How does Catholicism interpret Deuteronomy 13:1-11

score:2

Accepted answer

From the Haydock Commentary on Deut. 13:

Ver. 9. Presently put him to death. Not by killing him by private authority, but by informing the magistrate, and proceeding by order of justice. (Challoner) (Worthington) --- Philo seems to assert the contrary. But he perhaps speaks of those who publicly endeavoured to lead the people astray. Presently is not in Hebrew. Other criminals were allowed twenty-four hours after condemnation. No delay was granted to false prophets. No excuse was admitted. If he had even been once acquitted, he might be examined again. --- Thy hand. The accuser or witness first threw a stone, after the wretch had been conducted out of the city, chap. xvii. 5., and Acts vii. 57.

Addressing "Whether Christ's slayers knew who He was?", St. Thomas Aquinas writes (Summa Theologica III q. 47 a. 5 c.):

Among the Jews some were elders [maiores]*, and others of lesser degree [minores]*. Now according to the author of De Qq. Nov. et Vet. Test., qu. lxvi, the elders, who were called "rulers, knew," as did also the devils, "that He was the Christ promised in the Law: for they saw all the signs in Him which the prophets said would come to pass: but they did not know the mystery of His Godhead." Consequently the Apostle says (1 Cor. 2:8): "If they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory." It must, however, be understood that their ignorance did not excuse them from crime, because it was, as it were, affected ignorance. For they saw manifest signs of His Godhead; yet they perverted them out of hatred and envy of Christ; neither would they believe His words, whereby He avowed that He was the Son of God. Hence He Himself says of them (Jn. 15:22): "If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin." And afterwards He adds (Jn. 15:24): "If I had not done among them the works that no other man hath done, they would not have sin." And so the expression employed by Job (21:14) can be accepted on their behalf: "(Who) said to God: depart from us, we desire not the knowledge of Thy ways."

But those of lesser degree—namely, the common folk—who had not grasped the mysteries of the Scriptures, did not fully comprehend that He was the Christ or the Son of God. For although some of them believed in Him, yet the multitude did not; and if they doubted sometimes whether He was the Christ, on account of the manifold signs and force of His teaching, as is stated Jn. 7:31,41, nevertheless they were deceived afterwards by their rulers, so that they did not believe Him to be the Son of God or the Christ. Hence Peter said to them (Acts 3:17): "I know that you did it through ignorance, as did also your rulers"—namely, because they were seduced by the rulers.

*translated as "the learned" and "the simple," respectively, in my quote of Summa Theologica II-II q. 2 a. 8

Upvote:0

The answer is in the question itself: hearing about God the Son was not hearing about a strange god, but hearing that the one and only God, creator of the universe and saviour of Israel, was Father and Son, two consubstantial Persons [1].

The oneness of God was affirmed by Jesus when, having been asked by a scribe about the foremost commandment, He answered, "The foremost [commandment] is, 'Hear this O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one,'" (Mk 12:29). Here Jesus quoted the Shema: 'Shema Yisrael, YHWH eloheinu, YHWH echad.' (Deut 6:4).

The consubstantiality of God the Son and God the Father was affirmed by Jesus when He said "I and the Father are one" (Jn 10:30). If Jesus was speaking in Hebrew, He probably said "Ani veha'av echad", ending with echad as in the Shema.

Therefore, for the Jews to conclude that Jesus was not instigating them to perform idolatry, i.e. to go after false gods, it was necessary that they came to Nicene trinitarian theology [1]: There is one divine Nature or Essence and three [1] divine Persons, with each divine Person Being eternally the absolutely simple and immutable divine Essence.

Now, since Jesus obviously had a human nature and had been born of a woman, while the divine nature is spiritual, eternal and immutable, his consubstantiality with God the Father referred to his divine nature, which must have been united but not mixed with his human nature. Therefore, it was also necessary that the Jews came to Chalcedonian Christology: The Son of God had assumed a human nature and made it his own, from his conception, with the union of natures in his Person (hypostatic union) not involving any change to either the divine or the human nature: "The distinction between the natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis." (Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon).

[1] At the time of Jesus' trial, the members of the Sanhedrin could have had only the provisional binitarian form of Christian faith, since Jesus revealed the Holy Spirit as another divine Person to the eleven faithful apostles at the Last Supper (Jn 14:15 - 16:15), just a few hours before the trial.

More post

Search Posts

Related post