Bible Study Home Page | Meeting Times | Bible Study Digest | OLMC HomeBible Study Digest
Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Community Volume 15, No. 2 March 21, 1999 Question BoxThe following questions were answered by Deacon Bernie Yeatts. Q. How far along in her pregnancy was Mary at the time she visited her cousin Elizabeth? Did she assist or might she have assisted Elizabeth during John's birth or after? What could be the reason that Jesus and John were not apparently familiar with one another? Did Mary and Elizabeth not stay in touch? A. There are no answers to questions above. We can only speculate from the little bit of information we have in the Gospel of Luke. The other canonical Gospels have no information about the pregnancy of Elizabeth and the infancy of John. If, indeed, John and Jesus did not know each other, or knew each other only slightly, it could be due to the simple fact that they lived at opposite ends of the country -- Jesus is Galilee and John in Judea. Travel in those days being what it was, it's not surprising that even close relatives were not that well acquainted. Only the Gospel of Luke goes into any detail about the family of John, and it appears Luke had a very specific reason for the parallel account of Zachary, Elizabeth, and John as contrasted to Joseph, Mary, and Jesus. The other Gospels introduce John as an adult. Scripture scholars speculate that Luke portrays John as he does to indicate that, although John was a special person, he was not divine as Jesus was. The Gospels' accounts of John and the other accounts about him in literature of the time portray him as a charismatic, prophetic person who had a significant impact on the religious spirit of the time. He evidently had some followers who stayed with him and who continued to carry his message of internal conversion even after his arrest and death. There is also some evidence that John's followers were rivals of Jesus' followers in the years after Jesus' death and resurrection. One motivation of the Gospel writers could well have been to give due respect to John and his ministry but to position him as the forerunner of Jesus who identifies Jesus and not himself as the "one who is to come," that is, as the messiah. Many of the stories about Mary and the infancy of Jesus that have been told and retold over the centuries were recorded in the apocryphal (noncanonical) gospels. Very early in the history of the Church, these "gospels" were discounted as being of no significant value in presenting the mission and message of Jesus. In some cases they were declared to contain doctrinal errors. Other accounts of Mary from the early years of the Church are found in the writings of the Church Fathers, people such as St. Clement of Rome, St. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, St. Augustine, etc. In some cases, the accounts are presented as being from tradition, that is, stories handed down from generation to generation. In other cases, there are homilies and spiritual reflections that contain pious thought and images of Mary that have no basis in fact. We must be careful to distinguish these stories and reflections from the doctrines which the Church Councils have defined as such. Q. What is the difference between "knowing God" and "knowing about God?" A. When we say we "know'' God and even when we say we "know about" God, we are speaking by way of analogy. The basis of the analogy is our relationship with other persons. When I say that I know my mother, I mean I have (or had) a relationship with her. I cannot say I "know" George Washington but only that I know about" him, that is, I have stored away in memory or I know where to find out some facts about him. And so we use the same terms concerning God. If I am a student of the Bible, I can know about God from the stories of how God has interacted with the people of this world. Christians can know about God from the doctrines that the Church Councils, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, defined. But when I say "I know" God, I mean I have a relationship with God. This relationship is a "faith" relationship because, unlike my mother, I have not seen God. The gift of faith which God gives enables a person to experience the presence of God, to converse with God, to love God to the extent of giving up one's life (literally or figuratively) for God. The notion of faith is involved here; one is totally dedicated to another, in this case, to God. Sometimes the encounters with God are called "mystical" experiences. The meeting of God and a human being does not involve the senses but the inner core of one's being. The attempts to describe this beg for words. St. Paul tried to describe what happened to him on the Road to Damascus. He used the language of human-to--human experience to try to capture the event in words: Jesus "spoke', to him; he "saw" a dazzlingly bright light. Similarly, some of the so-called mystics of Christianity (for example, St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross) tried to describe their mystical encounters with God also by using the image of the senses. Jesus of Nazareth was God in human flesh and form. Those around him could know him in the sense of interacting with and sharing emotional attachment with him. Before he departed from this world, Jesus taught us through word and deed that going out of ourselves in serving others is the way to meet him. Again, this is by way of analogy, but this service of others is the essential characteristic of those who follow Christ. We "know" Christ by "knowing" those in need. Q. Three passages from St. Paul's Letter to the Romans that speak of faith, obedience to the Law, and deeds as these terms relate to righteousness are Romans 3:27-28, Romans 4:5, and Romans 4:9. What is the background of these passages? A. The theology of the Old Testament and of Christianity can be stated in a very simple way. God is holy. Humans are made in the image and likeness of God. Therefore humans are called to be holy. How does one become holy? (Another word for "holy" is "righteous.") The search for the answer to this question occupied much of St. Paul's attention as he was trying to understand and then communicate the impact of Jesus the Christ in the world of Jews and gentiles alike. From his Jewish background, St. PauI knew that Jews believed that observance of the Law was the way to holiness. But he also realized that Jesus had taught that it was the internal disposition based on a relationship with God that made one holy. A person can go through all the motions, do the right things, observe the Law (and all the many aspects of life that are covered by the Law) and still not be holy or righteous. When St. Paul states that people wrongly justify themselves by deeds, he is writing about people who act according to the letter of the Law but miss the spirit of the law. When St. Paul used the word "faith" he did not mean it in the sense that our common usage means. "Faith" does not mean "belief," whether that belief be in a set of doctrines or even in Jesus. Going back to the question above, "faith" in the sense of "belief', would result in knowing about Jesus but not knowing Jesus. The Greek word that St. Paul used means "relationship." It means, again referring to question 2, "knowing" and not "knowing about." "Faith carries with it the idea of "selfless commitment." It means "living totally for the other." The way a person becomes holy is by committing oneself to Christ. St. Paul wrote, "I have been crucified with Christ; yet I live, no longer I, but Christ lives in me; insofar as I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of Cod who has loved me and given himself up for me." (Galatians 2: 19-20. St. Paul identified Abraham as one who was accepted by God as righteous. Obviously, he goes on to say, this could not have been because Abraham followed the Law because he lived and died centuries before Moses received the Law. Rather, he (Abraham) was judged righteous because he committed himself totally and without reserve to God. And so must the faith-filled follower of Christ. Q.
Did Job admit
his sinfulness? A. The foundational theological point of the book of Job is the inability of humans to know and understand God's ways and God's sense of justice. Job is portrayed as an upright and righteous man. And yet terrible things befall him. His friends try to "console" him by encouraging him to probe into his life deeper and deeper to determine where he had sinned, since they cannot believe God would punish Job if he was, indeed, sinless. If one approaches the Book of Job with a human sense of justice it's a very frustrating work because there is no expected answer. God does not restore Job's wealth, health, family, etc., because he admitted his guilt. We are left with the unsettled feeling that we cannot control nor even understand God. And that is exactly how the author wanted to leave the reader. The sinfulness of which Job becomes aware and repentant is his sin of trying to judge God, of trying to figure out what God is doing instead of- simply accepting God. Again, referring to question 2 above' Job is trying to "know about" God rather than "know" God. Job does not say, in effect, "Well, I repent for my sins, whatever they were, that brought about all this tragedy." The Book of Job presents a theological position that is in dramatic contrast to almost every other book of the Old Testament. The predominant theology was that of "retribution." God rewards the good; God punishes the evil. Since there was no common understanding of, nor belief in an afterlife (all the dead, good and bad, went to sheol, the "abode of the dead"), retribution had to be accomplished before death. The plight of Job indicates that this is not so and it invites the question, "Then what about those who die before retribution is meted out?" At first reading it appears that the ending of the Book of Job reverts to a theology of retribution: Job is finally rewarded for his goodness. But it never says that. The Lord simply restored the fortunes of Job; no reason for the Lord doing this is given. So this is another affirmation that God is in charge and his way cannot be "figured out. " MISCELLANEOUS ASPECTS OF THE GOSPEL OF MARK*The author of the Gospel of Mark writes from the point of view- of a narrator who is omniscient (knowing the thoughts, feelings, and sensory experiences of many characters), not bound by time or space (knows the whole story, including what will happen later), gives inside views of the characters' minds, narrates through "asides" to the reader, and speaks from an ideological point of view. The writer is not neutral; he clearly favors some characters and guides the reader's perceptions through his system of values and beliefs. One interesting aspect of the "messianic secret" is that from the start the narrator of Mark's story divulges the identity of Jesus' identity, so that it is known to the reader or hearer long before it becomes known to the characters in the story. This writing ploy establishing a relationship of confidence with the reader by giving him or her "inside . information"; it additionally creates tension and suspense as the reader wonders what will happen next. Mark uses repetition, sometimes as a bridge or as verbal threads to weave an intricate pattern. Another characteristic is the "two-step progression," which is the most pervasive stylistic feature of this gospel. Examples are "When it was evening, after the sun had set," "outside, in desert places," "a Greek, a Syro-Phoenician by birth," and pairs of questions, such as "What is this? A new teaching with authority?" A further technique is the use of a patterns or paired episodes such as is seen in the five conflict stories, which are arranged as A1, B1, C, B2, A2. Conflicts A1 (the healing of the crippled man) and A2 (the healing of the withered hand) reflect each other in structure, content, and theme. Conflicts B1 (eating with sinners) and B2 (picking grain on the Sabbath) also are similar. These four episodes form two concentric patterns around conflict C (the teaching on fasting). This central episode (conflict G) allows Jesus' response to illuminate all five of the episodes. *Comments drawn from David Rhoads and Donald Michie: Mark As Story: Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1982.
Last Updated on 5/27/03 |