Q:“
My Baptist friend says that when Jesus talks in John 6 about "eating his flesh and drinking his blood," he was using a shocking metaphor to shake up people who were not ready for his real point (faith, of course), just as when he said, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will rebuild it" (John 2:19). What do you say?
”
A:
I say, if Jesus’ hearers were not ready for his "real point," and if that "real point" was faith, then why did Jesus go on at such length earlier in the chapter (6:29-47) about having faith in him?In John 2, as your friend rightly says, Jesus didn’t wish to speak openly of his Resurrection to faithless men, so he used a "shocking metaphor" to obscure his real point and to "shake them up" at the same time. But in John 6 Jesus spoke quite openly about having faith in him. He laid those cards right on the table. Why would he then seek to muddle what he already had stated so plainly?Jesus used figurative language for one of two reasons: to illumine, or to obscure. When he sought to illumine, he sometimes appended plain explanations to his metaphors (especially if he had been misunderstood), but nowhere did he do what your friend thinks he did here: follow a clear exposition with puzzling metaphors on the same point. There would be no reason to do so. If he meant to be obscure, he would not have been so plain to start with; if he meant to be clear, he would not have muddied the waters with obscure metaphors.
Steven D. Greydanus Category: Bible Keywords: Eucharist apologetics Gospel Jesus
Q:“
Some of my non-Catholic friends say the Church is satanic. What can I do?
”
A:
If the Catholic Church is accused of being satanic, that is no more than its Founder, Jesus Christ, was accused of. When our Lord was on earth, he had the same problem. He was driving demons out, and some said he was doing this by the power of the devil. How did Jesus respond? He said, "How can Satan drive out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand; that is the end of him" (Mk 3:23-26).The Catholic Church drives out the devil, too. This practice is called exorcism. No one can deny that the Catholic Church has been doing exorcisms on people and driving out Satan for nearly two millennia. Therefore, we must reason like Jesus: If the Catholic Church were from the devil, it could not drive the devil out.We shouldn’t be surprised when such charges are made against the Catholic Church. Jesus told us, "A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master; it is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher and the servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household" (Mt 10:24–25).Mario Derksen
Mario Derksen Category: Apologetics Keywords: anti-Catholic Satan Gospel apologetics Jesus
Q:“
Jews were prohibited from drinking blood by the Old Testament. So if the Catholic idea about the Eucharist as the "Blood of Christ" is correct, didn’t Jesus break the Law of God?
”
A:
Nope. He fulfilled it. "The blood is the life," as the Torah taught the Jews, and the life of a creature belongs to God. Hence the Jews were to pour the blood out on the earth, not because it was too vile but because it was too sacred. They were to seek their life, not from any creature, but from God himself. How fitting then that when Jesus (Who is the Life [Jn 14:6]) comes we are commanded to drink his blood (Mt 26:27–28). His is the blood we not only may but must drink if we are to have life in us (Jn 6:53). It is the reality of which all other blood is an image (Heb 9).
Mark P. Shea Category: Apologetics Keywords: Eucharist Mosaic law apologetics Jesus New Testament
Q:“
In the Nicene Creed the Catholic Church asserts that the Son of God is eternally begotten, but you also assert that the Son of God was born of the Virgin Mary. Can you explain how the Son can be begotten twice?
”
A:
The question you ask goes directly to the necessity of understanding who Jesus is. Scripture affirms that Jesus is both "the Son of Man" (Mt 12:8) and "the Son of God" (Mt 8:29).As we encounter God in history, through his relation with and revelation to man, we see that God acts in three distinct Persons, though he is one unique and singular whole. This is the mystery of the Trinity. As the Son of God, Jesus takes part fully in this divine and hidden life of God. But we also know that God is not given to change or alteration; he is perfect in his nature. God is as he is throughout and apart from time. He is eternally the Father, eternally the Son, and eternally the Spirit. But we also see something else in God. He is not just one God in three divine Persons. These Persons also exist in relation to one another. In attempting to express this relationship of Father to Son within God we say that the Son is "begotten" of the Father. This is the way that Scripture refers to this divine relationship (see Jn 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18 as examples). When did this take place? Before creation, since, as John notes, the world was made through the Word [the Son]. Such an "action" on the part of God takes place outside of his Creation, outside of time itself. It is not an "event" closed by time, but a way of being within God himself. That is why we say that the Son is "eternally begotten" of the Father.We have to be careful to understand this term. It is often used as synonymous with "to be born" but it really means "to cause to be." Even though the Son is eternally existent, the Father "causes him to be." God is the cause of his own existence. So "begotten" here is not the same as "being born." That is why the Church, in the Nicene Creed, continues this way: "[The Son is] begotten, not made, one in being with the Father."Let’s turn our attention to that other great mystery of our faith, the Incarnation. We already have noted that Jesus was both the "Son of God" and the "Son of Man." John puts it very simply: "The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we saw his glory, the glory that is his as the only begotten Son of the Father" (Jn 1:14). To fulfill God’s purpose of salvation for all mankind, the Son freely chose to become human. In doing this he was subject to the same biological limitations that we are subject to. He had to be born, and he had to die. He was born at a specific time, to a specific set of parents, in a certain place. His being born this way was a historical event, able to be examined in the record of time.These dual events are precipitated by who Jesus is: true God and true Man. The events are of a different order. The first took place hidden in God’s own being, apart from time, eternally. It was the act of God alone. The other took place in plain view, as a sign to all of us, at a specific time and place, within God’s creation. And while it was surely the work of God, the act of giving birth to the Son was the act of a woman, a human being.So the Son is not "begotten twice." He is begotten ("caused to be") after the manner of his Father. And he is born, brought forth as a unique human being, after the manner of his mother. They are two different, but complimentary, acts.
Larry Nolte Category: Trinity Keywords: Trinity God Jesus creed Holy Spirit
Q:“
A man in our parish who is pushing for women's ordination says that, because Jesus and the apostles were Jews, they did not ordain women since, because of the taboos about blood and menstruation, they would not have been able to preach in the ritually pure Temple and would have offended the Jews. He says that since such taboos do not hold today, we should ordain women.
”
A:
Inform your friend that, if Jesus and the apostles were afraid of a blood taboo, they had a funny way of showing it: refusing to ordain women to celebrate the sacrament of drinking Christ’s blood. In fact, the Church’s reason for not ordaining women has nothing to do with some supposed impurity of women. Rather, women are not ordained because Christ and the apostles deliberately chose not to do so. The question is not and never has been "Are men purer than women?" In worth, man and woman are absolutely equal in the eyes of God. Rather, the question is: "What sort of symbol is a woman and what sort of symbol is a priest?" As symbols man and woman have different meanings. Women are not the appropriate image of Christ, the husband of the Church, just as men are inadequate symbols of Mary, the God-bearer.
Mark P. Shea Category: Priesthood Keywords: Jesus women ordination of women priest Judaism
Q:“
What's wrong with consubstantiation—the view that the Eucharist is both the body and blood of Christ and bread and wine? Isn't that more consistent with the Incarnation, and isn't transubstantiation almost Gnostic, even Docetist?
”
A:
Superficially, consubstantiation might seem more "incarnational" than transubstantiation, but there’s a catch. For the Eucharist to be both Jesus Christ and bread and wine, as Jesus is both God and man, Jesus would have to unite the nature of bread to himself as he united human nature to himself. It would amount to a new incarnation, a new hypostatic union. We would confess a Lord who is truly God, truly man, and truly pastry. This would demean and trivialize the significance of our Lord’s assuming our human nature.Furthermore, such a reprise of the Incarnation would not accomplish what the Eucharist is all about: It would not make present the human body and blood of Christ. If the Second Person of the Trinity were to acquire a new, confectionery nature, this new nature would have no direct relationship to Jesus’ human nature. He would be present in the Eucharist in his divinity and his breadness, but not his humanity. His human body, born of Mary, crucified on the cross, raised from the dead, and ascended into glory, would be uninvolved.This is not, of course, what consubstantiationists believe. They picture Christ in his divinity and his humanity juxtaposed with bread and wine, not becoming them. But this is not the incarnational principle. It is more like Nestorianism. It makes the Eucharist an amalgam of Jesus and bread, just as Nestorius made Jesus an amalgam of God and man without truly uniting the two natures in one person.The authentic Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, by contrast, is not a repetition of the Incarnation but an extension of it. Christ is not hypostatically united to bread, but the one hypostatic union of divinity and humanity is presented to us under the appearances of bread and wine. It is not a new, independent redemptive act, but the making present of the one redemption accomplished by Christ in his Incarnation, Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension.
Stephen Greydanus Category: Eucharist Keywords: Eucharist Jesus incarnation apologetics
Q:“
Why did Mary Magdalene and the apostles have trouble recognizing Jesus when he appeared to them after the Resurrection? Will we too have trouble recognizing our loved ones after we have been resurrected?
”
A:
Of the four Gospel accounts, only Luke and John mention anyone having difficulty recognizing Jesus after he had risen from the dead. Luke (24:13-35) recounts the episode of two disciples on the road to the village of Emmaus on the day of the Resurrection. It wasn't a case of them not recognizing Jesus because his appearance had somehow changed. We are told "their eyes were kept from recognizing him" until he had explained how the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah were fulfilled by him. In the Gospel of John, the apostles have trouble recognizing Jesus when they are fishing near the Sea of Tiberias and Christ is standing on the shore (Jn 21:1-14). But we're told that the boat is at least 100 yards off shore, so it's not surprising that they didn't recognize him at once. Similarly, Mary Magdalene didn't recognize Jesus immediately outside the tomb until he called her by name (Jn 20:14-16). Perhaps in this instance he was some distance away also. More than likely she was so intent on finding his dead body ("Tell me where you have laid him and I will take him away") that his risen body escaped her recognition. Mourning, she also may have not looked Jesus in the face until he said her name, and her eyes were full of tears in any event (20:13). And she might have been supernaturally prevented from recognizing him, just as the disciples on the road to Emmaus had been. Thomas was able to identify Jesus' body (Jn 20:24-29), and the rich man had no trouble recognizing Lazarus and Abraham even without their bodies (Lk 16:20-24), so we will have no trouble recognizing our loved ones--provided we end up in the same place.
Catholic Answers Staff Category: Bible Keywords: Jesus Gospel Resurrection glorified body heaven
Q:“
I have a New American Bible that has an unsettling footnote to Matthew 16:21-23. Those verses state, "From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised." The footnote says, "Neither this nor the two later Passion predictions (17:22-23; 20:27-29) can be taken as sayings that, as they stand, go back to Jesus himself. However, it is probable that he foresaw that his mission would entail suffering and perhaps death, but was confident that he would ultimately be vindicated by God (see 26:29)." Is this true?
”
A:
It's another illustration of the non-infallibility of the foototes in Catholic Bibles. (See the January 1994 "Dragnet" column for an instance in which we nailed another incorrect footnote.) While one might suggest that this prediction is a paraphrase of something Jesus said rather than an exact quotation from him, it must be regarded as the substance of one of his actual historical utterances.This is underscored by the fact the Gospel writer gives a specific time when Jesus began to make this claim ("From that time on . . ."). It was not a bit of embellishment invented by a later writer and inserted to give a literary flourish. It was something Jesus actually said. The only reason anyone ever challenges the idea that Jesus predicted his passion, death, and resurrection is out of an anti-supernatural bias. Jesus could not have predicted these things because, the reasoning goes, that would mean he knew the future, which is impossible. The idea that Jesus never predicted his own death and resurrection became popular over a century ago with liberal Protestant Bible scholars, and they infected many Catholic Bible scholars in turn.This attempt to de-supernaturalize the consciousness of Christ was recently refuted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states,
[The] truly human knowledge of God's Son expressed the divine life of his person. The human nature of God's Son, not by itself but by its union with the Word, knew and showed forth in itself everything that pertains to God. . . . The Son in his human knowledge also showed the divine penetration he had into the secret thoughts of human hearts. By its union to the divine wisdom in the person of the Word incarnate, Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal. (CCC 473-474)
Thus Christ humanly knew the supernatural mission he had come to perform and what it would involve.The Catechism also deals with the texts where Christ predicts his Passion and Resurrection:
"When the days were near for him to be taken up [Jesus] set his face to go to Jerusalem" [Luke 9:51]. By this decision he indicated that he was going up to Jerusalem prepared to die there. Three times he had announced his Passion and Resurrection; now, heading toward Jerusalem, Jesus says: "It cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem" [Luke 13:33]. (CCC 557)
The footnote in your New American Bible is thus not only completely out of line with the historical teaching of the Catholic Church, but with the Church's contemporary teaching as well.
Catholic Answers Staff Category: Bible Keywords: Jesus Passion Gospel dissent apologetics
My Baptist friend says that when Jesus talks in John 6 about "eating his flesh and drinking his blood," he was using a shocking metaphor to shake up people who were not ready for his real point (faith, of course), just as when he said, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will rebuild it" (John 2:19). What do you say?
”
A:
I say, if Jesus’ hearers were not ready for his "real point," and if that "real point" was faith, then why did Jesus go on at such length earlier in the chapter (6:29-47) about having faith in him?In John 2, as your friend rightly says, Jesus didn’t wish to speak openly of his Resurrection to faithless men, so he used a "shocking metaphor" to obscure his real point and to "shake them up" at the same time. But in John 6 Jesus spoke quite openly about having faith in him. He laid those cards right on the table. Why would he then seek to muddle what he already had stated so plainly?Jesus used figurative language for one of two reasons: to illumine, or to obscure. When he sought to illumine, he sometimes appended plain explanations to his metaphors (especially if he had been misunderstood), but nowhere did he do what your friend thinks he did here: follow a clear exposition with puzzling metaphors on the same point. There would be no reason to do so. If he meant to be obscure, he would not have been so plain to start with; if he meant to be clear, he would not have muddied the waters with obscure metaphors.
Steven D. Greydanus Category: Bible Keywords: Eucharist apologetics Gospel Jesus
Q:“
Some of my non-Catholic friends say the Church is satanic. What can I do?
”
A:
If the Catholic Church is accused of being satanic, that is no more than its Founder, Jesus Christ, was accused of. When our Lord was on earth, he had the same problem. He was driving demons out, and some said he was doing this by the power of the devil. How did Jesus respond? He said, "How can Satan drive out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand; that is the end of him" (Mk 3:23-26).The Catholic Church drives out the devil, too. This practice is called exorcism. No one can deny that the Catholic Church has been doing exorcisms on people and driving out Satan for nearly two millennia. Therefore, we must reason like Jesus: If the Catholic Church were from the devil, it could not drive the devil out.We shouldn’t be surprised when such charges are made against the Catholic Church. Jesus told us, "A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master; it is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher and the servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household" (Mt 10:24–25).Mario Derksen
Mario Derksen Category: Apologetics Keywords: anti-Catholic Satan Gospel apologetics Jesus
Q:“
Jews were prohibited from drinking blood by the Old Testament. So if the Catholic idea about the Eucharist as the "Blood of Christ" is correct, didn’t Jesus break the Law of God?
”
A:
Nope. He fulfilled it. "The blood is the life," as the Torah taught the Jews, and the life of a creature belongs to God. Hence the Jews were to pour the blood out on the earth, not because it was too vile but because it was too sacred. They were to seek their life, not from any creature, but from God himself. How fitting then that when Jesus (Who is the Life [Jn 14:6]) comes we are commanded to drink his blood (Mt 26:27–28). His is the blood we not only may but must drink if we are to have life in us (Jn 6:53). It is the reality of which all other blood is an image (Heb 9).
Mark P. Shea Category: Apologetics Keywords: Eucharist Mosaic law apologetics Jesus New Testament
Q:“
In the Nicene Creed the Catholic Church asserts that the Son of God is eternally begotten, but you also assert that the Son of God was born of the Virgin Mary. Can you explain how the Son can be begotten twice?
”
A:
The question you ask goes directly to the necessity of understanding who Jesus is. Scripture affirms that Jesus is both "the Son of Man" (Mt 12:8) and "the Son of God" (Mt 8:29).As we encounter God in history, through his relation with and revelation to man, we see that God acts in three distinct Persons, though he is one unique and singular whole. This is the mystery of the Trinity. As the Son of God, Jesus takes part fully in this divine and hidden life of God. But we also know that God is not given to change or alteration; he is perfect in his nature. God is as he is throughout and apart from time. He is eternally the Father, eternally the Son, and eternally the Spirit. But we also see something else in God. He is not just one God in three divine Persons. These Persons also exist in relation to one another. In attempting to express this relationship of Father to Son within God we say that the Son is "begotten" of the Father. This is the way that Scripture refers to this divine relationship (see Jn 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18 as examples). When did this take place? Before creation, since, as John notes, the world was made through the Word [the Son]. Such an "action" on the part of God takes place outside of his Creation, outside of time itself. It is not an "event" closed by time, but a way of being within God himself. That is why we say that the Son is "eternally begotten" of the Father.We have to be careful to understand this term. It is often used as synonymous with "to be born" but it really means "to cause to be." Even though the Son is eternally existent, the Father "causes him to be." God is the cause of his own existence. So "begotten" here is not the same as "being born." That is why the Church, in the Nicene Creed, continues this way: "[The Son is] begotten, not made, one in being with the Father."Let’s turn our attention to that other great mystery of our faith, the Incarnation. We already have noted that Jesus was both the "Son of God" and the "Son of Man." John puts it very simply: "The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we saw his glory, the glory that is his as the only begotten Son of the Father" (Jn 1:14). To fulfill God’s purpose of salvation for all mankind, the Son freely chose to become human. In doing this he was subject to the same biological limitations that we are subject to. He had to be born, and he had to die. He was born at a specific time, to a specific set of parents, in a certain place. His being born this way was a historical event, able to be examined in the record of time.These dual events are precipitated by who Jesus is: true God and true Man. The events are of a different order. The first took place hidden in God’s own being, apart from time, eternally. It was the act of God alone. The other took place in plain view, as a sign to all of us, at a specific time and place, within God’s creation. And while it was surely the work of God, the act of giving birth to the Son was the act of a woman, a human being.So the Son is not "begotten twice." He is begotten ("caused to be") after the manner of his Father. And he is born, brought forth as a unique human being, after the manner of his mother. They are two different, but complimentary, acts.
Larry Nolte Category: Trinity Keywords: Trinity God Jesus creed Holy Spirit
Q:“
A man in our parish who is pushing for women's ordination says that, because Jesus and the apostles were Jews, they did not ordain women since, because of the taboos about blood and menstruation, they would not have been able to preach in the ritually pure Temple and would have offended the Jews. He says that since such taboos do not hold today, we should ordain women.
”
A:
Inform your friend that, if Jesus and the apostles were afraid of a blood taboo, they had a funny way of showing it: refusing to ordain women to celebrate the sacrament of drinking Christ’s blood. In fact, the Church’s reason for not ordaining women has nothing to do with some supposed impurity of women. Rather, women are not ordained because Christ and the apostles deliberately chose not to do so. The question is not and never has been "Are men purer than women?" In worth, man and woman are absolutely equal in the eyes of God. Rather, the question is: "What sort of symbol is a woman and what sort of symbol is a priest?" As symbols man and woman have different meanings. Women are not the appropriate image of Christ, the husband of the Church, just as men are inadequate symbols of Mary, the God-bearer.
Mark P. Shea Category: Priesthood Keywords: Jesus women ordination of women priest Judaism
Q:“
What's wrong with consubstantiation—the view that the Eucharist is both the body and blood of Christ and bread and wine? Isn't that more consistent with the Incarnation, and isn't transubstantiation almost Gnostic, even Docetist?
”
A:
Superficially, consubstantiation might seem more "incarnational" than transubstantiation, but there’s a catch. For the Eucharist to be both Jesus Christ and bread and wine, as Jesus is both God and man, Jesus would have to unite the nature of bread to himself as he united human nature to himself. It would amount to a new incarnation, a new hypostatic union. We would confess a Lord who is truly God, truly man, and truly pastry. This would demean and trivialize the significance of our Lord’s assuming our human nature.Furthermore, such a reprise of the Incarnation would not accomplish what the Eucharist is all about: It would not make present the human body and blood of Christ. If the Second Person of the Trinity were to acquire a new, confectionery nature, this new nature would have no direct relationship to Jesus’ human nature. He would be present in the Eucharist in his divinity and his breadness, but not his humanity. His human body, born of Mary, crucified on the cross, raised from the dead, and ascended into glory, would be uninvolved.This is not, of course, what consubstantiationists believe. They picture Christ in his divinity and his humanity juxtaposed with bread and wine, not becoming them. But this is not the incarnational principle. It is more like Nestorianism. It makes the Eucharist an amalgam of Jesus and bread, just as Nestorius made Jesus an amalgam of God and man without truly uniting the two natures in one person.The authentic Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, by contrast, is not a repetition of the Incarnation but an extension of it. Christ is not hypostatically united to bread, but the one hypostatic union of divinity and humanity is presented to us under the appearances of bread and wine. It is not a new, independent redemptive act, but the making present of the one redemption accomplished by Christ in his Incarnation, Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension.
Stephen Greydanus Category: Eucharist Keywords: Eucharist Jesus incarnation apologetics
Q:“
Why did Mary Magdalene and the apostles have trouble recognizing Jesus when he appeared to them after the Resurrection? Will we too have trouble recognizing our loved ones after we have been resurrected?
”
A:
Of the four Gospel accounts, only Luke and John mention anyone having difficulty recognizing Jesus after he had risen from the dead. Luke (24:13-35) recounts the episode of two disciples on the road to the village of Emmaus on the day of the Resurrection. It wasn't a case of them not recognizing Jesus because his appearance had somehow changed. We are told "their eyes were kept from recognizing him" until he had explained how the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah were fulfilled by him. In the Gospel of John, the apostles have trouble recognizing Jesus when they are fishing near the Sea of Tiberias and Christ is standing on the shore (Jn 21:1-14). But we're told that the boat is at least 100 yards off shore, so it's not surprising that they didn't recognize him at once. Similarly, Mary Magdalene didn't recognize Jesus immediately outside the tomb until he called her by name (Jn 20:14-16). Perhaps in this instance he was some distance away also. More than likely she was so intent on finding his dead body ("Tell me where you have laid him and I will take him away") that his risen body escaped her recognition. Mourning, she also may have not looked Jesus in the face until he said her name, and her eyes were full of tears in any event (20:13). And she might have been supernaturally prevented from recognizing him, just as the disciples on the road to Emmaus had been. Thomas was able to identify Jesus' body (Jn 20:24-29), and the rich man had no trouble recognizing Lazarus and Abraham even without their bodies (Lk 16:20-24), so we will have no trouble recognizing our loved ones--provided we end up in the same place.
Catholic Answers Staff Category: Bible Keywords: Jesus Gospel Resurrection glorified body heaven
Q:“
I have a New American Bible that has an unsettling footnote to Matthew 16:21-23. Those verses state, "From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised." The footnote says, "Neither this nor the two later Passion predictions (17:22-23; 20:27-29) can be taken as sayings that, as they stand, go back to Jesus himself. However, it is probable that he foresaw that his mission would entail suffering and perhaps death, but was confident that he would ultimately be vindicated by God (see 26:29)." Is this true?
”
A:
It's another illustration of the non-infallibility of the foototes in Catholic Bibles. (See the January 1994 "Dragnet" column for an instance in which we nailed another incorrect footnote.) While one might suggest that this prediction is a paraphrase of something Jesus said rather than an exact quotation from him, it must be regarded as the substance of one of his actual historical utterances.This is underscored by the fact the Gospel writer gives a specific time when Jesus began to make this claim ("From that time on . . ."). It was not a bit of embellishment invented by a later writer and inserted to give a literary flourish. It was something Jesus actually said. The only reason anyone ever challenges the idea that Jesus predicted his passion, death, and resurrection is out of an anti-supernatural bias. Jesus could not have predicted these things because, the reasoning goes, that would mean he knew the future, which is impossible. The idea that Jesus never predicted his own death and resurrection became popular over a century ago with liberal Protestant Bible scholars, and they infected many Catholic Bible scholars in turn.This attempt to de-supernaturalize the consciousness of Christ was recently refuted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states,
[The] truly human knowledge of God's Son expressed the divine life of his person. The human nature of God's Son, not by itself but by its union with the Word, knew and showed forth in itself everything that pertains to God. . . . The Son in his human knowledge also showed the divine penetration he had into the secret thoughts of human hearts. By its union to the divine wisdom in the person of the Word incarnate, Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal. (CCC 473-474)
Thus Christ humanly knew the supernatural mission he had come to perform and what it would involve.The Catechism also deals with the texts where Christ predicts his Passion and Resurrection:
"When the days were near for him to be taken up [Jesus] set his face to go to Jerusalem" [Luke 9:51]. By this decision he indicated that he was going up to Jerusalem prepared to die there. Three times he had announced his Passion and Resurrection; now, heading toward Jerusalem, Jesus says: "It cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem" [Luke 13:33]. (CCC 557)
The footnote in your New American Bible is thus not only completely out of line with the historical teaching of the Catholic Church, but with the Church's contemporary teaching as well.
Catholic Answers Staff Category: Bible Keywords: Jesus Passion Gospel dissent apologetics
Q:“
Was Jesus a liberal?
”
A:
Jesus is God, and, as such, does not involve himself in temporal politics (cf. Jn 18:36). I recommend Jesus of Nazareth by Pope Benedict XVI, in which the pope offers his thoughts that Christianity should not seek to establish a theocracy.
Michelle Arnold Category: Jesus Keywords: God social justice Jesus just war
Q:“
I remember nuns saying that every time someone sins, he puts another nail into Christ. Is it because Jesus suffers every time we sin?
”
A:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains these words:
Since our sins made the Lord Christ suffer the torment of the cross, those who plunge themselves into disorders and crimes crucify the Son of God anew in their hearts (for he is in them) and hold him up to contempt. And it can be seen that our crime in this case is greater in us than in the Jews. As for them, according to the witness of the apostle, “None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” We, however, profess to know him. And when we deny him by our deeds, we in some way seem to lay violent hands on him. Nor did demons crucify him; it is you who have crucified him and crucify him still, when you delight in your vices and sins. (CCC 598, quoting St. Francis of Assisi, Admonitio 5.3)
Peggy Frye Category: Jesus Keywords: Passion suffering Jesus sin
Q:“
I have always been led to believe that Jesus thought his Father had given up on him when he said from the cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Is that really what he thought?
”
A:
Jesus quoted from Psalm 22, which prophesied the Passion. He probably continued the Psalm in silence. Read the Psalm in full and you will see that Jesus did not think that his Father had given up on him but, rather, he showed confidence in the Father despite immense suffering.
Jim Blackburn Category: Jesus Keywords: suffering God Gospel Passion Jesus
Q:“
One of the attributes of God is that he is all-knowing. If Christ is God, why does he not know the end of days, and only the Father knows?
”
A:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says: "By its union to the divine wisdom in the person of the Word incarnate, Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal. What he admitted to not knowing in this area, he elsewhere declared himself not sent to reveal" (CCC 474).
Peggy Frye Category: Jesus Keywords: God eschatology Scripture
Q:“
When Jesus was on earth in human form, did he commit sins like other humans?
”
A:
Jesus never sinned. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states,
Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; "like us in all things but sin." (CCC 467)
So how did he, in his humanity, keep from sinning? He submitted his will completely to the will of his Father.
Christ possesses two wills and two natural operations, divine and human. They are not opposed to each other, but cooperate in such a way that the Word made flesh willed humanly in obedience to his Father all that he had decided divinely with the Father and the Holy Spirit for our salvation. Christ’s human will does not resist or oppose but rather submits to his divine and almighty will. (CCC 475)
Jim Blackburn Category: Jesus Keywords: christology sin
Q:“
How do we know that Jesus descends from David as prophesied? Matthew's Gospel tells us about Joseph's genealogy, but he was not Jesus' biological father. Does the Bible say from where Mary descends?
”
A:
There is no record of Jesus’ genealogy through Mary. So how do we know that Jesus descended from the house of David?Matthew (1:2-16) and Luke (3:23-38) each thought it important to record Joseph’s genealogy. The Navarre Bible commentary on Matthew’s Gospel explains why this is important:
Jewish genealogies followed the male line. Joseph, being Mary’s husband, was the legal father of Jesus. The legal father is on par with the real father as regards rights and duties . . . Since it was quite usual for people to marry within their clan, it can be concluded that Mary belonged to the house of David. Several early Fathers of the Church testify to this—for example, St. Ignatius, St. Irenaeus, St. Justin and Tertullian, who base their testimony on an unbroken tradition. (28-29)
There is also other evidence that Jesus was David’s descendant. For example, Paul tells us that Jesus "was descended from David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3).
Jim Blackburn Category: Jesus Keywords: Jesus St. Joseph Mary New Testament
Q:“
If our Lord's last name was "Christ," does that mean that "Christ" was also the last name of St. Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary?
”
A:
The word Christ is not a personal name but a title in Greek that means "the Anointed One." In Hebrew, the title is Mashiach, or, more commonly, Messiah. The name "Jesus Christ" is a shorthand way of identifying Jesus of Nazareth as "Jesus, the Christ." In ancient Hebrew society, people used patronyms, meaning that they were identified as the child of their father. So, for example, Jesus was known during his earthly life as "Jesus, son of Joseph" (cf. Matt. 13:55). St. Joseph and the Blessed Virgin in turn would have been identified as the son and daughter of their respective fathers.
Michelle Arnold Category: Jesus Keywords: Jesus terminology St. Joseph Mary
Q:“
If Jesus Christ is a union of human and divine natures, was his human nature co-eternal with God, or only his divine nature? John 1:14 ("and the Word was made flesh") seems to imply that the Incarnation took place later. That, in turn, suggests that Jesus Christ's human nature "happened" later—it was not present at the beginning, not co-eternal with God (except, perhaps, as a potentiality). If so, then can it be said that the joint human-divine nature of Jesus Christ is the second person of the Holy Trinity? Or is only the divine nature of Jesus Christ (the Logos) the Second Person? How could Jesus Christ's human nature be part of the Trinity if it is not co-eternal with God?
”
A:
Jesus is the Eternal Word, the Eternal Logos, who is eternally begotten of the Father and equal to the Father. When he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit in the womb of his blessed Mother, he took on a human nature and entered time. His human nature had a beginning. We don’t want to create a problem where there is none. The fact that Jesus took on a human nature in no way diminishes the Holy Trinity. One of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, since the Incarnation, simply has a human nature as well as a divine one. If we said that his human nature supplanted his divine nature, we would have a problem. But such is not the case and could never be.
Fr. Vincent Serpa Category: Jesus Keywords: christology Jesus Trinity
Q:“
Was Jesus "forsaken" momentarily by the Father on the cross? If so, then are we saying that the Trinity was momentarily split? If Jesus was not forsaken by the Father, then what really caused Jesus such agony in the garden?
”
A:
Jesus was not forsaken by the Father on the cross. He was reciting Psalm 22 about himself: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" It goes on: "I can count every one of my bones. These people stare at me and gloat; they divide my clothing among them. They cast lots for my robe." It is most important to realize that Jesus has a human and divine nature. It was his human nature that suffered and died, not his divine nature.
Fr. Vincent Serpa Category: Jesus Keywords: christology God Trinity Passion Old Testament Gospel
Q:“
Why wasn't Jesus named "Emmanuel," as the angel told Joseph that he should be named?
”
A:
The word Emmanuel translates to "God is with us." Matthew recalls the messianic prophecy from Isaiah 7:14 and states that its ultimate fulfillment is found in Mary’s Son: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel" (Matt. 1:23)."Name," in this sense, does not refer to the actual name Joseph and Mary were to give to their Son (cf. Matt. 1:21, Luke 1:31); in this case, the word is used in the sense of "to call" (i.e., "they shall call his name Emmanuel," cf. Is. 7:14). Analogously, one could say of baseball legend, Babe Ruth, "They called him the Sultan of Swat," without intending to mean that "the Sultan of Swat" was George Herman Ruth Jr.’s given name. Just as Babe Ruth’s nickname was meant to indicate that Ruth was a great hitter, so Emmanuel indicates that the expected Messiah would be "God with us."Emmanuel, "God is with us," also calls to mind the last verse in Matthew (28:20): "Behold, I [Jesus] am with you always, until the end of the age."
Michelle Arnold Category: Jesus Keywords: New Testament Gospel
Was Jesus a liberal?
”
A:
Jesus is God, and, as such, does not involve himself in temporal politics (cf. Jn 18:36). I recommend Jesus of Nazareth by Pope Benedict XVI, in which the pope offers his thoughts that Christianity should not seek to establish a theocracy.
Michelle Arnold Category: Jesus Keywords: God social justice Jesus just war
Q:“
I remember nuns saying that every time someone sins, he puts another nail into Christ. Is it because Jesus suffers every time we sin?
”
A:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains these words:
Since our sins made the Lord Christ suffer the torment of the cross, those who plunge themselves into disorders and crimes crucify the Son of God anew in their hearts (for he is in them) and hold him up to contempt. And it can be seen that our crime in this case is greater in us than in the Jews. As for them, according to the witness of the apostle, “None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” We, however, profess to know him. And when we deny him by our deeds, we in some way seem to lay violent hands on him. Nor did demons crucify him; it is you who have crucified him and crucify him still, when you delight in your vices and sins. (CCC 598, quoting St. Francis of Assisi, Admonitio 5.3)
Peggy Frye Category: Jesus Keywords: Passion suffering Jesus sin
Q:“
I have always been led to believe that Jesus thought his Father had given up on him when he said from the cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Is that really what he thought?
”
A:
Jesus quoted from Psalm 22, which prophesied the Passion. He probably continued the Psalm in silence. Read the Psalm in full and you will see that Jesus did not think that his Father had given up on him but, rather, he showed confidence in the Father despite immense suffering.
Jim Blackburn Category: Jesus Keywords: suffering God Gospel Passion Jesus
Q:“
One of the attributes of God is that he is all-knowing. If Christ is God, why does he not know the end of days, and only the Father knows?
”
A:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says: "By its union to the divine wisdom in the person of the Word incarnate, Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal. What he admitted to not knowing in this area, he elsewhere declared himself not sent to reveal" (CCC 474).
Peggy Frye Category: Jesus Keywords: God eschatology Scripture
Q:“
When Jesus was on earth in human form, did he commit sins like other humans?
”
A:
Jesus never sinned. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states,
Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; "like us in all things but sin." (CCC 467)
So how did he, in his humanity, keep from sinning? He submitted his will completely to the will of his Father.
Christ possesses two wills and two natural operations, divine and human. They are not opposed to each other, but cooperate in such a way that the Word made flesh willed humanly in obedience to his Father all that he had decided divinely with the Father and the Holy Spirit for our salvation. Christ’s human will does not resist or oppose but rather submits to his divine and almighty will. (CCC 475)
Jim Blackburn Category: Jesus Keywords: christology sin
Q:“
How do we know that Jesus descends from David as prophesied? Matthew's Gospel tells us about Joseph's genealogy, but he was not Jesus' biological father. Does the Bible say from where Mary descends?
”
A:
There is no record of Jesus’ genealogy through Mary. So how do we know that Jesus descended from the house of David?Matthew (1:2-16) and Luke (3:23-38) each thought it important to record Joseph’s genealogy. The Navarre Bible commentary on Matthew’s Gospel explains why this is important:
Jewish genealogies followed the male line. Joseph, being Mary’s husband, was the legal father of Jesus. The legal father is on par with the real father as regards rights and duties . . . Since it was quite usual for people to marry within their clan, it can be concluded that Mary belonged to the house of David. Several early Fathers of the Church testify to this—for example, St. Ignatius, St. Irenaeus, St. Justin and Tertullian, who base their testimony on an unbroken tradition. (28-29)
There is also other evidence that Jesus was David’s descendant. For example, Paul tells us that Jesus "was descended from David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3).
Jim Blackburn Category: Jesus Keywords: Jesus St. Joseph Mary New Testament
Q:“
If our Lord's last name was "Christ," does that mean that "Christ" was also the last name of St. Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary?
”
A:
The word Christ is not a personal name but a title in Greek that means "the Anointed One." In Hebrew, the title is Mashiach, or, more commonly, Messiah. The name "Jesus Christ" is a shorthand way of identifying Jesus of Nazareth as "Jesus, the Christ." In ancient Hebrew society, people used patronyms, meaning that they were identified as the child of their father. So, for example, Jesus was known during his earthly life as "Jesus, son of Joseph" (cf. Matt. 13:55). St. Joseph and the Blessed Virgin in turn would have been identified as the son and daughter of their respective fathers.
Michelle Arnold Category: Jesus Keywords: Jesus terminology St. Joseph Mary
Q:“
If Jesus Christ is a union of human and divine natures, was his human nature co-eternal with God, or only his divine nature? John 1:14 ("and the Word was made flesh") seems to imply that the Incarnation took place later. That, in turn, suggests that Jesus Christ's human nature "happened" later—it was not present at the beginning, not co-eternal with God (except, perhaps, as a potentiality). If so, then can it be said that the joint human-divine nature of Jesus Christ is the second person of the Holy Trinity? Or is only the divine nature of Jesus Christ (the Logos) the Second Person? How could Jesus Christ's human nature be part of the Trinity if it is not co-eternal with God?
”
A:
Jesus is the Eternal Word, the Eternal Logos, who is eternally begotten of the Father and equal to the Father. When he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit in the womb of his blessed Mother, he took on a human nature and entered time. His human nature had a beginning. We don’t want to create a problem where there is none. The fact that Jesus took on a human nature in no way diminishes the Holy Trinity. One of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, since the Incarnation, simply has a human nature as well as a divine one. If we said that his human nature supplanted his divine nature, we would have a problem. But such is not the case and could never be.
Fr. Vincent Serpa Category: Jesus Keywords: christology Jesus Trinity
Q:“
Was Jesus "forsaken" momentarily by the Father on the cross? If so, then are we saying that the Trinity was momentarily split? If Jesus was not forsaken by the Father, then what really caused Jesus such agony in the garden?
”
A:
Jesus was not forsaken by the Father on the cross. He was reciting Psalm 22 about himself: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" It goes on: "I can count every one of my bones. These people stare at me and gloat; they divide my clothing among them. They cast lots for my robe." It is most important to realize that Jesus has a human and divine nature. It was his human nature that suffered and died, not his divine nature.
Fr. Vincent Serpa Category: Jesus Keywords: christology God Trinity Passion Old Testament Gospel
Q:“
Why wasn't Jesus named "Emmanuel," as the angel told Joseph that he should be named?
”
A:
The word Emmanuel translates to "God is with us." Matthew recalls the messianic prophecy from Isaiah 7:14 and states that its ultimate fulfillment is found in Mary’s Son: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel" (Matt. 1:23)."Name," in this sense, does not refer to the actual name Joseph and Mary were to give to their Son (cf. Matt. 1:21, Luke 1:31); in this case, the word is used in the sense of "to call" (i.e., "they shall call his name Emmanuel," cf. Is. 7:14). Analogously, one could say of baseball legend, Babe Ruth, "They called him the Sultan of Swat," without intending to mean that "the Sultan of Swat" was George Herman Ruth Jr.’s given name. Just as Babe Ruth’s nickname was meant to indicate that Ruth was a great hitter, so Emmanuel indicates that the expected Messiah would be "God with us."Emmanuel, "God is with us," also calls to mind the last verse in Matthew (28:20): "Behold, I [Jesus] am with you always, until the end of the age."
Michelle Arnold Category: Jesus Keywords: New Testament Gospel
Reference: Key word search "Son of Man" http://www.catholic.com/
