Significance of sandals in Book of Ruth and Gospels

 

 

The meaning of it is wonderfully explained in the context of the Levirate Law in the article, “Whose Sandal Strap I am Not Worthy to Untie”, to be found at:

http://ourladyofwisdom.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/levirate.pdf

 

The book by the prominent Spanish scripture scholar Luis Alonso-Schokel called I Nomi Dell'Amore (The Names of Love) provides a fascinating and spiritually rich look at marriage symbols in the bible. I’d like to offer a brief summary of some of the insights of the chapter from that book entitled "The Levirate."

 

Schokel begins by noticing 5 similar texts from the New Testament all dealing with St. John the Baptist:

Matthew 3:11 he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry

Mark 1:7 After me comes he who is mightier than I, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie

Luke 3:16 he who is mightier than I is coming, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

John 1:27 even he who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie.

 

Acts 13:25 after me one is coming, the sandals of whose feet I am not worthy to untie.

Now any text repeated in all of the gospels (and the book of Acts too) must have a grand significance. Most people will see it as illustrating the humility of the Baptist, unworthy to untie the sandals of the Lord, but several internal hints point to a deeper, more profound answer.

Schokel points out three textual clues:

 

1) In John 1:30 the Baptist speaks of Christ as, "This is he of whom I said, `After me comes a man who ranks before me, for he was before me.'" The word translated as "man" here is not the Greek word "anthropos" usually translated as man, instead it is "aner" a word, as Schokel points out, having more of a "sexual" (in the sense of gender) or relational meaning. It isn't man, but "male" (maschio in Italian); a male in relation to a female. The passage would better be translated in English, "After me comes a male who ranks before me." [John the Baptist is the "anthropos" - see John 1:6, 3:27]. Schokel also points out the references in John 1-3 to Isaiah 40-66, esp. chapter 54:1-10, where Yahweh is referred to as the Bridegroom/husband and in the LXX, the "aner")

 

2) At least in the synoptics the word "unworthy" or "unfit" has a juridical sense. That word is "ikanos" while John uses "axios." So it seems to be more of unfitness according to some type of Judaic law, and with the use of "aner" possibly a marital law.

 

3) Looking a few chapters down, we come to the last words of John recorded in the gospel. In responding to questions as to who this Jesus is, he responds, "You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before him. He who has the bride is the bridegroom; the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom's voice; therefore this joy of mine is now full" (John 3:28-29). John here is challenging Israel's Messianic expectations - they expect their Christ to come as a political leader, or a warrior, or even a prophet like John the Baptist, but John says this is incorrect. He says that the messiah will come as the Bridegroom of his bride Israel; ultimately that Israel has the wrong expectations.

 

So keeping all of this in mind: the repeated reference to untying of sandals, the "maleness" of Christ, the juridical context, and the spousal-messianism John uses to describe the Christ, Schokel (along with the Fathers) exegetes this text in light of the Levirate Law in the Old Testament.

 

The Levirate Law (derived from Latin levir, meaning "a husband's brother") is the name of an ancient custom ordained by Moses, by which, when an Israelite died without issue, his surviving brother was required to marry the widow, so as to continue his brother's family through the son that might be born of that marriage (Gen 38:8; De 25:5-10 ) comp. (Ruth 3:1 4:10) Its object was "to raise up seed to the departed brother."

But if the surviving brother refused (for whatever reason) to marry the widow, a rite called "Halizah" would occur. Deut 25:5-10 describes the Levirate and Halizah:

"If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no offspring, the wife of the dead shall not be married outside the family to a stranger; her husband's brother shall go in to her, and take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her.

And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his brother who is dead, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. And if the man does not wish to take his brother's wife, then his brother's wife shall go up to the gate to the elders, and say, `My husband's brother refuses to perpetuate his brother's name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband's brother to me.' Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak to him: and if he persists, saying, `I do not wish to take her,' then his brother's wife shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot, and spit in his face; and she shall answer and say, `So shall it be done to the man who does not build up his brother's house.' And the name of his house shall be called in Israel, The house of him that had his sandal pulled off" (Deuteronomy 25:5-10).

The sandal is the key - the sandal is symbolic of he who has the right to marriage. The one who wears the sandal is the Bridegroom. As St. Cyprian said, this is why both Moses (Ex 3:2-6) and Joshua (John 5:13-15) were told by Yaweh that they had to remove their sandals; although they might have been prophets, they were not the one who had the right to marry Israel the Bride. In saying that he is not fit (juridically) to remove the sandal from Jesus' foot he is saying that Jesus is the bridegroom, he is the one who has the right to marriage, not John - even though he came first.

"Even though he came first" - John admits to this, being the precursor of the Messiah-Bridegroom, but he is not the one that will marry the bride (as he is not the Messiah, as some of the Jews had thought). To understand this better (and the entire Levirate process) one must look to the book of Ruth. In it, the widow Ruth is set to marry her "next of kin" via the levirate law, but Boaz arrived first to claim Ruth. It does not matter though, the next of kin has first choice. But he decides to pass up the marriage to Ruth, and gives her to Boaz. And in doing so he "drew off his sandal" (Ruth 4:8). Even though John came first, Jesus is the one with the right to the woman, and he opts for the marriage - and thus does not remove his sandal. John will not be given the chance to take his place.

This interpretation of these passages are not new, as Schokel points out. Several of the Fathers, including Jerome, Cyprian, and Gregory all see the Levirate law being referred to in the passages about John the Baptist. As Jerome writes, "being as that Christ is the Bridegroom, John the Baptist is not merited to untie the laces of the bridegroom's sandal, in order that, according to the law of Moses (as seen with Ruth) his house will not be called "the house of the un-sandaled," [a reference to the refusal to carry on the name of the deceased brother].

So, if John is not the messiah-bridegroom, and is unfit to untie the bridegroom's sandals, as the "friend of the groom" - what is his duty, esp. in the Levirate context? The root of his mission "to prepare the way of the Lord" can be found in Ruth 3:3 when the elders tell Ruth before her wedding to "Wash therefore and anoint yourself, and put on your best clothes." John's baptism of repentance is done to prepare the bride for the wedding.

Liturgically, he cleans her from her impurities (see also Ezekiel 16) preparing the bride "that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word" (Ephesians 5:26). To prepare Israel the Bride for her nuptial with Christ her bridegroom is the heart of the Baptist's mission.

Now with all symbolism and typologies, it is hard to "stretch" the analogy too far. But in order to get the full meaning of Christ's fulfillment of the Old Testament, one has to twist symbols around a bit. In order to do understand one other crucial aspect of the Levirate, that of the "deceased" brother, we must be a bit creative, and look at it from a different perspective. Christ marries his bride, consummates his union with her, on the cross (see Eph 5) - but this leads to his death. So he could be seen as the "dead husband." So who will be the "brother" who takes his place in marrying his bride? For the answer we must again turn to the gospel of John.

"When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, 'Woman, behold, your son!' Then he said to the disciple, 'Behold, your mother!' And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home" (John 19:26-27).

Jesus had no other brothers, so he gave his mother to John - and thus in becoming her son, John (and all apostles and Christians likewise) became Jesus' brother. But we cannot forget that on a different level (see Rev 12) Mary is the "icon of the church," the bride - so John as he becomes Jesus' brother, is given to the Church as her bridegroom. Here we have what Schokel says might be seen as the "root of apostolic succession." The Church is passed on from brother/apostle to brother/apostle - yet the bride still keeps the name of her first husband, as Paul writes, "Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" (1 Corinthians 1:13). The name of the husband is carried on by the generation of new sons, thus the brother through his preaching of the word, causes the bride to become fruitful. Look to St. Paul (a Jew well versed in the Law) again, "For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers.

For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Corinthians 4:15). The bishops/apostles have their charge to carry on the name of Christ by preaching the gospel and celebrating the sacraments - and in doing so the church/bride becomes church/mother and the Levirate law is thus fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

Mobster claims he helped Poison Pope John Paul I with cyanide and threatened to kill Pope John Paul II

Mobster claims he helped Poison Pope John Paul I with cyanide and threatened to kill Pope John Paul II because they both tried to expose a billion dollar stock fraud scam involving cardinals and gangsters in Vatican City

Lauren Edmonds

A mobster from the Colombo mafia family claims he helped poison Pope John Paul I with cyanide 33 days into his reign to stop the pontiff from exposing a billion dollar stock fraud scam. 

The startling revelation comes from 69-year-old Anthony Raimondi's new novel 'When the Bullet Hits the Bone.'

.... John Paul I threatened to expose a billion dollar stock fraud scam involving cardinals at the Vatican bank and mobsters Raimondi was a loyal member of the Colombo family - one of the notorious five Italian mafia families in New York City. 

The Colombo family dealt in a host of criminal enterprises, including racketeering, contract killing, arms trafficking and loansharking. 

The scene begins in 1978 when Raimondi, the nephew of infamous godfather Charles 'Lucky' Luciano, was recruited by his cousin Paul Marcinkus, who ran the Vatican bank in Vatican City.  

The Vatican bank, formally known as The Institute for Works of Religion, is one of the most secretive financial establishments in the world.   

The New York Post reports that Raimondi's job was to learn the Pope's daily habits and be there when Marcinkus spiked John Paul's nightly cup of tea with Valium.

© Provided by Associated Newspapers Limited Cardinal Paul Marcinkus (pictured) was involved in the Vatican bank and allegedly drugged the pope with Valium before killing John Paul Raimondi notes that the Valium worked so well that the Pope wouldn't have woken up 'even if there had been an earthquake.' 

He said: 'I stood in the hallway outside the Pope’s quarters when the tea was served.'

'I'd done a lot of things in my time, but I didn’t want to be there in the room when they killed the Pope. I knew that would buy me a one-way ticket to hell.'

Meanwhile, Marcinkus prepared a dose of cyanide for the Pope. 

'He measured it in the dropper, put the dropper in the Pope’s mouth and squeezed. When it was done, he closed the door behind him and walked away,' Raimondi said. 

Shortly after, a papal assistant reportedly checked on the Pope and screamed that 'the Pope was dying!' 

At which point, Marcinkus and two other cardinals rushed into the bedroom and pretended to be horrified by what they saw. 

© Provided by Associated Newspapers Limited Anthony Raimondi (pictured) revealed he helped kill John Paul I in Vatican City in 1978 Raimondi was asked by Marcinkus and others involved to testify before God that the Pope hadn't suffered. 

'They said when we die I would be their witness,' he said.  

A Vatican doctor would rule that John Paul suffered a heart attack, none the wiser to any alleged foul play.

The elaborate hit came to be because John Paul I allegedly threatened to expose an international fraud scam run by Vatican insiders.

© Provided by Associated Newspapers Limited Raimondi said he waited outside the John Paul's room while Marcinkus (pictured) force fed the Pope with cyanide - killing him 33 days into his reign

The fraud included a forgery expert at the Vatican who lied about the church's actual holdings in American companies like IBM, Sunoco and Coca-Cola.

Then, mobsters would allegedly sell phony stock certificates to innocent buyers.

If John Paul revealed the scheme, 'half the cardinals and bishops in the Vatican' would be out of the job. 

'They would have been thrown out and subject to the laws of the US and Italy,' Raimondi said to the Post. 

'They would have gone to jail.' 

Raimondi said if the Pope had kept his mouth shut, 'he could have had a nice long reign.'

Next on the list was John Paul II, who seemed set on exposing the inside job as well. 

Raimondi, a made man, was called back to the Vatican and told to prepare for a second murder at the behest of the fraudsters. 

He reportedly told them: ‘No way. What are you going to do? Just keep killing popes?’ 

Knowing he risked being killed by the mobsters, John Paul II allegedly chose to keep quiet about the illegal dealings.

John Paul II would go on to serve the second longest reign in modern history before he died at age 84 in 2005.

This apparently prompted days of drunken partying for the mobsters and corrupt cardinals in Vatican City. 

© Provided by Associated Newspapers Limited Pictured: Cardinals and the faithful mourn the death of John Paul I at his funeral (pictured) in 1978

Raimondi said: 'We stayed and partied for a week with cardinals wearing civilian clothes, and lots of girls.'  

'If I had to live the rest of my life in Vatican City, it would have been OK with me. It was some setup. My cousins all drove Cadillacs. I am in the wrong business, I thought. I should have become a cardinal.' 

Raimondi dismisses those who question his story or say it closely resembles 'The Godfather III.' 

'It was a terrible movie. To tell you the truth I don’t really remember it,' Raimondi told The Post. 

'What I said in the book I stand by till the day I die. If they take [the pope’s body] and do any type of testing, they will still find traces of the poison in his system.' 

Raimondi, nicknamed 'Pluto', has left the mob life behind him and is now battling cancer. ....

Cardinal Sarah: To oppose the pope is to be outside the Church

• In Catholic News Service, Vatican
• Cindy Wooden
  Oct 9, 2019
  CATHOLIC NEWS SERVICE

Guinean Cardinal Robert Sarah, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, said the people who portray him as an opponent of Pope Francis are being used by the devil to help divide the Church.Cardinal Robert Sarah, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, talks with Cardinal Christoph Schonborn of Vienna after a session of the Synod of Bishops for the Amazon at the Vatican Oct. 9, 2019. In an Oct. 7 interview with an Italian daily newspaper, Sarah said that whoever is against the pope is outside the Church. (Credit: Paul Haring/CNS.)

ROME – Guinean Cardinal Robert Sarah, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, said the people who portray him as an opponent of Pope Francis are being used by the devil to help divide the Church.

“The truth is that the Church is represented on earth by the vicar of Christ, that is by the pope. And whoever is against the pope is, ipso facto, outside the Church,” the cardinal said in an interview published Oct. 7 in Corriere della Sera, an Italian daily.

The 74-year-old cardinal, whom Francis appointed in 2014 as head of the office overseeing liturgical matters, often is portrayed as a critic of Francis, especially because of the cardinal’s cautious attitude toward welcoming Muslim migrants to Europe, his concern about the Church acting more like a social-service agency than a missionary church and his traditional approach to the liturgy.

The Corriere piece was published to coincide with the release of a new book-length interview with Sarah, The Day is Now Far Spent. The English edition was released Sept. 22 by Ignatius Press in the United States.

The cardinal’s book dedication reads: “For Benedict XVI, peerless architect of the rebuilding of the Church. For Francis, faithful and devoted son of St. Ignatius. For the priests throughout the world in thanksgiving on the occasion of my golden jubilee of priesthood,” which was July 20.

In the Corriere interview, the cardinal was asked what the “truth” was about his relationship with Francis.

“Those who place me in opposition to the Holy Father cannot present a single word of mine, a single phrase or a single attitude of mine to support their absurd – and I would say, diabolical – affirmations,” Sarah said. “The devil divides, sets people against each other.”

Sarah said it is normal for the Church to experiences difficulties and divisions, but every Christian is called “to seek unity in Christ.”

“I would add that every pope is right for his time,” the cardinal said. “Providence looks after us very well, you know.”

However, Sarah’s new book is filled with warnings about how a lack of faith, trust in God and adherence to tradition is threatening the Catholic Church, particularly in Europe and the wealthy West. But he especially focuses on clerical sexual abuse and how that has meant “the mystery of betrayal oozes from the walls of the Church.”

Still, in the chapter, “The Crisis of the Church,” the book includes the cardinal saying, “I would like to remind everyone about Jesus’ words to St. Peter, ‘You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church’ (Mt 16:18). We have the assurance that this saying of Jesus is realized in what we call the infallibility of the Church. The spouse of Christ, headed by the successor of Peter, can live through crises and storms.”

Noting that some Catholics “are quick to hurl anathemas at those who do not follow their line of thought,” the cardinal said that it is time “to rediscover a bit of peace and benevolence. Only faith, confidence in the magisterium and its continuity down through the centuries can give us unity.”

Catholics today must ask themselves if they truly believe the faith the Church always has taught, the faith of their ancestors, is still valid today, Sarah told Corriere. “We are called to rediscover the truth of these (teachings) both with the incomparable analysis of Benedict’s thought and with great and sunny industriousness of Francis.”

Although the two popes have obvious differences, Sarah said, “there is a great harmony and great continuity between them as everyone has been able to see these last few years.”

“The history of the Church is beautiful,” he said, and reducing it to a political battle “typical of a television talk show is a marketing ploy, not a search for truth.”

Cardinal Sarah: To oppose the pope is to be outside the Church

Darwinism has hardened into a dogma

Yale Uni. professor

 Doctor David Gelernter

renounces Darwinism

 

Part Two:

Darwinism has hardened into a dogma

 

 

 

 

“David Gelernter laments, from his own knowledge of American academia,

that there is “nothing approaching free speech” when it comes to Darwinism”.

 

David Klinghoffer

 

  

 

 

 

One reads at: https://evolutionnews.org/2019/07/abandoning-darwinism-gelernter-talks-with-meyer-berlinski/

 

Abandoning Darwinism: Gelernter Talks with Meyer, Berlinski

 

David Klinghoffer | @d_klinghoffer

July 22, 2019, 2:15 PM

 

 

How much would you pay to listen in on a conversation among computer scientist David Gelernter, philosopher of science Stephen Meyer, and mathematician David Berlinski, hosted by Peter Robinson from Stanford’s Hoover Institution? As it happens, and I didn’t see this coming, the four were together in Florence and they took the opportunity to have a fascinating exchange about the recent essay in which Gelernter, the Yale polymath, explained his reasons for rejecting Darwinian theory. See the whole thing here:

 

Gelernter’s intellectual confession, “Giving Up Darwin,” was published in The Claremont Review of Books. As you can imagine, it caused a stir. Dr. Gelernter attributed his departure from evolutionary orthodoxy to having read books by Meyer (Darwin’s Doubt) and Berlinski (The Deniable Darwin), as well as one that I edited (Debating Darwini’s Doubt).

 

I had thought that Berlinski’s conversation with Robinson alone, noted here, was about the most interesting thing you could ask to watch. But this beats it. That is because of the remarkable diversity of views on display, from three thinkers who are all Darwin skeptics of one stripe or another.

 

A Beautiful Theory — But True?

 

They ask about whether Darwin’s theory is beautiful, about challenges to Darwin from mathematics and biology, whether there is any real difference between saying Darwin’s theory is “unlikely or impossible” in accounting for spectacular biological innovations, whether intelligent design is a sufficient substitute, and much else not strictly on topic.

 

 

 

For example, has Sigmund Freud, like Marx and Darwin, been “taken down” as a pillar of Western thinking? Berlinski and Gelernter emphatically think not.

 

David Gelernter laments, from his own knowledge of American academia, that there is “nothing approaching free speech” when it comes to Darwinism. This wonderful conversation gives you a sense of what a really free exchange of views would be like, the beauty and interest of it, were such a thing permitted on university campuses. Thank you very much to the indispensable Peter Robinson and his program, Uncommon Knowledge, for making it possible!

[End of article]

 

Chuck Colson likewise has written of:

http://www.breakpoint.org/1999/09/the-dogma-of-darwinism/

 

The Dogma of Darwinism

IT’S A RELIGION

 

by: Chuck Colson
Category: BreakPoint, Christian Worldview

September 14, 1999

 

Where did religion come from? According to Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson, religion is a product of evolution. In his new book Consilience, Wilson says belief in God must have given early humans an edge in the struggle for survival. But today, he says, traditional religions are being replaced by a new morality, a new unifying myth, based squarely on evolutionary biology.

 

Darwinism itself is becoming a new religion.

 

Wilson may sound radical, but he’s right. Darwinism is about much more than science: It provides the scientific support for an entire naturalistic worldview or religion. Broadly speaking, a religion is anything that functions as a person’s ultimate belief or worldview- anything that answers the basic questions of life: Where did we come from? What are we here for? How do we know what’s right and wrong?

 

For many people today, Darwinian evolution answers those fundamental questions. Where did we come from? From chance collisions of atoms, Darwinism says. Why are we here? There is no purpose to life, Darwinism says-no reason for existence. We are cosmic accidents. How do we know right and wrong? We DON’T know any objective moral law: Morality is merely an idea that appears in the human mind when it has evolved to a certain stage. Hence people make up their own ideas of right and wrong.

 

Cornell biologist William Provine sums up the implications Of Darwinism in simple bullet points: It means “No life after death; no ultimate foundation for ethics; no ultimate meaning for life; no free will.”

 

This is why the issue of Darwinism versus cosmic design Has become such a fierce battleground in America today. The debate is not just about fossils or genetic mutations. Our theory of origins determines our identity, our values, our sense of meaning.

 

This is why, in today’s world, the Christian message must begin with creation. We cannot simply start off with John 3:16 and the gospel message.

That’s like starting to read a book in the middle of the story–you don’t know the characters and you can’t make sense of the plot. We need to start with creation, where the main character of the “story” is introduced as the Creator of all, and the “plot” of human history begins to unfold.

 

Creation tells us who we are and why we are here. It tells us our lives DO have ultimate meaning. It gives the basis for morality, because if God created us for a purpose, then morality is the guidebook telling us how we fulfill that purpose. And when we live outside the bounds of the purpose for which we were created, that is sin. Suddenly theological terms make sense.

 

Creation is the basis for the entire Christian worldview.

 

A century ago, the great Dutch statesman Abraham Kuyper wrote that if we are going to stand against the powerful forces of unbelief today, we must understand that we face a clash of worldviews-and we must frame Christianity as an equally comprehensive worldview. That means beginning with the God who created “the heavens and the earth, and everything in it.”

 

For “everything in it” finds its meaning in Him.