acts 17:24

[jheid]

Hey everyone:

I’ve stumbled on two verses that I need some help figuring out. The first is Acts 17:24: “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands.” The context, as you may know, is Paul’s speech to the athenians on the areopagus (I actually live in Athens). I’ve read the “was paul anti-catholic” tract but I still am having trouble reconciling this with catholic teaching on the real presence.

The second is st stephen’s quote before martyrdom: acts 7:48-49: yet the most High dwells not in houses made by hands, as the prophet says: Heaven is my throne and the earth my footstool. What house will you build me (says the Lord)? Or what is the place of my resting?

Some insight would be more than greatly appreciated.

 

[Contarini]

Hey everyone:

I’ve stumbled on two verses that I need some help figuring out. The first is Acts 17:24: “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands.” The context, as you may know, is Paul’s speech to the athenians on the areopagus (I actually live in Athens). I’ve read the “was paul anti-catholic” tract but I still am having trouble reconciling this with catholic teaching on the real presence.

The second is st stephen’s quote before martyrdom: acts 7:48-49: yet the most High dwells not in houses made by hands, as the prophet says: Heaven is my throne and the earth my footstool. What house will you build me (says the Lord)? Or what is the place of my resting?

Some insight would be more than greatly appreciated.

Christ is not in the Sacrament as in a place, but “after the manner of substance.”

Edwin

 

[Todd_Easton]

I think Paul’s point was that God, with respect to the divine nature, is omnipresent. The Eucharist has more to do with the presence of Christ’s glorified human nature.

The divine nature of Christ is omnipresent. The glorified human nature of Christ is present in heaven and in the Eucharist.

 

[uxordepp]

My take is that God would be there whether or not human hands had been involved. Humanity is not necessary for the existence of God.

However, as the second poster implied (if I understood correctly), God can be wherever and whatever He desires, so having Jesus be the Sacrament, is not a contradiction here. Remember Jesus is not IN the bread, He IS the Bread.

 

[TimothyH]

Remember the context. Living in Athens I’m sure you won’t have a problem with that but remember that the ancient Greeks to whom Paul was speaking were idol worshipers. Their gods were pieces of wood and stone which were placed in temples made by men. Paul was speaking to idol worshipers and his words must be taken in this context.

For ‘In him we live and move and have our being,’ as even some of your poets have said, ‘For we too are his offspring.’ Since therefore we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the divinity is like an image fashioned from gold, silver, or stone by human art and imagination. (Acts 17:28-29)

Paul’s comments have nothing to do with the Eucharist. They have everything to do with worshiping artistic pieces of rock and metal vs the true divinity of our creator in Heaven. Discussions with the pagans about the divinity of the Christian God who created the universe vs pieces of wood and stone was Paul’s first order of business. I’m sure catechesis about the Trinity, the Incarnation and the Eucharist would come later. Verse 31-32 even states that many scoffed and dismissed him when he went deeper into Christian doctrine, specically mentioning the ressurection of the dead.

*Our ancestors were unwilling to obey him; instead, they pushed him aside and in their hearts turned back to Egypt, saying to Aaron, 'Make us gods who will be our leaders. As for that Moses who led us out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has happened to him.’ So they made a calf in those days, offered sacrifice to the idol, and reveled in the works of their hands. Then God turned and handed them over to worship the host of heaven, as it is written in the book of the prophets: 'Did you bring me sacrifices and offerings for forty years in the desert, O house of Israel? No, you took up the tent of Moloch and the star of (your) god Rephan, the images that you made to worship. (Acts 7:39-43)*Acts 7:39 and onward show that Stephen is speaking about the same thing except in the context of the ancient Isralites who worshipped images and idols.

We must always read Scripture with its context in mind - who the authors were and who their audience was, what the economic, social and political conditions were, etc. It would have been much different if Paul had been standing in a Church pointing to a tabernacle saying the same words but he wasn’t - he was speaking to idol worshippers about their Gods of stone and metal. Neither Paul nor Stephen’s words have anything to do with the Eucharist.

-Tim-

 

[PAboy57]

Hey everyone:

I’ve stumbled on two verses that I need some help figuring out. The first is Acts 17:24: “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands.” The context, as you may know, is Paul’s speech to the athenians on the areopagus (I actually live in Athens). I’ve read the “was paul anti-catholic” tract but I still am having trouble reconciling this with catholic teaching on the real presence.

The second is st stephen’s quote before martyrdom: acts 7:48-49: yet the most High dwells not in houses made by hands, as the prophet says: Heaven is my throne and the earth my footstool. What house will you build me (says the Lord)? Or what is the place of my resting?

Some insight would be more than greatly appreciated.

Haydock Commentary:

God can dwell anywhere. The temples are for man so they have a place to worship. Jesus, who is God is also able to be in the Eucharist – real presence.

Places consecrated in a particular manner to his service, where he gives the most sensible marks of his presence, are of assistance to us, when we render our homage, address our vows, and offer our prayers to the Deity. Saint Stephen’s design in this part of his discourse, is to prove that the true religion may subsist without the temple; therefore, that he could not be guilty of blasphemy, supposing he had even used the words which the malice of the Jews put into his mouth, that Jesus of Nazareth would destroy this place.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Hey everyone:

I’ve stumbled on two verses that I need some help figuring out. The first is Acts 17:24: “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands.” The context, as you may know, is Paul’s speech to the athenians on the areopagus (I actually live in Athens). I’ve read the “was paul anti-catholic” tract but I still am having trouble reconciling this with catholic teaching on the real presence.

The second is st stephen’s quote before martyrdom: acts 7:48-49: yet the most High dwells not in houses made by hands, as the prophet says: Heaven is my throne and the earth my footstool. What house will you build me (says the Lord)? Or what is the place of my resting?

Some insight would be more than greatly appreciated.

As for 7:48-49 John McEvily makes a very good point

St. Stephen wishes to combat the exaggerated importance the Jews attached to their temple, as if all religion depended on it, and as if God’s presence, worship and manifestation were confined to it. He would possibly be insinuating that one day the temple might be destroyed.

And also his commentas on 17:24

This is by no means opposed to the external worship of God, to the erection of temples, the offering of sacrifices in His honor; since there is question here only of the false worship and absurd notions of the Pagans.

 

[Curious1324]

Hey everyone:

I’ve stumbled on two verses that I need some help figuring out. The first is Acts 17:24: “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands.” The context, as you may know, is Paul’s speech to the athenians on the areopagus (I actually live in Athens). I’ve read the “was paul anti-catholic” tract but I still am having trouble reconciling this with catholic teaching on the real presence.

The second is st stephen’s quote before martyrdom: acts 7:48-49: yet the most High dwells not in houses made by hands, as the prophet says: Heaven is my throne and the earth my footstool. What house will you build me (says the Lord)? Or what is the place of my resting?

Some insight would be more than greatly appreciated.

The Catholic teaching of Real Presence is not about a building (i.e. temple, house, etc.). Hope that helps.

 

[jheid]

What’s troubling me is that the Real Presence of our lord in the tabernacle in the church sounds quite a bit like dwelling…

 

[InspiritCarol]

Remember the context. Living in Athens I’m sure you won’t have a problem with that but remember that the ancient Greeks to whom Paul was speaking were idol worshipers. Their gods were pieces of wood and stone which were placed in temples made by men. Paul was speaking to idol worshipers and his words must be taken in this context.

For ‘In him we live and move and have our being,’ as even some of your poets have said, ‘For we too are his offspring.’ Since therefore we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the divinity is like an image fashioned from gold, silver, or stone by human art and imagination. (Acts 17:28-29)

Paul’s comments have nothing to do with the Eucharist. They have everything to do with worshiping artistic pieces of rock and metal vs the true divinity of our creator in Heaven. Discussions with the pagans about the divinity of the Christian God who created the universe vs pieces of wood and stone was Paul’s first order of business. I’m sure catechesis about the Trinity, the Incarnation and the Eucharist would come later. Verse 31-32 even states that many scoffed and dismissed him when he went deeper into Christian doctrine, specically mentioning the ressurection of the dead.

Our ancestors were unwilling to obey him; instead, they pushed him aside and in their hearts turned back to Egypt, saying to Aaron, 'Make us gods who will be our leaders. As for that Moses who led us out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has happened to him.’ So they made a calf in those days, offered sacrifice to the idol, and reveled in the works of their hands. Then God turned and handed them over to worship the host of heaven, as it is written in the book of the prophets: 'Did you bring me sacrifices and offerings for forty years in the desert, O house of Israel? No, you took up the tent of Moloch and the star of (your) god Rephan, the images that you made to worship. (Acts 7:39-43)Acts 7:39 and onward show that Stephen is speaking about the same thing except in the context of the ancient Isralites who worshipped images and idols.

We must always read Scripture with its context in mind - who the authors were and who their audience was, what the economic, social and political conditions were, etc. It would have been much different if Paul had been standing in a Church pointing to a tabernacle saying the same words but he wasn’t - he was speaking to idol worshippers about their Gods of stone and metal. Neither Paul nor Stephen’s words have anything to do with the Eucharist.

-Tim-

Tim, you hit the nail on the head. Thanks for saving me the trouble.
Just to underscore; consider the audience. Pope Benedict XVI expounds this concept so well in his book “Jesus of Nazareth” when he addresses the line from the “Our Father”: Hallowed be thy name. The Pope says in regard to Moses’ request of God’s name at the burning bush:

But in the world of Moses’ time there were many gods. Moses therefore asks the name of this god that will prove his special authority vis-à-vis the gods. In this respect, the idea of the divine name belongs first of all to the polytheistic world, in which this god, too, has to give himself a name. But the god who calls Moses is truly God, and God in the strict and true sense is not plural. God is by essence one. For this reason, he can not enter into the world of gods as one among many; he can not have one name among others.
And, by extension from this reasoning, God can not have one house; one “temple” among others.