other nations. God will be with his people again through Christ’s kingdom that is breaking down the barriers, going out to the peripheries, calling people to repentance, and reconciling all humanity to the Father.

It’s not surprising, therefore, that we’ll see this theme again at the very close of Matthew’s Gospel. After his death and Resurrection, Jesus commissions the apostles to go make disciples of all nations and he promises, “I am with you always, even to the close of the age” (Matt 28:20). So from beginning to end, the theme of Emmanuel—the theme of God with us—radiates through Matthew’s Gospel in the kingdom Jesus is building.

So God with us at the beginning of the Gospel is still God with us at the end of the Gospel and Matthew projects God with us for eternity. The Gospel is nicely framed that way.

Here's an interesting question. In chapter one, Matthew writes, " “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,” which means “God is with us.” (Matt 1:23). But he's not named Emmanuel. He's named Jesus, which means "God Saves." I would have to look it up in Pope BXVI's Infancy Narrative or Scott Hahn's Joy to the World, but I'm at a loss to explain how they can be the same thing. I bet it's mentioned in both books, but I can't remember.

Jesús Replied:

Benedict XVI explains the question on "Emmanuel" (Is 7,14), in chapter 2.4 (Conception and birth of Jesus according to Matthew) of Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives. On his point of view, basically 2 possibilities: it is an "on-hold word", an unfulfilled prophecy so far, because a historical correspondence cannot be found. Or it is a promise fulfilled in Christ. Christ always is the Emmanuel, the"God with us".

My Reply to Jesús:

Thanks Jesús. I would say the latter of the two options makes the most sense.

Matthew Monday: Responsorial Psalm for 32nd Sunday in Ordinary Time

Two Sunday’s ago, November 10^th, the Thirty-Second Sunday in Ordinary Time, Matthew gave the responsorial psalm at Mass and he had me film it.  He does these and other parts of the Children’s Mass regularly, but I present this one because I just happen to capture it. 

Here is the psalm for that day, PS 17:1, 5-6, 8, 15

R. (15b)  Lord, when your glory appears, my joy will be full.

Hear, O LORD, a just suit;
attend to my outcry;
hearken to my prayer from lips without deceit.

R. Lord, when your glory appears, my joy will be full.
My steps have been steadfast in your paths,
my feet have not faltered.
I call upon you, for you will answer me, O God;
incline your ear to me; hear my word.

R. Lord, when your glory appears, my joy will be full.
Keep me as the apple of your eye,
hide me in the shadow of your wings.
But I in justice shall behold your face;
on waking I shall be content in your presence.

R. Lord, when your glory appears, my joy will be full.

He will always be the apple of my eye.

The Imitation of Christ by Thomas à Kempis, Post 4

This is my final post on The Imitation of Christ.  At the end is my book review I posted on Goodreads.  I gave the book three stars.

You can find Post 1 on this read, here, 

You can find Post 2 here.  

You can find Post 3 here. 

Still on Book 3, “Internal Consolation”:

Comment 8:

So I’ve been critical, as you’ve seen my comments, calling à Kempis “semi-gnostic.” If he values the spirit over the corporeal so much, why isn’t he fully gnostic? Let’s look carefully at why he considers the spiritual so much more important. In Book Three, chapter 35, he says through the Voice of Christ:

If you look for rest in this life, how will you attain to everlasting rest? Dispose yourself, then, not for much rest but for great patience. Seek true peace, not on earth but in heaven; not in men or in other creatures but in God alone. For love of God you should undergo all things cheerfully, all labors and sorrows, temptations and trials, anxieties, weaknesses, necessities, injuries, slanders, rebukes, humiliations, confusions, corrections, and contempt. For these are helps to virtue. These are the trials of Christ's recruit. These form the heavenly crown. For a little brief labor I will give an everlasting crown, and for passing confusion, glory that is eternal....

The key sentence I think there is “For these are helps to virtue.” Later in chapter 54 of that book, he creates a dichotomy between “nature,” which stands of the corporeal, and “grace,” which stands for the spiritual. I’m not going to quote it, but it’s quite a list of contrasts between nature and grace. He concludes that rhetorical tour de force with this:

The more, then, nature is held in check and conquered, the more grace is given. Every day the interior man is reformed by new visitations according to the image of God....

So then the mortifications of the body he advocates are a process of personal reform to build virtue. How is this different than Gnosticism? In Gnosticism the body is just evil. In à Kempis the body is a temptation from which you can succumb to sin. There is a subtle distinction. If you want to ensure yourself of purity, if you want to ensure virtue, radically eliminate the temptations. Actually even more than elimination. Train your body through asceticism and excoriations to not find pleasure in the corporeal. It’s not that the corporeal is evil for à Kempis, though his language sometimes slips to sound that way, but something to be feared. It’s a view of Christianity that suggests you need to suffer in order to love, and to be ready for when real suffering comes your way you induce suffering to yourself to build strength.

In the fifty-fifth chapter, he brings this to full expression:

Thus nature itself, which You created good and right, is considered a symbol of vice and the weakness of corrupted nature, because when left to itself it tends toward evil and to baser things. The little strength remaining in it is like a spark hidden in ashes. That strength is natural reason which, surrounded by thick darkness, still has the power of judging good and evil, of seeing the difference between true and false, though it is not able to fulfill all that it approves and does not enjoy the full light of truth or soundness of affection.

It is not that nature is evil but that it tends to evil if left unchecked

Commnet 9:

In Book Three à Kempis provides the objective of all this discipline. In chapter 49 he tells us through the voice of Christ, “You must put on the new man. You must be changed into another man.” He builds on that in chapter 53, again through the voice of Christ:

If you completely conquer yourself, you will more easily subdue all other things. The perfect victory is to triumph over self. For he who holds himself in such subjection that sensuality obeys reason and reason obeys Me in all matters, is truly his own conqueror and master of the world.

And then augments this point further in chapter 56, again in the voice of Christ:

My child, the more you depart from yourself, the more you will be able to enter into Me. As the giving up of exterior things brings interior peace, so the forsaking of self unites you to God. I will have you learn perfect surrender to My will, without contradiction or complaint.

The subjugation of oneself for the self of Christ is the spiritual objective of every Christian. à Kempis is right on target with this. We get this from St. Paul in Galatians, “It is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me” (Gal 2:20). I think it’s Fulton Sheen who phrases it as every Christian needs a heart transplant, replacing one’s heart with that of Christ’s. St. Catherine of Siena actually has a mystical experience where her heart is exchanged with Christ’s heart.

What’s in question, then, is how one arrives at this objective. The à Kempis way is strict asceticism and withdrawal from the world. However, St. Paul wasn’t a recluse. While Christ had his 40 days in the desert, he also had the wedding feast at Cana, Passover dinners, and engaged large crowds for healing and feeding. The history of Christian spirituality is varied on how to achieve this heart replacement. The desert fathers start this asceticism and reclusion. The monastics modify it by segregating themselves away from the heart of the world but certainly more engaged than the desert hermits. In the twelfth century you start getting the itinerant orders, the Franciscans, the Dominicans, the Carmelites (to a lesser degree), and then later followed by the Jesuits who engage society. And from the sixteenth century on to ours we get what I’ll call the charitable orders, the Vincentians, the Sisters of Charity, the Little Sisters of the Poor, the orders who embrace society to feed, educate, and cure the needy. One can say this culminates in Mother Teresa’s brand of spirituality. So then one can see the trajectory of Christian spirituality as going from the desert to the multitude, just as in the course of Christ’s journey.

The à Kempis way is quite narrow, and even anachronistic for its own time. However, for those that are attracted to this brand of spirituality, the book is a perfect guide. Most of us, mix and match our forms of spirituality, and so we still can get many benefits from his advice.

###

Note: I did not have any comments on Book 4, “An Invitation to Holy Communion.”

###

Final Review

I may be an outlier when it comes to The Imitation of Christ.  I don’t find it engaging, either as a devotional or as a guide.  This was my second read and it remains at three stars. 

Yes, there are parts that very spiritual.  That’s why it’s three stars and not one.  But there are also parts that are dry, very dry, parts where the advice is extremely ascetic, parts where the recommendations require disengagement from the world, and parts I felt that were semi-gnostic.  One has to balance the spiritual with the corporeal, and not everything involved with the corporeal is bad or harmful for one’s soul.  Ultimately, if we are granted heavenly existence, our bodies will be reunited with our souls, and so our bodies are not inherently base.  In many places à Kempis presents the flesh as detestable.  This didn’t sit well with me.

Perhaps part of the extreme ascetic and disengagement from the world was because of the times it was written.  In the early 15^th century, Europe was still undergoing the Black Plague, the Church was in schism, and there was a lot of social turmoil.  It was a difficult time, and what is strange is that in a time of declining monasteries, the authors of were advocating a return to monastic life.  This was completely understandable.  It was the Benedict Option of its day.  One can understand it but it feels anachronistic for today.

Besides disengagement, the authors (there are more than one under the Thomas à Kempis nom de plume) do provide consolation for a devout life.  They do coach and inspire.  This is the most read devotional in the Christian world other than the Bible, and is a must read. 

The Imitation of Christ by Thomas à Kempis, Post 3

You can find Post 1 on this read, here, 

You can find Post 2 here.  

From Book 3, “Internal Consolation”:

Comment1:

Madeleine highlighted this prayer from Book 3, chapter 3:

"Lord, teach me to do Thy will, teach me to walk humbly and uprightly before Thee, for Thou art my wisdom, who knowest me in truth, and knowest me before the world was made and before I was born into the world."

My response to Madelieine: That is a beautiful prayer. Given that pride is one of my biggest obstacles, I do on occasion ask Jesus, "Jesus, may my heart be as humble as Yours when you call."

Comment 2:

I have to tell a funny story about chapter 24. There's a Catholic blog I sometimes visit, Virginia Lieto's "Evangelizing Through the Catholic Arts." She is a Goodreads author here and one day I noticed her Goodreads page. I commented on her blog to a post where she was reviewing a book she had just read and I told her I was a moderator to this blog at Goodreads. I invited her to join and told her we were shortly starting The Imitation of Christ.

She replied that both her and her husband had read The Imitation of Christ together and that they had an inside joke. Whenever her husband looked out the window seeing what their neighbors were up to, she would just say, "Book 3, Chapter 24." And that would stop him from snooping. It became a running joke in their marriage. Now you'll have to go and see what chapter 24 is about.

You can see that exchange and check out her blog here.

  

Comment 3:

Kerstin wrote: "I'm still in the beginning of the chapter. I find I can't just "power through" the pages if I want to get anything out of them."

My response to Kerstin: I know what you mean. Chapter 3 is quite enjoyable to me. I don't seem to have any criticism. You know, there are multiple authors all absorbed under Thomas à Kempis. We have no indication who wrote what. I wonder if a different author wrote a different chapter. The three chapters so far seem to be different from each other. I don't know if it's because the focus is different or if the author's perspectives are different.

Comment 4:

Some of these passages should be highlighted. Take this from the opening chapter of Book 3. It’s the second paragraph but I’m going to separate the sentences out so you can notice the emphasis.

Blessed is the soul who hears the Lord speaking within her, who receives the word of consolation from His lips.

Blessed are the ears that catch the accents of divine whispering, and pay no heed to the murmurings of this world.

Blessed indeed are the ears that listen, not to the voice which sounds without, but to the truth which teaches within.

Blessed are the eyes which are closed to exterior things and are fixed upon those which are interior.

Blessed are they who penetrate inwardly, who try daily to prepare themselves more and more to understand mysteries.

Blessed are they who long to give their time to God, and who cut themselves off from the hindrances of the world.

As you can see this is modeled on the beatitudes. Notice how everything is inward. Everything in the book seems to deal with the isolation of the self. Compare this with Christ’s beatitudes:

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are they who mourn, for they will be comforted.

Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the land.

Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied.

Blessed are the merciful, or they will be shown mercy.

Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.

Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you [falsely] because of me.” (Matt 5:3-11)

Notice the difference. Those in à Kempis are all interiorizing virtues. It’s almost as if the outside world doesn’t exist. Look at his very next paragraph:

Consider these things, my soul, and close the door of your senses, so that you can hear what the Lord your God speaks within you. "I am your salvation," says your Beloved. "I am your peace and your life. Remain with Me and you will find peace. Dismiss all passing things and seek the eternal. What are all temporal things but snares? And what help will all creatures be able to give you if you are deserted by the Creator?" Leave all these things, therefore, and make yourself pleasing and faithful to your Creator so that you may attain to true happiness.

The theme there is to “close the door of your senses,” which in effect is to close the door to the outside world. Now Christ’s beatitudes isn’t rejecting the interior. He talks of mourning and clean of heart, which are interior virtues, but He also talks of meekness, righteousness, mercifulness. These virtues are concerned with interacting with the outside world, the outside world being your neighbor. It calls to mind Christ’s two commandments: love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself.

This book is called The Imitation of Christ. So if it ignores half of Christ’s commandment—and I say ignore, not reject, for there’s nothing I can see that rejects Christ’s second commandment—is the exhortation really being in imitation of Christ?

Comment 5:

Kerstin says in response to my comment: “The title of Book III is On Interior Consolation and the title of the Chapter 1, Christ Speaks Interiorly to the Faithful Soul. This says to me that the focus is interior. I see this whole section more in light of detachment.

Does your edition give you the Scripture quotes? In mine, which is the same as the book icon for this discussion, they are set in italics with an endnote number.”

My response to Kerstin: My edition cites the allusion but doesn't supply the text. I didn't follow up on it. The citation for me is Psalm 84:9. When I read psalms 35 and 84, they both seem very exterior to me. I really don't see the interior. "Brandish lance and battle-ax against my pursuers," that sounds exterior to me. Read the entire psalm and see if it feels interior or exterior. Maybe my perception is wrong.

Comment 6:

Here is a fine article I found this morning on how gnosticism - the heresy of the bodily as seen as evil - has infiltrated contemporary Christianity.

Read at least the first several paragraphs. To create a dichotomy of spiritual being good and corporeal being bad is not really in line with the core of Christianity. I'm not saying à Kempis and the other writers of this book are gnostic heretics, but they do drift into a semi-gnostic view of Christianity.

Here is a quote from St. Thomas Aquinas that I think says what I've been trying to say:

"We ought to cherish the body. Our body's substance is not from evil principle but from God and therefore we ought to cherish the body by a friendship of love."

Comment 7:

Kerstin says: “On the authorship of The Imitation of Christ. I re-read the intro in my copy, and it goes into it to some detail. I will give you the gist:

That Kempis is not the sole author has been asserted for some time, and there are among others three primary persons who are named in conjunction to be possible co-authors. Yet when taking a closer look the likelihood seems less certain given background, location, local language variants, etc. Kempis didn't write the 'Imitation' in one setting. Book III and VI are later compositions…”

My response to Kerstin: Thanks Kerstin. That is interesting. I guess I'll just refer to the writer as Kempis.