The Death of God: Two Jews

Here are two very brief stories of a hanging of two Jews. There is a poignant connection between the two. We are familiar with the one; the other, not.

 The first story is from Mathew 27.

 “Are you the king of the Jews?”

 “Yes, it is as you say.”

“Don’t you know that your fellow Jews want to kill you for saying this?”

 Silence. Pilate is amazed. He asks the crowd

 “Who should I release to you, Barabbas, a murderer, or this innocent man?

 “Barabbas.”

“And what shall I do with Jesus?”

 “Crucify him!”

Pilate dips hands into a basin, washes his hands and says

 “I am innocent of this man’s blood.”

 “Let his blood be upon us and our children.”

 Pilate releases Barabbas and hands Jesus over to be flogged and crucified. Those who pass by mock him and shout:

 “He saved others but cannot save himself……Let God rescue him now because he said that he is the Son of God.”

 For three hours Jesus hangs on the cross. He then cries out:

 My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?

 And a little while later

It has been accomplished.

 He dies.

The second story is from Elie (Eliezer; Hebrew for “God has helped”) Wiesel the Nazi hunter as told to Karen Armstrong (“The history of God.” Vintage Books, paperback, p. 430).

For Wiesel, the holocaust was the last nail in the coffin of the death of God. (He seems o have changed his opinion in later years).

 One day the Gestapo hanged a child. Even the SS were disturbed by the prospect of hanging a young boy in front of thousands of spectators. The child who, Wiesel recalled, had the face of a ‘sad-eyed angel’, was silent, lividly pale and almost calm as he ascended the gallows. Behind Wiesel, one of the other prisoners asked: “Where is God, where is He?”

 It took the child half an hour to die, while the prisoners were forced to look him in the face. The same man asked again: “Where is God now?”

And Wiesel heard a voice within him make this answer:

“Where is He? Here He is – He is hanging here on this gallows.”

(See follow-on Friedrich Nietzsche’s Madman, the death of God and the Jew).

Advertisements

63 thoughts on “The Death of God: Two Jews

  1. quite a moving post bography. thank you. Sadly, just the other day, a Muslim family was killed by Muslims. They saved the small 4 year old boy for last, and they hung him. The torment of children is always very disturbing.

      • There is no comparison between this child and the way it happened and the one I mentioned. The fact that there was a child that got hung in your post reminded me of the horrible photo I saw the other day of the Muslim child that was hung. It just reminded me of children being so persecuted period.

          • Both were innocent. Both “hung” there (Jesus on a cross, the child from a noose) and died without fighting. Although Jesus hung for three hours, the boy hung for 30 minutes…thank God. That is almost too long for a poor child to suffer…

                  • It seems as if this man believed that this child was the Messiah they were waiting on. As far as what the death of Jesus means to the Christian, that is a no brainer..the death and ressurrection of Jesus Christ was the ultimate sacrifice that gave us freedom from death and sin.

                    • Wiesel seems to mean that the experience of the hanging of the child put the nail into the coffin of his belief in (a good) God. Not so?

                    • I guess it could be that too…it is hard to figure out of a small excerpt from a book about what a particular person believes. It’s all how you look at it; you are probably right, that was just what came to my mind as I read it.

                    • “it is hard to figure out of a small excerpt from a book about what a particular person believes.” True. You would need to know more about Elie Wiesel. His famous book is called “Night” (When the lights in heaven went out – my description).

                      Unapprove | Reply | Quick Edit | Edit | History | Spam | Trash

  2. For me, It means the death of God without atonement of love and resurrection. The death of God has been a motif of the 20th century but with the book of weasel became history and not only a philosophical thought. Now my question is why does Wiesel think that God didn’t suffer more or as much as the little boy? Because for him it appears that it is also the intensity of suffering that can’t be considered more that makes Christ less important less a significant figure. Wiesel perhaps lacks some perspective in history. Jesus was not the first to be crucified and not the last and nobody told Wiesel that Jesus Christ had been the only one to suffer more physically pain or shame or abuse. I don’t know why that important catholic french philosopher, whom he spoke to, didn’t answer Wiesel when he could have done it, perhaps he understood that there was too much pain in Weisel to be discussing any abstract thought about the death of God in the concentration camp. There are answers about the difference in suffering, I don’t know if they could only be accounted for the catholic church or every other Christian Faith. For example in the mystery of the Rosary to be recited on Tuesdays and Fridays and that are called the Sorrowful Mysteries the first mystery is called the agony in the garden. We are meditating on the fact that Jesus sweated blood because he was suffering the sorrows and the sins of all humanity from the beginning to the end meaning that in this meditation of the Holy Rosary we are considering the suffering of Christ for the child that Weisel remember. But of course without resurrection there would only be an abyss of suffering for Christ…but he did resurrect. And also since there is the original sin for everybody who is born on this earth other than Jesus and his mother( theologically and philosophically speaking it is important that the mother didn’t bear the original sin too) He was more innocent that any man who ever was born on this earth, therefore he suffered more. There are others….but for me these two reasons to the difference in suffering are the most important. What do you think, apart from the Immaculate Conception of Mary 🙂

    • Maria,

      Maria your “I don’t know why that important catholic french philosopher, whom he spoke to, didn’t answer Wiesel when he could have done it, perhaps he understood that there was too much pain in Weisel to be discussing any abstract thought about the death of God in the concentration camp.”

      The French “philosopher” was Francous Mauriac, who was more into “literature.”

      Surely, for a beliver in Christ, the death of Christ is never an abstract thing under any circumstances, and especially when suffering is involved. Mauriac, in fact, went on and on about Jesus to Wiesel so much that Wiesel got sick to death (sic) of it. Here is Wiesel:

      “When he said Jesus again I couldn’t take it, and for the only time in my life I was discourteous, which I regret to this day. I said, “Mr. Mauriac,” we called him Maître, “ten years or so ago, I have seen children, hundreds of Jewish children, who suffered more than Jesus did on his cross and we do not speak about it.” I felt all of a sudden so embarrassed. I closed my notebook and went to the elevator. He ran after me. He pulled me back; he sat down in his chair, and I in mine, and he began weeping. I have rarely seen an old man weep like that, and I felt like such an idiot … And then, at the end, without saying anything, he simply said, “You know, maybe you should talk about it.”

      (Interview with Wiesel, Academy of Achievement, June 29, 1996. SEE http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/wie0int-3 video below the photo of Mauriac).

  3. You are right Francous Mauriac is more in literature but I was speaking about him more as a religious thinker. You found the conversation I was referring to, thank you:

    ” Ten years or so ago, I have seen children, hundreds of Jewish children, who suffered more than Jesus did on his cross and we do not speak about it.”

    Is it possible to think theologically that man can suffer more then God or God be less happy than human beings? For Wiesel, God died also because the suffering could not be justified, not even by Christ who anyway he didn’t believe to be God.

    There have been people who died in concentration camps and still believed in God such as Saint Edith Stein (she was actually also a philosopher) who before she was gassed wrote a testament about her wanting to give up her life in atonement, as Christ. She didn’t see God dying in Auschwitz, but she found her martyrdom for all. She didn’t think that Christ could have suffered less than all the children of the concentration camp because as God there was nothing that could be less for Him. God died for Wiesel then because he did great injustice to the Jewish people and also because He could not ever suffered more (if He was to be the Messiah).

    “[Wiesel] scored an interview – one he would later call “an interview unlike any other” – with François Mauriac, the prominent Catholic theologian and philosopher king of the Parisian post-war literati. Though he respected Mauriac, Wiesel arrived at the interview with an ulterior motive: to persuade Mauriac to introduce him to Prime Minister Pierre Mendès-France, which would have been a professional brass ring for the then-unknown Wiesel.

    “Instead, the name “Jesus” flowed from Mauriac’s lips like liquid, and Wiesel found it caustic. Finally, Mauriac’s persistent testimony made a crack in Wiesel’s formerly impenetrable wall of silence, as his own testimony to evil was drawn out from him, almost against his will. Surprising himself with the depth of his own hostility, Wiesel responded trembling with rage:

    “Sir,” I said, “you speak of Christ. Christians love to speak of him. The passion of Christ, the agony of Christ, the death of Christ. In your religion, that is all you speak of. Well, I want you to know that ten years ago, not very far from here, I knew Jewish children every one of whom suffered a thousand times more, six million times more, than Christ on the cross. And we don’t speak about them. Can you understand that, sir? We don’t speak of them.”

    “Wiesel fled Mauriac’s apartment for the elevator, wanting only escape, but instead he felt Mauriac’s arm drawing him back to where they had sat. At first, all the old man did was all one can do when words fail and grief overcomes: Mauriac wept……

    “When I am thinking of my personal experience, there comes to mind, as a luminous example, François Mauriac. I, a Jew, owe to the fervent Catholic Mauriac, who declared himself in love with Christ, the fact of having become a writer… Once Mauriac dedicated a book to me and he wrote: “To Elie Wiesel, a Jewish child who was crucified.” At first I took it badly, but then I understood that it was his way of letting me feel his love.” http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/pierce/08663.html

    I think this is the possible best ending of the story of the child. He became part of a story of the redemption of love.

    • Maria, your

      “Edith Stein (she was actually also a philosopher) who before she was gassed wrote a testament about her wanting to give up her life in atonement, as Christ. She didn’t see God dying in Auschwitz, but she found her martyrdom for all.”

      What do you mean, Stein gave up her life “in atonement,” and “her martyrdom for all?”

    • I hate hearing of terrible things to do with children; but all I can say to you, is not matter how horrible a suffering sounds, know this; from all of the study and commentary I have read, death on the execution stake (cross) was by far the most hideous, horrible way to die. In fact, criminals who were sentenced to it begged and pleaded for things that to me, sound even worse. Apparently, they weren’t worse. I can agree with you in my mind…to have your head chopped off (as I’ve seen happen to kids in news) or to be cut alive into peices seems by far more gruesome and terrible. But then when we consider Jesus was beaten so bad that his back was flayed open…he had sharp thorns shoved into his head, was beaten, spit on, kicked, punched and everything else..and then hung there for hours as he did…I’m certain it had to be one of the most horrible, horrible ways to die. At least, that’s what the commentaries say. It says that people don’t really have any idea how miserable and tormenting the style of execution he suffered really was.

      • Lynn, many suffered physically more than Christ, for example, those who hung for days on the cross. The physical suffering was the “small” part of our Lord’ s suffering. It was the other part that Christ was praying to his father in Gethsemane: “Father if it thy will, let this cup pass from me,” The cup of the wrath of the Father mixed with the sins of man. Growing in Christ, we begin to get a small inkling of what sin is.

        See my “Passivity and Suffering in the Passion of Christ.”
        https://onedaringjew.wordpress.com/2012/03/30/walking-backwards-to-the-cross-passivity-and-suffering-in-the-passion-of-christ/

        • I’m not disputing that whatsoever. What I was doing was just clarifying the suffering Christ went through, that it was far worse than what we can imagine. I can see, however, how you must have misunderstood me, for I had written, “from all of the study and commentary I have read, death on the execution stake (cross) was by far the most hideous, horrible way to die.” What I meant by this was in comparison to other executions they performed for criminals. But, I also said a little ways down, “…I’m certain it had to be one of the most horrible, horrible ways to die. At least, that’s what the commentaries say. It says that people don’t really have any idea how miserable and tormenting the style of execution he suffered really was.” Please note, “….it had to be ONE OF…” Thanks Bography!

  4. Pingback: What (nasty) piece of work is man: The typical Jewish view of salvation « OneDaringJew
  5. “She entered the Discalced Carmelite monastery St. Maria vom Frieden (Our Lady of Peace) at Cologne in 1933 and took the name Teresia Benedicta a cruce (Teresia Benedicta of the Cross). There she wrote her metaphysical book Endliches und ewiges Sein, (Finite and Eternal Being) which tries to combine the philosophies of Aquinas and Husserl.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Stein

    To avoid the growing Nazi threat, her order transferred Stein to the Carmelite monastery at Echt in the Netherlands. There she wrote Studie über Joannes a Cruce: Kreuzeswissenschaft (The Science of the Cross: Studies on John of the Cross). Her testament of June 6, 1939 states, “I beg the Lord to take my life and my death … for all concerns of the sacred hearts of Jesus and Mary and the holy church, especially for the preservation of our holy order, in particular the Carmelite monasteries of Cologne and Echt, as atonement for the unbelief of the Jewish People and that the Lord will be received by his own people and his kingdom shall come in glory, for the salvation of Germany and the peace of the world, at last for my loved ones, living or dead, and for all God gave to me: that none of them shall go astray.”

    However, Stein was not safe in the Netherlands—the Dutch Bishops’ Conference had a public statement read in all the churches of the country on July 20, 1942, condemning Nazi racism. In a retaliatory response on July 26, 1942, the Reichskommissar of the Netherlands, Arthur Seyss-Inquart, ordered the arrest of all Jewish converts, who had previously been spared. Stein and her sister Rosa, also a convert, were captured and shipped to the Auschwitz concentration camp, where they are presumed to have been gassed on August 9, 1942 when Edith was 50.[4

  6. For my theology as you know at the highest levels you are imitating Christ in what is possible for your inclination and santity gifts. She asked to die in atonement even for Germany and this in complete humility and respect of the rulese of her order

  7. “In this we have known the charity of God, because he hath laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren” It was written by your favorite evangelist too
    🙂

    • So, for you then, to die for/in place of someone else means redeeming them of the curse of sin, in a word, saving them, as Christ did. The verse above is merely illustrating that Christians should be prepared to give up their lives for the sake of the brethren. THAT does not save them; only faith in Christ does, as we read in John 3:17-18. Only the blood of Christ saves, no one else’s. But if you accepted this, wouldn’t you have to leave the RCC?

      • No Sir. For the simple fact that only the blood of Jesus saves but other blood could be offered as indulgence. Actually this is a reason I would remain very much Catholic if I were Jewish too
         In the Kingdom of God where Edith was offered a place even before she died if the catholic church would be right Edith helped her fellow Jews find grace in God even after they died because it was her wish and desire and since she was in harmony with God’s will and desire could very well be that she was listened. What is wrong with this? For me it is said, for you it is not said but it is possible to be said and wanted. How do I know what your pastors say is true anyway? Why do I have to believe in someone proclaiming that he speaks in the name of the Holy Spirit more than what is asked and said by these souls that with their beautiful and saint life and thoughts have even an historical ground for what they ask for in perfect humility and without claiming that they are speaking for the Holy Spirit only asking from God suffering for the salvation of others? What did they gain on this earth the saints who actually as Edith hoped with their sacrifices to save others on this earth? She wrote this desire in her spiritual testament in perfect harmony with humility. Even if she studied with Husserl and the rest of them she asks to save her order of nuns who were for the most part I suppose not so gifted intellectually but I could be mistaken…she asks to have her life taken and precisely her death. I would not assume easily that she didn’t know the meaning of the scriptures and what was written in them as with all the others who have acted in the same way. But as you know we are supposed to know better 🙂

        • Maria, “the blood of Jesus saves but other blood could be offered as indulgence.” I suppose you mean that the shedding of Edith’s blood would shorten time in purgatory for some. This is nowhere in the Bible, so Edith could not have read it in the Bible. It is a Roman Catholic doctrine, of course (treasury of merit, etc).

          One of my sisters was called Edith (Edie). She died many years ago.

          • Re, “the blood of Jesus saves but other blood could be offered as indulgence,” if I understand you, for you Jesus is the Way to heaven, while the Catholic martyrs are if not the only way then a very effective way out of purgatory.

            • The only way to heaven is by accepting Jesus as your savior. All you must do to be forgiven is repent; conviction, admittance, ask forgiveness (FROM GOD, NOT A MAN OR A WOMAN..BUT GOD), and turn from that thing that is a sin. I would like for any person to show me in the Bible where it says that we must go to a person (except for God and the person we have sinned against) in order to be forgiven…and, where does it say that Mother Mary is to be put above Jesus Himself..and, where does it say that we are to use a rosary to pray..and where does it say to kiss a statue of Jesus’ feet (because the Bible says we shall have NO graven images…since we don’t really know what Jesus looked like, and a statue is made out of man made material..that makes even a statue of Jesus or Mary a graven image), and where does it say that anyone else’s blood, other than Jesus Christ can atone for our sins? I want exact documentation from the Holy Bible of all of this; not from any other literary work, fact or fiction, but from the Bible itself. Thank you.

              • The Roman Catholic, like the Jew and the Muslim, believes that the written scriptures are not enough; there is also tradition. For Jews the Mishnah and Talmuds, for the Muslim the Hadiths, and for the Roman Catholic the ex cathedra papal bulls.

                • I know this; but, I am aware that any other text, other than the Holy Bible, cannot be fully trusted as the authoratitive word of God. So, we should not put our trust in any other book other than the one that God left us.

                  If people just read the Bible for themselves..the whole thing..instead of taking everyone’s word for all of their false doctrine, there would not be so many false religions and separation. The Bible says, “Study to show thyself approved.” If you haven’t read it in the good book yourself, don’t go around preaching it, and certainly don’t refute until you know for sure yourself.

                  • Lynn

                    What would you say to a Catholic who maintains that the reason why there are 35000 or more denominations is because each believes they can interpret the Bible without the guidance of “God on earth,” the Vatican.

                    • I would tell them that Bible says, “Study to show THYSELF approved,” Nowhere does it say, “The Vatican will study, listen to them, and you’ll be approved.” I’m a pretty straight forward, direct person. I may over explain what I mean, but I never beat around the bush. I would also probably pray real hard before I commented, and allow the Spirit to lead me. 🙂

                    • Lyn,
                      Nowhere is also written that what you say is to be considered dictated by the Holy Spirit why then bother saying anything at all? You could be as mistaken as the pope with less historical authority and no direct lineage from Peter (Who is written could tie and untie anything he wanted and this is for sure written)

            • http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm: The development of this doctrine in explicit form was the work of the great Schoolmen, notably Alexander of Hales (Summa, IV, Q. xxiii, m. 3, n. 6), Albertus Magnus (In IV Sent., dist. xx, art. 16), and St. Thomas (In IV Sent., dist. xx, q. i, art. 3, sol. 1). As Aquinas declares (Quodlib., II, q. vii, art. 16): “All the saints intended that whatever they did or suffered for God’s sake should be profitable not only to themselves but to the whole Church.” And he further points out (Contra Gent., III, 158) that what one endures for another being a work of love, is more acceptable as satisfaction in God’s sight than what one suffers on one’s own account, since this is a matter of necessity. The existence of an infinite treasury of merits in the Church is dogmatically set forth in the Bull “Unigenitus”, published by Clement VI, 27 Jan., 1343, and later inserted in the “Corpus Juris” (Extrav. Com., lib. V, tit. ix. c. ii): “Upon the altar of the Cross”, says the pope, “Christ shed of His blood not merely a drop, though this would have sufficed, by reason of the union with the Word, to redeem the whole human race, but a copious torrent. . . thereby laying up an infinite treasure for mankind. This treasure He neither wrapped up in a napkin nor hid in a field, but entrusted to Blessed Peter, the key-bearer, and his successors, that they might, for just and reasonable causes, distribute it to the faithful in full or in partial remission of the temporal punishment due to sin.” Hence the condemnation by Leo X of Luther’s assertion that “the treasures of the Church from which the pope grants indulgences are not the merits of Christ and the saints” (Enchiridion, 757).

                • About Newman, no, I haven’t read his “Development of Doctrine.” I will somehow soon enough and you know that I have already read many of his writing. I posted on line the references
                  . For now I have read a prayer to the Holy Spirit of Saint Edith and I find it very rich in thoughts and sublime understanding. I am going to do something here in public 🙂 I am going to ask her to intercede for me on something that I think she is quite suitable to understand better than other saints. I am going to formulate right now but I am not going to write it in public. it will happen if God thinks it is the right thing to happen, and then you will know. Why don’t I ask by myself? I already asked by myself but since I am quite less in harmony with God and she is part of the treasures of the church I am going to ask her too and all this because Christ didn’t shed only one drop of blood as the pope said (was this said extra cathedra? Where is written how many drops of blood did Jesus shed?

                  • Maria,
                    1. “to the Holy Spirit of St Edith?” How many Holy Spirits are there. I don’t understand.
                    2. You say you are not good enough to pray directly to Jesus. What about doing it through his mother? But you are not good enough for that either. So, it’s through (the Holy Spirit of?) Edith, through Mary, through Jesus to the Father.
                    3. “Christ didn’t shed one drop of blood….” I don’t understand.

                    You say you’re not good enough. If God waited till anyone was good enough, He would being waiting and waiting and …
                    Jesus says no one is good but God. And that doesn’t mean, as you possibly know, that the Son of God was not good.

                    • 1.It is a prayer written by Edith and it is entitled The Holy Spirit and of course it is not her Holy Spirit even thought could be since it is a personal relationship that everybody is involved into. As you are reporting me saying I am not good enough to decide how is someone else relationship
                      2.In the previous entry I quoted something said by a pope about the fact that Jesus could have shed only one drop of blood and still save the world bur he didn’t and for a reason.
                      3. I am generous…I don’t limit myself in my asking…why should I? What is all this protestant stinginess about who to limit your request to? It is quite ungenerous..I could decide to ask petitions to as many as I wish…as with doctors or lawyers…If I can repay them (with my prayers and devotions) who is there to tell me I can’t do it?

                    • Maria, please explain the “one drop of blood” bit in 2.
                      Also, in 3. I cannot reconcile what you say about petitioning anyone you want (about anything you want?) with scripture.

                    • My intuition tells me that whatever you can answer me I know that you know that what I profess is right. We cant push it any further..there are motivations that are beyond your reasoning and therefore they are not supposed to be argued. We can stop here

                    • “you know that I know that what you say/believe is right. Hey, dear Maria, have you thought thoroughly through what you have claimed??

                      It was supposed not to became public my comment. I have to grant you that you are not coward 🙂 But my flattering you doesn’t make you better. I know what I am claiming

        • Mariamaria, I just love bography..for some strange reason..LOL…but you will never win! It will go on infinitely! Trust me! I know….. 😉

          Because, as you see, he is, after all, one daring jew…

  8. Bog,
    I can ask petition to any saint I want, not anything I want (I don’t know where did you read anything I want) And it does refer to the plentiness of the doctrines and the generosity of the church. If I am not mistaken and I am not, the aposteles did perform miracles because they were given by Jesus the gift to perform miracles and this is in the scripture. Jesus asks them to have faith in their possibility of performing miracles. Would have any meaning to ask them not to pray for miracles when they were even closer to God after they die? There are also many places in the scriptures that speak about praying for help. For them you could refer to the Catholic encyclopedia for more extended quotation.
    Catholic Encyclopedia says:

    “The doctrine of one Mediator, Christ, in no way excludes the invocation and intercession of saints. All merit indeed comes through Him; but this does not make it unlawful to ask our fellow-creatures, whether here on earth or already in heaven, to help us by their prayers. The same Apostle who insists so strongly on the sole mediatorship of Christ, earnestly begs the prayers of his brethren: “I beseech you, therefore, brethren, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the charity of the Holy Ghost, that you help me in your prayers for me to God” (Romans 15:30); and he himself prays for them: “I give thanks to my God in every remembrance of you, always in all my prayers making supplication for you all” (Philippians 1:3-4). If the prayers of the brethren on earth do not derogate from the glory and dignity of the Mediator, Christ, neither do the prayers of the saints in heaven.

    As regards the proof from Holy Scripture and the Fathers, we can show that the principle and the practice of invoking the aid of our fellow-creatures are clearly laid down in both. That the angels have an interest in the welfare of men is clear from Christ’s words: “There shall be joy before the angels of God upon one sinner doing penance” (Luke 15:10). In verse 7 He says simply: “There shall be joy in heaven”. Cf. Matthew 18:10; Hebrews 1:14. That the angels pray for men is plain from the vision of the Prophet Zacharias: “And the angel of the Lord answered, and said: O Lord of hosts, how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem . . . and the Lord answered the angel . . . good words, comfortable words” (Zechariah 1:12, 13). And the angel Raphael says: “When thou didst pray with tears . . . I offered thy prayer to the Lord” (Tobit 12:12) The combination of the prayers both of angels and saints is seen in the vision of St. John: “And another angel came, and stood before the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given to him much incense, that he should offer of the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar, which is before the throne of God. And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before God from the hand of the angel” (Revelation 8:3-4). God Himself commanded Abimelech to have recourse to Abraham’s intercession: “He shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live. . . . And when Abraham prayed, God healed Abimelech” (Genesis 20:7, 17). So, too, in the case of Job’s friends He said: “Go to my servant Job, and offer for yourselves a holocaust; and my servant Job shall pray for you: his face I will accept” (Job 42:8). Intercession is indeed prominent in several passages in this same Book of Job: “Call now if there be any that will answer thee, and turn to some of the saints’ (v, 1);” If there shall be an angel speaking for him . . . He shall have mercy on him, and shall say: Deliver him, that he may not go down to corruption” (xxxiii, 23). “They [the angels] appear as intercessors for men with God, bringing men’s needs before Him, mediating in their behalf. This work is easily connected with their general office of labouring for the good of men” (Dillman on Job, p. 44

    • Maria, you said a breviaryful. I focus on, “The doctrine of one Mediator, Christ, in no way excludes the invocation and intercession of saints. All merit indeed comes through Him; but this does not make it unlawful to ask our fellow-creatures, whether here on earth or already in heaven, to help us by their prayers.”

      The prayers of fellow creatures are indeed enjoined in the Bible. My beef with you is that you say that fellow creatures “atone” for you. “Atonement” means only one thing in the New Testament, namely, it is only the blood of Christ who saves. I am thinking a previous comment where you said: “Edith Stein (she was actually also a philosopher) who before she was gassed wrote a testament about her wanting to give up her life in atonement, as Christ. She didn’t see God dying in Auschwitz, but she found her martyrdom for all.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s