Pope Benedict XVI on Hitler

....

At a meeting with Jewish leaders before a mass at the Olympic stadium in Berlin attended by 70,000, the Pope said: "The supposedly 'almighty' Adolf Hitler was a pagan idol who wanted to take the place of the biblical God, the Creator and Father of all men. What Man is capable of when he rejects God, and what the face of a people can look like when it denies this God, the terrible images from the concentration camps at the end of the war showed."

While trust had grown between the Jewish people and the Catholic Church, "a loving relationship of mutual understanding between Israel and the Church . . . still has further to grow", he said.

....

Taken from: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/pope-benedict-xvi-strikes-chord-of-unity-in-germany/story-e6frg6so-1226144862487

Simon Magus -- The lluminati's Jesus?



Taken from: http://www.henrymakow.com/simon_magus.html


January 3, 2011


Introducing the most important person in history you never heard of.

By Jack Walton

(for henrymakow.com)

The full life of Simon Magus is mostly unknown, just as the events of the life of the historical Jesus.

He was most likely the same age as Jesus, and died shortly before Peter, his greatest enemy, in Rome, before it was burned in 64 AD.

This is not disputed by Christian scholars. He was the towering figure of his time, along with his wife, Helen, the Jezebel and whore of Babylon from Revelation.

According to Bible Scholars ... Simon Magus was the founder of the Gnostic church and was the direct competitor with Christianity for the hearts and minds of the Greco Roman world.

Simon is the Beast, the original Antichrist, and the true identity of the number 666. He was so powerful in fact, that he is known by many different names in the Bible. Once all his "names" are learned, a very different picture of the Gospel emerges, one in which Jesus and Simon were creating two very different religions, for the reformation of Judaism, and the conversion of the Greco Roman/Pagan world to the Judaic god.

The circles that Magus worked in were the Illuminati of his time. At the time this consisted of what we would consider both "white" and "black" magicians ... and the sects they led, (the "good" guys) as well as the Herod family, and the higher echelons of Rome, and the gnostic magicians (the Saturnalian or "black" magicians).

Thus, the "good guys" and the "bad guys had their start together at this time and later split up. Simon Magus was a Samaritan Jew, whose particular version of Judaism incorporated the sexual licentiousness of the ancient Babylonian religions.

According to Clement, the early church father, Magus could, levitate items on command, speak with spirits, summon demons and place them into statues making the statues walk and talk, fly, and even raise the dead.

These were all deceptions designed to indoctrinate his followers into believing he was a god. His religion, the Gnostic religion, was the sect that preceded Christianity in the Diaspora. The current Illuminati religion (freemasonry) is based on Gnosticism and the ancient Babylonian mysticism (Satanism?) that he incorporated into his version of Judaism that he was selling (quite literally) to the masses of the Greco-Roman world.

He is the inspiration for Faust, and modern televangelist deceivers continue his tradition whether they realize it or not (i.e., religion based on deception.) Anytime there is a reference to someone selling their soul to the devil, it is a reference to Faust, who was inspired by Simon Magus.

The medieval Rosicrucians who compiled the story of Faust understood all this (are they not Illuminati?) One of the great untold stories of Christianity is how Peter and Paul came behind Simon and converted his many followers to Christianity.

In the beginning, Magus had been a follower of John the Baptist, and because of his genius and ability, was accepted by Jesus and the other Apostles. Simon's early role in Judaism before his diaspora career, would be seen today as like an intelligence operative. He was of course, cast out of their ranks when they learned who he was.

One of the major things he did was attempt to organize a mass revolt against Pilate and the son of Herod, which was put down brutally. ....

The Beast: Jewish or Roman



Taken from: http://www.preterist.org/articles/the_beast.asp


(Search The Scriptures, February 1985) All Rights Reserved.




Introduction

We are dealing with the character known as "the Beast" in the book of Revelation. Let me suggest, if you are not familiar with this subject, that you read the following passages before going on: Rev. 11, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20; 2 Thess. 2; 1 John 2, 3, 4, 5; and Matthew 24 (esp. vss. 23, 24).

The identity of "The Beast" has always intrigued theologians. Legions of theories have been conjured up to excite the imagination. This article will examine some of them. It is not our purpose here to identify specifically who the Beast is, but rather to clarify his general nature (i.e. whether he is a Jewish Beast or a Roman one). If we can determine that, maybe his specific identity will be easier to pinpoint. We want to show why the Beast cannot be Roman and why it must be Jewish in character.

The whole question as to the nature of the Beast (Jewish or Roman) and his identity is related closely to the date of the book of Revelation. This article assumes that the book of Revelation was written before the destruction of Jerusalem (AD 70).

Past Theories

Some have identified the Beast as being an individual such as the Pope, Martin Luther, John Calvin, William of Orange or Hitler. Others have seen the Beast more as a group or movement of people, such as the apostate Roman Church, the Protestants, the Roman Empire (or the Common Market), the Roman persecuting power of the first century, or some other great world-power that will rise up to persecute Christians. Some of the more serious attempts have been to identify the Beast as Nero, based on the "666" number in Revelation 13. Another person (Spitta) urged a first-century application to the Biblical character of Simon Magus (Acts 8). Zullig interpreted the Beast as being the Herodian dynasty of rulers. J. S. Russell (in his book, The Parousia) suggests the Roman Procurators (from AD 44-66) and Nero. Once when walking in New York City, I was handed a sheet which stated that Rockefeller was the Antichrist! I've heard similar rumors about Henry Kissenger! Every famous person who was feared or hated was someone's "Beast!" This really illustrates how fear and hate (and other emotions) can affect one's exegesis!

An Alternative

Very few have mustered the courage to suggest a Jewish fulfillment of these "beastly" passages. Most modern interpreters (who are Amillennial) say the Beast is Rome. So, the thesis of a Jewish Beast will probably not be easily accepted.

I want to preface our study with some comments taken from Dr. Cornelius Vanderwaal's commentary on First John, where he deals with the antichrists: (from his commentary set entitled, Search The Scriptures, vol. 10, pp. 60,61) --

"John, who may have been on the island of Patmos when he wrote this letter, now declares that things have gone so far that many antichrists have already appeared. This indicates that it is the 'last hour' (2:18). Many false prophets have gone out in 'the world' (4:1), that is, the apostate Jewish world. (emphasis mine, ees). John's words make it clear that we must not think of the 'antichrist' in connection with a misty future. When John reports the vision of the Beast in the book of Revelation, he is not telling us about a future political antichrist with the reins of world government in his hands; he is indicating that some beastly devil will arise out of Israel to attack the church. 2 Thessalonians 2 follows the same line of thought. In 3:9, John distinguishes sharply between the seed of God and the children of the devil (see John 8:44)."

Who Were The Serpents?

The "Dragon" was the source of power and authority for the Beast. He is called "the Serpent" and "the Devil" also. He is clearly identified as "Satan" himself (Rev. 12:9, 20:2). Were the Romans ever called "children of the devil"? The Jews were: (John 8:44; Acts 13:10; 1 John 3:10)! The Jews were also called "serpents" and "offspring of vipers" (Matt. 23:33)! And that same verse (Matt. 23:33) condemns them to a fiery end similar to the end of the Beast and his followers (Rev. 19:19-21)!

Two Beasts!

There are actually two "Beasts" mentioned in Revelation (ch. 13). The second of these is later identified as the "False Prophet" (cf. Rev. 13:11-14; 16:13 and 19:20). Throughout the Old and New Testaments the words "false prophet" are continually used to denote Jewish characters. It would be strange indeed to speak of a Roman Beast with such terminology. This is another indication that the Beast and those he associates with are Jewish in character.

The Beast Revived

If the Beast is a Roman Emperor (such as Nero or Domitian), we are going to have to deal with the lack of historical evidence for his resurrection. Rev. 13:2, 12, 14 make it clear that the Beast was killed with the sword but came back to life. Some who favor the idea that Nero is under consideration here recall the rumor that was circulated after his death that he really hadn't died but that he was over in Parthia gathering an army to come back to Rome and take over. There is, of course, historical evidence that such a rumor was circulated in the first century, but there is not the slightest evidence that the rumor was true, and Nero never reappeared. This theory (called the "Nero Redivivus" theory) has pretty well been abandoned by most who consider John's account in Revelation to be inspired. How could an inspired Apostle entertain such speculative notions which never did materialize? Neither Nero nor Domitian nor any other Roman emperor came back to life again. This would certainly militate against the Beast being Roman. And it can't be the Roman persecuting power that was revived, since the Roman persecution dragged on for several more centuries, and whatever persecution this is, was supposed to end shortly after the book was written (see Rev. 1:1-3; 22:6,10). This is interesting, because the Jewish persecution did come to a screeching halt shortly after the book was written! Before its end, the Jewish cause got a couple of extra lives: one in AD 66 when Cestius Gallus (the Roman general) withdrew his forces and suffered a humiliating defeat at the pass of Beth Horon. A second chance for their religion came when Yochanan Ben Zakkai pretended dead and escaped (in a coffin) out of Jerusalem to the Romans, where he was allowed by Titus to go to Yavneh and continue his teaching of the Law (where it continued until the destruction of Jerusalem in Hadrian's day (AD 135).

The Song of Moses

To anyone familiar with the Law of Moses and Jewish tradition, Rev. 15:2,3 will have meaning. It says that those martyrs "who had come off victorious from the Beast" were singing "the Song of Moses." Deuteronomy 32:1-43 is the song that John has reference to. The Jews were to sing this song to remind themselves of what would befall them "in the latter days" (Deut. 31:29). the song talks about "the end" of the Jews (Deut. 32:20), and details their destruction by a consuming fire (Deut. 32:22), "famine" (32:24), "plague" (32:24) and "bitter destruction" (32:24). God calls them a "perverse generation" (32:5,20), and says He will "render vengeance" upon them and "vindicate His people" (32:41 and 32:36 respectively). Why would Christian martyrs of the first century be singing this song about the Romans, when the song had reference to the Jews? It wouldn't make much sense. But if it was Jews who were killing them (like the book of Acts shows), then they had every

reason to be singing the Song of Moses! It was the Jews who were the real threat to the Christians! No one else knew better how to attack the church than the Jews. Paul said that his intention as a former persecutor was not just to debate the Christians and prove they were wrong. He was out to "destroy" them (Gal. 1:13,23; 1 Tim. 1:13; Acts 8:3; 9:21)! It was a Jewish beast who was persecuting and killing these Christians, and these martyrs were singing the Song of Moses to remind their Jewish persecutors of what was coming upon them! Aren't these the same martyrs who cried out earlier, "How long, Or Lord, wilt Thou refrain from judging and avenging our blood" (Rev. 6:10)? Who was it who had all the "blood of the righteous" martyrs imputed against them - Jews or Romans? These Christians who had kept their faith in Jesus in spite of the intense persecution by the Jews were the ones "who had come off victorious from the Beast." (See Matt. 23:35 and Luke 13:33)! This passage (Rev. 15:2,3) points very clearly to a Jewish beast.

Gnawed Tongues and Wild Beasts

In Rev. 16:10,11, it says that the people in the Beast's kingdom "gnawed their tongues because of pain." They had great sores on their bodies along with other plagues that had been poured out on them. The question is, if this is Rome or a Roman beast of some kind, when were they ever in such a miserable mess? John makes it clear that these events were to happen soon after the book was written (Rev. 1:1,3; 22:6,10). When was Nero or Domitian's kingdom thrust into such dire straights? We know from Josephus when the Jews literally gnawed their tongues for lack of food during the siege of AD 70! And, it is interesting that Josephus even calls the Jewish Zealot forces a "wild beast" in several places (Wars V.1.1; IV.7.4; IV.9.8; V.2.5)! This doesn't fit the Romans at all, but it does fit the Jews very well! This point is emphasized even more by the fact that the whole context of the Song of Moses is full of references to "beasts," "serpents," and "dragons" (Lev. 26; Deut. 28-32; esp. Deut. 32:24,33).

The Beast Was Seized

The real clincher to the whole story is found in Revelation 19:11-21, where it says the Beast was "seized and "thrown alive into the lake of fire" (vs. 20). Keep in mind that these events were to happen soon after Revelation was written (Rev. 1:1,3; 22:6,10). Was Nero or Domitian seized and thrown into the Lake of Fire shortly after Revelation was written? Did Rome make war against Jesus and His angelic hosts and get defeated shortly after the book was written (Rev. 19:19)? Did the Roman armies get "killed with the sword" and become a feast for all the vultures, shortly after Revelation was written (19:21)? The Roman persecution did not end shortly after the writing of Revelation, but the Jewish one did. Whoever the Beast is, he is soundly defeated here, his persecution against the church is crushed and his armies become plunder for the birds of prey to eat. Rome didn't fall until the Fifth Century, and that's a long time after Revelation was written! This sounds more like a Jewish Beast trying to persecute and destroy the church, but finally getting itself destroyed! The Romans were the vultures of this text (Rev. 19:21) who circled outside the Jewish walls watching the Jewish factions kill each other, waiting until they wore themselves out enough to become easy prey. This soon happened (in AD 70) and Jews glutted the world slave market. The Roman armies weren't seized and "killed with the sword" in AD 70, nor in AD 96 either. Therefore, the Beast here (Rev. 19:19-21 cannot be a Roman one. It had to be Jewish!

Conclusion

We hope someone will go from here and discover the specific identity of the Jewish Beast. Whether he is an individual or a group within the Jewish nation is a matter that will be left to future studies. John Bray has suggested the Jewish Zealot leader, John of Gischala. Others have suggested Menachem, who was a relative of Judas the Galilean who had stirred up troubles back in earlier days. He gathered a zealot band and attacked Masada, captured the fortress, seized the armaments and paraded through Jerusalem with them. Menachem put on the purple robes, proclaimed himself Messiah, and went into the Temple, but he was assassinated in the Temple and his army vaporized. There may have been rumors about his coming back to life, but I haven't read of them so far. He never reappeared as far as Josephus recorded.

Last Supper Not Passover? But read more

Taken from:

http://www.catholicforum.com/forums/showthread.php?40216-The-Pope-and-the-Last-Supper

The Pope and the Last Supper Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

We have often discussed here whether the Last Supper should be regarded as a Passover Meal or something new. The Pope's new book comes down definitively in favour of the latter; here is the relevant extract:

One thing emerges clearly from the entire tradition: essentially, this farewell meal was not the old Passover, but the new one, which Jesus accomplished in this context. Even though the meal that Jesus shared with the Twelve was not a Passover meal according to the ritual prescriptions of Judaism, nevertheless, in retrospect, the
inner connection of the whole event with Jesus’ death and Resurrection stood out clearly. It was Jesus’ Passover. And in this sense he both did and did not celebrate the Passover: the old rituals could not be carried out—when their
time came, Jesus had already died. But he had given himself, and thus he had truly celebrated the Passover with them. The old was not abolished; it was simply brought to its full meaning.
The earliest evidence for this unified view of the new and the old, providing a new explanation of the Passover character of Jesus’ meal in terms of his death and Resurrection, is found in Saint Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians:
“Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be new dough, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Paschal Lamb, has been sacrificed” (5:7; cf. Meier, A Marginal Jew I, pp. 429–30). As in Mark 14:1, so here the first day of Unleavened Bread and the Passover follow in rapid succession, but the older ritual understanding is transformed into a Christological and existential interpretation. Unleavened bread must now refer to Christians themselves, who are
freed from sin by the addition of yeast. But the sacrificial lamb is Christ. Here Paul is in complete harmony with John’s presentation of events. For him the death and Resurrection of Christ have become the Passover that endures.
On this basis one can understand how it was that very early on, Jesus’ Last Supper—which includes not only a prophecy, but a real anticipation of the Cross and Resurrection in the eucharistic gifts—was regarded as a Passover: as his Passover. And so it was.

....

Congratulations to Josef Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI for this year reaching his glorious Diamond Jubilee milestone. Sixty years as a priest!

Here we continue with the second part of our review of his book:

Jesus of Nazareth:

Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem

To the Resurrection

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“I am praying for them; I am not praying for the world” ....

The present “world” has to disappear; it must be changed into God’s world. That is precisely what Jesus’ mission is, into which the disciples are taken up: leading “the world” away from the condition of man’s alienation from God ....

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Previously, we had touched briefly upon the Pope’s general intention of providing a better rounded than usual approach to biblical hermeneutics in line with Vatican II’s Dei Verbum, before our embarking upon a more thorough description of the Pope’s explanation of the Suffering Servant type of Messiahship as embraced by Jesus Christ, and how this challenged the pre-conceived notions of his disciples. In this regard we lingered notably on the wrong attitude to Messiahship of Saint Peter himself, as best exemplified by his reaction to the episode of the Washing of the Feet. Peter’s subsequent fall was there contrasted with the ‘dark destructiveness’ of Judas.

That has taken us about a third of the way through the nine chapter book, to Chapter 3 (“The Washing of the Feet”).

The remainder of the book contains, amongst its various themes, certain arguments that have aroused a fair amount of controversy. We refer especially to Pope Benedict’s treatment of the Last Supper (Chapter 5) - and “whether or not it was a Passover meal” (p. 145) - and of the Resurrection (Chapter 9), which some think to be completely inadequate, or worse. Anyway, these are to be the two areas upon which we shall be focussing in the pages ahead, whilst also sweeping up along the way certain other points of interest for us as raised by the Pope.

Like others we did tend to wince, at least initially (but see p. 36), when reading Pope Benedict’s bald statements as follows regarding the Last Supper and the Resurrection:

P. 103: “… the accounts of the Last Supper and the institution of the Eucharist are caught up in a dense undergrowth of mutually contradictory hypotheses, which seem to make access to the real event virtually impossible”, but more especially (p. 106): “The problem of dating Jesus’ Last Supper arises from the contradictions on this point between the Synoptic Gospels [the name given to the collective Matthew, Mark & Luke], on the one hand, and Saint John’s Gospel, on the other”. Then there is:

P. 269: “… the Resurrection. … Luke ends up contradicting his own narrative …”.

At the centre of the controversy, apart from the matter of any perceived contradiction between Saint John and the Synoptics, is the important consideration of whether or not a lamb was involved in the Last Supper. In other words, was it based upon a traditional Jewish Passover meal but then transformed into something far higher by Jesus, or - which seems to be the Pope’s view - was the whole thing entirely new?

The more traditional view has recently been defended by Fr. Brian Harrison of the Oblates of Wisdom and by Dr. Brant Pitre of the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology. Fr. Harrison wrote firmly on this issue in an e-mail of 16 July 2011:

... Prof. Ratzinger's scholarship seems sloppy even by his own standards here, because when you read past the subtitle and first sentence (p. 106), which talk of a contradiction between the Gospels in "the dating of the Last Supper", you find that the "contradiction" he thinks he finds is over the character, not the date, of the Last Supper. (Ratzinger spends two or three pages discussing - and finally disagreeing with - a scholar who argued some decades ago that it took place on the Tuesday night, not the Thursday, of the original Holy Week. He himself doesn't deny that all the Gospels place the Last Supper on the Thursday night, and that he was crucified the next day.)

The alleged contradiction is, rather, about whether the Last Supper was the Passover supper or not. The Synoptics make it clear that it was, while John 18:8 says that the Passover meal was to be celebrated by the Jews on the Friday night, not the Thursday night. And indeed, Ratzinger claims that John really wants to tell us that the Last Supper was not a Passover meal. Well, I don't think he does that at all. Have a look for yourself at the relevant passage, John ch. 13 to ch. 18, which contains all that John says about the Last Supper. The only reference to the Passover is right at the beginning, where John says the supper took place "before the festival of the Passover" (13:1). The rest of Ratzinger's argument seems to be pretty much from silence; i.e., John says nothing in these chapters that would indicate they were celebrating a Passover meal. But on that sort of 'logic', you'd have to say John also "denies" the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper, because he also says nothing about it. (Rather, he gives an account of the foot-washing, which the Synoptics don't mention.) .....

[End of quote]

And Dr. Pitre writes in his article, “Was There a Passover Lamb at the Last Supper?”:

…. As anyone who has read Pope Benedict’s new book, Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week will know, the Pope devotes a substantial portion of his chapter on the Last Supper to the question of the date of the meal—specifically, whether or not the Last Supper coincided with the ordinary Jewish Passover meal (see pp. 106-115). And as anyone familiar with this extremely complex and age-old question knows, there is simply no way I can address it here adequately.

Thankfully, I am currently working on finishing a full-length scholarly book on the Last Supper (to be published by Eerdmans), in which I will offer a detailed solution to the date of the Last Supper. In that study, I will draw on the massive amount of contemporary research done in this area and add to it some important Jewish evidence that been neglected. (For some suggested readings on the question of the date, see pp. 214-215 in my book, Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist).

[End of quote]

Before we consider further these areas of controversy, though, and read more of what Fr. Brian and Dr. Pitre have to say, let us continue our sweep through the book, here just gathering a handful of interesting - and, we think, inspiring - points that we have picked up along the way.

Pope Benedict XVI has written:

P. 78: “According to the rabbinic theology, the idea of the covenant – the idea of establishing a holy people to be an interlocutor for God in union with him – is prior to the idea of the creation of the world and supplies its inner motive. The cosmos was created, not that there might be manifold things in heaven and earth, but that there might be a space for the “covenant”, for the loving “yes” between God and his human respondent”.

P. 80: “In [John 17: Jesus’ high-priestly prayer] the words addressed by Jesus to the Father, the ritual of the Day of Atonement is transformed into prayer. Here we find a concrete example of that cultic renewal toward which the cleansing of the Temple and Jesus’ interpretation of it were pointing. Sacrificial animals are a thing of the past. In their place are what the Greek Fathers called thysía logikê – spiritual sacrifices [literally: sacrifices after the manner of the word] – and what Paul described in similar terms as logikê latreía, that is, worship shaped by the word, structured on reason (Rom 12:1)”.

Pp. 89-90: “Between [John 17] verses 17 and 19, which speak of the consecration of the disciples, there is a small but important difference. Verse 19 says that they are to be consecrated “in truth”: not just ritually, but truly, in their whole being – that is doubtless how it should be translated. Verse 17, on the other hand, reads: “sanctify them in the truth”. Here the truth is designated as the force of sanctification, as “their consecration”.

            According to the Book of Exodus, the priestly consecration of the sons of Aaron is accomplished when they are vested in sacred robes and anointed (29:1-9); the ritual of the Day of Atonement also speaks of a complete bath before the investiture with sacred robes (Lev. 16:4). The disciples of Jesus are sanctified, consecrated “in the truth”. The truth is the bath that purifies them; the truth is the robe and the anointing they need.

            This purifying and sanctifying “truth” is ultimately Christ himself. They must be immersed in him; they must, so to speak, be “newly robed” in him, and thus they come to share in his consecration, in his priestly commission, in his sacrifice”.

Pp. 100-101: “The universal horizon of Jesus’ mission can also be seen in two other important texts from the Fourth Gospel: first, in Jesus’ nocturnal conversation with Nicodemus: “God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son” (3:16), and then – with the emphasis here on the sacrifice of his life – in the bread of life discourse at Capernaum “The bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh” (6:51).”

But how do we reconcile this universalism with the harsh words found in verse 9 of the high-priestly prayer: “I am praying for them; I am not praying for the world”? In order to grasp the inner unity of the apparently contradictory prayers, we must remember that John uses the word “cosmos” – world – in two different senses. On the one hand, it refers to the whole of God’s good creation, especially to men: his creatures, whom he loves to the point of the gift of himself in the Son. On the other hand, the word refers to the human world as it has evolved in history. Corruption, lies, and violence have, as it were, become “natural” to it. Blaise Pascal speaks of a second nature that in the course of history has supplanted the first. Modern philosophers have described this historical state of mankind in various ways, as for example when Martin Heidegger speaks of being reduced to the impersonal, of existing in “inauthenticity”. These same issues are presented in a very different way when Karl Marx expounds man’s alienation.

            Philosophy in these instances is ultimately describing what is known to faith as “original sin”. The present “world” has to disappear; it must be changed into God’s world. That is precisely what Jesus’ mission is, into which the disciples are taken up: leading “the world” away from the condition of man’s alienation from God and from himself, so that it can become God’s world once more and so that man can become fully himself again by becoming one with God. Yet this transformation comes at the price of the Cross; it comes at the price of readiness for martyrdom on the part of Christ’s witnesses”.

P. 134: “Now there is one further expression in Jesus’ words of institution that needs to be explained, one that has been extensively debated in recent times. According to Mark and Matthew, Jesus said that his blood would be shed “for many”, echoing Isaiah 53, whereas in Paul and Luke we read of the blood being given or poured out “for you”.

Recent theology has rightly underlined the use of the word “for” in all four accounts, a word that may be considered the key not only to the Last Supper accounts, but to the figure of Jesus overall. His entire being is expressed by the word “pro-existence” – he is there, not for himself but for others. This is not merely a dimension of his existence, but its innermost essence and its entirety. His very being is “being-for”. If we are able to grasp this, then we have truly come close to the mystery of Jesus, and we have understood what discipleship is”.

And, later (in the Epilogue), now on the episode of the Ascension:

Pp. 281, 283: “The joy of the disciples after the “Ascension” corrects our image of this event. “Ascension” does not mean departure into a remote region of the cosmos, but rather, the continuing closeness that the disciples experience so strongly that it becomes a source of lasting joy.

…. The departing Jesus does not make his way to some distant star. He enters into communion of power and life with the living God, into God’s dominion over space. Hence he has not “gone away”, but now and forever by God’s own power he is present with us and for us”.

P. 286: “Christ, at the Father’s right hand, is not far away from us. At most we are far from him, but the path that joins us to one another is open. And this path is not a matter of space travel of a cosmic-geographical nature: it is the “space travel” of the heart, from the dimension of self-enclosed isolation to the new dimension of world-embracing divine love”.

P. 292-293: “[At his Ascension] Jesus departs in the act of blessing. He goes while blessing, and he remains in that gesture of blessing. His hands remain stretched out over this world. The blessing hands of Christ are like a roof that protects us. But at the same time, they are a gesture of opening up, tearing the world open so that heaven may enter in, may become “present” within it”.

The traditional view that the Last Supper was a Passover Meal is fixed in our minds thanks to the famous eucharistic hymn of Saint Thomas Aquinas,Pange Lingua, “Sing, My Tongue”, with the translated words: “He the Paschal victim eating, first fufills the Law’s command”. Then follows the institution of the Eucharist, “[He] ... as Food to His Apostles gives Himself with His own hand”:

In supremae nocte cenae recumbens cum fratribus observata lege plene cibis in legalibus, cibum turbae duodenae se dat suis manibus.

On the night of that Last Supper, seated with His chosen band, He the Pascal victim eating, first fulfills the Law's command;then as Food to His Apostles gives Himself with His own hand.

Correspondingly, there does appear to be a strong case for a paschal lamb to have been involved at the Last Supper, as argued by Fr. Brian Harrison and Dr. Brant Pitre. We continue on with their discussions, beginning with Father Harrison’s e-mail letter:

     There are various explanations traditional exegetes have offered as a solution for this difficulty [i.e., no indication by St. John of a Passover meal being celebrated]. The majority view seems to have been that both the Synoptics and John are right, given that there is evidence for some degree of flexibility at that time among different Jewish groups, as to when the Passover meal (normally 14th Nisan) was celebrated (just as there is on our liturgical calendars, when a certain annual Feast can be displaced in a given year by a higher Feast).  Since - as we learn from Jn 18: 28 - the regular calendar followed in Jerusalem had the Passover on the Friday, that would have been another good reason why Our Lord would decide to anticipate the Passover meal with his disciples by one day, on 13th Nisan. For he knew he was going to dead by the time most folks there were celebrating their Passover meal; and in any case of course, the Last Supper wasn't going to be just a regular Passover meal, but was destined to include, at the end, something new, the institution of the Eucharist, in which he himself would be offered, anticipating Calvary, as the new Paschal Lamb. Ratzinger finally gets round to acknowledging this "paschal" (in a new sense) element in the Last Supper, but he doesn't retract his initial assertion that there is a "contradiction" between John and the Synoptics.

Presumably he thinks the latter are wrong in depicting the first part of the Last Supper as being a regular Passover meal. (That would seem to mean they put false words on the lips of Jesus, who is reported as saying that what he intended to do that night was "keep Passover" [Mt. 26: 18; Mk 14: 14; Lk 22: 11]. The evangelists then tell us that's exactly what the disciples understood: for they went and "prepared Passover" [Mt. 26: 19; Mk. 14: 16; Lk 22: 13].)   In that case they would of course have made sure they had an appropriately sacrificed Paschal lamb ready for the meal [cf. Mk 14: 12], even though the Jerusalem Jews in general would have been killing the lambs in the temple 24 hours later, while Jesus was on the Cross. In view of the latter fact, John is also right in 13:1 in saying the Last Supper was "before" the festival of Passover.

The relevant part of the Jerusalem Bible footnote to Mt. 26: 17 [Father Harrison had referred to this text in a previous correspondence] ... reads:

      "The 'first day' of the week during which unleavened loaves (azymes) were eaten, cf. Ex 12: 1 +, 23: 14 +, was normally that which followed the Passover supper, i.e., the 15th of Nisan; the Synoptics however give this title to the preceding day, thus attesting a wider use of the term, Further, if we take account of Jn. 18: 28 and of other details connected with the Passion, it seems fairly certain that in this particular year the Passover supper was celebrated on the evening of the Friday (or 'Preparation Day', Mt. 27: 62; cf. Jn 19: 14, 31, 42). Christ's Last Supper, which the Synoptics put on the day before, i.e., on the Thursday evening, must therefore be explained in one of two ways: either a whole section of the Jewish people thus anticipated the rite, or (and this is preferable), Christ anticipated it on his own initiative."

      Note the traditionally Catholic outlook of the JB commentator in lines 1-3 above.

It seems he is starting his exegesis from the premise of faith; and so rather than leap to the conclusion that the Synoptics are wrong in what they affirm, he infers that they are "attesting a wider use of the term". He then goes on to indicate how both John and the Synoptics are right as regards when the Passover was celebrated. Professor Ratzinger does not rebut the kind of explanation given by the JB commentator. He does not even address it. ....

[End of quote]

And, returning also to Dr. Pitre:

http://www.salvationhistory.com/blog/was_there_a_passover_lamb_at_the_last_supper/

…. Catholics everywhere will celebrate Holy Thursday by attending the Evening Mass of the Lord’s Supper.

At this Mass, we will read the institution of the Passover (Exod 12, OT reading), sing one of the most famous of the Hallel Psalms (Psalm 118, Responsorial Psalm), and then read the institution of the Eucharist (1 Cor 11, Epistle) and Jesus’ act of washing the disciples’ feet at the Last Supper (John 13, Gospel). This particular Eucharist is a momentous liturgical moment, where we both recall the institution of the very first Eucharist and enter into the beginning of the calendrical Holy of Holies—the sacred Triduum, climaxing in the feast of Easter (in Latin, Pascha).

But how did Jesus and his disciples celebrate the first Holy Thursday?

Specifically, was the Last Supper a Jewish Passover meal?

…. For now, all I would like to do in this post is one brief point about the first Holy Thursday: contrary to what is often claimed by some exegetes, the Synoptic Gospels clearly identify the Last Supper as a Jewish Passover meal—one that included the presence of a passover lamb. Allow me to explain.

A Lambless ‘Passover Meal’?

Anyone familiar with scholarly books on Jesus will be aware that one of the primary arguments against the Last Supper being a Passover meal is that “there is not a word about the lamb” in the Gospel accounts of the institution of the eucharist. In fact, for years, I myself agreed with this view and even have some recordings where I make just that point!

Alas, upon closer study of the entire context in the Gospels in their original Greek, I discovered that the idea that there was no lamb at the Last Supper is just not exegetically sustainable. Although the word “lamb” (Gk arnion) admittedly does not appear in any account of the words of institution, both Mark and Luke in particular explicitly testify that there was a Passover lamb (Gk pascha) at the Last Supper.

This is quite clear in the Gospel accounts—not first and foremost in the words of institution—but in the accounts of Jesus sending the disciples (Peter and John) into Jerusalem to prepare the Passover (Mark 14:12-16 parr.)

“When they Sacrificed the Passover Lamb (Pascha)”

So, for example, in the Gospel of Mark, we read: “And on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the pascha, his disciples said to him, “Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the pascha”? And he sent two of his disciples, and said to them, “Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you…” (Mark 14:12-13)

Though English Bibles translate these with two different words, there is no way for the first use of pascha to refer to the Passover lamb that was sacrificed to be eaten and for the second use of pascha to refer to the now-popular idea of a “lambless Passover meal.” The only way to make this work would be to wrench the second occurrence completely out of context.

“Go and Prepare the Pascha, that We May Eat it”

The presence of the Passover lamb at the Last Supper is even more explicit in the Gospel of Luke. According to his account of Holy Thursday afternoon, the following took place: “Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the pascha had to be sacrificed. So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare the pascha for us, that we may eat it.” They said to him, “Where will you have us prepare it?” (Luke 22:7-8)

Same problem: there is no way I can see in which the first use of pascha in v. 7 refers to the Passover lamb, while in v. 8 pascha refers to a lamb-less Passover meal (if such a thing were even possible in the 1st century A.D.). The meal which they are preparing for Jesus and the disciples to eat in the upper room that evening clearly consists of the passover lamb which had been sacrificed that day.

“I Have Greatly Desired to Eat this Pascha with You”

To top it all off, in Luke’s account, Jesus even uses the same word in the context of the words of institution on two more occasions. Just a couple of verses later, we read: The Teacher says to you, Where is the guest room, where I am to eat the pascha with my disciples?’ And he will show you a large upper room furnished; there make ready.” And they went, and found it as he had told them; and they prepared the pascha….

And when the hour came, he sat at table, and said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this pascha with you before I suffer…” (Luke 22:11-13, 15)

It seems to me that far from the lamb never being mentioned, Luke’s Gospel refers to the Passover lamb in the context of the Last Supper some three or four times, both in the account of the preparation and in the account of the meal itself! ….

 [End of quote]

The traditional view, as espoused by Fr. Harrison and Dr. Pitre,  seems also to be well in harmony with Verbum Domini’s notion of ‘fulfilling the incarnational paradigm of the Word made flesh’, and of St. Paul’s idea of the Word emptying Itself to being “born under the Law ... to redeem those who were under the Law” (Galatians 4:4-5). We think that it may be preferable, therefore, to Josef Ratzinger’s view of a lamb-less Passover. So perhaps with this in mind we might raise the query with Isaac of old:

‘… but where is the lamb?’ (Genesis 22:7)

The Resurrection

This important subject is treated in some detail by Josef Ratzinger in Chapter 9.

The Rev. Donald Sanborn, whose caustic criticism of the pope’s book we had referred to in the June-July MATRIX - as a counterpoint for dialectical discussion, not for the sake of agreement with Sanborn, it should be noted - has lined up this part of the book for his main frontal attack.

“The principal error, indeed heresy, of this book is [Ratzinger’s] denial of the Resurrection of Christ” (Modernism Resurrected: Benedict XVI on the Resurrection).

.... Now someone might say that I am going too far in this accusation, since Ratzinger professes belief in the Resurrection of Christ. I respond that Ratzinger believes something about the Resurrection of Christ, but that he does not believe in the Catholic dogma of the Resurrection. For in order that we qualify as Catholics, it is necessary that we accept the dogmas of the Catholic Church according to the same sense in which the Church has always understood them.

Sanborn then goes on to test whether “Ratzinger [does] profess belief in the Resurrection in the sense that the Church originally held it”, before concluding emphatically that he doesn’t.

But one always needs to read most attentively what Josef Ratzinger actually writes.

Let us firstly, though, refresh our minds on what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say on the matter of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ:

I.     The Historical and Transcendent Event

639             The mystery of Christ's resurrection is a real event, wit­h manifestations that were historically verified, as the New Testa­ment bears witness. In about a.d. 56, St. Paul could already write ­to the Corinthians: "I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, that he was raised on the third ­day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas [Peter], then to the Twelve …" [I Cor 15:3-4]. The Apostle speaks here of the living tradition of the Resurrection which he had learned after his ­conversion at the gates of Damascus. … [Cf. Acts 9:3-18].

The empty tomb

640             "Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not ­here, but has risen." …. [Lk 24:5-6]. The first element we encounter in the framework of the Easter events is the empty tomb. In itself it is not ­a direct proof of Resurrection; the absence of Christ's body from ­the tomb could be explained otherwise. … [Cf. Jn 20:13; Mt 28:11-15]. Nonetheless the empty tomb was still an essential sign for all. Its discovery by the disciples ­was the first step toward recognizing the very fact of the Resurrec­tion. This was the case, first with the holy women, and then with Peter. … [Cf. Lk 24:3, 12, 22-23]. The disciple "whom Jesus loved" affirmed that when he entered the empty tomb and discovered "the linen cloths lying there," "he saw and believed." … [Jn20:2, 6, 8].

This suggests that he realized from the empty tomb's condition that the absence of Jesus' body could not have been of human doing and that Jesus had not simply returned to earthly life as had been the case with Lazarus. … [Cf. Jn 11:44; 20:5-7].

The appearances of the Risen One

641                   Mary Magdalene and the holy women who came to finish anointing the body of Jesus, which had been buried in haste because th­e Sabbath began on the evening of Good Friday, were the first to encounter the Risen One. … [Mk 16:1; Lk 24:1; Jn 19:31, 42]. Thus the women were the first messengers of Christ's Resurrection for the apostles themselves… [Cf. Lk 24:9-10; Mt 28:9-10; Jn 20:11-18]. They were the next to whom Jesus appears: first Peter, then the Twelve. Peter had been called to strengthen the faith of his brothers … [Cf. I Cor 15:5; Lk 22:31-32], and so sees the Risen One before them; it is on the basis of his testimony that the community exclaims: "The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!" … [Lk 24:34, 36].

      642                   Everything that happened during those Paschal days involves each of the apostles - and Peter in particular - in the building of the new era begun on Easter morning. As witnesses of the Risen One, they remain the foundation stones of his Church. The faith of the first community of believers is based on the witness of concrete men known to the Christians and for the most part still living among them. Peter and the Twelve are the primary "witnesses to his Resurrection," but they are not the only ones - Paul speaks clearly of more than five hundred persons to whom Jesus appeared on a single occasion and also of James and of all the apostles…. [I Cor 15:4-8; cf.Acts 1:22].

      643   Given all these testimonies, Christ's Resurrection cannot be inter­preted as something outside the physical order, and it is impossible not to acknowledge it as an historical fact. It is clear from the facts that the disciples' faith was drastically put to the test by their master's Passion and death on the cross, which he had foretold. … [Cf. Lk 22:31-32]. The shock provoked by the Passion was so great that at least some of the disciples did not at once believe in the news of the Resurrection. Far from showing us a community seized by a mystical exaltation, the Gospels present us with disciples demoralized ("looking sad"… [Lk 24:17; cf. Jn 20:19]) and frightened. For they had not believed the holy women returning from the tomb and had regarded their words as an "idle tale." … [Lk 24:11; cf. Mk 16:11, 13]. When Jesus reveals himself to the Eleven on Easter evening, "he upbraided them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen." … [Mk 16:14].

644                   Even when faced with the reality of the risen Jesus the disciples are still doubtful, so impossible did the thing seem: they thought they were ­seeing a ghost. "In their joy they were still disbelieving and still wondering" … [Lk 24:38-41]. Thomas will also experience the test of doubt and St. Matthew relates that during the risen Lord's last appearance in Galilee "some doubted" ….[Cf. Jn 20:24-27; Mt 28:17]. Therefore the hypothesis that the Resurrection was produced by the apostles' faith (or credulity) will not hold up. On the contrary ^­their faith in the Resurrection was born, under the action of divine grace, ­from their direct experience of the reality of the risen Jesus.

The condition of Christ's risen humanity

645                   By means of touch and the sharing of a meal, the risen Jesus establishes direct contact with his disciples. He invites them in this ­way to recognize that he is not a ghost and above all to verify that the risen body in which he appears to them is the same body that had been tortured and crucified, for it still bears the traces of his passion. … [Cf. Lk 24:30, 39-40, 41-43; Jn 20:20, 27; 21:9, 13-15]. Yet at the same time this authentic, real body possesses the new properties of a glorious body: not limited by space and time but able to be present how and when he wills; for Christ’s humanity can no longer be confined to earth and belongs hence­forth only to the Father's divine realm. … [Cf. Mt 28:9, 16-17; Lk 24:15, 36; Jn 20:14, 17, 19, 26; 21:4]. For this reason too the risen Jesus enjoys the sovereign freedom of appearing as he wishes: in the guise of a gardener or in other forms familiar to his disciples, precisely to awaken their faith. …. [Cf. Mk 16:12; Jn 20:14-16; 21:4, 7].

646                   Christ's Resurrection was not a return to earthly life, as was ­the case with the raisings from the dead that he had performed before Easter: Jairus' daughter, the young man of Naim, Lazarus. These actions were miraculous events, but the persons miraculously raised returned by Jesus' power to ordinary earthly life. At some particular moment they would die again. Christ's Resurrection is essentially ­different. In his risen body he passes from the state of death to another ­life beyond time and space. At Jesus' Resurrection his body is filled with the power of the Holy Spirit: he shares the divine life in his glorious state, so that St. Paul can say that Christ is "the man of heaven" … [Cf. I Cor 15:35-50].

Actually, Josef Ratzinger’s case for the Resurrection harmonises with all of this and fully accords with its sense. He takes up this last point (# 646), for instance, when he writes on page 243, differentiating the raising of Lazarus and the daughter of Jairus from Christ’s Resurrection:

Now it must be acknowledged that if in Jesus’ Resurrection we were dealing simply with the miracle of a resuscitated corpse, it would ultimately be of no concern to us. For it would be no more important than the resuscitation of a clinically dead person through the art of doctors. The miracle of a resuscitated corpse would indicate that Jesus’ Resurrection was equivalent to the raising of the son of the widow of Nain (Lk 7: 11-17), the daughter of Jairus (Mk 5: 22-24, 35-43 and parallel passages), and Lazarus (Jn 11: 1-44). After a more or less short period, these individuals returned to their former lives, and then at a later point they died definitively.

And, in the case of the Pope’s p. 269: “… the Resurrection. … Luke ends up contradicting his own narrative …”, this appears to be only the “view”, as he says, “Most exegetes take …”, not necessarily the Pope’s view.

Sanborn, commenting on this section, wrongly concludes: “So despite his assurance that Christ is “embodied” (page 268), [Ratzinger] again shows his revulsion for the Catholic dogma by reacting to St. Luke’s account of our risen Lord’s eating a fish (Luke XXIV: 42)”.

But it is apparent from various references by the Pope to the risen Jesus’s eating with his disciples (eating grilled fish; breaking bread with the disciples of Emmaus, p. 269; sharing meals, p. 271) that the author has no such reactive issue to these phenomena.

It is also quite clear from a close reading of the book, too, that it is the same Jesus who was crucified (“he is the same embodied man”, p. 266, “complete with his body”, p. 274), who rose, and who appeared to his disciples, but “not a ghost (spirit)”, “he does not belong to the realm of the dead [Hades], but is somehow able to reveal himself in the realm of the living” (p. 273). This whole transcendental paradigm presents an immense challenge to our narrow human thinking (pp. 274-275):

Essential, then, is the fact that Jesus' Resurrection was not just about some deceased individual coming back to life at a certain point, but that an ontological leap occurred, one that touches being as such, opening up a dimension that affects us all, creating for all of us a new space of life, a new space of being in union with God.

It is in these terms that the question of the historicity of the Resurrection should be addressed. On the one hand, we must acknowledge that it is of the essence of the Res­urrection precisely to burst open history and usher in a new dimension commonly described as eschatological. The Resurrection opens up the new space that transcends history and creates the definitive. In this sense, it follows that Resurrection is not the same kind of historical event as the birth or crucifixion of Jesus. It is something new, a new type of event.

Yet at the same time it must be understood that the Resurrection does not simply stand outside or above his­tory. As something that breaks out of history and tran­scends it, the Resurrection nevertheless has its origin within history and up to a certain point still belongs there. Perhaps we could put it this way: Jesus' Resurrec­tion points beyond history but has left a footprint within history. Therefore it can be attested by witnesses as an event of an entirely new kind.

Indeed, the apostolic preaching with all its boldness and passion would be unthinkable unless the witnesses had experienced a real encounter, coming to them from out­side, with something entirely new and unforeseen, namely, the self-revelation and verbal communication of the risen Christ. Only a real event of a radically new quality could possibly have given rise to the apostolic preaching, which cannot be explained on the basis of speculations or inner, mystical experiences. In all its boldness and originality, it draws life from the impact of an event that no one had invented, an event that surpassed all that could be imagined.

[End of quote]

To sum up: Whilst in the controversial case of the Last Supper we may be missing the body of a real lamb, with the Resurrection we are not, despite criticisms, missing the real body of the Lamb.

Cosmic Liturgy of Revelation

SATURDAY, JUNE 26, 2010

Archbishop Chaput: Liturgical renewal should create martyrs’ love for the Mass
The following comes from the CNA:

Christian witness is intended to prepare for and to live the “cosmic liturgy” in which all mankind adores God, Archbishop Charles J. Chaput declared in a lecture on Thursday evening. Noting the cultural obstacles to liturgical understanding, he said the renewed liturgy should create Christians who would die rather than not celebrate Mass.

Delivering the Hildebrand Distinguished Lecture at the Liturgical Institute of the University of St. Mary of the Lake in Illinois, the Archbishop of Denver praised Chicago’s “historic role” in the renewal of the liturgy and the evangelization of America. He said the 10th anniversary of the Liturgical Institute shows that this legacy continues.

He opened with a reflection on the respected liturgist and theologian Fr. Romano Guardini. Soon after the Second Vatican Council published its “groundbreaking” document on the liturgy, “Sacrosanctum Concilium,” the priest sent a letter to the Third German Liturgical Conference wondering whether man in an industrial and scientific age is “no longer capable of the liturgical act.”

“I think he put his finger on one of the key questions of mission in his time, and also in ours,” Archbishop Chaput remarked, explaining that the liturgical act is the transformation of personal prayer and piety into “genuine corporate worship” and “the public service that the Church offers to God.”

This act requires an inward awareness of the unity of the whole person, body and soul, with the spiritual body of the Church, present in heaven and on earth, he added.

“It also requires an appreciation that the sacred signs and actions of the Mass -- standing, kneeling, singing and so forth -- are themselves ‘prayer’.”

However, he warned, this awareness is obscured in a society organized around a “narrow” vision of technological progress in which truth is judged by what can be perceived and verified through research and experiment.

“In practice, almost nothing of what we believe as Catholics is affirmed by our culture,” commented the archbishop. “Even the meaning of the words ‘human’ and ‘person’ are subject to debate.”

This has implications for Catholic worship in which we profess to be in contact with “spiritual realities” and to receive the true Body and Blood of the Lord.

“We preach the good news that this world has a Savior who can free us from the bondage of sin and death. What can our good news mean in a world where people don’t believe in sin or that there is anything they need to be saved from?” Archbishop Chaput asked. “What does the promise of victory over death mean to people who don’t believe in the existence of any reality beyond this visible world?”

The archbishop said Chicago priest Fr. Robert Barron is one of the few to have wrestled with such issues. For him, the liturgy is not to be shaped according to modern suppositions; rather, the liturgy should “question and shape the suppositions of any age.” While modern man is probably incapable of the liturgical act, this is no grounds for despair. Instead, we should “let the liturgy be itself,” the priest has said.

Archbishop Chaput agreed with Fr. Barron that in recent decades the “professional liturgical establishment” chose to shape the liturgy according to the world, which has proven to be “a dead end.” Seeking relevance through “a kind of relentless cult of novelty” has only resulted in confusion and division between the faithful and the true spirit of the liturgy, continued the archbishop.

He said liturgical renewal should build “an authentic Eucharistic culture” to instill “a new sacramental and liturgical sensibility that enables Catholics to face the idols and suppositions of our culture with the confidence of believers who draw life from the sacred mysteries ...”

To this end, the Archbishop of Denver offered several suggestions: the need to recover the “intrinsic and inseparable connection” between liturgy and evangelization; the need to see the liturgy as a participation in the “liturgy of heaven” where Christians worship “in Spirit and truth” with the Church and the communion of the saints; and the need to recover and live the early Christians’ “vibrant liturgical and evangelical spirituality.”

“Liturgy is both the source of the Church’s mission and its goal,” explained the prelate. “The reason we evangelize is in order to bring people into communion with the living God in the Eucharistic liturgy. And this experience of communion with God, in turn, impels us to evangelize.”

The “pedestrian” and self-focused nature of many contemporary liturgies results from the loss of the sense of this participation in the heavenly liturgy, he suggested.

“The Eucharist … is a cosmic liturgy that unites the worship of heaven with our own worship here on earth… Heaven and earth are filled with the glory of God,” he continued. Worship is a window through which “the reality and destiny of our lives is glimpsed.”

This truth should “make us strive for liturgies that are reverent and beautiful, and that point our hearts and minds to things above.” The ultimate purpose of Christian witness is to “prepare the way for the cosmic liturgy in which all humanity will adore the Creator.”

The archbishop encouraged the faithful to look to the early Christians, who found their identity in the liturgy and said “we cannot live without the Mass.”

“This is the kind of faith that should inspire our worship. And this is the kind of faith that our worship should inspire. Can we really say today that we’re ready to die rather than not celebrate the Mass?”

Describing the liturgy as “a school of sacrificial love,” he said that all Christians should see themselves as a Eucharistic offering, “a perfect offering holy and acceptable to God.”

“The liturgical act becomes possible for modern man when you make your lives a liturgy, when you live your lives liturgically -- as an offering to God in thanksgiving and praise for his gifts and salvation. You are the future of the liturgical renewal.”

Archbishop Chaput closed his lecture with the words of one of the dismissal prayers of the new Roman Missal: “Go in peace, glorifying the Lord by your life.”

To read Archbishop Chaput's full lecture, click here.
POSTED BY PADRE STEVE AT 10:10 AM
LABELS: ARCHBISHOP CHAPUT, LITURGY


Taken from: http://salesianity.blogspot.com/2010/06/archbishop-chaput-liturgical-renewal.html

Twelve Precious Stones as Foundation Stones of New Jerusalem

The twelve stones in the breastplate of the ancient Hebrew high priest can now be identified, with the corresponding tribes of Israel.

The Lord instructed Moses to have the names of the twelve sons of Israel engraved on twelve stones in the breastplate of the high priest. The exact order, arrangement, and type of each stone were explicitly stated (Ex. 28:17-21), but the name to be written on each stone was not given, perhaps because it was obvious to Moses. After the destruction of the temple, the knowledge of which tribe was associated with which stone was lost, and even the identity of some of the stones has been uncertain. This article attempts to restore this lost knowledge by use of the birth dates of those twelve sons, and the correspondence of those dates to the twelve zodiac constellations, as presented in last month's article.^[1]

Birthstones

Do you have any jewelry containing your birthstone? What is the origin of the birthstones? Are they just a way for jewelers to peddle their wares, or is their really some significance to these twelve stones? And if so, is it the chemical makeup of the stone that is important, or is it the color, or both? And should the stones be associated with months of our Gregorian year, or perhaps the Hebrew months, or maybe the 30-day signs of the zodiac, or how about the actual zodiac constellations in the heavens?

What about the colors associated with certain nations, such as the colors of their flags? Why are so many of the flags of Europe colored red, white and blue?^[2] What about the colors in heraldry, the colors on your family crest? Are they significant? What do colors have to do with families and nations?

Figure 1. The high priest's breastplate contained twelve stones.

The origin of our twelve birthstones and their colors is rooted in the twelve colored stones in the breastplate of the high priest of ancient Israel. The fact that our birthstones are not only associated with different tribes, but also with different months, shows that there was a strong tradition that each of the twelve sons of Jacob was born at a distinct time of year. So if our birthstones trace back to a Biblical origin, the question arises of just how accurate our modern list of birthstones is.

The Problem

Unfortunately, we have known neither the stones nor the associated tribes, much less the time of year for each stone. One of the long unsolved mysteries in the Bible is the identification of the twelve stones in the breastplate of the high priest. Most of those stones are mentioned only in that context, and so they have been extremely hard to identify. Most scholars have given up the identification as a lost cause. Many lists have been published, purporting to be authentic, but in fact they are based only on speculation, such as assuming that the order of the stones is the birth order of the sons.^[3]

As an example of the confusion of the translation of the stone names, the fourth stone is called "emerald" in the King James version, "carbuncle" in the Greek translation (Septuagint), "turquoise" in the New American Standard version, and "garnet" in Strong's dictionary. Note that the colors of those modern stones are all different (green, red, blue, blackish red), so we end up confused both on colors and stones. To add to the confusion, many stones come in a variety of colors: Sapphires are not just blue, they are also colorless, pink, orange, yellow, green, purple and black.^[4] And another problem is that some of the ancient names that we recognize, used to refer to different stones. For example, before medieval times, "sapphire" referred to the blue stone lapis lazuli for at least many centuries.^[5] So it has appeared to be a hopeless tangle of yarn that no one has been able to unravel.

Figure 2. The twelve stones each had a name engraved on it.

These, however, are some of the most difficult examples. The colors of some stones in the list are perfectly known, such as the first one, odem, which means "red" in Hebrew. In other cases, all translators agree on the identification of the stone, such as topaz and amethyst. They might all be wrong, but at least there is a consensus.

The Solution

This paper attempts to provide a definitive correlation of all twelve stones to their modern names, colors, and tribes of Israel. The solution is based on using information from two other sources: birth dates and birth constellations.

First, as mentioned above, the fact that there is a strong tradition that each of the twelve stones is associated with the time of birth of one of the twelve sons of Jacob is a big clue. Sometimes a general idea is preserved over time while the details are lost. The fact that each stone is associated with a different month and also with a tribe of Israel definitely indicates a tradition that it was the time of birth of those twelve sons that identified them with a specific stone. Last month a list of birth dates, derived from sacred calendars, was proposed for each of the twelve sons of Jacob. They were spread out during the year, which agrees with this tradition.

Secondly, that same article also identified each tribe with a constellation of the zodiac. That is also a big clue to solve the puzzle, because the Lord apparently also alludes to several of the constellations as the same precious stones of the breastplate of the high priest. He said to the prophet Ezekiel,

Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. (Ezek 28:13).

Nine of these stones covered Eden.

Those nine stones are nine of the twelve stones of the high priest. The fact that he says the stones were the "covering" in the Garden of Eden, suggests that he might be referring to the canopy of the heavens, and that each of those stones is associated with a zodiac constellation. This argument is not compelling, but if this suggestion is not correct, then just what does the scripture mean? The scriptures do tell us that some of these stones were found in the Garden (Gen. 2:12), but when so many of the stones are listed as a "covering," it seems more likely that it refers to the heavens.

Let us now use these two new lists of birth dates and constellations to identify the stones. Those who wish only to know the answer can skip the somewhat detailed derivation which follows to Table 4 near the end of this article.

Unravelling the Mystery

Let us now solve the mystery of the stones one step at a time. The solution is based upon a few postulates.

Postulates

1. Twelve Tribes. The twelve stones in the breastplate correspond to the original twelve sons of Jacob, not to the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, which were later adopted as sons, effectively doubling the inheritance for their father Joseph. That seems to be implied in the text.

New Jerusalem has walls of jasper.

2. Twelve Foundations. The twelve foundations of the New Jerusalem are garnished with the same twelve precious stones, as named by John the Revelator (Rev. 21:19-20). While those stones are associated with the twelve apostles, they are also near the twelve gates that are named for the twelve tribes of Israel. This postulate is perhaps the most important, because John is writing in Greek some fifteen hundred years after Moses. He is referring to stones that he recognized and understood. Because Greek is so much better known, and those words can be found in so many other documents, this postulate greatly simplifies the problem.

You might ask yourself how well you know gemstones. Suppose you had had the Revelation given to John. How would you have described the foundation stones? Most of us know that rubies are red and emeralds are green, but perhaps not many more. Apparently John knew his gems well, right down to recognizing sardonyx as a specific form of onyx.

3. Twelve Colors. It is proposed that it is the twelve colors of the stones that are most important, and that representative stones were chosen for those colors. The stones had to be large enough to engrave the names of the tribes upon, whereas in other contexts, such as a gem inlaid in a ring, a smaller, more precious stone could be used to represent the tribe equally well.

4. Twelve Constellations. It is also proposed that the twelve zodiac constellations each had a unique color for the figure and that the twelve stones also correspond to those colors. This postulate is a key element that will allow some of the most difficult relations to be discovered.

5. Order. The final order discovered should make sense. That is a vague requirement, but God's house is a house of order, and the order certainly will not be random. The trouble is, almost every time the twelve tribes are listed, they are given in a different order (Gen 27, 49; Num 2; Deut 33; Rev. 7). The names of the tribes were also engraved on stones on the shoulders of the priest, with six on each shoulder according to their birth (Ex. 28). That would be the most logical order to assume for the twelve stones on the breastplate, and indeed, that is usually the case in most studies, as shown in Figure 2.^[6] This study will not require birth order, but at least some sort of reasonable order.

Hebrew Names

Let us proceed step by step, making sure the ground is firm beneath our feet before each new step is taken. One mistake could lead us down a false path. Table 1 lists the stones in order by Hebrew name in the first column and the King James translation in the second. The third column lists the name used in the Greek translation of the Bible done in the third century B.C. (called the Septuagint). That is extremely important because it gives us the understanding of the Hebrews at that time of the meaning of the stones. We still use nearly all of the same Greek names today to refer to the same stones, so if that translation were totally correct, we would just about have the entire answer we are looking for. The final column lists other places in the Old Testament where the name of the stone is used again to describe a color. Unfortunately there are very few such references; most of the stone names appear only in the context of being a precious stone, which doesn't help distinguish one from another.

There are three lists in the Old Testament of these stones: 1) when the Lord instructs Moses how to fashion the breastplate (Ex. 28:17-20), when the breastplate was completed (Ex. 39:10-13), and in a revelation to Ezekiel, when the Lord compares the Garden of Eden's "covering" with nine of these twelve stones, given in a different order (Ezek. 28:13). None of those three references helps us identify the stones, except that some of the meanings refer to colors. The stones mentioned in only those three places are listed with "none" in the column for other references.

Hebrew Name	King James	Septuagint	Color	Other Refs.
1. Odem	Sardius	Sardius	red	"red" (Hebrew); not ruby, which is "paniyn" (Lam. 4:7)
2. Pitdah	Topaz	Topaz	topaz	from Ethiopia (Job 28:19)
3. Bareqeth	Carbuncle (Garnet)	Emerald	green?	color of "lightning," (Dan. 10:6), "green" (Greek)
4. Nophek	Emerald	Anthrax (Garnet)	red-black	precious, Ezek 27:16, "coal" (Greek)
5. Sappiyr	Sapphire	Sapphire	blue	sky blue, Ex. 24:10
6. Yahalom	Diamond	Jasper	many	none
7. Leshem	Ligure	Ligure	?	none; ligure is unknown
8. Shebuw	Agate	Agate	many	none
9. Aclamah	Amethyst	Amethyst	purple	none
10. Tarshish	Beryl	Chrysolite	yellow	color of heavenly chariot wheels (Ezek. 1:16, 10:9 ); color of a heavenly man's body, whose face was like lightning (Dan 10:6)
11. Shoham	Onyx	Beryl	white	"whiten" (Hebrew); on high priest's shoulders (Ex. 28:9)
12. Jashepheh	Jasper	Onyx	many	none

Table 1. Hebrew names of the Twelve Breastplate stones.

Now let's see what we can learn about the identity and colors of the stones from this table.

Odem, meaning red, refers to the sard.

Odem (Red). The first stone odem means "red" in Hebrew^[7] and nearly all translations agree that it refers to a sard (also called sardius), which is a very red stone. Note that while some translations list this stone as a ruby,^[8] one would be hard pressed to find a ruby large enough to engrave a name on, and even then it would require a diamond to write it. Moreover, most rubies are not as red as sard. Thus the first stone and color are well-identified. If all of the stones were this easy, the puzzle would have been solved long ago.

Sapphire represents blue.

Sappiyr (Blue). Our word sapphire comes from the Greek, which in turn comes from the Hebrew sappiyr. At the time of John the Revelator, the name referred to lapis lazuli, a very blue stone. The confirmation that the ancient stone was also this color comes in a vision at the time of Moses, when the Lord appeared on a pavement of sappiyr, described as being as blue as a clear blue sky (Ex. 24:10).

Amethyst is a deep purple.

Aclamah (Purple). All the translations agree that aclamah refers to the amethyst and there seems to be almost no doubt about this identification. While the scriptures don't specify that the color is purple, that is the only color of amethyst.

The second stone is topaz.

Pitdah (Yellow Brown). The other stone on which all translations agree is that the second stone pitdah is the topaz. Although topaz comes in many colors, the principal color associated with the most common variety is a very light yellowish brown color. That is almost certainly the color implied for this stone.

Chrysolite was yellow, like this chrysoberyl.

Tarshish (Yellow). This stone is most likely a golden color, matching the translation in the Septuagint of chrysolite ("golden stone" in Greek). It is the color used by Daniel to describe a man seen in heavenly vision, who face is described like lightning (Daniel 10:6). The name of the third stone is derived from that same word for "lightning" and is presumably a similar golden color. The name Tarshish is the same as the Mediterranean country (Jonah 1:3, probably Spain) and hence also came to mean "Merchant Vessel" (see 2 Chron. 9:21, Psalm 48:7, Isa. 23:1).

Beryl symbolized white or clear.

Shoham (White). The eleventh stone shoham almost certainly refers to a white stone because the root of the name means "to whiten."^[9] It has been translated both as onyx and beryl, both of which have white varieties.

Thus, only six of the stones are clearly identified with colors by the stone itself, by other passages or by name derivations. Note also that there are some serious questions about some of the King James translations. "Diamond" almost certainly is not correct because nothing would be available hard enough to inscribe the name into it, and it would have to be a very large diamond! The name Jasper was probably chosen only because it is similar to the Hebrew word. Nine of the names of the stones only appear in the context of being a precious stone, with no clues at all to color or other identifying characteristics. So let us now turn to other clues.

Greek Translation

In the third century B.C. the Old Testament was translated into the Greek version called the Septuagint. At that time, the temple at Jerusalem was functioning, and the breastplate was not just a memory, but was actually used by the high priest. This translation is extremely important because Greek words would be used to describe those gems, words that should give us excellent understanding of just what stones are implied. Many of our words for minerals today derive directly from these very Greek words. We must be cautious because many have changed in meaning, but they give us a big step up in understanding. Let's consider what is implied about the colors of the stones.

Known Colors. Several of the stones have known colors, either because the Greek word includes the color name, or is synonymous with that color, or because the stone is well known and only comes in one color. As listed in the table, the known colors are: sardius is red, emerald was a synonym for green, sapphire was a synonym for blue, amethyst only comes in purple, "chrysolite" means "golden stone" or "yellow stone," and beryl meant only the white or cream colored variety.

Unknown Colors. On the other hand, jasper, agate, and onyx come in a variety of colors, and often are striped. And to complicate the issue, the meaning of the Greek "ligure" has been entirely lost. While that word is used in English, as in the King James Version, its meaning is unknown, but it is usually associated with the jacinth. Now let us consider other color considerations.

Bareqeth (lightning or green?). The third stone bareqeth derives in Hebrew as the same word for "lightning," supposedly because it represents the same color. For example, Daniel compares the facial color of a man he saw in vision to that of lightning (Dan. 10:6). But the Greek translation is "emerald," which was synonymous with "green" in Greek. Most people would not say lightning is green, and we could hardly think of an angel with a countenance like lightning as having a green face. The solution to the problem proposed in this article explains both translations.

Carbuncle (glowing coal) usually means garnet.

Nophek (reddish black). This stone is a great key to the entire puzzle, which I discovered only after I had solved it the hard way. The Greek translation of nophek is "anthrax," which in turn is translated as "carbuncle" into English. Both are said to mean a dark red stone. "Carbuncle" also refers to red, inflamed boils, and the sheep disease "anthrax" was supposedly named for the dark red streaks and spots that appear. My research showed me that this was definitely correct and that the stone must be a dark red color as a substitute for pure black, the color of the tribe of Dan,^[10] and probably refers to the garnet.

The origin of both the words "anthrax" and "carbuncle" describe the color implied very well. Carbuncle comes from the work carbon, meaning coal, with the "cle" on the end meaning "little," like a "particle" is a "little part." What was implied was the idea that it was a hot, "glowing coal," in the sense that one might speak of barbecuing over the hot "coals" of a fire. Similarly, "anthrax" also means "glowing coal." We still use that Greek root in our word "anthracite" coal. One dictionary definition of "carbuncle" is "deep-red garnet," deriving the word as meaning "glowing ember," which indeed described the color of many garnets perfectly.

"Glowing ember" also exactly matches the description of one of the foundation stones, as described in the next section, which greatly simplifies the puzzle. Just for the record, I only looked up these meanings after I had solved the puzzle the hard way, so to me this derivation comes as comforting confirmation that the solution is correct. It is a lesson in the importance of understanding the origin of words.

The royal blue lapis lazuli.

Sappiyr (blue). The meaning of sapphire has clearly changed over the centuries. All agree that sapphire refers to stones of a blue color, but the exact meaning is unclear. The Greek word sapphire was derived from the Hebrew sappiyr (stone #5). Fortunately, we have a clear reference of exactly what color was indicated. The Lord appeared on a sappiyr colored pavement to the seventy with Moses, which was compared to the color of a clear blue sky (Ex. 24:10). The Greek word sapphire referred to lapis lazuli, which is a royal blue stone. And today in English, sapphire refers to an entirely different blue stone and even to stones of other colors.

New Jerusalem has walls of jasper.

Foundation Stones

Now let us look at the twelve stones that John describes as forming the foundation of the New Jerusalem. All of the twelve Greek stone names are essentially identical to names still used today to describe semi-precious stones, so they are much better understood than the ancient Hebrew names. According to Postulate 2, they should be identical to the twelve breastplate stones, or at least be stones of the same colors.

The twelve foundation stones are listed in alphabetical order in Table 2. The order given in Revelation apparently corresponds to the twelve apostles (Rev. 21:14), and that is not the subject of this article. Let it now suffice simply to correlate the stones to the twelve tribes of Israel.

Greek	Modern Stone	Color	Other Refs.
Amethyst	Amethyst	Purple	none
Beryl	Beryl	White or Cream	none
Chalcedony	Chalcedony	Light Blue	none
Chrysolite	Chrysolite	Yellow (Gold)	"golden stone"
Chrysoprase	Chrysoprase, Peridot	Yellow Green (Gold)	"golden leek"
Emerald	Emerald	Green	"green"
Jacinth	Jacinth (Hyacinth) or Garnet	Reddish Black	color of smoke, Rev. 9:17
Jasper	Jasper	Orange or Fiery Red	Yellow-Red, Rev. 4:3 & Ezek. 1:27. Walls of New Jerusalem, Rev. 21:11,18.
Sapphire	Lapis Lazuli	Royal Blue	"blue"
Sardius	Sard	Red	"red" Rev. 4:3
Sardonyx	Sardonyx	Red & White layers	none
Topaz	Topaz	Yellow Brown	none

Table 2. The Foundation Stones in alphabetical order, with colors

If we compare these twelve stones to those given in the King James translation, we find that eight of them agree (if we equate sardonyx with onyx). But before we get too excited about believing all the correlations, we need to remember that the King James translators had no clue (literally) as to what many of the stones names referred to. Often, they simply picked the name of a modern precious stone (like "diamond") to use in the translation.

Cameo carved from sardonyx.

Three new stones. If we compare these twelve Greek names for the foundation stones to the Greek translations of the breastplate stones given in the Septuagint, we find that nine are identical. That is very encouraging because the Greek Septuagint translation was done some three centuries before John wrote Revelation. It is the fact that most of them are the same, which lends credence to Postulate 2 — that all twelve must correspond. The remaining three stones mentioned in Revelation, which thus need to be matched with the Hebrew names, are chrysoprase (yellow-green), chalcedony (light blue), and jacinth (also called hyacinth, referring to either a red or blue form of zircon). Gem books note that the original meaning of jacinth is unclear. The modern meaning refers to a yellow-red to red-brown from of zircon, but many believe that the ancient stone was blue. The three stones on the Greek breastplate list that are not on the foundation list are carbuncle, ligure, and agate. The two stones of onyx and sardonyx can probably be safely equated because sardonyx is merely a special form of onyx in which the layers are alternately red and white. Sardonyx is used for making cameos, by cutting away one colored layer to form a background for the picture. Thus, specifying "sardonyx" indicates the colors, because onyx can come in many colors, including not only white, but also black.

Jacinth is Carbuncle. In Greek, jacinth sometimes refers to a dark red color and sometimes a dark blue. There is one scripture that seems to tip the scale as to what color the stone "jacinth" represented to John the Revelator. He states,

And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone. (Revelation 9:17)

Here we are told the horsemen had breastplates of fire (red), jacinth (?), and brimstone (sulfur or yellow). But then in a parallel construction we are told they breathed out fire, smoke, and brimstone. That construction strongly suggests that the color of jacinth corresponds to the color of the smoke accompanying the fire. That favors the dark red interpretation. Moreover, now that we know the meaning of "carbuncle," it is a perfect with the idea of "glowing ember" because smoke often contains glowing sparks. So let us equate jacinth to carbuncle (Greek anthrax).

Yellow Jasper (silex) has red streaks.

Yellow/Red Jasper. The stone Jasper comes in a wide variety of colors, but John gives us enough clues to deduce that it is the yellow variety with red streaks (silex) that is indicated. The being on the throne is described by John as being the color of Sard and Jasper (Rev. 4:3). Sard is red, but what color is Jasper? Fortunately, in a parallel revelation given to Ezekiel, the being is described has being colored like amber (yellow) filled with swirling fire (red) in the upper body, and like fire in the lower (Ezek. 1:27). So here again a being with two colors is described, even as John compared the colors to two stones. Clearly the red fire corresponds to sard, which leaves the red swirling within yellow to be the jasper. As shown in the illustration, the exactly describes one kind of jasper. Note that this fills in the color wheel area for "orange," but does so in a more picturesque fashion than the simple color orange. Similarly, the opal with an orange color is called the "fire opal," which serves well as a gem of this color.

Chrysoprase is yellow-green.

Golden-green Chrysoprase. One of the new stones on John's list is chrysoprase, which means "golden-green" or "yellow-green" in Greek. This color fits well to be that of bareqeth (stone #3) which was described both as like "lightning" (a golden color) and also as green (emerald). Let us tentatively make this identification, which refers to the modern gem stone peridot or olivine.^[11]

Chalcedony is light blue.

Sky Blue Chalcedony. There are two sacred colors of blue in the scriptures and there are two blue stones of those colors, so let us match them. John adds chalcedony to the list, which is a light blue (sky blue) stone. The other blue stone he lists is called sapphire in Greek, which during his time referred to the stone we call lapis lazuli, which is a royal blue color. In the Old Testament, the stone sappiyr is compared to the azure blue sky, so let us equate that stone to chalcedony.

Royal Blue Ligure. In the temple, the blue color used for the high priest's robe (Ex. 28:31) was a royal blue color that exactly matches that of lapis lazuli (see Figure 1). Let us equate the unknown Greek "ligure" to lapis lazuli. Most translators equate ligure to the blue form of jacinth (blue zircon), but that would yield too many blue stones. I propose that about 280 BC, when that Septuagint was translated, that the Greek "sapphire" referred to the azure blue chalcedony, the color of sappiyr. Nearly four centuries later when John wrote, I propose that the Greek word sapphire had changed in meaning to refer to the deeper blue lapis lazuli. That seems like a reasonable conjecture, and as will be seen in the final order, it is apparently an important key to unlocking the order of these stones.

Agate can be light or dark green.

Green Agate. By elimination, we are left to equate the Hebrew shebuw, translated as "agate" in the Septuagint, with the stone John describes as emerald. Is that reasonable? It is, because agate refers to any of a wide variety of colors of quartz rock, named more for their stripes or variegated patterns than for their color. One green form of agate is called moss agate, which could be the foundation stone. Another possibility is called "emerald quartz." Let's try equating agate to green and see how well everything fits together.

Sardonyx has alternate red and white layers.

Red/White Sardonyx. It is worth noting how much information was added by John the Revelator when he named one stone as "sardonyx" rather than merely onyx. Onyx refers to a layered rock that usually has white, red, or black layers. Sometimes it is all white or all black, so the name onyx alone does not specify color. But the variety with alternate red and white stripes has the specific name "sardonyx." Sardonyx is used to make cameos by carving out one layer to leave a raised picture. The same is done with onyx made of black and white layers of stone.

Table 3 lists the twelve breastplate stones with their Greek translations from the Septuagint, along with the proposed correlation to the twelve foundation stones, and also to gems of similar color.

Hebrew	Greek	Foundation	Gem	Color
1. Odem	Sardius	Sard	Ruby	Red
2. Pitdah	Topaz	Topaz	Topaz	Tan
3. Bareqeth	Emerald	Chrysoprase	Peridot	Yellow green (Golden)
4. Nophek	Anthrax	Jacinth	Garnet	Reddish black
5. Sappiyr	Sapphire	Chalcedony	Aqua- marine	Light Blue
6. Yahalom	Jasper	Jasper	Fire Opal	Orange
7. Leshem	Ligure	Lapis Lazuli	Sapphire	Royal Blue
8. Shebuw	Agate	Emerald	Emerald	Green
9. Aclamah	Amethyst	Amethyst	Amethyst	Purple
10. Tarshish	Chrysolite	Chrysolite	Chrysoberyl	Yellow
11. Shoham	Beryl	Beryl, Onyx	Diamond, Beryl	White
12. Jashepheh	Onyx	Sardonyx, Rose Quartz	Pink Tourmaline	Red/White stripes, or Pink

Table 3. Identification of the twelve stones and colors.

Now let us turn to matching these colors to the constellations.

Constellation Colors

The classic constellations were associated with colors, some of which have been explicitly recorded from antiquity. Others can be deduced, and some are related to the roles of Jesus Christ, which were discussed in an earlier article.^[12]

Scriptural Clues

Cornerstone Constellations. The colors associated with the four "cornerstone" constellations are the best established, and were discussed in detail in an earlier article.^[13] They are that the Lion is red, the Scorpion is black, the Water Bearer is blue, and the Bull is white. All four of those colors show up in the colors of the stones, choosing the royal blue color, which was one of the four principal colors used in the temple. The black would correspond to the red-black of garnet, which makes a more beautiful stone than a straight black color. Similarly, a clear stone like diamond can probably be substituted for white.

One of the Fishes (Pisces).

Purple Fishes. The four colors of the temple were red, blue, white and purple. The colors of the four cornerstone tribes are red (Judah), blue (Reuben), white (Joseph) and black (Dan). It appears that the four temple colors represent the four cornerstone tribes, and hence all of Israel, except that for some reason purple was substituted for black. I propose that such is the case, perhaps for the reason that black is not a good temple color (it also having the connotation of evil, like the black scorpion), and hence another tribe's color was substituted into its place. What is the logical tribe to use for temple work? Is it not Levi, whose tribe was dedicated to temple service? To me it seems clear that purple must be Levi's color. The constellation associated with Christ's role as the Great High Priest is the Fishes (the two fish representing his church), and the high priest was chosen from the tribe of Levi. Thus, purple is the proposed color of the fishes.

As long as we are noting that sometimes black is dropped from the four colors representing Israel, the suggestion arises that this might explain why the colors red, white and blue are so common in the flags of Europe, where scattered Israel migrated.

Golden Ram and Scales. The Ram was often called the Ram with the Golden Fleece, and the ancient Greek authority Homer referred to the Scales as the "golden scales."^[14] There are two "golden" colors in the constellations, one being yellow and one yellow-green. Let us associate those two colors with those two constellations, with the option of switching them if the resultant order requires it.

Fire Opal can be orange like jasper.

Fiery Archer. The archer almost certainly needs to be the fiery orange color described for the heavenly beings. The Archer has wings in the older pictures, such as that at Denderah in Egypt, but in the modern pictures, taken from the Greek, the wings were mistaken for a cloak flowing in the breeze above the Archer.

Tan Crab. The light yellowish brown (tan) color of topaz matches the color of the Fiddler crab very well, and hence is proposed as a tentative identification. It also matches a common color for the donkey, which is also associated with these stars.

The red and white Twins.

Red/White Twins. Let us match the red and white stripes of sardonyx with the Twins for two reasons. First, the twins are associated with the first and second coming of Jesus Christ. He is usually shown in white in pictures of his first coming, and yet he will be dressed in red at his second coming (Rev. 19:13). Moreover, the Twins are the constellation of Benjamin, and that tribe was split into two halves, part going with Judah (red) and part with Ephraim (white). And finally, the red and white stripes so common in flags (including the U.S.) may tie to Benjamin.

Emerald symbolizes green.

Green Sea Goat. By elimination, the last constellation of the Sea Goat must be matched with the color green. That is not unreasonable because green is a color that can fit the sea, which is often a blue-green color, and also the land with green plants.

Let us now list this tentative correlation in a table, along with the tribes of Israel which correspond to these twelve constellations, from last month's article.

Hebrew	Foundation	Color	Zodiac	Tribe
1. Odem	Sard	Red	Lion	Judah
2. Pitdah	Topaz	Tan	Crab	Issachar
3. Bareqeth	Chrysoprase	Yellow Green	Ram	Zebulon
4. Nophek	Jacinth	Red Black	Scorpion	Dan
5. Sappiyr	Chalcedony	Light Blue	Maiden	Naphtali
6. Yahalom	Jasper	Orange	Archer	Gad
7. Leshem	Lapis Lazuli	Royal Blue	Water Bearer	Reuben
8. Shebuw	Emerald Quartz	Green	Sea Goat	Simeon
9. Aclamah	Amethyst	Purple	Fishes	Levi
10. Tarshish	Chrysolite	Yellow	Scales	Asher
11. Shoham	Beryl	White	Bull	Joseph
12. Jashepheh	Sardonyx	Red & White	Twins	Benjamin

Table 4. The Twelve stones, colors and tribes.

The Order

What is the order of these stones? That is, what is the order of the tribes as listed in Table 4? Before considering this, note that many commentators assume is that they must be listed in order of birth date, and they assign Reuben (the first born) to odem, and so on, and consider the problem solved by assumption. This conclusion probably comes from the fact that on the shoulders of the high priest, the names were engraved with six names on each of two (white) beryl stones, with six on each stone, "according to their birth" (Ex. 28:10). Let's examine even that meaning before proceeding.

Shoulder Stone Order

When Moses was told to list the twelve tribes on the two shoulder stones "according to their birth," what did he understand that to mean? Was it strictly in order by birth date? A careful reading of Genesis 29-30 shows that the actual of order of birth of the twelve sons of Jacob is not even given. Rather, what is given is the order of birth by wife. That is, the order of birth of Leah's six sons was Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulon. Similarly, the order of birth of Bilhah's sons was Dan and Naphtali, of Zilpah's sons was Gad and Asher, and of Rachel's sons was Joseph and Benjamin. If you were Moses, how would you arrange these names onto two stones with six per stone?

Aquamarine is light blue like chalcedony.

If you say that you would put Leah's six children all on one stone, with the others on the other stone in the order just listed, then you agree with the standard Jewish interpretation. To me, that is almost certainly correct. It is the order in Genesis, except that all of Leah's children are grouped together, and it just seems to make to most sense to group both by family and order of birth. Another nice touch is that if the priest faced east (the sacred direction), then his right shoulder would face south, which was Reuben's direction, and the left would be north, which was Dan's direction. Thus, the stone on the right shoulder would start with Reuben's name with Dan leading the list on the left shoulder. That also fits with Reuben being the firstborn, which is associated with the son of the right hand. We know that because of his actions, Reuben lost that blessing of being the firstborn, but that does not change the birth order.

Figure 3. Breastplate reconstruction by A. Paul Davis.

This shoulder stone order is usually assumed to be the same order as the stones on the breastplate. The reproductions shown in both Figure 2 at the beginning of this article and Figure 3 here both have the names engraved in this order. Note that the first stone in both cases is in the upper right-hand corner of the illustration, consistent with Hebrew reading from right to left.

Encampment Order

In support of this shoulder order interpretation, consider the order of their names when the tribes encamped in a square fashion, with three tribes in each direction. The order given is Judah, Issachar, Zebulon (east), Reuben, Simeon, Gad (south), Ephraim, Manasseh, Benjamin (west), and Dan, Asher, Naphtali (north) (Num. 2:3-29). What order are they listed in here? The order is almost the same as just proposed for the two shoulder stones. Judah, Issachar and Zebulon are the last three on Leah's stone in the same order. Why would Judah's three be listed first? Perhaps it is because Judah is associated with the east, and east is the most important direction. Then Reuben, Simeon and Levi would have been the next three, except that Levi was removed from this list when he became head of the priestly tribe, which was protected in the middle of these armies. It would make sense for Gad, the first born of Leah's handmaid Zilpah, to take Levi's place. If so, then the next three are explained. Asher would then have moved up one place and we'd expect the north three to be Dan, Naphtali and Asher. Those are the three encamped on the north, but I have no explanation for why Naphtali and Asher have their order reversed. Perhaps it has to do with when the tribes actually migrated. Finally, the tribe of Joseph was split into Ephraim and Manasseh, which perfectly explains the order of the west encampment. Thus, with the exception of the Naphtali/Asher swap, the encampment order is perfectly explained by starting with the proposed shoulder order and then replacing Levi. Note that the four "cornerstone" tribes of Reuben, Judah, Dan, and Joseph (Ephraim) are each at the head of one of the four cardinal directions in the encampment order. That is in agreement with their each being the leaders for that direction, and their colors of blue, red, black and white representing those four directions.

Breastplate Order

Ruby is red like sard.

Now we are finally prepared to consider the order proposed for the breastplate. Looking at Table 4, we see that the order is very similar to the encampment order, but before Levi was replaced. The first three stones correspond to Judah, Issachar and Zebulon, exactly as in the encampment order. The next three correspond to the north direction, being Dan, Naphtali, and Asher. This time the three are still in the order expected from the shoulder order, rather than having Naphtali and Asher swapped. The next three correspond to south in the exact birth order expected: Reuben, Simeon and Levi. Finally the last three also are in perfect order: Asher, Joseph and Benjamin.

Another way to look at it is that the order is identical to the shoulder order broken into sets of three, and rearranged to have Judah head the list, as in the encampment order. So the order comes out perfectly, with only a slight modification from the standard Hebrew interpretation. That this resultant order would match so closely what was expected, and that it was derived from considerations about the colors of constellations and roles of Christ, is totally beyond chance. Thus, it is proposed that Table 4 indeed lists the correct correlations of the stones to the constellations, colors, and tribes.

Modern Birth Stones

How does all of this relate to our modern list of twelve birthstones? Jewelers pretty much agree on a list of ancient birth stones as correlated to months, and also have a similar modern list. They are presented in Table 5 along with the months according to the actual birthdates proposed for the twelve sons of Israel. The last column lists the gems proposed in this article to represent each of the twelve constellations and tribes.

Month	Modern	Ancient	Tribe	Birthday	Proposed
January	Garnet	Garnet
February	Amethyst	Amethyst	Levi	5 Feb	Amethyst
March	Aquamarine	Jasper	Zebulon	4 Mar	Peridot
April	Diamond	Sapphire	Joseph	6 Apr	Diamond
May	Emerald	Agate	Benjamin, Issachar	25 May, 29 May	Pink Tourmaline Topaz
June	Moonstone	Emerald	Judah	19 Jun	Ruby
July	Ruby	Onyx
August	Peridot	Carnelian	Naphtali	17 Aug	Aquamarine
September	Sapphire	Peridot	Asher	23 Sep	Chrysoberyl
October	Opal, Pink Tourmaline	Aquamarine	Dan	9 Oct	Garnet
November	Topaz, Citrine	Topaz	Gad	2 Nov	Fire Opal
December	Turquoise or Blue Topaz	Ruby	Simeon, Reuben	16 Dec 23 Dec	Emerald Sapphire

Table 5. Modern, ancient, and proposed birthstones.

Pink Tourmaline can replace red/white sardonyx.

One thing to note from the table, which may be surprising, is that four of the modern stones seems to be "correct" in that they match the proposed stones from this research. Amethyst for February, Diamond for April, Ruby for July, and Blue Topaz for December all match the colors well. In the table, Ruby (red) is associated with late June, but it really fits most of July well too. But that is how the stones matched the birth dates 3,800 years ago when these 12 men were born. Let us now discuss why that is not how they would be today.

Constellation Colors

Let us now return to the question of whether the stones correlate to months of our year, or of the Hebrew year, or to the 30 day "signs" used in modern astrology, or to the actual position of the sun in the zodiac constellation at the time of birth. Using the twelve sons of Jacob as a model, the answer is, that it is the actual position of the sun in the constellation at the time of birth which determines the stone. Note from Table 5 that none of the proposed dates for the births of the twelve sons of Jacob occurs in our modern months of January or July, nor is there one birth in each Hebrew month. Moreover, they do not all occur in the twelve equal periods of astrological "signs," beginning about the 21st of each month. On the contrary, the proposed dates of birth for Benjamin, Issachar and Judah all occurred between May 21 and June 21. But all twelve of the births do indeed occur when the sun is actually located in the zodiac constellation associated with that tribe and the stone is the color of that constellation.

One motivation for me as an astronomer to solve this puzzle was simply to be able to create a color picture of the zodiac constellations. Figure 4 is the result of this labor, with the position of the sun indicated for the time of birth of each of the twelve sons of Israel. Note that the constellations are all different sizes. That means not all stones get an equal length of time each year, but that the great constellation of the Maiden has the most people born at that time, whereas the tiny Scales and Crab have fewer who can claim those gems.

Figure 4. The Zodiac Constellations in the proposed colors.

Precession of the Equinoxes

Another matter that is bound to raise questions has to do with what is called the "precession of the equinoxes." The north pole of the earth does not always point to the same place in the sky, but rather it traces out a circle in the sky in about 26,000 years. That causes our solar year to shift through the zodiac constellations by about one constellation every 2,160 years.

Figure 5. The sun's position at the spring equinox.

Figure 5 shows the position of the sun on March 21 (the spring equinox when the sun rises due east) from 2000 BC to AD 2000 on the small scale beneath Aries and Pisces. At the birth of Jacob's sons, the sun was in the Ram on 21 Mar, and then at the birth of Christ it moved into the Fishes, where it still is. Modern astrologers mostly use the "signs" (constellations) associated with a birth date back in ancient times. That is, they say a person in our day born in the 30 days beginning on March 21 is an "Aries" (Ram), whereas the sun was actually in Pisces (the Fishes).

Peridot today is called chrysolite, but is the color of chysoprase

Proposed Stones for Our Day

Some readers will want to know what the "true" birthstones are for our age, based on the current position of the sun in the constellations. Because of the precession of the equinoxes, they would differ by about two months from the "Proposed" column in Table 4 for the twelve tribes. That is, the diamond (or beryl) would be the stone for those born when the sun was in the Bull, which would now be from mid-May to mid-June rather than from late March to early April as at the time of these patriarchs. It is not clear to me yet how to determine exactly where the boundary lines are between constellations for this purpose, but I will venture a preliminary proposal. Judging from the birth dates of these twelve tribes, it appears that the divisions between the constellations may be made according to a calendar based on the 7-day week, such that the sun always enters a zodiac constellation on a Sunday. Looking at the current position of the year in the zodiac the following table should suffice for the current decade.

Constellation	Begins Sunday on or after	Length (weeks)	Gem Stone
1. Maiden (Virgo)	12 Sep	7	Aquamarine
2. Scales (Libra)	31 Oct	3	Chrysoberyl
3. Scorpion (Scorpius)	21 Nov	4	Garnet
4. Archer (Sagittarius)	19 Dec	4	Fire Opal
5. Sea Goat (Capricornus)	16 Jan	4	Emerald
6. Water Bearer (Aquarius)	13 Feb	4	Blue Sapphire
7. Fishes (Pisces)	14 Mar	5	Amethyst
8. Ram (Aries)	18 Apr	3	Peridot
9. Bull (Taurus)	9 May	6	Diamond
10. Twins (Gemini)	20 Jun	4	Pink Tourmaline
11. Crab (Cancer)	18 Jul	3	Topaz
12. Lion (Leo)	8 Aug	5	Ruby

Table 6. Proposed Birth Constellations and Gems for current decade.

For example, in 2005 the day 12 Sep falls on a Monday, so the sun would enter Virgo on the following Sunday (18 Sep). On the other hand, 13 Feb falls on a Sunday, so that day would begin Aquarius. This is only a tentative proposal, but it should suffice until a more accurate model can be deduced. The three close birthdays of Benjamin, Issachar and Judah would be explained if the Crab began at that time on the Sunday on or after 26 May.

Conclusion

An identification is proposed of the twelve stones of the ancient Israelite high priest's breastplate with a) modern stone names, b) the colors, c) the foundation stones of the New Jerusalem, d) the associated zodiac constellations and e) the corresponding tribes of Israel. The derivation was based on name meanings, stone colors, traditional zodiac constellation colors and proposed birth dates for the twelve sons of Israel. The resultant order of the twelve tribes is entirely compatible with other Biblical arrangements. Because there is virtually no possibility that the resultant order could be due to random chance, it is concluded that these correlations are correct and that the long-standing puzzle of the origin of our birthstones has been solved.

Notes

1. Pratt, John P., "Twelve Sons, Twelve Constellations," Meridian Magazine (13 Jul 2005).

2. The flags of the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands, Czech Republic, Norway, Iceland, Luxembourg, Croatia, and Russia are red, white and blue (like the United States). The flags of Denmark, Switzerland, Poland, and Monaco are red and white (like Canada).

3. The Lord specified birth order for listing the names of six tribes on each of the two shoulder stones of the high priest (Ex. 28:10), so many scholars assume the same order for the twelve stones.

4. Schumann, Walter, Gemstones of the World (New York: Sterling, 1997), p. 86.

5. Schumann, p. 86

6. The ancient Jewish historian Josephus explicitly states that the order of the names on the breastplate stones was the birth order (Antiquities III.vii.5). But Josephus cannot be trusted in any detailed information. He lists the order of the stones differently in each of his books, and that differs from the order in the Greek version of the Old Testament, the Septuagint.

7. Strong, James, The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (McClean Virgina: MacDonald), Hebrew word 124. The Hebrew odem also has the same root as the name of "Adam." In earlier articles we have already identified red as the color of Judah, the Lion (Leo) as his constellation. Moreover, Adam was associated with the bright star in the Lion, so all of this is consistent with Adam also referring to red.

8. New American Standard Bible (Carol Stream, Ill.:Creation House, 1973).

9. Strong, word 7718, "to blanch."

10. Pratt, John P., "The Lion and Unicorn Testify of Christ, Part I: The Cornerstone Constellations," Meridian Magazine (8 Nov 2001). Section 2.7 identifies the four colors associated with the four principal tribes: Judah is red, Dan is black, Reuben is blue, and Joseph is white.

11. While peridot today are called chrysolite, there has been a shift in meaning, because it is clearly the yellow-green color implied by the name chrysoprase.

12. Pratt, John P., " The Constellations Tell of Christ," Meridian Magazine (15 Jun 2005), called "The Zodiac Testifies of Christ" on my website.

13. See footnote 10.

14. Allen, Richard H., Star Names, Their Lore and Meaning (New York: Dover, 1963), first published as Star-Names and Their Meanings by G.E. Stechert in 1899, pp. 78, 271. The quote there from Homer is "Th' Eternal Father hung His golden scales aloft."

Taken from: http://www.meridianmagazine.com/sci_rel/050803stones.html