Sunday, September 20, 2026

Marx and the Devil

 




Kengor cites Marx’s poem, “The Pale Maiden,” written in 1887:

“Thus heaven I’ve forfeited. I know it full well. My soul, once true to God,

is chosen for hell”.

 

 

Karl Marx Was Obsessed with Satan: The Deadly Truth - Charisma Magazine Online

 

Karl Marx Was Obsessed with Satan: The Deadly Truth

 

By CBN News  Oct 13, 2025

 

Almost two-thirds of Americans under 30 now hold a favorable view of socialism.

The frontrunner to become the next Mayor of New York City proudly calls himself a democratic socialist, and Zohran Mamdani says he wants to ban extreme wealth, telling NBC’s Meet the Press, “I don’t think that we should have billionaires because, frankly, it is so much money in a moment of such inequality.”

 

Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have also helped boost the popularity of democratic socialism. They will tell you they want to help people, but the socialist principles they espouse come through a very troubled man, who, say historians, if he was not a Satanist, was obsessed with Satan.

 

Dr. Paul Kengor, the author of The Devil and Karl Marx, says Marx was also a playwright and poet, and his writings included many references to Satan and Hell.

Marx’s Fascination with Beelzebub

 

Kengor cites Marx’s poem, “The Pale Maiden,” written in 1887: “Thus heaven I’ve forfeited. I know it full well. My soul, once true to God, is chosen for hell.”

 

In “The Fiddler or The Player,” in 1841, the same decade when he wrote the Communist Manifesto, Marx wrote, “See the sword. The Prince of Darkness sold it to me. For he beats the time and gives the signs ever more boldly. I played the dance of death.”

 

Kengor says Marx would tell his children stories about a toymaker who sold his soul to the devil.

 

Marx’s father said that his son’s heart was “governed by a demon,” and Marx was, by all accounts, a terrible husband, father, and provider who sponged off his relatives.

 

To read the full story, visit our content partners at CBN News.

….

 

Karl Marx Was Obsessed with Satan: The Deadly Truth About Socialism

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2wFCjEu0GI

 

See also Damien Mackey’s article:

 

Fatima seer warned that U.S. could potentially turn Socialist

 

(2) Fatima seer warned that U.S. could potentially turn Socialist

 

“Does this mean,” [Professor William Thomas] Walsh then asked, “in your opinion, that every country, without exception, will be overcome by Communism?” And Sister Lucia answered: “Yes.” As the translator of this interview, Father Manuel Rocha, was later to reveal, Walsh then asked explicitly about the United States of America, adding: “and does that mean the United States of America, too?” Whereupon Sister Lucia responded once more time with “yes.” (1946 interview)

 

Two Contemporaries. Two Gospels. Two Tombstones. One Choice.

Two lives. Two legacies. Two world views at battle today.

 

Karl Marx and D.L. Moody. The contrast between these men could not be greater. They made similar promises—promises of freedom and a better world. Yet the lessons they left behind are as divergent as night and day. One sought to liberate people but ultimately enslaved them. The other preached forgiveness from sin and set people free.

 

These two men represent opposing worldviews that have competed throughout history—views that are very much alive today. Marxist ideas are surfacing all over the world, infiltrating even the most unlikely places here in America. Pastor emeritus of The Moody Church Erwin Lutzer, along with historian Dr. Gregg Quiggle, reveals the seduction and impact of Marxist ideology. Marx and Moody showcases the difference between a man-centered worldview and a God-centered worldview, critiquing Marxism through the lens of the Bible while exploring the nature of God, humanity, and the consequences of ideas.

 

In this in-depth analysis, this book compares the impact of Karl Marx with D. L. Moody's ministry and highlights what our lives should be centered on during these turbulent times in history—the joy of sharing the good news of the gospel.

 

Two different belief systems. Two different legacies. Two different destinies. Two very different eternities. Marx and Moody is an essential book for our time—contrasting the danger and destruction of Marxism with the power, salvation, and true freedom found in Jesus Christ.

 

 

Saturday, September 12, 2026

Beast of an apocalyptic conundrum

 



by

 Damien F. Mackey

  

“… even now many antichrists have appeared,

from which fact we know that it is the last hour”.

 

I John 2:18

 

 

Introduction

 

The Book of Apocalypse records and foretells events - albeit apocalyptically - that took place between the departure of the risen Christ (his Ascension) and his Coming, to overthrow the old order that had gone wrong (had become a prostitute) and to replace it with the new.

 

He came as Bridegroom to marry the new Bride, the Marian Church.

 

For, in the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (# 773):

 

In the Church this communion of men with God, in the "love [that] never ends," is the purpose which governs everything in her that is a sacramental means, tied to this passing world. "[The Church's] structure is totally ordered to the holiness of Christ's members. And holiness is measured according to the 'great mystery' in which the Bride responds with the gift of love to the gift of the Bridegroom." Mary goes before us all in the holiness that is the Church's mystery as "the bride without spot or wrinkle." (Eph 5:27). This is why the "Marian" dimension of the Church precedes the "Petrine."  

 

This is, as we have seen, the drama of the Apocalypse right up to its last chapters.

 

And that means that all that has gone before, including the “Beast” and the “two witnesses”, has belonged to this period of real time: approximately 33-70 AD.

 

The extraordinary Beast of the Apocalypse is never referred to as the Antichrist, though many like to make this association. As I have previously noted: The term “Antichrist” does not occur anywhere in the Book of Apocalypse (Revelation).

 

St. John alone refers to “antichrist” and “many antichrists” (I John 2:18, 19, 22):

 

Young children, it is the last hour, and just as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared, from which fact we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of our sort . . . Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.

 

There had already been “many antichrists” by the time of St. John’s writing (“have appeared”). And it was due to this fact that John recognised that “it is the last hour”.

 

Similarly, he wrote in the Apocalypse, warning that all these things were to happen “very soon”. For the angel had declared (Revelation 14:7): ‘Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come …’.

 

Roman-ising the Apocalypse

 

Previously I had noted that:

 

What has exacerbated the whole exegetical problem of properly interpreting Revelation on a literal level is, I believe, the conventional opinion that St. John wrote this Apocalypse in hoary old age, in c. 95 AD, about a quarter of a century after Jerusalem had been destroyed. Hence many commentators are loath to see any relevance for Revelation in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Protestant and Catholic writers alike accept the late 95 AD date of authorship (Protestant Thomas Foster sharing this view in common with Opus Dei and Fr. Kramer).

 

Hence many like to equate the harlot “Babylon” with Rome, and not with Jerusalem.

 

Similarly, the “two witnesses” no longer die where the Apocalypse clearly has them die, in Jerusalem (11:8): “Their bodies will lie in the public square of the great city—which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt—where also their Lord was crucified”, but elsewhere, including Rome again. (On this, I was intrigued to read in an Opus Dei commentary on Revelation the view put forward that the “two witnesses” may have been Sts. Peter and Paul).  

 

And, likewise again, the “Beast” is converted into a Gentile ruler – e.g. the emperor Nero, his name being cleverly gematria-tised into 666.

 

But see my recent article on who Nero appears to have been:

 

Nero Caesar can be likened to king Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’, to the emperor Hadrian

 

(2) Nero Caesar can be likened to king Antiochus 'Epiphanes', to the emperor Hadrian

 

I have been of the very same mind-set in the past.

But more recently I have written differently, in my article:

 

Stephen ‘Protomartyr’ is key to understanding ‘Beast’ of Revelation 13

 

https://www.academia.edu/30919177/Stephen_Protomartyr_is_key_to_understanding_Beast_of_Revelation_13

 

- an article heavily-based upon the views of others - about the enigmatic apocalyptical Beast:

 

“Some have identified the Beast as being an individual such as the Pope, Martin Luther, John Calvin, William of Orange or Hitler.

Others have seen the Beast more as a group or movement of people,

such as the apostate Roman Church, the Protestants, the Roman Empire

(or the Common Market), the Roman persecuting power of the first century,

or some other great world-power that will rise up to persecute Christians”.

 

At the beginning of the New Testament’s Acts 8, immediately following the account of the testimony of Stephen, and his martyrdom, we read that “Saul [Paul] approved of their killing him”, and that (8:1-3).

 

On that day a great persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him. But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off both men and women and put them in prison.

 

Booker, “The Beast in Jerusalem” (http://planetpreterist.com/content/beast-jerusalem), has juxtaposed this text with Rev 11:7-8:

 

When they have finished their testimony, the beast that comes up out of the abyss will make war with them, and overcome them and kill them. And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified.

 

And he draws the conclusion that the two texts are talking about the same thing:

 

First of all, let’s compare the above text to Luke’s Acts of the Apostles. In Acts, Stephen gives testimony of Jesus Christ, for which reason the Jews stoned him. It says ...

 

“Saul was in hearty agreement with putting him to death. And on that day a great persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. Some devout men buried Stephen, and made loud proclamation over him. But Saul began ravaging the church, entering house after house, and dragging off men and women, he would put them in prison”.

 

Now read Revelation again:

 

“When they have finished their testimony [when Stephen and those who followed after him finished their testimony], the beast that comes up out of the abyss will make war with them, and overcome them and kill them [a great persecution will afterward arise, they will ravage the church, enter house after house, and drag off men and women].

And their dead bodies will lie [unless some devout men come along to bury them] in the street of the great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified [in Jerusalem]”.

 

Revelation also says, “The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to come up out of the abyss and go to destruction”.

 

Compare this text’s promise of destruction to 1 Thessalonians:

 

“For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you also endured the same sufferings at the hands of your own countrymen, even as they did from the Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out. They are not pleasing to God, but hostile to all men, hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved; with the result that they always fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them to the utmost”.

1 Thess also says, “Now as to the times and the epochs, brethren, you have no need of anything to be written to you. For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night. While they are saying, “Peace and safety!” [the classic statement of the false prophets of old--Jer 6:13-14] then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman with child, and they will not escape”.

 

2 Thessalonians seems to speak of the beast and the false prophet:

The man of lawlessness is called also the “son of destruction”.

It is said that he “opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God” [compare this to the image of the beast that must be worshipped--Rev 13:4,14]

It then says, “Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of his coming” [compare to Rev 19:20, those who “were killed with the sword which came from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse ...”]

 

It goes on to describe the culprit as “the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders”. [compare to Rev 13:2 where the beast receives its authority from the serpent. Also compare with Rev 13:14; 16:14; 19:20 where the false prophet performs “signs”]

 

Who was responsible for the great persecution?

 

Paul, in his allegory, says “as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the spirit, so it is now also”.

 

Yet in his allegory he contrasts two covenants and the children of two covenants. The children of the one, born for slavery from Mount Sinai and corresponding to the “present Jerusalem” persecuted the free children born of the Jerusalem that is free. There is, of course, no mention of Rome.

 

John’s Gospel also seems to downplay Rome.

 

Jesus omits any reference to it (as a persecuting body) when he says, “They will make you outcasts from the synagogue, but an hour is coming for everyone who kills you to think that he is offering service to God. These things they will do because they have not known the Father or me. But these things I have spoken to you, so that when their hour [of destruction] comes, you may remember that I told you of them”.

 

So ... with all of this background and history, why do people still identify the beast as Roman?

[End of quotes]

 

Also at: http://www.preterist.org/articles/the_beast.asp the same conclusion has been drawn, that the “Beast” of Revelation 13 must have been Jewish, and not Roman:

 

We are dealing with the character known as “the Beast” in the book of Revelation. Let me suggest, if you are not familiar with this subject, that you read the following passages before going on: Rev. 11, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20; 2 Thess. 2; 1 John 2, 3, 4, 5; and Matthew 24 (esp. vss. 23, 24).

The identity of “The Beast” has always intrigued theologians.

Legions of theories have been conjured up to excite the imagination. This article will examine some of them. It is not our purpose here to identify specifically who the Beast is, but rather to clarify his general nature (i.e. whether he is a Jewish Beast or a Roman one). If we can determine that, maybe his specific identity will be easier to pinpoint. We want to show why the Beast cannot be Roman and why it must be Jewish in character.

 

The whole question as to the nature of the Beast (Jewish or Roman) and his identity is related closely to the date of the book of Revelation. This article assumes that the book of Revelation was written before the destruction of Jerusalem (AD 70).

 

Past Theories

 

Some have identified the Beast as being an individual such as the Pope, Martin Luther, John Calvin, William of Orange or Hitler. Others have seen the Beast more as a group or movement of people, such as the apostate Roman Church, the Protestants, the Roman Empire (or the Common Market), the Roman persecuting power of the first century, or some other great world-power that will rise up to persecute Christians. Some of the more serious attempts have been to identify the Beast as Nero, based on the “666” number in Revelation 13. Another person (Spitta) urged a first-century application to the Biblical character of Simon Magus (Acts 8). Zullig interpreted the Beast as being the Herodian dynasty of rulers. J. S. Russell (in his book, The Parousia) suggests the Roman Procurators (from AD 44-66) and Nero. Once when walking in New York City, I was handed a sheet which stated that Rockefeller was the Antichrist! I've heard similar rumors about Henry Kissenger!

 

Every famous person who was feared or hated was someone’s “Beast!” This really illustrates how fear and hate (and other emotions) can affect one’s exegesis!

 

An Alternative

 

Very few have mustered the courage to suggest a Jewish fulfillment of these “beastly” passages. Most modern interpreters (who are Amillennial) say the Beast is Rome. So, the thesis of a Jewish Beast will probably not be easily accepted.

 

I want to preface our study with some comments taken from Dr. Cornelius Vanderwaal’s commentary on First John, where he deals with the antichrists: (from his commentary set entitled, Search The Scriptures, vol. 10, pp. 60,61) --

“John, who may have been on the island of Patmos when he wrote this letter, now declares that things have gone so far that many antichrists have already appeared. This indicates that it is the 'last hour' (2:18). Many false prophets have gone out in 'the world' (4:1), that is, the apostate Jewish world. ….

 

John’s words make it clear that we must not think of the ‘antichrist’ in connection with a misty future. When John reports the vision of the Beast in the book of Revelation, he is not telling us about a future political antichrist with the reins of world government in his hands; he is indicating that some beastly devil will arise out of Israel to attack the church.

 

2 Thessalonians 2 follows the same line of thought. In 3:9, John distinguishes sharply between the seed of God and the children of the devil (see John 8:44).

 

Who Were The Serpents?

 

The "Dragon" was the source of power and authority for the Beast. He is called “the Serpent” and “the Devil” also. He is clearly identified as “Satan” himself (Rev. 12:9, 20:2).

 

Were the Romans ever called “children of the devil”? The Jews were: (John 8:44; Acts 13:10; 1 John 3:10)! The Jews were also called “serpents” and “offspring of vipers” (Matt. 23:33)!

 

And that same verse (Matt. 23:33) condemns them to a fiery end similar to the end of the Beast and his followers (Rev. 19:19-21)!

 

Two Beasts!

 

There are actually two “Beasts” mentioned in Revelation (ch. 13). The second of these is later identified as the “False Prophet” (cf. Rev. 13:11-14; 16:13 and 19:20). Throughout the Old and New Testaments the words “false prophet” are continually used to denote Jewish characters. It would be strange indeed to speak of a Roman Beast with such terminology. This is another indication that the Beast and those he associates with are Jewish in character.

 

The Beast Revived

 

If the Beast is a Roman Emperor (such as Nero or Domitian), we are going to have to deal with the lack of historical evidence for his resurrection. Rev. 13:2, 12, 14 make it clear that the Beast was killed with the sword but came back to life. Some who favor the idea that Nero is under consideration here recall the rumor that was circulated after his death that he really hadn't died but that he was over in Parthia gathering an army to come back to Rome and take over.

 

There is, of course, historical evidence that such a rumor was circulated in the first century, but there is not the slightest evidence that the rumor was true, and Nero never reappeared. This theory (called the "Nero Redivivus" theory) has pretty well been abandoned by most who consider John’s account in Revelation to be inspired. How could an inspired Apostle entertain such speculative notions which never did materialize?

 

Neither Nero nor Domitian nor any other Roman emperor came back to life again. This would certainly militate against the Beast being Roman.

 

See also my (Damien Mackey’s) article:

 

Rome surprisingly minimal in Bible

 

(9) Rome surprisingly minimal in Bible

 

The article continues:

 

And it can’t be the Roman persecuting power that was revived, since the Roman persecution dragged on for several more centuries, and whatever persecution this is, was supposed to end shortly after the book was written (see Rev. 1:1-3; 22:6,10). This is interesting, because the Jewish persecution did come to a screeching halt shortly after the book was written!

 

Before its end, the Jewish cause got a couple of extra lives: one in AD 66 when Cestius Gallus (the Roman general) withdrew his forces and suffered a humiliating defeat at the pass of Beth Horon.

 

A second chance for their religion came when Yochanan Ben Zakkai pretended dead and escaped (in a coffin) out of Jerusalem to the Romans, where he was allowed by Titus to go to Yavneh and continue his teaching of the Law (where it continued until the destruction of Jerusalem in Hadrian's day (AD 135).

 

The Song of Moses

 

To anyone familiar with the Law of Moses and Jewish tradition, Rev. 15:2,3 will have meaning. It says that those martyrs “who had come off victorious from the Beast” were singing “the Song of Moses”.

 

Deuteronomy 32:1-43 is the song that John has reference to.

 

The Jews were to sing this song to remind themselves of what would befall them “in the latter days” (Deut. 31:29). the song talks about “the end” of the Jews (Deut. 32:20), and details their destruction by a consuming fire (Deut. 32:22), “famine” (32:24), “plague” (32:24) and “bitter destruction” (32:24). God calls them a “perverse generation” (32:5,20), and says He will “render vengeance” upon them and “vindicate His people” (32:41 and 32:36 respectively).

 

Why would Christian martyrs of the first century be singing this song about the Romans, when the song had reference to the Jews? It wouldn't make much sense. But if it was Jews who were killing them (like the book of Acts shows), then they had every reason to be singing the Song of Moses! It was the Jews who were the real threat to the Christians! No one else knew better how to attack the church than the Jews. Paul said that his intention as a former persecutor was not just to debate the Christians and prove they were wrong. He was out to “destroy” them (Gal. 1:13,23; 1 Tim. 1:13; Acts 8:3; 9:21)!

 

It was a Jewish beast who was persecuting and killing these Christians, and these martyrs were singing the Song of Moses to remind their Jewish persecutors of what was coming upon them!

Aren’t these the same martyrs who cried out earlier, “How long, Or Lord, wilt Thou refrain from judging and avenging our blood” (Rev. 6:10)? Who was it who had all the “blood of the righteous” martyrs imputed against them - Jews or Romans? These Christians who had kept their faith in Jesus in spite of the intense persecution by the Jews were the ones “who had come off victorious from the Beast”.

(See Matt. 23:35 and Luke 13:33)! This passage (Rev. 15:2,3) points very clearly to a Jewish beast.

 

Gnawed Tongues and Wild Beasts

 

In Rev. 16:10,11, it says that the people in the Beast’s kingdom “gnawed their tongues because of pain”. They had great sores on their bodies along with other plagues that had been poured out on them. The question is, if this is Rome or a Roman beast of some kind, when were they ever in such a miserable mess? John makes it clear that these events were to happen soon after the book was written (Rev. 1:1,3; 22:6,10). When was Nero or Domitian’s kingdom thrust into such dire straights?

 

We know from Josephus when the Jews literally gnawed their tongues for lack of food during the siege of AD 70!

And, it is interesting that Josephus even calls the Jewish Zealot forces a “wild beast” in several places (Wars V.1.1; IV.7.4; IV.9.8; V.2.5)!

 

This doesn’t fit the Romans at all, but it does fit the Jews very well! This point is emphasized even more by the fact that the whole context of the Song of Moses is full of references to “beasts”, “serpents”, and “dragons” (Lev. 26; Deut. 28-32; esp. Deut. 32:24,33).

 

The Beast Was Seized

 

The real clincher to the whole story is found in Revelation 19:11-21, where it says the Beast was “seized and thrown alive into the lake of fire” (vs. 20). Keep in mind that these events were to happen soon after Revelation was written (Rev. 1:1,3; 22:6,10).

 

Was Nero or Domitian seized and thrown into the Lake of Fire shortly after Revelation was written? Did Rome make war against Jesus and His angelic hosts and get defeated shortly after the book was written (Rev. 19:19)? Did the Roman armies get “killed with the sword” and become a feast for all the vultures, shortly after Revelation was written (19:21)? The Roman persecution did not end shortly after the writing of Revelation, but the Jewish one did.

 

Whoever the Beast is, he is soundly defeated here, his persecution against the church is crushed and his armies become plunder for the birds of prey to eat.

 

Rome didn’t fall until the Fifth Century [Mackey: Not necessarily my calculations], and that’s a long time after Revelation was written! This sounds more like a Jewish Beast trying to persecute and destroy the church, but finally getting itself destroyed! The Romans were the vultures of this text (Rev. 19:21) who circled outside the Jewish walls watching the Jewish factions kill each other, waiting until they wore themselves out enough to become easy prey.

This soon happened (in AD 70) and Jews glutted the world slave market. The Roman armies weren’t seized and “killed with the sword” in AD 70, nor in AD 96 either. Therefore, the Beast here (Rev. 19:19-21 cannot be a Roman one. It had to be Jewish!

 

Conclusion

 

We hope someone will go from here and discover the specific identity of the Jewish Beast. Whether he is an individual or a group within the Jewish nation is a matter that will be left to future studies. John Bray has suggested the Jewish Zealot leader, John of Gischala. Others have suggested Menachem, who was a relative of Judas the Galilean who had stirred up troubles back in earlier days. He gathered a zealot band and attacked Masada, captured the fortress, seized the armaments and paraded through Jerusalem with them. Menachem put on the purple robes, proclaimed himself Messiah, and went into the Temple, but he was assassinated in the Temple and his army vaporized. There may have been rumors about his coming back to life, but I haven't read of them so far. He never reappeared as far as Josephus recorded.

[End of quote]

 

With the Beast, the persecutor of the two witnesses, thus destroyed - along with all of his followers - and now the Devil chained up, the millennium can peacefully commence.

 

But, unfortunately, it is not yet the final curtain call, for Satan gets to make another stage appearance later on (Revelation 20:7-8): “When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—and to gather them for battle”.

 

That release, I have believed, coincided approximately with the vision of Pope Leo XIII (1884).

 

According to what I have written in:

 

Church Undergoing Test of Prophet Job

 

(10) Church undergoing test of the prophet Job

 

we are still in that tumultuous period, now in a very late stage of it.

 

 

 

Thursday, September 10, 2026

Finding the Child Jesus in the Temple

 



The evangelist Luke pointedly captures this reality when he describes how

Mary and Joseph searched “anxiously” for their Son, employing a word he uses only one other time in his Gospel, when describing the fiery anguish experienced

by the rich man in hades (see Luke 16:24-25)”.

Clement Harrold

 

 

Taken from: Science of the Cross: Edith Stein's Theocentric Humanism | Church Life Journal | University of Notre Dame

 

Science of the Cross: Edith Stein’s Theocentric Humanism

by Clement Harrold August 09, 2024

 

….

Finding God Within: The Science of the Cross and the Fifth Joyful Mystery

 

Although Stein only touches briefly on Luke’s story of the finding of the child Jesus in the temple (see Luke 2:41-52) … the Gospel vignette nevertheless offers a helpful lens through which to understand the way the science of the cross functions in the life of the Christian. Certainly Stein accepts the biblical notion that the human person is a temple in which God dwells … a concept she sometimes expresses in the language of sanctuary: “Human beings are called upon to live in their inmost region. . . .

 

The angels have the task of protecting it. Evil spirits seek to gain control of it. God himself has chosen it as his dwelling.” …. Given Stein’s conviction that the essential task of the scientist of the cross is that of discovering God within the sanctuary of the self, what lessons might she then draw from the fifth joyful mystery?

A few thoughts will suffice.

 

When Mary and Joseph finally discover their beloved Son after three days of searching, theirs is the relief not only of finding their child again, but also of discovering that their experience of profound pain and loss took place for a reason: Jesus knew what he was doing all along. Yet we know that the dark night preceding this joy was an agonizing one. Presumably Mary and Joseph had already experienced various nights of the senses, whether in the ordeal of the Bethlehem birth, the tragedy of the Holy Innocents, or the forced flight into Egypt. On the occasion of losing their Son, however, night was to be far more painful, far more extreme: a night of the soul, not of the senses, where God himself is removed from their midst. The evangelist Luke pointedly captures this reality when he describes how Mary and Joseph searched “anxiously” for their Son, employing a word he uses only one other time in his Gospel, when describing the fiery anguish experienced by the rich man in hades (see Luke 16:24-25). This points us to a startling truth: for Mary and Joseph, the three days of searching were hell on earth. In their ultimate act of theomimesis, Jesus’s human parents were rewarded—albeit passively, and certainly not through their own choosing—with a taste of the same abandonment which he himself would experience on Calvary.

 

 

Yet the abandonment does not last forever, and it gives way to a deeper discovery of self. For this reason, to view the finding in the temple as nothing more than a bizarre anecdote speaking of the need for parental vigilance is to miss the point entirely. After all, it is not some failing on the part of Mary or Joseph which causes their Christ to go missing, but rather a deliberate decision on his part. Christ consciously allows his human parents to feel the loss of his presence in order that they might discover themselves more intimately in him. This reality finds symbolic expression in the temple itself, which in the Christian tradition (as Stein herself points out) at once represents the human being and the person of Christ. It is in the temple that Mary and Joseph discover Jesus, and it is in the temple of our souls that we discover that same Christ-child who permits our pains for a time, but always for the deeper purpose of love.

 

Transformation in Charity

 

In a profound way, the finding in the temple points to that lived experience of charity which forms the apotheosis of Stein’s science of the cross. Consider the question on the lips of Mary and Joseph when they are finally reunited with their Child: “Son, why have you treated us so?” (Luke 2:48). It is a question which echoes down the ages in the heart of every believer who has ever experienced intense pain; in the midst of grief, loneliness, trauma, and hurt, our cry to Jesus becomes no less spirited than that of his human parents: “Why, Jesus, why have you treated us so?”


For Stein, through the science of the cross, it is love which stands as the answer to this question. Love is why he has treated us so, and our final transformation in charity is the reason he asks us to suffer—and to discover ourselves in him. Commenting on Christ’s cryptic response to his parents (“Did you not know I must be about my Father’s business?”), Stein cites from John of the Cross in his own commentary on these first-recorded words of the Savior:

 

Nothing else can be meant by that which is the eternal Father’s business than the salvation of the world, above all the salvation of souls, since Christ our Lord applied the means foreordained by the eternal Father. . . . But what is most wonderful and divine is to cooperate in the conversion of souls and in bringing them home; for in this God’s own activity is reflected and this imitation is the greatest glory. That is why Christ, our Lord, called this the work of his Father, the business of his Father. It is also an evident truth that sympathy with the neighbor grows the more, the more the soul is united with God through love. ….

 

The Son is about the Father’s business: namely, the salvation of sinners, and the proliferation of love. For Stein, as for John of the Cross, the soul encounters God within the deepest recesses of her soul, and that encounter cannot leave her unchanged. A metamorphosing union now takes place: a union manifested in charity and in the soul’s “supernatural transformation” in God. ….

 

It now becomes evident that the science of the cross is precisely for the sake of that “transforming union through perfect love that divinizes the soul.” …. To be sure, union with God is the primary goal of the science, and Stein is careful to highlight Christ’s insistence that his followers “seek first the kingdom” (Mt 6:33). …. From this thoroughly theocentric point of departure, however, a horizontal dimension of charity also begins to emerge, and the science of the cross completes its cruciform structure.

For Stein, worship must indeed precede ethics; love of God ranks before love of neighbor. At the same time, the two maxims are not competitive in her thinking, but rather complementary. Love of God is incarnated through the love of neighbor; theomimesis is ever a communal affair. Stein is emphatic: “Self-fulfillment, union with God, and laboring for the union of others with God and for their self-fulfillment belong inseparably together.” …. Through the power of the cross, the people of God are gathered into one and bonded together in perfect charity. In their shared participation in Christ’s sufferings, the body of believers discover themselves in God and in one another: “And all the holy souls together form on their part a garland, which the bride-Church weaves together with Christ the Bridegroom.” ….

 

Conclusion

 

The finding in the temple is illustrative of the painful but life-giving role which the science of the cross must play in the life of the Christian. It is suggestive, too, of a distinctively theocentric humanism which is the hallmark of Stein’s thinking, and a possible interpretative key for unlocking her theological vision. Stein’s profound reflections on the cross present a challenge to modern man to ponder anew that mystery of mysteries: almighty and transcendent God nailed naked to a tree. For Stein, it is by taking this reality to heart that our conception of the human person is unalterably elevated. As such, an authentic humanism must begin and end with the divine; only then can the dignity of the human person be secured: “So the bridal union of the soul with God is the goal for which she was created, purchased through the cross, consummated on the cross and sealed for all eternity with the cross.” …. Divinization through suffering—theosis through kenosis—is the promise Christ extends to all mankind, and one in which we are invited to share. Herein lies Stein’s science of the cross, and the only reliable seedbed for an authentically Christian humanism.

….