|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 3, Number 4
 April 1992 
|
|
|
Is the Father Greater Than Jesus?
Q: I recently read a quote from the Gospel of John that disturbed me. It was John 14:28, where Jesus says "the Father is greater than I." Doesn't this mean Jesus is saying he is less than God and not equal to him?
A: Don't be disturbed. If you read the whole of that chapter and understand the context, it will be clear what is being said. In John 14:7-10 Christ says, " 'If you know me, then you will also know my Father. From now on you do know him and have seen him.' Philip said to him, 'Master, show us the Father, and that will be enough for us.' Jesus replied, 'Have I been with you for so long a time and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on my own. The Father who dwells in me is doing his works."
This identification of Christ with God is emphatic in this chapter and throughout John. John 1:1 explains, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." In John 11:30 Christ says, "The Father and I are one." In John 14:28 we are reaching a climax. Jesus is soon to be arrested and crucified. He is reassuring the apostles about himself. Yes, they are going to see him suffer in the flesh and die, but Jesus reminds them there is more to himself than just the human. He and the Father are one. His statement is a reassurance to them, and it should be to you as well.
Q: I believe the Bible when it says he who divorces and marries another commits adultery, as we see in Mark 10:1-12 and Luke 16:18. But isn't Jesus leaving a loophole when he says in Matthew 19:9 "except for unchastity"?
A: What may appear as a loophole is a consequence of misinterpretation or mistranslation. The King James Version and others translate the passage into English words that appear to say fornication, unchastity, or adultery are exceptions that allow a divorce.
The constant teaching of the Church has been that a valid sacramental marriage can not be broken, even if one party sins. As Matthew 19:6 says, "Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate." Biblical scholars, such as J. Bonsirven, have pointed out that the Greek word that is pivotal here is "porneia," which means unlawful sexual intercourse. The Gospel does not use the Greek word "moicheia," which is the ordinary Greek word for adultery.
The intent appears to be to distinguish a true marriage from concubinage. What is being said is that if a man and a woman are in fact married, the bond is inseparable. But if they are not married, just "living together," then there is no lawful marriage and there can be a separation or annulment. The wording of the New American Bible for Matthew 19:9 is a translation that gives us this sense.
Q: When I read the Bible I don't see much sense in the breakup of verses. Some come at the end of sentences and paragraphs, some don't. Why was the Bible written that way?
A: You should be aware that the Bible originally was not written that way. The use of verse numbering was something introduced much later, shortly after the invention of printing. The early, handwritten copies of the Bible were written in Greek on papyrus scrolls without the use of punctuation or spacing. In time the codex or book formed with pages, as we know it today, was developed--later still, printing.
As printers worked on producing editions of the Bible they found it convenient to locate and mark sections of text by putting numbers beside the sections of type. This proved not only an enormous convenience for the printers, but for others who read the Bible. The numbering was not placed with anything other in mind than to help locate sections of text. You might say that it was like having latitude and longitude lines on a map.
(By the way, the division of the books of the Bible into chapters was done by Stephen Langton, a cardinal and archbishop of Canterbury, about 1226.)
Q: What's a good way to steer a conversation with Jehovah's Witnesses who come to my door?
A: Focus on John 6. This seems to do it every time--or, more properly, it seems to do something every time, and the something can be one of two things.
If you're fortunate, your discussion of that chapter--it's the one in which Jesus promises the Eucharist and states emphatically that what appears to be bread and wine really will be his body and blood--will throw the Jehovah's Witnesses for a loop. Focus on Jesus' repetition; over and over he said we're to eat his flesh and drink his blood, and over and over he failed to tell his listeners he was speaking only metaphorically--for the simple reason that he wasn't. He was speaking literally, and his listeners knew it.
First the Jews walked away, shaking their heads in disbelief. Then even some of Jesus' disciples left him, unable to accept the doctrine of the Real Presence. One particular person fell away here: Judas (see verse 64). It was here, in his disbelief in the Real Presence, that Judas first betrayed Christ. Yes, later he would be a thief and a traitor, but this is where his tragedy began.
If you go through John 6 slowly, emphasizing what's really going on, the Jehovah's Witnesses will find themselves in a pickle. You'll show them how all the people mentioned in that chapter took Jesus literally--so why shouldn't we?
If you bring the missionaries this far, end your exchange with an exhortation. Use the lingo they (and you) have heard elsewhere; they'll identify with it. Tell them they need to read the Bible. Say they should ask "Jehovah God" to give them the light to understand what John 6 means. Tell them they have to "get right with God," and let them know that means going wherever the truth leads them. Tell them they have to trust God and follow him wherever he may lead them, even if that is somewhere they think they'd rather not go.
All the above explains what happens if you're fortunate in your discussion with the Witnesses. Of course, things may go wrong--not drastically, not dangerously, but annoyingly. You may find that your consideration of John 6 produces no impression at all on the missionaries. If so, wait for their return and try again.
Q: So many Protestants I know use the King James Bible. Who was King James, and what authority did he have to produce a Bible?
A: James I reigned as king of England from 1603 to 1625. He was the son of Mary Queen of Scots, and he had been king of Scotland before succeeding to the English throne at the death of Queen Elizabeth I. He was prompted to produce an English Bible because of the poor and tendentious copies being circulated in England. He feared these could be used by seditious religious and political factions.
His authority was one usurped from the Catholic Church, beginning with his predecessor King Henry VIII. Henry had broken with the Catholic Church and made himself the head of the Church in England, which soon enough became the Church of England. You could say James had no more authority in biblical matters than any head of state, basically none. What authority would a "George Bush Bible" have? The true authority and safeguard over Scripture was and has to be the Catholic Church, to which Christ gave his authority. No secular authority has any rightful authority over the Bible.
Q: I was told that the epistles of Paul were not written by him but by amanuenses. If this was actually the case, why are they called Paul's epistles?
A: Yes, Paul made use of amanuenses. We see this in Galatians 6:11, where Paul says, "See with what large letters I am writing to you in my own hand!" You should be clear about what an amanuensis actually is. It is a person who acts as a secretary taking dictation. With that in mind, the letters remain Paul's, not the secretary's. Paul says he is using large letters. Some scholars think this indicates Paul had poor eyesight and that he was using an amanuensis to help write the bulk of the letter, leaving the closing for himself.
Q: I was reading a piece on Catholic apologetics, and it said that the Catholic Church was a visible church with marks. Can you explain what is meant by this?
A: The typical Protestant conception of the Church is that it is invisible. Though individuals may group together for fellowship and Bible study, their "churches" are really like clubs in a city. The real church, say Protestants, is the broad and unseen group of the saved.
The Catholic Church, in contrast, teaches that the Church is a visible organization. Being a visible organization, it can be identified--it has marks. The marks are that it is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic--"one" in that it is a unified organization, "holy" in that it is an organization divinely established, "catholic" in that it is to embrace all of mankind, and "apostolic" in that a line of succession has been kept with the authority Christ passed to Peter and the apostles.
Q: I read what one theologian says, then what another theologian says, then what another says. I don't understand any of them, and this just ends up confusing my faith. What's wrong?
A: It might be that you're reading things a bit over your head, but more likely the theologians you are encountering aren't doing a good job of explaining. If you are getting confused, change your reading. Theology should elucidate and strengthening your faith. Stay with reading that is authentically Catholic and gives you a solid and clear understanding of the faith. Start with solid works such as Frank Sheed's Theology for Beginners and Theology and Sanity.
Q: I understand that the original books of the New Testament disappeared long ago. How did this happen?
A: There are two reasons. The material they were written on was most likely papyrus paper. This is fragile and with time and use will disintegrate. The other probable cause of the originals' disappearance is their destruction in the persecutions, during which sacred Christian books were confiscated and burned by the authorities.
Q: You place a lot of emphasis on oral tradition in the Catholic Church, but doesn't the fact that we have a written Bible show this was the way we were intended to receive the Word of God?
A: The preferred method of communicating the word of God was not in writing but by word of mouth. Much of the Old Testament was known orally for centuries before it was written down.
Jesus himself wrote none of the New Testament. He established a living Church founded on Peter and the apostles, and he told them to preach. We see in the epistles of Paul how anxious the apostle is about the welfare of the local churches he has established and how he wishes he could be there with them in person to guide and teach.
In 2 John 12 we see explicitly in the written word itself how the apostles preferred to communicate directly with their own lips: "Although I have much to write to you, I do not intend to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and to speak, face to face."
The Bible is a testament to the oral tradition that was alive and already at work. Our source of the revealed word of God is Scripture plus Tradition--a Tradition that the Church Christ founded preserves and teaches. Much of that Tradition was reduced to inspired writing under the influence of the Holy Spirit.
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
of
