Lord, Increase our Faith.

In our Gospels for this Sunday (Luke 17:5-10), we have two themes. The first concerns faith and the second is about having a servant’s heart. While we might not see how these themes are related, I believe they are. 

The apostles ask our Lord, “Increase our faith." Jesus gives them a curious response. "If you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you would say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it would obey you” (Luke 17: 5-6).

 

Before examining the apostle’s question about faith, it might be helpful to review what we understand by the word faith.  In Hebrews, we read a definition of faith: 

“Now faith is the assurance (hypostatis, ὑπόστασις) of things hoped for, and the evidence (elenchos) ἔλεγχος) of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1, my translation).  

 

Faith is not about what we can know scientifically through our senses or logically in our mind. To the extent that the evidence for these things is clear, we just know them to be true. No faith is involved. Faith is about those truths we know which are ‘unseen’ (Hebrews 11:1, Romans 8:24–25). Religious faith is directed at what is unseen, and what is unseen is eternal (2 Corinthians 4:17–18). We walk by faith, not by sight (2 Corinthians 5:6). We know these truths indirectly through credible witnesses whom we trust. 

 

Faith is “both a gift of God and a human act by which the believer gives personal adherence to God who invites his response, and freely assents to the whole truth that God has revealed.” (CCC glossary). As a gift of God, faith is a supernatural virtue infused in us by him (CCC 153). The Holy Spirit moves the human heart to bring about conversion and illumination. The Spirit moves and leads our heart, but faith is still a free human act. We know the truths of faith by means of our intellect and will as they cooperate with divine grace, which leads us to freely assent with mind and heart. Faith is necessary for salvation and the act of faithleads us to the obedience of faith (Romans 16:25–26). This a foundational commitment by which we offer the whole self freely to God, and by which we offer the full submission of intellect and will to God who reveals. [Read more: A Primer on Faith.]

 

The apostle’s request to increase their faith raises some interesting questions. Can we have different amounts of faith? Do some people have more faith than others do? Is it possible to increase the amount of faith we have? Does Jesus reply about a tiny mustard seed imply that just a little faith is enough, or that faith is not something we measure? Could Jesus response to the apostles mean as long as we have some faith that is enough?

 

Regarding different amounts of faith, greater or lesser, there are many examples in Scripture suggesting that faith varies from person to person. Jesus rebukes his disciples many times in Matthew’s Gospel, calling them “men of little faith” ( Matthew 6:30, 8:26, 16:8, 17:19-20).  When the disciples are unable to cast out a demon, which Jesus later casts out, the disciples ask him “in private”, “Why could we not drive it out?” (17:19). 

 

Jesus replies to them, “Because of your little faith. Amen, I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you” (Matthew 17:19–20). After all, the normal expectation of a disciple would be to imitate the life of the master. The disciples of Jesus would expect to do the things Jesus does. This saying from Matthew parallels the second part of Jesus saying in our gospel. Clearly, Jesus is teaching the disciples to have faith through his own teachings and life example.  They are being formed by him, and he is not giving up on them.

 

Near the end of his earthly life Jesus says to the apostles, 

Amen, I say to you, if you have faith and do not waver, not only will you do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,’ it will be done. Whatever you ask for in prayer with faith, you will receive. (Matthew 21:21–22).

 

One is reminded of Jesus’ saying John 14:21,

Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes in me will do the works that I do, and will do greater ones than these, because I am going to the Father.

 

Similarly, St. Paul’s comments to the Corinthians, 

“…if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing” (1 Corinthians 13:2). Perhaps the most dramatic story about faith concerns Peter walking on water.  Seeing Jesus walking on water, Matthew tells us, 

Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus; but when he saw the wind, he was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, “Lord, save me.” Jesus immediately reached out his hand and caught him, saying to him, “O man of little faith, why did you doubt?” (Matthew 14:30-31).

 

The clear implication seems to be that Peter’s initial faith, which appears great, is negatively impacted by fear and doubt. As Jesus said, “if you have faith and do not waver” (Matthew 21:21).  Peter was successfully exercising faith and even walking on water, until he became afraid and doubted or wavered. Bloomberg notes, “The word “doubt” (from Greek distazō) suggests the idea of trying to go in two different directions at once or of serving two different masters simultaneously” ^[ii] If faith as the full assent of the intellect and will, then doubt and fear degrade the firmness of the will to its purpose. 

 

In our modern world with its high value on equality, some people may be shocked to think that faith could be greater in a sharper intellect, or in someone who has a stronger will. Yet the material object of faith varies from person to person as one believer assents more explicitly than another. Subjectively, brighter minds seize upon truth with greater certainty, and stronger wills may have a greater readiness for loyalty and devotion.^[iii] Grace builds upon, and perfects nature. 

St. Thomas notes that, “… he who is better prepared for grace, receives more grace” But he also notes, “Yet it is not here that we must seek the first cause of this diversity, since man prepares himself, only inasmuch as his free-will is prepared by God. Hence the first cause of this diversity is to be sought on the part of God… ^[iv]

 

We should expect diversity in the natural order but is there also diversity in supernatural gifts of faith? St. Paul writes to the Romans, 

 

“For by the grace given to me I tell everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than one ought to think, but to think soberly, each according to the measure of faith that God has apportioned” (Romans 12:3)

 

Just as God has given different gifts and talents to each person, he has also apportioned faith differently. When we think of exercising faith, James highlights connections between prayer and healing calling it the “payer of faith”. He writes,

 

Is anyone among you sick? He should summon the presbyters of the church, and they should pray over him and anoint [him] with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up. (James 5:14–15).

 

God determines how these graces are distributed in the body of Christ. All of God’s gifts are given to us for the benefit, encouragement, and building up the church (1 Corinthians 14: 3, 12).

 

Returning to the request of apostles in our Gospel, “Lord, ‘Increase our faith.’” (Luke 17: 5), what are they asking for? 

 

First, I think we should notice what is presumed. The proper response of man to God’s revelation, aided by the interior movement of the Spirit, is what the Bible calls obedience of faith (cf. Acts 6:7, Romans 6:17). The Fathers of Second Vatican Council describe the obedience of faith (Romans 16:26 and 2 Corinthians 10:5-6) as “an obedience by which man commits his whole self freely to God, offering the full submission of intellect and will to God who reveals and freely assenting to the truth revealed by Him.” (Dei Verbum, 5). This a radical change of the entire persons outlook, making Christ the center of their life. Without this step, there can be no progress in the growth of our faith. 

 

Since we do not know the apostle’s hearts, we have an incomplete picture, but they have literally left everything to follow Jesus. The fruit of their lives demonstrates that this fundamental change of heart has taken place (perhaps not in Judas). 

 

More likely, the disciples question centers on being fully or maturely Jesus’ disciples who are able to exercise or practice their faith. As disciples the apostles would expect to know Jesus’ teachings and to imitate his life to the point of being another Christ. As we see Jesus teach them earlier in Luke, “No disciple is superior to the teacher; but when fully trained, every disciple will be like his teacher” (Luke 6:40).

 

They are asking then to know and love Jesus more, and to have greater conformity of their will to his. Could they also be asking for supernatural gifts of faith? I think this is highly likely. They may be asking to exercise something like the “prayer of faith” that James refers to (James 5:14–15).

 

What about Jesus’ response? He tells them, “"If you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you would say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it would obey you.” (Luke 17: 5-6). 

 

In the original Greek this a conditional statement, If this true, then this will also be true. There are normally two types of conditions. One construction that was used to refer to a real condition and a second different construction, which refers to an unreal condition. Here Luke has mixed these together with a real condition in the “if” statement and an unreal condition in the “then” statement. 

 

Bovon suggests the meaning, “You do have faith, but your faith does not uproot any tree.” ^[v] Marshall suggests a motive. Luke constructs it this way “due to politeness: the disciples’ request presupposes that they have some faith, and ‘if you had faith’ might seem to deny this assumption too bluntly.”^[vi] Fitzmyer agrees noting that constructed otherwise “… the implication would then be that the apostles do not have as much as a mustard-seed amount of faith^[vii]

 

What are we to make of this? Do we suggest as some commentators have that only a tiny bit of faith is necessary, so the disciples should not be asking for more? I am reluctant to agree with this statement, given what Jesus has said elsewhere. Surely, we can ask to deepen in our understanding and knowledge of the faith, and to grow in virtue and thus we strengthen our will. What about asking for an increase in the supernatural gift of faith?

 

Would it also be pious to pray for an increase of the gift of faith? On the Thirtieth Sunday in Ordinary Time in the Collect, we pray, 

 

Almighty ever-living God,

increase our faith, hope and charity,

and make us love what you command,

so that we may merit what you promise.

Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,

who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit,

God, for ever and ever. ^[viii]

 

Clearly, the church in its universal prayer has all the faithful praying to increase in faith, hope and charity. The fact that this prayer refers to the three virtues of faith, hope and charity, indicates that the supernatural virtues are in view. In popular piety it also the custom to pray the first three beads of opening the “tail” of the rosary for an increase in faith, hope and charity. Let us pray then, “Come Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of your faithful, and enkindle in them the fire of your love…”

 

We must decide which pair of glasses to put on through which we will see Jesus’ response. Will we choose to see it as a rebuke, or as a teaching moment in the journey of discipleship? Since it is a good and holy thing to pray that we might increase in faith, I think this is a teaching moment. Jesus desires each one of us to have great faith. 

 

How does faith increase? On one side of the equation, how much faith we receive depends on God. He created us with certain gifts and talents (our natural intellect and will) and has also gifted us differently in the realm of grace. All of this is God. 

 

On the other side of the equation, we have our human response and cooperation. A fundamental change occurs with the full submission of our intellect and will to God, in the act of faith we call the obedience of faith. Following this, we grow in faith both naturally and supernaturally through our ongoing cooperation.

 

Some examples in the natural realm might be our cooperation though learning about our faith through study. We can increase our faith by reading the Bible, reading the Catechism, and reading other spiritual books.  Many times, people who are struggling with their faith have false notions about God, Jesus Christ, and the church. These false ideas have consequences in their faith life.

 

We also know that our will can be strengthen through the disciplines of regular prayer, penance and other spiritual practices. Our faith is also increased through frequenting the sacraments, especially the Eucharist and Confession. (Read more about the Graces of Frequent Confession).

 

The final words of Jesus in our Gospel remind us that the obedience of faith requires humility and docility to God’s will. The servant does all he is commanded, and simply replies to our Lord, “’We are unprofitable servants; we have done what we were obliged to do’” (Luke 17:10). Let each one of us recognize that all we have is from God and offer him our thanks and obedience.

---

^[i] R. Garrigou-Lagrange, OP, The Theological Virtues, I, On Faith (London: HerderBook Co., 1965) 343.

^[ii] Craig Blomberg, Matthew, vol. 22, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 235.

^[iii] Garrigou-Lagrange, Ibid. 343.

^[iv] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (London: Burns Oates & Washbourne, n.d.).ST Ia IIae, q. 112, a 4

^[v] François Bovon, Luke 2: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 9:51–19:27, ed. Helmut Koester, trans. Donald S. Deer, Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2013), 496.

^[vi] I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1978), 644–645.

^[vii] Joseph A. Fitzmyer S.J., The Gospel according to Luke X–XXIV: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, vol. 28A, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 1143–1144.

^[viii] The Roman Missal: Renewed by Decree of the Most Holy Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, Promulgated by Authority of Pope Paul VI and Revised at the Direction of Pope John Paul II, Third Typical Edition (Washington D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011), 490.

 

A Primer on Faith

How Does the Bible Understand Faith?

In Hebrews we read: 

“Faith is the realization (hypostatis, ὑπόστασις) of what is hoped for and evidence (elenchos) ἔλεγχος) of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1 NABRE2nd).

“Now faith is the assurance (hypostatis, ὑπόστασις) of things hoped for, the conviction (elenchos) ἔλεγχος) of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1 RSVCE).

On the surface, this verse contrasts ‘realization’ (‘assurance’ RSVCE) from opinion, suspicion, and doubt. It also refers to ‘things not seen,’ which distinguishes it from those truths known through Science or the first principles of reason. The verse does not explicitly point to God as the object of divine faith, and to hope in him, but this is clearly implied.  Attridge and Koester note that we see the hoped-for goals of reward, salvation and divine life in the verses, which follow. [i]

Attridge and Koester observe,

Faith, in other words, involves both affective-volitional and cognitive elements; it is obedient fidelity and trusting belief at the same time and both components are essential. The perception of reality that faith provides gives the basic motivation³⁴ to endure trials and tribulations. [ii]

Craig R. Koester notes the translation “assurance” captures this more completely as both “a pledge or guarantee and subjectively it is a personal state of certainty”[iii]

While not denying the subjective element of faith, the objective nature of hypostasis is much more prominent in this verse.  Yet Mitchell suggests, “It is not out of the question that the author may intend both senses.”[iv]

The “assurance of what is hoped for” finds its reality in the object of our hope, which is God and his promises. Hypostasis (“assurance”) in ancient philosophical literature pointed to the “reality” behind appearances [v] this is also suggested by suggested by “the parallel between hypostasis (“assurance”) and elenchos, which was the “proof” of something’s existence or truth.” [vi] Elenchos never has the subjective sense of “conviction.” The RSVCE is incorrect on this point.

Many modern commentators have distanced themselves from Luther’s purely subjective interpretation of hypostasis as “sure confidence.” The primary sense of the word seems to be objective but we need not deny a subjective element. The paradigmatic act of faith later in Hebrew 12:1-3 may point in this direction.

Pope Benedict XVI is willing to concede that faith has a subjective element, but does not think we see this in Hebrew 11:1. He notes, “Faith is not merely a personal reaching out towards things to come that are still totally absent: it gives us something. It gives us even now something of the reality we are waiting for, and this present reality constitutes for us a “proof” of the things that are still unseen.” [vii]

The writings of St. Paul echo similar notions. The apostle writes, “For in hope we were saved. Now hope that sees for itself is not hope. For who hopes for what one sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait with endurance” (Romans 8:24–25).  In a similar manner, St. Paul writes, “For this momentary light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, as we look not to what is seen but to what is unseen; for what is seen is transitory, but what is unseen is eternal” (2 Corinthians 4:17–18). And a few verse later, “So we are always courageous, although we know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Corinthians 5:6).

Religious faith is directed at what is unseen, and what is unseen is eternal (2 Corinthians 4:17–18). We walk by faith, not by sight (2 Corinthians 5:6).

Thinking More Deeply About Faith 

The Catechism of the Catholic Church 

According to the glossary to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Faith is “Both a gift of God and a human act by which the believer gives personal adherence to God who invites his response, and freely assents to the whole truth that God has revealed.”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes the characteristics of Christian faith, by noting that faith begins as a grace given by God. “Faith is a gift of God, a supernatural virtue infused by him” (CCC 153). In order to attain faith, we must first be moved and assisted by God. The Holy Spirit moves the human heart to bring about conversion and illumination. 

While it is true that faith is brought about by the interior help of the Spirit, it is still an authentically human act. “Trusting in God and cleaving to the truths he has revealed are contrary neither to human freedom nor to human reason” (CCC 154). The human intellect and will cooperate with divine grace.  We offer our assent to divine truth by the free exercise of our will, which is nonetheless moved by God through grace (CCC 155).

While the revealed truths of faith do not appear true and intelligible in the light of our natural reason, we nevertheless believe ‘because of the authority of God himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived.’” (CCC 156). Yet this is not blind faith but faith seeking understanding. Faith is in accord with reason and strengthened by the external proofs of his Revelation and be joined to the internal helps of the Holy Spirit (CCC 156).

Because of this, faith is certain, in fact more certain than all human knowledge because it is founded on the very word of God who cannot lie. (CCC 157). The act of faith seeks deeper understanding and a more penetrating knowledge it truth which will in turn call forth a greater faith, increasingly set afire by love. (CCC 158). In the words of St. Augustine, “I believe, in order to understand; and I understand, the better to believe.” [St. Augustine, Sermo 43, 7, 9]

There is no inherent conflict between faith and truthful science: “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.” [Dei Filius 4: DS 3017] (CCC 159).

The act of faith is of its very nature a free act, which requires that no one be forced to believe against their will (CCC 160). Faith is necessary for salvation [Dei Filius 3: DS 3012; cf. Mt 10:22; 24:13 and Heb 11:6; Council of Trent: DS 1532] (CCC 161).  The free gift of faith is precious and must be carefully preserved. We can lose this gift (CCC 162).

Faith is the beginning of eternal life and a foretaste of the heavenly beatific vision CCC 163). Yet the Catechism warns, “'we walk by faith, not by sight' [2 Cor 5:7]; we perceive God as 'in a mirror, dimly' and only 'in part.' [1 Cor 13:12]. Even though enlightened by him in whom it believes, faith is often lived in darkness and can be put to the test” (CCC 164).

Faith in General

Today the word ‘faith’ is for the most part is a religious word.  Although we might say we have faith in a friend or spouse. The word faith in the Bible, however, is a general category for the activity of knowing or believing. It means, “to believe to the extent of complete trust and reliance—‘to believe in, to have confidence in”. [viii]

This not generally how we use the word ‘faith’ today in English. We might say to someone, “I believe there is a gallon jug of milk in the fridge,” but unless we are joking, we would not say, “I have faith there is a gallon jug of milk in the fridge.”

The act of coming to know something can be of two types. [ix] The first would be a scientific demonstration or a logical idea that our mind see as self-evident. We assent to this type of truth because we simply see that it is true with our senses or with our mind. We assent or agree to the truth of the idea, because we are the moved by the intrinsic evidence of truths. The evidence in this case is something concrete.

Scientific Demonstration

Assents to things seen by the senses either: 1) empirically observed 2) or seen when the mind grasps that something is true by the first principles of reason as well as those truths logically deduced or inferred from evident principles. Assent by intrinsic reason which is moved by the intrinsic evidence of truths.

 The second type of knowing works in a parallel fashion but instead of what we see ourselves we assent based on things that are unseen.  Our will assents to things unseen but it does not directly see the intrinsic reason for the truth of a given proposition

In order to believe something in this category we must have some motive, and the motive is not concrete evidence. If the motive is strong and the assent is firm, we call this faith. If the motive for assent is weak or uncertain, then the resulting act is opinion.

Therefore, in a certain sense, faith stands between scientific or logical demonstration and opinion. It is an act of both the intellect and the will. When we make an act of faith, the intellect assents to a given truth (or falsehood) because the will chooses to do so motivated by the credibility afforded to the witness. The credible witness substitutes for the undeniable evidence of the first category. Yet this is not “blind faith” as some would characterize it. It is assent with thinking and the character of the witness weighed by our intellect.

Although we do not call this ‘faith’ in common speech, we frequently make acts of faith in everyday life. If my dog is sick, and I take him to the veterinarian and she tells me that feeding Fluffy grapes is the cause of his sickness, I am not going to spend eight years studying to receive my own DVM credentials, I instead make an act of faith and assent to the truth the veterinarian has shared with me. I believe in something, which to me is unseen, based on the credibility of the witness. If my neighbor or friend shares some other reason for Fluffy’s illness, which I consider doubtful, and I question his credibility, but I give weak assent to this idea, then it is opinion.

Religious Faith

The above example about natural faith, but we also knowledge based on faith. We can distinguish two types of knowledge based on faith—human faith, when we rely on another person’s witness (as in the case of pupil/teacher, child/parent), and “supernatural faith (when the testimony comes from God himself, who is Supreme Truth). In this latter case the knowledge provided is most certain.” [x]

 Faith and Opinion

• Assents to things unseen and does not directly see the intrinsic reason for the truth of a given proposition.
• The intellect moved by the will, assents to an unseen object only if there is some motive for giving assent. The motive is a witness who is either credible or not credible.

Faith

• If the motive is so strong that the assent is firm, than the resulting act is called faith.
• Faith is a firm impulse of the will, founded upon a sufficiently credible witness. The proposition merits firm assent because of the authority of those who teach it.

Opinion

• If the motive for assent is uncertain, then the resulting act is opinion.
• Opinion is a weak impulse of the will which remains in doubt with fear.

Supernatural Faith

• A firm assent of the mind to things unseen as supernatural virtue by which we believe the truths God has revealed, moved by God’s grace and motivated by God as Truth.

Supernatural faith is a firm assent of the mind to things unseen as supernatural virtue.  We believe the truths God has revealed. By his grace, God’s own truth moves and motivates us to assent. The credible witness in this case is God himself. As a kind of preamble, we can determine philosophically that God exist, and historically we can see that it is reasonable to believe that God has spoken through the prophets and finally in the person of Jesus Christ. In addition to the work of the Holy Spirit are three concrete classes of witnesses.

Three Classes of Witnesses

1) The prophets who announced His coming

2) The Apostles who witnessed His Incarnation (preaching, Passion, and Resurrection)

3) The Church, which preserves and passes on the deposit of faith [xi].

Again it should be emphasized that this is faith seeking understanding, ad not some kind of unthinking obedience to authority. As St. Paul admonishes the Corinthians, “We destroy arguments and every pretension raising itself against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive in obedience to Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:4b–5). This is assent with thinking.

The Act of Faith

In the realm of grace, and moved interiorly by the Spirit, God calls for a specific human response to his witness. St. Paul writes to the Romans,

“Through him we have received the grace of apostleship, to bring about the obedience of faith, for the sake of his name, among all the Gentiles” (Romans 1:5).

“Now to him who can strengthen you, according to my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret for long ages but now manifested through the prophetic writings and, according to the command of the eternal God, made known to all nations to bring about the obedience of faith” (Romans 16:25–26). 

The proper response of man to God’s revelation, aided by the interior movement of the Sprit, is obedience of faith (cf. Acts 6:7, Romans 6:17).

The fathers of Second Vatican Council describe this obedience as involving two aspects.  First, it is a commitment by which we offer the whole self freely to God, and by which we offer the full submission of intellect and will to God who reveals. Secondly, we must acknowledge the work of the Spirit of God, whose interior help must precede and assist our will, moving the heart and turning it to God, and opening the eyes of the mind.

"The obedience of faith" (Rom. 16:26; see 1:5; 2 Cor 10:5-6) "is to be given to God who reveals, an obedience by which man commits his whole self freely to God, offering the full submission of intellect and will to God who reveals," (4)  [xii] and freely assenting to the truth revealed by Him. To make this act of faith, the grace of God and the interior help of the Holy Spirit must precede and assist, moving the heart and turning it to God, opening the eyes of the mind and giving "joy and ease to everyone in assenting to the truth and believing it." (5)[xiii] To bring about an ever deeper understanding of revelation the same Holy Spirit constantly brings faith to completion by His gifts. (Dei Verbum, 5) 

Augustine Cardinal Bea comments on this passage and the notion of obedience of faith. He  notes that while this obedience is an act of the intellect and will,

“ …we must not reduce it to a mere act of the intellect, or even to an act of the will. With faith ‘man entrusts his whole self to God’. It is not just a question of accepting doctrine as true, nor yet of simply accepting this or that religious practice. The purpose of God’s revelation is to make a man a son by adoption, and to admit him to fellowship with himself …To believe means to accept God’s plan, to allow one’s own life to be transformed and given a definite significance and direction.[xiv]

Cardinal Ratzinger in his earlier writings notes,

In other words, belief signifies the decision that at the very core of human existence there is a point that cannot be nourished and supported on the visible and tangible, that encounters and comes into contact with what cannot be seen and finds that it is a necessity for its own existence. 

Such an attitude is certainly to be attained only by what the language of the Bible calls “turning back,” “con-version.” Man’s natural inclination draws him to the visible, to what he can take in his hand and hold as his own. He has to turn around inwardly in order to see how badly he is neglecting his own interests by letting himself be drawn along in this way by his natural inclination. He must turn around to recognize how blind he is if he trusts only what he sees with his eyes. Without this change of direction, without this resistance to the natural inclination, there can be no belief. Indeed belief is the conversion in which man discovers that he is following an illusion if he devotes himself only to the tangible. This is at the same time the fundamental reason why belief is not demonstrable: it is an about-turn; only he who turns about is receptive to it; and because our inclination does not cease to point us in another direction, it remains a turn that is new every day; only in a lifelong conversion can we become aware of what it means to say “I believe.”[xv]

While faith itself is an objective reality, the notion of the obedience of faith involves the movement of the heart, and a decisive change to our being as we cooperate with the graces of the Holy Spirit.  Since faith involves both the intellect and the will it necessarily connect to our cooperation and subjective response, even though founded on an objective reality. 

---

[i] Harold W. Attridge and Helmut Koester, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989), 308, n 31. ”Enoch (vs. 5) attains immortality; Noah (vs. 7) salvation; Abraham (vss. 8–9) a place of inheritance; Sarah (vss. 11, 12) promised offspring; Abraham (vs. 19) his son, offered to God; Joseph (vs. 22) burial in Israel; Moses (vs. 26) a reward. In the concluding passage (vss. 32–35) there is a lengthy list of the goods attained through faith.”

[ii] Ibid., note 34 “Note the motivations ascribed to the various biblical characters in vss. 11, 14–15, 19, 26.”

[iii] Craig R. Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 36, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 472.

[iv]Alan C. Mitchell, Hebrews, ed. Daniel J. Harrington, vol. 13, Sacra Pagina Series (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2007), 228.

[v] Ibid.

[vi] Ibid.

[vii] Benedict XVI, Spe Salvi (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2007).

[viii] Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 375–376.

[ix] St. Thomas Aquinas, ST II-II, q. 1, a. 4. resp.

[x]The Letter to the Hebrews, The Navarre Bible (Dublin; New York: Four Courts Press; Scepter Publishers, 2005), 114.

[xi] Lawrence Feingold, Faith Comes from What Is Heard: An Introduction to Fundamental Theology (Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Academic, 2016), 31.

[xii] First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chap. 3, "On Faith:" Denzinger 1789 (3008).

[xiii] Second Council of Orange, Canon 7: Denzinger 180 (377); First Vatican Council, loc. cit.: Denzinger 1791 (3010).

[xiv] Augustine Cardinal Bea, The Word of God and Mankind, (Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1967) 105.

[xv] Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1990), 50–52.

Finding time for Lazarus

Our Gospel for this Sunday (Luke 16:19-31) opens with a contrasting story of a rich man and poor man named Lazarus. The Hebrew name Lazar is a shorten form of Eleazar, which means “God helps” and is very apt for the poor man who is completely dependent on God and others.[i]

 If this story is a parable, it is the only parable of Jesus, which specifically names the character in it. Because of this, some interpreters have seen this as a story, rather than parable. The truth is it is difficult to be certain either way. Some have feared understanding this passage as a parable, thinking this might weaken the truths it reveals about the afterlife.

This is not at all obvious! Why would Jesus tell even a parable, which gives a misleading picture of the truths of the afterlife?

Jesus contrasts two characters with very graphic language. Later tradition named the rich man Dives, but this is a clear misreading of the later Latin translation. Dives means rich in Latin.[ii]  The rich man is unnamed in Scripture.

Jesus describes the man as extremely rich. "There was a rich man” Jesus says, “who dressed in purple garments and fine linen and dined sumptuously each day” (Luke 16:19).

Jesus describes his outer garment as ‘purple’ the most expensive type of garment made from an exclusive purple dye extracted from a sea snail (Acts 16:14). This color was associated with kings and gods in Roman culture and represented the highest luxury. It was a royal color.

The fabric of his undergarments was “byssus," a fine linen from Egypt. The stock phrase ‘purple and fine linen’ indicated the most expensive attire. The phrase “he was dressed” indicates in Greek, that he wore these clothes customarily, likely daily.

The man dined sumptuously each day. The word dined is not the ordinary word for dining, but instead for feasting and the adverb sumptuously implies, “magnificently,” “luxuriously,” or “lavishly.” Everything about this description implies extraordinary riches, and conspicuous consumption.

The description of poor Lazarus is perhaps even more graphic in contrast. Jesus notes, “And lying at his door was a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who would gladly have eaten his fill of the scraps that fell from the rich man's table. Dogs even used to come and lick his sores” (Luke 16:120-21).

The word used for ‘poor’ implies that he was in a continuous state of being destitute. He was not just in need of some material help, but in an ongoing state of abject misery and poverty. The phrase “lying at his door” likely implies that Lazarus was at least ill or crippled, but possible even too ill to move. We are left with the impression that Lazarus was brought to the gate by others, and left there to beg. He is covered in sores or ulcers. These sores are not likely leprosy, or he would not be able to beg publicly. 

He is so weak that he could not prevent dogs from licking his sores. In the Jewish mind, this would make him unclean. Lazarus is completely out of control, and dependent on others. The expression being left lying there may even imply something stronger, that he was dumped there and discarded by others, and that he had no support.

Yet in this sorry state, he waits begging at the door or more correctly a luxurious gate to the rich man’s mansion. Lazarus longs to eat even the scraps that fell from the rich man's table (Matthew 15:27). Yet he is unnoticed and forgotten and receives nothing. He is so ill that he dies shortly after this, perhaps even from hunger.

Jesus continues, “When the poor man died, he was carried away by angels to the bosom of Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried, and from the netherworld, where he was in torment…” (Luke 16:22-23).

 Our lectionary translation begins “When the poor man died…” In English seems this to imply “sometime later,” but the original Greek means simply “it came to be” or “it happened that.”[iii]

 In keeping with his, name Lazarus, who is helped by God, he is left unburied and uncared for in death, but carried by God’s messengers to the “bosom of Abraham.” This expression in contemporary Judaism meant a place of eternal rest, and bliss in the afterlife.

 Initially Hades or Hebrew Sheol, is seen as a general resting place for all the dead, yet their fates were not the same as seen in our Gospel (CCC 633).  While we have the complication of a kind of intermediate state of the dead, prior to Christ’s death and decent into Hell, already their final states are revealed. This many not yet be the later Heaven and Hell but their fates are still predetermined at death. See note IV below.

 By way of contrast, the rich man also died suddenly.  He is cared for in his burial. Yet his destiny in the afterlife is the opposite of poor Lazarus. The rich man is immediately in ‘Hades’ or “the place of the dead” for the unjust, and not in the bliss of heavenly comfort. [iv]

 What do we make of this reversal of fortunes?

 First in the Ancient Near East it was common to assume that prosperity in this life was sign of God’s blessing, and adversity a sign of God’s displeasure (Psalm 73). Jesus has already contradicted this notion earlier in Luke’s Gospel. In his Sermon on the Plain Jesus notes, “Blessed are you who are poor, for the kingdom of God is yours” (Luke 6:20). Being rich in the selfish manner of the rich man which Jesus describes, is not a sign of God’s blessing. In stark contrast, Lazarus carried by the angels to the bosom of Abraham.

 At the very moment of death, our eternal fate is finally determined. We call this the Particular Judgment. This takes place immediately after death and before the Final Judgment (Matthew 25:31-46). The Catechism warns us, “Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ.”

The Catechism reminds us there are only two possibilities at the time of death, 

 “Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven—through a purification or immediately,—or immediate and everlasting damnation” (CCC 1022). 

The rich man now sees Lazarus who he ignored in earthly life. Reversing his earthly fortunes, the rich man is in torment in the place of the dead. He pleads with Abraham to send Lazarus “to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool” his tongue, because now he is “suffering torment” in flames. (Lk 16:24). His entitlement in his earthly life still prompts him to think of Lazarus as someone he can command to do his bidding. The rich man’s power and privilege in earthly life have no standing in the life to come.

Abraham chides him in response,

…remember that you received what was good during your lifetime while Lazarus likewise received what was bad; but now he is comforted here, whereas you are tormented. Moreover, between us and you a great chasm is established to prevent anyone from crossing who might wish to go from our side to yours or from your side to ours (Luke 16:25-26).

We cannot change our eternal destiny after our death. There are no do overs or second chances. Purgatory is not a second chance for the unrighteous, but a place of purification for the blessed. The possibility of accepting or rejecting divine grace has ended.  A “great chasm is established” to prevent anyone from crossing from Hades to Heaven. Clearly, this is a sobering thought for each of us!

Realizing the finality of his fate (Matthew 25:46), the rich man then pleads for his brothers who are still living but who have not responded to God’s call. However, Abraham replies that if his brothers will “…not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead.’ (Luke 16:30). ‘Someone’ here is an allusion to Christ rising from the dead.

Jesus rose from the dead to offer us God’s mercy and love and the forgiveness of our sins. Yet we must repent, accept his forgiveness, and experience conversion to receive it. We cannot presume upon God’s mercy, thinking we can have his forgiveness without the conversion of our hearts. We need to cooperate with this grace to receive it.

The rich man is not in torment for being rich, however, but because he did not cooperate with God’s grace and allow his heart to be fully submitted to God. As Jesus said in our previous Sunday reading, “You cannot serve God and mammon” (Luke 16:13). Linking this story to the previous Gospel, the rich man was called to “make friends on earth” with his unjust wealth (Luke 16: 9), so that he would instead have treasure in heaven.

As we see in the life of Lazarus, the gateway to conversion is humility, complete and utter dependence on God, and submission to his will. It is precisely by being poor that Lazarus came to depend on God completely. As Jesus reminds us, “Blessed are you who are poor, for the kingdom of God is yours” (Luke 6:20).

Each one of us can also be poor in spirit (Matthew 5:3). We can humbly come before God and depend on him to give us true happiness. We can lovingly accept the sufferings of this present life, knowing that our eternal soul has far greater value than chasing the selfish dream of riches in this life.

---

[i] The Hebrew לַעְזָר (Lazar) is a contraction of אֶלְעָזָר (Eleazar).

[ii] “Homo quidam erat dives,” incorrectly read as “There was a certain man, Dives.” Instead of “There was a certain rich man.” Other early traditions name him Nineuēs likely a corruption of Phinehas, so later read as Finees, or Finaeus. 

[iii] Fitzmyer notes,  Lit. “and it happened that the poor man died.” Luke uses egeneto de + infin. (with subject acc.) this Greek construction is taken as a Septuagintism cf. Joseph A. Fitzmyer S.J., The Gospel according to Luke X–XXIV: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, vol. 28A, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 1132.

[iv] ᾅδης , ‘Hades.’ the nether world, the place of the dead.

The Catechism notes,

Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell”—Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek—because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God. Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into “Abraham’s bosom”: “It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell.” (CCC 633).

 

Now is the Time

Jesus’ story in our Gospel for this Sunday (Luke 16:19-31) is a contrasting story of a rich man and poor man named Lazarus.

Jesus describes the rich man as exceedingly wealthy. He is dressed in purple and fine linen -- clothes fit for royalty. He feasts sumptuously at every meal. Everything about Jesus description of the rich man implies extraordinary riches, and conspicuous consumption.

Jesus is equally descriptive of poor Lazarus. He is not just poor, but destitute and so ill that he is abandoned and without support. He left to beg at the rich man’s gate. He is so weak that he could not prevent dogs from licking his sores, which would make him unclean. Lazarus is completely out of control, and dependent on others. While he longs for help, he receives none.

Both men suddenly die. Angels carry Lazarus to the bosom of Abraham or Heaven. The rich man, on the other hand, finds himself in Hades, a place of torment. From Hades the rich man sees Abraham and begs for help. However, Abraham tells him that he cannot help him, since “a great chasm is established to prevent anyone from crossing” (Luke 16:26).

This story reminds us that at the very moment of death, our eternal fate is finally determined. We call this the Particular Judgment. This takes place immediately after death and before the Final Judgment (Matthew 25:31-46). The Catechism warns us, “Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ.”

We cannot change our eternal destiny after our death. There are no do overs or second chances. Purgatory is not a second chance for the unrighteous, but a place of purification for the blessed. The possibility of accepting or rejecting divine grace has ended.

At the end of our earthly life, there are only two possibilities, or two doors to eternity. Purgatory is not a third way, but the mud room of Heaven.

The rich man is not in torment for being rich, however, but because he did not cooperate with God’s grace and allow his heart to be fully submitted to God. Linking this story to our previous Gospel last Sunday, the rich man was called to “make friends on earth” with his unrighteous wealth (Luke 16: 9), so that he would instead have treasure in heaven.

As we observe in the life of Lazarus, we learn that the gateway to conversion is humility, complete and utter dependence on God, and submission to his will. It is precisely by being poor that Lazarus came to depend on God completely. We will explore this more next week, but faith is necessary for salvation. Faith is the full submission of the intellect and will to God with the ongoing aid of the Holy Spirit. Humility and dependence on God are necessary ingredients for the act of faith. As Jesus reminds us, “Blessed are you who are poor, for the kingdom of God is yours” (Luke 6:20).

Each one of us can also be poor in spirit (Matthew 5:3). We can humbly come before God and depend on him to give us true happiness. We can lovingly accept the sufferings of this present life, knowing that our eternal soul has far greater value than chasing the selfish dream of riches and comfort in this life. [Read more]

Make Friends for Yourselves with Dishonest Wealth

Jesus' parable in this Sunday’s Gospel (Luke 16:1-13), is very puzzling to the modern reader. Not just ordinary readers, modern biblical commentators also debate among themselves, with no clear consensus.

What puzzles us is that the steward is called dishonest by his master, but then commended for his prudence.

Normally if we think of someone who is clearly dishonest but demonstrates something that looks like prudence, we might say instead, that they are crafty, devious or cunning. We do not compliment them for acting prudently, or use them as an example of prudent behavior. Yet this seems to be what Jesus is implying.

The traditional understanding of the parable fully acknowledges the deceptive and dishonest behavior of the steward, but then understands that his behavior also conveys a practical lesson about the prudent use of money and worldly goods. So Jesus is not asking us to imitate the steward’s deception or dishonesty, but his subsequent prudence in trying to save himself from shame.

Now we can easily acknowledge that even very bad people, have some good in them. Surely we can recognize some good in everyone. Yet we must ask, are even the steward’s subsequent ‘prudent’ actions morally good?

This puzzle has led commentators to search for reasons that might clarify this behavior in a different light. There are four different approaches to explain the steward’s actions, in altering or lowering the debt owed by his debtors.

Lowering the Price

First the steward may have used his authority to simply lower the price owed on the goods. The new price would make him look good and make his master look bad for having the higher price to begin with. This behavior would be dishonest, but would in theory make his debtors like him. We are told however, that he specifically did this so that when he was removed from his stewardship, others would welcome him into their homes.

The debtors may indeed be happy with him, but what subsequent master would trust him after this behavior? In other words, does this truly look good on his resume? This seems problematic.

Giving back Unjust Interest

A second proposal is that the steward recognized that the interest rates being charged to his tenants were unjust according to the Jewish law (Exod. 22:25; Lev. 25:35–37; Deut. 15:7–8; 23:19–20. If this were true, then perhaps he is actually now acting righteously. Perhaps in modern terms he is a sort of whistleblower, who is rectifying his master’s sin of usury.

There are a number of problems with this. First the rate reductions do not seem to correspond to interest rates. First a 50% reduction then a 20 % reduction for different goods. Secondly, studies of ancient land owners suggest that they were not particularly ashamed of imposing high interest rates.

In a culture with a high regard for the principles of honor and shame, the central problem for the master would be recovering his honor when others reported that the steward was wasting his resources. Perhaps the honor of both the master and the steward are restored by these actions.

If most land owners practiced usury, however, and no one shamed masters for the practice of usury, then the steward’s resume still looks weak. In fact he would be unlikely to get a new master, since the new master would fear he would do the same thing to him. Again this is a problem for his resume.

Removing his Own Commission

A third solution is the proposal that the steward actually removed his own commission, sacrificing his own money. But again there are lots of problems. Would the steward really have charged a 50% commission on top of the debit? Of course, we actually do not even know that it was a loan, it could have been a sharecrop arrangement. The translation in the lectionary says promissory note, which would make us think of a loan, but the Greek is more general, meanings a written statement of financial accounts in general. It could refer to a contract to share the produce from a farm. The debit was also very large, around one thousand denarii, or over three year’s wages for an average laborer.

Most importantly, at the end of the parable the steward is still called the “unjust steward” (v. 8a) If the steward, by removing his commission, has done the right thing, then why is he still “unjust”? Furthermore this does not explain the later description of his behavior as “not trustworthy with what belongs to another.” If he gave back his commission, why did it belong to another? Note that he was originally reported to the master for squandering the master’s property.

Rent Remission (remissio mercedis)

A recent proposal has come to light that is intriguing. Studies of ancient sources on Roman farming practices indicate that occasionally a voluntary remission of debt could be made by the landlord. This would be considered a good business practice, for example in a year when the crops were poor. It was difficult to find new tenants, and the future hope of income in the contract, made this this temporary debt forgiveness a way to restore and maintain the future profitability of the farm. 

Perhaps the Steward employed this thinking. This might be considered by the Romans as a prudent business strategy for maintaining future profitability. Intriguing as this is, does this remove the final judgment of the steward as “unjust”?

While this seems the best solution to explain the steward’s actions, we still have the summary in “the master commended that dishonest steward for acting prudently” (16:8) and the original report of squandering the master’s property. The Greek implies this charge against him was correct.

There seems no way to avoid the traditional interpretation of the parable which fully acknowledges the unjust and dishonest behavior of the steward, but then understands that his behavior also conveys a practical lesson about the prudent use of money and worldly goods.

Jesus’s application observes,

“For the children of this world are more prudent in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light. I tell you, make friends for yourselves with dishonest wealth, so that when it fails, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings” (16:7).

We are still talking about dishonest wealth made through disreputable practices that are not those of a faithful Jew or Christian.

St. Augustine explains,

This saying can also be interpreted like this: suppose the mammon of iniquity does mean money made dishonestly. Your father made his pile by usury. He made you rich. You don’t approve of your father’s usury. Don’t be the heir to his iniquity, just be the heir to the money from iniquity. Don’t you imitate your father by being a money lender at extortionate rates. But now there’s all that pile of money in your house. Use it to make friends with the mammon of iniquity; it’s not a question of your being dishonest and giving the proceeds in alms, but of using a pile already made dishonestly. If your father had learned how to rob, you must learn how to pay out. [1]

Clearly those who encounter Jesus may find themselves in possession of dishonest wealth. How can they now respond with prudence to this situation?

We are reminded of the righteous behavior of the rich chief tax collector Zacchaeus, following his conversion. Zacchaeus promises Jesus, “Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have defrauded any one of anything, I restore it fourfold” (Luke 19:8).

Again St. Augustine notes,

There are true riches, there are false riches. False riches are what iniquity calls riches, because the true riches are to be found with God. …As for the riches which we seem to have, we seek them as a kind of remedy for our infirmity. … That’s why he said, Make yourselves friends with the riches of iniquity, not meaning the riches which you acquire by iniquity, but the riches which iniquity calls riches, though they aren’t the true riches. [2]

St. Augustine seems to want his readers to understand that he is not endorsing a kind of Robinhood mentality. We are not endorsing any Christian to continue unjust practices in acquiring wealth. Yet, if we now find ourselves in possession of mammon or worldly wealth, we must use it wisely for the kingdom.

In our Gospel, Jesus notes,

“No servant can serve two masters. He will either hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and mammon” (16:13).

Each person enters the kingdom enmeshed so to speak, in the baggage of this world. Having experienced true conversion we must reorder our priorities. We must serve God first, but then make prudent use of mammon, or the riches of iniquity. The example of the steward points to the use of worldly goods for a worldly end, but as God’s faithful, we can apply a similar prudence to our lives in service of God's kingdom.

Our highest priority, and the action of true prudence with worldly wealth, is to seek to help everyone to be a friend of God. Making friends with others by means of dishonest wealth, enables us to introduce them to our greatest friend, Jesus Christ.

_____________


[1] Saint Augustine, Sermons 341–400 on Various Subjects, ed. John E. Rotelle, trans. Edmund Hill, vol. 10, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1992), 264.

[2] Ibid, 262–263.