Receive a free pre-release copy of Sword and Serpent BOOK 3!

The most popular historical Catholic fiction novel series for the last four years has been the Sword and Serpent Trilogy and it has received consistent 5 star reviews from readers. (If you haven’t read Book 1, you can get it TODAY on Kindle for $1 special by clicking here).

I’m both delighted and relieved that I’ve finished writing the Sword and Serpent Trilogy about St George, Constantine, St Helena, St Christopher, St Catherine, and others: Book 3 is finished and the cover art is ready!

Read on if you’d like a free advanced pre-release copy:

Book 3 is titled Storm of Fire and Blood and it follows St George, St Christopher, and Constantine to Britain and back to Asia Minor as the Diocletian sparks off. The title refers to persecution of “fire and blood” that Diocletian initiated in AD 303.

This the third installment to my best-selling Catholic historical fiction novel Sword and Serpent about Saint George, Saint Christopher, Saint Nicholas, and Constantine is ready for printing.

sword and serpent box shot cropped

My publication team will be choosing 200 “FIRE AND BLOOD Launch Team” readers who will receive a FREE advanced digital copy before the publication date and their name printed in the back of the book with a thank you message from me.

Here is who we are looking for in our Launch Team:

  1. Readers who have read Sword and Serpent Book 1 or 2 already
  2. Readers who can read the book in about 1 week
  3. Readers who are willing to promote the book with a tweet or Facebook or Instagram post
  4. Readers who are willing to write a review on Amazon.com
  5. Readers who won’t share or publish their advanced digital copy to the public

So if you’d like to get an advanced copy and read it before the book is published for the public (and have your name printed in the book), please apply using this form:

Click here to join the Sword and Serpent 3 FIRE AND BLOOD Launch Team!

I look forward to sending out a free copy to you!

Godspeed,
Dr Taylor Marshall

Click here to join the Sword and Serpent 3 FIRE AND BLOOD Launch Team!

Did God Really Kill Onan for Spilling His Seed or for Something Else?

A reevaluation of Onanism in Genesis 38

Today we examine the sin of Onan and whether God directly killed Onan merely for the sin of contraception or for something more?

Before I begin this article, know from the outset that I uphold the teaching of the Catholic Church with regard to sexual morality and contraception. And while I believe and practice the Catholic teaching, I will suggest that the sin of Onan in Genesis 38:9 is not chiefly about the sin of contraception (by way of coitus interruptus) but rather relates to Messianic sacrilege.

First off, what is Onanism?

Webster’s Dictionary defines Onanism as:

1:masturbation
2:coitus interruptus
3:self-gratification

Onanism in the Context of Levirate Marriage:

Onanism is named after the biblical Onan who in Genesis 33 is told by his father, the Patriarch Judah (father of one of the twelve tribes of Israel), to have sex his dead brother’s widow Tamar so that she is not childless. Having sex with the widow of your brother is called “Levirate marriage.”

It is called “Levirate” marriage because the the Latin word “levir” means “husband’s brother.” Centuries after the time of Judah and Onan, Levirate marriage was mandated by God through Moses in Deuteronomy 25:5-6.

If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead shall not be married outside the family to a stranger; her husband’s brother shall go in to her, and take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his brother who is dead, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel.

Levirate marriage is interesting because it a biblically sanctioned form of either fornication/adultery. For example, Judah’s son Er dies and leave his wife Tamar a widow. His younger brother Onan is required to have sex with Er’s widow Tamar and give her children. This happens whether Onan is not married (sex with Tamar would normally be fornication) or whether Onan is already married to another woman (sex with Tamar would then normally be adultery). It’s not clear from the text, but if the union of the man and the widow constitutes a real marriage, then he’d have multiple wives (sex with Tamar would require polygamy).

Either way, Onan and Tamar are having sex outside of natural law of marriage between one man and one woman, and the arrangement is sanctioned by God. (It’s a situation requiring a footnote.) Moreover, the child produced by these sexual relations would NOT belong to Onan’s house or lineage, but rather to his dead brother Er as Deuteronomy later makes apparent.

The Death of Onan after “Spilling Seed” in Genesis 38:

Here is the precise situation of Er (the deceased), Tamar (Er’s widow), and Onan (younger surviving brother of Er) in Genesis 38:

Then Judah said to [his son] Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife [Tamar], and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also.

Onan’s sin by spilling his semen on the ground is so great that God immediately kills him. This sin of Onanism is terribly grave.

Catholic Apologists (including myself in two my own books) have pointed to Onanism in Genesis 38 as a prohibition against contraception. And they are right to do so, but God did not kill Onan merely for spilling his semen outside of Tamar. Thousands of men have spilled their seed through masturbation and coitus interruptus before, during, and after this time period, and none of them, as far as we know, received a direct death penalty from the Lord.

Why then did God kill Onan in this special case?

Might I suggest that Onan’s sin was especially grave because he was the eldest surviving son of the patriarch Judah. As such he is designated ancestor for the line of the Messiah of Israel. Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Lion of Judah and Matthew and Luke’s Gospels show that Christ descends from the genetic tribe of Judah.

The narrative goes on to show that this widow Tamar grows desperate so that she veils herself as a prostitute and hired herself out to Judah who does not know that the prostitute is actually his daughter in law. And from their illicit union springs the Messianic line descending into Jesus Christ Himself. Tamar is one of the few women explictly named in the geneology of Christ in Matthew:

and Judah the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, and Perez the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Ram. (Gen 1:3)

Jewish Irony of Sexual Rights

From a Jewish point of view, the story is ironic. Onan has the right to have sex with Tamar and he spills his seed and despises his birthright as a Messianic forebear. Judah their father actually pays to have sex with Tamar, and he plants the seed and by doing so skips over his sons. The sons no longer have the privilege of being in the lineage of Jesus Christ. This is why, I believe, Onan is killed directly by God. Onan was not likely the first man to masturbate or practice coitus interruptus (both are sins). His GREATER sin was that he despised the Messianic dynasty of the Christ.

Onan engages in coitus interruptus and the Lord slew him. Judah the father engages in prostitution, adultery, and incest…and he lives. The deciding factor over life and death here is willingness to produce a genetic line in accord with the promises of God.

A Final Thought on Judah as Messianic Forebear:

Genesis repeatedly flips the divine inheritance rights of the first born son. Abraham bears Ishmael first and later Isaac. But Isaac is given the covenantal Messianic birthright. Isaac bears Esau and Jacob. But Jacob the younger wins the covenantal Messianic birthright by way of trickery.

Jacob’s first four sons (in order) are: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah. But the first three lose their birthrights:

  • In Genesis 34, the second and third born Simeon and Levi lose their status with their father Jacob for their violence.
  • In Genesis 35, Reuben the first born copulates with his step-mother and loses the rights as first-born of Israel.
  • In Genesis 36, we read of the descendents of Esau – those that did not receive the covenantal birthright.
  • In Genesis 37, Judah intervenes to have Joseph sold as a slave, rather than be killed or left in a waterless pit. This shows Judah as righteous and rightly next in line for the covenantal blessing.
  • In Genesis 38, we have the story of Er, Onan, and Tamar with Judah copulating with his daughter-in-law Tamar.

It’s obvious that the narrative from Gen 34-38 is trying to establish not 1-Reuben, 2-Simeon, or 3-Levi as the rightful heir of Abraham, but the fourth born Judah as the rightful heir. Judah’s sons are so sinful that God arranges (by trickery of Tamar) for Judah to copulate with Tamar and skip over his sons altogether.

Conclusion: Sexual Ethics and the Messiah

It’s stunning for any reader of the Bible to see how casually it mentions prostitution, fornication (eg. Samson), adultery, and polygamy. Abraham even seems willing (twice) to share his beautiful wife sexually with rulers so as not to be killed himself.

It almost seems that God totally tolerates sexual sins among the great male saints of the Old Testament. That is is why it is so surprising when God directly intervenes and kills Onan for his sexual sin. This is why I think we can conclude that the “sin of Onan” was not merely contraception by way of coitus interruptus. Rather, Onan’s sin was he was interfering with the dynasty of the promised “Seed of Adam and Abraham” – Our Lord Jesus Christ.

The theological purpose of the book Genesis is track “the Seed” from Adam > Abraham > Isaac > Jacob > Judah. And it seems that Gen 34-38 is all a transition to highlight Judah. If so, then the sin of Onan is made profoundly grave not because its mere contraception, but that it’s contraceiving the plan of God for Judah’s messianic dynasty leading to “the Promised Seed” of Genesis 3:15, who is the Messiah.

If you’d like to learn more Old Testament history, check out my book on Judaism and Catholicism: The Crucified Rabbi and sign up for online biblical, historical, and theological classes at the New Saint Thomas Institute.

Did Israel’s God have a Wife? “Queen of Heaven” in Jeremiah 7

Why Protestants reject Mary as Queen of Heaven

Most Protestants claim (as well as Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses) that in the early 300s, the first Christian Roman Emperor Constantine co-opted Christianity for political purposes and transformed Rome’s pagan theology, imagery and titles into Christian versions:

  1. pagan Temples became Christian Churches
  2. the title “Queen of Heaven” was transferred from the Roman goddess Magna Dea to Jesus Christ’s mother Mary
  3. Pontifex Maximus was transferred as title for Bishop of Rome
  4. patron deities were modified into patron saints
  5. The first day of the week, dedicated as “Sun-Day” became the day of Christian worship rather than the Jewish Sabbath on Saturday

Other examples could be listed. I’ve argued that Constantine was truly Christian and that paganization did not occur in The Eternal City: Rome and the Origins of Catholic Christianity. Rather, I defend the (Catholic) belief that the Holy Trinity planned from creation to use the Roman Empire as the means of salvation through the Roman crucifixion of the eternal Son of God under Roman domination.

Today we address the title “Queen of Heaven” as applied to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Protestants adhere to the principle of sola scripture (only scripture). In doing so, they search the pages of Scripture for “Queen of Heaven” and they find it in the Old Testament:

The children gather wood, the fathers kindle fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven; and they pour out drink offerings to other gods, to provoke me to anger. (Jer 7:18)

and again:

But we will do everything that we have vowed, burn incense to the queen of heaven and pour out libations to her, as we did, both we and our fathers, our kings and our princes, in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem; for then we had plenty of food, and prospered, and saw no evil. (Jer 44:7)

The prophet Jeremiah here condemns how Israelites adopted then pagan practice of offering cakes and drink offerings to “the queen of heaven.” This “queen of heaven” was the goddess Asherah who was universally worshipped in the Middle East as a consort bride to Baal or even Yahweh.

We have, in fact, found an archeological pithos sherd found at Kuntillet Ajrud be with an inscription reading: “Yahweh and his Asherah” as depicted below:

There is biblical and archeological evidence for devotion to God’s wife Asherah. But this devotion was contrary to the monotheism practiced by Abraham, Moses, and David. The Israelite prophets were constantly recalling Israel away from worship of Asherah and back to the monotheistic worship of Yahweh.

It would seem, then, to the Protestant that the Catholic practice of calling Mary “Queen of Heaven” is a return to this banned practice in Jeremiah. Epiphanius of Salamis even writes of an early female Christian heresy around AD 375, whereby women devotees in Arabia would worship Mary and offer bread-rolls (Greek κολλυρις or kollyris) to Mary as if she were a goddess. This seems to be a holdover from worship of Asherah as described by Jeremiah.

And yet the Catholic Church does NOT give worship (Greek latria) to Mary. She receives the highest form of praise for a created human (Greek hyperdulia), since she is a human and will always remain a human. However, she is the earthly mother of the King of Heaven and Earth. And by that honor, she is Queen of Heaven.

Moreover, Revelation chapter 12 depicts the mother of the Messiah as crowned with 12 stars, clothed with the sun, and standing on the moon. She is no doubt the Queen of Heaven, just as she is also the Queen of the Jews.

And we should remember that pagan kings were also called Messiah, Son of God, King of Kings, King of Heaven, etc. and yet we do not hesitate to grant these titles to our Lord Jesus Christ.

The abuse of a term by pagans (e.g. Son of God, Queen of Heaven, Pontifex Maximus) does not forfeit their proper use by God-fearing Christians in an orthodox sense.

Question: Do you honor the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Queen of Heaven You can leave a comment by clicking here.

My Opinion of Martin Luther (Hero or Villain?)

My opinion of “Father” Martin Luther. Every October 31 is the anniversary of Martin Luther’s Great Protest against the Catholic Church. Find out what I really think of him in today’s podcast. Was his protest valid? And did he use the right means to achieve “reform”?

Thumbs up or thumbs down? Find out in this episode.

Click to Listen:

“My Opinion on Martin Luther”

If audio player does not show up in your email or browser, click here to listen.

1) Proverb of the Week:
Proverbs 12:17

2) Tip of the Week: 
Decide what you do not do.

3) Featured Segment:
“My Opinion of Martin Luther

4) Latin Word of the Week:
hæresis from Greek hairesis “a taking or choosing, a choice.” We get the word “heresy” from it.

Top 10 Catholic Halloween Ideas!

Do you believe in Christian Halloween? Be ready. All week long you’ll be having the “Halloween or no Halloween?” conversation with all of your friends, be they Catholic, Protestant, or otherwise.

For Protestants without a tradition of All Saints Day, it sometimes becomes “Halloween vs. Reformation Day,” the latter being the celebration of the Martin Luther’s posting of the 95 Theses on Oct 31 (click here for recorded thoughts on the evil Martin Luther). Even some Catholics are concerned that Halloween has become “evil.”

Well, here are ten ways to keep good ol’ Halloween fun and sacred.

Top 10 Christian Halloween Ideas

Christian Halloween 1950s

Halloween Party circa 1950

Pope Saint Callixtus I – Laxity, Contraception, Abortion in AD 217

What happens when you have canonized Catholic saints criticizing and resisting a canonic Catholic pope? That’s exactly what happened with Pope Saint Callixtus I, who died in AD 223.

Tertullian and Origen spoke against Pope Callixtus for his laxity. And Saint Hippolytus became the Catholic Church’s first antipope in resistance to Pope Callixtus who he saw as promoting and allowing: contraception, abortion, heresy, and easy-penance.

Why the conflict?

Before we get started I want to stress that all this happened 100 years before Constantine legalized Catholicism. Some wrongly assume that before Constantine the Church of Rome was a happy assembly of saints without church politics. Not quite. The Church of Rome has been plagued with conflict and controversy from the very beginning (as detailed in this book).

The document Philosophumena (attributed to Saint Hippolytus of Rome) recounts how Pope Callixtus had once been a Roman slave belonging to a Christian master named Carpophorus. Carpophorus placed his slave Callixtus (the future pope) in charge of funds that he had collected from other Christians for the care of orphans, widows, and the poor.

Callixtus the slave who lost all the money. He fled Rome but was discovered boarding a ship near Portus, the harbor city of Rome. Callixtus jumped overboard to avoid capture but was arrested nonetheless and taken back to his Christian master Carpophorus.

In an attempt to recover the money, Callixtus the slave physically assaulted Jews inside a Roman synagogue in attempt to either get a loan from the Jews or to collect debts from Jews. He was re-arrested. At this time, he was denounced as a Christian (probably by the Roman Jews) and sent as a prisoner to the mines of Sardinia.

Enter the Emperor Commodus. Commodus was the son of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius. You likely remember him from the film Gladiator:

The Emperor Commodus had a “Christian” mistress named Marcia (you might be surprised to learn that Rome one hundred years later had a collection of so-called “Christian prostitutes” that were regulated by Constantine’s son). The “Christian mistress” Marcia was served by a eunuch named Hyacinth who was also an ordained presbyter. (100 years later, eunuchs were banned from ordination at the Council of Nicea).

Marcia and Hyacinth appealed to the Roman Emperor Commodus for the release of Christian prisoners from the mines of Sardinia. This imperial intervention effected the release of Callixtus and other Christians in the mines. Life in the mines was rough and they had suffered there as witnesses to our Lord Jesus Christ. These Christians were honored by Christians back in Rome as quasi-martyrs.

Callixtus’s Rise to the Papacy:

  • Pope Victor I as Bishop of Rome honored Callixtus with a monthly pension from the Catholic Church, supposedly to honor him as a living confessor (one who suffered for Christ, but did not die).
  • Pope Zephyrinus (successor of Victor I) honored Callixtus in AD 199 by ordaining him as one of the prestigious “seven deacons of Rome,” and appointed him as guardian of the catacombs along the Appian Way. To this day, these catacombs are named after Callixtus as the “Catacombs of Saint Callixtus.” From his time until the time of Constantine, this catacomb became the ceremonial burial place for nine bishops of Rome. (Origen visited Rome during the reign of Pope Zephyrinus.)
  • Deacon Callixtus became the chief advisor of Pope Zephyrinus in Rome.
  • In AD 217, Pope Zephyrinus received the crown of martyrdom and the Deacon Callixtus was the obvious choice for Bishop of Rome.
  • Callixtus became Pope in AD 217 and established Santa Maria in Trastevere as his principle “cathedral” in Rome (this was before the Lateran basilica was given to the Church by Constantine and before the construction of the basilica at the Vatican).

Pope Callixtus as a “Lax Pope”:

Callixtus’s “pre-mining” life had been one of financial controversy, and yet he had proved himself faithful to Christ in the mines and worthy of respect and office in the Church of Rome. Perhaps it was his controversial past that lead to his position of laxity for the Church in Rome.

In AD 217 (the first year of his Pontificate), Pope Callixtus issued the “Decree of 217” which scandalized many, especially Tertullian who documents the episode. The Decree of 217 stated that penance and absolution would be enough to re-admit Christians to the Eucharist for the seven sins previously restricted. These seven sins were:

  1. murder
  2. idolatry
  3. fraud
  4. apostasy (publicly renouncing Jesus Christ)
  5. blasphemy
  6. adultery (sex with someone besides your spouse)
  7. fornication (sex outside marriage)
    (this list is found in Tertullian’s De Pudicitia*, Ch 19).

Pope Callixtus also allowed:

  • not requiring public penance from heretics entering the Catholic Church.
  • clergy t0 marry before and after ordination.
  • noble women to contract Christian marriages with plebs and slaves (forbidden by Roman law).

The Christians at the time were divided on this lax approach to sinners.

  • Tertullian openly wrote and taught against the lax novelties of Pope Callixtus.
  • The Greek-speaking Roman priest Hippolytus was elected as a rival Bishop of Rome and became the Church’s first Anti-Pope.
  • Origen relates how when he was in Rome he heard the famous Hippolytus preach – showing that Origen was sympathetic with Hippolytus’ theology. It seems however that Origen greatly respected the Bishop of Rome and that he heard Hippolytus preach before Hippolytus presumed to become a rival Bishop in Rome. Nevertheless, Origen’s strictness would seem to make him more sympathetic with the ancient practice of making sacramental absolution rare.

In general, opponents of Pope Callixtus alleged that his policies would lead to a lower of morals among Christians, and this proved to the case with regard to contraception and abortion.

The Problem of Abortion and Contraception among Christians during the time of Pope Callixtus:

Hippolytus laments that Catholic women in Rome began to engage in contraception and abortion during the lax reign of Pope Callixtus:

Whence women, reputed believers, began to resort to drugs for producing sterility, and to gird themselves round [their belly], so to expel what was being conceived on account of their not wishing to have a child either by a slave or by any paltry fellow, for the sake of their family and excessive wealth. Behold, into how great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by inculcating adultery and murder at the same time! And withal, after such audacious acts, they, lost to all shame, attempt to call themselves a Catholic Church.

For Hippolytus, this rise in contraception and abortion among Roman Christian women was a sign that the laxity of Pope Callixtus was bearing evil fruit.

Five or six years later, Pope Callixtus received the crown of martyrdom in AD 222 or 223 and was enrolled in the number of the saints. His feast day is October 14.

Conclusion:

Do grace and mercy lead to laxity. It’s a common question: If God forgives me no matter what, why not just keep sinning? Why change my life at all?

This precise question is tackled by Saint Paul in his epistle to the Romans 6:

1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried[a] therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

It was and will be a perennial question for Christians in every age. If a Christian can just “pray the prayer” (as Evangelicals say), just be baptized, just go to confession, or just get an indulgence, why live like a saint?

Problems also with Rigorism:

But there is an opposite error. If the forgiveness of sin is rigorous (as it was before AD 217), two results follow:

  1. First, is simply despair. If forgiveness if far off, why even try?
  2. There is a second result that I would like to suggest that I rarely see in Patristic studies. I believe that the popularity of Gnosticism and Gnostic sects the exploded in the 100s was partly due to the lack of access to sacramental absolution. Gnostics promised that there were secret ways (not depending on morality or absolution) that allowed access to God. If a Christian had fallen into apostasy, murder, or adultery and could not find forgiveness and communion within the Catholic Church, there would be extreme pressure to join a Gnostic cult where immediate salvation and access to God was assured.

All Catholics today (even the SSPX) would grant that Pope Callixtus made the correct move, by allowing for “easy” absolution of grave sins before the time of death. (Easy, by the way, still entailed periods of public penance.) Did this new laxity come with a price? Yes. Did Catholic women try to “get away” with contraception and abortion? Yes. Does that still happen today? Yes.

Is the solution to this form of laxity to make the conditions for sacramental absolution more strict? No. I don’t think so. People can and will take advantage of grace in every age. There is no way to prevent that. However, we must always be in a position to recognize the forgiveness and mercy of Christ who was ready to immediately forgive the repentant Peter, Thomas, Paul, et al.

Question: I would love to hear your thoughts on this topic of lax vs. rigorous absolution. You can leave a comment by clicking here.

When Parents Die: Vladimir Lenin vs St John Paul II

When Vladimir Lenin’s father died, he declared that God could not exist, and he became and atheist and Marxist.

When Karol Wojtyła’s mother died, his faith in Christ became deeper, and he became a priest, became Pope John Paul II, and was later canonized as a saint.

Both men had pious fathers and both men lost their parents.

However, Lenin became a tyrant and mass-murderer. John Paul II became an inspiration for the entire world and pointed people to return to faith in Christ.

What made the difference in their life choices?

Question: Please leave a comment to share your ideas or thoughts on this. You can leave a comment by clicking here.

The Fall of Satan described in Ezekiel 28

I previously explained how Saint Augustine described the Fall of Lucifer and the demons and related it to Genesis Chapter 1. See video below In this article, I’m asking the question: “Is the Fall of Satan described in Ezekiel 28?” Tertullian, Origen, Jerome, and Augustine interpret the passage as allegorically referring to Lucifer.

Below is the original video on the Fall of Lucifer. Scroll below it to learn more about Ezekiel 28.

In Ezekiel 28, the prophet speaks against the King of Tyre, who was a historical person living in hostility to Yahweh and the people of Israel. However, the prophecy becomes quiet metaphysical and describes a personage beyond the historic King of Tyre. Tyre is the northern neighbor of historical Israel, see photo below:

Here’s the entire passage with my commentary in red (I generally use “Lucifer” to describe him as pre-fallen, non-sinful; and “Satan” to refer to him as fallen and sinful).

11 Moreover the word of the Lord came to me: 12 “Son of man, raise a lamentation over the king of Tyre, and say to him, Thus says the Lord God:

“You were the signet of perfection, [Tertullian interprets “signet” or “seal” as meaning that Lucifer was created in the image of God with perfection – he had the highest created intellect and will]
full of wisdom
and perfect in beauty.
13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; [This is taking us beyond the historical king and back to the garden of Eden.]
every precious stone was your covering,
carnelian, topaz, and jasper, chrysolite, beryl, and onyx, sapphire, carbuncle, and emerald; and wrought in gold were your settings and your engravings. [The wearing of jewels was an honor of the High Priest of Israel. This language depicts Lucifer as originally a High Priest ministering before the presence of God.]
On the day that you were created they were prepared. [Lucifer was created in time and as good]

14 With an anointed guardian cherub I placed you; [Commentators debate this because the Seraph, not the Cherub, is the highest kind of angel. And yet here Lucifer the highest angel is called a second-tier “cherub.” It may be that angels like, priests “contain” the lower orders within them. For example, every priest is also a deacon and every bishop is also a priest and deacon, etc.]
you were on the holy mountain of God; [This reminds us that Eden is a mountain. It’s a high place like a temple or pyramid.]
in the midst of the stones of fire you walked. [Eden or the Holy Moutain is fiery because of the love of God. “Seraph” means “burning one.”.]

15 You were blameless in your ways [This places Lucifer as sinless in the Garden of Eden. This points to Eden being something beyond a historical and geographical place on planet earth.]
from the day you were created, [Lucifer was created in time and as good]
till iniquity was found in you. [Here he falls in the sin of pride. He becomes Satan.]
16 In the abundance of your trade
you were filled with violence, and you sinned;
so I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God, [Satan is profane and cast away from the Mountain that is Eden]
and the guardian cherub drove you out [this may refer to Saint Michael, see video]
from the midst of the stones of fire. [again the holy Eden/Mountain is on fire]
17 Your heart was proud because of your beauty; [pride was his sin]
you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor.
I cast you to the ground; [this seems to refer to Satan being cast to planet earth]
I exposed you before kings, to feast their eyes on you. [If we are still observing the fall of Satan, then “kings” here refers to the angelic hosts who witness God’s judgment against him.]
18 By the multitude of your iniquities,
in the unrighteousness of your trade
you profaned your sanctuaries; [His “sanctuaries” may refer to angels that were below him and in his charge – the third of angels that fell with him when God “separated the dark from the light”.]
so I brought forth fire from the midst of you;
it consumed you,
and I turned you to ashes upon the earth [Satan is no longer beautiful but scorched and ashen]
in the sight of all who saw you.
19 All who know you among the peoples
are appalled at you;
you have come to a dreadful end
and shall be no more for ever.” [An eternal condemnation for Satan.]

As you move through the passage, it is difficult to see how it might apply to the historical King of Tyre. He did not live in Eden or on a burning Holy Mountain. He was not cast out by God and scorched with fire and made ugly. So how then would it apply to the King of Tyre?

It is likely that the King of Tyre is singled out as being Satan-like because of his historical association with Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem. King Hiram of Tyre made an alliance with Solomon (Solomon was a Messianic “Son of David”, which I’ve discussed here and relating it to Saint Joseph). And King Hiram provided architects, worders, cedar, and gold for the construction of the Temple in Jerusalem.

The Temple of Solomon was a mock up model of the Garden of Eden (Temple as Garden of Eden explained in my book The Crucified Rabbi) on the Temple Mount (Moriah).

King Solomon is a Christ-like figure and perhaps King Hiram is like a “high angel” figure. Hence, the King of Tyre’s dynasty turning against God is like Lucifer turning against God and His Messiah.

Regardless, the Ezekiel 28 is the locus classicus on the fall of Lucifer.

Applications for Christians Today:

  • Pride is the sin of Satan and the highest sin (v. 17). Let us pray for humility and meditate on the humility of Jesus Christ.
  • Satan’s fall is liturgical. It refers to priestly structures and sacred places. We cannot bend, break, or corrupt the liturgy of God because the liturgy presents God’s hierarchy and holiness for his creation.
  • It was Saint Michael (a much lower angel) that resisted Satan for the honor of God and His Logos. Let us have devotion and recourse to Saint Michael as a guardian given to us by Christ. It also signifies that personal agents in the lower orders of creation (lower laity or lower clergy) can and do have a place in God’s economy.
  • Christ and His Church have given us tools and defenses to protect us from Satan and his demons. these include:
    • 7 Sacraments
    • Holy water (uniting us to Christ as a sign of baptism)
    • Sacramentals (scapulars, St Benedict medals, blessed salt)
    • Devotion to Our Lady – Mary has replaced Satan as the highest creature in Heaven. Satan, we are told by exorcists, is especially ashamed of being c0-defeated and replaced by a “mere” human woman.
  • The best thing we can do is avoid sin through the grace of Jesus Christ. Every time we sin, even venially, we allow Satan to have a greater influence over our lives and our world.

Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us,

Dr Taylor Marshall

Catholic Audio: Your Guardian Angel is Not a Pet (Replay Link)

Your Guardian Angel has been with you since you were conceived in your mother’s womb. We should always revere these angelic beings and even ask their prayers. Today we discuss everything you need to know about your Guardian Angel and whether you’re allowed to name your Guardian angel. They are not our pets, they are our leaders. Click below to learn more about our spiritual status with these unseen guardians:

Click to Listen: “Should You Name Your Guardian Angel?”

If audio player does not show up in your email or browser, click here to listen.

Guardian Angels, pray for us,

Dr Taylor Marshall

When William Shakespeare died on the Feast of Saint George

Here’s a fun St George fact:

William Shakespeare died on the feast day of Saint George: April 23.It fits nicely with Shakespeare’s play Henry V which features the battle cry:

Follow your spirit, and upon this charge Cry ‘God for Harry, England, and Saint George!’

Miguel de Cervantes, Spanish author of Don Quixote (and solder at Battle of Lepanto) also died on April 23.

It’s also worth noting that the novel Dracula begins on April 23, the feast of Saint George, since Dracula a “slaying the dragon myth.” Dracula translates as “little dragon.”

On of the the readers of my Saint George historical novel Sword and Serpent also recently pointed out the center placement of Saint George on the Russian Coat of Arms up until 1917 (year of Our Lady of Fatima):

If you’d like to learn more about Saint George in history, please join our Sword and Serpent Discussion Group on Facebook by clicking here.

Godspeed,
Dr. Taylor Marshall

PS: Book 3 in the Sword and Serpent Trilogy comes out later this year.