M
- Status
J
jphilapy
Guest
Hi mt,
You misunderstood my question because I incorrectly phrased it. However I am going to put that question on the back burner for now.
Here is another question for you that is more on key with the discussion between you and michaelp. You said that John 6 can be understood both symbolically and literally. In order for it to be understood symbolically it must symbolize something. What does it symbolize?
Jeff
J
John_Henry
Guest
I am not going to get into the various interpretations of various texts by various fathers. I will only say that every sacrament contains a symbol. To pit a symbolic interpretation of a particular verse against a “literal” interpretation of the verse is a false dichotomy. Baptism symbolizes cleansing. Baptism effects cleansing. Bread symbolizes the Lord’s flesh. Bread effects the Lord’s flesh. Wine symbolizes the Lord’s blood. Wine effects the Lord’s blood.
In the Fathers (I am not saying this pertains directly to the above quotes), there is a much less explicit differentiation between the symbol and the effected symbol. To speak of the real presence symbolically is not to deny the real presence. Heck, the catechism speaks of it as a symbol too, and surely the Church does not thereby deny the real presence.
Then you have hyper-spiritual interpretations of texts where bread becomes symbolic of something like God’s word. That texts could thus be interpreted spiritually does not mean that the person didn’t also interpret the text quite literally (as the above-mentioned literal quotes from Augustine and Clement suggest). As the catechism teaches, all interpretation starts with the literal. But as Cardinal Newman says, the history of the Church goes hand-in-hand with bringing spiritual interpretations of verses to bear on disputations. We believe in the literal, but not only in the literal.
(All of which various people have said already.)
In the Fathers (I am not saying this pertains directly to the above quotes), there is a much less explicit differentiation between the symbol and the effected symbol. To speak of the real presence symbolically is not to deny the real presence. Heck, the catechism speaks of it as a symbol too, and surely the Church does not thereby deny the real presence.
Then you have hyper-spiritual interpretations of texts where bread becomes symbolic of something like God’s word. That texts could thus be interpreted spiritually does not mean that the person didn’t also interpret the text quite literally (as the above-mentioned literal quotes from Augustine and Clement suggest). As the catechism teaches, all interpretation starts with the literal. But as Cardinal Newman says, the history of the Church goes hand-in-hand with bringing spiritual interpretations of verses to bear on disputations. We believe in the literal, but not only in the literal.
(All of which various people have said already.)
M
mtr01
Guest
That’s not quite what I said. But be that as it may, the only metaphor I would accept is for the redemptive suffering of Christ and his sacrifice on the Cross. However, that in no way precludes the literal and primary meaning of the discourse.
M
michaelp
Guest
Let me get this straight. You would say that this passage has two senses to it. One having to do with transubstantiation and one to do with the redemptive suffering of Christ. And you say that the “primary” meaning is the transubstantiation, not the redemptive suffering? Wow. I thought that, even in your view, transubstantiation was based on the literal redemptive sufferings of Christ and finds no meaning without it.
Michael
M
mtr01
Guest
I don’t understand what transubstantiation has to do with any of this discussion. However, for the record, the primary interpretation of John 6, in my view, that of the Church and the Early Fathers is the literal one. Again, a secondary metaphorical interpretation of this particular discourse does not affect the former in any way.
J
jphilapy
Guest
mt,
the problem I see with the literal interpretation is if you are going to take it literally then you have to take it literally literall. So if you say that Jesus intended himself to be understood literally then that means Jesus intended himself to be eaten as he was standing there or to have his body taken down from the cross and eaten by his disciples. But we know he didn’t intend that so he couldn’t have meant it literally. Let’s take for example we are standing there listening to him speak. How do we apply to our lives what he said? Well we can take the literal approach, and wait till he is dead on the cross and then take him down and eat him. Now that would be the obvious conclusion if we take a literal approach. Since Jesus did not intend for them to do that it makes sense that he had something else in mind beside the literal understanding.
Jeff
M
Madaglan
Guest
I think one has to keep in mind that, for Catholics, transubstantiation takes place in the mass during the time when the redemptive death of Christ is commemorated by being made present. The sacrafice of the altar of the bread and wine that have been transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ, is the same sacrafice as the one finished by Christ on the cross.
So transubstantiation, as it only occurs during that time at mass during which Christ’s sacrafice is commemorated, is implicitly inseparable from Christ’s redemptive death.
In short, I believe that michaelp is correct in what he asserts about Catholic belief. However, I hope he does not dichotomize transubstantiation from the redemptive death of Christ, since for Catholics transubstantiation is indeed part of that redemptive death of Christ.
M
mtr01
Guest
Jeff, Our Lord absolutely meant it literally. In fact in makes no sense any other way. Why would Christ let many of his followers leave over a metaphor? Why would he ask the Apostles if they were going to leave him over it too? The “symbolic-only” innovation just doesn’t work.
As for your claim that a literal interpretation means Christ wanted his followers to take him down off the cross and cannibalize him, you forget how many times He say “I am the bread that came down from heaven” and that “the bread I give is my flesh, for the life of the world”. This is a plain-as-day foreshadowing of the institution of the Eucharist “this is my flesh which will be given up for you”. It’s all right there. Through the Spirit, bread becomes His flesh, which gives us life. This is how we consume his flesh, not by cannibalizing his dead body.
Read the following tract, it explains it much better than I can writing here extemporaneously:
catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp
J
jphilapy
Guest
mt tell me this, what did the followers understand Jesus to be saying? What exactly did they think he meant?
Jeff
M
mtr01
Guest
The evidence suggests they didn’t think he was speaking symbolically; they wouldn’t have left him over a metaphor.
J
jphilapy
Guest
So did they leave him because he was saying he would turn bread into flesh? What exactly did they understand him to be saying?
Jeff
M
mtr01
Guest
I’ve answered quite a few of your questions. Why don’t you tell me what you think his disciples understood him to be saying? If you think they thought him to be speaking metaphorically, tell me why they left him.
J
jphilapy
Guest
His disciples that left thought he was telling them to engage in cannibalism, that is, kill him and eat the flesh off his body. But that is not what he was telling them. But he knew that is how they understood it. So why didn’t he correct them? Why didn’t he tell them that he didn’t want them to engage in cannibalism? Did he mean his words they way they understood them? They did understand them literally but did he mean it the same way?
Jeff
M
Maccabees
Guest
Stick to scripture and not spin Jesus did not say Kill me. HE said in the same discourse he would offer his flesh for the life of the world thus the disciples did not think they would have to kill him.
Then he says he my flesh and drink my blood. No correction.
No they didn’t think they would have to kille Jesus but they did think they would have to eat his flesh and drink his blood.
That’s it don’t reivent Jesus words. OF course I would like to know where it says hey guys kill me!
J
jphilapy
Guest
Hi macc,
I don’t see how the point about who would kill him is relevant. It doesn’t matter who would kill him. What matters is what they understood by ‘eat of his flesh’. They did not understand him to mean eat of bread turned into flesh. They understood him to be telling them to engage in canibbalism.
Jeff
M
Maccabees
Guest
Your the one who included they thought they would have to kill Jesus not me. So why did you bring it up if your now saying it is irrelevant. If it is irrelevant leave it out.
After the discourse he asks the apostles if they would leave him well they stay. They stay for the last supper where he utters the words that make this whole passage make sense. They stay for his ressurection where he teaches them for 40 days all the myseries of the church.
JEsus asks the apsotles to stay and trust him and take him at his world that doesn’t alwasy mean the apostles got what he was talking about. He told them about his ressurection yet they didn’t get it. WHen he ressureected they didn;t beleive it becaseuse they didn;t understand his teaching. Later in the JOhn 6 discourse if you think this is impossible what would you say If I told you I would assend into the clouds? WEll you beleive that don’t you. Those who left did not believe in the assension of Jesus nor the eucharistic discourse.
Of course historically your standin on really shaky gound as the disciliple of John himself Ignaitus of Anticoch interpreted it literally.
But hey if you were at the feet of John who wrote the text than maybe I would listen to you but your coming to me 2000 years after the fact. You just lack faith dude. You don’t beleive what Jesus says because you can’t beleive how sad and how small is your faith.
S
stumbler
Guest
Two points that may help you.
1 - Future tense
In John 6:51, my translations indicate Jesus is speaking in a future tense. For example:
KJV said:
So there is no indication that the Jews were thinking they had to kill him and eat him at that moment. But they did understand Jesus to be saying something akin to cannibalism, because in the very next verse (6:52), the audience is deeply troubled over this “eat his flesh” business.
2 - Hard Saying
It is precisely because Jesus was speaking a literal truth (He will give us His flesh to eat – He is the paschal “Lamb of God,” after all, that has to be eaten (Ex 12:8, 46)) that He has to let them walk. If Jesus was speaking metaphorically or symbolically, how could Jesus let them leave over their misunderstanding? The gospels are full of examples of Jesus saying something metaphoric, perplexing His disciples, and then explaining what He meant. Here He doesn’t say, “Let Me explain, you sillies.” He eventually let’s them walk of their own free will.
Further, after they start grumbling, does Jesus change direction to explain His words? No. In fact, He ramps up His rhetoric. In John 6:53, He repeats himself, so they know He is saying the same thing, using the same verb “eat” (Gk: phago) as before. Then in 6:54 He switches to a stronger word (Gk: trogo) which has an even more literal meaning of “chew” or “gnaw.” In 6:55 He is point blank: “my flesh is meat”, “my blood is drink.” Yipes! In 6:56, again, chew on my flesh. In 6:57, again “eat me.” Double yipes!! So I think in a very real sense, Jesus did follow his model of explaining his teaching to the bewildered. But in this case, he went strongly literal. Jesus left them with no doubt at all as to His meaning.
Compare the reaction of those that leave with the 12 apostles. Jesus says “Will you (plural) also go away?” (John 6:67) And Peter is plaintive in his response as he answers for them all: “Where will we go?” Personally, I don’t think Peter and the rest get it yet. They are struggling. But Peter falls back on the one solid truth he does know: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” They will stay with Jesus in spite of this hard saying, trusting in Him to reveal all.
M
Madaglan
Guest
Stumbler,
Excellent post!
I just wonder though: why do we not see this description in the early Church Fathers? Do you think perhaps that because the Eucharist was more or less secret to only members that the Fathers were quite reticent to let the secret of the Eucharist out? I remember reading Phillip Jenkin’s orthodox book, The Hidden Gospels, and how he claims that in early Christian times there was a long catechumen process, and the greatest divine mysteries were only revealed over time.
Excellent post!
I just wonder though: why do we not see this description in the early Church Fathers? Do you think perhaps that because the Eucharist was more or less secret to only members that the Fathers were quite reticent to let the secret of the Eucharist out? I remember reading Phillip Jenkin’s orthodox book, The Hidden Gospels, and how he claims that in early Christian times there was a long catechumen process, and the greatest divine mysteries were only revealed over time.
J
jphilapy
Guest
Hi stumbler,
Here is the problem I see. You are only willing to attribute a partial literalness to Jesus words. Notice that you say “akin to cannibalism”. btw thanks for spelling the word for me
The literal interpretation of Jesus words do not come out to something that equals “akin to cannibalism”. His words intepreted literally are nothing less than “cannibalism”. So you either have to go the whole way and say that Jesus is literally teaching “cannibalism” or go the whole way and say that he is not teaching something literal.
Now why didn’t Jesus stop the disciples? Because he requires nothing less than their complete trust. The disciples who stayed did trust him completely. They, like Abraham knew that God would not require them to do something immoral. So Jesus wasn’t going to stop the disciples who left because they were unbelievers. Not unbelievers in his words but unbelievers in that they didn’t depend on him trusting his character. The same thing for Abraham. Notice that God didn’t correct Abraham and say ‘Abraham I don’t really want you to sacrifice your son’. However literal one could understand God’s words, they were not intended to be taken literally. Why? Because God never required the sacrifice of Issac. Abraham knew that and thus knew God didn’t literally mean it.
Jeff
- Status