Is this an okay answer?

I had scripture finals today :mad:

So one of the questions was:

What was the later significance of Solomon’s question
“Can any building house the presence of GOD?”

I answered:
"Yes, a building can house God. This building was Jesus. He was foretelling Jesus, who referred to himself as a temple in Sacred Scripture. God was in a temple, Jesus’ body. "

My Scripture teacher might mark this as wrong, so I was just wondering you opinions.



Lennon, it’s okay so far as I can see.

There are a lot of aspects that could have also gone into this though.

For instance, Mary, as the ark of the New Covenant in that her womb did indeed house the presence of God.

We have to stretch our minds a bit to understand that as omnipresent as the Almighty is that He can make Himself present anywhere that pleases him.

Even within us…which is a very scriptural concept since the New Testament speaks of “Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Colossians 1:27)

Then also we have the Real Presence in the Eucharist, which is the presence of Christ in whom all of the fullness of God bodily dwelt. (See 1st Corinthians 11:23-30)

So you see there are a number of different facets to this.

Well…now, I’m not a teacher, but…I think you’ve got a pretty good case. My guess is that the teacher is expecting answers about brick-n-mortar houses of worship, but your answer shows a leap of understanding, and I think is rather creative.

Curious, what kind of class is this (Catholic High School/College or Prostantant? Is your teacher Catholic?

Um…I always point out its Jesuit, Private, Catholic–Brophy College Prep

So if there’s any time for the school to be a bit more liberal…it’d be now haha!!

I’m not sure if he’s Catholic…I doubt it…I mean, he teaches against the church so I’m guessing either cafeteria or not at all.

Thank you!! My non-denominational Christian friend says it doesn’t make sense…I think he means that too, I am sooooooo willing to debate him on it for those points.

Yes yes yes!! It’s a really vague question…

Yeah, your teacher probably will mark it wrong–you answered the wrong question. The question appears to have been 'what is the later significance of [Solomon’s question]"; you answered Solomon’s question, not the question posed on the test–i.e. what is the later significance of the question he posed.

The answer, just a guess here–would be the Jewish Temple, and God (the Father) being ‘housed’ there. When Christ came around, He referred to it as “…my Father’s house.”

Again though, that’s just a wild guess. The point however, is that your answer appears to have been directed at Solomon’s question, not the significance of the question.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news…just answering honestly.

Also note, I have very little context to work with here–just going off of what you posted. There could be other factors involved, which would render my take completely wrong.

Well, Jesuits have been known to show a tendency to…go ‘off the reservation’ from time to time…but you oughtn’t concern yourself with that.

You’re a student; you’re there to learn. Learn. Listen. Study. Do what your teachers tell you. Get the grade.

But don’t lose sight of who you are, or what your faith actually is.

So, if you have a problem with what one of your teachers is teaching–take it up first with your parents, then–with your parents’ consent–with his/her superiors; write to the Bishop if necessary (assuming your parents don’t take up for you); detail the nature of your contention that the teacher is off the res, if you will–but in the classroom, you should respect your authority–which is, the teacher. That is, you should respect your teacher’s authority.

…that’s kind of how it works.

True, I forgot to mention that I said the significance is he is fortelling Christ. What is your opinion now?

Actually, it doesn’t appear that you forgot to mention that–I seem to have missed it. I guess the order in which you wrote it, threw me for a loop.

In that case, I think he should at least give you partial credit. It all depends on what he’s looking for. That’s why I mentioned the lack of context. You’re the one who’s been in the classroom; you’re much better suited than anyone on a message board, to know what your teach. is looking for.

…but context aside, I think your answer works. I just think it could have been clearer.

As a suggestion for the future–just a suggestion–when you get a question, take the question, turn it around into a statement, and finish the statement–thereby answering the question. Applied here:

What was the significance of X?

The significance of X was…

Kind of like algebra.

[edit:] if you’re saying that’s what you did, than never mind–you already know this. I thought you were saying you forgot to mention it, but that it was actually right there in the 2nd clause.


I’m going to take a contrary view to what everyone has been saying here: I’m going to argue that I think your assertion is incorrect.

You see, it’s true that Mary ‘housed’ God – she was the ark of the new covenant. However, Jesus doesn’t ‘house’ God: his body isn’t some sort of case, into which the Second Person of God was poured. (In fact, that was one of the early heresies about the nature of the divinity and humanity of Christ.) Rather, Jesus is God; so, in much the same way that you can’t say that your body ‘houses’ you (since your body is you – or, more accurately, part of you), you also can’t say that Jesus’ body ‘houses’ Him.




Good point.

Ok, so Lenno’s answer was that Solomon was foretelling Christ (then he explains how so).

If Solomon wasn’t foretelling Christ, what do you think the ‘later significance’ of the question is?

I don’t pretend to know the answer–I gave my guess above–but it was just a blind guess–do you have a guess, or do you ‘know’ what he was referring to, or what the ‘later significance’ of it was?

Adventures in Ambiguity I had that class once, at least I think I did!:shrug:

Do your parents know this? I’m sure they’re footing the tuition…right? …which I’m sure ain’t cheap…right?.

Nope…just gonna say around thirteen grand a year but I’m on financial aid…which still isn’t cheap. I’ve told them and told them and told them but they don’t care about my religious education, more about my core academics :confused:

Yes, that is true, but I was was, well, not trying to say that Jesus was in a building, but he did refer to himself as a temple. Well, I guess it does sound like that, but my teacher probably won’t know that my answer is heretical, just gotta watch out next year when I take church history!!

I mean, I guess I could sacrifice this test, but he’s really getting to me. Sometimes I wanna maker a dramatic scene in class and scream “HERESY! HERESY!” Then sit back down…I mean this is just the final straw for me.

Well, it’s interesting. I’m assuming that lennon’s referring to 1 Kings 8:27, in which Solomon – who has just finished the 13-year process of building a temple for the LORD! – says, “Is God indeed to dwell on earth? If the heavens and the highest heavens cannot contain you, how much less this house which I have built!” Of course, this is the height of irony: having built a house, Solomon realizes that it cannot fulfill its purpose. I would say that the significance is that it acts as a prophecy not of Jesus, per se, but of Jesus’ salvific action! After all, it’s Jesus’ death that tears the curtain of the temple, signifying that from that point on, God’s presence wasn’t limited to the walled-off holy of holies.

So, I don’t think the later significance is ‘the temple’, since the temple already exists when Solomon says this! However, I think it tells the truth that, ultimately, a temple will fail to house the LORD for His people…

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit