|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 10, Number 1
 January 1999 
|
|
|
DOES THE BIBLE FORBID SUICIDE?
Q: My Protestant friend’s wife has attempted suicide twice, and he has come to support her decision to end her life. He says that there is nothing in the Bible that forbids suicide. They have both challenged me to prove otherwise. Help me convince them scripturally that suicide is a sin.
A: Let’s start with Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17—"You shall not kill." There are numerous other scripture passages that condemn killing, such as Genesis 9:5—"For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning: of every beast I will require it and of man"—or Ezekiel 23:7—"Keep far from false charge, and do not slay the innocent and the righteous, for I will not acquit the wicked."
In the New Testament, Christ takes this command even further when he says, "You have heard it said to men of old, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be liable to the hell of fire."
But perhaps your friends are not convinced that these passages apply to taking one’s own life. If that is the case, ask them to consider Matthew 22:39, where Christ says that you must love your neighbor as yourself. If loving yourself means that you could kill yourself, then it would follow that you could do the same to your neighbor, and clearly that is condemned.
Instead of encouraging his wife in her desires for suicide, your friend must encourage his wife to live and convince her that he wants her to live and needs her to live. To do otherwise could have eternal consequences on them both.
Jan Wakelin
Q: I was told by a Jehovah’s Witness that only 144,000 people enter heaven and that the rest will either live forever on earth or be annihilated. He quoted Revelation 14:1–3 and Psalm 39:10 to prove his point. How do I refute this?
A: There are actually three issues to address here. The first is the number of people in heaven. In Revelation 7 and 14, we are told about a group of 144,000 people that will always be with the Lamb. If we take these descriptions of this group literally they would be only Jewish male virgins. This would mean means that Peter (not a virgin), the Blessed Mother (not a male), and Jehovah’s Witnesses founder Charles Taze Russel (not a Jew) would not be in heaven.
There are other problems with the Witnesses’ thesis that these 144,000 will be the only people in heaven. The book also shows twenty-four elders that surround the throne of God (Rev. 4:4). This brings the grand total to 144,024. This number is increased dramatically by Rev. 7:9, which states there is a countless multitude before the throne. The number 144,000 is likely only a symbolic reference to the New Israel, arrived at by squaring the number of the twelve tribes of Israel and multiplying by 1000.
As to the question of those left on earth, Jesus never speaks of having two flocks, an earthly and heavenly class of followers. Jesus has one bride, and she is not divided into two camps. Those with their name in the book of life enter the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:27) and those whose names are not in the book of life are thrown into the lake of fire (Rev 20:15). This does not leave room for a middle class. All of God’s people are together in the New Jerusalem, not part here and part there.
The references in Psalm 37 to "inheriting the land" are directed towards the promised land of Israel, which later became a type or figure of heaven. We are told by Paul in Philippians 3:20, "our citizenship is in heaven." Those who are occupied with what is earthly will "end in destruction" according to the prior verse.
On the nature of this destruction, the JW’s book Reasoning from the Scriptures states that Christendom teaches "hell is a place . . . where the wicked, after death, are punished (and some believe that this is with torment)." It then states the JW position that "they [the damned] are conscious of nothing, they obviously feel no pain" (p.169). The Bible indicates otherwise: "The smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever, and day and night they have no rest (Rev. 14:11); the rich man, "being in torment," calls out, "I am in anguish in this blazing fire" (Lk.. 16:23–24); "there men will weep and gnash their teeth" (Matt. 8:12).
When discussing these points with a JW, make clear that we were created to see the face of God; as David wrote, "As the deer longs for streams of water, so my soul longs for you, O God. My being thirsts for God, the living God. When can I go and see the face of God?" (Ps. 42).
In all charity, the Watchtower’s idea that all but the 144,000 will live in paradise apart from God for all eternity amounts to a promise of an eternal petting zoo instead of the Beatific Vision. You must reawaken in them the desire for the union with God promised to all in Christ Jesus.
Jason Evert
Q: I heard that the Mormon church teaches racist views, but a Mormon I know told me that this isn’t true. What’s the story?
A: Like many people of his period, Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, harbored racist views. New York, where he grew up, was still a slave state at that time. In an environment where Negro slavery was tolerated it was easy for Smith to look down on black people, and his disdain for them was incorporated as doctrine into the Mormon scriptures he allegedly translated.
For example, many passages in the Book of Mormon speak of dark skin as a curse for sins, as opposed to the "white and delightsome" appearance of the righteous (2 Nephi 30:6, cf. 1 Nephi 12:23, 13:15, 2 Nephi 5:21, Jacob 3:8–9, 3 Nephi 2:14-15, Moses 7:8, 12, 22). A passage in the "Book of Abraham" (1:26–27), that spoke of the Egyptian pharaohs as having Negro ancestry, thereby disqualifying them from God’s priesthood, was used by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to deny the Mormon priesthood and temple privileges to anyone with any amount of Negro ancestry.
These passages in Mormon scripture served as the basis for every Mormon prophet since Smith to teach that blacks were cursed for their supposed sins before earthly birth. Brigham Young, Smith’s successor, also underscored the racist stand of Mormonism: "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so" (Journal of Discourses 10:109).
Throughout the civil rights movement in the 1950s and’60s, Mormon apostles continued to teach the LDS doctrine on people with African ancestry and other persons of color. Mark E. Petersen asserted that people are born black because of their inadequate performance in the pre-existence.
Bruce R. McConkie maintained "Negroes are not equal with other races" in spiritual matters and that this is God’s law, not man’s. The future prophet Spencer W. Kimball claimed that in just fifteen years from the time of their conversion he had seen Indian people who accepted the Mormon gospel become "white and delightsome."
But the civil rights movement had its effect the LDS Church. Black leaders urged boycotts of the state of Utah and all Mormon Tabernacle Choir products. The NAACP brought discrimination charges against the Utah Boy Scouts for prohibiting a black member from assuming a senior patrol position. College athletes refused to play Brigham Young University teams. Groups protested at the church’s twice-yearly general conferences in Salt Lake City.
Mormon leadership finally acknowledged that many, perhaps most, of the converts to the Church in Brazil had some degree of black ancestry. While their donations helped build the Săo Paulo Temple, they were not permitted to attend it.
By 1978, increased social repudiation of racism, coupled with Mormon evangelization in areas with large populations of racially mixed ancestry, led to one of the most drastic reversals in Mormon belief and practice: Those with Negro blood were allowed to attend the temple, and worthy black men could also hold the priesthood.
Dated June 8, 1978, and released the following day, President Kimball’s "Official Declaration—2" (as it is now called in the Mormon scripture Doctrine and Covenants) came after "extended meditation and prayer in the sacred rooms of the holy temple." He presented the changed doctrine to his counselors, the Twelve Apostles, and other leaders, who approved it unanimously. The day has come, he said, when the Lord now grants to "every faithful, worthy man in the Church . . . the holy priesthood . . . [and] the blessings of the temple." The declaration was presented to the general membership and ratified pro forma on September 30, 1978.
Though this opening of the priesthood to all races moved the Mormon Church into a less racist position regarding its practice, Mormon teaching remained unaltered. The new "revelation" did not change the previous Mormon teaching that people are born black because of their sins in the pre-existence.
Isaiah Bennett
Q: According to the Bible, only God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit merit the designation "holy." Yet on innumerable occasions Catholics refer to the Pope as the "Holy Father." Kindly provide a rational explanation for this blasphemy.
A: Only God is holy by his very essence; however, by a person, place, or thing’s association with God, it too can be called holy. To be called holy is to express the idea of consecration, that someone or something belongs to God. That is why the Bible can call many persons, places, and things holy.
In Genesis 28:16, the place God appears is "holy." In Exodus 19:6, God tells the Israelites through Moses, "and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." God’s dwelling place in the Tabernacle is "holy" (Ex. 28:43), as is the city of Jerusalem (Is. 48:2). Even a goat, the victim of sacrifice to God, is called "holy" in Leviticus 10:17.
After Christ’s death and resurrection the Christians called themselves and each other "holy ones" or "saints," called by God to be his (Rom. 1:7). In 1 Peter 1:16 we read, "it is written, ‘You shall be holy, for I am holy.’"
Since we are his holy people, and his people are the Church, it is fitting that the head of his holy people be called Holy Father—not because of his own merit, but because Christ died for him and for the Church that he leads on earth.
Jan Wakelin
Q: The October 1997 This Rock had a quick question about why Eastern Catholic liturgies contain prayers for the saints. Jason Evert responded that such prayers cannot increase the essential joy of those in heaven but can increase their accidental joy at seeing the conversion of sinners on earth (cf. Luke 15:7, 10). Is this the only explanation for such prayers?
A: While Jason Evert makes an interesting response to the question regarding the theology behind the Byzantine Rite’s prayer for the saints, something much simpler would do the job.
Not only the Roman Rite suffers from poor translations—so does the Byzantine, and the case at hand is a prime example. The original Greek for this part of the Divine Liturgy speaks of engaging in the Eucharistic action and prayer " along with Mary, etc." or " in the company of . . . " The Slavonic is a shade off, and since the English text was taken from that, rather than from the original Greek, the English is even more off.
Seen in this light, the theology behind the mention of the saints in Eastern anaphoras is no different from that found in the anaphoras of the West, wherein we find acknowledgement that our offering of the Eucharistic Sacrifice is done while "commemorating" (Roman Canon) or "in union with" (the other Eucharistic Prayers) the Blessed Virgin and all the saints.
So, once more, we see the importance of an accurate translation.
Rev. Peter M. J. Stravinskas
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
of
