S ECTION IV. Comparison of Christianity with the Mosaic Religion and with Other Religions
Cap 13. Comparison of Christianity with the Mosaic Religion, with a Defense of Its Divine Origin
Single Article
Cap 14. The Divinity of Christianity Is Confirmed through a Comparison with Other Religions
On Buddhism
On Islam
Having proven the divinity of Christianity, by way of confirmation, we will now take up (1) a comparison of Christianity with the Mosaic religion, which preceded Christ’s coming and prepared for it, and (2) a comparison of true Christianity with other religions and sects. Therefore, there are two chapters in this comparative section.
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
Comparison of Christianity with the Mosaic Religion, with a Defense of Its Divine Origin
SINGLE ARTICLE {{365}}
Here, our concern will be simultaneously turned to the Mosaic religion itself as well as to primitive religion as it is testified to by Moses. The question of their divine origin is resolved in three ways:
§1. By means of extrinsic arguments (from the testimony of Christ and the apostles, and also from Moses’s miracles and prophecies)
§2. By means of intrinsic arguments (from the substantial agreement of the primitive and Mosaic religions with Christianity)
§3. By weighing out matters concerning certain difficulties1
§1. Extrinsic Arguments
(1) The testimony of Christ and the apostles. Christ and the apostles in many places cite, as divinely inspired, the books of the Old Testament, in which the primitive and Mosaic religion are contained. Jesus calls these books Scripture or the Scriptures, as though they were books par excellence, asserting that they contain the doctrine of salvation and foretell himself: “Search the scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting. And the same are they that give testimony of me” (John 5:39, DR). Likewise, using the solemn formula “It has been written,” or “It was said by God,” Christ refers to the words of Exodus (Matt 22:31–32, DR: “Have you not read that which was spoken by God, saying to you: I am the God of Abraham . . . ?”) and of Deuteronomy (Matt 4:4, 7, 10). He speaks in the same manner concerning the Law and the prophets (Luke 16:16; Matt 11:13; 22:40). Now, these are the principal parts of the Old Testament.
Similarly, Peter likewise asserts that the prophets were inspired: “For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time; but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost” (2 Pet 1:21, DR). And St. Paul says, concerning all the books that were then held by the Jews as being sacred: “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice” (2 Tim 3:16, DR).
Nor is it only the case that the Old Testament in general was approved by Christ as being inspired, but, moreover, it was held to be inspired in its particulars, as regards its principal historical facts, the Mosaic Law, and the prophecies.
(a) Christ recalls many facts from the Old Testament as being certain— for example, the killing of Abel, the flood, the promises made to Abraham, the destruction of Sodom, the appearance of God to Moses, the giving of the manna in the desert, the bronze serpent, the miracles of Elijah and Elisha, and so forth (Matt 23:35; 24:37ff; 22:31ff; Luke 11:51; 17:26ff; 20:27; 4:27; Mark 12:26; John 6:49–57; 3:14).
(b) He says concerning the law of Moses: “Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled” (Matt 5:17–18, DR; John 7:19). Indeed, he did not abolish the Mosaic Law, except as regards its ceremonial precepts, which were figures of the worship performed in the New Law.
(c) Finally, by invoking the principal prophecies of the Old Testament, Christ confirms and fulfills their own authority. Thus, he says of Moses’s prophecies: “For if you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also: for he wrote of me” (John 5:46, DR). Likewise, he commemorated the promise made to Abraham concerning the Messiah (John 8:56) and cites the various prophecies, especially Isaiah.
(2) The miracles and predictions of Moses and the prophets. The proof drawn from these signs, which were sensible and striking for their eyewitnesses, preserves its power on account of Christ’s aforementioned testimony. Nay, the historicity of these miracles and predictions, when directly considered, cannot be disproven, and they are defended by Catholic exegetes.2 For our aims here, it suffices that we merely refer to the principal facts that are recounted in the Old Testament.
{{366}} A. Moses was called by God, who appeared to him in the symbolic form of the burning bush that remained unscathed, to liberate the Israelite people from Egypt (Exod 3:1; 4:23). He performed many wonders in Egypt: he sent ten plagues to this land, each of which, as he predicted, began and ended at his command, leaving the Israelites intact, even though they lived among the Egyptians (Exod 7:1; 12:32). However, going forth from among the Egyptian people, Moses dried up the sea by striking it with his staff, thus leading the great host of the Israelites through the midst of the sea (Exod 14:16–31). Then, through his very voice upon Mount Sinai, which all the people heard, God promulgated the ten precepts (Exod 19:16). Thereafter, new signs followed—for example, the column that led them along the way (Exod 13:21–22), the manna in the desert (Num 11:4–9; Deut 8:3; Exod 16:13–19), the water that came forth from the rock that had been struck (Num 20:7–13; Deut 1:37), and the destruction of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, whom the earth swallowed up (Num 16:1–23).
Moreover, Moses foretold these miracles, at least the principal ones—namely, the plagues in Egypt (Exod 8–10), the passing through the Red Sea (Exod 14:13), the dreadful ruin of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (Num 16:28), the abundance of manna appearing each day for all the people (Exod 16:4–5; 16:12), and many others that exceeded the powers of merely human foresight (Num 14:29–30; 26:64). However, these predictions of the miracles were concerned with the work of liberation undertaken by Moses or were given in order to encourage adherence to the Mosaic Law and therefore confirm its divine origin.
B. THE PROPHETS also performed many miracles in confirmation of their divine missions. They healed the ill without making use of natural means (2 Kgs 5:1–14), sent diseases to punish wrongdoers (2 Kgs 5:27), prayed for abundant rain after the skies had been closed for three years (1 Kgs 18:42–45), and made fire descend from heaven to devour their offerings (1 Kgs 18:37–39). Daniel was preserved unharmed in the lion’s den (Dan 6). Many other examples could be cited as well.
{{367}} Likewise, the prophets3 confirmed their mission through predictions that were borne out by the events that followed soon upon them. Thus, Elijah predicted the drought that lasted for three years and six months (1 Kgs 17:1). Isaiah foretold the overthrow of Sennacherib, which happened soon thereafter (2 Kgs 19:19–37). Likewise, Jeremiah predicted the death of Hananiah (Jer 28:16–17), the destruction of Babylon (Jer 50:1–52, 64), and the captivity of the Jews that was to last for seventy years (Jer 25:11). Likewise, Micah and Daniel announced the fates of various peoples (Mic 1:1–16; 3:12; 4:10; Dan. 7:1–12).
These various signs confirmed for the Jews the divine mission of Moses and the prophets, and for us as well, their value, confirmed by Christ’s testimony, cannot be disproven. Moreover, we can also draw a significant confirmation of this from intrinsic arguments on its behalf.
§2. Intrinsic Arguments
The divine origin of primitive and Mosaic religion is manifested from their excellence, inasmuch as they are substantially in harmony with Christianity and predict it. In this section, we must (1) set forth the fact itself, and then (2) inquire into the reason for it.4
(1) Mosaic religion and even primitive religion are substantially in harmony with Christianity and announce it.
A. PRIMITIVE RELIGION, which was revealed to our first parents the patriarchs, is summarized as follows by the Book of Genesis:
(a) God is one, the Creator of heaven and earth and the Lord of all things (Gen 1:1ff), thus ruling out polytheism. All things that he has made were good from the beginning (Gen 1:10, 12, 21), thus ruling out dualism (i.e., the existence of an evil principle). He is the Provident Ruler of all things, the Supreme Lawgiver, a Judge who pays back the just and punishes the wicked (Gen 2:16, 17; 3:14ff).
(b) Man was made in the image of God (Gen 1:26–27) and therefore was endowed with a spiritual and immortal soul,5 established at the beginning in a state higher than the present [fallen state] and endowed with dominion over all created things,6 and he was made capable of good and evil so that he may find his end in being united to God through charity and freely willed obedience (Gen 2:15–16). {{368}} Marriage was instituted by God himself as a sacred contract of two people in an indissoluble bond (Gen 2:24). However, man unhappily transgressed the divine command and through sin fell from his first dignity into the worst misery, along with all of his offspring (Gen 3:1–24). Nevertheless, God gave him room for penance and promised his liberation (Gen 3:14–15).
(c) The precepts were either natural or positive. The first is that God is to be adored, loved, feared, and shown gratitude, and his commands must be followed (Gen. 2:16; 3:13; etc.). Already at the time of Abel, sacrifices were offered to God (Gen 4:3–4), and Abraham was commanded to perform circumcision as a sign of the covenant between God and the Chosen People (Gen 17).
The Christian religion can be observed in this primitive religion as though in a kind of nucleus. “All the articles of faith are contained in certain primary credibilia, namely, that it be believed that God exists and exercises providence concerning the salvation of mankind, according to the words of Heb 11:6 (DR), ‘He that cometh to God must believe that he is: and is a rewarder to them that seek him.’”7 * * *
B. THE MOSAIC RELIGION. Since the primitive religion was gradually corrupted, leading to the appearance of various superstitions and forms of idolatry, in order to ensure that true religion might remain at least somewhere, God specially elected Abraham’s family and the people of Israel as the guardian of revelation. Thence was the Mosaic religion born, as a kind of renewal of the primitive religion and a preparation for Christian revelation. Its principal headings can be expressed as follows:
(a) God’s nature and unity is declared in such a way that nothing more sublime could be thought: I am who am (Exod 3:4). All idolatry and superstition are ruled out: “You will have no foreign gods before me” (Exod 20:3). God is preached everywhere to be the Creator and Governor of the universe, the Lord of all things (Deut 4:35–39), eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, present to all men (Deut 15:1–19; 29:45; 32:1–43), most holy, zealous for his law (Exod 20:5; 34:14) but “merciful and gracious, patient and of much compassion, and true” (Exod 34:6–7, DR), and “He doth judgment to the fatherless and the widow” (Deut 10:18, DR).
(b) Man was created in God’s image so that through love and fear of God and observation of the divine commands he might enter into a close relationship with God. Moses insists upon the temporal sanctions established for the whole of the Israelite people, but he is not unaware of the immortality of the soul but instead presupposes it, for example, when he expressly prohibits “seek[ing] the truth from the dead” (Deut 18:11, DR). {{369}} And Christ himself authoritatively declares the sense of Exodus 3:6 when, in opposition to the Sadducees who denied the immortality of the soul, he said: “Have you not read that which was spoken by God, saying to you: I am, ἐγώ ∊ἰμι, the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead but of the living’” (Matt 22:31– 32, DR; Mark 12:26ff; Luke 20:37ff).
(c) The commandments. The greatest and first commandment in the law is “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole strength” (Deut 6:5, DR; 11:13). However, the second is “Thou shalt love thy friend (that is, thy neighbor) as thyself. . . . If a stranger dwell in your land and abide among you, . . . you shall love him as yourselves” (Lev 19:18, 33–34, DR). “On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets” (Matt 22:40, DR). From these two first precepts flow all the various obligations of the Decalogue (Exod 20), which is a compendium of the whole law. 8 These obligations toward God are: “Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing. . . . Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. . . . Remember that thou keep holy the sabbath day.” Those toward our neighbors are: “Honor thy father and thy mother. . . . Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house; neither shalt thou desire his wife.” Likewise, the Mosaic Law commends kindness toward the poor, orphans, and widows (Exod 23:10–11; Deut 15:7; etc.), toward laborers, old men, the deaf and the blind, foreign peoples (Lev 19:13–33), enemies (Exod 23:4), and even toward animals too (Deut 25:4).
(d) Worship is ordered to the acknowledgment and adoration of God’s supreme excellence, to the confirmation of faith, to penance, and to the fostering of justice and love of God. In this way, various sacrifices are determined, in which we see none of the cruelty, obscenity, or superstition that is found in the Gentiles’ worship of their gods (Lev 23 and 25). The priests, with the high priest who is in charge of them, along with the Levites, are consecrated to God through a special rite (Lev 8:1ff; Num 16:5ff). However, since revelation had not yet come to a close but, rather, developed up to the coming of the Messiah, God promised that he was going to send prophets to the Israelite people (Deut 18:9ff).
(e) The Mosaic religion announces Christianity. Indeed, not only is it substantially in harmony with Christianity as regards its dogmas concerning God, the salvation of man, and the commandments, but as becomes increasingly clearer through the messianic prophecies, the whole of the Mosaic religion exists as a preparation and figure of Christianity. Indeed, even before the prophets, Moses foretold Christ’s coming: “The Lord thy God will raise up to thee a prophet of thy nation and of thy brethren like unto me. Him thou shalt hear” (Deut 18:14–20; see John 1:45; 4:25; 5:46; 6:14; and 7:40; Acts 3:22ff; 7:37).
Nay, as St. Thomas shows:
Although in some respects one or other of the prophets was greater than Moses, nonetheless, simply speaking, Moses was greater than all (the prophets). . . . {{370}} (1) First, as regards the intellectual vision, for . . . as is said in Numbers 12:8, he saw God “plainly and not by riddles” (Num 12:8, DR). (2) As regards the imaginary vision that he, as it were, had at his beck and call, for not only did he hear words, but he also saw one speaking to him in the form of God. Indeed, this was so not only while he was asleep but took place even when he was awake. Whence, it is written in Exodus 33:11(DR) that “the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man is wont to speak to his friend.” (3) As regards his declaration, for he spoke to the whole people of believers in the person of God, as one proposing the law anew. However, the other Prophets spoke to the people in the person of God as people leading them to observe Moses’s law, in accord with the words of Malachi 4:4 (DR), “Remember the law of Moses my servant.” (4) As regards the working of miracles, which he performed for a whole nation of unbelievers. Whence it is written in Deuteronomy 34:10–11 (DR), “There arose no more a prophet in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face: in all the signs and wonders, which he sent by him, to do in the land of Egypt to Pharaoh, and to all his servants, and to his whole land.” 9
Comparing Moses with David, St. Thomas adds: “Moses’s vision was more excellent as regards his knowledge of the divinity, but David knew and expressed the mysteries of Christ’s incarnation more fully.” However, Moses did announce Christ.
Hence, Jesus said: “If you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also, for he wrote of me” (John 5:46, DR). “Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill” (Matt 5:17, DR). Hence, St. Thomas says, in sum: “The divine law is divided into the old and new law, not as into different species of law but, rather, as into that which is imperfect and that which is perfect in one and the same species.”10 Hence, St. Paul says in Galatians 3:24 (DR): “The law was our pedagogue in Christ.”
(2) The divine origin of Mosaic religion, as well as of primitive religion, is clearly manifest based on its excellence and its foretelling of Christianity.
A. The excellence of Jewish monotheism.
(a) Negatively. Based on what was said above, it is clear that the Mosaic religion can in no respect be alleged to be unworthy of God as regards its dogmas, commands, and worship.
(b) Positively. Although, absolutely speaking, monotheism could be known and demonstrated by reason alone, nonetheless, as we showed earlier, 11 revelation is morally necessary so that men may know the sum of the natural truths about God readily, with firm certitude, and with no admixture of error. Now, through Moses’s teaching, only the Israelites, despite the fact that they often were aroused to polytheism, nonetheless knew—readily, with firm certitude, and with no admixture of error—monotheism and the sum of the natural truths of religion. Therefore, divine revelation was morally necessary in order for them to arrive at this knowledge, which was perfect, not simply speaking but, rather, for their time.12
This argument, which is set forth by all apologetes,13 heeding all circumstances, is utterly valid. Indeed, (1) no other people has adhered to the worship of the one God for a long time, but, rather, the whole world has dwelt in the errors of polytheism, idolatry, and superstition. {{371}} (2) Nay, the most illustrious Greek and Roman philosophers, even after the passing of many centuries, never arrived at such perfect knowledge concerning God. Their early philosophers were materialists, gradually entering into knowledge of the truth. Plato and Aristotle did indeed affirm the existence of the one, utterly perfect God, but they did not manage to elevate themselves to the doctrine of creation,14 above all free creation. Nor did they manage to arrive at a perfect notion of providence, ordering and permitting all things, even the most particular. (3) By contrast, Moses, a Jewish man educated among the Egyptians who were devoted to their fetishism and lacking Greek science, wrote at the beginning of Genesis: “In the beginning, God created heaven and earth. . . . And God said: let there be light. . . .” Likewise, he laid out the various divine attributes of wisdom, holiness, justice, mercy, and so forth, as well as the supreme duties of men and their secondary duties. (4) The necessity of divine revelation will appear with greater clarity if we consider the fact that the Israelites were often roused to polytheism, both by the example of the neighboring Gentiles, as well as on account of their own propensities, but nonetheless, on account of Moses’s doctrine and zeal, they managed to preserve monotheism invincibly. At this time, when all true religion was at its lowest point, as well as all moral discipline, the Israelites could not have, without divine revelation and supernatural assistance, conceived of this perfect knowledge of God and, notwithstanding the innumerable difficulties involved, preserve it.15
Evolutionists, as will be discussed below, hold a priori16 that Israel, like all peoples, was at first devoted to a form of animism, then polydaemonism, then totemism, then fetishism, and then finally polytheism, all before arriving at superior forms of religion and monotheism. However, this evolutionistic conception of things is nothing other than the gratuitous denial of the supernatural order, neglecting the testimony of the prophets who openly declare that they wish to do nothing more than restore the ancient form of worship. Moreover, even if Israel had at first been devoted to a form of idolatry, how then, later on, at the time of the prophets, eight centuries before Christ, when all peoples held a form of polytheism or dualism, did the Israelites alone, without any special intervention from God, manage to admit monotheism and preserve it unconquerably?17 (See the final objection discussed below in the resolution to the objections.)
{{372}} B. The divine origin of the religion of Israel is clearly manifest from the way it foretells Christianity. Indeed, not only does Moses’s teaching contain the sum of the truths that pertain to natural religion but also includes truths that absolutely exceed created understanding, for Moses in fact speaks not only about the providence of God the author of nature but also about properly supernatural providence, which disposes and confers supernatural aids for the sake of salvation, likewise promising that prophets are to be sent to the Israelite people (Deut 18:9–22). Now, the prophets did in fact come as Moses announced, and as we set forth earlier, they themselves predicted with increasing clarity the universal propagation of monotheism and the kingdom of God through Christ, describing his characteristics, gifts, works, and Passion. However, this preaching, which was fulfilled in Christianity, exceeded all the powers of reason. Moreover, it cannot be said to be diabolical in origin but instead is clearly divine, in view of its object, as well as its end, circumstances, and fruits. As St. Thomas states, “It is clear that one and the same thing disposes something to its end and ultimately leads it thereto, and by ‘the same,’ I mean either by itself or through its subjects . . . . Therefore, the Old Law was given by the same God, by whom salvation is given to man through the grace of Christ.”18
§3. Objections
A. A priori objections from evolutionism, as well as against the suitability of the divine election of the Jewish people.
1. Objection: Evolutionists hold that men gradually proceeded from animality to rational life and likewise hold that all peoples first were devoted to animism, then polydaemonism, then to totemism, and then to fetishism, afterwards passing through polytheism so as to arrive at the superior forms of religion. Now, they add: Israel is a people just like all others. Therefore, it first adhered to fetishism and idolatry thereafter, honoring their national deity, and finally, at the time of the prophets, came to hold that there is only one God. {{373}}
Response: As regards the major premise, (a) above, we refuted the principles of evolution, for the more cannot be produced from the less, nor the more perfect from the less perfect, nor rational life from animal life. Human intelligence and morality presuppose an intelligent and moral cause, the just and holy God. (b) The history of religions in no way proves that primitive religion was first inferior, taking on the form of animism, totemism, or fetishism. Indeed, these forms of idolatry could just as well arise from the corruption of primitive religion, as is asserted in Genesis 6:1.19 (c) Nay, the history of many religions, especially those of the Egyptian and Babylonian peoples, bears witness not to ascending progress in their conception of God but, on the contrary, regression from imperfect monotheism to polytheism.20
However, we deny the minor premise of the objection. As regards its religion, Israel was not like other peoples. It alone in antiquity gave expression to monotheism as its truly national and popular religion. However, as we have already said, this cannot be explained without there having been some special intervention by God, something that, in fact, is affirmed by Moses and the prophets.
Insistence: (a) However, if God were to have revealed monotheism from the beginning, then he would have preserved this religion, at least among a number of peoples. Nothing like this is found in the narrative of Genesis 4–9, which is concerned with the progressive corruption of humanity. Now, this seems to be contrary to the right order of divine providence. (b) Moreover, God would have been playing favorites if, among all the peoples, he had chosen to heap his benefits solely upon the Israelite peoples, rejecting all other nations.
Response: (a) It does not fall to man to determine the ways of God’s providence. As St. Paul said, “How incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counsellor?” (Rom 11:33). It suffices that we know the general reason why God permits or does not impede evils to be done. As St. Augustine said, “Since God is the highest good, he would not permit any evil to exist in his works unless his omnipotence and goodness were such that he would also be able to draw good from evil.”21 For, as St. Thomas adds,22 God permits evil to be done so that he might draw something better therefrom. Thus, it is said in Romans 5:20 (DR), “Where sin abounded, grace did more abound,”23 and likewise, in the blessing of the paschal candle [in the Roman rite], we say, “O happy fault, which merited us so great a Redeemer!” {{374}} (b) As regards the election of the people of Israel, God does not play favorites, for, as St. Thomas says, “In things which are given gratuitously, someone can give more or less, as he pleases, provided he deprives nobody of what is owed to him, without thereby infringing justice in any way. Indeed, this is what the master of the house said: ‘Take what is thine and go thy way. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will?’ (Matt 20:14–15, DR).” However, God manifests himself to all men through his works: “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. His eternal power also and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God or given thanks: but became vain in their thoughts. And their foolish heart was darkened” (Rom 1:20–21, DR). Moreover, God manifested himself in a supernatural way to our first parents, and the vestiges of this primitive religion more or less remained in various peoples. Furthermore, the Gentiles were able, with the aid of grace, to have “implicit faith in the mediator concerning divine providence, believing that God is the liberator of men in ways that are pleasing to Himself, in accord with what the Spirit would reveal to those who knew the truth.”24
However, why was the Law given to the Jewish people rather than to others? St. Thomas responds:
It was fitting that the people from whom Christ would be born should be marked out by a special sanctification, in accord with the words of Leviticus 19:2 (DR): “Be ye holy, because I . . . am holy.” Moreover, nor was it on account of Abraham’s own merits that this promise was made to him, namely, that Christ should be born from his seed. Rather, it was on account of God’s own gratuitous election and calling. . . . Therefore, it is evident that it was merely from a gratuitous election that the patriarchs received the promise and that the people who sprung from them received the law (see Deut 4:36– 37). . . . However, if it is again asked why He chose this people and not another so that Christ might be born from them, a fitting answer is given by Augustine (in Tract. super Joan., 26): “If you wish to avoid error, do not look to judge why he draws one man and not another.”25
Insistence: However, the divine law must exclude nobody from the worship of God. Now, the Mosaic Law says: “The Ammonite and the Moabite, even after the tenth generation shall not enter into the church of the Lord forever” (Deut 23:3, DR).
Response: In sum, St. Thomas says26 the Old Law excludes nobody from the worship of God but only from the temporal things that were proper to the Jewish people. Thus, it is said in Exodus 12:48 (DR): “If any stranger be willing to dwell among you, and to keep the Phase of the Lord, all his males shall first be circumcised, and then shall he celebrate it according to the manner: and he shall be as he that is born in the land.”
B. A posteriori objections. These can be drawn from the imperfection of the Mosaic conception of God, the soul, and the moral law.
1. Objection: Moses presents God as being: (a) a kind of rival, greedy for sacrifices; (b) unjust, approving of the plundering of the Egyptians by the Israelites, rewarding the lies of the Egyptian midwives, and punishing sins to the third and fourth generation; (c) the author of sins, blinding and hardening people’s hearts at his good pleasure; (d) nay, a cruel God who ordered that the Canaanite peoples be extinguished by a bloody death.
Response: (a) Moses says that God is a zealous rival not on account of God’s greed but, rather, inasmuch as he alone wishes to be loved, honored, and adored above all things from the whole of man’s heart, something that God could never fail to wish, since he himself is the Highest Good, to be loved above all. As regards sacrifices, they are prescribed inasmuch as external cult is a due manifestation of interior religion. However, the Jews were thoroughly taught, from their infancy, that God does not have need of them.
{{375}} (b) As regards the Egyptian vessels spoken of in Exodus 12:36, it is not clear from the text itself whether they were given to the Israelites or were taken [accomodata] by them. However, even in the latter case, God, as the true and independent Lord of things and men, was able to take these vessels from the Egyptians on account of their sins and give them to the Israelites in reward for their labor. 27 God did not reward the midwives on account of their lies but, rather, as we read in Exodus 1:21: “Because they feared God and did not wish to follow Pharaoh’s unjust command.” However, the words by which God is said to “visit the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me” (Exod 20:5, DR) do not mean that God inflicts spiritual punishments upon innocent children. Rather, as St. Thomas says, the sins of fathers are said to be inflicted upon their sons, “because sons who are reared on the sins of their parents are themselves more prone to sin . . . and likewise are deserving of greater punishment if, seeing their parents’ punishment they do not amend their way of life.”28 (c) If God is said to blind and harden, this must not be understood as meaning that God moves men to sin but, rather, that in punishment for their sin and perversity, he withdraws illumination of the soul and good inspirations.29 The words God tempts men mean that he proves them. (d) As regards the objection drawn from the annihilation of the Canaanites, a response can be drawn from Wisdom 12:3–11 (DR): “For those ancient inhabitants of thy holy land, whom thou didst abhor, because they did works hateful to thee . . . those merciless murderers of their own children . . . it was thy will to destroy by the hands of our parents. . . . For it was a cursed seed from the beginning: neither didst thou for fear of any one give pardon to their sins.”
Insistence: However, Yahweh, whom Moses proposed to the Jews as a God to be adored, was not the supreme Lord of heaven and earth but, rather, a God who was particular to the Jewish people, a national God,30 indeed powerful and terrible, but cruel. In fact, he called for the sacrifice of the son of Abraham and accepted the son of Jephthah as a victim.
Response: (a) Although Moses referred Yahweh to the Jewish people in a special manner, nonetheless, he simultaneously and everywhere represented him as being the Most Perfect Being, the Creator, Ruler, and Governor of all things and men: “God said to Moses: I am who am” (Exod 3:14ff). “The Lord your God did great things for you in Egypt, before thy eyes. . . . That thou mightest know that the Lord he is God, and there is no other besides him” (Deut 4:35, DR, altered). “Behold heaven is the Lord’s thy God, and the heaven of heaven, the earth and all things that are therein. And yet the Lord hath been closely joined to thy fathers, and loved them and chose their seed after them, that is to say, you, out of all nations, as this day it is proved. Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and stiffen your neck no more. Because the Lord your God he is the God of gods, and the Lord of lords, a great God and mighty and terrible, who accepteth no person nor taketh bribes” (Deut 10:14–17, DR). Then justice and mercy are immediately added among God’s moral attributes: “He doth judgment to the fatherless and the widow, loveth the stranger, and giveth him food and raiment.” Likewise, “See ye that I alone am, and there is no other God besides me” (Deut 32:39, DR). (b) As regards human sacrifices, they are neither prescribed nor permitted anywhere in the Mosaic Law. Nay, they are prohibited with threat of the gravest punishments: “Thou shalt not do in like manner to the Lord thy God. For they have done to their gods all the abominations which the Lord abhorreth, offering their sons and daughters, and burning them with fire” (Deut 12:31, DR). (c) However, “when Abraham consented to kill his son, he did not consent to commit murder, for it was just that his son be killed at the command of God who is the Lord of life and death.”31 {{376}} Moreover, since God supplied another victim once Abraham’s obedience was proven, this shows well enough that human victims are in no way pleasing to him.32 (d) Finally, regarding Jephthah, who offered his son as a victim on account of a rash vow (Judg 11:30– 39), this fact is opposed to the command of the Law and nowhere was it declared that God accepted a victim of this kind.
2. Objection: The laws of Moses are too accurate in defining things, even minute and indifferent ones, especially for many ceremonies, as though these were a matter of the greatest importance. Now, it is unworthy of God to be so scrupulously concerned with such insignificant things.
Response: With St. Thomas, we can say:
It was expedient that the Old Law should contain many ceremonial precepts, for many of the people were prone to idolatry. Whence, they needed to be called back from the worship of idols to the worship of God by means of the ceremonial precepts. Likewise, since men served idols in many ways, it was moreover necessary that many means of repressing every single one be devised. . . . However, as to those who were inclined to good, it was again necessary there be many ceremonial precepts, both because their minds were thus turned toward God in many ways and more continually, and also, because the mystery of Christ, which was foreshadowed by these ceremonial precepts, brought many good and useful things to the world, giving men many things to consider, things which needed to be signified by various ceremonies.33
By contrast, “the New Law is called the law of faith insofar as its preeminence is derived from that very grace which is given inwardly to believers and for this reason is called the grace of faith. Nevertheless, it does consist secondarily in certain deeds which are both moral and sacramental. However, the New Law does not consist chiefly in these latter things, as did the Old Law.”34
Hence, Christ said to the Samaritan woman: “The hour cometh and now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth” (John 4:23, DR). True adorers will adore not in ceremonies and sensible figures but in spirit and truth. Thus, gradually, true worship rises from sensible things to spiritual ones, from the multiplicity of figures to the unity of the divine reality.
3. Objection: However, Mosaic religion seemed to teach nothing concerning the immortality of the soul and the future life, which nonetheless must be counted as belonging among the fundamental truths of religion. Rather, what is principally promised in the Old Testament are temporal goods.
Response: (a) St. Thomas says, “The Old Law disposed men to Christ, as the imperfect disposes to the perfect. Therefore, the Jewish people is compared to a child that is still under a pedagogue (Gal 3:24). [Now, man’s perfection consists in despising temporal things and cleaving to spiritual ones. . . .] However, those who are still imperfect desire temporal goods, though in subordination to God.”35 “Therefore, immediately at the start of the law, the people were invited to the earthly kingdom of the Canaanites (Exod 3:8–17). . . , while at the very beginning of Christ’s preaching, He invited men to the kingdom of heaven, saying ‘Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand’ (Matt 4:17, DR).”36 However, the Old Testament’s temporal promises were figures of the spiritual goods of the New Law, as St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10:6–11. (b) Moreover, even if the books of Moses do not say much about the immortality of the soul and the future life, they nonetheless suppose them, as we said above in §2. For they teach that man is made in the image of God and that God “breathed into his face the breath of life” (Gen 2:7, DR). {{377}} The patriarchs speak of the time “of their sojourning” (Gen 47:9), as it were, “sojourners and strangers on the earth,” as St. Paul says (Heb 11:13–16). Mourning over his son Joseph, Jacob said, “I will go down to my son into hell (sheol)” (Gen 37:35, DR), which designates nothing other than the place prepared for the dead; nor is it a question merely of the grave, for Jacob thought that a wild beast had devoured Joseph. Likewise, as his death approached, he declared, “I will look for thy salvation, O Lord” (Gen 49:18, DR). In various places, the dead are said to proceed and go to their fathers, to their people (Num 20:26; 31:2; 30:24; etc.) Finally, Moses prohibited “seek[ing] the truth from the dead” (Deut 18:11, DR). The promulgation of the doctrine concerning the immortality of the soul was not made through Moses, for this truth was already had from primitive revelation and had been preserved not only in the families of the patriarchs but even in many Gentiles, as we see in the writings of the Egyptians, the Babylonians, and the Greeks.37 However, at the time of Moses, much less had been revealed concerning the state of the soul after death and the future life of the just. Later on, Job said: “For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and in the last day I shall rise out of the earth. And I shall be clothed again with my skin, and in my flesh I shall see my God” (Job 19:25–26, DR). Then Daniel more clearly announced: “Many of those that sleep in the dust of the earth, shall awake: some unto life everlasting, and others unto reproach, to see it always. But they that are learned, shall shine as the brightness of the firmament: and they that instruct many to justice, as stars for all eternity” (Dan 12:2–3; likewise, 2 Macc 7:9; 12:44). Likewise, see Isaiah 26:19 and 25:8, as well as Daniel 12:1.
4. Objection: Finally, as regards morals, the Mosaic Law does not seem to be worthy of God, for it favors slavery and permits polygamy and divorce. Moreover, it is said to be “a law of fear.” However, God should be loved more than feared.
Response: (a) Moses did indeed tolerate slavery, but he highly mitigated it. Hence, the state of slavery was much milder among the Jews than it was in all other nations: “If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve thee; in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing” (Exod 21:2, 11, DR). (b) Likewise, the Mosaic Law restricted polygamy, to the degree it was possible at that time and among that people; however, it did not at all foster it. As regards divorce, by God’s own decree, under the law of Moses it was not permitted to repudiate one’s wife; however, on account of the Jews’ “hardness of heart,” it was permitted to them so that a greater evil might be avoided.38 Moreover, many restrictions were placed on divorce, and wives were protected against the caprices of men (see Deut 24:1–4). (c) Additionally, we do not contend that the Mosaic Law was perfect simply speaking but instead was perfect for that time and for the Jewish people. Thus, as a law of fear, it was the path to the Gospel Law, which is called the law of love: “The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom” (Ps 110:10). As St. Thomas says:
Nevertheless, there were some in the state of the Old Covenant who, having charity and the grace of the Holy Ghost, looked chiefly to spiritual and eternal promises. In this respect they belonged to the New Law. Likewise, in the New Covenant there are some carnal men who have not yet attained to the perfection of the New Law, men who even in the New Covenant needed to be led to virtuous action by the fear of punishment and by temporal promises. However, although the Old Law contained precepts of charity, nevertheless it did not confer the Holy Ghost by Whom “charity . . . is spread abroad in our hearts” (Rom 5:5, DR).
{{378}} Hence, notwithstanding these imperfections, the Mosaic religion was, for a time of idolatry, so excellent as regards its dogmas, commands, and worship that it cannot not be explained without divine revelation.
5. Objection: Many rationalists, like Delitzsch (Babel und Bibel, 1902) hold that the biblical account of creation, the life of the first man in paradise, his sin, and so forth, were taken from Babylonian and Assyrian myths. They say that it is probable that these myths were accepted by the Israelites and were gradually cleansed of their polytheism.
Response: On this matter, many things have been written by Catholic critics. See, for example, the works of Fr. Marie-Joseph Lagrange, as well as those of Condamin, SchmidtLemonnyer, Hetzenauer, and Nikel.39
As is clear from all these works, although the Israelites were aware of the myths held by the Gentiles, the biblical narrative could not have been drawn from them for the following reasons. (a) In all of the various cosmogonies of the Gentiles, even in the laws of Hammurabi, polytheism was taught, whereas, by contrast, the biblical cosmogony teaches pure monotheism. (b) In all the myths, eternal material elements are presupposed, not created ones, whereas in Genesis, it is said that God created ex nihilo, at the beginning of time. Nor were any of the Gentile philosophers able to arrive at this conception of creation. (c) As regards man’s original state and sin, there are certain likenesses here, though also evident differences, and nowhere do we find the moral and religious elevation and simplicity that appear in the first chapters of Genesis.
Now, these likenesses can be explained not only through the aspirations that are shared by all men but also through the primitive tradition that, according to Genesis, comes from 1 2 Adam. As Hetzenauer says, “After the confusion of tongues and dispersion of the peoples, men conformed the accounts from primitive tradition to their times and places, as well as their own thoughts and circumstances, so that various traditions came to be found among various peoples (cf. Dillman, Genesis 49). From these various traditions, the inspired author, illuminated by God, selected the pure and original account and opposed it to the depraved accounts.”40
However, the dissimilarities and utterly lofty elevation of the biblical narrative are so obvious that it cannot be rationally explained how the Jewish people, less developed than other peoples, were able to arrive, through some natural development, at so perfect a conception concerning God, the production of the world, and man.41
In other words, from one perfect principle, many imperfect fragments arose, though not vice versa. To put it another way, the lofty, simple, and comprehensive biblical narrative was not naturally constituted from such imperfect fragments.
Therefore, this objection does not diminish the arguments by which the divine origin of Mosaic religion and primitive religion is proven. On the contrary, these new studies continually and more fully show the excellence and transcendence of the biblical account in comparison with all other ancient religions of the East. Now, however, we must compare Christianity with other religions existing today.
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario