Old Testament Fact or Parable

[karebear92]

Then, how do you explain the Eucharist? It’s his Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. You can’t explain it because it is a mystery that goes beyond human reason. We simply don’t know everything since we are not God.

“Christ’s body is not in this sacrament in the same way as a body is in a place, its dimensions equal to the dimensions of the place it occupies. It is present in a special manner which only applies to the sacrament. That is why we say that Christ’s body is upon many altars: not that one thing is in several places, because it is there sacramentally. This does not mean that Christ is only there symbolically – though the sacrament is also symbolic. It means that Christ’s body is here in a way peculiar to the sacrament.” – Thomas Aquinas
God had not yet assumed human nature and did not have a body, particularly a body which would include all three persons in one body. Within the Eucharist it is possible, as Christ, having a physical body, can be contained in one place.

Unless of course they were three persons contained in one human nature, but I don’t know how that would work, which is why I believe what I believe, while admitting that a literal view is acceptable. You see, if there were three persons in one human nature, how could the father beget the son and proceed the Holy Spirit while containing a corneal form? It seems more logical that He was not a physical hum a, though a literal view is acceptable as well.

 

[fisherman_carl]

“Christ’s body is not in this sacrament in the same way as a body is in a place, its dimensions equal to the dimensions of the place it occupies. It is present in a special manner which only applies to the sacrament. That is why we say that Christ’s body is upon many altars: not that one thing is in several places, because it is there sacramentally. This does not mean that Christ is only there symbolically – though the sacrament is also symbolic. It means that Christ’s body is here in a way peculiar to the sacrament.” – Thomas Aquinas
God had not yet assumed human nature and did not have a body, particularly a body which would include all three persons in one body. Within the Eucharist it is possible, as Christ, having a physical body, can be contained in one place.

Unless of course they were three persons contained in one human nature, but I don’t know how that would work, which is why I believe what I believe, while admitting that a literal view is acceptable. You see, if there were three persons in one human nature, how could the father beget the son and proceed the Holy Spirit while containing a corneal form? It seems more logical that He was not a physical hum a, though a literal view is acceptable as well.

“1374 The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as “the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend.” In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist “the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.” “This presence is called ‘real’ - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.””

If God can make himself present in a special way in the Eucharist, he can also manifest himself in other ways too, like in the burning bush, or in the glory cloud above the Ark of the Covenant in the desert with the Iraelites. Or showing his ‘back’ to Moses on the mountain. How Christ can be both fully God and fully man is a mystery.

 

[karebear92]

“1374 The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as “the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend.” In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist “the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.” “This presence is called ‘real’ - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.””

If God can make himself present in a special way in the Eucharist, he can also manifest himself in other ways too, like in the burning bush, or in the glory cloud above the Ark of the Covenant in the desert with the Iraelites. Or showing his ‘back’ to Moses on the mountain. How Christ can be both fully God and fully man is a mystery.

I am not denying that you can read it literally. I don’t think it should be read literally. Most biblical scholars don’t believe that it should be read literally. It is not unorthodox either way. I don’t think that it makes sense for God to assume human nature before the incarnation of Christ. Obviously God the Father could assume human flesh. Obviously the Holy Spirit could assume Human flesh. It is obvious that all three could form to one human nature while remaining three separate persons somehow, though I can’t conceptualize how that would work. I admit that my point about being omnipresent isn’t a good one, but to me it makes most sense that God did not assume human nature before Christ did during conception.

In saying this, I think Moses used expressions that the people could understand, speaking figuratively. For example, He could feel God but ti was as if God was holding his hands over his eyes because he could not see him. God moved him, but when he tried to see Him, he couldn’t, as if the Lord had turned His back to Him. Same thing with Adam and Eve. They heard Him in that they knew He was there but they couldn’t see Him, and then He called out to them, in that He already knew where they were.

If he were to say, for example, I went up to the top of the mountain and I felt something and new it was God and then He spoke to me but I couldn’t see Him. I felt him touch me but I could not see His face. I heard Him speak but it came from nowhere. They people would think he went crazy. So he made it physical so they could conceptualize what happened.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

A good resource for these kinds of discussions is:

“The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church”
Presented by the Pontifical Biblical Commission
to Pope John Paul II on April 23, 1993

 

[karebear92]

A good resource for these kinds of discussions is:

“The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church”
Presented by the Pontifical Biblical Commission
to Pope John Paul II on April 23, 1993

A very good source indeed.

 

[fisherman_carl]

I am not denying that you can read it literally. I don’t think it should be read literally. Most biblical scholars don’t believe that it should be read literally.

I wasn’t primarily addressing the issue of literalness but your reasoning for denying God as being in certain places and events in history because you said God can not be contained in one place yet everywhere else at the same time. I was addressing the idea that God can not be contained in one place yet be everywhere at the same time. The Eucharist is an example of that. God is Spirit and not bound in space and time. All of space and time is present to him at once. Thus, he can be at any point of space and time in a special way while still having the rest of space and time still present to him.

It is not unorthodox either way. I don’t think that it makes sense for God to assume human nature before the incarnation of Christ. Obviously God the Father could assume human flesh. Obviously the Holy Spirit could assume Human flesh. It is obvious that all three could form to one human nature while remaining three separate persons somehow, though I can’t conceptualize how that would work. I admit that my point about being omnipresent isn’t a good one, but to me it makes most sense that God did not assume human nature before Christ did during conception.

As far as the literalness issue. Was God walking in the garden? Well, we know that God is Spirit and has no body. Normally, walking is associated with having a body. God doesn’t need to walk because as I said before all of space and time is present to him at once. So he doesn’t need to travel. He’s already there. So, I would agree that it is probably not literal but it still conveys a meaning. However, it would not be impossible for a God who can do anything to ‘walk’ in the garden. It’s possible that before the fall, God appeared to man as a person or an angel. He would not have needed to assume human nature to do this.

I think the important point is not whether God was actually walking or not but that he was ‘walking’ with Adam such that Adam was in a state of friendship with God and in grace before the fall. Just like in the story of the ‘footprints in the sand’. We see God’s ‘footprints’ in the sand walking with us through our life. Well, that is not saying that God has feet. It’s letting us know that God is with us and never leaves us even in the hardest times.

In saying this, I think Moses used expressions that the people could understand, speaking figuratively. For example, He could feel God but ti was as if God was holding his hands over his eyes because he could not see him. God moved him, but when he tried to see Him, he couldn’t, as if the Lord had turned His back to Him. Same thing with Adam and Eve. They heard Him in that they knew He was there but they couldn’t see Him, and then He called out to them, in that He already knew where they were.

If he were to say, for example, I went up to the top of the mountain and I felt something and new it was God and then He spoke to me but I couldn’t see Him. I felt him touch me but I could not see His face. I heard Him speak but it came from nowhere. They people would think he went crazy. So he made it physical so they could conceptualize what happened.

“So he made it physical so they could conceptualize what happened.”

I think that is assuming too much. What you are basically doing is denying that God could do those things in the bible, like the burning bush, or Moses on the mountain. So, Moses had to make them up to make God seem more believable. I think that is a dangerous assumption. First of all it robs God of any power that he has, that he has to rely on Moses to ‘lie’ about him so that the people will believe him. Second, if that is the case then maybe nothing in the bible actually happened and it is just a cook book for living a moral life. I think that is dangerous reasoning.

I’ve heard of some people who taught that in the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves Jesus didn’t really multiply bread and fish, he just got everyone to share. I would be curious what you think of that miracle. Do you think it was Jesus doing a miracle or was he just getting people to share?

 

[karebear92]

Carl, I agree with what you are saying. Perhaps I am presenting it poorly, but I think we pretty much agree. I am not saying that God can’t. He could, but it makes more sense to me that Moses or anyone would try to express something in the way that made sense to them. If someone tried to describe electricity 2,000 years ago, they may have used fire as an analogy. Would they have to? No, but it would make most sense that way.

I admit that after reflecting upon the omnipresent point further that I realized it was not accurate. I am sure that happens to everyone from time to time… the joys of instant media

Anyway, I admit that I have a long way to go before in understanding God in the bible, so always feel free to correct me anytime I error.

 

[scwest]

As I said it is more likely, though perhaps the Reed Sea hypothesis isn’t (I will have to look into that more ) But the fact remains that not all of the bible must be read literally. There is figurative language in it, and that must be taken into consideration.

Matthew 24:35
“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away”

2 Timothy 3:15-17
"And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
“That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”

Matthew 15:9
“But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”

1 Corinthians 14:33
“For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace.”

karebear92,
God has given us His word. You can trust Him for truth.

 

[Contarini]

Thank you for this nice post!

Let me say, I am a non-exclusive literalist, which is perhaps a rare bird, I admit.

Well, in practice I don’t think it is, and I’m not sure that a Catholic could be any other kind! But at least among my students, I find that they haven’t really thought through these issues. Obviously I know that you have–your posts are always thoughtful–and I apologize for my testy tone earlier. The “tell the bishop on this awful heretic” responses to the OP set my teeth on edge, since I’ve encountered the same response among my evangelical students. When you suggested that without a literal reading we wouldn’t know what Scripture was saying, this seemed to me to feed into the same error I encounter among my students–that a literalist hermeneutic is the only way to get meaning out of Scripture. And that does seem obviously wrong to me.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Warrenton]

When you suggested that without a literal reading we wouldn’t know what Scripture was saying, this seemed to me to feed into the same error I encounter among my students–that a literalist hermeneutic is the only way to get meaning out of Scripture. And that does seem obviously wrong to me.

Hello again!

I wrote too much in haste, and overstated my case. I did not want to dissuade our friends from the allegorical interpretation, or make any one feel “un Christian” for holding that interpretation. Rather, I hoped to elucidate my own thinking on the matter. Obviously, everyone holds their opinions for some reason - something that strikes them as helpful, or helps them resolve a conflict they had with another viewpoint. I wanted to describe how I arrived at mine, and why I think it’s better.

This is one of those areas, however, where “better” does not mean “exclusive.” I know this because the Church teaches me so.

In addition to the strength of authority, I would add that I personally consider much of everyone’s opinions (inlcuding, and maybe especially my own) on the literal truth or allegorical truth of the most ancient portions of scripture, especially Genesis, to be fairly speculative. They are likely to remain so, at least until Mr. Wells fires up a real time machine for us!

Cheers!