How did we learn Christian concepts?

How did we learn Christian biblical concepts?

Dei Verbum uses 13 times the expression “salvation”. “Salvation” is a central Jewish and Christian concept. Is it possible to learn from the use of the expression “salvation” in Dei Verbum how to understand the expression? The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei Verbum does not really describe “salvation”. How come that a dogmatic constitution does not define dogmatic concepts? There are 13 occurrences of the expression “salvation” in Dei Verbum, but there is not much meaning to learn. “Salvation” in Dei Verbum remains a concept without definition, the expression is used without fixed predicates. Four times “salvation” appears together with the term “hope”. The concept of hope does not need much explanation in our time. There are many language games possible in connection with the word “hope” and they are not complicated to understand. For example, I can perfectly understand the sentence “I hope to stay healthy”.

Dei Verbum 2 speaks of “the history of salvation” and of Jesus Christ who informs us about salvation. In Dei Verbum 3 we hear of salvation in connection with Abraham’s hope in a fertile future, with the hope of Moses in liberation, and with the hope of the prophets in human justice and Go’d’s mercy and patience. Again, there is reference to the hope coming from Jesus’ words and deeds in Dei Verbum 4. Is all that the history of salvation?

What does it mean, if Adam and Eve “hope of being saved” as we read in Dei Verbum 3? The reference goes to Genesis 3, 15 but Genesis 3, 15 does not say that Adam and Eve “hope of being saved”. Dei Verbum 3 makes believe that Adam and Eve speak and talk about their hope for a good future after having been expelled from the Garden of Eden. Instead, in Genesis 3, 14-15 Yahweh speaks, Adam and Eve do not speak there. In Genesis 3, 15 Yahweh tells the serpent:

“And I will put enmity between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel" (Gen 3:15 New American Standard Bible).

The commentary of the TOB (Ancien Testament. Traduction Oecuménique de la Bible. 1980. Les Editions du Cerf: Paris) says that Yahweh intervenes in Genesis 3, 9-19 like a judge in a juridical process. Yahweh interrogates the culprits, sets their responsibilities, and fixes the sanctions (ibid. 48).

Dei Verbum 3 does not cite the text of the Bible, Dei Verbum makes use of an interpretation of Genesis 3, 15 that got an important reception in the Catholic tradition: The fact that the serpent gets killed and the descendance of Eve gets only hurt allows to give the verse a positive interpretation. Christian tradition spoke of Genesis 3, 15 as Proto-Gospel, announcing the victory of the Messiah, who was born from a woman. Tradition recognized in this verse the important role for Mary, the mother of Jesus. There is also the negative interpretation of verse 15 in Genesis 3. According to the negative interpretation, verse 15, Genesis 3 announces the endless fight to death between the descendance of Eve and of the serpent (ibid. 49).

After all this discussion of Dei Verbum 3 claiming that Adam and Eve “hope of being saved” according to Genesis 3, 15 I still do not know much about “salvation”. In Genesis 3, 19 Yahweh tells Adam anyways:

“By the sweat of your face You shall eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return." (Gen 3:15 NAS)

Is death my salvation or my destruction? The Bible does not say that death is my salvation. For my part, the question of coping with my certain death makes me search for some hope and reassuring care. In any case, the meaning of the word “salvation” must connect with existential needs and longings.

One of my favorite verses in the Bible is Genesis 3, 21, where Yahweh right after expelling Adam and Eve from garden Eden takes care of Adam and Eve by tailoring clothes for them with animal skin:

“And the LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.” (Gen 3:21 NAS).

I am touched by this verse not because of the picture of Go’d as a dressmaker and tailor, but because of telling me in a simple picture that Go’d takes care of me and provides me with basic needs. Fortunately, the First Testament is still valid for me as Christian. The First Testament, the Scriptures, inspire our hope tells Dei Verbum 14 citing Romans 15, 4: "For all that was written for our instruction, so that by steadfastness and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope" (Rom. 15:4). The last sentence of Dei Verbum again affirms both, the First and the Second Testament as “word of Go’d”: “We may hope for a new stimulus for the life of the Spirit from a growing reverence for the word of God, which "lasts forever" (Isaiah 40:8; 1 Peter 1:23-25)”. The references to the old prophet Isaiah and to the youngest letter of the Second Testament are correctly used and legitimate the claim.

Dei Verbum does not present the most evident proof of the importance of the Hebrew Bible for Christians. Why? The most trustworthy testimony to the claim of the fundamental importance of the First Testament for Christians are citations from the First Testament, the Hebrew Bible, from the mouth of Jesus Christ, from the “word of Go’d” himself. Justly when asked about the question of death as an end or as a beginning, Jesus answers in the Gospel of Matthew with a citation from the Hebrew Bible. In Matthew 22, 23-28 enemies of Jesus question him in Jerusalem about death and the possible resurrection of the dead. Jesus answers in Matthew 22, 31-32 with a question followed by the citation of Exodus 3,6 and the interpretation of that verse of the Hebrew Bible: “But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read that which was spoken to you by God, saying (Matthew 22:31 NAS) ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living (Matthew 22:32 NAS)”. In Exodus 3, 6 Yahweh tells Moses: “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob" (Exodus 3:6 NAS). We read the same argument in Mark 12, 18-27 and in Luke 20, 27-38. If all three synoptic Gospels cite the argument it must be of some importance.

In all Gospels the last words of Jesus on the cross are citations from Psalms, the Psalms being the favorite Jewish prayer book. Matthew and Mark make the dying Jesus cite Psalm 22,2: “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ that is, ‘My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?’ (Matthew 27:46 NAS)”. Mark 15, 34 uses the same wording and verse. The Biblical scholars say that Matthew uses a manuscript of Mark. The Gospel of Luke makes the dying Jesus pray with Psalm 31. See Luke 23, 46: “And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, ‘Father, into Thy hands I commit My spirit.’ And having said this, He breathed His last (Luke 23:46 NAS)”. Psalm 31, 5 reads: “Into Thy hand I commit my spirit; Thou hast ransomed me, O LORD, God of truth (Psalm 31:5 NAS).” In the Gospel of John 19,30 the dying Jesus drinks vinegar as the Psalmist complains in Psalm 69,21: “They also gave me gall for my food, And for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink (Psalm 69:21 NAS).”

John 19,30: “When Jesus therefore had received the sour wine, He said, ‘It is finished!’ And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit (John 19:30 NAS).”

Already the Preface of Dei Verbum has made clear that the Council Fathers are not willed or able to describe concepts like “life of the Spirit”, or “salvation” and rather turn to Christian authors of the past to lend inspiration and insights. The last sentence of the Preface lends from Saint Augustine (354-430 CE):

“… this present council wishes to set forth authentic doctrine on divine revelation and how it is handed on, so that by hearing the message of salvation the whole world may believe, by believing it may hope, and by hoping it may love (St. Augustine, De Catechizandis Rudibus. C.IV 8: PL. 40, 316)”.

Dei Verbum 1

Certainly, hope is part of salvation. Augustine claims the theological virtues as realization of salvation. That is beautiful but what exactly am I hoping for, and how and whom do I love?

Abraham, the Patriarchs, Moses, the Prophets, Jesus, and Paul knew what they were hoping for. We know the context of their hope, the concrete situation wherein they were hoping. Describing the case of my hope, saying what I am hoping for can be called the range of my hope or the condition of validity of my hope. In Dei Verbum as in all documents of the Second Vatican Council I do miss any description of the range of validity of the many claims of the Council Fathers. They claim hope, belief, love, salvation, a new spirit of life and much more. Why do they not talk about the world they are living in. The world is all that is the case. What are the cases of the world at the time of the Second Vatican Council, who is addressed today by the Gospel?

There is no doubt, a big concern of the Council Fathers was the Cold War. The capitalist, democratic bloc of the Unites States and their friends confronted communist Soviet Union and her loyal dictators around the world. The Soviet Union and their satellite states suppressed religion, there was no freedom to publicly exercise a religion. Thousands of priests and bishops were imprisoned, sent to forced labour, tortured, and killed. Most bishops of the so-called East Bloc, the states under the power of the Soviet Union, had no possibility to travel to Rome to participate in the Second Vatican Council. Taken this situation of religious suppression it is no wonder, that the Council Fathers did not want to talk much about unjust capitalist structures. The democratic world was capitalist. The capitalist world was confronting the communist world that ultimately collapsed. During the time of the Second Vatican Council this collapse was not in sight. On the contrary, a few weeks after the opening of the Second Vatican Council the Cuba nuclear missile crisis threatened world peace and the suspension of the Council was in the air (Fogarty, Gerald. 1996. “L’avvio dell’assemblea.” In La formazione della coscienza conciliare. Il primo period e la prima intersessione ottobre 1962 – settembre 1963. Vol. 2 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 87–128. 114. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). At a press conference on October 22, 1962, John F. Kennedy showed photos of missile bases in Cuba that had been built by the Soviets. He announced a US naval blockade of the island. Kennedy and Khrushchev responded positively to a possible peace intervention by John XXIII. On October 25, the pope spoke on the radio in French, expressing his hope that all responsible statesmen had the will for peace and restrained himself from putting blame on the conflicting parties (ibid. 118). The good pope got his message for peace to Kennedy, dared to write Khrushchev and received from the Communist Soviet leader friendly and positive responses (ibid. 123). Neither Khrushchev nor Kennedy wanted a nuclear disaster and finally agreed to stop the blockade and bring the missile bases back to Russia. On December 5, 1962, John XXIII spoke for the last time to the bishops he had met in Rome. In St. Peter’s Square they listened together with many men and women from all over the world to the incurably ill pope, who implored Mother Mary to take care of him and the families of all those listening to him below his window (ibid. 126).

Dei Verbum does not talk about the historic context of the Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum does not talk about the state of affairs of the world that would make understand the need for the Bible, the Jewish and Christian word of Go’d to the world. In 2023 I am not accusing the Second Vatican Council for not having paid sufficient and necessary attention to the state of affairs of the world. Rather, I am conscientious that in 2023 the accelerating crisis of the world’s heating climate and the consequent disasters like wars, food and water shortages, growing inequalities within nations, between the global north and the global south, between women, men and queer, and many other disasters in the 1950ies had already reached a level, a new age of humanity, the so-called Anthropocene.

I wrote on the Anthropocene in my posts Ethics in Democracy and Ethics in Discourse Theory in the category “Sense, truth, and belief” and I wrote on the Anthropocene in my posts Anthropocene and Democracy on Planet Earth in the category “Human Rights”. The Anthropocene is the historic context of my writing on the Second Vatican Council.

In Dei Verbum 6, 2 we read: “As a sacred synod has affirmed, God, the beginning and end of all things, can be known with certainty from created reality by the light of human reason (see Rom. 1:20);” The expression “sacred synod” that is mentioned in Dei Verbum 6,2 refers to the First Vatican Council (1869-1870). Chapter 2 of the Dogmatic Constitution of the Catholic Faith of the First Vatican Council claims that “everyone” can obtain “solid certitude” and knowledge “with no trace of error” about the “truths” of revelation. From my point of view as a Christian it does not make sense in 2023 to affirm the revelation of the Gospel in a positivist way. The revelation of Jesus Christ is a gift of faith. Describing the revelation of Jesus Christ with “solid certitude and no trace of error” does not take into consideration the individual’s dignity and liberty. “Certainty” and “no mix of error” touch the assessment of subjective evidence and the experience of personal encounters with Go’d and does not simply express collectively shared abstract evidence.

Hoping cites the French Jesuit and theological expert at the Council De Lubac, who writes on women, men and queer having been created as an image of Go’d (Hoping, Helmut. 2005. “Dei Verbum.” In Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil. Vol. 3. Edited by Peter Hünermann and Bernd Jochen Hilberath, 695–832. 749. Freiburg: Herder). De Lubac speaks of an a priori that allows every woman, man and queer on this earth since the origin of mankind to understand and learn with Go’d despite all original sin (ibid.). Perceiving Go’d revealing Herself must be understood as the realization of a possibility condition that was given with creation. I do not want to speculate about De Lubac’s a priori of faith in Go’d. I prefer an anthropologic view on women, men and queer that takes into consideration the different aspects of one’s integrity and health: the physical aspect, the psychic, the social, the economic, political, cultural, and spiritual aspects. The realization of a possibility condition requires dignity and liberty, that is a free social choice. From this choice follows the realization of consequences. First, there is the strive for integrity, second there are a multitude of possibilities. If I want to cultivate my spirituality and take the social choice to engage in meditation, hopefully I will experience calm, peace, intimacy with my sources of spirituality, comfort, happiness and feeling save and secure. The fact that I am experiencing these kinds of feelings and certitudes about me living secure and save is the mystical. There is no adequate expression for these experiences and explanations are not mystical. Wittgenstein writes in Tractatus 6. 44: “Not how the world is, is the mystical, but that it is.” Karl Rahner writes of the mystic, philosopher and theologian, Franciscan friar and Cardinal Saint Bonaventure (1221?-1274) and his experience, “according to which here on earth there is an experience of the love of God, which occurs without the intellect having any share in it” (Rahner, Karl. 1964. 134. The Dynamic Element in the Church. London: Burns & Oates). Rahner writes of the quite similar mystical experience of the mystic Saint Ignatius of Loyola (1491-1556) who in number 330 of the Spiritual Exercises describes this experience as “the consolation without cause” (ibid. 132).

I am thankful that Dei Verbum, while remembering the First Vatican Council, shifts attention to the individual believer. The First Vatican Council spoke in a positivist and jurisdictional way about what we can perceive with our senses, namely Go’d’s communication with individuals. The word of Go’d, revelation, is accessible only in connection with individuals, be they prophets, Apostles, evangelists or women, men and queer being moved by the Holy Spirit and forming the community of believers.

The fathers and their experts who wrote the text of Dei Verbum, namely on revelation, the word of Go’d, were excellent theologians and some were exegetes and biblical scientists. Nevertheless, when assessing in Dei Verbum 11,1 that the Church relies “on the belief of the Apostles” the reference to 2 Peter 3, 15-16 is not interpreted any further, although 15a in 2 Peter 3 is precious because it tells us that Go’d wants our salvation: “and regard the patience of our Lord to be salvation (2Peter 3:15 NAS)”. Dei Verbum asserts relying on the belief of the Apostles but does not bother to explain key concepts of that belief. The pupils of the Apostle Paul who probably wrote the Second Letter of Peter, do not engage in the labor of clarifying the concept of salvation, rather one of the latest texts of the New Testament refers to the “beloved brother Paul” as authority for the revelation of Go’d’s patience with humanity at its salvation. The Second letter of Peter does not teach us the use of the word “salvation”, so we do not understand the meaning of the word if we do not turn to other texts of the Bible. We have the hint in 2 Peter 3, 15-16 that the Apostle Paul has written extensively on the matter but in a rather complicated way: “and regard the patience of our Lord to be salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you (2 Peter 3:15 NAS) as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16 NAS).

I understood: If I want to hear about the use of the word “salvation” and other key concepts of Christian faith I must turn to the letters of the Apostle Paul. In my posts in the categories “The just world of Go’d” and “Spiritualities” I will write on these concepts and meditate the Biblical texts that tell me about the Christian message. Only then I will continue commenting on the texts of the Second Vatican Council.

The Apostle Paul described many concepts of the Christian faith. Salvation, resurrection, redemption, sin, original sin, love of Go’d, Go’d’s love as the mystery of Christ, sisterhood, and brotherhood are some of them. Someone who can engage in the letters of Saint Paul as Biblical scientist and expert in the targumitic writings, that is Jewish literature on the Hebrew Bible in between the two Testaments, someone who daily practiced meditation and became a master of spirituality for sisters and brothers in Christian faith, and someone who got the theological competence to describe the concepts of faith for modern women, men and queer was the French Jesuit Stanislas Lyonnet (1902-1986). To him I owe my principal understanding of the Letter to the Romans of Saint Paul. The then rector of the Pontifical Bible Institute in Rome and later cardinal, the Jesuit Albert Vanhoye (1923-2021) used the above predicates for Lyonnet: Biblical scientist, master of spirituality and brotherly Apostle. Lyonnet worked all over his life on the interpretation of the Letter to the Romans of Saint Paul but ignored all invitations to write an official commentary on the letter. We hear from Vanhoye, that near the end of his life, Lyonnet accepted to put together his most important articles, conferences, and notes for classes on the Letter to the Romans for a publication organized by his Jesuit brothers at the Bible Institute (Stanislas Lyonnet. Etudes sur l’Epìtre aux Romains. Analecta Biblica 120. Editrice Pontificio Instituto Biblico Roma 1989. VII).

Vanhoye does not stay silent on Lyonnet’s problems with the Vatican Congregation for the Faith, the former Inquisition, that banned Lyonnet from teaching from 1962 to 1964 (ibid. X). Lyonnet used his competence in Biblical science and exegesis to theologically interpret the letters of Saint Paul, that is to explain and describe central concepts of Christian faith for his contemporary Christian sisters and brothers. Lyonnet’s capability as Biblical scholar grounds in the mastery of languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, and modern languages. The Vatican, Vanhoye does not name Cardinal Ottaviani, the then prefect of the Congregation for the Faith, kept to an understanding of Saint Paul that had developed over time and did not want to reflect on his letters informed by the newly emerged Biblical sciences and the needs of announcing the Christian faith to contemporary women, men and queer. Vanhoye testifies that Lyonnet’s exegetic work was an attentive practice to the problems of the time, to the contemporary movements in the life of the Church, especially to ecumenism and the unity of the Christians (ibid.). This combination of scientific Biblical competence and applied practice of Christian faith was not welcomed at the Second Vatican Council. Lyonnet was never an official expert at the Council. The Second Vatican Council was not ready to embrace an interpretation of Saint Paul that speaks with scientific competence about the word of Go’d to contemporary women, men and queer and does not forget about inspiring their spiritual capabilities.

Lyonnet is a great theologian and one of the possibility conditions of a great theologian is her capability to think alternative and new theological concepts which border on heresy. Writing on the cross of Jesus, Lyonnet interprets the Gospel of John 14,30. Jesus is empowered to assess that the “prince of the world”, who is responsible for the Passion of Jesus, has no power over Jesus, because Jesus is of no sin. Lyonnet does not hesitate to go on thinking, that Jesus does not represent all sinful humanity, because humanity is not of no sin. If Jesus would represent sinful humanity, the prince of the world would have power over him (ibid. 160). Till our days theologians are narcissistically in love with a pseudo-glory that Jesus Christ had realized for them at the cross for once and for eternity. Their arrogance is contradicted by their evident sinfulness. The love of Jesus for Go’d his Father is visible in the fact that there is no sin in the life of Jesus, in other words: Jesus’ love for Go’d we see in the love of Jesus for his contemporaries, a love that consumes the end as John 19,30 testifies (ibid. 161). Jesus is no scapegoat; he is a lover.

Vanhoye is conscientious about Lyonnet’s capability for new theological thoughts. Lyonnet starts with a strict and pure philology of the text he studies, passes by the discussion of the exegetes and theologians, and usually presents viewpoints on the spirituality of the authors (ibid. VIII) that help develop the reader to practice her own spirituality. Lyonnet develops from Scripture the concept of “the Law of the Spirit” and defends the Spirit against sedative formulas like “the spirit of the law”. Go’d, the Father will give the Holy Spirit to all women, men and queer in the name of Jesus (John 14, 26). I admit, Jesus does not speak of women, men and queer but he speaks of the Holy Spirit. The Second Vatican Council does not talk a lot about the empowerment of the faithful by the Holy Spirit. Orthodox theology judged the texts of the Second Vatican Council as being unilaterally Christocentric. Orthodox theologians claim a comprehensive theology of the Holy Spirit when considering transmission of the faith (Hoping, Helmut. 2005. “Dei Verbum.” In Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil. Vol. 3. Edited by Peter Hünermann and Bernd Jochen Hilberath, 695–832. 759. Freiburg: Herder). Lyonnet could have been a precious expert for the bishops at the Second Vatican Council, not only concerning a theology of the Holy Spirit.

Vanhoye is an excellent Biblical scientist too. He is famous for his studies on the literary genders of the Letter to the Hebrews. During my doctoral studies at the Gregorian University in Rome I had the chance to assist at one of Vanhoye’s courses on the Letter to the Hebrews. His lecturing style was dry and monotonous, contemporary experts on pedagogy would insist on the improvement of his presentation. Yes, his style was boring for me, but I did not care about it because the thoughts and arguments that he presented were exciting to the point of being captivated by them. He demonstrated that the Letter to the Hebrews was not a letter, but rather presented the characteristics of a catechetical homily to the assembled community, that was not primarily Jewish. Vanhoye analyzed the textual development of Hebrews and presented textual evidence for the structure of the text. Vanhoye critiques in detail the purely speculative, rationalized and often copied structure of Hebrews that the Aquinas had presented. He would critique the Aquinas with obvious and striking textual arguments. Vanhoye would not engage a discussion of dogmatic questions. Vanhoye is no creative theologian, he is not a theologian at all. He never would have suggested that Hebrew encourages as a matter of course women and men to announce the Word of Go’d to the community. There is no discrimination of women in Hebrews concerning the apostolate. The Belgian Jesuit Vanhoye stays loyal with the hierarchic male structure of celibates of the Roman Catholic Church that allows only priests to interpret the Gospel in the Eucharist. That is why he was created cardinal. The French Jesuit Lyonnet was not interested in sustaining Vatican social orders and nobody in the Vatican gave attention to him. Vanhoye is loyal to the Vatican, he is also loyal to his Jesuit brother and colleague Lyonnet. Vanhoye does not write that Lyonnet is a difficult and complicated author who sometimes expresses unorthodox and strange ideas. Vanhoye masks his differences with Lyonnet observing that some of his texts are rather “technical” and that there are others “that are more accessible” to understanding (ibid. X). It must have been a securing atmosphere at the Pontifical Bible Institute in Rome of that time when the colleagues and superiors were appreciating and sustaining each other despite differences of opinion and even doctrines of faith.

The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei Verbum does not describe the historic context of the Second Vatican Council and does not describe the historic context of Israel at the time of Jesus. At the time of the Second Vatican Council the Biblical scholars agreed that it is impossible to write a biography of the life of Jesus and the Council accepted the judgement of the scholars. The four Gospels present a faith testimony of the mutual faith relations of Go’d and Jesus Christ, of Jesus and his mutual relations with followers and the women, men, and queer people of Israel. The Gospels do not describe a biography of Jesus. Modern knowledge about the political, religious, and social situation in Israel at the time of Jesus helps understanding the message of the Gospels but does not substitute for the revealed message. Biblical scientists describe the historical situation at the time of Jesus as a socially precarious, politically fragile and religiously conflicting period that will end in the catastrophe of the Jerusalem Temple’s destruction in 70 CE by the Roman legions. Octavian Augustus reigned as emperor of the Roman empire from 27 BCE till 14 CE. From 14 CE to 37 CE emperor Tiberius followed Augustus (Gnilka, Joachim. Jesus von Nazareth. Botschaft und Geschichte. Freiburg 1995. 35-74). At the time of Jesus, the sons of king Herod and 5 Roman governors represented the Roman emperor’s power in Israel and installed the Jewish High Priest. Israel was politically, culturally, and religiously fragmented. The population in Palestine counted about one million. In Galilee and Samaria people lived on agriculture, livestock, and fishing in the Sea of Galilee. In Judea craft and trade were more important than agriculture. There was a big number of unemployed, and the gap between the poor and the rich was dramatic. A small elite of big landowners exploited the multitude of peasants and day laborers. Jewish slaves were treated less hard than Roman slaves. The Romans made the Jewish population pay their military occupation and suppression with land and poll taxes.

The Jewish priests augmented the enormous burden for the population by collecting taxes for the Temple and charging multiple duties, market, and passage tolls. In the patriarchal Jewish society women were the possession of men, did not dispose over the legal capacity to be an heir, were not admitted as testimonies at court and were not allowed to participate at banquets. Exceptions were the participation at the Sabbath and Passover meals. Women were not allowed studying the Thora (ibid.). The population defended against their religious, political and socio-economic threats with apocalyptic wishes for the coming of a strong leader, a messenger of Go’d who would restore the lost unity of Israel (John Dominic Crossan. 1994. Der historische Jesus. Muenchen: Beck Verlag). The Roman-Jewish author Flavius Josephus lists 5 messianic personalities for the time (ibid.). Finally, the enormous gap between the many poor and the view rich led to social unrest, economic instability, and political upheaval and revolt. The end was war and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple (ibid.).

Since the 1950ies, the explosive growth of the insatiable burning of the natural resources of planet earth for energy production, causes a direct destabilizing impact on Earth’s life support system (Earth for All. A Report of the Club of Rome. 2022.15). In 1972 The Club of Rome published The Limits of Growth, by 2000 CE “Earth has entered a new geological epoch: the Anthropocene” (ibid. 13). The Earth4All model shows the potential consequences of continuing world development along the same dynamics as from 1980 to 2020: “The overall global result is a slowing population growth and world economic growth to 2050 and beyond”, “declining labor participation rates, declining trust in government, a steady increase in the ecological footprint, and rising loss in biodiversity” (Earth for All. A Report of the Club of Rome. 2022. 35). In most of the world poverty will persist, inequality will continue destabilizing the rich world, “overall, there is a dramatic rise in the Social Tension Index” (ibid.). “There is some progress toward living with planetary boundaries”, and “although the scenario does not result in an overt global ecological or climate collapse this century, the likelihood of societal collapse nevertheless rises throughout the decades to 2050” (ibid.). The most vulnerable, badly governed, and ecologically critical economies will see the worst deepening of social divisions and environmental damage (ibid. 36). In this too little too late scenario beyond 2050 “there are migrations as countries near the equator become increasingly too hot to live in. Trade wars erupt as regions fight for ownership of knowledge, market shares, and resources. Supply chains falter due to extreme events. Government spending is increasingly spent on crisis and adaption, leaving less for long-term social and economic development. Soil quality is falling, affecting yields, and creating food price volatility (ibid. 41). “The world misses climate targets set out in the Paris Agreement. Earth crashes through the 2ºC boundary around 2050 and reaches a catastrophic 2,5ºC before 2100” (ibid.). “Civilization has lost its greatest foundation: a stable and resilient Earth system” (ibid. 42).

I am convinced that saying goodbye to poverty, ending economic inequality, achieving gender equity, making the food system healthy for people and planet, calling for electrifying everything, and establishing a new economic operating system are goals that profoundly express the hope and promise of the four Gospels. I must demonstrate my conviction as a valid claim by studying and meditating the Gospel. I shall document my Bible meditations in posts of the category "Spiritualities". Studying the Gosepel helps me describe Biblical Christian concepts in posts of the category "The just world of Go'd".