Did Jesus ALWAYS explain figurative language?

[CSUNGerrie]

Hi Everyone,
I am in an email discussion with a SDA friend of mine over the doctrine of the Eucharist. I brought up the point that when Jesus brought up figurative language, and his disciples misunderstood, he always explained it to them.

My first question is, did I frame the conditions for this accurately? Or is there a condition I am missing? For instance, did Jesus always explain figurative language only when his disciples were bringing up their confusion, or is this true of non disciples like the religious leaders and Pilate.

Assuming I did frame it accurately, I wanted to bring up my friend’s objection. She said,

In John 2:19-21, Jesus shocks the Jews by saying he will “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” Even though the Jews show their confusion by challenging him with the years it took to “literally” build the temple. Verse 21 shows that he meant it symbolically. Now, Verse 22 says that disciples “remembered” what he said after the Resurrection. The symbolic meaning was revealed to them after Jesus’ crucifixion. They, too, could have thought he meant what he said literally. Here, he was speaking symbolically from the beginning, yet does not clarify for them. Instead, he lets his disciples think what they will and allows events to progress in due course.

Ok, so my response to her was going to be the following:

1. Jesus always explained his figurative language when they were confused. But it only happened WHEN he was speaking figuratively. He was not speaking figuratively here. After all, his body IS a temple not in a symbolic/figurative sense but in a literal sense. The problem was that the religious leaders misunderstood the temple he was referring to since they were in THE temple.
2. We have evidence for this since the Apostle John says in verse 21 “But the temple he had spoken of was his body.” John did not say that he was using the word temple in a figurative manner but that they misunderstood the specific temple he was referring to.
3. As an example, we can look towards Jesus discourse with Pilate. Pilate thought he was an earthly king or I should say Pilate thought Jesus saw himself as an earthly king. But Jesus did not correct his misunderstanding. Why? Because he is in fact a King just not the singular kind of King that Pilate was thinking about.

I was wondering what you thought if my response is adequate. If not, I would gladly accept some help with this. Does John chapter 2 present an example of when Jesus failed to clarify a misunderstanding based on his figurative language?

 

[Nate13]

Hi Everyone,
I am in an email discussion with a SDA friend of mine over the doctrine of the Eucharist. I brought up the point that when Jesus brought up figurative language, and his disciples misunderstood, he always explained it to them.

My first question is, did I frame the conditions for this accurately? Or is there a condition I am missing? For instance, did Jesus always explain figurative language only when his disciples were bringing up their confusion, or is this true of non disciples like the religious leaders and Pilate.

Assuming I did frame it accurately, I wanted to bring up my friend’s objection. She said,

Ok, so my response to her was going to be the following:

1. Jesus always explained his figurative language when they were confused. But it only happened WHEN he was speaking figuratively. He was not speaking figuratively here. After all, his body IS a temple not in a symbolic/figurative sense but in a literal sense. The problem was that the religious leaders misunderstood the temple he was referring to since they were in THE temple.
2. We have evidence for this since the Apostle John says in verse 21 “But the temple he had spoken of was his body.” John did not say that he was using the word temple in a figurative manner but that they misunderstood the specific temple he was referring to.
3. As an example, we can look towards Jesus discourse with Pilate. Pilate thought he was an earthly king or I should say Pilate thought Jesus saw himself as an earthly king. But Jesus did not correct his misunderstanding. Why? Because he is in fact a King just not the singular kind of King that Pilate was thinking about.

I was wondering what you thought if my response is adequate. If not, I would gladly accept some help with this. Does John chapter 2 present an example of when Jesus failed to clarify a misunderstanding based on his figurative language?

In this case I believe he didn’t clarify because he was not only talking about himself but also about the temple itself. He did eventually destroy the temple in 70A.D and the Church was raised up and expanded out of the rubble. He didn’t clarify because he meant it both ways. If you investigate the preterist view point of the book of Revelation this has even more meaning.

 

[CSUNGerrie]

If he did not clarify because he meant it both ways, then it seems this neither contradicts nor confirms my original statement. Would that be accurate?

 

[Nate13]

If he did not clarify because he meant it both ways, then it seems this neither contradicts nor confirms my original statement. Would that be accurate?

no it confirms your original statement in so far as this verse goes. I don’t know if there are any other examples out there that need to be addressed so I’m not sure if you can claim what you claimed. I’ve definitely thought of it though, but I’ve never done the work necessary to check and see if its true in all cases. However in this case I think its safe to say he didn’t clarify because he didn’t need to. Plus Jesus did clarify the meaning of this many times. He practically banged the apostles over the head telling them he was going to have to die and then be raised up. They just didn’t get it until after the fact.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Hi Everyone,
I am in an email discussion with a SDA friend of mine over the doctrine of the Eucharist. I brought up the point that when Jesus brought up figurative language, and his disciples misunderstood, he always explained it to them.

My first question is, did I frame the conditions for this accurately? Or is there a condition I am missing? For instance, did Jesus always explain figurative language only when his disciples were bringing up their confusion, or is this true of non disciples like the religious leaders and Pilate.

Assuming I did frame it accurately, I wanted to bring up my friend’s objection. She said,

Ok, so my response to her was going to be the following:

1. Jesus always explained his figurative language when they were confused. But it only happened WHEN he was speaking figuratively. He was not speaking figuratively here. After all, his body IS a temple not in a symbolic/figurative sense but in a literal sense. The problem was that the religious leaders misunderstood the temple he was referring to since they were in THE temple.
2. We have evidence for this since the Apostle John says in verse 21 “But the temple he had spoken of was his body.” John did not say that he was using the word temple in a figurative manner but that they misunderstood the specific temple he was referring to.
3. As an example, we can look towards Jesus discourse with Pilate. Pilate thought he was an earthly king or I should say Pilate thought Jesus saw himself as an earthly king. But Jesus did not correct his misunderstanding. Why? Because he is in fact a King just not the singular kind of King that Pilate was thinking about.

I was wondering what you thought if my response is adequate. If not, I would gladly accept some help with this. Does John chapter 2 present an example of when Jesus failed to clarify a misunderstanding based on his figurative language?

Whatever you say is correct.
But , my opinion, there is something missing. If you understand, then you do because you understnd. If you do not understand but do what jesus told us to do, then you believe. You believe because of HIM, because you trust him. You do not do because you understand.

I suppose you played the game where someone blindfolded is driven by a friend not knowing where he is going to.
With a person who is not trustworthy, you do not play the game.

So, with Jesus, it is not important to understand, for instance how come a piece of bread it is the Body of Christ, but do what he asked us to do: eat it as the Body of Christ.

 

[Contarini]

Hi Everyone,
I am in an email discussion with a SDA friend of mine over the doctrine of the Eucharist. I brought up the point that when Jesus brought up figurative language, and his disciples misunderstood, he always explained it to them.

My first question is, did I frame the conditions for this accurately? Or is there a condition I am missing? For instance, did Jesus always explain figurative language only when his disciples were bringing up their confusion, or is this true of non disciples like the religious leaders and Pilate.

Assuming I did frame it accurately, I wanted to bring up my friend’s objection. She said,

Ok, so my response to her was going to be the following:

1. Jesus always explained his figurative language when they were confused. But it only happened WHEN he was speaking figuratively. He was not speaking figuratively here. After all, his body IS a temple not in a symbolic/figurative sense but in a literal sense. The problem was that the religious leaders misunderstood the temple he was referring to since they were in THE temple.
2. We have evidence for this since the Apostle John says in verse 21 “But the temple he had spoken of was his body.” John did not say that he was using the word temple in a figurative manner but that they misunderstood the specific temple he was referring to.
3. As an example, we can look towards Jesus discourse with Pilate. Pilate thought he was an earthly king or I should say Pilate thought Jesus saw himself as an earthly king. But Jesus did not correct his misunderstanding. Why? Because he is in fact a King just not the singular kind of King that Pilate was thinking about.

I was wondering what you thought if my response is adequate. If not, I would gladly accept some help with this. Does John chapter 2 present an example of when Jesus failed to clarify a misunderstanding based on his figurative language?

I don’t find your response adequate. Clearly in saying “the temple he had spoken of was his body,” John is saying that it is figurative. I don’t understand how you can say that that isn’t figurative.

I find no support whatever for the notion that Jesus customarily explained himself when he was misunderstood, particularly in John. I have always found this one of the strangest and weakest arguments used in popular Catholic apologetics.

And I believe in the Real Presence. I just don’t think this is a good argument (indeed, I don’t think John 6 is a good place to start when talking about the Real Presence, although reading it in the light of the Tradition I accept that it is talking about the Real Presence).

Edwin

 

[Orchanian]

It’s not just that Jesus didn’t “explain” himself when he said “You must eat my flesh…drink my blood”. It’s that when they questioned him, he repeated himself - reinforcing that his flesh is real food/blood real drink. He actually says this three times. And many of the disciples left him. No other teaching caused people to leave as a group - this is the only account. If Jesus was the greatest teacher ever (which he was), why would he allow people to stop following him because of a misunderstanding? It’s not logical. So if the argument is that Jesus doesn’t always explain himself when there is misunderstanding, that argument is moot here because He does, in fact, explain himself by repeating what he said - in effect saying it three times.

 

[Contarini]

It’s not just that Jesus didn’t “explain” himself when he said “You must eat my flesh…drink my blood”. It’s that when they questioned him, he repeated himself - reinforcing that his flesh is real food/blood real drink. He actually says this three times. And many of the disciples left him. No other teaching caused people to leave as a group - this is the only account.

Hardly. In John 8, two chapters later, a bunch of people believe in Jesus and Jesus goes out of His way to insult and alienate them, eventually calling them children of the devil. It’s true that they didn’t exactly leave–but that’s because Jesus left after they tried to stone him (granted, I’m assuming that the people mentioned in v. 48 are the same as those mentioned in v. 31, but that seems the most likely interpretation).

This kind of confontational, deliberately unsettling approach is typical of Jesus in the Gospel of John. And in Matthew 13 and Mark 4 we have Jesus’ explicit claim that He tells people parables in order to confuse them, not in order to make things clear.

It seems to me that this claim about Jesus always explaining himself has nothing to do with the Jesus of the Gospels and arises solely from the assumptions of American culture and the agenda of Catholic apologists.

If Jesus was the greatest teacher ever (which he was), why would he allow people to stop following him because of a misunderstanding?

Because it wasn’t his purpose to be understood by everyone. He tells us this in Mark 4:10-12.

It’s not logical.

There’s nothing illogical about it. It simply contradicts your assumptions, which arise from a culture shaped by an Enlightenment ideology of “common sense.”

I think it’s much truer to Jesus’ culture to assume that a great teacher will be paradoxical and mysterious. In fact, when early heretics produced their own Gospels (see the Gospel of Thomas, for instance), they made Jesus even more paradoxical and mysterious than He really was. He was a bit too clear and down-to-earth for them, just as He is too paradoxical and mysterious for us

So if the argument is that Jesus doesn’t always explain himself when there is misunderstanding, that argument is moot here because He does, in fact, explain himself by repeating what he said - in effect saying it three times.

And that just drives home the offensiveness of what he is saying!

I think that a basic assumption in the Gospels, which you are ignoring, is that people understand or don’t understand Jesus based on their spiritual state, not based on what we’d call their IQ. So it’s not that Jesus only wants Mensa members as his disciples and is giving them logic puzzles, but rather that he’s conveying divine truths in the most appropriate manner for such truths–through language that is shocking and paradoxical and highly metaphorical.

Again, I do not think that the Eucharist is only a metaphor. I just don’t think that this passage (and this argument about this passage in particular) is the best one on which to build an argument for the Real Presence.

Edwin

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

I don’t find your response adequate. Clearly in saying “the temple he had spoken of was his body,” John is saying that it is figurative. I don’t understand how you can say that that isn’t figurative.

I find no support whatever for the notion that Jesus customarily explained himself when he was misunderstood, particularly in John. I have always found this one of the strangest and weakest arguments used in popular Catholic apologetics.

And I believe in the Real Presence. I just don’t think this is a good argument (indeed, I don’t think John 6 is a good place to start when talking about the Real Presence, although reading it in the light of the Tradition I accept that it is talking about the Real Presence).

Edwin

I agree that the popular Catholic claim that Jesus always explains when his disciples misunderstand or, worse, that he would have been under some kind of moral obligation to do so, is an extremely weak argument. That said, I think it is safe to say that Jesus explained to his disciples things that he did not explain to the “crowds,” such as the purpose of his parables to cite just one example. So perhaps it is possible to make the claim that when some of his disciples abandoned him in John 6:66 it was precisely because they had correctly understood his words about “eating flesh” and “drinking blood.” At least there’s no evidence that Jesus made any attempt to clarify what he meant by those words.

That said, I still don’t think their leaving had anything to do with a rejection of the doctrine of the Real Presence; rather far more likely they were rejecting the doctrine of Unconditional Election. Here’s the verse in question: “After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him” (John 6:66). But what is the antecedent to “after this?” Contextually the nearest referent would be the previous verse: "And he said, ‘This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father’.” (v. 65). This, of course, is a theme that is well developed in John 6 with far more explicit referents than the Eucharist which, at best, is a subtext within the entire Bread of Life Discourse. The motif of God’s effectual drawing and our total inability to respond apart from that drawing goes all the way back to the prologue: “…who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (1:13).

That “eating flesh” and “drinking blood” is metaphorical language seems pretty obvious from the context and from the fact that John’s Jesus has been speaking primarily in figurative language up to this point: “I have said these things to you in figures of speech. The hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figures of speech but will tell you plainly about the Father" (16:25). Since Jesus’ “hour” has not yet come in John 6, I think we can safely assume that much of what Jesus said is still in the “figurative language” category, including “eating flesh” and “drinking blood,” which seem to be parallel concepts to coming to and believing in Jesus.

In any event, it simply doesn’t follow that because some of his disciples left him “after this,” that they had correctly understood him to be teaching the doctrine of the Real Presence. If their leaving proves anything, it shows that they were not those enabled by the Father to draw near to Jesus in faith and obedience. They left, quite simply, not because they were scandalized by the prospects of cannibalism, but rather because they were not those whom the Father had given to Jesus.