What if your next blog post was already written, optimized, and published before you even opened your laptop? With the right automation, you can turn ideas into live content in minutes—consistently, effortlessly, and at scale.
Content creation is changing fast. Today’s top bloggers aren’t typing late into the night—they’re running automated systems that write, optimise, and publish for them. The question is, why aren’t you?
Automate Your Blogging – From Idea to Published Post in Minutes
Imagine waking up to find a brand-new, SEO-friendly blog post already live on your site — without lifting a finger. With today’s automation tools, that dream is now a reality. Whether you’re on WordPress, Ghost, Webflow, or any CMS, you can go from raw idea to polished post faster than ever.
Step Inside the Future of Blogging
It starts with a trigger — something that says, “It’s time to create a post.” From there, AI takes over, generating a compelling title, writing engaging SEO-ready content, creating meta descriptions and keyword tags, and even producing image prompts. Then, your CMS connection pushes it live instantly. No late nights. No burnout. Just consistent, high-quality publishing on autopilot.
The Make.com Method – Your Creative Factory
Make.com is ideal for creators who want full control and custom workflows. You begin by creating a new scenario and deciding where your ideas will come from. The trigger could be a manual start, a Google Sheet entry, or an automated pull from RSS feeds or trending topics. Once the topic is ready, it’s sent to OpenAI to produce a fully formatted 1,000-word post complete with title, meta description, and tags. The content is then mapped to your CMS and published instantly. AI can also create optimised slugs, alt text, and featured image ideas. After a single test, the process runs automatically while you focus on growing your audience.
Zapier is the simplest and fastest way to go from idea to published post. A new row in Google Sheets becomes a new blog topic. OpenAI turns that topic into a ready-to-publish post, and WordPress uploads it instantly.
n8n is for those who want maximum flexibility without writing code. You can set up webhook triggers, loops, and conditions, create advanced publishing schedules, and design complex multi-step flows that align perfectly with your content strategy.
Why This Changes the Game
This approach allows you to publish daily without burning out. It can transform fifty ideas into fifty published posts automatically. It keeps you ahead with real-time trending topics and refreshes old posts for instant SEO gains.
Limitations and Smart Checks
While AI-generated content is polished, it should still be human-reviewed for tone, accuracy, and brand fit. Draft mode is a smart option for an editorial safety net. Some integrations may require paid plans, API access, or CMS plugins.
Bottom line: Once set up, your blog runs itself. You remain consistent, maintain visibility, and free up time for the work that actually grows your audience.
Conclusion
While automated content creation tools offer substantial benefits in terms of speed, cost, and scalability, they present real challenges to the authenticity of the information they produce. For audiences and brands that value trust and genuine connection, striking the right balance between AI automation and human creativity remains essential.
Explore more at the Rise & Inspire archive | Tech Insights
Unshakeable Faith: Finding True Security in God Alone
A Biblical Reflection on Psalm 62:6By Johnbritto Kurusumuthu
A Prayer to Begin Our Journey
Almighty God, our unchanging Rock and eternal Fortress, we come before You today acknowledging our deep need for the security that only You can provide. In a world where everything seems to shift and crumble around us, we thank You for being our unshakeable foundation. Open our hearts to understand the profound truth of Your Word today. Help us to release our grip on the false securities we have built for ourselves and learn to rest completely in Your strength. Transform our anxious hearts into confident ones that declare with the psalmist: “I shall not be shaken.” May this time of reflection draw us closer to You and strengthen our faith for the journey ahead. In Jesus’ mighty name, Amen.
Deep Meditation: The Security of the Ages
Picture this moment with me: You stand at the base of a massive mountain, its peak hidden in the clouds above. The winds howl around you, storms rage, but this mountain remains unmoved, unshaken, eternal. This is the image David paints for us in Psalm 62:6. But here’s what makes this even more beautiful—this isn’t just any rock or mountain. This is the living God who knows your name, counts your tears, and holds your future in His hands.
In our fast-paced world of 2025, we’ve become experts at building security systems. We have insurance policies, backup plans, emergency funds, and contingency strategies. Yet despite all our careful planning, how often do we still find ourselves lying awake at night, worried about tomorrow? David discovered something profound: true security isn’t found in what we can control, but in surrendering control to the One who controls everything.
The Hebrew word for “rock” here is sela—not just any stone, but a massive cliff or crag that serves as a natural fortress. When David wrote these words, he likely had memories of hiding in the caves of En Gedi, where the rocky cliffs provided perfect protection from his enemies. But David recognized that even those physical rocks were merely shadows of the ultimate Rock—God Himself.
What storms are raging in your life today? What circumstances are trying to shake your foundation? David’s declaration becomes our declaration: “I shall not be shaken”—not because we’re strong enough to stand, but because we’re anchored to the One who cannot be moved.
The Verse and Its Context
“He alone is my rock and my salvation, my fortress; I shall not be shaken.” – Psalm 62:6 (ESV)
This powerful declaration sits at the heart of Psalm 62, a psalm attributed to David during a time of intense opposition. The entire psalm is structured around the theme of waiting on God and finding rest in Him alone. Verses 1-2 establish the foundation: “For God alone my soul waits in silence; from him comes my salvation.” David then addresses his enemies in verses 3-4, before returning to this magnificent confession of faith in verses 5-6.
The context reveals a man under siege—not just from external enemies, but from the internal battle we all face between trusting God and trusting ourselves. Notice the progression: David moves from “my soul waits” to “I shall not be shaken.” This isn’t passive resignation; it’s active faith that produces unshakeable confidence.
Impact on Faith and Daily Life
This verse transforms how we approach every challenging situation. When your job security feels threatened, Psalm 62:6 reminds you that your true security isn’t in your position but in your God. When relationships disappoint you, this verse points you to the One whose love never fails. When health concerns arise, you remember that your ultimate healing comes from the Great Physician.
But here’s the practical beauty: living from this verse changes your decision-making process entirely. Instead of asking “What’s the safest option?” you begin asking “What honors God?” Instead of “What if this fails?” you ask “How can I trust God through this?” The result isn’t recklessness—it’s the kind of courage that can only come from being anchored to something immovable.
Key Themes and Main Message
The Central Theme: Exclusive Dependence on God
The word “alone” appears three times in this psalm (verses 1, 2, and 5), and it’s the key that unlocks everything. David isn’t saying God is one option among many—he’s declaring that God is the only option that truly matters. This exclusivity isn’t limiting; it’s liberating. When you know where your security lies, you’re freed from the exhausting work of trying to secure yourself.
The Progressive Revelation:
🎉Rock: Speaks to God’s unchanging nature and reliability
🎉Salvation: Points to His active deliverance and rescue
🎉Fortress: Emphasizes His protective presence and defense
The main message reverberates through the ages: In a world of shifting foundations, God alone provides the security our souls desperately crave.
Connection to Our Current Season
As we navigate through the Ordinary Time of the liturgical calendar, this verse speaks powerfully to our daily walk with God. Ordinary Time isn’t “ordinary” because it’s mundane—it’s ordinary because it’s ordered, structured, and purposeful. This is the season where we grow in our day-to-day relationship with Christ, where we learn to find the extraordinary in the seemingly ordinary moments.
Psalm 62:6 becomes our companion for this journey. In the ordinary pressures of work, family, and daily responsibilities, we learn to declare: “He alone is my rock.” In the ordinary struggles with doubt, fear, and uncertainty, we practice saying: “I shall not be shaken.” This season teaches us that our faith isn’t just for Sunday services or crisis moments—it’s the foundation for every ordinary Tuesday, every challenging Thursday, every weary Saturday.
Living Out the Verse: Practical Applications
1. Daily Fortress DeclarationsBegin each morning by speaking this verse aloud. Before you check your phone, before you worry about your schedule, remind your soul where your security lies.
2. The Security AuditWeekly, ask yourself: “What am I trusting in besides God?” Write down your answers honestly. It might be your savings account, your reputation, your health, or your relationships. Then consciously surrender each item to God.
3. Storm Response ProtocolWhen difficulties arise, resist the urge to immediately strategize or worry. Instead, first go to your Rock. Pray, declare His faithfulness, and then proceed with peace.
4. Testimony BuildingKeep a journal of how God has been your rock in specific situations. These become powerful reminders during future storms and encourage others who are struggling.
5. Community FortressShare this verse with someone who’s going through a difficult time. Be God’s voice reminding them of their unshakeable foundation.
Supporting Scriptures
Isaiah 26:4 – “Trust in the Lord forever, for the Lord God is an everlasting rock.”
Matthew 7:24-25 – “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock.”
1 Corinthians 10:4 – “And all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.”
Deuteronomy 32:4 – “The Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he.”
A Divine Wake-Up Call
His Excellency, the Rt. Rev. Dr. Selvister Ponnumuthan, often reminds us that every verse of Scripture is God’s personal invitation to deeper intimacy with Him. Psalm 62:6 isn’t just information about God—it’s transformation through God. When we truly grasp that He alone is our rock, salvation, and fortress, we stop living as spiritual orphans trying to provide for ourselves and start living as beloved children whose Father owns everything.
The Bishop frequently emphasizes: “Security isn’t about controlling circumstances; it’s about being controlled by the right One.” This verse calls us to examine the foundations we’ve built our lives upon. Are they sand or rock? Are they temporary or eternal? Are they human or divine?
This is your divine wake-up call today: Stop building castles on shifting sand and start building your life on the Rock of Ages.
Dive Deeper: Reflection and Worship
As we continue this journey of reflection, I invite you to watch this powerful worship song that captures the heart of our message today: He alone is my rock and my salvation. Let the music and lyrics wash over your soul as you declare with confidence: “I shall not be shaken.”
Answering Your Questions
Q1: How can I practically “not be shaken” when everything in my life feels chaotic?
Being unshaken doesn’t mean you won’t feel the storms—it means you won’t be moved by them. David himself experienced fear, disappointment, and uncertainty. The key is anchoring your identity and security in God’s character rather than your circumstances. When chaos surrounds you, speak truth to your soul: “My God is still on His throne, still in control, still working for my good.”
Q2: What if I’ve trusted God before and felt disappointed by the outcome?
This is one of faith’s most honest questions. Remember that God being our rock doesn’t mean He’ll always work according to our timeline or preferences. His salvation sometimes looks different than our solutions. David experienced delayed answers, unexpected paths, and outcomes that initially seemed disappointing. Yet he learned that God’s “no” or “wait” is often His greatest mercy. Trust the character of God even when you can’t understand His methods.
Q3: How is this different from just positive thinking or self-help motivation?
The difference is foundational. Positive thinking says, “I am strong enough.” Psalm 62:6 says, “God is strong enough.” Self-help puts the burden on you; this verse puts the burden on God. When you declare “I shall not be shaken,” you’re not claiming personal strength—you’re claiming God’s strength as your own through relationship with Him.
Q4: Can someone be too dependent on God? Shouldn’t we also be responsible and plan?
Biblical dependence on God never eliminates personal responsibility—it elevates it. When you know God is your ultimate security, you’re freed to plan wisely without being paralyzed by anxiety. You work diligently without being driven by fear. You prepare thoughtfully without being consumed by “what if” scenarios. Dependence on God produces the healthiest kind of independence in daily life.
Q5: How do I help my children understand this verse in age-appropriate ways?
Use concrete examples they can grasp. A rock doesn’t move when you push it—God doesn’t change when life gets hard. A fortress keeps enemies out—God protects us from things that want to hurt us. When they face disappointment or fear, remind them: “God is stronger than this problem.” Help them memorize the verse through songs, actions, or drawings. Most importantly, let them see you living from this truth in your own storms.
Word Study: Deeper Meanings
Rock (Hebrew: Sela)This isn’t the word for a small stone you might skip across water. Sela refers to a massive cliff or rocky crag—something that has stood for millennia and will continue standing long after we’re gone. Archaeological evidence shows these rocky fortresses were natural defense systems in ancient Israel. David isn’t comparing God to a pebble; he’s declaring Him to be the eternal mountain that cannot be moved.
Salvation (Hebrew: Yeshuah)This word encompasses rescue, deliverance, safety, and welfare. It’s not just about eternal salvation—though it includes that—but about God’s comprehensive work of making us whole. Every time you see this word, think of God actively working to rescue you from everything that threatens your wellbeing.
Fortress (Hebrew: Misgab)A high place of refuge, literally meaning “to be set on high.” Ancient fortresses were built on elevated ground to provide strategic advantage and safety. When David calls God his misgab, he’s saying God lifts us above our circumstances and gives us His perspective on our situation.
Shaken (Hebrew: Mot)To totter, slip, fall, or be moved from position. The verb form suggests ongoing action—not just a single event but continuous stability. David isn’t claiming he’ll never face difficulties; he’s declaring that difficulties won’t displace him from his position in God.
Wisdom from the Ages
Augustine of Hippo observed: “You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you.” This restlessness Augustine describes is the very thing Psalm 62:6 addresses—the soul’s search for ultimate security.
Charles Spurgeon wrote: “This is a sweet verse to a believer who is passing through trial. Satan may roar, the world may rage, circumstances may be threatening, but the believer is as fixed as the eternal hills.”
John Calvin noted: “David does not here speak of what he hopes for, but declares what he has already experienced—that in God there is a sure refuge prepared for him.”
Contemporary theologian John Piper reminds us: “The rock-solid security we have in God is not based on our grip on Him, but on His grip on us.”
What You Can Expect from This Reflection
Through this exploration of Psalm 62:6, you will discover how to move from anxiety to assurance, from worry to worship, from self-reliance to God-dependence. You’ll learn practical ways to apply this ancient truth to modern challenges, understand the rich biblical context that makes this verse even more meaningful, and find specific strategies for building your life on the unshakeable foundation of God’s character.
Most importantly, you’ll walk away with a renewed confidence that no matter what storms may come, no matter how unstable the world around you becomes, you have access to a security that transcends circumstances—a Rock that has never failed and never will.
May this reflection serve as a reminder that in a world of shifting sands, you have access to the Rock of Ages. May you find rest for your soul and strength for your journey as you anchor your life in the One who alone is worthy of your complete trust.
Rise & Inspire – Because your foundation determines your future.
Explore more at the Rise & Inspire archive | Wake-Up Calls
“Let go of habits, biases, or beliefs that no longer serve you. Think of it as uninstalling bloatware.”
“Sleep. Meditate. Take a walk. Even software needs restarts to function smoothly.”
Why You’re the Software of Your Own Life (And How to Keep Yourself Updated)
Hook: You know that annoying pop-up on your phone? “Update required to improve performance.” Annoying, sure—but what if you treated yourself with the same urgency?
The Update Mandate: What Happens When You Stagnate
Imagine your brain as an operating system. If you ignore new knowledge, skills, or perspectives, you risk glitches:
👐Reduced Efficiency: Outdated skills slow you down. Think of using a 2010 app in 2025—clunky, frustrating, and incompatible with the world around you.
👐Malfunction Risk: In fast-moving fields like tech, healthcare, or even creative industries, stagnation can mean irrelevance. Ever met someone clinging to “the way things used to be”? That’s a human version of unsupported software.
But unlike software, you’re not a rigid code.
Let’s talk about why that’s your superpower.
Why You’re Not Just a Machine
You Can Improvise Updates Software needs a developer’s patch. You? You can learn from a podcast, a conversation, or even failure. That teacher who figured out Zoom during the pandemic without formal training? That’s you—adapting, hacking, and growing on the fly.
Your “Updates” Boost More Than Functionality Learning isn’t just about staying employable. It’s about mental sharpness, curiosity, and even happiness. Every time you pick up a new skill or idea, you’re not just avoiding obsolescence—you’re building a richer, more resilient you.
You Have Permission to Skip Some Patches Unlike software, you don’t have to accept every update. Specialize deeply in what matters to you. Love woodworking but hate AI? That’s okay. Prioritize depth where it fuels your purpose.
But Here’s the Catch: You’re Human, Not Code
🚶Burnout is a Glitch Software Doesn’t Feel Constant “updating” without rest leads to crashes—exhaustion, cynicism, or worse. Schedule downtime. Let your mind defragment.
🚶Ethics and Emotions Aren’t in the Code Your growth isn’t just about efficiency. It’s about how you use knowledge. A software update can’t teach empathy, integrity, or courage—those updates come from living, reflecting, and choosing wisely.
How to “Update” Yourself (Without Losing Your Humanity)
Final Thought: Yes, you’re like software—in need of updates to thrive in a changing world. But you’re also the developer, the user, andthe purpose. Update yourself, but don’t forget to savor the messy, creative, gloriously human journey of growth.
Now, hit that “refresh” button—your best version is waiting.
Schedule Learning Like It’s a System Patch Block 30 minutes daily for a course, article, or skill. Treat it like a non-negotiable OS update.
Embrace Informal Updates Chat with a colleague. Watch a documentary. Travel. These are your “background downloads”—small, organic ways to grow.
Delete Outdated “Programs” Let go of habits, biases, or beliefs that no longer serve you. Think of it as uninstalling bloatware.
Reboot Regularly Sleep. Meditate. Take a walk. Even software needs restarts to function smoothly.
Sign-off: Keep iterating, Rise&Inspire
P.S. What’s one “update” you’re prioritizing this week? Share it in the comments—accountability works better than any algorithm!
Today’s prompt asks for my worst travel experience. When I try to answer honestly, I find that the worst trips were rarely the ones with the longest delays. They were the trips in which I spent the delay quarrelling with it.
That is my argument in a single line: a journey that goes wrong is usually ruined twice, first by circumstance and then by us. The second ruin is often the larger one, and it is the only one within our control.
1. Circumstance spoils the plan. We spoil the journey.
A late train costs us two hours. Our indignation can cost us the whole day. We rehearse the complaint, recheck the timetable, and tell anyone nearby how things should have gone. Nor does the irritation stay with us. It spills onto the ticket clerk, the taxi driver, and the family travelling beside us. The itinerary failed; the journey did not have to.
2. The Buddha had a name for this: the second arrow.
In a short discourse from the Pali Canon, the Buddha describes a man struck by an arrow and then, immediately afterwards, by a second one.1 The first is the pain that happens to us. The second is the distress we add to it: the worry, the resentment, the endless replaying. On a journey, the cancelled flight is the first arrow, and we did not choose it. The second arrow, the fuming that follows, we fire ourselves.
3. One of history’s great travellers lost everything on our own coast.
In the 1340s, the Moroccan traveller Ibn Battuta reached Calicut as the Sultan of Delhi’s envoy to China.2 Before he could sail, a storm struck the harbour. The great junk meant to carry the embassy was wrecked, and the smaller vessel holding his belongings sailed on without him. He was left on the shore with little more than his prayer carpet, an envoy who had lost his embassy and dared not return to Delhi empty-handed.
His account does not pretend this was anything but a disaster. Yet it did not become the end of his story. He went on, to the Maldives, where he served as a judge, and eventually, years later, to China.
4. A storm can take the ship and still leave us something to do.
The Acts of the Apostles records Paul’s voyage to Rome as a prisoner. His warning against sailing on had been set aside in favour of the ship’s master and owner (Acts 27:10–11). After two weeks of storm, no one aboard had been eating. Paul told them plainly that the ship would be lost, but not their lives (Acts 27:22). Then he took bread, gave thanks, and began to eat, and the others took heart and ate with him (Acts 27:35–36).
Not every ruined journey is a problem of attitude. A missed last farewell is a real loss. So is a medical emergency far from home, or a cancelled bus that costs a daily-wage worker a day’s earnings. Telling such a person to look on the bright side is not wisdom; it is unkindness.
Nor does refusing the second arrow mean accepting poor service in silence. Ask for the refund. Rebook the ticket. Write the complaint if one is due. The claim is narrower: once the practical steps are taken, the resentment that remains repairs nothing.
6. An itinerary is a forecast, not a promise.
Life does not always follow our itinerary, and planning still matters. But a plan is a prediction about weather, machines, and other people, and predictions fail. When ours do, we feel cheated, as if the world had broken a contract it never signed. Hold the plan the way a navigator holds a chart: seriously, but ready for the sea.
7. Life is the longer journey.
We plan careers, families, and futures too, and they are also delayed, diverted, and sometimes wrecked. We cannot refuse the first arrow. We can learn, slowly, not to fire the second.
A meaningful journey is not always the one that follows the perfect plan. Sometimes, it is the one that teaches us how to travel through uncertainty without losing our peace of mind.
Your Turn
Have your travel plans ever gone badly wrong? What was the first arrow, and did you fire the second? Share your story in the comments. Your experience may offer another reader a valuable perspective.
Notes for readers
1 The Sallatha Sutta (“The Arrow”), Samyutta Nikaya 36.6. It belongs to the Pali Canon, the earliest surviving collection of the Buddha’s teachings.
2 Ibn Battuta (1304 to about 1369) of Tangier travelled for nearly three decades across Africa, Asia and Europe. He dictated his account, known as the Rihla (“The Journey”), after returning to Morocco. Calicut is today’s Kozhikode in Kerala.
John Britto Kurusumuthu
Rise & Inspire · riseandinspire.co.in
In response to the WordPress Daily Writing Prompt, 28 October 2026: What’s the worst travel experience you’ve ever had?
What Is the Best Travel Advice for a More Peaceful Journey?
We carefully pack our suitcases before travelling. But what about the worries we secretly pack in our minds? What if the best travel advice is to leave a little emotional baggage behind? Read the new reflection on Rise&Inspire.
What Should We Leave Behind When We Travel?
Travel advice usually concerns what we should carry: tickets, documents, medicines, money. We check our suitcases twice to make sure nothing essential is left behind.
The one piece of travel advice I always follow concerns a different kind of luggage: travel light, not only in your suitcase but also in your heart.
It sounds simple. It is easily misunderstood. Here is what I have learned it means, and what it does not.
1. The heaviest bag is the one nobody weighs
At the airport, every suitcase is weighed. Nobody weighs what we carry in our minds: unfinished work, family concerns, old disappointments, anxieties about what awaits us on our return.
So we stand before a beautiful landscape while our thoughts are elsewhere. We sit beside the sea, still caught in yesterday’s worries. We visit a historic place and barely notice it. Our bodies travel, but our minds refuse to leave home.
2. The destination will not do the unpacking for us
We often expect the journey itself to lighten us, as though a new place could lift what we brought from the old one. The ancients knew better. The Roman poet Horace observed that those who rush across the sea change their sky, not their soul. Seneca reminded a friend whose long travels had not lifted his gloom of what Socrates once said to a similar complaint: why be surprised that travel does you no good, when you always take yourself along?
The lightening does not happen at the destination. It has to begin at our own front door.
3. Leaving behind is not the same as abandoning
I do not mean that we should neglect our responsibilities or pretend our problems do not exist. Our duties will be waiting when we return.
But must every concern accompany us into every moment? Before I set out, I sort what is on my mind. A few matters genuinely need my attention while I am away; those travel with me. Others can wait. Still others have no answer today, however long I think about them. Only the first kind earns a place in my luggage.
That sorting, more than any packing list, is the advice I keep.
4. The hardest things to leave are the ones we cherish
Worries are not the only weight. Before the journey recorded in The Narrow Road to the Deep North, the Japanese poet Matsuo Basho gave up his little house to travel unencumbered. Yet by the end of his first day on the road, he was complaining of sore shoulders, weighed down by a paper coat for cold nights, rain gear, ink and brushes, and farewell gifts from friends that he could not bring himself to throw away.
Our expectations are like those gifts: the perfect itinerary, the picture of how the trip ought to go, the need for everything to happen our way. They come with love, and they are heavy all the same. Every delayed train, changed plan, and unfamiliar custom is an invitation to loosen our grip.
5. Empty hands have room to receive
The classical Tamil poets built an entire genre out of travel directions, the arruppadai or “guide poem,” in which one traveller tells another what lies along the road.[1] The Perumpanarruppadai, for instance, spends far less time on what to carry than on what to expect: the landscapes the traveller will cross and the welcome awaiting him along the way.
The Gospel offers a parallel. When Jesus sent out the Twelve, he told them to take nothing for the journey, no bag, no bread, no money (Luke 9:3), so that they would rely on the welcome of strangers.
Both traditions point to the same truth: a traveller with less to guard has more attention to give. The kindness of a stranger, the rhythm of an unfamiliar town, the changing colours of the evening sky. Small things, perhaps, but they return us to the present, where life is actually lived.
6. What we bring back matters more than what we take
When a journey ends, we bring back photographs and souvenirs. The better question is what we have learned that we can carry into ordinary life.
Perhaps a little more patience. Perhaps slower judgment of people. Perhaps the discovery that we need far less than we thought to be content, and that a quiet walk or an unhurried conversation can give us more than a crowded sightseeing schedule.
My Takeaway
Pack what you need, but do not carry every worry with you. Leave room in your heart for wonder, in your mind for new perspectives, and in your day for unexpected moments.
The suitcase usually comes home heavier. If we have travelled well, the heart comes home lighter.
A Question for You
When you travel, what do you find hardest to leave behind: your worries, your expectations, your familiar routines, or your need to have everything planned?
Share your thoughts in the comments. Your experience might offer another reader a valuable lesson for their next journey.
Note
[1] Arruppadai (literally, “guiding along the path”) is a genre of classical Tamil Sangam poetry in which a bard who has been generously received by a patron directs a fellow bard to the same patron, describing the route, the landscapes, and the hospitality to be found along the way. The Perumpanarruppadai, by the poet Kadiyalur Uruttirankannanar, is one of the Pattuppattu (Ten Idylls). It guides a bard who plays the large yazh, an ancient Tamil harp, to the court of Ilantiraiyan, ruler of Kanchi.
Many people who doubt Purgatory are not doubting the mercy of God. They are doubting whether anyone has shown them a good reason to believe that God’s mercy works in this particular way.
I begin from that place myself. I am not yet convinced by the traditional arguments for Purgatory. For me, faith and reason must walk hand in hand, and knowledge should be accessible, understandable, and practically meaningful.
That is not a confession of weak faith. The Christian tradition has long described faith as “faith seeking understanding”, the phrase Anselm of Canterbury gave as the original title of his Proslogion (1077–1078; see its preface). Pope John Paul II built an entire encyclical, Fides et Ratio (1998), on the conviction that faith and reason support one another rather than compete; its opening sentence compares them to two wings that lift the human spirit towards truth.
The usual explanations often fall short. A popular illustration runs like this: you broke the neighbour’s window with your cricket ball; you are forgiven, but someone still has to pay for the window. It is a vivid picture, but it raises more questions than it answers. If God forgives, why is anything left to pay? If Christ has paid, why is the believer still paying? And if the “payment” is not really a payment, why speak of punishment at all?
This article does not assume that Purgatory is true and then hunt for supporting verses. Nor does it dismiss the doctrine because no one can observe the afterlife. It asks a narrower and more honest question: what would a thoughtful person need to accept in order to find the doctrine convincing, and are those premises reasonable?
We will proceed step by step. First, what the Catholic Church actually teaches, and what it does not. Then the biblical passages, one by one. Then the history of the belief, from Jewish practice to the Council of Trent and beyond. Then the philosophy of purification, nine hard questions, five realistic cases, and the views of other Christian traditions. Only then will we weigh the case and return to the original doubt.
A note on translations. Scripture is quoted from the King James Version and, for 2 Maccabees, the Douay-Rheims, both long-recognised English translations in the public domain. Two translation differences matter to the argument. In 2 Maccabees 12, the Douay-Rheims, following the Latin Vulgate, states a general maxim that it is “a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead” (12:46), whereas the RSV Catholic Edition, translating the Greek, says that Judas “made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin” (12:45). In 1 Corinthians 3:15, the KJV’s “so as by fire” and the RSV’s and NRSV Updated Edition’s “only as through fire” leave open whether the fire purifies, while the NIV’s “escaping through the flames” settles the question in favour of a narrow escape. Both differences are discussed below.
How to Read This Investigation
Most arguments about Purgatory go wrong by blurring different kinds of claims. To avoid that, this article sorts its conclusions into six categories and keeps them apart.
Biblically explicit: what a text directly states. For example, 2 Maccabees 12 records that Judas Maccabeus sent an offering to Jerusalem on behalf of fallen soldiers.
Theologically inferred: a conclusion reached by connecting several teachings. For example, if holiness is required to see God and many believers die imperfectly holy, some completion of holiness must take place.
Historically supported: what Christians demonstrably believed and practised. For example, Christians were praying for their dead by the early third century.
Philosophically plausible: what seems reasonable on reflection but cannot by itself settle a question about the unseen world. For example, being forgiven and being fully transformed are not the same thing.
Doctrinally defined: what the Catholic Church formally requires its members to believe. For example, that a purification after death exists and that the prayers of the living help those undergoing it.
Unknown or speculative: details that no one can confidently establish. For example, how long purification lasts, where it happens, or whether any literal fire is involved.
Two warnings follow from this framework. First, the fact that people held a belief for many centuries does not prove the belief true. Second, a conclusion that seems reasonable is not thereby verified.
I will flag these categories as we go, and gather them together near the end, so that readers can see exactly where evidence ends and commitment begins.
What the Church Actually Teaches, and What It Does Not
The Catholic Church formally teaches far less about Purgatory than most people assume. Nearly all the vivid detail associated with it, such as flames, locations and calculated sentences, lies outside the defined doctrine.
The core statement
The Catechism of the Catholic Church treats the subject in three short paragraphs (1030 to 1032). In summary:
Those who die in God’s grace and friendship, but are still imperfectly purified, are already assured of eternal salvation. After death they undergo a purification so that they may reach the holiness needed to enter the joy of heaven (CCC 1030).
The Church calls this final purification of the elect “Purgatory” and describes it as “entirely different from the punishment of the damned” (CCC 1031).
The doctrine was formulated chiefly at the Councils of Florence (1439) and Trent (1563). Tradition speaks of a cleansing fire, with reference to 1 Corinthians 3:15 and 1 Peter 1:7, and the Catechism cites Gregory the Great on purification for lesser faults (CCC 1031).
The teaching also rests on the ancient practice of praying for the dead, which the Catechism traces to 2 Maccabees 12:46. The Church commends the Eucharist, prayer, almsgiving, indulgences and works of penance on behalf of the dead (CCC 1032).
Who undergoes this purification
According to Catholic teaching, only those who die in a state of grace: that is, not cut off from God by unrepented grave sin. Purgatory is for the saved. Pope Benedict XII, in the constitution Benedictus Deus (1336; DS 1000), taught that souls needing no purification see God immediately after death, while those needing it do so after being purified.
What is formally defined
Across the Second Council of Lyons (1274), Florence (1439) and Trent (1547 and 1563), the defined content comes to three points:
Those who die truly repentant and in charity, but without having completed the work of penance, are purified after death (Lyons, DS 856; Florence, DS 1304).
The prayers and good works of the living, and above all the Mass, help those undergoing purification (DS 856, 1304, 1820).
Trent (Session VI, canon 30, 1547) rejected the view that forgiveness always removes every “debt of temporal punishment”, whether in this life or in Purgatory (DS 1580).
That is essentially all. The decree of Trent on Purgatory (Session XXV, 3 to 4 December 1563; DS 1820) is notably brief. It instructs bishops to keep the more difficult and subtle questions out of popular preaching, to prevent uncertain claims from being spread, and to forbid whatever savours of curiosity, superstition or financial gain.
What Purgatory is not
It is not hell, nor a halfway house for the undecided. Everyone undergoing purification is already saved.
It is not a second chance. Pope John Paul II, in his General Audience of 4 August 1999 (section 5), insisted that purification is not a prolongation of earthly life in which a person could change their eternal destiny.
It is not a supplement to Christ’s redemption. Catholic teaching holds that Christ alone saves; purification is understood as the work of his grace, not a human contribution added to it.
It is not necessarily a place. In the same 1999 audience (section 5), John Paul II stated: “The term does not indicate a place, but a condition of existence.”
It is not defined as fire. Neither Lyons, Florence nor Trent defined a literal fire. At Florence, the Greek delegation, with Mark of Ephesus as its leading voice on this question, objected to the idea of purgatorial fire, and the decree of union was agreed without it (Laetentur Caeli, DS 1304).
It has no defined duration. The Church has never taught how long purification lasts, or whether earthly time applies at all.
Two vocabularies side by side
An honest reader will notice that official Catholic teaching uses two kinds of language, and they do not always sit comfortably together.
The first is penal. Lyons and Florence speak of “purgatorial penalties” (DS 856, 1304) for those who die before making satisfaction for their sins. Trent speaks of a “debt” of temporal punishment (DS 1580). This is the language of satisfaction: something owed and discharged.
The second is medicinal. The Catechism explains that every sin, even a lesser one, creates an unhealthy attachment to created things, which must be purified either in this life or after death. It insists that this so-called “temporal punishment” should not be understood as vengeance imposed by God from outside, but as a consequence flowing from the nature of sin itself. It adds that a conversion springing from fervent love can bring about complete purification, so that no punishment remains (CCC 1472).
This distinction matters for everything that follows. The strongest Protestant objections target the penal vocabulary. The strongest Catholic defences rely on the medicinal one. Both belong to the official record.
Four layers that are often confused
Defined doctrine: the three points above.
Theological interpretation: attempts to explain how purification works, from Thomas Aquinas to Catherine of Genoa to Joseph Ratzinger. These are respected but not binding.
Popular devotion: images of souls in flames, prayer cards, and, before 1967, indulgences measured in “days” and “years”. Many Catholics took “300 days” to mean 300 days off Purgatory; older Catholic reference works, such as the Catholic Encyclopedia (vol. 7, 1910, “Indulgences”), explain that it denoted the equivalent of that length of ancient canonical penance. In the apostolic constitution Indulgentiarum Doctrina (1 January 1967), Pope Paul VI abolished the former measurement of partial indulgences in days and years (section 12; Norm 4), replacing it with a measure based on the remission of temporal punishment that the faithful person’s own action, performed with contrition, already obtains. The reform also reduced the number of plenary indulgences and simplified their classification.
Speculation and private revelation: visions, apparitions and accounts of the experiences of the dead. No Catholic is required to accept any of them.
Where this leaves us
Doctrinally defined: a purification after death exists for some of the saved, and the living can help them. Theologically interpreted: how this purification happens and how it relates to Christ. Unknown or speculative: place, fire, duration and intensity.
The question for the rest of this article is therefore not whether a fiery prison exists. It is whether there are good reasons to believe in a purification after death for those who die in God’s friendship, and whether the prayers of the living can assist it.
The Biblical Evidence, Passage by Passage
No biblical text names Purgatory or describes it in its later doctrinal form. Even Pope John Paul II, in his 1999 catechesis (section 2), acknowledged that Scripture offers elements that help us understand the doctrine, though it does not formally describe it. The real question is whether the passages traditionally cited support it directly, indirectly, or only within a particular interpretive framework.
Throughout this section, keep one distinction in mind: a passage can be consistent with a doctrine without proving it.
1. 2 Maccabees 12:38–46: Prayer and sacrifice for the dead
The text. After a battle, Judas Maccabeus and his men recover the bodies of fallen Jewish soldiers and find, under their tunics, objects consecrated to the idols of Jamnia, which the Law forbade. Judas collects money and sends it to Jerusalem for a sin offering. The Douay-Rheims, following the Latin Vulgate, concludes: “It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins” (12:46).
Context. 2 Maccabees was composed in Greek, probably in the late second or early first century BC, as a condensed version of a longer history by Jason of Cyrene. It recounts events of about 163 BC. The author’s stated reasoning is that Judas acted because he believed in the resurrection: without that hope, praying for the dead would be pointless (12:44).
The Catholic reading. The passage shows that some Jews before Christ believed the dead could be helped by the prayers and offerings of the living, and that sin could be dealt with after death. The Catechism cites it directly (CCC 1032).
Other readings. Three objections deserve attention.
Canon: Protestant churches do not accept 2 Maccabees as Scripture. For them the text is historical evidence of Jewish belief, not divine revelation.
The sin involved: the soldiers died wearing idolatrous objects, which under the Law was a grave offence. Purgatory, by Catholic definition, is not for those who die in grave sin. Catholic commentators reply that the soldiers may have acted in ignorance or repented as they fell, and the text itself says they “fell asleep in godliness” (12:45).
The purpose: the Greek text ties the atonement specifically to Judas’s action, while the Vulgate turns it into a general maxim. The note on verses 42–45 in the New American Bible (Revised Edition), a Catholic translation, suggests that Judas himself probably intended the offering to protect the living from punishment, recalling the story of Achan in Joshua 7. The same note adds that the author uses the story to show belief in the resurrection and in expiation for the sins of otherwise good people who have died, a belief it describes as close to the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory but not identical with it.
Verdict. Historically strong evidence that some Jews prayed for the dead in the second century BC. Doctrinally, it supports prayer for the dead for those who accept the book as Scripture. It does not describe a state of purification, nor does it fit the later doctrine cleanly. Indirect support.
2. Matthew 12:32: “Neither in this world, neither in the world to come”
The text. “Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.”
Context. Jesus is responding to the accusation that he casts out demons by the power of Beelzebub. The “unforgivable sin” is a hardened refusal to recognise God’s work.
The Catholic reading. Gregory the Great, and before him Augustine in the City of God (Book 21, chapter 24), reasoned that if some sins are not forgiven in the age to come, others presumably are. The Catechism quotes Gregory on precisely this point.
Other readings. The phrase “neither in this age nor in the age to come” is often read as a Semitic idiom meaning simply “never”. Mark’s parallel confirms this sense: the blasphemer “hath never forgiveness” (Mark 3:29). Luke’s version drops the phrase entirely (Luke 12:10). Drawing a positive doctrine from a negative statement is also logically risky: saying that something will not happen in a given period does not establish that other things will.
Verdict. At most a possible theological connection. The inference depends on reading the phrase more literally than its parallels suggest.
3. Matthew 5:25–26: “Till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing”
The text. “Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.”
Context. In Matthew this sits within the Sermon on the Mount, in teaching about anger and reconciliation. Its plain sense is practical: settle disputes before they reach court. Luke places a parallel saying in a more clearly eschatological setting, after a warning about reading the signs of the times (Luke 12:54–59).
The Catholic reading. Some early writers, notably Tertullian in his treatise On the Soul (chapter 58), read the “prison” as the realm of the dead and the “last farthing” as small offences settled there before the resurrection. On this reading, release after payment implies a temporary, not eternal, condition.
Other readings. Many modern commentators, Catholic and Protestant alike, read the saying as a parable about urgent reconciliation. Pressing the details of a parable, such as the prison, the officer and the coin, into a map of the afterlife is a well-known interpretive hazard. Some interpreters also note that “till” need not imply eventual release.
Verdict. Historically interesting because some early Christians read it this way. As evidence for Purgatory, it is weak.
4. Matthew 12:36: Account for every idle word
The text. “Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.”
The Catholic reading. Idle words are not damnable offences, yet they must be accounted for. This suggests that God deals with lesser faults as well as grave ones, which fits the idea of purification for those who die with minor imperfections.
Other readings. Giving an account is not the same as undergoing purification. The text refers to the day of judgment, not an intermediate state, and could equally describe a moment of revelation and acknowledgement.
Verdict. It supports the premise that lesser faults matter before God. It says nothing about how they are dealt with. A possible connection only.
5. 1 Corinthians 3:10–15: “Saved, yet so as by fire”
The text. “Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire” (3:13–15).
Context. Paul is addressing factions in Corinth that rallied around different leaders. The “builders” are, in the first instance, those who build up the community on the one foundation, Christ. “The day” is the day of judgment. The fire tests the quality of their work.
The Catholic reading. This is the most important New Testament text for the doctrine. A believer whose foundation is Christ, but whose work is partly worthless, is saved through an experience of loss and fire. Augustine, Gregory the Great and the medieval councils drew on it. Benedict XVI, in Spe Salvi (2007, sections 46–47), noted that some recent theologians identify this fire with Christ himself, whose gaze both burns away falsehood and heals.
Other readings. Several serious objections arise.
The fire tests works; it is not described as cleansing persons.
It occurs on “the day” of final judgment, not in an intermediate period after death.
The passage concerns ministers and their work in building the Church, not all believers.
“Saved, yet so as by fire” may be a proverbial expression for a narrow escape, like “a brand plucked out of the burning” (Amos 4:11; Zechariah 3:2).
Scholarship is genuinely divided, and the debate is old: at Ferrara in 1438, Mark of Ephesus already read the passage as a fire of judgment that tests works, not a purgatorial fire (First Homily on Purgatory). The Catholic exegete Joachim Gnilka, in a 1955 study whose title asked whether this passage is a scriptural testimony to Purgatory, answered that it is not, a conclusion noted in a contemporary review (Münchener Theologische Zeitschrift 7, 1956, 310–311). On the other hand, the Presbyterian scholar Daniel Frayer-Griggs (New Testament Studies 59, no. 4, 2013, 517–534) has argued that the fire does play a purifying and saving role in the passage, while the title of his article signals that he regards it as neither a proof text nor a mere proverb.
Verdict. Not a direct proof. It is, however, the strongest biblical point of contact: a believer saved through a painful, purifying encounter at judgment. Whether that encounter is an instant or a process, and whether it belongs to an intermediate state, the text does not say. Indirect support, depending on interpretation.
6. 2 Timothy 1:16–18: Paul’s prayer for Onesiphorus
The text. “The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain… The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day.”
Context. Paul blesses the household of Onesiphorus rather than the man himself, and later greets the household alone (4:19). Many commentators conclude that Onesiphorus had probably died. Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers, for example, assumes so on this verse, noting that it shares that view with Roman Catholic interpreters and most later Reformed expositors.
The Catholic reading. If Onesiphorus was dead, this is a New Testament instance of prayer for a departed Christian: that he may find mercy on the day of judgment.
Other readings. The text never says that Onesiphorus died; he may simply have been absent. Even if he had died, the words may be a pious wish rather than intercession; the Pulpit Commentary on this verse called such a wish “a very slender foundation” for prayers and Masses for the dead. Most importantly, a prayer for mercy at the final judgment does not imply a state of purification between death and judgment. Many critical scholars also date the Pastoral Epistles after Paul’s lifetime; if so, the passage still attests early Christian practice, but not Paul’s own.
Verdict. Plausible evidence of early Christian prayer for the dead. No evidence of Purgatory as such. Indirect support for the practice, not the doctrine.
7. Hebrews 12:14: Holiness, without which no one will see the Lord
The text. “Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.”
The Catholic reading. Holiness is required to see God. Many believers die visibly unfinished. Therefore their holiness must be completed somehow before they see God.
Other readings. The verse is an exhortation about present life, not a description of the afterlife. Protestants also point to Hebrews 10:14: “by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.” On this view, the holiness required is Christ’s, given to the believer, or completed by God instantly at death.
Verdict. It supplies a genuine theological premise: holiness is required. It does not say when or how incomplete holiness is completed. A premise, not a proof.
8. Revelation 21:27: Nothing unclean shall enter
The text. “There shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.”
The Catholic reading. Heaven admits nothing impure. Those who die saved but impure must therefore be purified.
Other readings. In context, the excluded are the unrepentant, contrasted with those written in the book of life. The verse distinguishes the saved from the lost; it does not address imperfect believers. It also describes the New Jerusalem after the final judgment, not the state of the dead before it.
Verdict. Like Hebrews 12:14, a premise about holiness, not a description of purification.
9. Other passages that genuinely bear on the question
Some texts lend support to the idea of a completed purification:
1 Peter 1:7 speaks of faith “tried with fire”, like gold, and is cited by the Catechism. Its context, however, is suffering in this life.
Philippians 1:6 expresses confidence that God “will perform” the good work begun in believers “until the day of Jesus Christ”: a completion of transformation, though without saying how.
Malachi 3:3 pictures God as a refiner who will “purify the sons of Levi” like silver. Early writers used it as an image of divine purification.
Other texts are regularly cited against an intermediate purification:
Luke 23:43: “To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.”
2 Corinthians 5:8 and Philippians 1:23: to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.
1 John 3:2: “we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is”, which suggests that seeing Christ itself transforms.
1 Corinthians 15:51–52: “we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye.” This, however, concerns the resurrection body, not moral purification.
Notice that 1 John 3:2 cuts both ways. If seeing Christ transforms us, that transformation may be instantaneous and painless, or it may be exactly the purifying encounter that Benedict XVI described.
What the biblical evidence shows
Biblically explicit: holiness is required to see God; some Jews before Christ prayed and offered sacrifice for the dead; Paul speaks of a believer saved through fire at judgment.
Theologically inferred: that incomplete holiness is completed after death, and that the living can assist it.
Not found anywhere: an intermediate place, a measurable duration, or a defined system of temporal punishment.
The honest conclusion is that Scripture provides the materials from which the doctrine can be built, but not the finished building. Whether those materials should be assembled in the Catholic way depends on how one understands the relationship between Scripture and Tradition, which we take up below.
How the Belief Developed: From Jewish Practice to the Council of Trent
The history reveals three distinct layers. Prayer for the dead is very old. The idea of a purification after death grew gradually and tentatively. The formal doctrine took shape between the sixth and sixteenth centuries. Treating these layers as one is the most common mistake on both sides of the debate.
Jewish roots
The earliest evidence is 2 Maccabees 12, discussed above, which shows that some Jews in the second or first century BC believed the dead could be helped by the offerings of the living.
Later rabbinic sources develop related ideas. The Mishnah, compiled around AD 200, records Rabbi Akiva’s teaching that the judgment of the wicked in Gehinnom lasts twelve months (Eduyot 2:10). A tradition attributed to the School of Shammai, preserved in the Tosefta (Sanhedrin 13:3) and the Babylonian Talmud (Rosh Hashanah 16b–17a), describes three groups at the judgment. The intermediate group go down to Gehinnom, cry out, and rise again, in fulfilment of Zechariah 13:9: “I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined.”
These texts were compiled after the New Testament, though the schools they cite flourished around the time of Jesus. The scholar John T. Townsend (Harvard Theological Review, 1968) suggested that Paul’s “saved, yet so as by fire” may echo this Shammaite tradition. In later Jewish practice, the Ashkenazi custom of reciting the mourner’s Kaddish for eleven months rather than twelve is traditionally explained by this background. Rabbi Moses Isserles (the Rema), in his gloss on the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 376:4), records that mourners stop at eleven months so as not to imply that the deceased was among the wicked, whose judgment lasts twelve. That is a sixteenth-century codification of the custom; it does not by itself establish when or how the custom began.
Early Christian prayer for the dead (c. AD 150–400)
The evidence for prayer for the dead is early and widespread, but it comes in different kinds: an inscription, a martyr narrative, theological treatises and liturgical texts. Together they establish the antiquity of the practice. What each implies for the later doctrine of Purgatory has to be judged separately, as the notes below try to do.
The epitaph of Abercius, a Christian of Hierapolis in Phrygia, is usually dated to the late second or early third century; its opening and closing lines were copied onto another tombstone dated 215/216. Composed by Abercius himself, it asks fellow believers who understand its words to pray for him. It shows a Christian expecting prayer after his death, but says nothing about what that prayer achieves. Even its Christian character was once disputed: some nineteenth-century scholars read it as pagan or syncretistic, Adolf von Harnack among them, before most came to accept it as Christian.
The Passion of Perpetua and Felicity (Carthage, about AD 203; chapters 7–8) records Perpetua’s visions of her younger brother Dinocrates, who had died aged seven. She sees him suffering and thirsty; after her prayers, she sees him refreshed and understands that he has been released from punishment. The text does not say whether he was baptised. Modern readers often assume he was not; Augustine, who stressed that the account is not canonical Scripture, suggested that he may have been baptised and later drawn into idolatry (On the Soul and its Origin, Book 1, chapter 10). Either way, this is a vision narrative, not a doctrinal statement. It shows a belief that prayer could help the dead; it cannot be read as an early statement of Purgatory.
Tertullian (c. 160–c. 220) mentions annual offerings for the dead on the anniversaries of their deaths (On the Crown, chapter 3). He describes a widow who prays for her husband’s soul, asks refreshment for him in the meantime, and makes offerings on his anniversary (On Monogamy, chapter 10).
In the fourth century, the Mystagogical Catecheses attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem describe the commemoration of the departed during the Eucharist (5.9–10). John Chrysostom, in his forty-first homily on 1 Corinthians (section 5), urges Christians to help the dead with their offerings. Epiphanius of Salamis (Panarion 75) condemned a presbyter named Aerius for rejecting prayers for the dead, which shows that the practice was contested by some and defended by most.
Purification after death: early, tentative and debated
The idea that the dead are actually purified is harder to trace than prayer for them.
Tertullian, in his treatise On the Soul (chapter 58), reads the “prison” of Matthew 5:26 as Hades and the “last farthing” as small offences settled there before the resurrection. But he believed that all souls except martyrs wait in Hades until the resurrection. A. J. Mason (Journal of Theological Studies 3, 1902, 598–601) argued that the chapter, read as a whole, has nothing to say about Purgatory as later defined. He also wrote this during his Montanist period.
Cyprian of Carthage, in his Letter 55 (about AD 251, section 20), contrasts a person cleansed by long suffering and fire with the martyr who is purified at once. The context is the readmission of Christians who had lapsed under persecution. Scholars still debate whether he means post-mortem purification or a long earthly penance, and the manuscripts differ on a key word.
Clement of Alexandria and Origen in the late second and third centuries spoke of a wise or purifying fire. Origen linked this to the eventual restoration of all creatures, a view later rejected. That association later made Greek theologians wary of “purgatorial fire”.
Augustine of Hippo (354–430) is pivotal, and notably cautious. In the Confessions (Book 9, chapter 13), he records that his mother Monica, who died in 387, asked only to be remembered at the altar, and he prays for her. In the City of God (Book 21, chapters 13 and 26), he allows that some suffer temporary punishments after death but before the final judgment. Yet in the Enchiridion (chapter 69, about AD 421), he treats purification after death as an open question: “It is a matter that may be inquired into, and either ascertained or left doubtful.”
Gregory the Great, Pope from 590 to 604, gave the idea its most confident early formulation. In Book 4 of his Dialogues (about 593–594; chapter 39 in the Migne edition cited by the Catechism), he argues from Matthew 12:32 that a purifying fire exists before the judgment for certain lesser faults. The same book contains edifying stories that later shaped devotion, including the monk Justus, for whom thirty Masses were offered after his death. These stories are narratives, not doctrine, but they mark a turning point in popular imagination. One caution applies to all these early writers: none of them uses the later vocabulary of temporal punishment, satisfaction or indulgences. Reading them as early statements of the defined doctrine would be anachronistic; they belong to the history from which it grew.
The scholarly debate over the “birth” of Purgatory
In The Birth of Purgatory (French 1981; English 1984; see especially Part Two, pp. 129–234), the historian Jacques Le Goff argued that the noun purgatorium appeared only in the late twelfth century, and that Purgatory as a distinct “third place” was effectively born then. His thesis has been influential and heavily criticised.
Critics, including Graham Robert Edwards in a review article pointedly titled “Purgatory: ‘Birth’ or Evolution?” (Journal of Ecclesiastical History 36, 1985, 634–646), Robert Eno’s study of the Fathers (Irish Theological Quarterly 53, 1987, 184–202), and Isabel Moreira’s Heaven’s Purge: Purgatory in Late Antiquity (Oxford University Press, 2010, especially chapter 1), argue that the concept long preceded the noun. Moreira’s study, which traces ideas of purification after death from the first century to the eighth, shows why three things must be kept apart: the history of a word, the development of an idea, and formal doctrinal definition. On Le Goff’s dating the noun is late; on his critics’ reading the idea is considerably older; and the conciliar definitions came later still, between 1274 and 1563.
Medieval systematisation
The Venerable Bede (died 735), in his Ecclesiastical History (Book 5, chapter 12), recounts the vision of Drythelm, which distinguishes a place of purgation from hell; Moreira discusses Bede’s contribution in chapter 6 of Heaven’s Purge.
Scholastic theologians, including Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventure in the thirteenth century, systematised the doctrine in terms of guilt, satisfaction and temporal punishment, chiefly in their commentaries on Peter Lombard’s Sentences (Book 4, distinctions 20–21).
The Second Council of Lyons (1274) produced the first conciliar statement, in the profession of faith required of the Byzantine Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos (DS 856).
Benedict XII’s constitution Benedictus Deus (1336; DS 1000) taught that the souls of the just see God immediately after death or after purification.
Dante’s Purgatorio (completed by about 1320) pictured a mountain of ascent, hopeful rather than hellish, and profoundly shaped the Western imagination, though it is poetry, not doctrine.
The Council of Florence’s decree of union with the Greeks, Laetentur Caeli (6 July 1439; DS 1304), defined purification after death and the value of prayers for the dead, without mentioning fire, after Greek objections.
Catherine of Genoa (1447–1510), in her Treatise on Purgatory, described purification as an interior fire of love, with joy and pain together. Pope Benedict XVI highlighted this interior understanding in his General Audience of 12 January 2011.
Reformation and the Council of Trent
By the early sixteenth century, the preaching and sale of indulgences had become a scandal. Martin Luther’s Ninety-five Theses (31 October 1517; theses 14–29 concern Purgatory) attacked the trade and challenged claims about papal power over Purgatory, without yet denying Purgatory outright. By 1530, in a tract usually called the Revocation of Purgatory, he rejected it.
John Calvin, in the Institutes of the Christian Religion (1559 edition, Book 3, chapter 5, sections 6–10), argued that Purgatory undermines the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice. The Church of England’s Article XXII (1563; final form 1571) called the “Romish doctrine” of Purgatory “a fond thing vainly invented”.
The Council of Trent replied in two stages. Session VI (1547), canon 30 (DS 1580), affirmed that temporal punishment may remain after forgiveness. Session XXV (3 to 4 December 1563; DS 1820) reaffirmed Purgatory and the value of prayers for the dead, while ordering bishops to curb speculation, superstition and financial abuse.
The modern period
The Second Vatican Council’s constitution Lumen Gentium (1964, sections 49–51) describes the one Church as including disciples still on earth, those being purified after death, and those in glory.
Paul VI’s Indulgentiarum Doctrina (1 January 1967) abolished the measurement of partial indulgences in days and years, tied the remission to the faithful person’s own act performed with contrition, and reduced the number of plenary indulgences.
The Catechism (1992, paragraphs 1030–1032 and 1472), John Paul II’s catechesis (1999) and Benedict XVI’s Spe Salvi (2007, sections 45–48) present Purgatory less as a place of penalty and more as a transforming encounter with Christ.
What the history shows, and what it cannot show
Historically well supported: prayer for the dead from the late second century; Eucharistic commemoration of the dead by the fourth century.
Historically supported but tentative: the idea of purification after death, open and debated in Augustine, confident by Gregory the Great.
Historically late: the noun purgatorium (on Le Goff’s dating, the late twelfth century), the image of a place, the developed system of temporal punishment and indulgences, and conciliar definition (1274 to 1563).
History shows continuity of practice and development of doctrine. Whether that development was a faithful unfolding of something implicit from the start, as John Henry Newman argued in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1845), or an accumulation of human additions, as the Reformers believed, is exactly the disputed question. History alone cannot settle it.
The Philosophy of Purification
The strongest case for Purgatory is not a proof text. It is an argument about what forgiveness achieves and what it does not. That argument is persuasive up to a point, and the point at which it stops is the most important thing to understand in this whole debate.
Forgiven is not the same as transformed
Consider a man who, for years, belittled his wife in front of others. He comes to see the cruelty of it, repents sincerely, and asks her forgiveness. She forgives him. The relationship is restored in principle.
Yet his habits do not vanish overnight. The sharp retort, the need to win every argument, the instinct to diminish others: these remain, even though he now hates them. Forgiveness has changed the relationship. It has not, by itself, changed his character.
Three things need to be distinguished:
Guilt: the liability for a wrong done. Forgiveness addresses this.
Consequences: the effects of the wrong on others and on the world. Restitution addresses some of these.
Character: the desires, habits and dispositions from which wrongs flow. Only transformation addresses this.
Lawyers know a version of this distinction well. A pardon, such as the President and Governors may grant under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India, extinguishes the penalty. It does not, by itself, reform the offender. The legal status changes; the person may not.
Declared righteous, or made capable of love?
Christian theologies draw related distinctions. Classical Protestant theology distinguishes justification (being declared right with God) from sanctification (being made holy). Catholic theology treats them as more closely intertwined, but recognises the same two aspects.
The question then becomes: what is heaven? If heaven were merely a reward handed to the legally acquitted, a declaration might be enough. But Christian tradition describes heaven as perfect communion: loving God fully and loving others without reserve.
On that understanding, entry into heaven requires a capacity, not merely a status. A person still nursing resentment against a neighbour would find heaven, where that neighbour also is, a strange kind of torment. C. S. Lewis dramatised exactly this in The Great Divorce (1945), where visitors from a grey town find heaven painful precisely because they will not let go of what keeps them small.
Can someone repent but remain disordered?
Experience says yes. Repentance is a turning of the will; dispositions follow more slowly. Aristotle observed in the Nicomachean Ethics (Book 2, chapter 1) that virtue is a settled disposition formed by practice. No one becomes just or generous by a single decision, however sincere.
Many serious believers recognise this in themselves. They have repented of pride, and they are still proud; of impatience, and they are still impatient. If death came tomorrow, few would claim to be finished.
Mercy and justice as allies, not rivals
Popular presentations often pit mercy (God lets us off) against justice (God makes us pay). Purgatory is then imagined as justice collecting what mercy forgave.
There is a better way to see it. If justice means setting things right, then setting a person right is part of justice. And if mercy means willing someone’s true good, then a mercy that left a person permanently unhealed would be indulgence rather than love. A surgeon’s mercy includes the operation.
On this view, purification is not a penalty added to forgiveness. It is forgiveness carried through to its goal.
A wider lens: an intuition shared across traditions
The question of whether moral reckoning or refinement continues beyond death is not uniquely Catholic, or even uniquely Christian. Other traditions ask it too, though their answers rest on very different foundations, and none of them is a version of Purgatory.
Plato’s Phaedo (113d–114c) describes souls who lived neither very well nor very badly undergoing purification and paying penalties after death. It does so within a philosophy of the soul’s recurring journeys that is quite unlike Christian teaching.
Virgil’s Aeneid (Book 6, lines 735–751) pictures souls cleansed by wind, water and fire before they return to new bodies.
Rabbinic Judaism, as we saw, spoke of a temporary refining in Gehinnom for the “intermediate”.
Sunni Islamic creed, as summarised in al-Tahawi’s al-Aqida al-Tahawiyya (tenth century), holds that believers who die with unrepented grave sins do not remain in the Fire for ever. This is temporary punishment followed by release through divine mercy, not the purification of the already-saved within a theology of grace.
In the Hindu tradition, the Bhagavad Gita (6.41–45) describes one who falls short in spiritual discipline being reborn in favourable circumstances and resuming the effort. Hindu and Buddhist traditions generally frame moral consequence through karma and rebirth across many lives, within a metaphysics, and in Buddhism a view of the self, that differs fundamentally from the Christian picture of one life, one death and one judgment.
Three cautions follow. First, a widely shared question shows that the issue is natural; it does not prove any particular answer. Second, these are not versions of Purgatory: they differ on what survives death, on who or what brings about the change, and on whether a single life is decisive. Third, in Catholic teaching purification is not self-salvation, the working off of karma, or a sentence served before release; it is the work of grace in someone already saved. The comparison illuminates the question, not the answer.
The logical gap
We can now set out the argument with the precision it deserves.
Full communion with God requires complete holiness, understood as perfect love.
Many who die in God’s friendship are not yet completely holy.
Therefore, if they are to enter full communion, their holiness must be completed at or after death.
This argument is valid, and its premises are accepted, in different vocabularies, by Catholic, Orthodox and many Protestant theologians. But notice what it does not establish. The specific Catholic doctrine needs further premises:
The completion is a process that involves the person, not only an instantaneous act of God.
It involves something like pain, the pain of letting go of disordered attachments.
The prayers of the living can assist it.
In the traditional formulation, it also discharges a remaining “temporal punishment” due to sin.
None of premises 4 to 7 follows from premises 1 to 3. Each needs its own support: from philosophy (for 4 and 5), from Scripture and the practice of the early Church (for 6), and from the Church’s teaching authority (for 7). This is the logical gap. The need for transformation is a strong argument. That the transformation happens in the Catholic way is a further claim.
Process or instant?
The most interesting philosophical work on premise 4 comes, unexpectedly, from a Protestant. The Protestant philosopher Jerry L. Walls, in Purgatory: The Logic of Total Transformation (Oxford University Press, 2012, chapter 3), distinguishes a “satisfaction model” of Purgatory (paying a remaining penalty) from a “sanctification model” (completing transformation). He rejects the first and defends the second.
Walls argues that character is formed through free cooperation over time. A sudden divine “zap” that rewired a person’s desires at death would either bypass their freedom or, in effect, produce a different person. If God respects human agency in this life, it is reasonable to think he does so in completing it.
The reply is serious too. God’s grace has transformed people suddenly in this life, in conversions that the person experienced as liberation rather than violation. Death is itself the most radical change a person undergoes. And the New Testament speaks of transformation “in a moment” when we see Christ.
Here Benedict XVI’s suggestion becomes important. If, as he wrote in Spe Salvi (section 47), the transforming moment of encounter with Christ cannot be measured by earthly time, then the debate between “instant” and “process” may partly dissolve. A purification can be genuinely personal and transformative without lasting any measurable time.
An unexpected convergence
This leads to the observation I find most illuminating in the entire investigation.
The Westminster Shorter Catechism of 1647, a foundational Reformed Protestant text, answers question 37 this way: “The souls of believers are at their death made perfect in holiness, and do immediately pass into glory.”
That is itself a doctrine of final purification. Confessional Reformed teaching, which rejects Purgatory firmly, nonetheless affirms that believers are not yet perfect when they die, and that God perfects them at death.
The real disagreement among these traditions, then, is not whether God completes the work he began. Catholic, Orthodox and the major Protestant confessions all affirm that he does. The disagreement is about how: instantly or as a process; painlessly or through the pain of letting go; by God alone or with the prayers of the Church; as healing alone or also as the settling of a debt.
Framed this way, Purgatory is no longer an exotic extra. It is one answer to a question that each of these traditions must also answer.
Nine Hard Questions, Answered Honestly
For each question below, I give the strongest Catholic answer, the strongest reasonable objection, and my own assessment of how well the answer holds.
A. If Christ has already redeemed us, why is further purification needed?
The Catholic answer. Catholic theology distinguishes four things: redemption (what Christ accomplished once for all), forgiveness (the removal of guilt), sanctification (the inner transformation of the person) and glorification (the final state). Purgatory belongs to the application of redemption, not its accomplishment. A fully paid course of treatment is not “insufficient” because the patient takes time to recover. If further purification implied that Christ’s work was deficient, the same would be true of sanctification in this life, which the major Christian traditions all accept.
The objection. Hebrews 10:14 says that by one offering Christ “hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified”. More pointedly, the traditional Catholic formulation speaks not only of healing but of a “debt” of temporal punishment that remains after forgiveness (Trent, Session VI, canon 30). Indulgences, which draw on a “treasury” of merits, presuppose that something is still owed. This was the heart of Calvin’s protest (Institutes 3.5.6).
Assessment. Against the sanctification model of Purgatory, the objection largely fails: it would equally condemn sanctification in this life. Against the satisfaction model, it retains real force. Catholic replies that the satisfaction is itself made possible by Christ’s grace are coherent within Catholic theology, but they do not fully dissolve the concern. Partly answered.
B. If God forgives our sins, why must we suffer after death?
The Catholic answer. The suffering is not an additional sentence. It is what it feels like to be changed. Letting go of a cherished resentment hurts; so does honest self-knowledge. The Catechism says temporal punishment follows from the nature of sin, not from divine vengeance (CCC 1472). Catherine of Genoa described joy and pain existing together, because the soul wants the very purification it undergoes.
The objection. Why should the forgiven suffer at all? An omnipotent God could make the release painless. Moreover, the councils speak of “penalties”, and centuries of preaching described Purgatory’s pains in terms barely distinguishable from hell.
Assessment. The medicinal account makes the suffering intelligible and morally serious. It is the Catholic tradition’s strongest answer. But it is an emphasis that has grown stronger in recent decades, while the penal vocabulary remains in the defined texts. The doctrine itself does not specify any intensity of suffering. Persuasive in its modern form; less so in its older one.
C. If salvation is by grace, does Purgatory introduce an extra payment?
The Catholic answer. No one in Purgatory is earning salvation. They are already saved. Purification is grace completing its work, not a human contribution added to it.
The objection. In practice, the system of satisfaction, indulgences and Mass offerings taught many people a transactional faith. The sale of indulgences in the sixteenth century was not a theoretical risk but a historical fact.
Assessment. In principle, Catholic doctrine avoids presenting suffering as the price of salvation, since salvation is already assured. The Council of Trent itself condemned the financial abuses. The practical objection is stronger than the theoretical one, and the satisfaction framework remains the sore point. Answered in principle; a legitimate historical warning remains.
D. Why can God not purify a person instantly at death?
The Catholic answer. He can, and Catholic doctrine does not deny it. The Church has never defined that purification takes time. Benedict XVI suggested (Spe Salvi 47) that the transforming moment of encounter with Christ lies outside earthly time-reckoning. Philosophical reasons for thinking of it as a process, such as respect for human freedom and personal participation, are theological opinions, not dogma.
The objection. If purification can be instantaneous, the difference from the Protestant view of perfection at death almost disappears. And if it is instantaneous, what is the point of praying for the dead weeks or years later?
Assessment. The honest answer is that no one knows whether purification involves anything like duration. On prayer, Christian theology generally holds that God, being outside time, can take into account prayers offered at any moment. This question lowers the stakes of the debate rather than settling it. Unknown, and the doctrine does not require an answer.
E. Where does the Bible explicitly say that Purgatory exists?
The Catholic answer. It does not, and Catholics need not claim it does. Catholic teaching holds that revelation is transmitted through Scripture and Tradition together, authentically interpreted by the Church; the Second Vatican Council’s constitution Dei Verbum (1965, sections 9–10) presents them as flowing from the same divine source. Doctrines can be implicit in Scripture and developed over time, as the formal doctrine of the Trinity was.
The objection. Traditions that hold to Scripture as the sole infallible rule of faith require binding doctrines to be stated in Scripture or derived from it by necessary inference. The Westminster Confession (1647, chapter 1, section 6) speaks of what is “expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced” from it. Purgatory does not meet that test. The comparison with the Trinity is also contested, because the Trinity rests on a far broader biblical base.
Assessment. Here the debate turns entirely on a prior question: what is the rule of faith? Each side is consistent with its own starting point. A reader must decide which starting point to accept; no single verse will decide it. Depends on prior commitments.
F. Why do so many Christians reject Purgatory?
Five objections recur in Protestant writing:
It appears to compromise the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice.
It lacks clear biblical warrant, and its clearest text comes from a book Protestants do not accept as Scripture.
The New Testament speaks of being “with Christ” immediately after death (Luke 23:43; 2 Corinthians 5:8; Philippians 1:23).
Historically, it was bound up with the sale of indulgences and financial abuse.
Pastorally, it can undermine assurance and breed fear.
The Catholic responses. The first two are addressed under questions A and E. On the third, Catholic theology increasingly describes purification as taking place in the presence of Christ, not away from him; and the thief on the cross may simply have needed no further purification. On the fourth, abuse does not refute right use, and Trent condemned the abuses. On the fifth, Catholic teaching insists that those undergoing purification are certainly saved, which makes Purgatory a doctrine of hope rather than fear.
Assessment. Objections 3 and 5 can be answered well. Objection 1 can be answered for the sanctification model. Objection 2 depends on authority. Objection 4 is historically damning of the practices of the time but not logically decisive against the doctrine itself.
G. Does Purgatory mean people can be saved after death despite rejecting God in life?
The Catholic answer. No. Purgatory is only for those who die in God’s grace and friendship. John Paul II (General Audience of 4 August 1999, section 5) explicitly rejected the idea that it offers another chance to change one’s eternal destiny. The decisive orientation of a life is settled at death (compare Hebrews 9:27).
The objection. Some Christians find this line too sharp, given how unequal people’s opportunities to know God are. Notably, Jerry Walls, the Protestant defender of Purgatory, argues that it should be modified to allow repentance after death, which the Catholic Church does not teach.
Assessment. On this point, Catholic doctrine is clear and consistent. Those who hope for conversion after death are proposing something other than the Catholic Purgatory. Clearly answered.
H. Why should the living pray for the dead?
The Catholic answer. Biblically, the practice appears in 2 Maccabees and possibly in 2 Timothy 1:18. Historically, it is attested from the late second century and was widespread in early Christian communities in both East and West, though not uncontested: in the fourth century the presbyter Aerius rejected it, and Epiphanius condemned him for doing so (Panarion 75). Theologically, it rests on the communion of saints: the Church on earth, those being purified, and those in glory form one body in Christ, and love is not cut off by death.
The objection. If a person’s destiny is fixed at death and Christ’s work is complete, intercession for the dead seems either unnecessary or presumptuous. Many Protestants allow thanksgiving for the departed but not prayer on their behalf.
Assessment. Prayer for the dead has stronger historical credentials than anything else in this debate; it is older than the doctrine of Purgatory. It is also shared beyond Catholicism. The Orthodox commemorate the departed in the Divine Liturgy, and the Lutheran Apology of the Augsburg Confession (1531, Article 24, paragraph 94) states that it does not forbid prayer for the dead. Praying for the dead does not by itself require belief in Purgatory. It requires only the belief that the dead are alive in God and that love can still be expressed. Strongly supported, and more widely shared than the doctrine.
I. Does belief in Purgatory depend on accepting the Church’s authority?
Partly. It helps to separate the claims.
These can be evaluated by history and reason:
That early Christians prayed for the dead: well established.
That forgiveness and full transformation are different: philosophically strong.
That transformation might be completed through a personal process after death: coherent, though not demonstrable.
These depend on accepting Catholic claims about revelation and authority:
That a purification after death exists as the councils defined it.
That temporal punishment remains after forgiveness and can be remitted by indulgences.
That 2 Maccabees is inspired Scripture.
That the councils of Lyons, Florence and Trent taught without error.
Assessment. Reason can bring a person to the threshold: that a final purification is coherent, and even likely, if Christianity is true. Crossing the threshold to the specific Catholic doctrine requires trusting the Church’s authority to interpret revelation. That is not irrational, but it is a distinct step, and it should be taken knowingly.
Five Realistic Cases
The following people are hypothetical, constructed to make an abstract question concrete. They are not evidence. For each, I ask what the situation reveals, how Catholic theology might read it, what it can illustrate, and what it cannot establish.
Case 1: The surgeon who repented of pride
Thomas is a gifted surgeon. For decades he humiliated junior colleagues. In his fifties, after a serious illness, he sees what he has been, apologises to many of those he hurt, and changes his conduct. Yet he still bristles when a younger doctor corrects him, and catches himself rehearsing his own achievements.
What it reveals: repentance can be real while the disposition it rejects is still present.
A Catholic reading: Thomas is in God’s friendship. If he died tomorrow, the remaining pride would need to be healed before he could love perfectly.
What it illustrates: the difference between turning away from a vice and being free of it.
What it cannot establish: whether that healing happens instantly at death or as a process afterwards.
Case 2: The partner who caused lasting harm
Ravi made a dishonest business decision that ruined his partner. Years later, he confesses, seeks forgiveness, and repays what he can. His partner forgives him. But the partner’s family lost their home long ago, and his children’s education was disrupted. Some of that damage can never be undone by Ravi.
What it reveals: the limits of the broken-window analogy. Some damage cannot be repaired by the wrongdoer at all.
A Catholic reading: purification is not Ravi “paying for the window”. It is Ravi becoming the kind of person who would gladly have paid, and who can stand in the presence of those he harmed without shame or self-justification. Making the victims whole is God’s work, not Ravi’s.
What it illustrates: that forgiveness, restitution and transformation are three different things.
What it cannot establish: that a remaining “temporal punishment” must be undergone, rather than a transformation simply being completed.
Case 3: The mother who died mid-reconciliation
Mary, a woman of sincere faith, was estranged from her daughter for twenty years. In her last years she began the slow work of reconciliation, including counselling to confront her own bitterness. She died suddenly at fifty-two, the work only half done.
What it reveals: death often interrupts transformation; it does not wait for completion.
A Catholic reading: God completes what was genuinely begun. Purification after death continues Mary’s own movement towards love, rather than replacing it.
What it illustrates: the intuition that the person who enters heaven should be continuous with the person who died, not a different person suddenly installed in her place.
What it cannot establish: that God’s completion of Mary’s work requires her ongoing participation, rather than a single gracious act.
Case 4: The kind grandfather with a hidden prejudice
Samuel is warm, generous and loved by his grandchildren. He is not malicious. But he holds a deep, unexamined prejudice against a particular community, absorbed in childhood and never confronted.
What it reveals: decent people can carry disorders they do not even recognise as sin.
A Catholic reading: heaven will include members of the community Samuel looked down on. To rejoice in their presence, he must be freed of something he barely knows he carries. That freeing may be painful, because it involves seeing himself truly.
What it illustrates: why many theologians describe purification as illumination, the painful clarity of finally seeing oneself in the light of Christ.
What it cannot establish: that this illumination requires a distinct state, or that the prayers of the living affect it.
Case 5: The devout woman who loves to be seen
Grace is faithful in prayer and generous to the poor. She has been forgiven much and knows it. But a great deal of her generosity is still driven by a need for approval. She has not yet learned to love without wanting to be noticed.
What it reveals: even good actions can be mixed with self-regard.
A Catholic reading: perfect love, the love that heaven consists of, is free of the need to be seen. Grace’s love is real but not yet pure.
What it illustrates: that holiness is not only the absence of wrong acts but the purity of motive.
What it cannot establish: anything about the duration, intensity or location of the change she needs.
What the cases show together
The five cases make one point compellingly: the need for a final transformation is real, recognisable, and not peculiar to Catholics. Almost anyone can see themselves in at least one of these portraits.
What the cases cannot do is choose between the competing Christian accounts of how that transformation happens. They make Purgatory intelligible. They do not make it demonstrable.
How Other Christians See It
The major Christian traditions agree more than their polemics suggest. Their teachings commonly affirm that holiness is necessary and that God completes what he begins. They divide over how and when this happens, whether the living can help, and whether any penal framework is involved.
Eastern Orthodox Christianity
Prayer for the departed is woven into Orthodox life. The dead are commemorated at the Divine Liturgy, in memorial services (panikhida) on the third, ninth and fortieth days after death and on anniversaries, and on several memorial Saturdays each year, as the Orthodox Church in America’s guidance on prayers for the departed describes.
Yet the Orthodox have generally rejected the Latin doctrine as defined. At Ferrara-Florence, Mark of Ephesus led the opposition to the idea of purgatorial fire. In his First Homily on Purgatory (1438), he affirmed that the departed are helped by Liturgies, prayers and almsgiving, while denying a purgatorial fire. Robert Ombres has traced this Latin–Greek debate from 1230 to 1439 (Journal of Ecclesiastical History 35, 1984, 1–14). Orthodox views on purification after death are not uniform; OrthodoxWiki’s summary of the question, citing Kallistos Ware, notes several schools of thought. But Orthodox theologians typically reject the framework of satisfaction, temporal punishment and indulgences, preferring to speak of the mystery of the soul’s continuing life in God and its growth towards union with him (theosis).
The Synod of Jerusalem (1672), in the Confession of Dositheus (Decree 18), comes closest to the Catholic position. It teaches that those who repented but did not bring forth the fruits of repentance go to Hades and suffer for their sins, while aware of their coming release. They are delivered by God’s goodness through the prayers of priests, the good works of relatives, and above all the bloodless Sacrifice of the Eucharist. The text does not call this Purgatory or mention fire. Its standing is itself discussed: some Orthodox treat the Confession as authoritative, while Kallistos Ware, in The Orthodox Church (Part 1, chapter 5), notes that the seventeenth-century Orthodox confessions drew in varying degrees on Latin sources, that of Dositheus less than Peter Moghila’s. Some Orthodox writers also teach a doctrine of “aerial toll-houses”, which is itself contested within Orthodoxy: Seraphim Rose defended it in The Soul After Death (1980), Lev Puhalo opposed it, and the dispute continued for decades.
The fair conclusion is that the Orthodox Churches share the practice and the hope, and some Orthodox theologians speak of purification after death, but the Churches have not adopted the Latin doctrinal framework. It would be inaccurate to say they teach Purgatory under another name.
Lutheran tradition
Luther rejected Purgatory by 1530. Yet the Lutheran Apology of the Augsburg Confession (1531, Article 24, paragraph 94) states that it does not forbid prayer for the dead; what it rejects is the idea that the Mass benefits the dead automatically. Lutheran practice has varied since, with some churches including commemoration of the departed in their liturgies.
Reformed and Presbyterian tradition
The Reformed position is the sharpest alternative. The Westminster Shorter Catechism (question 37) teaches that believers are made perfect in holiness at death and pass immediately into glory. The Westminster Confession (chapter 21, section 4) states that prayer is to be made for the living but not for the dead. In confessional Reformed teaching, God’s sanctifying work is completed at the moment of death, without any intermediate purification.
Anglican tradition
Article XXII of the Thirty-Nine Articles rejects the “Romish doctrine” of Purgatory. But Anglican practice is broad. John Henry Newman, while still an Anglican, argued in Tract 90 (1841, section 6) that the Article condemned a particular corrupt teaching rather than every idea of purification after death. C. S. Lewis, an Anglican layman, wrote in Letters to Malcolm (1964, chapter 20) that he prayed for the dead and believed in a purgatory understood as the soul’s own desire to be cleansed before entering God’s presence, while sharing the Reformers’ objections to the doctrine as it had come to be taught.
Methodist and Wesleyan tradition
John Wesley taught that “entire sanctification” may be attained in this life. The Methodist Articles of Religion, which Wesley adapted from the Anglican Articles, retain the rejection of the “Romish doctrine” of Purgatory (Article XIV). Jerry Walls identifies a tension in Wesleyan thought between sanctification as a cooperative process and instant glorification at death, and argues that Wesleyan theology would be more consistent if it accepted a sanctification model of Purgatory. That is his proposal, not the teaching of Methodist churches.
Evangelical, Baptist and Pentecostal traditions
Teaching and practice vary widely across these movements, but most hold that believers are with Christ immediately after death, awaiting the resurrection of the body. Some other Protestant groups, such as Seventh-day Adventists, hold instead that the dead are unconscious until the resurrection. Prayer for the dead is generally not practised.
The resurrection and the final judgment
All mainstream traditions affirm the resurrection of the body and a final judgment. The disagreement concerns the intermediate state between death and resurrection. Catholic teaching places purification in that interval. Some Catholic theologians, following Benedict XVI, connect it closely with the encounter with Christ as judge, which brings the Catholic view closer to Paul’s language of a fire on “the day” of judgment.
What drives the differences
Five underlying questions explain almost every disagreement:
The rule of faith: Scripture alone, or Scripture and Tradition together.
Justification: chiefly a legal declaration, or also an inner transformation.
Sanctification: completed at death, or continuing as a process.
Authority: whether councils such as Lyons, Florence and Trent bind the conscience.
Canon: whether 2 Maccabees is Scripture.
A person’s answer to Purgatory usually follows from their answers to these five questions, rather than the other way round.
Weighing the Case: Evidence, Inference and Mystery
The case for Purgatory is strongest as an answer to a real question, and weakest as a set of specific claims read directly from Scripture. Here is the evidence gathered into the six categories set out at the beginning.
The evidence, sorted
Biblically explicit: holiness is required to see God (Hebrews 12:14); some Jews before Christ prayed and offered sacrifice for the dead (2 Maccabees 12); Paul speaks of a believer saved “so as by fire” at judgment (1 Corinthians 3:15); every idle word will be accounted for (Matthew 12:36).
Theologically inferred: that holiness left incomplete at death is completed afterwards; that the prayers of the living assist this.
Historically supported: prayer for the dead from the late second century; Eucharistic commemoration by the fourth; the idea of purification after death tentative in Augustine and confident by Gregory the Great.
Philosophically plausible: that forgiveness and transformation differ; that a transformation respecting personal freedom might involve a process.
Doctrinally defined: that a purification after death exists for some of the saved; that the prayers and good works of the living help them; that temporal punishment can remain after forgiveness.
Unknown or speculative: place, fire, duration, intensity, and exactly how prayer for the dead takes effect.
The strongest arguments
The distinction between being forgiven and being transformed. It is philosophically robust and recognised, in different vocabularies, in Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant theology.
The antiquity of prayer for the dead. It is older than the doctrine and shared with the Orthodox.
1 Corinthians 3:15, which offers a genuine biblical point of contact: a believer saved through a painful, purifying encounter.
The convergence uncovered above. Even the Reformed tradition, which rejects Purgatory firmly, affirms a final perfecting of believers at death. The question is how, not whether.
The weakest arguments
Proof texts such as Matthew 12:32, Matthew 5:26 and Matthew 12:36, which bear far more weight in apologetics than their context supports.
2 Maccabees, whose canonical status is disputed and whose fit with the later doctrine is imperfect.
The framework of temporal punishment understood as a debt, which has the least biblical support and the most troubled history.
The late emergence of the defined doctrine, which leaves the Catholic case dependent on a theory of doctrinal development.
Objections that remain unresolved
Whether a remaining “debt” of punishment can be reconciled with the full sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice, or only the healing model can.
How exactly the prayers of the living assist the dead, and why God would make purification depend on them in any way.
Whether Scripture alone or Scripture with Tradition is the rule of faith. This is not a question about Purgatory, but every answer about Purgatory depends on it.
The premises a believer must accept
To arrive at the Catholic doctrine, a person must accept, in ascending order of dependence on Church authority:
The core claims of Christianity: that God exists, that Christ is risen, and that persons survive death.
That full communion with God requires complete holiness.
That this holiness may be completed through a personal and, in some sense, painful purification.
That the prayers of the living can assist the dead.
That the councils of Lyons, Florence and Trent taught truly, and that the Church interprets revelation with authority.
The first two are shared, in some form, by the major Christian traditions. The third is reasonable and defended even by some Protestants. The fourth has deep historical roots. The fifth is the specifically Catholic commitment.
Reasonable, or proven?
Within Catholic theology, Purgatory is coherent. Arguably, it is the most consistent way of holding together the Church’s other commitments: the necessity of holiness, the reality of human freedom, the communion of saints, and God’s patience with unfinished people.
But coherence is not proof. Purgatory cannot be demonstrated by historical or philosophical argument, and neither can any rival account of what happens to believers at death, including the Reformed view of instant perfection. Each tradition offers an account that is coherent within its own framework.
My verdict is therefore a qualified one. Purgatory is reasonable, not demonstrated. It is supported by Scripture indirectly, by history substantially, and by philosophy strongly in its core intuition and weakly in its details. Its specific form rests on trust in the Church’s authority.
One further observation may be the most useful of all. The doctrine stands or falls less on any single text than on two deeper questions: what heaven truly is, and whether God completes the transformation of persons with their participation or without it. Answer those, and your view of Purgatory will largely follow.
“I Am Not Convinced. Why Should I Believe?”
This is where we began, and it deserves a direct answer. The honest answer is that no one should believe in Purgatory simply because they have been told to. But there are good reasons to take it seriously, and it helps to see exactly what one is being asked to believe.
Three propositions, not one
The word “Purgatory” bundles together three distinct claims.
Human beings need complete moral transformation before they can share fully in the life of God. This is strongly supported. It follows from what the major Christian traditions teach about holiness and love, and it matches ordinary experience of how slowly character changes.
Such transformation may continue, or be completed, beyond death. This is reasonable and coherent. It is consistent with Scripture, held by Catholics, echoed in Orthodox practice, and defended by Protestant thinkers such as C. S. Lewis and Jerry Walls. It cannot be demonstrated.
The Catholic Church’s specific teaching on Purgatory is true, including the value of prayers and the Mass for the dead and the remission of temporal punishment. This depends on accepting the Church’s authority to interpret revelation.
These propositions are related, but they are not equivalent. A person can affirm the first and second without the third. But no one can coherently hold the third without the first two. That means the real work of persuasion happens at the first two levels, and it is work that reason can genuinely do.
Can a person who values faith and reason accept the doctrine?
Yes, provided they understand what kind of acceptance it is.
Accepting the first proposition is an act of reason informed by faith. Accepting the second is a reasonable hope, consistent with how God appears to work in this life: patiently, through cooperation, rarely by sudden replacement of who we are. Accepting the third is an act of trust in the Church. For a Catholic, that trust rests not on the strength of any single argument about Purgatory, but on reasons for trusting the Church as a whole.
That is not blind faith. It is the same structure of belief that applies to many Christian doctrines. But it should be named honestly, rather than disguised as a conclusion that Scripture or philosophy forces on everyone.
Doubts that remain legitimate
Even within Catholic faith, several questions remain open, and it is not disloyal to hold them:
whether the penal vocabulary of the medieval councils should be read in the light of the more medicinal language of the Catechism and recent popes;
whether purification involves anything like duration;
what, if anything, “fire” means;
how the prayers of the living take effect.
The Council of Trent itself told preachers to keep subtle and uncertain questions out of popular teaching. A believer may hold firmly to the defined core while declining to defend every image that devotion has attached to it.
Where this leaves me
I began unconvinced by the traditional arguments, and I remain unconvinced by several of them. The proof texts drawn from Matthew carry more weight in popular apologetics than their context can bear. The language of debt and payment still troubles me, and I do not think the broken-window analogy survives close inspection.
But the investigation has changed the question for me. I am no longer asking whether there is a fiery prison somewhere between heaven and hell. I am asking whether the God who began a good work in me will finish it, and whether he will finish it with me or around me. Put that way, the core of the doctrine seems less like an exotic addition to the Gospel and more like a claim about how seriously God takes both our freedom and our holiness.
That does not settle everything. It does mean that faith and reason, in this case, can walk a long way together before they reach the point where trust must take the next step.
Conclusion: Forgiven, and Finished
So, should anyone believe in Purgatory?
The evidence does not compel belief, and it does not forbid it. Scripture provides the materials but not the finished doctrine. History shows that Christians prayed for their dead from the earliest centuries, while the developed teaching took shape slowly. Philosophy shows that forgiveness and transformation are genuinely different, but cannot by itself show how or when the transformation is completed.
What remains is a coherent account of divine mercy that refuses to choose between forgiving people and healing them. In its best form, Purgatory is not a bill God insists on collecting. It is the claim that God’s love is thorough enough to finish what it starts, and respectful enough to finish it with us.
Whether that account is true in its specifically Catholic form depends, in the end, on whether one trusts the Church that teaches it. Reason can carry a thoughtful person most of the way to that threshold. It cannot carry them across, and it should not pretend to.
That is not a defeat for faith or for reason. It is simply an honest map of where each one walks.
Over to you
When you imagine standing before God at the end of your life, do you expect to be declared finished, or to be made finished? And does the difference matter to how you live now? I would value your thoughts in the comments, whatever tradition you come from, and whether you are convinced, doubtful, or still deciding.
Stay with the conversation
If you value faith that welcomes honest questions and reason that examines the evidence with care, I would be glad to have you with us. Subscribe to Rise & Inspire to receive each new reflection and investigation directly in your inbox.
Source Notes and Selected Bibliography
Primary sources are listed first, then modern scholarship. Where a link is given, it is to a text consulted in preparing this article.
Scripture
King James Version (1611), for New Testament and most Old Testament quotations.
Benedict XVI, Spe Salvi (30 November 2007), sections 45–48: section 46 on 1 Corinthians 3, section 47 on the purifying encounter with Christ, section 48 on prayer for the dead.
William Kent, “Indulgences”, The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 7 (New York: Robert Appleton, 1910), for the pre-1967 meaning of indulgences measured in days and years.
Early Christian and Jewish sources
Epitaph of Abercius (late second or early third century, before 216; its first and last lines copied in the epitaph of Alexander, 215/216): Peter Thonemann, “Abercius of Hierapolis: Christianization and Social Memory in Late Antique Asia Minor”, chapter 12 in Historical and Religious Memory in the Ancient World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012). The Catholic Encyclopedia entry gives the basis for the dating and records the nineteenth-century dispute over the inscription’s Christian character. The surviving fragments are in the Vatican Museums (Museo Pio Cristiano).
The Passion of Perpetua and Felicity (c. 203), chapters 7–8; numbered chapter 2, paragraphs 3–4, in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3 translation.
Tertullian, On the Crown, chapter 3 (c. 211); On Monogamy, chapter 10; On the Soul, chapter 58. English translations in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson.
Cyprian of Carthage, Letter 55, section 20 (numbered Letter 51 in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5), with the editor’s note on the variant readings.
Mystagogical Catecheses attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem, 5.9–10 (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, vol. 7).
John Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 Corinthians, Homily 41.5 (Patrologia Graeca 61, 361, as cited in CCC 1032).
Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion 75 (against Aerius).
Augustine, Confessions 9.13; City of God 21.13, 21.24 and 21.26; Enchiridion 69, trans. J. F. Shaw (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 1st series, vol. 3); On the Soul and its Origin, Book 1, chapter 10 (numbered chapter 12 in the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers translation), on Dinocrates.
Gregory the Great, Dialogues, Book 4 (c. 593–594): chapter 39 in the Migne edition (Patrologia Latina 77, 396) cited by the Catechism, numbered chapter 41 in some modern editions. The story of the monk Justus appears in the same book.
Bede, Ecclesiastical History of the English People (completed 731), Book 5, chapter 12.
Synod of Jerusalem, Confession of Dositheus (1672), Decree 18. Greek and Latin text in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, vol. 2 (CCEL; the online page breaks off before Decree 18). An English text of Decree 18 is at the Mystagogy Resource Center (translator not named).
Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers and the Pulpit Commentary, on 2 Timothy 1:18, at OpenBible.
John Henry Newman, Tract 90 (1841), section 6; An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1845).
C. S. Lewis, The Great Divorce (1945); Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer (1964), chapter 20.
Classical, medieval and comparative sources
Anselm of Canterbury, Proslogion (1077–1078), preface, where he records that the work was first titled Fides quaerens intellectum (“faith seeking understanding”).
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book 2, chapter 1 (1103a14–1103b25).
Virgil, Aeneid, Book 6, lines 735–751.
Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventure, commentaries on Peter Lombard’s Sentences, Book 4, distinctions 20–21; Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Supplement, Appendix II (“Of Purgatory”), compiled after his death from his Sentences commentary.
Dante Alighieri, Purgatorio (second part of the Divine Comedy, completed by about 1320).
Catherine of Genoa, Treatise on Purgatory (first printed in Genoa, 1551).
Al-Tahawi, al-Aqida al-Tahawiyya (tenth century), on believers who commit grave sins; summarised by SeekersGuidance.
Joachim Gnilka, Ist 1 Kor 3,10–15 ein Schriftzeugnis für das Fegfeuer? Eine exegetisch-historische Untersuchung (Düsseldorf: Michael Triltsch, 1955), 133 pp.; reviewed in Münchener Theologische Zeitschrift 7 (1956): 310–311.
Jacques Le Goff, The Birth of Purgatory, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984), especially Part Two, pp. 129–234; original La Naissance du purgatoire (Paris: Gallimard, 1981).
Robert B. Eno, “The Fathers and the Cleansing Fire”, Irish Theological Quarterly 53 (1987): 184–202.
Isabel Moreira, Heaven’s Purge: Purgatory in Late Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), especially chapter 1 (early Christian and patristic thought) and chapter 6 (Bede and Boniface).
Jerry L. Walls, Purgatory: The Logic of Total Transformation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), especially chapters 2–3.
Joseph Ratzinger, Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life, trans. Michael Waldstein, ed. Aidan Nichols (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1988; 2nd ed. 2007); German original Eschatologie: Tod und ewiges Leben (Regensburg: Pustet, 1977).
A note on citation and quotation. Official documents are cited by title, date, section and, where available, an official link. Scripture is cited by book, chapter and verse, with the translation named when quoted. The Fathers are cited by author, work and chapter, with a public-domain translation where one is linked. Modern scholarship is cited by author, title, journal or publisher, volume, year and pages. Page ranges are given only where they could be verified; none has been estimated. Contested interpretations are attributed to the scholars who hold them, with a credible alternative where it matters. The Catechism, papal documents and modern scholarship are paraphrased or quoted only in brief; longer quotations come from public-domain translations. Two online English texts used here (the Mark of Ephesus homily and Decree 18 of Dositheus) do not name their translators; readers who need a scholarly translation should consult a printed edition.
In response to the WordPress Daily Writing Prompt, 26 October 2026
Today’s prompt asks about my first-ever video game. The honest answer is that I never had one. My childhood games were Goli, played with glass marbles, and Gilli-danda, played with two pieces of wood.
It would be easy to stop there and write a fond lament for simpler times. I want to make a different claim. The real difference between the games of my childhood and the games children play today is not the screen. It is the rulebook. Most video games arrive with their rules already written into the code. Our games arrived with only a loose tradition, and every afternoon we had to settle the details ourselves.
1. The game came without a rulebook
Goli needed a circle scratched in the dust and a few marbles. Gilli-danda needed a small tapered stick, a longer one to strike it with, and a shallow groove in the ground. Everything else was open to dispute. Where did the boundary run? Was a marble resting on the line in or out? If your hand crept past the mark as you shot, did the shot stand? Did a catch count if the gilli had bounced off a wall? No manual answered these questions. We did.
2. The arguments were half the game
Some afternoons we spent nearly as long disputing a shot as playing it. That was not wasted time. We were learning to propose a rule, defend it, hear the other side, and accept a decision we did not like. Nobody called an umpire, because there was none to call. In many video games, the code settles disputes instantly. That is efficient, but it can remove opportunities for children to negotiate the rules themselves.
3. Older traditions saw the same thing
In his Laws [1], Plato has his Athenian speaker warn that children’s games decide whether a state’s laws will last. Children who keep changing the rules of their play, he feared, grow into adults who want to change the laws. So he wanted children’s games kept fixed. I read his observation the other way round: children who argue out their own rules learn why rules are worth keeping.
The Romans also linked games to growing up. Their children played with walnuts much as we played with marbles, and “to leave the nuts behind” (nuces relinquere) [2] was a Latin way of saying someone had become an adult.
Tamil poetry adds a gentler note. In the Pillaitamil tradition [3], poets imagine a god as a small child. In the poems addressed to boy-gods, there is a section in which little girls beg the divine child not to destroy the sand houses they have built. Even a god at play, the poets suggest, must learn to respect what others have made.
4. The street was not always fair
Here I must concede something. Rules made by children are often rules made by the biggest child. In Premchand’s Hindi short story “Gulli-Danda” [4], a man returns to his village as an engineer and plays the old game with Gaya, his childhood rival and once the best player around. Gaya plays poorly and lets the engineer’s doubtful strokes pass. Only later, watching Gaya play in earnest, does the engineer realise that he had not won at all. He had been humoured because of his rank. A game that teaches fairness can also teach deference. On this point, the video game has the stronger claim: within the rules of the game, a player’s social rank cannot simply make a doubtful shot count.
5. Video games deserve their due
Modern games teach strategy, persistence through long challenges, and cooperation with players across the world. Multiplayer games bring their own disputes, negotiations and community rules. The best of them now let players build their own worlds and agree on their own rules for playing in them. In those games, the old argument has simply moved indoors.
6. What I would keep
So I would not ask children to choose between the screen and the street. I would ask only that every child have at least one game whose rules they must write, defend and keep for themselves. A child understands a rule he has argued for in the dust. A rule written by a programmer is more often one he simply obeys.
So, what was my first video game? I never had one. What I had instead was my first parliament: a circle in the dust, a handful of marbles, and a few friends arguing over whether a shot was in or out.
Which childhood game taught you to argue over the rules? Share it in the comments.
Notes and references
[1] Plato, Laws, Book VII, 797a–d; the argument continues to 798d. English translation by R. G. Bury in Plato in Twelve Volumes, vols. 10–11, Loeb Classical Library (Harvard University Press). Online text: cts.perseids.org
[2] The proverb nuces relinquere is traced to Persius, Satires 1.10. See Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary, s.v. “nux”.
[3] Pillaitamil, roughly “poems of the child”, is a genre of Tamil devotional poetry that praises a deity or hero as an infant, traditionally across ten stages of ten verses each. In the stage called sitril (“little house”), girls plead with the boy-god not to destroy their sand houses; the Tiruchendur Pillaitamil is one example. Kumaraguruparar’s seventeenth-century Meenakshi Ammai Pillaitamil is among the best-known works of the genre. For a scholarly study with translations, see Paula Richman, Extraordinary Child: Poems from a South Indian Devotional Genre (Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press, 1997).
[4] Premchand (1880–1936), born Dhanpat Rai, is one of the most celebrated writers of modern Hindi and Urdu fiction. “Gulli-Danda” first appeared in the Hindi magazine Sarasvati in May 1925. English translation in Premchand, The Complete Short Stories, ed. M. Asaduddin, 4 vols. (Penguin Random House India, 2017).
John Britto Kurusumuthu
Rise & Inspire riseandinspire.co.in
In response to the WordPress Daily Writing Prompt, 26 October 2026: What was your first ever video game?
Four links, each opened and confirmed as a live, published Rise & Inspire post. No published posts were found on Plato, Premchand, Pillaitamil or the Roman sources, so those passages stay unlinked.
Today’s WordPress prompt asked a simple question: do you set personal goals for yourself? I said yes, but not the kind the planners recommend. When my working years ended, the deadlines and milestones stopped arriving almost overnight. What remained were goals with no finish line at all: to keep learning, to be more patient, to grow in faith, to write something each day that might give someone a reason to hope. I have come to think those were the ones holding everything up. I would love to hear from you: which of your goals do you hope you never finish?
Do you set personal goals for yourself?
Yes, I do. But not quite the kind the productivity books recommend.
The standard advice says a good goal must be specific, measurable, achievable and time-bound. Lose five kilograms by March. Read twenty books this year. Finish the manuscript by December. That advice works well for tasks. For a life, I have come to believe it is the wrong advice. The goals that have mattered most to me are the ones I will never be able to tick off.
I. A finished goal leaves an empty room
Every goal with a finish line carries a hidden cost: the morning after you reach it. Athletes speak of the flatness that follows the medal. Students know the strange emptiness of the day after the final examination. For most of my working years, my goals were of this kind: the next responsibility, the next deadline, the next milestone. Retirement removed them almost at a stroke. What remained were the goals that never had a finish line, and I found they had been holding up the house all along.
II. The goals that matter are verbs, not nouns
A goal that can be completed is a noun: a degree, a promotion, a target. A goal that cannot be completed is a verb: to learn, to understand, to be patient, to grow in faith. At this stage of life I am trying to understand how artificial intelligence works and what it may mean for the world ahead. I will never finish that, because the subject moves faster than I do. That is exactly what keeps it alive for me. Patience is the same. I have never once been able to declare it achieved; every difficult conversation reopens the file.
III. Three traditions, one discovery
In the Metaphysics, Aristotle draws a distinction I find more useful than any planner. Some activities are incomplete until they end: no one can be building a house and have built it at the same moment. Others are complete at every moment: one can be living well and have lived well at the same time. The first kind satisfies only at the finish. The second satisfies all the way through.
The Tamil poet Subramania Bharati [1] wrote a short prayer-poem that is, in effect, a list of personal goals. It opens: “Manathil urudhi vendum, vakkinile inimai vendum.” It means: I want firmness in my mind, sweetness in my speech. He also asks for good thoughts, and for his dreams to come true, which is a goal that can be reached. Yet the requests he places first cannot be achieved once and filed away. A steady mind and a gentle tongue must be asked for again tomorrow.
And Paul, writing to the Philippians, admits openly that he has not reached his goal and is not yet complete. He forgets what lies behind and presses on (Philippians 3:12–14). By then he had founded churches across much of the Mediterranean world, and he still counted himself unfinished. I find that consoling.
IV. The fair objection
There is a real danger in what I am arguing. “Becoming more patient” can be a comfortable way of never being tested. “Learning” can quietly turn into browsing. A goal without a finish line can drift into a goal without effort. On this point the productivity books are right: little gets done without something that can be measured.
My answer is to pair the two. The large goal has no finish line; the small goal has a finish line every evening. For more than three years, Rise&Inspire has asked me for one piece of writing each day. Each day’s post is finished, measurable, and done. The goal it serves, that someone somewhere finds a reason to hope, will never be finished, and I would not want it to be.
V. Why this matters at every age
The young are told to set goals so that they will arrive somewhere. The old are quietly told that they have arrived may now stop. Both messages rest on the same mistake: that goals are about arrival. The goals that matter most were never about arriving. They are about who we become while we walk. As long as a person holds one goal that cannot be finished, that person has a reason to look forward to tomorrow.
What about you? Which of your goals can be finished, and which one do you hope you never finish?
Note for readers
[1] Subramania Bharati (1882-1921), honoured as Mahakavi (“great poet”) Bharathiyar, was a Tamil poet, journalist and freedom fighter whose verse helped shape modern Tamil literature. The poem is widely known by its opening words, “Manathil Urudhi Vendum” (roughly, “Firmness of Mind Is What I Need”). The translations here are my own.
John Britto Kurusumuthu
Rise & Inspire riseandinspire.co.in
In response to the WordPress Daily Writing Prompt, 25 October 2026: Do you set personal goals for yourself?
Psalm 99:8, the God who forgave Moses, Aaron and Samuel and was still an avenger of their wrongdoings, forgiveness as healing rather than an eraser, faith in God rather than in outcomes, Daniel’s book and the sleepers in the dust, heaven’s Hallelujah after judgment, prayer in Jesus’ name, few words and the fear of God, and a holy people whose holiness reaches the graveside and the kitchen.
RISE & INSPIRE | SUNDAY BIBLE SERIESCategory: Wake-up CallsSunday Series No. 11 — 25 October 2026Scriptures of the week: 19 – 25 October 2026
Most of us have sat on one side of this table or the other. Someone apologised, properly. Someone forgave, properly. And still something was different afterwards. Trust took longer to return than the apology took to say.
If you have ever been forgiven and then wondered why anything is still different, this week’s Sunday study is for you.
Our anchor verse is one most of us have never noticed: O LORD our God, you answered them; you were a forgiving God to them, but an avenger of their wrongdoings (Psalm 99:8). The people it describes are not God’s enemies. They are Moses, Aaron and Samuel, the greatest intercessors in Israel’s memory. Aaron made the golden calf and went on to become high priest. Moses was forgiven, and still never entered the promised land.
The other six verses of the week carry the same pattern. Have faith, but in God. Ask for anything, but in Jesus’ name. Dream and speak, but fear God. Chosen and treasured, and therefore holy. Every verse is a sentence with two halves, and most of us only quote the first.
One idea has stayed with me all week. We want God’s forgiveness to work like an eraser. It works like healing.
It is a long study, and that is deliberate. Take your time with it, and tell us in the comments which half of the sentence you usually skip.
If God Has Forgiven You, Why Do the Consequences Remain?
Opening — Enter the Passage
“I said I was sorry. You said you forgave me. So why can’t I have the keys?”
The car was back from the workshop. The gatepost had been rebuilt, though if you knew where to look you could still see where the new plaster met the old. The eighteen-year-old who had reversed into it — too fast, phone in one hand — had apologised properly: no excuses, no shrugging, the kind of apology that costs something to say. And his father had forgiven him properly too. There had been no shouting at dinner, no week of cold silence, no reminder dropped into every conversation. As far as the relationship was concerned, the matter was closed.
The keys, however, stayed in the drawer.
“I did forgive you,” the father said. “That’s why we are talking about this over dinner and not through a closed door. The keys are a different conversation.”
Most of us have sat on one side of that table or the other. We have been forgiven, and then discovered that trust takes far longer to return than an apology takes to say. We have forgiven someone, truly, and still found that we could not in good conscience hand back the very thing they had broken. And most of us, if we are honest, have felt a small flash of injustice when the forgiveness was real but the consequences did not disappear with it. If you have really forgiven me, why is anything still different?
Now take the same question into a courtroom. It happens more often than we might think. A mother whose son was killed by a drunk driver stands up during the sentencing hearing and, in a voice that barely holds, tells the young man in the dock that she forgives him. People in the gallery weep. And then the judge passes sentence anyway.
Was her forgiveness real? Was the sentence wrong? Almost everyone senses that both were right — and almost no one can explain quite why.
Part of the answer is that in a human court, forgiveness and sentence come from two different people. The victim forgives; the court judges. Most legal systems recognise that some wrongs belong to the injured person to settle, while others wound the whole community and must be answered by it. That is why criminal cases are brought in the name of the State, or the People, or the Crown, and not merely in the name of the person who was harmed.
But what happens when the one who forgives and the one who judges are the same Person?
That is the question underneath this Sunday’s verse. It comes from a short hymn in praise of God as King, and it says something that most of us would never dare to put in a hymn:
“O LORD our God, you answered them; you were a forgiving God to them, but an avenger of their wrongdoings.” (Psalm 99:8)
Forgiving — and an avenger. The psalmist says both in the same breath, about the same people, and he says it while praising God. He does not seem embarrassed by it. We usually are.
This week’s Wake-up Call is about the other half of the sentence.
Read the seven verses given to us this week, and you will notice that every one of them is a sentence with two halves — and that most of us have learned to quote only one of them.
“Have faith” — yes; but Jesus says, in God. “Your people shall be delivered” — yes; but at a time of anguish, and the sleepers who wake will wake some to everlasting life, and some to shame. “Salvation and glory and power” — yes; but they belong to our God, and the very next line says why: his judgments are true and just. “If you ask me for anything, I will do it” — yes; but in my name. Dreams and many words — yes, we have plenty of those; but fear God. “Chosen… his treasured possession” — yes; and therefore holy. “A forgiving God” — yes; and an avenger of wrongdoing.
We like the first halves. They sound like gifts. The second halves sound like conditions, and conditions sound like small print. Read together, this week’s Scriptures invite us to see them differently: the second half of each sentence works less like small print and more like a guarantee. A forgiveness that never touched consequences would look less like mercy than indifference. A promise to answer any request, with no name attached, would be closer to magic. A people chosen but never made holy would simply be favourites. On this reading, the second half of each sentence is what makes the first half worth having.
Last Sunday we handed case to the Judge. We learned that God’s verdict comes before the world’s, and that his glory rests on the people others try to make light of. This Sunday we look more closely at the Judge himself — and, reading the psalm alongside the stories it remembers, we meet a Judge who forgives his friends without exempting them; who hears the cry of the wronged and does not forget it; who answers prayer and is never managed by it.
So the question this morning is uncomfortable. It is also, as we shall see, full of hope:
If God has forgiven you, why do the consequences remain?
The Passage
Psalm 99:8(our anchor text this week)
O LORD our God, you answered them; you were a forgiving God to them, but an avenger of their wrongdoings.
Scripture is quoted throughout from the New Revised Standard Version, the translation in which this week’s verses were given, unless another version is named.
The “them” of our verse are named two lines earlier: “Moses and Aaron were among his priests, Samuel also was among those who called on his name. They cried to the LORD, and he answered them” (Psalm 99:6). Three of the greatest intercessors in Israel’s memory. Three people whose prayers were heard. Three people who were forgiven — and who, as the Bible tells their stories, were not simply let off.
Six further verses accompany this one, one for each day of the week. Read in the order they were given, they make a journey of their own.
It begins on a road outside Jerusalem, beside a fig tree withered to its roots, where Jesus tells his astonished disciples where their faith must rest (Mark 11:22). It goes down into the dust, where the dead lie sleeping, and hears a promise that they will wake — though not all to the same morning (Daniel 12:1–2). It rises to heaven, where an immense crowd is singing because God has judged (Revelation 19:1). It comes back to a supper table on the last night of Jesus’ life, where he makes an astonishing promise about prayer (John 14:14). It stops at the threshold of the house of God and is told to speak less (Ecclesiastes 5:7). It walks into the graveside and the kitchen, the most ordinary places of a holy people (Deuteronomy 14:2). And it ends this morning before the throne of the King who is holy, with three old men who prayed, were heard, were forgiven — and were taken seriously (Psalm 99:8).
Road, dust, heaven, table, threshold, kitchen, throne. That is the road this Sunday walks.
Biblical Context
A hymn for the King who is holy
Psalm 99 belongs to a cluster of psalms that scholars call the enthronement psalms or the kingship-of-the-LORD psalms: Psalms 93 and 95–99. Several of them open with the same cry, YHWH malakh, “The LORD is king!” (93:1; 97:1; 99:1; compare 96:10). Early in the twentieth century, the Norwegian scholar Sigmund Mowinckel proposed that these psalms were sung at an annual festival in the Jerusalem Temple celebrating God’s enthronement. His theory has been widely debated and much modified, and no one can be certain of the psalm’s original setting or date. What is certain is the psalm’s subject: God reigns, and his reign is holy.
Psalm 99 is built with unusual care. It has three movements, and each ends with the same declaration:
“Let them praise your great and awesome name.Holy is he!“ (99:3)
“Extol the LORD our God; worship at his footstool.Holy is he!“ (99:5)
“Extol the LORD our God, and worship at his holy mountain;for the LORD our God is holy.“ (99:9)
Three times holy. Many readers have heard in this an echo of the seraphim in the Temple vision of Isaiah, who cry “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts” (Isaiah 6:3) — the song the Book of Revelation hears around the throne of heaven (Revelation 4:8), and the song the Church still sings at every Mass. Whether or not the psalmist intended the echo, the effect is the same. Everything the psalm says about God — including the line we are studying — is said under the refrain Holy is he.
Each movement also has its own focus. The first places God “enthroned upon the cherubim” (99:1), the winged figures above the Ark of the Covenant. The second calls Israel to worship “at his footstool” (99:5) — another name for the Ark, which King David called “the footstool of our God” (1 Chronicles 28:2). And the third moves from the ark to the whole of God’s “holy mountain”, Zion (99:9). Between the second and third refrains comes a short history lesson: Moses, Aaron and Samuel, the cloud, the decrees, the answered prayers — and our verse.
Why Moses suddenly appears
Psalm 99 belongs to Book IV of the Psalter (Psalms 90–106). The Psalter is divided into five books, and scholars have noticed something remarkable about this fourth one. Moses is named only once in the first three books (77:20). In Book IV he is named seven times: in the heading of Psalm 90, “A Prayer of Moses, the man of God” — the only psalm attributed to him — and in 99:6, 103:7, 105:26 and three times in Psalm 106.
Why? A widely discussed proposal, developed by the American scholar Gerald Wilson and many after him, notes what comes immediately before Book IV. Psalm 89, which closes Book III, is a bitter lament over the collapse of the Davidic monarchy: the crown has been “defiled in the dust” (89:39) and God seems to have renounced his covenant with David. Book IV answers that crisis by reaching back past David to an older foundation — to the God who was King before Israel ever had a king, and to Moses, the man who stood between God and a sinful people and prayed. Not every scholar accepts every detail of this reading, but the concentration of Moses in these psalms is a fact, and it shapes how Psalm 99 should be heard. It was a psalm for people who had seen their institutions fail and needed to remember what God was like.
The three who prayed
The psalm calls Moses and Aaron “among his priests”, which may surprise us; we think of Aaron as the priest and Moses as the lawgiver. But Moses did perform priestly acts, sprinkling the blood of the covenant at Sinai (Exodus 24:6–8) and ordaining Aaron himself (Leviticus 8). And Samuel is remembered, “among those who called on his name”. What unites the three is not their office but their prayer.
Each of them stood between God and the people at a moment of disaster.
Moses pleaded for Israel after the golden calf (Exodus 32:11–14, 30–32), and again after the people refused to enter the promised land (Numbers 14:13–19). A later psalm in Book IV remembers it vividly: God “said he would destroy them — had not Moses, his chosen one, stood in the breach before him, to turn away his wrath from destroying them” (Psalm 106:23).
Aaron, when a plague broke out among the rebellious people, ran into the middle of the assembly with a censer of burning incense: “He stood between the dead and the living; and the plague was stopped” (Numbers 16:48).
Samuel, when the Philistines threatened Israel, offered a lamb and “cried out to the LORD for Israel, and the LORD answered him” (1 Samuel 7:9). Years later, when the people begged him to keep praying for them, he replied: “far be it from me that I should sin against the LORD by ceasing to pray for you” (1 Samuel 12:23).
So famous were Moses and Samuel as intercessors that the prophet Jeremiah could use them as the ultimate example. At a moment when Judah’s judgment was sealed, God told him: “Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my heart would not turn toward this people” (Jeremiah 15:1). If anyone’s prayers could change God’s mind, it was theirs.
That is why our verse is so arresting. These were the people whose prayers God answered. And of these very people the psalm says: you were a forgiving God to them, but an avenger of their wrongdoings. Interpreters differ over exactly whose wrongdoings are meant, as we shall see; but on any reading, the line sets forgiveness and justice side by side in a hymn about God’s closest friends.
The Bible’s oldest confession about God
To understand our verse, we need to hear what lies behind it. In the Book of Exodus, after the golden calf, God passes before Moses on Mount Sinai and proclaims his own name:
“The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for the thousandth generation, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, yet by no means clearing the guilty…” (Exodus 34:6–7)
This is perhaps the most quoted passage in the Old Testament about the character of God. Moses quotes it back to God in prayer (Numbers 14:18). Nehemiah, the Psalms, Joel, Jonah and Nahum all echo it (Nehemiah 9:17; Psalms 86:15, 103:8, 145:8; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2; Nahum 1:3). And it contains exactly the two halves of Psalm 99:8. Forgiving iniquity — and by no means clearing the guilty.
The Hebrew makes the connection plain. The phrase “forgiving iniquity” in Exodus 34:7 begins with the word nośeʾ, and Psalm 99:8 calls God ʾel nośeʾ, “a forgiving God”, using the same word. The psalmist is not inventing a new idea. He is singing Israel’s oldest creed back to God, and then pointing to history to show that it is true.
And the history he has in mind is not abstract. It begins with Aaron — one of the very men named in the psalm — standing at the foot of Sinai making a golden calf (Exodus 32:1–6, 21–24). Moses pleaded for the people. God relented from destroying them. And yet the narrative closes with a sentence that holds both halves together: “Then the LORD sent a plague on the people, because they made the calf — the one that Aaron made” (Exodus 32:35). The man who made the idol was not struck down; he went on to become Israel’s first high priest. That is forgiveness of a breathtaking kind. But the calf was not treated as though it had never existed.
Monday’s road: a fig tree and a temple
Mark 11:22 comes from the earliest of the four Gospels, usually dated to the late 60s AD. An ancient tradition, preserved by the second-century bishop Papias and reported by the historian Eusebius, links Mark’s Gospel with the preaching of Peter in Rome. That is worth remembering this week, because Peter is the one who speaks just before our verse.
The scene is the last week of Jesus’ life. He has entered Jerusalem to acclaim (11:1–11). The next morning, walking in from Bethany, he is hungry, sees a fig tree in leaf, and finds “nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs” (11:13). He pronounces that no one will ever eat from it again. Then he enters the Temple, drives out the traders and money-changers, and quotes two prophets: “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers” (11:17; Isaiah 56:7; Jeremiah 7:11).
The next morning they pass the fig tree again, “withered away to its roots” (11:20). Peter remembers: “Rabbi, look! The fig tree that you cursed has withered” (11:21). And Jesus answers with our verse — “Have faith in God” — followed at once by three sayings about faith, prayer and forgiveness:
“Truly I tell you, if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ and if you do not doubt in your heart, but believe that what you say will come to pass, it will be done for you. So I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone; so that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses.” (11:23–25)
Scholars have long noticed that Mark tells this story in a characteristic way: he splits one story in two and sets another story in the middle, so that each interprets the other. The fig tree is the bread of the sandwich; the Temple is the filling. A tree that looks alive but bears no fruit frames a Temple that is busy with religion but has stopped being a house of prayer. The fig tree was a familiar prophetic image for Israel’s fruitfulness or barrenness (Jeremiah 8:13; Hosea 9:10; Micah 7:1), and the odd detail that it was “not the season for figs” signals that we are watching an acted parable, like the sign-actions of the prophets, rather than a moment of irritation.
Notice what follows. Jesus speaks of faith, of prayer that is answered, and of forgiveness — and says nothing about the Temple at all. For people who believed that the Temple was where God was found and where sins were dealt with, this was startling. Faith is not to rest in the institution, however holy. It is to rest in God.
Tuesday’s dust: the darkest chapter of Daniel
Daniel 12:1–2 is the climax of the last and longest vision in the Book of Daniel (chapters 10–12). The book is set in the courts of Babylon and Persia in the sixth century BC; its first half tells stories of faithful Jews in a foreign empire (chapters 1–6), and its second half records visions of the future (chapters 7–12). Part of it is written in Aramaic, the rest in Hebrew. In the Christian Old Testament it stands among the Prophets; in the Hebrew Bible it belongs to the Writings.
When was it written? The traditional view holds that the visions come from Daniel himself in the sixth century. Most modern scholars, including many Catholic scholars, conclude that the book reached its final form in the 160s BC, during the persecution of the Jews by the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The reason is chapter 11, which traces the wars between the “king of the south” and the “king of the north” in increasing detail until it reaches a “contemptible person” (11:21) who profanes the Temple and sets up “the abomination that makes desolate” (11:31). The First Book of Maccabees uses the same phrase for the pagan altar erected in the Temple in 167 BC (1 Maccabees 1:54). Whichever dating a reader holds, the situation the vision addresses is not in doubt: a time when faithful people were being killed for keeping God’s law, and their persecutors seemed to be winning.
The verse before ours tells of that persecutor’s end, “with no one to help him” (11:45). Then: “At that time Michael, the great prince, the protector of your people, shall arise.”
The Second Book of Maccabees, which belongs to the Catholic and Orthodox canons, tells stories from the same crisis. The most famous is the martyrdom of seven brothers and their mother, who refused to break God’s law under torture. As the second brother dies, he says to the king: “the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life, because we have died for his laws” (2 Maccabees 7:9). Daniel 12 and 2 Maccabees 7 answer the same anguished question. If the faithful die and their murderers live on in power, where is God’s justice? Their answer: it does not end at the grave.
Wednesday’s heaven: the song after Babylon falls
Revelation 19:1 comes from the last book of the Bible, written by a prophet named John on the island of Patmos (1:9) to seven churches in the Roman province of Asia (chapters 2–3). Most scholars date it to the reign of the Emperor Domitian, around AD 95, following the testimony of the second-century bishop Irenaeus; some argue for an earlier date in the late 60s. It is a letter, a prophecy and an apocalypse — a revealing, in vivid symbols, of what is really happening behind the surface of history.
Chapters 17–18 describe the fall of “Babylon the great”, a city seated on seven hills (17:9) and drunk with the blood of the saints (17:6) — almost certainly a symbol for Rome, the oppressive empire of John’s day, and for every empire like it. Chapter 18 ends with merchants and kings lamenting her fall, and then a summons: “Rejoice over her, O heaven, you saints and apostles and prophets! For God has given judgment for you against her” (18:20).
Our verse is heaven’s answer. Chapter 19 opens with the first of four “Hallelujahs” (19:1, 3, 4, 6), and the reason is given at once: “for his judgments are true and just; he has judged the great whore who corrupted the earth with her fornication, and he has avenged on her the blood of his servants” (19:2). The section ends not with a courtroom but with a wedding: “Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come” (19:7).
Thursday’s table: the night before
John 14:14 belongs to what scholars call the Farewell Discourse (John 13:31–17:26), the long conversation between Jesus and his disciples at the Last Supper. The Fourth Gospel, traditionally associated with the beloved disciple, probably reached its final form late in the first century. Scholars have often compared the Farewell Discourse to the farewell speeches of great figures in the Old Testament, in which a leader about to die gathers his people, reminds them of what God has done, and tells them how to live when he is gone. The greatest example of that kind of speech is the whole Book of Deuteronomy — the book from which Saturday’s verse comes.
The chapter opens with words that link back to Monday: “Do not let your hearts be troubled. Believe in God, believe also in me” (14:1). And our verse is set inside a carefully built passage:
“Very truly, I tell you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that I do and, in fact, will do greater works than these, because I am going to the Father. I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If in my name you ask me for anything, I will do it. If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” (14:12–15)
The promise of answered prayer is framed by believing on one side and loving obedience on the other. And it has a stated purpose: so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
Friday’s threshold: at the door of the house of God
Ecclesiastes 5:7 comes from the most puzzling and, for many readers, the most honest book in the Bible’s wisdom literature. Its speaker calls himself Qoheleth, usually translated “the Teacher” or “the Preacher”, and presents himself as a son of David, king in Jerusalem (1:1). The tradition linked the book with Solomon; most modern scholars date it, on the evidence of its late Hebrew and its vocabulary, to the Persian or early Hellenistic period, perhaps in the fourth or third century BC. Its famous refrain — hevel, usually translated “vanity” — runs through the whole book.
Our verse closes a small, self-contained unit about worship (5:1–7). In Hebrew Bibles, the verse numbers differ by one, so our verse is 5:6 there. The unit begins at the Temple door: “Guard your steps when you go to the house of God; to draw near to listen is better than the sacrifice offered by fools” (5:1). It warns against hasty speech: “Never be rash with your mouth, nor let your heart be quick to utter a word before God, for God is in heaven, and you upon earth; therefore let your words be few” (5:2). It warns against careless vows: “When you make a vow to God, do not delay fulfilling it… It is better that you should not vow than that you should vow and not fulfill it” (5:4–5). It warns against wriggling out of them afterwards: “do not say before the messenger that it was a mistake” (5:6). And it ends with our verse: “With many dreams come vanities and a multitude of words; but fear God.”
Saturday’s kitchen: a speech on the edge of the promised land
Deuteronomy 14:2 belongs to the book that presents itself as Moses’ farewell: a series of speeches delivered “beyond the Jordan”, on the plains of Moab, as Israel waited to cross into the land (1:1–5). Jewish and Christian tradition received it as the words of Moses. Many modern scholars connect its central law code with the “book of the law” found in the Temple during the reign of King Josiah in about 622 BC (2 Kings 22), and think the book reached its final form during the exile. For our purposes, the book’s own framing is what matters, and it is deeply moving. These are the words of a man speaking to a people about to enter a land that he himself will never enter.
Chapter 14 sits within the long central code of laws (chapters 12–26). It opens with mourning — “You are children of the LORD your God. You must not lacerate yourselves or shave your forelocks for the dead” (14:1) — and moves to food, listing animals that may and may not be eaten (14:3–21). It then turns to the tithe, including a third-year tithe set aside so that “the Levites… as well as the resident aliens, the orphans, and the widows in your towns, may come and eat their fill” (14:29).
Our verse is the reason for all of it. And it is repeated, almost word for word, at the end of the food laws: “For you are a people holy to the LORD your God” (14:21). The same declaration of identity frames the graveside and the kitchen.
Things ancient readers knew without being told
To intercede was to stand in the breach. When a city wall was broken, someone had to stand in the gap and hold it. The prophets used this as an image of prayer for a guilty people (Psalm 106:23; Ezekiel 22:30). Moses, Aaron and Samuel were remembered as people who stood in the breach. To be answered by God, in this world, was not to receive a personal favour. It was to have one’s intercession for others accepted.
A name carried authority. To act “in the name” of someone was to act as their authorised representative, carrying their authority and bound by their purposes — much as a modern agent acts under a power of attorney, which authorises the agent to act only for the principal and within the limits of the grant. Readers trained in law will recognise the principle at once: an agent who uses a power of attorney for private ends has not exercised the authority at all; he has abused it. This is the world in which Jesus said, “If in my name you ask me for anything.”
Vows were binding, public and witnessed. A vow made to God at the sanctuary was a legal and religious obligation. The Law said plainly: “If you make a vow to the LORD your God, do not postpone fulfilling it” (Deuteronomy 23:21; compare Numbers 30:2). Qoheleth’s “messenger” (Ecclesiastes 5:6) may be a Temple official who came to collect what had been promised; the prophet Malachi calls the priest “the messenger of the LORD of hosts” (Malachi 2:7). To say “it was a mistake” was to try to talk one’s way out of a debt.
The neighbours mourned with knives. Gashing the body and shaving part of the head were widespread mourning rites in the ancient Near East. The Bible mentions them as practices of Israel’s neighbours, and sometimes of Israelites themselves (1 Kings 18:28; Jeremiah 16:6; 41:5; Leviticus 19:28). Deuteronomy’s prohibition was not a matter of hygiene. It was a statement about grief, identity and hope.
Heaven kept records. Ancient kings kept registers of citizens and books of record. The Book of Esther turns on a sleepless night in which King Ahasuerus has the royal chronicles read aloud and discovers that Mordecai’s loyalty has never been rewarded (Esther 6:1–3). The Bible speaks of God’s own books in the same way: a register of the living (Isaiah 4:3), a book of the faithful (Exodus 32:32–33; Psalm 69:28), a “book of remembrance” (Malachi 3:16). Daniel’s “book” draws on this world. Nothing done is lost.
“Hallelujah” was a Temple word. It is Hebrew, not Greek, and it belongs to the worship of Jerusalem. The group of psalms known as the Hallel (Psalms 113–118) was sung at the great festivals, including Passover, and most scholars think it is the “hymn” Jesus and his disciples sang as they left the Last Supper (Mark 14:26).
The theological heart of the week: holiness
One word holds this week together, and it is not forgiveness or punishment. It is holiness.
Psalm 99 says three times that God is holy. Deuteronomy 14 says twice that Israel is holy because it belongs to him. And the Bible’s story of Moses and Aaron at the waters of Meribah — which one traditional interpretation connects with the “wrongdoings” of our psalm, though the precise referent remains disputed — turns on exactly this word. When the people complained of thirst, God told Moses to speak to the rock. Moses, exasperated, struck it twice and said, “Listen, you rebels, shall we bring water for you out of this rock?” (Numbers 20:10). The water came. God provided for the people even in that moment. And then:
“But the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, ‘Because you did not trust in me, to show my holiness before the eyes of the Israelites, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land that I have given them.'” (Numbers 20:12)
You did not trust in me — the failure was a failure of faith, the subject of Monday’s verse. To show my holiness — the failure was a failure to let God be holy, the subject of the psalm’s refrain. Interpreters, Jewish and Christian, have debated for centuries what exactly Moses’ sin was: striking instead of speaking, the anger, the “we” that took the credit, or all three. But the consequence is stated plainly. Moses and Aaron would not enter the land.
There is an older word in Leviticus that explains why. After two of Aaron’s sons offered “unholy fire” before the LORD and died, Moses said to his brother: “This is what the LORD meant when he said, ‘Through those who are near me I will show myself holy, and before all the people I will be glorified.'” And the text adds, with terrible simplicity: “And Aaron was silent” (Leviticus 10:3). Readers who were with us last week will remember the Hebrew verb, damam, from Psalm 4: “ponder it on your beds, and be silent.”
Through those who are near me I will show myself holy. Nearness to God does not exempt anyone from his holiness. It intensifies it. The prophet Amos says the same thing to a whole nation, in words that join Saturday’s verse to Sunday’s: “You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities” (Amos 3:2). Chosen out of all the peoples — and therefore held to account.
That is the hidden architecture of this week. God’s holiness is the reason he forgives, because a holy God is utterly faithful to his covenant and his love. And God’s holiness is the reason he does not treat sin as though it were nothing, because a holy God cannot pretend. Read this way, the two halves of Psalm 99:8 are not a contradiction in God’s character but two faces of the same holiness.
Lexical Notes
1.ʿanitam— “you answered them” (Psalm 99:8)
יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ אַתָּה עֲנִיתָם
The verb עָנָה (ʿanah) means to answer, respond, reply. It is the ordinary word for answering a question, and the great word for God answering prayer: “I called to the LORD out of my distress, and he answered me” (Jonah 2:2).
Notice how the psalm uses it. Verse 6 says, in the third person, “They cried to the LORD, and he answered them.” Verse 8 repeats the verb, but now in the second person, with an emphatic pronoun: “O LORD our God,youanswered them.” The psalmist stops talking about God and begins talking to him. The history lesson turns into prayer.
What is easy to miss is that in the Bible, an answer is not always a yes. Moses prayed to enter the promised land, and God answered him — with a refusal (Deuteronomy 3:23–26). Paul prayed three times for his “thorn in the flesh” to be removed, and the Lord answered — not with removal but with grace (2 Corinthians 12:8–9). The God who answers is a God who speaks back, not a machine that dispenses.
Why it matters: Psalm 99:8 begins not with forgiveness or punishment but with answer. Whatever follows happens inside a relationship in which God listens and replies.
2.ʾel nośeʾ— “a forgiving God” (Psalm 99:8)
אֵל נֹשֵׂא הָיִיתָ לָהֶם
נָשָׂא (naśaʾ) is one of the most common verbs in the Hebrew Bible. Its basic meaning is physical: to lift, to carry, to bear a load. People lift their eyes, carry children, bear burdens. When it is used with words for sin, it becomes one of the Bible’s great words for forgiveness: God lifts the sin and carries it away.
The same phrase can work in two directions, and the double meaning is profound. A guilty person can “bear his iniquity”, meaning he carries its weight and its penalty himself (Leviticus 5:1, 17). Or someone else can bear it away. On the Day of Atonement, “The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a barren region” (Leviticus 16:22). Of the Suffering Servant, Isaiah says: “he bore the sin of many” (Isaiah 53:12). The question that every sinner faces is simply this: who will carry it?
Cain, after murdering his brother, uses the same verb in despair: “My punishment is greater than I can bear!” (Genesis 4:13). The Hebrew word he uses for “punishment”, ʿawon, is also the ordinary word for iniquity. The Bible does not always separate the sin from its weight.
So when Psalm 99:8 calls God ʾel nośeʾ, it is not saying merely that God overlooks sin. It is saying that God lifts it: that he is a God who carries. It is the same participle as in Exodus 34:7, nośeʾ ʿawon, “forgiving iniquity”. The Greek translators rendered the phrase euilatos, “propitious, gracious”. John the Baptist would one day point at Jesus and say, “Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29). Peter would write that “He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross” (1 Peter 2:24).
Readers who were with us last week will remember that in Hebrew, glory is weight. This week we learn that forgiveness is weight too — not added, but lifted.
Why it matters: forgiveness in the Bible is not a shrug. It costs the one who forgives. God does not pretend the load is light; he carries it.
3.noqem ʿal ʿalilotam— “an avenger of their wrongdoings” (Psalm 99:8)
וְנֹקֵם עַל־עֲלִילוֹתָם
נָקַם (naqam) means to avenge, take vengeance, exact retribution; noqem is the participle, “one who avenges”. English vengeance suggests private spite — the wounded person getting even. The Hebrew word has a different centre of gravity. The most thorough modern study of the root, by the Dutch Old Testament scholar H. G. L. Peels (The Vengeance of God, 1995), concluded that when the Bible speaks of God’s vengeance it normally means the legitimate action of the supreme Judge restoring justice — not an outburst of temper but the execution of a just verdict. Peels stressed the positive function of the theme in the Old Testament: God’s vengeance is what stands between the vulnerable and those who would crush them.
That is why the Psalms can pray: “O LORD, you God of vengeance, you God of vengeance, shine forth! Rise up, O judge of the earth” (Psalm 94:1–2). The God of vengeance and the judge of the earth are one figure.
It is also why human beings are forbidden to take vengeance for themselves. The great commandment that Jesus quotes in this morning’s Gospel comes from a verse whose first half is about exactly this: “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbour as yourself: I am the LORD” (Leviticus 19:18). The verb for “take vengeance” is our verb, naqam. Paul puts the two sides together: “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord'” (Romans 12:19, quoting Deuteronomy 32:35). Vengeance is not abolished. It is reserved for the only one who can exercise it justly.
The second word, עֲלִילוֹת (ʿalilot), means deeds, doings, actions, often with a negative colouring: the “abominable deeds” of the fool (Psalm 14:1) use the same root. The King James Version’s “thou tookest vengeance of their inventions” follows the Latin Vulgate’s adinventiones. The Greek translation renders the whole phrase ekdikōn epi panta ta epitēdeumata autōn, “avenging all their practices” — and the Greek verb ekdikeō is the one Revelation will use on Wednesday: “he has avenged on her the blood of his servants” (19:2).
Whose wrongdoings? Here interpreters genuinely differ, and the honest course is to set out the main readings.
The intercessors’ own wrongdoings. Moses and Aaron were forgiven, yet they did not enter the land because of what happened at Meribah (Numbers 20:12, 24). Many commentators take it this way, and it is a natural reading of the pronoun, though not the only possible one.
The wrongdoings of the people for whom they prayed. The ancient Aramaic paraphrase of the Psalms, the Targum, understood the verse to mean that God forgave the people for the sake of their intercessors. In the wilderness, for example, God told Moses, “I do forgive, just as you have asked; nevertheless” — and the generation that had refused to enter the land died in the wilderness (Numbers 14:20–23). Some modern translations make this explicit; the NIV, for example, reads “you were to Israel a forgiving God, though you punished their misdeeds.”
The wrongs donetothem. The medieval Jewish commentator David Kimchi, among others, read the line as God avenging the intercessors against those who rebelled against them, such as Korah and his followers (Numbers 16). The NIV offers this as an alternative in its footnote: “an avenger of the wrongs done to them.”
The first two readings say the same thing from different angles: God’s forgiveness is real and his holiness is not suspended. The third adds something important that we will return to: the God who avenges is the protector of those who are wronged.
Why it matters: in the Bible, God’s “vengeance” is not the opposite of his love. It is his justice, taking the side of the wronged and refusing to treat evil as if it did not matter.
4.qadosh hu— “Holy is he” (Psalm 99:3, 5, 9)
קָדוֹשׁ הוּא
קָדוֹשׁ (qadosh) is usually translated as “holy”. Its root idea is not first of all moral purity but otherness: being set apart, distinct, belonging wholly to God and not available for common use. A holy object is withdrawn from ordinary life and dedicated to God. A holy God is not one more item in the universe, however large; he is in a category of his own.
But in Scripture, God’s otherness is never cold. It is the otherness of perfect goodness, faithfulness and love, which is why it is also described as fire: “For the LORD your God is a devouring fire” (Deuteronomy 4:24; compare Hebrews 12:29). Holiness draws near and burns.
The Song of Moses at the Red Sea asks the question that holiness raises: “Who is like you, O LORD, among the gods? Who is like you, majestic in holiness?” (Exodus 15:11). Keep that question in mind. On Tuesday we will meet an angel whose name is that question.
Why it matters: the psalm says everything it says about forgiveness and vengeance under this refrain. God forgives because he is holy; he does not wink at sin because he is holy. And Saturday’s verse uses the same word of a people: “a people holy to the LORD your God.”
5.pistin theou— “faith in God” (Mark 11:22)
ἔχετε πίστιν θεοῦ
The command is in the present imperative: not a single act of believing, but keep having faith. The noun πίστις (pistis) means trust, faith, confidence, and also faithfulness. In Mark, it is above all the trust that brings people to Jesus: “Daughter, your faith has made you well” (5:34); “Why are you afraid? Have you still no faith?” (4:40).
The phrase pistin theou is grammatically ambiguous. Greek uses the genitive case (theou, “of God”) for many relationships. Most translators and commentators take it as an objective genitive, with God as the object of faith: “have faith in God”. A minority have argued for a subjective genitive, “have God’s faith” or “hold on to God’s faithfulness”, and older English versions such as the Geneva Bible rendered it “Have the faith of God.” The majority reading fits the context best, but the minority reading is a useful reminder that faith in God rests on God’s own faithfulness.
There is also a small textual variant. Some early manuscripts read “If you have faith in God”, joining the phrase to the next sentence: If you have faith in God, truly I tell you… Most modern editions prefer the simple command.
What matters most is what the verse does not say. It does not say “have great faith” or “have more faith”. It says have faith in God. In the Gospels, the strength of faith is measured less by its intensity than by its object. A mustard seed of faith in God moves mountains; a mountain of faith in anything else moves nothing.
6. Michael, the anguish, the book and the dust (Daniel 12:1–2)
Daniel 12:1–2 is dense with significant words. A few of them repay attention.
מִיכָאֵל (Mikhaʾel), Michael, is a question: “Who is like God?” It is the question of Exodus 15:11, “Who is like you… majestic in holiness?”, turned into a name. In Daniel, he is one of the chief angelic princes (10:13, 21). In the New Testament he is called “the archangel” (Jude 9) and leads the heavenly army against the dragon: “Michael and his angels fought against the dragon” (Revelation 12:7), the battle that ends, as we saw last Sunday, with “the accuser of our comrades” thrown down.
הָעֹמֵד עַל (haʿomed ʿal), literally “who stands over”, is rendered by the NRSV as “the protector of”. The verb ʿamad, “to stand”, appears twice in the verse: Michael “shall arise” (yaʿamod, literally “shall stand up”) and is the one “who stands over” the people. Many interpreters hear courtroom language here. In the prophet Zechariah’s vision, Satan is seen “standing at his right hand to accuse him” (Zechariah 3:1). In a heavenly court, one stands to accuse — or to defend. Michael stands up for his people.
עֵת צָרָה (ʿet tsarah), “a time of anguish”. The noun tsarah comes from a root meaning narrow or tight: distress is the experience of being hemmed in, with no room to move. Daniel echoes Jeremiah: “it is a time of distress for Jacob; yet he shall be rescued from it” (Jeremiah 30:7). Jesus echoes Daniel when he warns of “great suffering, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now” (Matthew 24:21).
יִמָּלֵט (yimmalet), “shall be delivered”, means to escape, slip away, be rescued. It is the verb of the prophet Joel’s promise: “everyone who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved” (Joel 2:32). Deliverance in Daniel comes “at that time” — inside the anguish, not instead of it.
סֵפֶר (sefer), “book”. The delivered are “everyone who is found written in the book.”
יְשֵׁנֵי אַדְמַת־עָפָר (yeshene ʾadmat-ʿafar), literally “sleepers of the ground of dust”. Dust recalls the curse of Genesis: “you are dust, and to dust you shall return” (Genesis 3:19). Sleep became the gentlest Christian word for death. Our word cemetery comes from the Greek koimētērion, “a place for sleeping”.
יָקִיצוּ (yaqitsu), “shall awake”. Isaiah had already sung it: “Your dead shall live, their corpses shall rise. O dwellers in the dust, awake and sing for joy!” (Isaiah 26:19).
חַיֵּי עוֹלָם (ḥayye ʿolam), “everlasting life”. This is the only place in the Hebrew Bible where this exact phrase occurs. It became, through the Greek zōē aiōnios, one of the central phrases of the New Testament: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life” (John 3:16).
חֲרָפוֹת (ḥarafot), “shame”, is literally plural: “reproaches” or “disgraces”. And דִּרְאוֹן עוֹלָם (dirʾon ʿolam), “everlasting contempt”, uses a word that occurs in only one other place in the whole Hebrew Bible: the last verse of Isaiah, where those who rebelled against God “shall be an abhorrence to all flesh” (Isaiah 66:24). Interpreters differ on whether the “contempt” in Daniel describes what the wicked will experience or how they will be regarded; Isaiah’s parallel suggests the latter.
One more word deserves notice: רַבִּים (rabbim), “many”. Does Daniel mean all the dead, or many of them? Some interpreters take “many” in the inclusive Hebrew sense of “the multitude”; others think Daniel has in view the martyrs and their persecutors, whose stories had not been finished in this life. The New Testament speaks of the resurrection of all (John 5:28–29; Acts 24:15).
Hallelujah is a Hebrew phrase carried over into Greek: halelu, “praise!” (a plural command), and Yah, a short form of the divine name. It means “Praise the LORD!”, addressed to a whole congregation.
It appears often in the Psalms, but in the New Testament only here, in Revelation 19 (verses 1, 3, 4 and 6). There is a striking fact about its first appearance in the Psalter. The rabbis of the Talmud noticed that the word Hallelujah does not occur until the end of Psalm 104, after a prayer for the end of wickedness: “Let sinners be consumed from the earth, and let the wicked be no more. Bless the LORD, O my soul. Praise the LORD!” (104:35). They drew a conclusion that would astonish many modern readers: the first Hallelujah in Scripture is sung in response to the downfall of evil (Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot 9b–10a). Revelation 19 does exactly the same.
The proclamation itself has no verb in Greek: “The salvation and the glory and the power — of our God.” The definite articles matter. This is not some salvation but the salvation; and it does not merely come from God, it belongs to him. Several translations bring this out: “Salvation and glory and power belong to our God” (ESV). The same cry is heard earlier in the book: “Salvation belongs to our God who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb!” (7:10).
σωτηρία (sōtēria) means rescue, deliverance, safety, victory. δόξα (doxa), as we saw last week, is glory — the weight of God’s presence. δύναμις (dynamis) is power, ability, might.
Why it matters: heaven’s first word after judgment is not revenge but salvation. Judgment, in Revelation, is how God rescues.
8.ean ti aitēsēte me en tō onomati mou— “If in my name you ask me for anything” (John 14:14)
ἐάν τι αἰτήσητέ με ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου ἐγὼ ποιήσω
αἰτέω (aiteō) is the ordinary word for asking, requesting, petitioning. It is not a word for demanding.
The Greek ends with an emphatic pronoun: egō poiēsō, “Iwill do it.” Jesus himself is the one who acts.
This verse has two textual questions, and both are worth knowing. First, some manuscripts omit the whole verse. The translators’ handbook published by the United Bible Societies judges that the evidence favours keeping it, and suggests that some scribes dropped it because it seemed to repeat verse 13, or because it seemed to sit awkwardly with John 16:23. Second, some manuscripts omit the word me, “askme“. Most modern translations, including the NRSV, keep it on the strength of the better manuscripts; the King James and the Revised Standard Version follow manuscripts without it.
If me is original, the verse is remarkable. Jesus speaks of prayer addressed to him, which he will answer. In the Old Testament, the faithful “called on the name of the LORD” (Psalm 99:6; Joel 2:32). The early Church applied Joel’s promise directly to Jesus (Acts 2:21; Romans 10:13).
The phrase ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου (en tō onomati mou), “in my name”, reflects the Hebrew idiom be-shem, acting in someone’s name: as their representative, by their authority, in keeping with their character and purposes. It is not a password or a formula added at the end of a prayer. The Acts of the Apostles tells a cautionary tale about people who treated it that way. Some itinerant exorcists tried to use Jesus’ name like a spell — “I adjure you by the Jesus whom Paul proclaims” — and the possessed man overpowered them (Acts 19:13–16). The name was real. Their relationship to it was not.
Why it matters: the promise is as wide as “anything” and as narrow as “in my name”. Both halves are meant seriously.
9.halomot,havalimandyeraʾ— “dreams”, “vanities” and “fear” (Ecclesiastes 5:7)
This is one of the most difficult verses in a difficult book. The translators’ handbook of the United Bible Societies calls it extremely difficult, and specialist commentators agree. Word for word, the Hebrew says something like: “For in a multitude of dreams and vapours and words — many; for God — fear!” There is no main verb in the first half, and translators have to supply one. Compare:
“With many dreams come vanities and a multitude of words; but fear God” (NRSV);
“For when dreams increase and words grow many, there is vanity; but God is the one you must fear” (ESV);
“For in the multitude of dreams and many words there are also divers vanities: but fear thou God” (KJV).
חֲלֹמוֹת (ḥalomot), “dreams”. Two verses earlier Qoheleth has said that “dreams come with many cares” (5:3) — the busy, anxious imaginings of a mind that will not rest. Here dreams probably means grand intentions that never become reality: the vow made in a moment of feeling and never paid.
הֲבָלִים (havalim) is the plural of הֶבֶל (hevel), the book’s signature word. It means vapour, breath, mist: something real but insubstantial, there and then gone. Translations vary — vanity, futility, meaninglessness, emptiness, a breath — and each catches part of it. Words multiplied before God are breath.
The final clause places God first for emphasis: ʾet-haʾelohim yeraʾ, “God — fear him.” The verb יָרֵא (yareʾ) covers a range from terror to reverence. When used of God in the wisdom books, it means a deep, steady awe that shapes conduct: “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom” (Proverbs 9:10). Qoheleth ends his whole book on this note: “Fear God, and keep his commandments; for that is the whole duty of everyone” (Ecclesiastes 12:13).
Why it matters: the opposite of many words is not silence for its own sake. It is reverence: the awareness, in Qoheleth’s own phrase, that “God is in heaven, and you upon earth.”
עַם קָדוֹשׁ (ʿam qadosh), “a holy people”, uses the same word as the refrain of Psalm 99. Notice that the sentence is in the indicative: you are a holy people. Holiness is first a gift and an identity, and only then a calling. Deuteronomy does not say, Become holy so that God will choose you. It says, You are holy because God has chosen you — therefore live like it.
בָּחַר (baḥar), “chosen”. The Hebrew word order is emphatic — literally “andyouthe LORD has chosen” — which the NRSV captures with “it is you the LORD has chosen.” Deuteronomy is careful to say why: “It was not because you were more numerous than any other people that the LORD set his heart on you and chose you — for you were the fewest of all peoples. It was because the LORD loved you” (Deuteronomy 7:7–8). Election is not a reward. It is love.
סְגֻלָּה (segullah) is one of the warmest words in the Old Testament. It means a personal treasure: property that belongs to someone in a special, private way. King David uses it of his own gold and silver, given to the Temple out of devotion: “I have a treasure of my own” (1 Chronicles 29:3). Qoheleth uses it of “the treasure of kings” (Ecclesiastes 2:8). When God calls Israel his segullah (Exodus 19:5; Deuteronomy 7:6; 14:2; 26:18; Psalm 135:4; Malachi 3:17), he is saying: the whole earth is mine, but you are mine in a way nothing else is.
The Greek translators of the Old Testament rendered ʿam segullah in Deuteronomy as laos periousios, “a people of his own possession”. That phrase appears exactly once in the New Testament: “He it is who gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity and purify for himselfa people of his ownwho are zealous for good deeds” (Titus 2:14). And Peter, in the letter we studied last week, gathers the same vocabulary for the Church: “you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people” (1 Peter 2:9).
Why it matters: to be God’s treasured possession is not to be exempt from his holiness. It is the reason for it. You take most care with what you treasure most.
Reading the Passage Closely
Read Psalm 99:8 slowly, in its setting, and several things come into view.
First, it begins with a covenant name and a possessive.“O LORD our God.” Before anything is said about forgiveness or vengeance, the psalm establishes a relationship. This is not a description of a distant deity. It is a people addressing their God.
Second, the verb “answered” comes first, and it is repeated. Verse 6 reports that God answered; verse 8 turns to God and says You answered. The psalm moves from history to address, from talking about God to talking to him. Forgiveness and vengeance are both placed inside an answered relationship.
Third, the same people receive both.“You were a forgiving Godto them, but an avenger oftheirwrongdoings.” The psalm does not divide the world into forgiven people and punished people. It speaks of the same three men — or the same people for whom they prayed — under both headings. (If the line means instead that God avenged wrongs done to them, the pairing is different but no less striking: the God who forgives is also the God who defends.)
Fourth, the conjunction is open. The NRSV’s “but” and the King James’ “though” translate the single Hebrew letter waw, which can mean “and” as easily as “but”. The psalmist does not explain how the two halves relate. He places them side by side and lets them stand. That is worth noticing, because most of us would want to qualify one half to protect the other. The psalm does not.
Fifth, the tense is past.“Youwerea forgiving God.” This is not speculation about how God might behave. It is testimony about how he did behave, in specific episodes of Israel’s history that every worshipper knew.
Sixth, the line is followed immediately by worship.“Extol the LORD our God, and worship at his holy mountain; for the LORD our God is holy” (99:9). The avenging is not something the psalmist mentions reluctantly and hurries past. It is a reason for worship, alongside the forgiveness.
Seventh, the people named are the greatest, not the worst. If Psalm 99:8 had been written about Pharaoh or the builders of Babel, it would be unremarkable. It is written about Moses, Aaron and Samuel. If, as one traditional interpretation holds, even they were not exempt, no one is. And if even Aaron — who made the golden calf — was forgiven, anyone can be.
Now notice what the text does not say.
It does not say that every hardship is a punishment. The Bible is emphatic about this elsewhere. When the disciples asked whether a man’s blindness was caused by his sin or his parents’, Jesus answered: “Neither this man nor his parents sinned” (John 9:3). The entire Book of Job is a protest against the assumption that suffering always proves guilt. Psalm 99:8 speaks of specific wrongdoings in specific stories. It does not license us to diagnose every illness, loss or setback as a sentence from God — in our own lives, and still less in anyone else’s.
It does not say that God forgives grudgingly or only in part. “A forgiving God” is a title, not a concession.
It does not say that the consequences cancel the forgiveness. Moses did not enter the land, but Scripture’s verdict on him remained unchanged: “Never since has there arisen a prophet in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face” (Deuteronomy 34:10). Aaron remained high priest until his death. The relationship was not lost.
It does not tell us that we may act as avengers. The same Law that calls God noqem forbids us to take vengeance (Leviticus 19:18).
And it does not specify which wrongdoings are meant. As we have seen, the pronoun can be read more than one way.
Finally, here is an inference — ours, not the verse’s. The psalm is simple and is the grammar of a relationship, not of a contradiction. We hold forgiveness and consequence apart because, in human life, they usually come from different people — the victim and the judge. In God, they come from the same holiness. On the traditional reading that links the verse to Meribah, the God who forgives Moses and the God who keeps him out of the land are not two moods of a divided deity. They are one God, taking Moses with complete seriousness: seriously enough to forgive him, and seriously enough not to pretend that what he did did not matter.
Scriptural Connections
Now walk with the week’s other six verses, in the order in which they were given. Each one supplies a piece of the answer to this Sunday’s question.
Monday — What is your faith actually resting on?
Mark 11:22 — “Jesus answered them, ‘Have faith in God.'”
Peter’s remark is the kind most of us would make. Look — it worked. He is impressed by the result. Jesus redirects his attention from the result to its source. Not have faith in what you have just seen, nor have faith in your own faith, but have faith in God.
The setting gives the command its edge. Jesus has just been in the Temple, the place where Israel’s faith had, for centuries, been anchored. Some six centuries earlier, Jeremiah had stood at the same gates and warned the worshippers about a particular kind of misplaced trust: “Do not trust in these deceptive words: ‘This is the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD'” (Jeremiah 7:4). The people of his day believed that because the Temple stood among them, they were safe, whatever they did. Jesus quotes the same chapter of Jeremiah in the Temple — “a den of robbers” (Jeremiah 7:11) — and then, beside the withered tree, he says: Have faith in God.
It is possible to have enormous confidence in religious things and very little faith in God. It is possible to trust the institution, the ritual, the devotion, the routine, the reputation of one’s parish or family — and to discover, in a crisis, that none of these was ever the foundation. The fig tree was in full leaf. It simply had no fruit.
Notice, too, what Jesus says next. He speaks of moving mountains, of prayer that receives what it asks — and then, in the very next breath, of forgiveness: “Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone; so that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses” (11:25). The first half of the teaching is about receiving. The second half is about releasing. Jesus will not let his disciples hear the promise about answered prayer without hearing, in the same breath, the demand to forgive.
There is a striking connection here with this Sunday’s psalm. When Moses and Aaron failed at Meribah, God’s verdict began: “Because you did not trust in me” (Numbers 20:12). The Hebrew verb is ʾaman, the root from which we get amen, and the Bible’s great word for faith: Abraham “believed the LORD; and the LORD reckoned it to him as righteousness” (Genesis 15:6). The two greatest leaders of the Exodus, who had seen the plagues, the sea and the manna, were faulted at the end for a failure of faith. Faith in God is not something achieved once and kept for ever. It is, as Jesus’ present imperative implies, something to keep having.
And faith in God, in Numbers 20, is joined to holiness: “to show my holiness before the eyes of the Israelites.” To trust God is to let him be God — to let him receive the credit, set the terms, choose the method. Moses’ “shallwebring water for you out of this rock?” (Numbers 20:10) is the voice of a tired servant who, for one moment, forgot whose power it was.
This verse was given on 19 October, the memorial of Saints John de Brébeuf, Isaac Jogues and their companions, Jesuit missionaries and lay assistants martyred in North America in the 1640s. Isaac Jogues had been captured, held for thirteen months and tortured; several of his fingers were cut, burnt or chewed off. When he escaped and returned to France, Church law prevented him from celebrating Mass, because a priest was required to hold the Host with fingers he no longer had. Pope Urban VIII granted a dispensation, reportedly remarking that it would be shameful to forbid a martyr of Christ to drink the blood of Christ. Jogues could have stayed in France as an honoured survivor. Instead, he went back, and in October 1646 he was killed. A few weeks before his death, he wrote to a fellow Jesuit that his confidence was placed in God, who does not need our help to accomplish his purposes. That is faith in God, as distinct from faith in outcomes. Jogues did not go back because he was sure it would go well. He went back because he trusted the One he was going for.
Tuesday — Whose name is written in the book?
Daniel 12:1–2 — “At that time Michael, the great prince, the protector of your people, shall arise. There shall be a time of anguish, such as has never occurred since nations first came into existence. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone who is found written in the book. Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.”
The first thing this passage says is the thing most of us would rather not hear: deliverance comes atthat time, not before it. The anguish is not cancelled. The people are delivered in it and through it. That was the experience of the Maccabean martyrs, and it has been the experience of faithful people ever since.
The second thing is that nothing is lost. “Everyone who is found written in the book.” The image runs right through Scripture, and it appears at a crucial moment in the very story behind our psalm. After the golden calf, Moses returns to the mountain to plead for the people, and offers the most extraordinary prayer of intercession in the Old Testament:
“But now, if you will only forgive their sin — but if not, blot me out of the book that you have written.” But the LORD said to Moses, “Whoever has sinned against me I will blot out of my book. But now go, lead the people to the place about which I have spoken to you; see, my angel shall go in front of you. Nevertheless, when the day comes for punishment, I will punish them for their sin.” (Exodus 32:32–34)
Here, in one exchange, is the whole of Psalm 99:8. Moses intercedes; God answers; the people are not destroyed; they are to go on to the land with an angel going before them — and nevertheless the day of reckoning remains. The book of Daniel’s vision is the same book Moses offered to be erased from.
The prophet Malachi, at the very end of the Old Testament, gathers four of this week’s words into a single passage. “Then those who revered the LORD spoke with one another. The LORD took note and listened, and a book of remembrance was written before him of those who revered the LORD and thought on his name. They shall be mine, says the LORD of hosts, my special possession on the day when I act, and I will spare them as parents spare their children who serve them” (Malachi 3:16–17). Those who fear God (Friday). Who think on his name (Thursday). Written in a book (Tuesday). God’s special possession — the word is segullah (Saturday). And Malachi continues, in a line that could stand as a summary of Daniel 12:2: “Then once more you shall see the difference between the righteous and the wicked, between one who serves God and one who does not serve him” (3:18).
Jesus takes up the book and gives it a personal warmth. When his disciples return elated because demons have submitted to them, he redirects their joy: “do not rejoice at this, that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven” (Luke 10:20). And the risen Christ promises the faithful in Sardis: “I will not blot your name out of the book of life” (Revelation 3:5).
Then comes the resurrection. Daniel 12:2 is widely regarded as the clearest statement in the Hebrew Bible that individual human beings will rise from death. Earlier prophets had used resurrection as an image for the restoration of the nation — Ezekiel’s valley of dry bones is the most famous example (Ezekiel 37). Isaiah had come close: “O dwellers in the dust, awake and sing for joy!” (Isaiah 26:19). Daniel says it plainly, and adds something Isaiah did not: not all will wake to the same morning.
Jesus confirmed both halves. Against the Sadducees who denied the resurrection, he insisted that God “is God not of the dead, but of the living” (Mark 12:27). And he spoke of the two destinies in words that echo Daniel directly: “the hour is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and will come out — those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation” (John 5:28–29).
This is the second half of Daniel’s sentence, and many modern readers would prefer to leave it unread. But it is precisely this half that gave hope to the martyrs. If death were the end of the story, the persecutor would have the last word. Daniel’s vision insists that he does not. The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of these warnings with great care: it teaches that God predestines no one to be lost, and that Scripture’s sobering words about final separation from God are, above all, a call to responsibility and to conversion while there is time (CCC 1036–1037). They are not written to frighten us into despair. They are written so that we will take our freedom, and God’s mercy, seriously.
And notice who stands up in Daniel’s vision when the anguish comes: Michael, whose name asks, “Who is like God?” In the heavenly court where the accuser stands to accuse, someone else stands up to defend. Last Sunday, in Revelation 12, we watched Michael’s war end with the accuser thrown out. This week’s verse shows Michael rising for his people at the hour of greatest distress. God does not leave his people undefended at the judgment.
A word for those who are grieving. Daniel’s verse calls the dead “those who sleep in the dust of the earth”, and Christian hope has always taken that image seriously. Paul wrote to the Thessalonians — the church whose letter we hear at Mass this morning — that he did not want them to “grieve as others do who have no hope” (1 Thessalonians 4:13). He did not tell them not to grieve. If your grief this week is heavy, let it be heavy, and let someone share it with you. And if grief has become so overwhelming that you have thought of harming yourself, please speak to someone today — a friend, a priest, a doctor. In India, Tele-MANAS (14416) offers free support at any hour; wherever you are, a local helpline exists for exactly this.
Wednesday — Why does heaven sing after judgment?
Revelation 19:1 — “After this I heard what seemed to be the loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, saying, ‘Hallelujah! Salvation and glory and power to our God.'”
This verse often unsettles modern readers, and it is worth asking why. Heaven is singing because Babylon has fallen. The next line is explicit: “for his judgments are true and just; he has judged the great whore who corrupted the earth with her fornication, and he has avenged on her the blood of his servants” (19:2). Is heaven rejoicing in destruction?
Read the book from the beginning and the answer becomes clear. Earlier, John saw “under the altar the souls of those who had been slaughtered for the word of God”, and heard them cry out: “Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long will it be before you judge and avenge our blood on the inhabitants of the earth?” (6:9–10). Revelation 19 is the answer to that prayer. The martyrs asked God to be noqem, avenger; the same Greek verb (ekdikeō) is used in their prayer and in heaven’s song. The Hallelujah is not the cheer of a crowd at an execution. It is the relief of the oppressed when the oppressor is finally stopped.
We have already noticed that the first Hallelujah in the Psalter comes at the end of Psalm 104, after the prayer “let the wicked be no more” (104:35). The Talmud tells a story about that very verse which every Christian should know. Rabbi Meir, a great teacher of the second century, was being tormented by some violent men in his neighbourhood, and in his distress he prayed that they would die. His wife Beruriah, herself a renowned scholar, asked him what verse he was relying on. When he quoted Psalm 104:35, she pointed out that the Hebrew could be read “Letsinsbe consumed from the earth” rather than “sinners” — and that the second half of the verse then follows naturally: once the sins cease, “the wicked will be no more.” Pray for them, she told him, that they may turn back. He did, and the story says they repented (Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot 10a).
Beruriah had understood something that the whole Bible confirms. God’s desire is the end of wickedness, and the best end of wickedness is the repentance of the wicked. Ezekiel puts it in God’s own mouth: “For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, says the Lord GOD. Turn, then, and live” (Ezekiel 18:32). Jesus tells us that “there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance” (Luke 15:7). Heaven knows two kinds of joy, and they are not opposites. It rejoices when a sinner repents. And it rejoices when evil that refused every invitation to repent is finally brought to an end, and its victims are set free.
The Croatian theologian Miroslav Volf, writing in the 1990s after the wars that tore apart the former Yugoslavia, made an argument that has stayed with many readers. In Exclusion and Embrace, he contended that the Christian refusal to take revenge depends on the belief that God will one day judge — that people can lay down the sword only if they trust that justice is in God’s hands. He observed, pointedly, that it takes “the quiet of a suburban home” to imagine that a God who never judges is good news for the victims of atrocity. One need not agree with every step of his argument to feel its force. A God who forgave everyone and avenged no one would not be merciful. He would be indifferent to the people who had been crushed.
The verse also tells us to whom salvation belongs. “Salvation and glory and power to our God.” Not to the Church as a possession to be managed, not to the righteous as a reward they have earned, not to the victors of history. Salvation is God’s, and so is the right to judge. That is precisely why we can stop trying to be judges ourselves.
And finally, look where the chapter goes. The Hallelujahs that begin with Babylon’s fall end with a wedding: “Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come” (19:7). The goal of God’s judgment is not a courtroom but a banquet. He clears away what destroys so that what he loves can be united with him.
Thursday — What does it really mean to ask “in my name”?
John 14:14 — “If in my name you ask me for anything, I will do it.”
Few verses in the Bible have been so loved, and so misused. Read alone, it can sound like a blank cheque. Read where Jesus placed it, it is something far more wonderful.
The promise is wide. “Anything.” Jesus does not restrict prayer to “spiritual” requests. Elsewhere he tells parables to encourage persistence — the friend at midnight hammering on the door for bread (Luke 11:5–8), the widow wearing down an unjust judge (Luke 18:1–8). The Letter to the Hebrews urges us to “approach the throne of grace with boldness” (Hebrews 4:16). Christian prayer is not meant to be timid.
That widow is worth a second look this week. Her plea to the judge was, in Greek, ekdikēson me: “Grant me justice” — the same word family as avenger. And Jesus applies the parable to God’s people with words that bring several of this week’s themes together: “And will not God grant justice to hischosen oneswhocry to him day and night? Will he delay long in helping them? I tell you, he will quickly grant justice to them. And yet, when the Son of Man comes, will he findfaithon earth?” (Luke 18:7–8). Chosen ones (Saturday), crying out (Sunday’s psalm), justice (Wednesday), faith (Monday).
But the promise is also narrow: “in my name.” We have seen what that meant in the ancient world — acting as an authorised representative, within the scope of the authority given and for the purposes of the one who gave it. An agent with power of attorney may sign for his principal; he may not sign for himself. The verses on either side say the same thing in other words. Before it: “I will do whatever you ask in my name,so that the Father may be glorified in the Son“ (14:13). After it: “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (14:15). The First Letter of John spells it out: “if we ask anythingaccording to his will, he hears us” (1 John 5:14).
Is that a disappointing narrowing of the promise? Only if we imagine that getting whatever we ask for would always be a blessing. Scripture knows better. When the Israelites in the wilderness craved meat and complained against God, he sent them quails in abundance — and a psalm in this very book of the Psalter remembers it bleakly: “he gave them what they asked, but sent a wasting disease among them” (Psalm 106:15). When the elders demanded a king “like other nations”, God told Samuel to give them one, though it was a rejection of God himself, and to warn them of what kings would cost them (1 Samuel 8:7–18). Some granted prayers are judgments. The words “in my name” are not a restriction on God’s generosity. They are a protection from our own.
Look at how Jesus himself prayed, a few hours after speaking these words. In Gethsemane: “Abba, Father, for you all things are possible; remove this cup from me; yet, not what I want, but what you want” (Mark 14:36). That is a prayer in the name in the fullest sense — bold in its asking (remove this cup), and surrendered in its heart. Was it answered? The cup was not removed. And yet the Letter to the Hebrews says that Jesus “offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to the one who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission” (Hebrews 5:7). He was heard — not by being spared death, but by being raised from it. And the word for “reverent submission”, eulabeia, is the Greek Bible’s language of godly fear. Hold that thought until tomorrow.
The Church has always understood John 14:14 in this light. To pray in Jesus’ name is to pray as one who belongs to him, for what he would want, with the confidence of a child and the trust of a servant. It is to say, with the whole of one’s life, “your will be done.” Such prayer is never wasted. Sometimes it receives exactly what it asks. Sometimes, like Moses at the edge of the promised land, it receives a refusal and a view from the mountain. Sometimes, like Paul with his thorn, it receives not removal but grace: “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness” (2 Corinthians 12:9). In every case, “I will do it” remains true. What Jesus does may be larger than what we asked.
This verse was given on 22 October, the memorial of Saint John Paul II. The date marks the Mass in St Peter’s Square in 1978 at which he began his ministry as pope, and the words he spoke that day echoed the opening of this very chapter of John: “Do not be afraid! Open wide the doors for Christ!” Two and a half years later, in May 1981, he was shot and badly wounded in the same square. In December 1983 he visited the man who had shot him, Mehmet Ali Ağca, in Rome’s Rebibbia prison, sat with him privately and told the inmates afterwards that he had repeated his forgiveness of him. Ağca remained in prison. In 2000, with the Pope’s support, Italy granted him a pardon — and he was then extradited to Turkey to serve a further sentence for a murder committed there before the attack. Forgiveness was given personally, freely and early. The processes of justice ran their course alongside it. Neither cancelled the other.
Friday — Why should our words before God be few?
Ecclesiastes 5:7 — “With many dreams come vanities and a multitude of words; but fear God.”
Thursday’s verse invited boldness. Friday’s verse urges restraint. Placed side by side, they correct each other.
Qoheleth is standing at the door of the Temple, watching worshippers go in. He sees people who talk too much, promise too much and dream too much. They make vows on impulse and forget them by evening. They treat God’s house as a place to be heard rather than a place to listen. And they assume — as people in every age have assumed — that the quantity of their words will impress God. “God is in heaven, and you upon earth; therefore let your words be few” (5:2).
Jesus says almost exactly the same thing in the Sermon on the Mount: “When you are praying, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him” (Matthew 6:7–8). And then he gives his disciples a prayer — the Lord’s Prayer — which can be said slowly in under a minute.
Notice that Jesus’ reason for few words is not that God is distant but that God is near. Your Father knows. Qoheleth’s reason is that God is great: God is in heaven. The two reasons belong together. Reverence and intimacy are not opposites. The child who trusts her father does not need to argue for an hour; the servant who fears his master does not waste his time.
The other great concern of this passage is vows. “It is better that you should not vow than that you should vow and not fulfil it” (5:5). Scripture contains a tragic example of a vow spoken without the fear of God — Jephthah’s rash promise before battle, with its devastating cost (Judges 11:30–40) — and a beautiful example of a vow kept. Hannah, childless and taunted, prayed in the sanctuary at Shiloh and promised that if God gave her a son, she would give him back to the LORD. Her prayer was so quiet that the priest Eli thought she was drunk: “Hannah was praying silently; only her lips moved, but her voice was not heard” (1 Samuel 1:13). God answered. And Hannah kept her vow, bringing the child to the sanctuary when he was weaned. The child’s name was Samuel — the same Samuel who appears in this Sunday’s psalm “among those who called on his name”. The great intercessor of Psalm 99 was himself the fruit of a few, silent, reverent words and a vow faithfully kept.
Jesus applied Qoheleth’s teaching about vows to ordinary speech: “Let your word be ‘Yes, Yes’ or ‘No, No’; anything more than this comes from the evil one” (Matthew 5:37). If our everyday words can be trusted, we will not need oaths to prop them up. The Book of Proverbs puts it more drily: “When words are many, transgression is not lacking, but the prudent are restrained in speech” (Proverbs 10:19). And James, who had clearly read his Proverbs: “let everyone be quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger” (James 1:19).
So the fear of God, in this passage, is not terror. It is the steady awareness of who we are speaking to. It slows the tongue, keeps promises, and turns prayer from a speech into an encounter. This is the eulabeia of Hebrews 5:7 — the reverence for which Jesus was heard. And the same letter that told us to approach the throne of grace “with boldness” (4:16) ends its exhortation by calling us to “offer to God an acceptable worship with reverence and awe; for indeed our God is a consuming fire” (12:28–29). Hebrews holds Thursday and Friday together in one book: bold enough to come near, reverent enough to know where we are.
Saturday — What does holiness have to do with your kitchen?
Deuteronomy 14:2 — “For you are a people holy to the LORD your God; it is you the LORD has chosen out of all the peoples on earth to be his people, his treasured possession.”
The first thing to notice about this verse is where it is placed. It is not in a chapter about the Temple, the priesthood or the great festivals. It stands between a law about mourning and a list of foods. Holiness, in Deuteronomy, reaches into the most ordinary and the most painful moments of life: what you eat, and how you grieve.
That is the point. Holiness is not a separate department of life reserved for Sundays and sacred places. It is the claim of God on the whole of life. “You are children of the LORD your God” (14:1) — therefore even your grief belongs to him, and should not take the form of the despairing self-wounding of those who had no such Father. “You are a people holy to the LORD your God” (14:21) — therefore even your kitchen belongs to him. And the chapter’s final section turns to money: a tithe shared every third year with the Levite, the stranger, the orphan and the widow, “so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work that you undertake” (14:29). Grief, food, money: the three places where human beings are most tempted to live as though God were absent.
Christians do not keep the food laws of Deuteronomy 14. Mark’s Gospel records Jesus’ teaching that food cannot defile a person from within, and adds the comment: “Thus he declared all foods clean” (Mark 7:19). Peter’s vision in Joppa taught the same lesson (Acts 10). But the principle behind the food laws has not been abolished; it has been extended. Paul writes: “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31). The question is no longer which animals may be eaten. It is whether our tables, our grief and our money are lived before God.
Then notice the order of the verse. You are holy; the LORD has chosen you. Identity first, behaviour second. Israel did not become holy by keeping the food laws; it kept the food laws because it had been made holy. Peter, quoting Leviticus, applies the same order to the Church: “as he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in all your conduct” (1 Peter 1:15). God’s choice comes first. Our response follows.
And now notice who is speaking. Deuteronomy presents these words as the farewell speech of Moses — a forgiven man, under a consequence that will not be lifted. Early in the book, he tells the people what happened when he begged to be allowed to cross the Jordan: “But the LORD was angry with me on your account and would not heed me. The LORD said to me, ‘Enough from you! Never speak to me of this matter again!'” (Deuteronomy 3:26). The great intercessor’s own prayer was refused. And yet it is this man who tells the people that they are God’s segullah, his personal treasure, chosen not because they were impressive but because they were loved. If Sunday’s verse looks back to Meribah, as one traditional interpretation holds, then Saturday’s verse comes from the lips of a man living Sunday’s verse. He was forgiven; he was not exempted; and he never stopped telling others how much God treasured them.
There is one more connection, and it is the hinge between Saturday and Sunday. Being chosen is not an exemption from God’s holiness. It is the reason for it. “You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities” (Amos 3:2). The Letter to the Hebrews says the same about God’s discipline of his children: “he disciplines us for our good, in order that we may share his holiness” (Hebrews 12:10). We take most care with what we treasure most.
The larger conversation: forgiven, and not let off
Step back, and Psalm 99:8 joins one of Scripture’s longest conversations: the story of people who were truly forgiven and yet did not walk away as though nothing had happened. Five scenes trace it.
A calf at the foot of the mountain. Aaron made the golden calf, and then, when Moses confronted him, offered one of the weakest excuses in literature: “I threw it into the fire, and out came this calf!” (Exodus 32:24). He was not struck down. He was not even removed from office; he became Israel’s first high priest, and the psalmist can sing of him “among his priests.” That is grace. And yet the plague came, “because they made the calf — the one that Aaron made” (32:35). Forgiveness did not pretend.
A palace in Jerusalem. When the prophet Nathan confronted David over Bathsheba and the murder of Uriah, David said simply, “I have sinned against the LORD.” Nathan’s answer is the gospel in miniature: “Now the LORD has put away your sin; you shall not die” (2 Samuel 12:13). Yet the same chapter records the sorrow that followed in David’s house, and the rest of his reign was shadowed by what he had done. Readers who were with us in September, when we asked “Into whose hands would you rather fall?”, will remember David’s later choice after the census: “let us fall into the hand of the LORD, for his mercy is great” (2 Samuel 24:14). David knew that God’s mercy was greater than any human mercy — and he knew that it was not the same as being let off.
A cross beside another cross. Of all the scenes in the Bible that illustrate Psalm 99:8, perhaps none is clearer than the one at Golgotha. Two criminals were crucified with Jesus. One mocked him. The other rebuked his companion with remarkable honesty: “And we indeed have been condemned justly, for we are getting what we deserve for our deeds, but this man has done nothing wrong.” Then he turned to Jesus: “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” And Jesus replied: “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23:41–43).
Notice what happened and what did not. The man was forgiven completely; there is no forgiveness in the Gospels more absolute than “today you will be with me in Paradise.” And he was not taken down from his cross. Jesus did not cancel the consequence. He met the man inside it, and turned it into the doorway of Paradise.
A charcoal fire on a beach. After the resurrection, Jesus restored Peter, who had denied him three times beside a charcoal fire, with three questions beside another charcoal fire: “Simon son of John, do you love me?” The forgiveness was total; Peter was given the care of the whole flock. But John records a detail that every forgiven person will recognise: “Peter felt hurt because he said to him the third time, ‘Do you love me?'” (John 21:17). The healing went through the wound, not around it. Sometimes the consequence of sin is not a penalty at all but the necessary pain of being made whole.
A mountain in the land. And here is the scene that, for this week, may be the most consoling of all. Moses died on Mount Nebo, looking across the Jordan at the land he would not enter: “I have let you see it with your eyes, but you shall not cross over there” (Deuteronomy 34:4). The consequence was real, and it was not reversed in his lifetime.
But that is not the last time Scripture shows us Moses. On “a high mountain” — tradition has long identified it with Mount Tabor in Galilee — Jesus was transfigured before Peter, James and John, “and suddenly they saw two men, Moses and Elijah, talking to him. They appeared in glory and were speaking of his departure, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem” (Luke 9:30–31). The Greek word for “departure” is exodos. The man who led the first exodus and was not allowed to enter the land is found, at last, standing in that land, in glory, talking with Jesus about the greater exodus that Jesus would accomplish through his death and resurrection.
We should be careful not to make the text say more than it does; the Gospels do not comment on this. But it is hard not to notice. The consequence was real. It was not the last word.
Where the two halves meet
All of this points to one place. If God is truly forgiving and truly just, how can both be fully true at once? Human systems can only approximate an answer, with a victim who forgives and a judge who sentences. Scripture’s answer is the Cross.
Isaiah’s Servant “bore the sin of many” (Isaiah 53:12) — the verb is naśaʾ, the same as in our psalm’s “forgiving God.” Peter writes that Christ “himself bore our sins in his body on the cross” (1 Peter 2:24). And Paul, explaining why God put Christ forward as the place of atonement, says it was “to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies the one who has faith in Jesus” (Romans 3:26). Righteous — the avenger of wrongdoing does not pretend that sin is nothing. Justifier — the forgiving God lifts the sin from the sinner. Both at once, in one Person, at one place.
An older psalm had glimpsed it from far off: “Steadfast love and faithfulness will meet; righteousness and peace will kiss each other” (Psalm 85:10). At the Cross, the two halves of Psalm 99:8 meet and embrace.
Interpretive Insights
1. Forgiveness and consequences answer two different questions.
Forgiveness answers the question: Will God still have me? The answer, for everyone who turns to him, is yes. Consequences answer a different question: What has my sin done, and what still needs to be healed? Psalm 99:8 keeps the two side by side, and the Church’s teaching draws a related distinction. The Catechism distinguishes the eternal consequence of sin from its temporal consequences (CCC 1472–1473). Forgiveness restores communion with God, while purification and reparation may still be needed. Sin leaves an unhealthy attachment that has to be purified, and the Catechism notes elsewhere that absolution does not by itself remedy all the harm sin has caused, so that whatever can be repaired should be — returning what was taken, restoring a reputation that was damaged (CCC 1459). It insists that these temporal effects are not to be imagined as vengeance imposed from outside, but as following from the nature of sin itself, and it counsels the Christian to “accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace” (CCC 1473). None of this is a claim that every misfortune is a divine punishment; the Catechism is speaking of the effects of sin, not offering a key to explain every suffering. In human relationships, too, trust and material damage may require time and concrete acts of repair. The father who forgave his son and kept the keys was not withholding forgiveness. He was answering the second question honestly.
2. God’s “vengeance” is good news for the wronged.
We tend to hear “avenger” as a threat. The first people who heard it heard a promise. This morning’s first reading makes this plain. God says of the stranger, the widow and the orphan: “If you do abuse them, when they cry out to me, I will surely heed their cry; my wrath will burn” — and then of the poor neighbour whose cloak has been taken in pledge: “if your neighbour cries out to me, I will listen, for I am compassionate” (Exodus 22:23–24, 27). Compassion and wrath in the same breath, both directed at the same injustice. A God who forgave everyone and avenged no one would be no comfort to the abused, the exploited, the defrauded. The NIV’s alternative reading of Psalm 99:8 — “an avenger of the wrongs done to them” — may or may not be what the psalmist meant, but it is certainly true of God.
3. The nearer to God, the more seriously he takes you.
The people named in Psalm 99 are not God’s enemies but his closest friends. “Through those who are near me I will show myself holy” (Leviticus 10:3). “You only have I known… therefore I will punish you” (Amos 3:2). Jesus said the same: “From everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required” (Luke 12:48). James warns those who want to be teachers that they “will be judged with greater strictness” (James 3:1). And Peter, last week: “the time has come for judgment to begin with the household of God” (1 Peter 4:17). Being chosen is not an exemption. It is the opposite. This is a hard truth for anyone in leadership in the Church, and a liberating one: it means God takes our lives and our vocations with complete seriousness.
4. An answer is not always a yes — and a God who can say no is a God we can safely trust with our requests.
Psalm 99:8 begins “you answered them”, and the answers of God to Moses included a refusal. Paul’s included “My grace is sufficient for you.” Jesus’ own included a cup that was not taken away. A God who granted every request would not be a Father but a vending machine, and we would be at the mercy of our own worst wishes. The Psalm 106 verse about quails — “he gave them what they asked” — is a warning. The promise of John 14:14 is safe precisely because of the words “in my name.”
5. Faith is measured by its object, not its volume.
“Have faith in God.” The disciples were impressed by the withered tree; Jesus pointed them past it. Moses had seen the sea divide, and at Meribah he still failed to trust. The question is not how strong our feelings of faith are, but whether our trust rests on God himself — rather than on a result, an institution, a technique of prayer or our own track record.
6. Reverence protects intimacy.
Thursday and Friday are not in tension; they are a partnership. Boldness without reverence becomes presumption: prayer as entitlement, God as an assistant. Reverence without boldness becomes distance: prayer as formality, God as a stranger. Hebrews holds them together — “with boldness” (4:16), “with reverence and awe” (12:28) — and Jesus in Gethsemane lives them together: “Abba… remove this cup… yet not what I want.” The fear of God is not the enemy of intimacy with him. It is what keeps intimacy from becoming familiarity.
7. At the Cross the two halves meet, and consequences can become a place of grace.
God is “righteous” and “the justifier” at once (Romans 3:26) because Christ bore what we could not. That does not mean every earthly consequence of sin disappears for the believer; the penitent thief stayed on his cross. In Christian hope, it means that no consequence is outside the reach of Christ’s presence. The place where we bear what our sins have done can become the place where we meet him most deeply. Moses was not allowed into the land; he was found there, in glory, with Jesus.
A word on where interpreters differ. Scholars and commentators disagree about whose “wrongdoings” Psalm 99:8 has in view, and whether “avenger” might mean the avenger of wrongs done to the intercessors; about the dating of Daniel and Deuteronomy; about whether Daniel’s “many” means all the dead or some; about the grammar of “faith in God” in Mark 11:22; about the textual history of John 14:14; about how to construe the difficult Hebrew of Ecclesiastes 5:7; and about exactly what Moses’ sin at Meribah was. We have tried to set out the main positions fairly. None of these debates changes the central theme that the week’s verses, read together, support: the God who forgives is holy, and his holiness is our hope.
The Central Tension
Here is what this week’s Scriptures ask us to confront.
We want God’s forgiveness to work like an eraser. It works like healing.
An eraser leaves the page exactly as it was before the mistake. That is what we instinctively want from forgiveness: the record wiped, the consequences reversed, the keys back in our hand, as though nothing had happened. And when that does not happen, part of us concludes that we have not really been forgiven — or that God’s forgiveness is somehow less than complete.
Healing is different. Healing removes the infection, but the body remembers. There may be a scar. There is often a period of weakness and rehabilitation. Healing does not pretend the wound never happened; it makes us whole after it. Read alongside the stories of Moses and Aaron, Psalm 99:8 points to this kind of forgiveness. It restores what matters most — communion with God — and it is honest about everything else.
There is a second edge to the tension, and it cuts more sharply. Most of us would quite like God to be forgiving towards us and avenging towards others. We want mercy for our own wrongdoings and justice for everyone else’s. Psalm 99:8 does not encourage the division: it speaks of forgiveness and of wrongdoing answered in the same line, about the same people. And Jesus, beside the withered fig tree, will not let us pray for answers without also releasing those we hold things against: “Whenever you stand praying, forgive.” The forgiveness we hope to receive, and the forgiveness we are asked to give, are the same forgiveness.
So the question this Sunday is not whether God forgives. He does. The question is whether we will accept the God who actually exists:
Will you let God take you seriously enough to forgive you completely — and seriously enough not to leave you as you were?
What This Means for Us Today
In the family. The father at the dinner table had it right. Forgiveness and trust are different things, and confusing them harms both. A child, a sibling, a parent who has done wrong can be forgiven at once and completely. Trust, especially where safety or money or the well-being of others is involved, is rebuilt over time and by deeds. Saying “I forgive you, and here is what will help me trust you again” is not a half-forgiveness. It is the most honest and loving thing a parent can say.
In marriage, after betrayal. Few experiences test this teaching more painfully. A spouse who has betrayed the marriage may be forgiven sincerely and quickly. But to demand that trust be restored instantly, because forgiveness has been given, is to misuse the word. The one who has done the wrong can show the fruit of repentance by accepting, without resentment, that rebuilding will take time — as Zacchaeus did when he offered not only an apology but restitution (Luke 19:8). The one who has been wronged can forgive without pretending that the marriage is unchanged. If the wound is deep, wise help — a priest, a counsellor, a trusted couple — is not a sign of failure but of seriousness.
When you have been harmed. This week’s verses offer something important to anyone who has been abused, exploited or defrauded. Forgiving the person who harmed you does not oblige you to protect them from the consequences of what they did. Paul tells Christians never to take personal vengeance (Romans 12:19) — and, in the very next chapter, describes lawful civil authority as “the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:4). The Greek word he uses there for that servant, ekdikos, belongs to the same family as avenger. Private revenge is forbidden; lawful justice is not. Reporting abuse to the proper authorities, giving evidence, seeking a remedy in court — none of these is a failure of Christian forgiveness. They are part of how a just society protects the next victim. The Church itself has had to learn this lesson painfully in recent decades: forgiveness of an abuser can never mean silence about the abuse. If you are in danger now, please contact the police or emergency services; in India, 112 connects you to emergency help at any hour.
At work and in leadership. Anyone who manages people, runs an institution or teaches a class will face this tension constantly. A colleague confesses a serious mistake. A student is caught cheating. A trusted employee is found to have misused funds. Forgiveness says: you are not defined by this, and I will not hold it over you. Justice says: the consequences that protect others and repair what was damaged must still follow, proportionately. Consequences without forgiveness become harshness. Forgiveness without consequences becomes injustice — to the honest colleagues, the other students, the people whose money was taken. The leaders whom people trust most are usually those who manage to hold both.
When you are living with consequences of your own. Some readers are carrying, right now, the results of past wrongdoing: a broken marriage, a damaged body, a criminal record, debts, a relationship with an adult child that may never be what it was. The temptation is to read the consequence as proof that God has not forgiven you. Scripture suggests otherwise. Psalm 99 praises God as forgiving toward Moses, and the Book of Numbers records that Moses still did not enter the land. Not every such consequence is a “temporal punishment” in the Catechism’s technical sense; some are simply the natural results of choices in a world of cause and effect. But the Church’s counsel about bearing the effects of sin offers a wise pattern: carry what remains as a grace, with patience, prayer, works of love and whatever repair is still possible, and let it become part of your healing rather than a daily sentence of condemnation.
A word for anyone who fears that every hardship is a punishment. Some readers live with an anxious conscience that turns every illness, accident or disappointment into evidence of God’s anger. Scripture does not support that conclusion. “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus of the man born blind (John 9:3). Psalm 99:8 speaks of specific wrongdoings in specific stories, not of a God who hides punishments in every misfortune. If this kind of fear is your daily companion, please speak with a priest, especially in the Sacrament of Reconciliation, and do not hesitate to seek help from a doctor or counsellor; persistent, distressing religious fear can be a recognised form of anxiety, and it can be treated. In India, Tele-MANAS (14416) offers free support at any hour.
In prayer. Pray boldly. Ask for real things, including ordinary ones; Jesus said “anything.” But pray in his name: as one who belongs to him, for what he would want. And pray with fewer words. If your prayers have become long speeches, try saying the Lord’s Prayer once, slowly, and then simply staying in God’s presence for a few minutes without saying anything at all. “God is in heaven, and you upon earth.”
In what we say and promise. We live in an age of endless words: messages, posts, comments, promises made in a sentence and forgotten in a day. Qoheleth would recognise it at once. Before you promise something this week — to God, to your family, at work — ask whether you intend to keep it. If you have made a promise you are not keeping, either keep it or honestly withdraw it.
At the table and the graveside. Deuteronomy 14 asks whether the most ordinary and the most painful places of our lives are lived before God. Do we pray before we eat, or has grace become a mumble or a memory? Does our table ever include someone who has no table of their own — the modern equivalent of the Levite, the stranger, the orphan and the widow? And when we grieve, do we grieve as people who have a Father and a hope?
A Rise & Inspire Moment
Forgiveness can open the door to healing a relationship. It does not automatically restore trust, erase consequences, or require reconciliation where safety is at risk.
Or, to keep the picture from the dinner table: forgiving someone is not the same as handing back the keys.
The father did not keep the keys because he was still angry. He kept them because he loved his son, and because there were other people on the road.
With God, the Church teaches, forgiveness does restore communion. The criminal crucified beside Jesus received the greatest forgiveness in the Gospels: today you will be with me in Paradise. And he did not come down from his cross. Jesus did not take him down from it. He took him into Paradise from it.
Some consequences God removes. Some, in Christian hope, he redeems. For those who turn to him, none of them is the last word.
If the keys are still in the drawer this week, don’t stare at the drawer. Remember who has not left the table: the God who forgives.
Living the Passage This Week
1. Name one consequence — and stop reading it as rejection. Think of one consequence of your own past wrongdoing that you are still living with. Write it down in a single sentence. Underneath, copy out Psalm 99:8. Then write: “This does not mean God has not forgiven me.” If there is any act of repair still open to you — an apology not yet made, a debt not yet paid, restitution not yet offered — choose one step and take it before next Sunday, as Zacchaeus did. Then, each time the old shame rises this week, offer it to God, in the spirit of the Catechism’s counsel about the effects of sin, as a grace.
2. Separate forgiving from trusting — in one relationship. If someone has asked your forgiveness, give it clearly, in words: “I forgive you.” Then, kindly and specifically, name one concrete thing that would help you trust them again. If you are the one who has been forgiven, do the opposite: thank the person, and ask them what would help rebuild trust. Do not demand the keys. Earn them back without resentment.
3. Pray in his name — with fewer words. Each morning this week, choose one real request. Before praying it, ask yourself one question: Could I ask this as Jesus’ representative, for the Father’s glory? If the answer is yes, ask it boldly, in no more than two sentences. Then pray the Lord’s Prayer slowly, and remain silent before God for two minutes. On one evening, read Ecclesiastes 5:1–7 aloud, and notice how much of your prayer this week has been listening.
4. Hand one wrong to the Avenger. Think of one wrong done to you that you have been quietly trying to avenge — through coldness, sarcasm, withholding, gossip, or rehearsing it in your mind. Pray Leviticus 19:18 over it: “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge… but you shall love your neighbour as yourself.” Tell God plainly that you are leaving the account in his hands. If the wrong is a matter for lawful authority, take the proper step instead of a private one. And then, as Beruriah told her husband, pray not for the person’s downfall but for their turning.
5. Set one holy table. Before next Sunday, share one meal with someone who would otherwise eat alone — an elderly neighbour, a student far from home, a colleague new to the city, a widow in your parish. Or, if that is not possible, set aside a sum this week, like Deuteronomy’s third-year tithe, for someone in genuine need. Say grace slowly at that meal. It is a small act. Deuteronomy would call it holiness.
Questions for Personal Reflection
In Psalm 99:6–9, who receives God’s answer, his forgiveness and his “avenging”? Read the psalm alongside Numbers 20:1–13. What does it mean that the same people receive all three?
Which half of this week’s sentences do I usually quote, and which half do I quietly skip? Have faith — in God. Ask — in his name. Speak — but fear God. Chosen — and holy.
Where am I treating a consequence as proof that I am unforgiven — or treating forgiveness as a right to have everything restored at once?
Whom am I asking God to forgive me for, and whom am I asking him to avenge me on? Are those wrongs really so different?
This week, what one promise will I keep, what one wrong will I release, and what one consequence will I accept as grace — and on which day will I begin?
Prayerful Response
O LORD our God, holy is your name,
You answered Moses and Aaron and Samuel, and you have answered me, more often than I noticed and more wisely than I asked.
You are a God who lifts sin and carries it away. I thank you for the forgiveness I did not deserve, and for the patience that did not give up on me.
Forgive me for wanting an eraser instead of healing, for treating your mercy as a way out of the consequences rather than a way back to you. Forgive me for asking you to forgive me while asking you to punish everyone else.
Where my wrongdoing has left damage, give me courage to repair what I can, humility to accept what I cannot, and the grace to carry what remains without bitterness.
Where others have wronged me, take the account into your hands. You are the avenger of the wronged; let me not try to be. Turn the hearts of those who have harmed me, and turn mine as well.
Teach me to pray in the name of your Son — boldly, because you are my Father; briefly, because you are in heaven and I am on earth; honestly, because you already know.
Make my table, my grief and my work holy, because I am your treasured possession and you take care of what you treasure.
And when the day comes that my name is read from your book, let it be found there because Jesus, the Lamb who bore the sin of many, wrote it there with his own hand. Amen.
Key Takeaway
Read together, this week’s Scriptures show a God whose forgiveness is real and whose holiness is never suspended — so receive his mercy fully, carry what remains as grace, and leave every score you cannot settle in his hands.
Closing
This week began on a road outside Jerusalem. It ends this morning with a question a lawyer asked Jesus.
In parishes of the Roman Rite around the world today, the Thirtieth Sunday in Ordinary Time, the Gospel is the scene in which a Pharisee, “a lawyer”, asks Jesus which commandment in the law is the greatest (Matthew 22:34–40). Jesus answers with two: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind” (from Deuteronomy 6:5), and “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” (from Leviticus 19:18).
We have already met the first half of that second commandment this week. In Leviticus, the verse begins: “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people.” Love of neighbour is defined, in its original setting, over against private vengeance — and it is set in a chapter that opens with the words, “You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy” (Leviticus 19:2). The command to love our neighbour was born in the same holiness that Psalm 99 sings three times. And it was possible to give up vengeance because vengeance belonged to God.
Deuteronomy, too, joins what we tend to separate. “So now, O Israel, what does the LORD your God require of you? Only tofearthe LORD your God, to walk in all his ways, tolovehim” (Deuteronomy 10:12). Fear and love in one sentence — Friday and Sunday together.
Today’s first reading is the passage we heard in our insights: God’s promise to hear the cry of the stranger, the widow and the orphan, his wrath against those who abuse them, and his compassion for the poor neighbour shivering without his cloak (Exodus 22:21–27; 22:20–26 in the Lectionary’s numbering). The responsorial psalm answers with the only possible response to such a God: “I love you, O LORD, my strength” (Psalm 18:1). And the second reading, from Paul’s earliest surviving letter, describes Christians who have “turned to God from idols, to serve a living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead — Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath that is coming” (1 Thessalonians 1:9–10). There, in one sentence, are both halves of Psalm 99:8, held together in the person of Jesus.
There is a quiet coincidence this morning that is worth noticing. Many Protestant churches around the world follow the Revised Common Lectionary, and today some of them are reading Deuteronomy 34:1–12: Moses on Mount Nebo, looking out over the land he would not enter, and dying there “at the LORD’s command.” Some of them sing Psalm 90, the only psalm attributed to Moses, the psalm that opens the very book of the Psalter in which Psalm 99 stands. On the same Sunday that Catholics hear about the God who hears the cry of the wronged, many of their fellow Christians are standing with a forgiven man on a mountain, under a consequence that was not lifted — and who would one day stand in that land in glory, talking with Jesus.
Next Sunday, 1 November, the Church celebrates the Solemnity of All Saints, and on Monday commemorates All the Faithful Departed. It is a fitting week to have met Daniel’s book and Daniel’s sleepers in the dust. The Church’s centuries-old practice of praying for the dead rests on the conviction we have explored this week: that God’s forgiveness is complete, and that his love also completes, purifies and heals what sin has left unfinished. “Those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky” (Daniel 12:3).
So this week, if you find that you have been forgiven and something is still different, do not conclude that the forgiveness was not real. Look at Moses on the mountain. Look at the thief on the cross. Look at Aaron in his priestly robes, the calf long melted down. And then look at the One who answered them, forgave them, took them seriously — and never let them go.
The keys may still be in the drawer. The Father is still at the table.
Is there a passage of Scripture you would like us to study together in a future Sunday Series? Tell us in the comments — the verse you are wrestling with this week may be exactly the one another reader needs.
Rise & Inspire — Sunday Bible Series: Depth over speed. Understanding over volume. Formation over information.
Written by John Britto Kurusumuthu.
The verses shared each morning by His Excellency, Rt. Rev. Dr. Selvister Ponnumuthan, Bishop of the Diocese of Punalur, are collected over seven days. These seven verses together form the basis for the weekly Sunday Bible Series.
“If you want something you have never had, you must do something you have never tried!”
This quote reminds us that achieving new results often requires us to move beyond familiar habits and explore new possibilities. We cannot always expect life to change while continuing to do everything the same way.
Whether we seek personal growth, professional success, stronger relationships, or greater fulfilment, we must be willing to learn, experiment, and take the first step into unfamiliar territory. Trying something new may feel uncomfortable, and success is never guaranteed, but every attempt offers an opportunity to gain experience, discover hidden abilities, and open doors that might otherwise remain closed.
The key is to replace the fear of the unknown with a willingness to act. We do not have to make dramatic changes overnight; even a small step in a new direction can begin a meaningful transformation.
The message is simple: If you want your future to be different from your past, be willing to try something beyond what you already know.
Reflection: What new step are you willing to take today to achieve something you have always wanted?
Most forecasts about artificial intelligence are forecasts about the machine. How powerful will it be in ten years? Which jobs will it take? Will it one day think like us?
My forecast is about the person on the other side of the screen, and I found it in an unlikely place: a Tamil grammar1 written more than eight hundred years ago.
Here is my answer to today’s question. AI will not create a new kind of human being. It will make the old kinds more extreme.
1. The machine is the easy part to predict.
AI will almost certainly become faster, cheaper and more capable. That forecast takes no courage. The harder question is what all that capability will do to the habits of the people who use it, because habits, not hardware, decide what a tool is worth.
2. An old classroom has already sorted us.
Nannool, a grammar by the Jain monk Pavanandi Munivar, contains a short verse that ranks students using animals and household objects. The best are like the swan, which is said to drink the milk and leave the water, and the cow, which grazes first and chews the cud later. In the middle are the parrot, which repeats only what it was taught, and the soil, which gives back only as much as the farmer puts in. At the bottom are the leaky pot, which loses whatever is poured into it, and the ghee-strainer, which lets the good pass through and keeps the dregs.
3. Another tradition reached the same kitchen.
A thousand years earlier and thousands of kilometres away, the Jewish sages of the Mishnah described four kinds of people who sit before the wise: the sponge, the funnel, the strainer and the sieve.2 The sponge soaks up everything, clear or murky. The funnel lets everything run straight through. The strainer lets the wine flow away and keeps the sediment. The sieve holds back the fine flour. Two traditions that never met reached for the same kitchen utensils, and agreed on what the poorest learner keeps: the dregs.
4. AI makes the lower ranks effortless.
This is the heart of my forecast. AI does not invent these types. It removes the effort that once kept them apart. Being a parrot used to require memorising; now the machine repeats for us. Being a funnel used to waste a teacher’s afternoon; now answers pour through us at no cost and leave nothing behind. And because AI can sound just as confident when it is wrong as when it is right, the strainer’s danger grows. We may keep the fluent error and let the careful truth flow away.
5. The higher ranks still cost what they always cost.
No machine can do the swan’s work for it. To separate milk from water, you have to taste both. No machine can chew the cud for the cow; understanding settles only when we return to a thing and turn it over. We learn to reason by reasoning, to write by writing, and to judge by weighing the evidence ourselves. This year I have been learning a few terminal commands, and an assistant can hand me any of them in a second. Copying is faster. Asking why the command works is slower. Only the slower way leaves something behind.
6. Granted, every new tool has faced this charge.
In Plato’s Phaedrus, Socrates retells an Egyptian story in which a king warns that writing will breed forgetful learners who seem wise without being wise. We know of that warning only because Plato wrote it down. Writing did not turn humanity into funnels; it gave us libraries. AI may follow the same path, and it can serve the swan well by explaining a hard idea, offering the counterargument or testing a draft. Nor does everything deserve rumination. The cow chews what nourishes it, not everything in the field. Hand the trivial to the machine; keep the formative for yourself.
7. So the gap will widen.
If I am right, the future of AI is not one future but two. Those who use it to extend their thinking will grow sharper, faster than any generation before them. Those who use it to avoid thinking will grow emptier just as fast. Institutions will tilt the balance. A school that grades only the finished essay rewards the parrot. A school that asks students to defend their reasoning aloud rewards the swan.
So what do I think is the future of AI? I think it will be remarkably powerful, and that its most important effects will be decided in small, private moments: each time an answer arrives instantly, and we choose whether to taste it, chew on it, or simply let it pour through.
The machine will not tell us what kind of learners we must become. That decision remains ours.
When you use AI, which of the old classroom’s creatures do you recognise in yourself, and which would you rather become?
Keep learning, keep showing up, and keep striving to elevate in life.
Notes
1 Nannool (Naṉṉūl, “the good treatise”) is a Tamil grammar composed around 1200 CE by Pavanandi Munivar, a Jain ascetic, and is regarded as the most important Tamil grammar after the Tolkappiyam. The verse ranking students as first, middle and last (sutra 38 in the common numbering) appears in its general preface; the images above follow the traditional commentaries.
2 Pirkei Avot (“Chapters of the Fathers”) is a tractate of the Mishnah, the foundational compilation of Jewish oral teaching completed around 200 CE. The passage cited is Pirkei Avot 5:15 (5:18 in some editions).
John Britto Kurusumuthu
Rise & Inspire · riseandinspire.co.in
In response to the WordPress Daily Writing Prompt, 24 October 2026: What do you think is the future of AI?
Clean-room development, open-source licences and the law
John Britto Kurusumuthu
In March 2026, the maintainers of chardet, a widely used Python library for detecting text encodings, released version 7.0 as a ground-up rewrite. Much of the new code was produced with an AI coding assistant, and it arrived under a new licence: the permissive MIT licence in place of the LGPL that had governed the project for years.
The library’s original author objected publicly. A complete rewrite, he argued, changes nothing when its authors had ample exposure to the original code; in his view, this was no clean room. The maintainer has defended the release, saying he designed and reviewed every part of the rewrite and that the MIT licence applies to it legitimately. The dispute remains unresolved, and the debate it set off is still running through the open-source world.
Whatever one concludes about chardet, the episode exposes a common misunderstanding. We tend to think of clean-room development as a way of writing code. It is better understood as a way of proving a negative: that the people who wrote the new program never drew on the protected expression of the old one. The code is the product; the record is the defence.
AI coding assistants have made the first part cheaper than ever. A capable model can rewrite a library in days. They have also made the second part harder, because no one can say with certainty what a model has absorbed. That tension is the subject of this post.
1. What clean-room development is, and what it is not
Clean-room development separates the people who study an existing program from the people who build its replacement. The method entered industry practice in the early 1980s, when makers of IBM-compatible personal computers, Compaq and Phoenix Technologies among them, used separated teams to write their own BIOS firmware. It runs in five steps:
The analysis team studies the original through lawful means: documentation, observable behaviour, published specifications, interfaces and, where the law permits, technical inspection.
That team writes a functional specification. It records what the software must do, its interfaces, inputs, outputs and test cases, but not how the original authors expressed it in code.
A reviewer screens the specification before hand-off and strips out anything carrying protected implementation detail.
The implementation team, which has never seen the original code, writes the new program from the approved specification alone.
The finished code is tested for compatibility and examined for provenance, third-party components and licence obligations before release.
The central distinction is between what a program does and how its authors chose to express that in code. Software functionality and ideas are generally treated differently from protected expression, although other legal rights and restrictions may apply.
2. Why the wall matters: four layers of legal risk
A clean room is a risk-management technique, not a legal exemption. It answers one layer of risk well and leaves the others untouched.
Copyright. Copyright protects original expression, not ideas, methods of operation or functionality as such. A separated process makes it far easier to show that a new program does not reproduce protected source code, structure or other expression. It does not guarantee that the result is lawful.
Interfaces and interoperability. A compatible product may need to reproduce APIs, command syntax, file formats or observable behaviour. Some of these elements are functional or dictated by compatibility; others may carry protectable expression. The answer varies by jurisdiction and by interface.
Patents and trade secrets. Independent creation is no defence to patent infringement: freshly written code can still practise a valid claim. Nor does a clean room cure information obtained by improper means or in breach of confidence.
Contracts and licences. Lawful access to code may come with conditions restricting its use, disclosure or reverse engineering. Whether such conditions bind depends heavily on where you are, as the next section shows.
3. What the courts and legislatures have said
The legal footing differs markedly across the three systems most relevant to readers here: case-by-case fair use in the United States, a statutory code in the European Union, and narrow, specific exceptions in India.
United States: fair use, case by case. In Sega v. Accolade (1992), the Ninth Circuit held that disassembling Sega’s game code to learn the console’s compatibility requirements was fair use. The decisive factors were a legitimate purpose and the absence of any other way to reach the unprotected functional elements. Accolade then worked from a manual of functional descriptions containing none of Sega’s code, a clean room in all but name.
In Google LLC v. Oracle America (2021), the Supreme Court held, six votes to two, that Google’s copying of roughly 11,500 lines of declaring code from the Java SE API was fair use as a matter of law. The Court assumed, without deciding, that the code was copyrightable. Two cautions follow: fair use turns on its facts, and American courts have in some cases enforced licence terms that forbid reverse engineering.
European Union: a statutory code. Directive 2009/24/EC sets the rules out directly.
Article 5(3) lets a person entitled to use a program observe, study or test its functioning, to determine the ideas and principles underlying it, while loading, displaying, running, transmitting or storing it.
Article 6 permits decompilation without the rightholder’s consent where it is indispensable for interoperability with an independently created program. The person must be entitled to use the program, the information must not already be readily available, and the acts must be confined to the parts needed. The information may not be used for other purposes, passed on unnecessarily, or used to build a program substantially similar in its expression.
Article 8 makes any contract term contrary to Article 6, or to Article 5(2) and (3), null and void.
In SAS Institute v World Programming (Case C-406/10, 2012), the Court of Justice added that neither a program’s functionality, nor its programming language, nor the format of its data files is a form of expression protected by copyright.
India: narrow, specific exceptions. The Copyright Act, 1957 treats software differently from other works. Its general fair-dealing exception in section 52(1)(a) applies only to a work “not being a computer programme”. Software has its own cluster of exceptions instead, added by amendments in the 1990s:
Section 52(1)(aa): the lawful possessor of a copy may make copies or adaptations to use the program for the purpose for which it was supplied, and back-up copies as temporary protection against loss or damage.
Section 52(1)(ab): a lawful possessor may do any act necessary to obtain information essential for the interoperability of an independently created program with other programs, provided that information is not otherwise readily available. This is the clause most directly relevant to clean-room work.
Section 52(1)(ac): a program’s functioning may be observed, studied or tested to determine the ideas and principles underlying any of its elements, while performing acts necessary for the functions for which it was supplied.
Section 52(1)(ad): copies or adaptations may be made from a personally, legally obtained copy for non-commercial personal use.
Two cautions apply. Section 52 has no counterpart to Article 8 of the EU Directive, so whether a licence term can narrow these exceptions remains an open question in Indian law. And the clauses have seen little judicial interpretation: how far “any act necessary” in clause (ab) extends to decompilation, for instance, is yet to be tested. A cross-border project may engage all three regimes at once.
4. Open-source licences: independence is not compliance
Open-source software is copyrighted software released under a licence that grants stated permissions on stated conditions. It is not free of legal restriction. A clean room can help when building an independent alternative to an open-source product, but it is not always needed, and it never discharges obligations attached to material that is actually reused.
Reimplementing documented functionality without copying protected code: independent implementation may be lawful, subject to patents, contracts and other rights.
Copying MIT- or BSD-licensed code: keep the copyright notice and licence text, and meet any attribution conditions.
Modifying or distributing GPL-licensed code: where your work is a covered derivative, the GPL’s conditions on source availability and licensing apply.
Using an AGPL component: a modified version offered to users over a network may oblige you to make its corresponding source available.
Reimplementing an API or file format: assess copyright, interoperability rules, patents, contract terms and any expressive material.
Reusing code with no identifiable licence: public availability is not permission.
Licence versions matter, and so does architecture: how components are linked, combined and distributed can change the analysis. An independently written database driver does not take on the licence of an MIT-licensed utility library merely because both sit in one project, though the library itself must still travel with its notices.
Likewise, reimplementing functionality associated with a GPL program does not make the new program GPL-licensed, provided the new work genuinely avoids copying protected expression. That proviso is exactly what the chardet dispute is about.
5. What AI changes
AI assistance does not by itself defeat a clean-room process. It complicates two things: the evidence of independence and the assessment of licence obligations. Three risks stand out.
Similar output. A model may produce code resembling existing source code. If the output reproduces protected expression, the fact that a machine produced it is no answer. Short, commonplace or functionally dictated code calls for a different analysis from substantial reproduction of distinctive code.
Unknown provenance. A suggestion may resemble code released under terms that require attribution, preserved notices or reciprocal licensing. If you cannot identify the source, you cannot know which steps compliance demands.
Contamination of the clean side. A conventional clean room controls what the implementation team sees. An assistant can quietly breach that wall if it is fed the original source, repository context, internal notes or prompts drawn from material the team was meant to avoid. The chardet controversy raises a version of this question: whether a rewrite led by a long-time maintainer of the old code can count as independent. The original author says it cannot, the maintainer says it can, and at least one prominent licensing expert has observed that no one has yet identified copied expression from earlier versions in the new code. The question remains open.
Tools help, but none of them settles the question. GitHub’s code-referencing feature for Copilot compares a suggestion, with about 150 characters of surrounding code, against an index of public code on GitHub. Where it finds a match, it shows the repositories and their licences. GitHub reports that matches occur in under one per cent of suggestions, but the check covers only accepted completions; code you write yourself, and suggestions you modify or dismiss, are not checked. The absence of a flag is not proof of independent authorship.
Does AI-generated code inherit an open-source licence because the model learned from open-source repositories? Not automatically. The real questions are whether a given output reproduces protected material, which licence governs that material, and what the AI provider’s own terms say about the output. The Linux Foundation’s guidance on generative AI asks contributors to check that last point: the tool’s terms must not restrict use of its output in ways inconsistent with the project’s licence.
Can an assistant take part in a clean-room project at all? Yes, if its role is drawn as carefully as a human team member’s. It may generate implementation code from an approved functional specification; it must never receive the original source or analysis notes containing protected detail.
The Linux kernel offers a working model of accountability. Its rules for AI coding assistants, added during the Linux 7.0 cycle, bar AI agents from adding a Signed-off-by tag, because only a human can certify the Developer Certificate of Origin. The human submitter must review the generated code, ensure licence compliance and take full responsibility, and the patch should carry an Assisted-by tag naming the tool.
6. A clean-room protocol for AI-assisted work
For a commercial project, I would recommend seven controls.
Define the legal scope: the target software, the jurisdictions involved, the intended compatibility and any contractual restrictions.
Draw the information boundary: what the analysis team may inspect, and what may cross to the implementation team.
Approve the specification: functional requirements, interfaces, input and output behaviour and test cases, without unnecessary implementation detail.
Configure the AI tools: use an approved assistant whose repository access is limited to the clean side, with no excluded source, confidential material or restricted analysis notes in its context.
Keep the record: specification versions, commits, prompts where appropriate, AI-generated patches, review notes and third-party notices.
Check provenance and licences: similarity scanning, dependency inventories and software composition analysis, with every significant match investigated.
Review before release: obtain legal review of material risks, confirm licence compatibility and document the basis for the clean-room conclusion.
Treat the assistant as part of the process, never as a source of legal assurance. A similarity scanner, a provider’s statement or the absence of a visible match is each a useful signal; none of them, alone, establishes that the program is free from infringement.
7. Who answers when the machine writes the code?
Responsibility turns on four questions that are related but not interchangeable.
Copyright: does the output reproduce someone else’s protected expression?
Licence compliance: does any incorporated third-party material carry obligations?
Ownership: who, if anyone, owns the resulting code?
Accountability: who reviewed, approved and authorised it for distribution?
Ownership is where jurisdictions now diverge most visibly. In the United States, the Supreme Court on 2 March 2026 declined to review Thaler v. Perlmutter, leaving in place the D.C. Circuit’s 2025 ruling that copyright requires a human author. A refusal to hear a case is not a ruling on its merits, and the appellate court did not decide how much human involvement an AI-assisted work needs.
India’s Act took a different line long before generative AI arrived. Section 2(d)(vi), added in 1994, makes the author of a computer-generated literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work “the person who causes the work to be created”. Because section 2(o) counts computer programmes as literary works, the clause reaches code as well.
On 31 August 2026, the Registrar of Copyrights rejected an application by Stephen Thaler that named his AI system, DABUS, as the author of an artwork, the same work at issue in the American case. DABUS, the Registrar held, is neither a natural nor a juristic person and cannot be entered as author. The Registrar also found that Thaler, on his own account, was the person who caused the work to be created; but he declined an opportunity to amend the application to name himself as author, and it was rejected as filed. The order is expressly confined to the facts of that application.
Neither approach settles the separate question of infringement. A company may own code, or hold contractual rights to use it, and still find that it copies someone else’s work. For anything meant for distribution, document your rights in AI output and your process for detecting and resolving third-party matches.
The room was always a ledger
Clean-room development remains the most credible way to show that software was independently written. Open-source licensing does not displace copyright compliance, and AI-generated code is neither automatically independent nor automatically unrestricted. The most defensible approach combines a separated process, a clear functional specification, lawful information-gathering, controlled AI access, provenance and licence checks, and documented human review.
The age of AI has not abolished the clean room; it has moved its centre of gravity. When anyone can generate a thousand lines in an afternoon, lines are cheap. What stays scarce, and what a court will ask to see, is the record of how they came to be written. The clean room, in the end, was never really a room. It was always a ledger.
This is a general legal and technical discussion, not a legal opinion. A project involving commercial release, disputed access to source code or significant licence exposure should be reviewed by a lawyer experienced in software intellectual property.
When we imagine the worst world in a book, we usually imagine pain: tyrants, prisons, famine, war. My answer has none of these. That is exactly what makes it the worst.
Picture a world where no one goes hungry, and no one is lonely. Wars ended long ago. Disease is rare, and old age has been engineered away; people stay youthful almost until the day they die. Everyone has suitable work and is content with it. If a sad feeling ever appears, a small tablet makes it vanish, with no hangover and no regret.
Would you live there?
If you hesitated, you already understand why I think this is the worst world in literature.
It is the World State of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, published in 1932. Here is my case against it.
1. Suffering is not the worst thing a world can do to you.
A world that hurts you still leaves you the knowledge that you are hurt. Pain protests. It tells you something is wrong and makes you long for something better. A prisoner who hates his cell still has a self the cell has not reached. The real danger begins when the hatred, the protest and the longing are gone.
2. Huxley’s prison has no walls, because no one wants to leave.
In the World State, children are grown in bottles, sorted into castes before birth, and taught in their sleep to love their place. A drug called soma dissolves whatever unease remains. No one needs watching, because no one wants anything they are not supposed to want. When an outsider named John finally objects, he must demand what no citizen would think to ask for: “the right to be unhappy.”
3. Why did Huxley fear that pleasure could become a tool of control?
On 21 October 1949, Huxley wrote to his former Eton pupil George Orwell. He predicted that future rulers would find it more efficient to make people love their servitude than to flog them into obedience. Cruelty needs guards, spies and constant effort. Comfort needs only a steady supply. Pleasure is a quieter jailer than pain, and a far more efficient one.
4. How have different traditions warned us about the comfortable cage?
In Homer’s Odyssey, sailors who ate the lotus lost all wish to sail home; Odysseus dragged them, weeping, back to the ships. In the Hebrew scriptures, slaves freed from Egypt soon longed for the fish, cucumbers and melons of their bondage (Numbers 11:5). The Lotus Sutra, a classic of Mahayana Buddhism, tells of children so absorbed in their games that they will not leave a burning house until their father lures them out with the promise of carts. And the Tamil poet Bharati asked when his people’s thirst for freedom would be quenched, and when their infatuation with slavery would die [1].
Bharati names the danger most sharply. The enemy is not only the ruler. It is our affection for the chains.
5. Is this unfair to people who truly suffer?
It is a fair objection. For a single week, I would choose Huxley’s world without hesitation; no sane person prefers a dungeon to a pleasant afternoon. And millions today live with the hunger, war and illness Huxley’s citizens never meet. Calling his world “the worst” can sound like a comfortable man’s complaint.
But the question is not where I would spend a week. It is where I would spend a life. A person in pain may still hope for a better future. The danger in Huxley’s world is not contentment itself, but contentment deliberately engineered to suppress independent thought, critical judgment, and the desire for change. When people are conditioned to accept their circumstances as perfectly satisfying, they may gradually lose the ability to imagine a better life or question the society that shapes their desires.
6. Huxley’s world needs no secret police. It needs only our consent.
No one will need to force soma on us. We are more likely to order it ourselves: a scroll for every silence, an instant answer for every question, a distraction for every grief. I have come to believe that boredom, longing, delay and sorrow are not defects in human life. They are signs that a person is still awake.
What I fear most is not a tyrant at the door. It is the day I stop noticing that I would rather be somewhere better.
The worst world is not the one that makes you suffer. It is the one that makes you stop wanting anything more. Give me a hard world in which I can still long for a better one, rather than a soft world that has quietly taken the longing away.
Our restlessness is not a flaw to be medicated. It may be the last proof that we were made for more than comfort.
Now, over to you: Which book’s world would you least want to live in: the one that hurts you, or the one that makes sure you never feel the hurt?
Note
[1] Subramania Bharati (1882-1921), known as Mahakavi Bharathiyar, was a Tamil poet of India’s freedom struggle. The lines, in transliteration: “Endru thaniyum intha suthanthira thaagam? Endru madiyum engal adimaiyin mogam?” In English: “When will this thirst for freedom be quenched? When will our infatuation with slavery die?”
Four months ago, my mobile Performance score sat at a stubborn 58. Today it reads 97. Yet the most useful lessons on the report lie in the numbers that did not move.
In June, I wrote about a frustrating paradox on this blog. Google PageSpeed Insights gave Rise&Inspire green marks for Accessibility, Best Practices and SEO, but only 58 for mobile Performance.
Recently, I ran the same test again. This is what it reported:
Category
Mobile
Desktop
Performance
97
99
Accessibility
96
96
Best Practices
100
100
SEO
92
92
Agentic Browsing
2/2
2/2
A climb from 58 to 97 is pleasing. But I have come to think that the 97 is the least instructive number on this report. Here is why.
1. What Changed Between June and Now?
Only one number moved. Mobile Performance rose by 39 points. Accessibility at 96, Best Practices at 100 and SEO at 92 stand exactly where they stood in June.
I cannot credit the rise to any single change. A laboratory score responds to many things at once: plugins, images, theme updates and quiet improvements by the host. What the comparison does show is that a poor score is a starting point, not a verdict.
2. What Does the Performance Score Actually Measure?
The Performance score comes from a laboratory test, not from real visitors. On mobile, PageSpeed Insights simulates a mid-range phone on a throttled 4G connection, which is why mobile scores usually trail desktop ones.
The score blends five lab measurements: First Contentful Paint, Speed Index, Largest Contentful Paint (LCP), Total Blocking Time (TBT) and Cumulative Layout Shift (CLS).
One distinction is easy to miss. Interaction to Next Paint (INP), Google’s measure of how quickly a page responds to a tap or click, cannot be captured in a lab, because no one is tapping. Lighthouse uses Total Blocking Time as its stand-in. Real INP is collected from actual visitors and shown in the field-data section of PageSpeed Insights and in Search Console, once a site has enough traffic.
3. Why Are the Unchanged Numbers the Real To-Do List?
A score that has not moved in four months is very likely pointing at the same few failed checks. Accessibility at 96 and SEO at 92 mean that specific audits are still failing on this page, and PageSpeed Insights names each one. Expand the category, and the failures are listed.
Accessibility covers matters such as alternative text, colour contrast, heading order and descriptive link names; SEO covers the page title, the meta description and crawlable links. Neither score is a certificate. Automated tools catch only part of what can block a reader, and an SEO score says nothing about whether the writing deserves to rank.
Best Practices at 100 confirms a secure connection and modern web standards on the tested page. It does not make a site immune to attack. Updates, strong passwords and backups still matter, as I set out in my guide to blog hygiene.
4. What Is the New Agentic Browsing Badge?
The small 2/2 beside the four circles is new this year. In May 2026, Google added an Agentic Browsing category to Lighthouse, the engine behind PageSpeed Insights. It asks whether an AI agent, software that browses and acts on a person’s behalf, could read and use a page reliably.
Unlike the other categories, it gives no score out of 100, only a count of checks passed, and Google describes it as experimental. Its checks look at the accessibility tree (the structured map of headings, links and buttons that assistive technology reads), layout stability, an optional llms.txt summary file and WebMCP, a proposed way for sites to offer tools to agents. Checks that do not apply are left out of the count, so my 2/2 means both counted checks passed.
Google has not made it a ranking factor, so there is no reason to chase it. What struck me is something else: agents rely on the same accessibility tree that screen readers use. Every descriptive link and well-ordered heading written for a reader who cannot see the screen now serves a newer kind of visitor as well.
5. Why Is a Fast Page a Form of Hospitality?
Many traditions treat the welcome of a guest as a moral matter, and they agree on one detail: the host prepares before the guest arrives.
The Taittiriya Upanishad, an ancient Sanskrit teaching text, closes the student’s training with the instruction atithi devo bhava: let the guest be as a god to you.
In the Book of Genesis, Abraham sees three strangers in the heat of the day, runs from his tent door to meet them, and hurries to have bread made ready (Genesis 18:1–6).
Japanese omotenashi, the spirit of hospitality associated with the tea ceremony, prizes meeting a guest’s needs before they are spoken.
Performance work is that kind of hospitality. The reader never sees the compressed image or the deferred script. They notice only that nothing kept them waiting at the door.
6. Should I Chase a Perfect 100?
The case for chasing it deserves a fair hearing. For a large online shop, a fraction of a second can affect sales, and its engineers are right to fight for every millisecond. For a reading blog already at 97, the last three points would cost hours better spent on the next post.
So my next steps are modest:
Open the failed Accessibility and SEO audits and fix what they name.
Test other kinds of pages: an image-heavy post, a category page and the archive.
Watch the Core Web Vitals report in Search Console, which reflects real readers over time.
Run the test again after every new plugin or theme change.
The broader speed fixes, from plugin clean-up to image compression, are set out in the June post.
Conclusion: What Does the Report Really Reveal?
The 97 tells me the door opens quickly. The 96 and the 92 tell me where the hinges still need oil. The 2/2 tells me that a new kind of visitor has begun to knock. The real test, though, never appears on the report: whether a reader arrives, stays to the last line, and comes back tomorrow.
When you run your own blog through PageSpeed Insights, do you stop at the scores, or do you read the audits beneath them?
John Britto Kurusumuthu
Founder, Rise & Inspire
Explore more at the Rise & Inspire archive | Tech Insights
Today’s prompt asks me to name the most underrated movie I have ever watched. My honest answer begins with a confession and leads me somewhere unexpected: the most underrated film I know has never appeared on a cinema screen.
When I came across the question, “What’s the most underrated movie you’ve ever watched?”, I had to smile. It is an interesting prompt, but I may not be the right person to answer it!
The truth is that I am not much of a movie watcher. I find it difficult to sit through a film lasting more than an hour. Just when the story is unfolding and the characters are developing, my attention begins to wander.
But this made me wonder: Is the problem really the length of a film, or is it something else?
1. Why Do Books Hold My Attention Better Than Films?
I can spend a long time with a good book, return to a favourite sentence, pause to reflect, and continue when I feel ready.
A film follows its own rhythm. The scenes unfold, the music rises, and the story moves forward. Of course, we can pause a film, but reading naturally gives us more freedom to stop, think, and imagine.
Perhaps I enjoy reading because it allows me to become part of the storytelling. I do not simply follow the characters; I picture their faces, imagine their surroundings, and give the story a life of its own.
That may explain why a book can hold my attention long after a film has lost it.
2. Have We Always Needed Stories to Unfold Slowly?
Our ancestors enjoyed stories long before cinema existed. Many traditional performances invited audiences to spend hours listening, watching, and participating in a shared experience.
In Tamil Nadu, Therukoothu brings stories to life through song, dance, costumes, and dialogue. Performances often take place at night and may continue until dawn.
Villu Paattu, or bow-song storytelling, uses a bow-shaped instrument as part of a musical performance that brings folk tales, legends, and local histories to life.
Kerala has its own remarkable tradition in Koodiyattam, an ancient form of Sanskrit theatre. Some performances unfold over many days, allowing actors to explore a character’s emotions through remarkably detailed expressions and gestures.
These traditions remind me that a good story does not always need to hurry. Sometimes, the experience lies in taking time to absorb it.
One of the things I appreciate about reading is the freedom to pause. A sentence may remind me of an experience, a person, or a lesson I have learned. I can stop and let the thought settle before moving on.
The Japanese concept of ma offers a related insight. It describes the space or interval between things and can also refer to the pauses that give traditional performances their rhythm.
A story that gives us room to think may stay with us longer than one that rushes to its conclusion.
4. Am I Simply Resisting a Different Way of Telling Stories?
There is another possibility I should consider: perhaps I am not giving films a fair chance.
In Plato’s Phaedrus, Socrates questions whether writing might weaken memory and give people the appearance of wisdom without true understanding. His concern reminds me that people have long debated how new ways of communicating affect the way we think and learn.
Today, we have films, television, and short videos. Each medium tells stories differently, and each has its own strengths.
I would not claim that reading is better than cinema for everyone. Perhaps there are films with the depth, silence, and emotional richness I enjoy in books. I may simply not have discovered the right ones yet.
5. What Is the Most Underrated Movie I Have Ever Watched?
Here is my honest answer.
The most underrated movie I have ever watched has never been released. It plays only when I read.
I imagine the faces, choose the setting, hear the voices, and decide when each scene ends. The characters come alive in my mind, and the story unfolds at my own pace.
No cinema will screen this film. No critic will review it. Yet it can move me, challenge my thinking, and leave me with lessons that remain long after I close the book.
It also reminds me of a story from the Bible.
In 2 Samuel 12, the prophet Nathan tells King David about a rich man who takes a poor man’s only lamb. David becomes angry at the injustice. Then Nathan reveals that the story is about David himself.
The story makes David recognise a truth he had failed to see. That is the power of storytelling: sometimes, we understand ourselves more clearly when we first see our lives reflected in someone else’s story.
Perhaps the most meaningful stories are not always the ones we watch on a screen. They are the ones that help us see life, and ourselves, differently.
Now I am curious: What movie would you recommend to someone like me, who usually checks the time before the first hour is over? Is there one so meaningful that I might forget the clock altogether?
John Britto Kurusumuthu
Rise & Inspire · riseandinspire.co.in
In response to the WordPress Daily Writing Prompt, 22 October 2026: “What’s the most underrated movie you’ve ever watched?”
What’s something you’ve done that you never thought you could?
Growth does not always begin with confidence. Sometimes, it begins with a problem we do not know how to solve.
My Rise&Inspire journey has shown me how technical difficulties, demanding writing projects, and the willingness to keep learning can reveal abilities I never expected to develop.
Our potential is not always visible before we begin. Often, we discover it through action, persistence, and curiosity.
What have you accomplished that changed the way you see yourself?
What Have I Done That I Never Thought I Could?
Have you ever looked back at something you have accomplished and wondered, “Did I really do that?”
Sometimes our most meaningful achievements bring no awards, recognition, or applause. They are the things we never imagined ourselves doing until life presented a challenge, and we discovered that we were capable of more than we thought.
For me, one such journey has been creating and developing my blog, Rise&Inspire.
Yet when I look closely, I notice something that turns the question on its head. I never thought I could do these things because I never thought about them at all. They were not ambitions I doubted. They were problems standing between me and a simple wish to write. The abilities arrived later, almost as by-products.
1. How Did It All Begin?
When I started Rise&Inspire in March 2023, my aim was simple: to share my thoughts, experiences, and reflections, and to encourage readers to rise above their difficulties, discover their potential, and approach life with hope.
I knew I wanted to write. I soon discovered that running a blog involves much more than putting words on a page. There was WordPress to understand, articles to publish, images to prepare, and technical settings to manage. Each new challenge opened another area of learning I could never have anticipated.
2. What Happens When You Cannot Publish?
One day, I could not upload an article to my own blog.
For a blogger, publishing is not a minor convenience. It is the means through which ideas reach readers. It would have been easy to feel helpless, or to assume the problem was beyond my technical abilities.
Instead, I wanted to understand what had gone wrong. I explored the problem, studied the available options, and worked until my blog was functioning again. The experience reminded me that running a website requires patience as much as creativity.
The real test was never the upload. It was whether I could face an unfamiliar technical challenge without giving up. We do not always need to know the solution at the beginning. We need the willingness to investigate, learn, and keep trying.
3. How Did I Become a Developer?
Another moment stands out. A website issue required a solution beyond the ordinary options available to me. Rather than stopping at what I already knew, I explored custom CSS. CSS, or Cascading Style Sheets, is the language that controls the appearance and layout of web pages.
I added custom CSS to my site and solved the problem myself. Then came an unexpected little reward: a badge bearing the words, “You’re a developer now. Basically.”
I smiled. I had not set out to become a developer. I had simply wanted to solve a problem with my blog. The badge was playful, but the lesson behind it was meaningful: we often discover new abilities while trying to solve ordinary problems.
4. When Writing Becomes a Challenge of Its Own
Not every challenge was technical. An article in my Wake-Up Calls category tested me in a different way. I wanted to explore the question of belief scientifically while also citing relevant passages from the Bible.
Bringing these perspectives together was not easy. I had to think carefully about what belief means, how claims should be examined, and how biblical passages could be discussed without treating every question as though it had a simple answer. I wanted to respect the spiritual dimension of the subject while maintaining intellectual honesty and clarity.
I examined my reasoning, reconsidered how I presented my ideas, and kept refining until I had an article readers could engage with meaningfully. The articles that challenge us most teach us the most about our own thinking. A difficult article refines not only our language but also our judgement.
5. Is Age a Reason to Stop Learning?
I do not believe so, and I find myself in old and good company.
The Naladiyar, a classical Tamil collection of moral verse, observes that learning has no shore, while the learner’s days are few.1 Its advice is not despair but discernment: choose what truly serves you, as the swan takes the milk and leaves the water. I did not need to master web development. I needed the piece of CSS that solved my problem.
In first-century Rome, Seneca told his friend Lucilius that, already an old man, he had begun attending a philosopher’s lectures. One should keep learning, he argued, as long as one is ignorant of anything, which, if the old proverb holds, means as long as one lives.2
In nineteenth-century Japan, the artist Hokusai, then in his mid-seventies, wrote that nothing he had drawn before seventy was worth noticing, and that he hoped to keep improving until he was a hundred.3
Three traditions, one conviction: curiosity does not have to retire when we do. We may need more time, more patience, or more attempts than we expected. That is perfectly all right. I do not need to know everything before I begin. I need the willingness to learn as I go.
6. Are These Achievements Too Small to Count?
Someone may fairly object that these are modest things: an upload restored, a stylesheet added, an article revised. I would not claim that one successful use of custom CSS makes me a professional developer.
But that is precisely the point. Most of the things we never thought we could do are not dramatic. They are small, private, and easily dismissed, even by ourselves. Yet I had learned something new, applied it, and solved a problem independently. That was an achievement worth celebrating.
7. What Has This Journey Taught Me?
I did not begin with all the knowledge I needed. I acquired it gradually, in response to the challenges before me. I could not upload an article, so I found a way forward. I wanted to modify my website, so I explored custom CSS. I struggled to express a complex idea about belief, so I kept examining the subject and refining my writing.
In the beginning, I might have assumed that a website difficulty required someone with technical expertise. Now I am more willing to investigate, experiment, and learn for myself. Rise&Inspire has become more than a place where I publish articles. It is a space where I continue to grow as a writer, a thinker, and a user of technology.
None of this came from ambition. It came from loyalty. I did not set out to prove what I could do. I simply refused to abandon something that mattered to me, and the abilities followed.
8. What About You?
What is something you have done that you never thought you could?
Perhaps you learned a skill later in life, overcame a difficult situation, took on an unexpected responsibility, or solved a problem that once seemed beyond your abilities. It need not be extraordinary in the eyes of the world. If it helped you discover a strength you did not know you possessed, it deserves to be remembered.
We begin uncertain. We make an effort. We learn along the way. And eventually, we look back with a quiet sense of satisfaction and say, “I never thought I could do that.”
Keep learning. Keep growing. Keep discovering what is possible.
Rise&Inspire — Strive to elevate in life.
Notes
1. Naladiyar, verse 135, from the chapter on Learning. The Naladiyar (“four-line verses”) is a collection of four hundred quatrains composed by Jain monks in the post-Sangam period, roughly 100 to 500 CE, and is among the most admired ethical works in Tamil. The verse compares the wise learner to the kuruku, usually rendered as the swan, which Indian poetic tradition credits with separating milk from water.
2. Seneca, Moral Letters to Lucilius, Letter 76. Lucius Annaeus Seneca (c. 4 BCE to 65 CE) was a Roman Stoic philosopher and statesman.
3. Katsushika Hokusai (1760 to 1849), postscript to One Hundred Views of Mount Fuji (1834), which he signed as “the old man mad about drawing.”
John Britto Kurusumuthu
Rise & Inspire · riseandinspire.co.in
In response to the WordPress Daily Writing Prompt, 21 October 2026: What’s something you’ve done that you never thought you could?
“Instead of making advance bookings for your next birth, heaven, or hell, enjoy happiness in the present life itself.”
The central message
Do not spend your entire life trying to secure happiness in an existence you hope to experience later while overlooking the happiness, love, and peace available to you today.
Live well now. Be kind. Fulfil your responsibilities. Appreciate what you have. If you believe in an afterlife, let that belief inspire you to live better in this life—not prevent you from living it fully.
A reflection on fame, perspective, and the value of an ordinary life
Offered a famous person’s life for a week, most of us might reach for the spotlight: the stadium, the palace, the podium. I reached for a calendar instead.
No famous life is famous all week. Fame lives in a few public moments: the speech, the award, the winning goal. The rest is preparation, travel, tiredness, and waiting. Borrow a celebrity’s life for seven days, and you may discover that much of what you have borrowed is a timetable. So I asked a narrower question: whose famous week would I choose?
One answer kept returning. In April 1984, Indian Air Force pilot Rakesh Sharma spent seven days, twenty-one hours, and forty minutes aboard the Soviet space station Salyut 7. He became the first Indian citizen to travel into space. Those eight days became a defining part of his public story, and his is the week I would borrow. [1]
It would be no holiday. In weightlessness, the body has to adjust to a world without the familiar pull of gravity. Sharma and his fellow crew members carried out forty-three experimental sessions, including work involving yoga in weightlessness and the observation and photography of India from space. Up there, reputation counts for little. Competence, discipline, and teamwork matter. The station circled Earth roughly every ninety minutes, bringing about sixteen sunrises and sunsets each day. Yet a person occupied with demanding work might have little time to pause and admire them. [1]
Then came the moment many Indians remember. During a conversation with Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, she asked Sharma how India looked from space. His reply, “Saare Jahan Se Achha”—the opening words of a much-loved patriotic poem—connected the extraordinary view from orbit with the familiar idea of home. The memorable answer was not a description of a distant planet. It was an expression of belonging. [2]
Writers had imagined such a view long before rockets carried people into space. In Cicero’s Dream of Scipio, a young Roman sees the Earth from above and is reminded how small it is—and how limited earthly fame can be. A Tamil poet of the Sangam age reached a related insight without leaving the ground. In Purananuru 189, a king who rules a great territory is compared with a hunter who keeps watch for game. Their circumstances differ, but both need food and clothing. The poem invites us to look beyond rank and power and recognise what human beings share. Seen from far enough away—or considered deeply enough—the great and the small may look less different than we imagine.
What came after Sharma’s spaceflight matters to me, too. He returned to his professional life as a test pilot. His achievement remains part of India’s history, but a remarkable week did not have to become the whole meaning of a life. That distinction is important: fame may preserve a moment in public memory, but it cannot tell us everything about the person who lived it.
Someone may fairly object that I have chosen a famous person whose story is not defined by a relentless pursuit of celebrity. And fame is not merely vanity. Sharma’s mission gave India a moment of pride and encouraged people to imagine possibilities beyond the familiar. Decades later, another Indian citizen travelled to space. Such achievements can inspire a generation to look up and ask what might be possible.
But I am not refusing the exchange. I would gladly experience the hardest, strangest week of Sharma’s life. I would want to see Earth from orbit and discover what that distance might teach me about our shared home. What I would refuse is the idea that one extraordinary week should own the rest of a life. The lesson I take from Sharma’s story is not that fame has no value, but that it need not become the measure of a person.
Then the spacecraft would bring me back, and I would return to my own ordinary life: the morning ride, the walk after lunch, and familiar voices around my table. At this stage of life, I value time differently. I would be grateful for gravity, for the scent of rain on warm earth, and for days that nobody else may remember. These moments may never make headlines, but they belong to the life I have actually lived. My life is not a rehearsal for somebody else’s.
And I would bring back a new way of looking at home. From orbit, Sharma was asked how India looked, and he answered with words that expressed affection for his country. I would like to look at my own small patch of ground with a similar sense of wonder—without needing to leave it. Perhaps the greatest gift of borrowing a famous week would be to return more attentive to the life that is already mine.
Notes for readers
[1] The Indian Human Space Flight Centre records that Rakesh Sharma spent 7 days, 21 hours, and 40 minutes aboard Salyut 7 and that the mission included forty-three experimental sessions. His work included biomedical studies and remote sensing.
[2] The phrase “Saare Jahan Se Achha” comes from a poem by Muhammad Iqbal, written in 1904 and widely known as a patriotic song.
The Dream of Scipio is the concluding section of Cicero’s On the Republic. Purananuru is an anthology of classical Tamil poems from the Sangam period; the poem discussed here is verse 189.
A Question for You
If you could borrow one famous week, whose would it be, and what would you bring back from it?
Thank you for being part of Rise&Inspire, where we strive to elevate in life by discovering meaning in our everyday experiences.
John Britto Kurusumuthu
Rise & Inspire · riseandinspire.co.in
In response to the WordPress Daily Writing Prompt, 20 October 2026: If you could switch lives with a famous person for a week, who would it be and why?