S
spockrates
Guest
Miguel:
But how do you know that eating is believing?
(That is, don’t you think you are just guessing that Jesus is using eating as a metaphor for believing and not a metaphor for something else?)
- Status
But how do you know that eating is believing?
(That is, don’t you think you are just guessing that Jesus is using eating as a metaphor for believing and not a metaphor for something else?)
S
spockrates
Guest
Miguel:
I’ve been thinking about the passage you mentioned, which is this:
18Then the Jews demanded of him, “What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?”
19Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”
20The Jews replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.
John 2:18-22
You said that Jesus did not explain the metaphor He used, so an explanation is not necessary for every figure of speech. Yet, an explanation is given, and that by the author John. What I’ve found, Miguel is that every time Jesus uses a figure of speech, an explanation is given by Him, or by the author who quotes Him, or by another author of a biblical book. Why, then should Jesus’ metaphor of eating His flesh and drinking His blood be the only exception?
I’ve been thinking about the passage you mentioned, which is this:
18Then the Jews demanded of him, “What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?”
19Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”
20The Jews replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.
John 2:18-22
You said that Jesus did not explain the metaphor He used, so an explanation is not necessary for every figure of speech. Yet, an explanation is given, and that by the author John. What I’ve found, Miguel is that every time Jesus uses a figure of speech, an explanation is given by Him, or by the author who quotes Him, or by another author of a biblical book. Why, then should Jesus’ metaphor of eating His flesh and drinking His blood be the only exception?
S
spockrates
Guest
Thanks, FC. I’m wondering if what makes it not cannibalism is that flesh and blood in the form of bread and wine is simply not the same as flesh and blood in the form of flesh and blood.
What do you think?
M
Miguel_Sastre
Guest
Yes, John gives the explanation, not Jesus. What you won’t find (to my knowledge, anyway) is Jesus giving explanations to unbelievers.
Every time? Really? Does anyone ever explain to the Samaritan woman at the well what Jesus meant by “living water?” I’ve read it over a few times and I’m just not seeing the explanation. I suppose you could take verse 14 as an explanation. But based on her reaction in the next verse, it looks like she still didn’t understand because she’s taking him literally, when he’s speaking metaphorically. (The same problem in John 6:51-58). She want’s Jesus’ water so she won’t have to draw from the well again. He’s talking about eternal life. She’s not understanding him, is she? He’s not clarifying things for her, is he? Nor is the narrator John, is he? So Jesus switches topics and begins to talk about her husbands.
I don’t think it’s an exception at all. It fits well with a lot of the “misunderstanding” passages in John. Jesus says something figurative. People take him literally. Jesus goes on speaking figuratively–and in some cases using even more graphic metaphors than before. There aren’t many places in John (if any) where Jesus switches back to literal language because people didn’t get his metaphor. And does he ever correct the misunderstanding of unbelievers in John? (I can’t think of where he does.)
So back to John 6. He’s speaking metaphorically about bread from heaven and eating flesh and drinking blood and all that. Everyone takes him literally. Now–per the prevailing pattern in John–he goes on speaking metaphorically, upping the ante. He just doesn’t explain his metaphors. But this is exactly what Catholics argue he would have or should have done in John 6. My question is why would he have? And why did he have to?
F
FCEGM
Guest
Right; because it is Christ’s resurrected and ascended Body that we receive, appearing, though to our sight and our taste, as bread and wine. As Eric wrote, we receive Christ’s Glorified Body and Blood. Glorified now, His Body and Blood cannot be changed or diminished by our partaking of Him in the Eucharist (in contrast to cannibalism which changes by diminishment that which is consumed). This resurrected and ascended Body is not something more than human or beyond human, but the very natural, human Body that was born of the Virgin and which worked as a Carpenter in Nazareth, albeit it now in a glorified state. This is an important clarification to make; and it is very important to realize that the Body in glory right now (i.e., the Body we receive in the Eucharist) is the same Body that suffered on the Cross, not a different one in any way. Now He feeds our bodies and souls that we may share in that same glory.
St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing in A.D. 107, makes this very clear, when he says …
“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us …They abstain from the Eucharist and from the Prayer (i.e., the Mass) because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the same Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead” (Ignatius to the Smyrneans, 6, A.D. 107).
This, from an article in “Homiletics and Pastoral Review” (Winter, 1997), by Msgr. Robert Sokolowski, is helpful in developing a deeper understanding of the Transubstantiation:
". . .to say that in the Eucharist the bread and wine remain what they are but acquire a new signification would contradict the logic of the Incarnation. Christ was not simply a prophet who pointed out the way to the Father; he was the way to the Father. He did not just commnicate the truth about God, he was the Word of God. The believer comes to the Father not by the way and the truth that are signified by Christ, but through Christ himself, who is the way, the truth, and the life. Analogously, if the bread and wine were to remain bread and wine, they would point us toward the Death and Resurrection of Christ and toward the Son of God, they would signify him and what he did, but they would not be his presence and the presence of his action among us. The Eucharist would fail to continue, sacramentally, the form of the Incarnation, and we would be deprived of the presence, the bodily presence, of the way, the truth, and the life. The Incarnation would have been withdrawn from the world. . .
“. . .it is the very material and bodily quality of the Incarnation that calls for Transubstantiation in the Eucharist. If Christ is to be present in the sacrament, he must be present in his divine and human natures, in his soul and body. And if his body is to be present, the bread cannot be. The one thing cannot be two material substances, both bread and a human body, not even the glorified human body of Christ. If it is the one it cannot be the other. The two bodily natures exclude one another, and it is the bodily presence of Christ that is specifically emphasized in the words of consecration. The body of Christ is not with the bread but takes the place of the bread in the change we call Transubstantiation. If we deny this change, we deny the bodily presence of the glorified Christ, and hence we deny the presence of Christ. Without Transubstantiation the sacramental presence of Christ would not occur.”
Those who do not believe in the Real Presence view the bread and wine used in the Eucharist to be given additional meaning without a change of substance. Once the bread and wine is consecrated, the bread takes on the additional meaning of being Christ’s body, and the wine takes on the additional meaning of being Christ’s blood. The bread and wine don’t change (aren’t transbustantiated) but instead take on a higher meaning within the context of the sacrament. Once the bread and wine are consumed and the sacrament is complete, they lose the additional meanings they had during the ceremony and become simply bread and wine again.
F
FCEGM
Guest
You wish to impose metaphorical speech on to the Reality of Christ’s gift of Himself in the Eucharist. His words give no room for such interpretation. “This IS my Body, This IS my Blood”, isn’t read “this is a symbol of my Body. . .my Blood”. It’s the protestors against this Reality who attempt to manufacture a metaphorical meaning.
The bread and the wine have truly been changed into Christ’s Body and Blood; the wine and the bread appear and taste the same, but they now are truly Christ’s presence in our midst and in our bodies. All Apostolic Churches agree on the Eucharist. The denominations, relying on Scripture alone, do not agree with the age-old practice of Apostolic Churches and disagree with one another about the Eucharist. Now the Holy Spirit unites what was divided; He doesn’t divide what one. The unity of belief of all Apostolic Churches on the Eucharist as the Risen Flesh and Blood of Christ and as a re-presentation of His Sacrifice points to the Holy Spirit uniting different times and different peoples in one Teaching and Truth, while the divided practice and teaching of “Bible Christians” on this central point shows those “Bible Christians” are slaves to a spirit of disunity, i.e. the Enemy who in his jealousy of man does all he can to spiritualize man’s approach to God thereby denying the Incarnation of the God-Man.
S
spockrates
Guest
Miguel, that’s true. But is all we believe taught by Jesus Himself? Please consider Paul the apostle: Much of what he wrote Jesus never mentioned, but we consider Paul and authority we can trust. At least, I think you consider him as authoritative as I do.
Have you considered this explanation given by Jesus Himself?
On the last and greatest day of the Feast, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.” By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.
(John 7:37-39)
What does John explain is the meaning of living water?
But IF this actually is the ONLY time NO explanation is given for one of Jesus’ figures of speech, then why would this not be an exception to all the other times when an explanation is given? Can you think of any other metaphors, idioms, or figures of speech Jesus used that might not have an explanation?
M
Miguel_Sastre
Guest
Yes, of course, but that’s not the point. If you recall, the Catholic argument is that IF Jesus were speaking metaphorically in John 6:51-58, THEN he would have corrected those who misunderstood him. Since there is no correction, the Catholic then infers (on the basis of silence–mind you) that Jesus must have been speaking literally, meaning there was no misunderstanding at all. The argument, however, falters at many levels, including at the point of the crucial assumption that Jesus would have or had to correct their misunderstanding. So the mere fact that Jesus did NOT correct anyone does NOT imply that they had correctly understood him.
S
spockrates
Guest
Yes, that is one reason a Catholic might give. Another reason is the one I gave. Let’s consider the former, first, if you like.
If Jesus was using a figure of speech, what do you think they thought He meant when He said this?
Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.”
(John 6:35)
S
spockrates
Guest
If you don’t have a Bible with you, you can read our Lord’s word’s in context here:
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jn%206&version=NIV
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jn%206&version=NIV
M
Murphs10
Guest
Hello Miguel,
I am sure you are aware that the real presence of Chirst in the Eucharist was believed and was the center of Christian worship of the 1st century Chruch and following. Knowing this fact, I am curious if you have an opinion on exactly when and how the Church fell away from the Apostolic teaching so quickly. Even while some of the Apostles and their disciples were still alive?
I am sure you are aware that the real presence of Chirst in the Eucharist was believed and was the center of Christian worship of the 1st century Chruch and following. Knowing this fact, I am curious if you have an opinion on exactly when and how the Church fell away from the Apostolic teaching so quickly. Even while some of the Apostles and their disciples were still alive?
S
spockrates
Guest
I guess what I’m wondering, Miguel is what offended the crowd listening to Jesus that day. I’d like to hear your opinion. Do you think they knew He was speaking figuratively, or do you think they misunderstood Him by thinking He was speaking literally?
M
Miguel_Sastre
Guest
Probably that he was crazy. They seem to be taking Jesus very literally when he claims to be bread from heaven “Isn’t this the Joseph’s son, etc. How can he say he’s from heaven?” (see 6:42). Did you have another theory?
M
Miguel_Sastre
Guest
I’d say this. I think there is a tendency among Catholics to exaggerate the continuity between the fathers and later church teachings. I’m not saying there’s no continuity; rather I’m saying there is often discontinuity. I fact there were multiple understandings of “this is my body” in the early church. The mere fact of multiple understandings doesn’t bother me, nor does it constitute proof that “the Church fell away from the Apostolic teaching.”
Let me give you an analogy. According to your church, there are several acceptable solutions to predestination issue. A Catholic can accept unconditional election (e.g.,Aquinas) or conditional election (e.g., Molina) This is fascinating to me since both positions are mutually exclusive. Nevertheless, would you say that your church has “fallen away from the Apostolic teaching” simply because there is more than one acceptable view within the pale of Roman Catholic orthodoxy?
I suspect not. Likewise, I think it is possible to conclude that the Fathers were still very much a part of the church catholic, even when they differed on points of doctrine.
S
spockrates
Guest
I have some ideas, but, at the moment, I’m more interested in what you’re thinking! Do you think they thought He was crazy only because they thought He was literally claiming to come from Heaven? Or do you think they thought He was twice as crazy, because He was claiming to be actual food from Heaven they could eat, like Manna?
M
Miguel_Sastre
Guest
I’m going with literally, since that seems to be the pattern, and especially because the Jews ask, “how can he give us his flesh to eat?” (6:52)
A more interesting question is what did Jesus mean by “eating flesh” and “drinking blood,” if he wasn’t speaking literally? For in fact, no one takes him literally, not even Catholics.
The most obvious answer, in context, seems to be that both are metaphors for belief, since “coming to” Jesus and “belief” in him result in eternal life, which parallels “eating flesh” and “drinking blood,” which also result in eternal life in John 6. Furthermore, the idea of eating flesh and drinking blood seems to look forward to the cross, since this is where the wrath of God is satisfied and since “eating flesh” seems to be associated with God’s wrath in the Old Testament. So it’s not simply a matter believing that Jesus has come down from heaven (the Incarnation), but also that “It is finished” (the Atonement). Both of these ideas, of course, come together the Lord’s Supper/Eucharist.
M
Murphs10
Guest
I do not know enough about this topic to give you a confident answer, but I believe they (conditonal vs. unconditional election) are only mutually exclusive in the Calvanist et al. sense. The Thomist and Molinist definitions stay within the boundaries of acceptable Catholic teaching for various reasons including confirming the free will of man and both having valid scriptural support. The Catholic Church allows the belief in unconditional election, but not exaclty how many protestants teach it i.e. double predestination etc. So, like most issues being discussed between our faiths, terms need to be defined before they are applied. This is an example of why that is important.
M
Miguel_Sastre
Guest
I think they thought he was crazy for claiming to come from heaven when they knew Joseph and his mother. The irony here is that they’re actually right–Jesus is from heaven, but of course they couldn’t know that “the Word became flesh.” I don’t think they thought of him as literal manna. That’s because Jesus doesn’t say he’s manna. He say’s he’s “living bread,” (not unlike “living water” for the Samaritan woman) and then he identifies this “living bread” with the flesh he will give for the life of the world (Christ crucified). I don’t think they understood any of that. Much less will they understand that this same “flesh” must be eaten along with drinking his blood–but the referent seems to be the same in both cases–his flesh given for the life of the world (i.e., Christ crucified). He is our eternal life. Belief in him is what is required of us.
If you import later concepts of “real presence” into these texts, you inevitably end up reading this as a requirement to believe in a miraculous transformation of bread and wine into his body and blood so that your belief is IN the Eucharistic miracle/presence rather than IN him. That’s the danger.
S
spockrates
Guest
Yes, in this case, literally is the most reasonable way to go! So they thought Jesus was speaking of eating His flesh. If He was not speaking literally, then they misunderstood Him. This makes me wonder: Isn’t it true that Jesus knew what they were thinking? What do you think?
But don’t Catholics take Him literally? Consider the logic:
If
f = Jesus’ flesh
and
p = Jesus’ physical body
and
e = the bread of the Eucharist
then isn’t it true that Catholics believe this?
f = p
and
f = e
therefore,
p = e
It’s like a caterpillar and a butterfly, isn’t it?
If
c = a catepillar
and
b = a butterfly
and
i = the same insect
then
c = i
and
b = i
therefore,
c = b
Now, that is not to say that a caterpillar and a butterfly are the same form, but they are both the same insect. Catholics believe that the physical body of Christ and the bread of the Eucharist are not the same form, but they are the same flesh. It’s the same flesh of Jesus, albeit in different forms–one that’s OK to eat, and one that was not.
See now why they say Jesus is speaking literally?
S
spockrates
Guest
Yes, but Catholics throughout the centuries have repeatedly pointed back to Jesus’ words in John, chapter 6. Rather than *importing *the idea into Christianity, they believe they are *exporting *the idea out of the Bible. They believe it is something Jesus Himself taught–that we must literally eat His flesh (in the form of the Eucharistic bread) in order to receive eternal life. For, they point out, Jesus said:
Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”
(John 6:53-54)
So I suppose I should ask a similar question to the one I asked in the last post: There are millions of Catholics who believe Jesus said they cannot make it to Heaven if they don’t eat His flesh. If they are misunderstanding Him, then doesn’t He know this?
- Status