Our Lord of the Rings reading was a really exciting addition to add to our study of theology this semester, and in my further research I found a lot of connections both between the text and the Biblical concepts and plots we are studying and between J . R. R. Tolkien and Catholicism. First of all, in the Lord of The Rings, I found some parallels between the council ideas in the book and in councils in the church like how we recently discussed the Council of Nicaea. The common concept of coming together with shared goals important to the story at hand was a nice touch and shout out to the shared structure of the Church and the novel. I also found the destruction of the ring to be very similar to the crucifixion of Jesus because in the crucifixion, Jesus destroyed all sin. If we read into the ring as a symbol of sin, then this parallel becomes very clear. The burden of this sacrifice in both cases is a very key point as well. I also learned about Tolkien’s early conversion to Catholicism and the strong relationships in his life that shaped him in a faith perspective. I really enjoy that that can be a part of the discourse on hos work.

Our reading in the Catechism of the Catholic Church for next class teaches us a seemingly obvious but also extremely important lesson: that the Church is Holy. The church, according to this reading and to the authority of God, is unlike any other institution. It is special. It is sacred. It is defined as more than just the sum of its parts. Sure, the Church consists of typical parts like a leadership structure and a following body, but so do things like schools, families, cults, and clubs. The Catechism sets the Church apart because of its inherent, God-given holiness, Jesus’s blessing and His will.
The Catechism says, ““All members of the Church, including her ministers, must acknowledge that they are sinners” because “In her members perfect holiness is something yet to be acquired.” We, as miniscule parts of the Church, are nothing. We are sin. We are bad except for our capacity to ask for forgiveness for our sins. What gives us the potential to be good lies within the Church and is namely our seeking to be a part of “her.” This really struck a chord with me because it reminds me of the power of the group to make us all into more than we are alone.

In our reading of the Catechism and specifically the details on Jesus’ trial, Passion, and resurrection, a strong focus appears on the idea that the resurrection was the work of the Holy Trinity. This is an idea that is thematically emphasized in the text, both in the Catechism overtly and the Bible itself. The resurrection being the work of the Trinity stresses the Christian importance of the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit working together cohesively, and it’s unity in the branches that is truly fulfilled in the resurrection. Since the Spirit works through and with us, I think it is a fair reading of the text to say that the Holy Spirit helps connect us even more deeply to Christ’s life and death in his final act. I think there’s a strong link in salvation history, where in the early days of humanity, God’s close and direct relationship with humans and particularly the prophets is the main communication. Then in the times of Jesus, the Son was the main mode of teaching. Finally, in a post-resurrection but pre-apocalypse world, the Spirit fulfills this role. Of course, this is not to say that the Trinity isn’t all there. It works together, and the mysteries of this teamwork are beautiful, as pronounced in the resurrection and the hope and mercy it brings to humanity today.

The letter I chose to focus on for this blog post is the message to the church of Ephesus in Rev 2. The letter opens with an acknowledgement: “I know what you have done.” (Rev 2:2) In saying this, the speaker is pointing to the good deeds this particular church has done, how “patient” and intolerant of evil it has been. Then it goes on to critique how the church has, in a sense, fallen from grace because of a dropoff in its loyalty. “You do not love me as you did at first. Think how far you have fallen!” (4-5). Think this message of needing consistent closeness with God is especially strong and important for a Christ-filled and Christ-centric relationship to faith. Then the final structural component of the piece is when the letter shifts to the message that “to those who win the victory I will give the right to eat the fruit of the tree of life that grows in the Garden of God.” (7). In this way, the message ties all the way back to Genesis and the concept of eternal life with God altogether. All in all I think this message serves as one that can be expanded to fit all of humanity and how we are advised to be consistently close with God.

In his letter to the Romans, Paul focuses on the religious conflict within Judaism on the question of whether or not to accept Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. At this point, years after Jesus’s death and resurrection, this is a major theological issue that is dividing gentile and Jew. It is for this reason that Paul writes so urgently, that he works through these thoughts in his letter to the Romans. 

In Romans 4, when Paul discusses his interpretation of Genesis’s Abraham, he suggests a less literal take on the Jewish-followed strictures of the Old Testament. Paul sees a future of both Gentile turned Christians and Jewish turned Christians, and with his interpretation, he is reaching out to those who at the time did not live by the specific Leviticus-given legislation in a way that brings people closer to Jesus. As outlined in the lines, “Happy are those whose wrongs are forgiven, whose sins are pardoned! Happy is the person whose sins the Lord will not keep account of!” in Romans 4:7-8, Paul’s greater message is to not get bogged down in the details of pursuing God necessarily, but to take His broader word of forgiveness. This is Paul’s key to helping form Christianity.

For the reading in the Gospel of John, I really appreciated the more direct writing style, especially as it related to Jesus’s teachings and later life. The emphasis of Jesus’s divinity and relationship with God is really meaningful to me. I find the writing styles of Luke and John to not only contrast but to also really compliment one another. They serve to show the varying sides of Jesus. He is man and divine. He is incarnate. He came from God. These things are absolutely both crucial to our understanding of who Jesus was and is, and the contrasts in the books really show us that. Jesus, as we know from the Gospel of John, is closely related to the Word. He is the Word, and after building relationships with humans in Luke, Jesus is key to our (humans’) relationship with God. Theologically speaking, the Gospel of John teaches us that it is through Jesus that we can come to know Him. Jesus’s actions as the dictating factor of the order of what is mentioned in this reading is far different from the classic chronological view. I think this writing or stylistic choice emphasizes Jesus’s actions, what he did that was phenomenally important. From Cana to the temple to baptising, John gives us a special lens through which to view Jesus.

The Gospel of John’s telling of the suffering, death, and resurrection of Christ shows Jesus at what is perhaps the most telling part of his life, where he is subject to the worst in a cyclical way: from God, down to earth, then back to God in heaven. Chapter 18’s focus on Jesus’s interaction with the soldiers and Peter shows how he is at peace with his situation because he trusts that this is what God wants for him and for humanity. It emphasizes the discipleship role, specifically with Peter. What I find particularly interesting about this story is how it is used to open the suffering, death, and resurrection. Jesus, human and divine, is capable of knowing what will happen. He’s capable of feeling pain, and yet he shows calmness and leadership until the very end. I think this exemplifies what Jesus taught in his life; it shows his understanding nature. Jesus’s trials and tribulations unveil Jesus’s pure humanity. They show his ultimate love and sacrifice, and as he is tortured to death, this reading reveals the core of what Christianity is. A fully human Christ, come down to earth, to suffer and die for us. It’s a very strong idea in my opinion.

Diving into our readings in the Gospel of Luke, I’m especially drawn to how it or this telling of stories surrounding Jesus and his life, fit the description of “Gospel” as we have read from before and as we have discussed in class. The Gospel of Luke in its unique telling of Jesus’s life, does not have to necessarily be a direct account of all the quotidian occurrences of Jesus’s life, but rather its focus on key events and figures is what makes it artful and appealing in my view. To be more specific, I feel that the Gospel of Luke’s focus on John the Baptist, especially early on, allows for a comprehensive understanding of Jesus’s relational ties to his community. This relationship emphasizes Jesus’s humanity, his mercy, his perspective. A high point of this reading for me was the focus on the story of the disciples, mainly the “travel narrative” as told in this gospel. To me, this more personal and detailed approach to telling one of the many stories of Jesus is really illuminating as to the challenges he faced and the people with whom he faced them. This serves to make Jesus seem very human and very relatable, and I appreciated that.

In reading Raymond Brown’s “An Introduction to The New Testament,” I found a lot of insight and explanation as to what exactly the New Testament is, what it intends to do/its purpose, and why it intends to do this. This reading definitely revealed to me a lot about the particularities in the writing and construction of The New Testament that I am eager to dive more deeply into.

In terms of insights, with this being my first time reading the New Testament in an outside of Mass way, learning about the “gospel” and literally what it means, was a great foundational aspect in the introduction. With “gospel” meaning “good announcement,” but also an air of ambiguity created around it, we can come to know it as a multifaceted word that figures in the Bible do not actually use themselves in the New Testament.  

As for questions, I feel that the reading raised some points of interest for me in that I am curious about why the Bible, and specifically the New Testament, was constructed as we know it. For example, on page 110, it says that the Gospels are not records of the ministry of Jesus in a literal sense. Why not? What does having a non-literal work contribute to the experience that a literal work couldn’t? Why does there seem to be a trend of not wanting literal interpretation? 

Ultimately I am very excited to transition into studying the New Testament!

With the Book of Job as our first Wisdom book or text, the complex storyline and dialogue is key to understanding wisdom from God’s ultimately profound perspective, especially in comparison to our smaller and less significant experience in his world. The Book of Job shows us, or teaches us rather, that wisdom does not necessarily lie in being “upright” or “good” alone, as Job himself is described early on in the reading, but rather wisdom comes from difficulty, temptation. A key part of the quintessential human condition. Sin and temptation, but it is never God tempting us. 

There are two passages to which I was particularly drawn because they illuminate the themes of human insignificance and smallness compared to God and how we as humans do not always necessarily understand His will or the way He works. The first passage is, “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, naked I shall return again. Yahweh gave, Yahweh has taken back. Blesses be the name of Yahweh.” (Job 1:21) In this passage Job recognizes his limitations in his mortal life, and in the process he uplifts God’s name and recognizes sin in calling himself “naked.” This passage is reminiscent of Genesis 3:19 “for you are dust and to dust you shall return.” It’s a humbling idea, and it speaks volumes to me about the ultimate trust we give God. I am also drawn to the idea in Job 5:17: “Blessed are those whom God corrects!” because of its continuation of this ultimate trust.

To me, the lesson we learn about life, God, and humanity’s relationship with God is to trust His will and to recognize our limitations as humans. The wisdom dispelled here really highlights these ideas, and it takes a lot of wisdom to know what we don’t or can’t know and a lot of virtue to accept and trust in a higher power.