Clement of Alex. interprets John 6 symbolically?!

[Mickey]

jphilapy:

I don’t see how Augustine is saying anything different than me. I am saying that they understood Jesus to be teaching canniblism. That is what Augustine is saying too. Jeff

ST AUGUSTINE’S BELIEF IN THE REAL PRESENCE

1. The bread which you see on the altar is, sanctified by the word of God, the body of Christ; that chalice, or rather what is contained in the chalice, is, sanctified by the word of God, the blood of Christ.

(Sermo 227; on p. 377)

1. Christ bore Himself in His hands, when He offered His body saying: “this is my body.”

(Enarr. in Ps. 33 Sermo 1, 10; on p. 377)

1. Nobody eats this flesh without previously adoring it.

(Enarr. in Ps. 98, 9; on p. 387)

1. Referring to the sacrifice of Melchizedek (Gen 14:18 ff.):

The sacrifice appeared for the first time there which is now offered to God by Christians throughout the whole world.

(City of God, 16, 22; on p. 403)

1. He took flesh from the flesh of Mary . . . and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation . . . we do sin by not adoring.

(Explanations of the Psalms, 98, 9; on p. 20)

1. Not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ’s body.

(Sermons, 234, 2; on p. 31)

1. What you see is the bread and the chalice . . . But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the Body of Christ and the chalice the Blood of Christ.

(Sermons, 272; on p. 32)

1. Christ is both the priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the sacramental sign of this should be the daily sacrifice of the Church.

(City of God, 10, 20; on p. 99)

1. Not only is no one forbidden to take as food the Blood of this Sacrifice, rather, all who wish to possess life are exhorted to drink thereof.

(Questions of the Hepateuch, 3, 57; on p. 134)

1. The Sacrifice of our times is the Body and Blood of the Priest Himself . . . Recognize then in the Bread what hung upon the tree; in the chalice what flowed from His side.

(Sermo iii. 1-2; on p. 62)

 

[jphilapy]

Mickey:

Hey Jeff,

Since when does spiritually equate to symbolically?

Mickey that is a good point.

Spiritual does not mean symbolic. Though I should give this more thought.

But do you agree that spiritual does not mean literal?

Jeff

 

[mtr01]

jphilapy:

Macc I am probably not the best person to explain this but I will give it a shot.

I believe that Jesus is Fully God and Fully man, that he was Truly put to death and then Truly resurrected back to life.

However even though Jesus really died, it wasn’t the meat on his bones that he was giving for the world. It was his entire humanity.

Wait a minute. Are you sure you want to be saying this? Human nature was all that was necessary to reconcile man with God? Yikes, Jeff, seems awfully reminiscent of the Nestorian heresy. I think your theology is becoming muddled in an attempt to deny the Real Presence.

In the Incarnation, the Word became united to the flesh, and is insperable. It was the sacrifice of the God-Man only that could redeem mankind, not his human nature.

jphilapy:

The greek word sarx which is translated flesh does not only mean the meat on your body. look it up and you will see that all the places where it is used it has various meanings.

According to Strong’s, the primary meaning of the word is “meat, as stripped from the bones”. I’m wondering why you think this isn’t the meaning Our Lord was trying to convey in John 6:55:

For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. (KJV, DRV)

Are you suggesting that Our Lord was lying: that His flesh really wasn’t meat indeed? If he was speaking in a figurative manner, why would he bother saying this? Just because a word has several senses doesn’t mean we can make it mean whatever we want it to mean.

jphilapy:

One place of specific interest is a verse where we are told to crucify our flesh.

(Gal 5:24) And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

Now when we are told to crucify our flesh, we are truly supposed to crucify it right? However we can do that without actually being killed (though we may be put to death for our confession) because Jesus made it possible by his own death. Now the death that we die is the same death that was given for the world. Jesus flesh was crucified just like ours must be.

Christ’s flesh was crucified metaphorically? I’m sorry Jeff, but this is really stretching it a bit. It is widely known that St. Paul does equate “flesh” with sinful nature, as opposed to spirit. However, it is a fallacy to assume that just because he uses the word metaphorically, that Christ must have also.

Why don’t we look at some other verses of St. Paul’s to see if your interpretation hold up:

Rom 6:4 For we are buried together with him by baptism into death: that, as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life.

So, by your interpretation of Paul, since we are not truly buried into death, that Christ really didn’t die nor was buried?

Rom 6:6

Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin may be destroyed, to the end that we may serve sin no longer.

Since we were not literally crucified with Christ, does this mean that Christ was only crucified metaphorically and not literally?

Sorry, Jeff your interpretations just don’t hold up in the greater context of all Scripture.

jphilapy:

So you see I can say that without holding to a literal interpretation of John 6 “eat of my flesh” and still not deny the fact that Christ came in the flesh.

Jeff

Perhaps not, but your flirting with Nestorianism notwithstanding, that’s not really the point. Let me ask you simply question. I assume here that you accept Jesus as the sacrificial Lamb of God (after all he’s called that in Scripture), the Paschal Lamb. Now after the lamb was immolated and blood sprinkled so that we might have life (as on the cross), what was supposed to happen to the Lamb by those who offered it?

 

[Mickey]

Augustine continued…

1. The Blood they had previously shed they afterwards drank.

(Mai 26, 2; 86, 3; on p. 64)

1. Eat Christ, then; though eaten He yet lives, for when slain He rose from the dead. Nor do we divide Him into parts when we eat Him: though indeed this is done in the Sacrament, as the faithful well know when they eat the Flesh of Christ, for each receives his part, hence are those parts called graces. Yet though thus eaten in parts He remains whole and entire; eaten in parts in the Sacrament, He remains whole and entire in Heaven.

(Mai 129, 1; cf. Sermon 131; on p. 65)

1. Out of hatred of Christ the crowd there shed Cyprian’s blood, but today a reverential multitude gathers to drink the Blood of Christ . . . this altar . . . whereon a Sacrifice is offered to God . . .

(Sermo 310, 2; cf. City of God, 8, 27, 1; on p. 65)

1. He took into His hands what the faithful understand; He in some sort Bore Himself when He said: This is My Body.

(Enarr. 1, 10 on Ps. 33; on p. 65)

1. The very first heresy was formulated when men said: “this saying is hard and who can bear it [Jn 6:60]?”

(Enarr. 1, 23 on Ps. 54; on p. 66)

1. Thou art the Priest, Thou the Victim, Thou the Offerer, Thou the Offering.

(Enarr. 1, 6 on Ps. 44; on p. 66)

1. Take, then, and eat the Body of Christ . . . You have read that, or at least heard it read, in the Gospels, but you were unaware that the Son of God was that Eucharist.

(Denis, 3, 3; on p. 66)

1. The entire Church observes the tradition delivered to us by the Fathers, namely, that for those who have died in the fellowship of the Body and Blood of Christ, prayer should be offered when they are commemorated at the actual Sacrifice in its proper place, and that we should call to mind that for them, too, that Sacrifice is offered.

(Sermo, 172, 2; 173, 1; De Cura pro mortuis, 6; De Anima et ejus Origine, 2, 21; on p. 69)

1. We do pray for the other dead of whom commemoration is made. Nor are the souls of the faithful departed cut off from the Church . . . Were it so, we should not make commemoration of them at the altar of God when we receive the Body of Christ.

(Sermo 159,1; cf. 284, 5; 285, 5; 297, 3; City of God, 20, 9, 2; cf. 21,24; 22, 8; on p. 69)

1. It was the will of the Holy Spirit that out of reverence for such a Sacrament the Body of the Lord should enter the mouth of a Christian previous to any other food.

(Ep. 54, 8; on p. 71)

 

[Mickey]

jphilapy:

Mickey that is a good point.

Spiritual does not mean symbolic. Though I should give this more thought.

But do you agree that spiritual does not mean literal?

Jeff

Spiritual means supernatural. An event can be supernatural and literal at the same time.

 

[mercygate]

jphilapy:

But do you agree that spiritual does not mean literal?

Jeff

Jumpin’ in ahead of Mickey –

I wouldn’t agree that “spiritual” does not mean “literal.” This may be the whole point of how Protestants and Catholics lock horns on this question.

God is spirit. God is literal.

The Resurrection Body of Christ is something “other” than meat, bones and blood – entering a locked room, being recognizable only in breaking of bread (?!); this does not describe something corporeal in the way we usually experience corporeality, but you could not say that the Resurrection Body is not “literal” or that it is merely symbolic.

 

[jphilapy]

mtr01:

Wait a minute. Are you sure you want to be saying this? Human nature was all that was necessary to reconcile man with God? Yikes, Jeff, seems awfully reminiscent of the Nestorian heresy. I think your theology is becoming muddled in an attempt to deny the Real Presence.

In the Incarnation, the Word became united to the flesh, and is insperable. It was the sacrifice of the God-Man only that could redeem mankind, not his human nature.

According to Strong’s, the primary meaning of the word is “meat, as stripped from the bones”. I’m wondering why you think this isn’t the meaning Our Lord was trying to convey in John 6:55:

I am not going to deal with every question here due to time limitations so I will deal with what I can.

In the way I am using the word flesh, there is no reason for you to conclude that I am suggesting a seperation.

mtr01:

Are you suggesting that Our Lord was lying: that His flesh really wasn’t meat indeed? If he was speaking in a figurative manner, why would he bother saying this? Just because a word has several senses doesn’t mean we can make it mean whatever we want it to mean.

Christ’s flesh was crucified metaphorically? I’m sorry Jeff, but this is really stretching it a bit. It is widely known that St. Paul does equate “flesh” with sinful nature, as opposed to spirit. However, it is a fallacy to assume that just because he uses the word metaphorically, that Christ must have also.

I am not saying that Christ is crucifed metaphorically though I can see why you think I am. You are understanding our crucifixion to be metaphorical. I am saying that we really do die. And that dieing is the death of the flesh. In otherwords Jesus death was him putting the will of His father before his own humanity. That is death. And john 6 can be understood in that way without excluding the fact that Christ had to die physically. We die daily by putting his will before our own humanity. We really die and not metaphorically.

And ditto for your other verses you quoted.

BTW folks I do appreciate your willingness to hit back with your arguments.

Jeff

 

[Mickey]

jphilapy:

BTW folks I do appreciate your willingness to hit back with your arguments.

Jeff

At least you listen, Jeff. So many others are here only to bash our faith. God Bless you.

 

[jphilapy]

mercygate:

Jumpin’ in ahead of Mickey –

I wouldn’t agree that “spiritual” does not mean “literal.” This may be the whole point of how Protestants and Catholics lock horns on this question.

God is spirit. God is literal.

The Resurrection Body of Christ is something “other” than meat, bones and blood – entering a locked room, being recognizable only in breaking of bread (?!); this does not describe something corporeal in the way we usually experience corporeality, but you could not say that the Resurrection Body is not “literal” or that it is merely symbolic.

Like I said earlier, I will need to think about this more. But you are now putting forth two defintions when you say the spiritual can be understood as literal. In otherwords you are saying there is spiritual literal and flesh literal. See that is where the confusion is. If you take Jesus words at flesh literal then you have cannibalism.

But I don’t know that I can agree with you about the spiritual being literal because quite simply human language is intended to describe what is common to man. So what is literal in a spiritual sense cannot be said to be literal in the sense that is common to man (those without the Spirit do not discern the things of the Spirit). And I am not saying that God is not literal. I am just saying I don’t fully see how your explanation of John 6 as spiritual literal works.

Hope that makes sense.
Jeff

 

[Mickey]

jphilapy:

Like I said earlier, I will need to think about this more. But you are now putting forth two defintions when you say the spiritual can be understood as literal. In otherwords you are saying there is spiritual literal and flesh literal. See that is where the confusion is. If you take Jesus words at flesh literal then you have cannibalism.

But I don’t know that I can agree with you about the spiritual being literal because quite simply human language is intended to describe what is common to man. So what is literal in a spiritual sense cannot be said to be literal in the sense that is common to man (those without the Spirit do not discern the things of the Spirit). And I am not saying that God is not literal. I am just saying I don’t fully see how your explanation of John 6 as spiritual literal works.
Hope that makes sense.
Jeff

Mercygate is saying that the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ is literally present in the Eucharist in a supernatural and mystical way. That does’t make it any less literal. To Catholics and Orthodox, it has been spelled out clearly in the Bible for 2000 years. Unfortunately, the reformists, in an attempt to refute anything Catholic, created a counter theology. People are now indoctrinated into this theology and they believe it to be the truth. It is not your fault Jeff, this is how you were taught.

 

[jphilapy]

michaelp:

Actually, none one of those answered Jeff’s statement. I think that is why Jeff continues to say these things. If they answered it, the conversation would not still be going on.

Michael

Thank you sir for clarifying that !!

Jeff

 

[mercygate]

jphilapy:

. . . In otherwords you are saying there is spiritual literal and flesh literal. See that is where the confusion is. If you take Jesus words at flesh literal then you have cannibalism.

But I don’t know that I can agree with you about the spiritual being literal because quite simply human language is intended to describe what is common to man. So what is literal in a spiritual sense cannot be said to be literal in the sense that is common to man (those without the Spirit do not discern the things of the Spirit). And I am not saying that God is not literal. I am just saying I don’t fully see how your explanation of John 6 as spiritual literal works.

Hope that makes sense.
Jeff

This stuff is very difficult. If it were not, we would not be having this discussion, would we? I think you hit the nail on the head when you say that “those without the Spirit do not discern the things of the Spirit.” In the same vein, Paul says, in I Cor 29, “any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.”

In John 6, Jesus himself distinguishes between “spiritual literal” and “carnal literal.” All those references to eating/gnawing/drinking his body and blood; over and over he refers to himself as the bread from heaven and to eating “my flesh” and drinking “my blood” – then he changes gear when he says he says “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail.” He does not say “‘my’ flesh is of no avail,” he says “the flesh.” Took me about 40 years to figure that out but it is a critical distinction that whizzes right past you but it makes this whole enigmatic passage hang together.

The spirit (spiritiual literal) gives life.
The flesh (carnal literal) is of no avail.

Here we are 2000 years after the fact, still grappling with this. It ain’t easy. But the only way it makes sense is by understanding that God is “spirit” and God is “literal” and Jesus is God.

I’m going to take two aspirin now. Want me to get you some?

 

[mtr01]

jphilapy:

I am not going to deal with every question here due to time limitations so I will deal with what I can.

In the way I am using the word flesh, there is no reason for you to conclude that I am suggesting a seperation.

It was the statement that Christ offered his human nature that prompted me to view your statement as flirting with Nestorianism

jphilapy:

I am not saying that Christ is crucifed metaphorically though I can see why you think I am. You are understanding our crucifixion to be metaphorical. I am saying that we really do die. And that dieing is the death of the flesh. In otherwords Jesus death was him putting the will of His father before his own humanity. That is death. And john 6 can be understood in that way without excluding the fact that Christ had to die physically. We die daily by putting his will before our own humanity. We really die and not metaphorically.

And ditto for your other verses you quoted.

So are you saying is a literal death, but understood spiritually, and not carnally?

As far as the metaphor, I actually wasn’t speaking of death, but crucifixion. I have no problem with your death explanation, since it fit’s St. Paul’s use of “flesh” (but not Christ’s). My point is that neither you nor I were hung from a cross, yet we “crucified the old man”. So yes, your conception of “flesh” is appropriate in terms of the way St. Paul uses the word. However, you have not provided any evidence that this is the way we should take the words of Our Lord in John 6. What do you think of John 6:55?

jphilapy:

BTW folks I do appreciate your willingness to hit back with your arguments.

Jeff

It’s been a pleasure to participate in a civil discussion of these issues with you

 

[jphilapy]

mercygate:

This stuff is very difficult. If it were not, we would not be having this discussion, would we? I think you hit the nail on the head when you say that “those without the Spirit do not discern the things of the Spirit.” In the same vein, Paul says, in I Cor 29, “any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.”

In John 6, Jesus himself distinguishes between “spiritual literal” and “carnal literal.” All those references to eating/gnawing/drinking his body and blood; over and over he refers to himself as the bread from heaven and to eating “my flesh” and drinking “my blood” – then he changes gear when he says he says “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail.” He does not say “‘my’ flesh is of no avail,” he says “the flesh.” Took me about 40 years to figure that out but it is a critical distinction that whizzes right past you but it makes this whole enigmatic passage hang together.

The spirit (spiritiual literal) gives life.
The flesh (carnal literal) is of no avail.

Here we are 2000 years after the fact, still grappling with this. It ain’t easy. But the only way it makes sense is by understanding that God is “spirit” and God is “literal” and Jesus is God.

I’m going to take two aspirin now. Want me to get you some?

Asprin? Maybe! I specifically am devoting my day to studying John 6 so I will probably need stronger glasses too by the end of the day
For the sake of this discussion I am going to go along with your conclusion that there is the “fleshly literal” and the “spiritual literal”.

Now what was put forth to me early on by some is that since Jesus gave his literal flesh for the world, in order to keep consistency it necessarily follows that he was also giving his literal flesh for literal eating. However in disputing that point we managed to get around to the conclusion that Jesus spoke a statement, that from the “fleshly literal” view, is taken as cannibalism which is what Augustine agrees with. Finally we came to the conclusion that what jesus was speaking there was the “spiritual literal”. If then the eating of his flesh is to be understood as the “spiritual literal” and in order to to maintain consistency then shouldn’t we say that the giving of his flesh is also to be understood as the “spiritual literal” instead of the “fleshly literal”?

Now one other point: Since jesus meant the “spiritual literal” meaning and not the “fleshly literal” meaning, can’t it be said that the “fleshly literal” is actually symbolic for the “spiritual literal”?

Jeff

 

[mercygate]

jphilapy:

shouldn’t we say that the giving of his flesh is also to be understood as the “spiritual literal” instead of the “fleshly literal”?

Now one other point: Since jesus meant the “spiritual literal” meaning and not the “fleshly literal” meaning, can’t it be said that the “fleshly literal” is actually symbolic for the “spiritual literal”?

Jeff

Cool. But in this passage, using a word like “symbolic” is likely to take us to tentative ground. For us, “symbolic” is too likely to mean “figurative” – to be interpreted as “insubstantial.” If anything strikes hard about John 6, it is Jesus’ vigorous insistence on the substance of his flesh.

I never thought about John 6 as separating the Arians from the rest of us but we’re touching on the hypostatic union here. (The hypostatic union always makes me dizzy.) Jesus is one divine person with two inseparable natures: human and divine. If I remember correctly, both the divine and the human attributes are ascribed to the person of Jesus. Since Jesus is more “real” than we are, so is his presence in the Eucharist.

Again, I am drawn to the resurrection narratives where Jesus’ body is clearly different from his pre-Resurrection body (although the passing through the crowd as if invisible, walking on water, and the Transfiguration all speak to the “spirit-literal”). Since Jesus TRULY rose from the dead, and John says “we have seen with our eyes, . . . have looked upon and touched with ourhands,” we know the resurrection body is “flesh indeed.” But this body also seems to appear out of nowhere through locked doors, intimate disciples do not recognize him (Mary at the tomb and the two on the road to Emmaus), and eventually this body is taken up . . . . These experiences seem to show both the spirit-literal and carnal-literal – at least to my thinking. (I expect the theology police to be pounding on my door any minute because I’m just thinking this through.)

I am thrust back on the great truth that God is more real than I am and is able to BE in ways my earth-bound imagination does not comprehend. It’s all about the mystery of faith: “the assurance ofthings hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” (Heb. 11:1) And I trust him. He says “eat my body” – and by faith, we do that.

What is thrilling about this theology is that it is all of a piece. Each aspect of Christology, of sacramental theology, fits into the living whole.

 

[MariaG]

Posted by mtro1#83

Perhaps not, but your flirting with Nestorianism notwithstanding, that’s not really the point. Let me ask you simply question. I assume here that you accept Jesus as the sacrificial Lamb of God (after all he’s called that in Scripture), the Paschal Lamb. Now after the lamb was immolated and blood sprinkled so that we might have life (as on the cross), what was supposed to happen to the Lamb by those who offered it?

This very important question seems to have been lost in the discussion. It is central to understanding of what Christ meant. The sacrifice was not complete until the lamb was eaten. We must eat the lamb. Who is the lamb? Christ.

“The Lambs Supper” by Scott Hahn is an excellent resource.

But the simple fact is the lamb must be eaten for the sacrifice to be complete in Old Testament times as well as New.

Maria

 

[jphilapy]

MariaG:

Posted by mtro1#83

This very important question seems to have been lost in the discussion. It is central to understanding of what Christ meant. The sacrifice was not complete until the lamb was eaten. We must eat the lamb. Who is the lamb? Christ.

“The Lambs Supper” by Scott Hahn is an excellent resource.

But the simple fact is the lamb must be eaten for the sacrifice to be complete in Old Testament times as well as New.

Maria

Hi Maria,

Protestants don’t disagree with the fact that we are to eat the lamb. We just differ from catholics on how we are to eat the lamb. See the old testament lamb was just a comsuming of the flesh. It only provides nourishment. Israel was not allowed to drink it’s blood. However Jesus told us to drink His blood. Which means more than just nourishment. It means life. Since the scripture says the Holy Spirit is the life, and the Holy Spirit is received by Faith (depending on Jesus), we eat the lamb by depending on Him. To depend is to lay our whole lives down preferring His ways over our own.

Peace,
Jeff

 

[mtr01]

jphilapy:

Hi Maria,

Protestants don’t disagree with the fact that we are to eat the lamb. We just differ from catholics on how we are to eat the lamb. See the old testament lamb was just a comsuming of the flesh. It only provides nourishment. Israel was not allowed to drink it’s blood. However Jesus told us to drink His blood. Which means more than just nourishment. It means life. Since the scripture says the Holy Spirit is the life, and the Holy Spirit is received by Faith (depending on Jesus), we eat the lamb by depending on Him. To depend is to lay our whole lives down preferring His ways over our own.

Peace,
Jeff

This is my big beef with the Protestant understanding. Why this novel interpretation? To me they seem to be saying that Our Lord was intentionally misleading when he made the statement recorded in John 6:55. If this is what He meant, why didn’t He just say “unless you depend on me, you have no life in you”?

 

[mtr01]

jphilapy:

Hi Maria,

Since the scripture says the Holy Spirit is the life, and the Holy Spirit is received by Faith (depending on Jesus), we eat the lamb by depending on Him.
Peace,
Jeff

Jeff how do you reconcile this understanding with John 14:6…

Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.

Here we are explicity told that Jesus is the life, not the Holy Spirit.

 

[jphilapy]

mtr01:

Jeff how do you reconcile this understanding with John 14:6…

Here we are explicity told that Jesus is the life, not the Holy Spirit.
He who has the Son has the Father. This means he who has the Spirit has the Son.

The father, the son and the Spirit are one. I am surprised that I am explaining this to the defenders of the trinity
1Jo 2:24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.

2Jo 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

The Spirit is Life:

Rom 8:10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

How do you reconcile your understanding that the Holy Spirit is not life?

Jeff