P
- Status
P
pneuma07
Guest
R
Radical
Guest
correct, but then Canada and the USA have not been joined together by God himself in an act of remembrance
most certainly…but these days flag burning would be seen as a shameful contribution to global warming.( BTW aren’t we for freedom of speech ?) .
I had said:
In Hebrews 10: 26-29 it reads
If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, … How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?
Here we see that one can “trample” Jesus underfoot and treat his blood as an unholy thing w/o having any actual physical interaction with Christ’s body or with his blood….and so, obviously a real bodily presence is not required to sin against Christ’s body or his blood.
…and in response you had posted:
The author of Hebrews equates the deliberate sinning (v. 26) with the trampling of the Son and with the treating of his blood as unholy.(v. 29) There is nothing in verse 26 that restricts the deliberate sinning to a sin involving the Eucharist. I also don’t see anything in the bit from Chrysostom to suggest that he restricts the deliberate sinning to a sin involving the Eucharist (he might provide that one type of deliberate sinning could involve taking part in the Eucharist in an unworthy manner). As such, from Hebrews 10 we cab know that a real bodily presence is not required to sin against Christ’s body or his blood.Chrysostom in “Homilies on Hebrews”…
I do not expect you to follow John Chrysostom here, of course, ( I guess I’ve a little learnt by now your approach to the ECFs), but simply to consider that your presupposition that those verses have nothing to do with the RP Eucharist is far from being obvious.
I had asked: So again I ask, when the Bible speaks of chewing in respect to the Lord’s supper, is it speaking about 1)literally chewing flesh, 2)literally chewing bread or 3)is it speaking figuratively?
…and you answered:
well, if one eats with their mouth closed, it should all be invisible gnawing…so then, apart from that, how does one do a physical thing such as gnawing to a body w/o the body being physically present or physically affected? I see just another contradiction in terms.My answer: IMHO it is speaking about visibly trogein bread while invisibly trogon flesh.
so you sensed the fear and dread over here?No, I am not going …to answer all your posts here.
sifting through treatment options trying to find out what works best…
R
Radical
Guest
Does it imply that he was? Again, the OPster wanted us (of the symbolic view) to account for John 6. When Jesus says that the eater and drinker will not die or thirst again, he must be talking about a spiritual reality rather than a physical reality b/c we Christians continue to die and get thirsty….once one decides that Jesus is not talking about physical realities, it is easy to understand John 6 in a fashion that does not remotely require (or even suggest) a RP.
Physical reality = a reality that exists wrt physical matters. Spiritual reality = a reality that exists wrt spiritual matters. For example, regarding the never thirst again promise, if that was a physical reality then we would never suffer the physical sensations of thirst again. On the other hand, if it was a spiritual reality then our thirst for spiritual fulfillment should be quenched in full by what we do to meet the conditions of Jesus’s promise. The passage does not clarify with a technical explanation (in a fashion that eliminates our disagreement) if the condition is met by belief (I think that this is what the passage says) or whether it is met by an otherworldly consumption (you think that this is what the passage says/implies).
as indicated, I would categorize it as a “spiritual plus otherworldly” understanding
I had asked: Do you hold to a literal interpretation that would have you gnawing at Christ’s flesh or do you hold to a figurative interpretation (like Augustine and I)?
….and you responded with:
May I suggest a quadalemma with respect to the nature of the presence of flesh:
- Ordinary understanding by the hearers, “by cutting off parts” of the then walking Jesus. You, Augustine and I agree this is wrong.
- Merely symbolic interpretation.
- Sacramental interpretation. (like Augustine and I)
a) Ordinary understanding by the hearers, “by cutting off parts” of the then walking Jesus. You, Augustine and I agree this is wrong.
b) Merely symbolic interpretation and therefore real no presence of flesh (my view…and Augustine does describe symbolism in the Eucharist).
c) Otherworldly presence involving the accidents of bread and none of the accidents of a human body (your view…and Augustine makes no mention of any thing such as an otherworldly presence achieved by accidents or otherwise)
d) A spiritual presence (along the lines of Jesus’s promise to be in the midst wherever 2 or 3 are gathered….possibly in a heightened manner) and therefore real no presence of flesh (this could also be my view)
By throwing “sacramental” into the mix you have moved away from considering the nature of the presence of flesh. Other sacraments have no “real bodily presence” and therefore such is not necessary for a sacramental act. Further, there would be adherents to each of my four options that would view the Lord’s Supper as a sacrament.
M
meandean
Guest
since peter or any of the first believers never taught this transubstation, why was it so important to improve on this meaning from john chap. 6? did they get it wrong?(Joh 6:48 RSV) I am the bread of life.
(Joh 6:49 RSV) Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
(Joh 6:50 RSV) This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die.
(Joh 6:51 RSV) I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."
(Joh 6:52 RSV) The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
(Joh 6:53 RSV) So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
(Joh 6:54 RSV) he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
(Joh 6:55 RSV) For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
(Joh 6:56 RSV) He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
(Joh 6:57 RSV) As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
(Joh 6:58 RSV) This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”
(Joh 6:59 RSV) This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caperna-um.
(Joh 6:60 RSV) Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”
(Joh 6:61 RSV) But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this?
(Joh 6:62 RSV) Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?
(Joh 6:63 RSV) It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
(Joh 6:64 RSV) But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.
(Joh 6:65 RSV) And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
(Joh 6:66 RSV) After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.
(Joh 6:67 RSV) Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?”
(Joh 6:68 RSV) Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life;
(Joh 6:69 RSV) and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”
(Joh 6:70 RSV) Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?”
(Joh 6:71 RSV) He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was to betray him.
Look at how Jesus responds when many of His disciples turned away and left. He did not say “Now wait a moment. You were taking me too literally. What I meant was this…” No, he said to the twelve disciples “Do you also wish to go away?” and Peter, speaking for the group as he was the leader of the group spoke up and said, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” Jesus responds and says, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” He was of course referring to Judas Iscariot who was to betray him as we learn in John 6:71. But notice in particular how he does not tell the many disciples who left him to come back and that he meant something else! *** No, he does not clarify what he means because they understood him properly!*** To me, this is Biblical proof that the Eucharist is Jesus’ body, blood, soul, and divinity.
(1Co 11:23 RSV) For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,
(1Co 11:24 RSV) and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
(1Co 11:25 RSV) In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
(1Co 11:26 RSV) For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
(1Co 11:27 RSV) Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
Again, tell me, how can one be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord by receiving the Eucharist unworthily if it is not truly His body, blood, soul, and divinity?
Also, tell me, how could it not be the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord, Jesus Christ, when all of the early Church fathers believed it to be so?! (See the following web pages for sources:
scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html#tradition-I
scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html#tradition-II
catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp
Catholics, feel free to respond with further insight in to these verses and this post.
Protestants, feel free to respond with any doubts you may have. I, or my more knowledgeable Catholic brethren would be happy to assist you in clearing this doubts up.
P
pneuma07
Guest
He looks immediately bound to repeatedly connect Paul’s words to the eucharistic dimension. As such, he wouldn’t probably quote precisely Hebrews 10:26-29 as obvious evidence that being “enochos” of the Body and Blood of the Lord in 1 Cor 11 has nothing to do with them being really present. …
On 1 Cor 11:27 Chrysostom goes like this: And these things thou doest when thou hast enjoyed the Table of Christ, on that day on which thou hast been counted worthy to touch His flesh with thy tongue. What then is to be done to prevent these things? Purify thy right hand, thy tongue, thy lips, which have become a threshold for Christ to tread upon.
Now, leaving the great Chysostom aside, I guess we ( well, I at least …) cannot assess with the desired precision the strength of this pauline “enochos”. What does exactly mean here “being answerable for His Body and Blood” ? How grave is it ? The impression is that for sure the matter is very grave indeed.
Whence do you get firm confidence that the matter is not so grave as to exclude a mere symbolism ?
As for your answer about Canada and USA, it is as good as it can be in controlling the fact that the one-to-one relation in the mere symbolism is a further element of weakness for that view here, having to deal with Paul’s passing from “Or” to “And” in the relevant pericope.
Could you theoretically settle, in absence of an exact assessment, on this pericope pointing primarily to RP without by itself ruling out NRP ?
One receives the Holy Eucharist.
At a certain point you have to leave the ordinary dimension of things here. Being a Christian, you already did that on something. ( “But this is different”, isn’t it ?).
From the outside, maybe, all of us Christians are a little crazy. The branch of Christianity you grew in is probably considered just a bit less crazy than Apostolic Churches, thanks to rejecting RP.
I believe Augustine gave us a useful hint: the mysterion ( translated into Latin as you know as sacramentum) has to be celebrated visibly and understood invisibly.
Sorry, for whom are these treatment options ?
QUOTE]
R
Radical
Guest
I wouldn’t designate it as the “sacramental interpretation”. It should be called the RP interpretation as even Zwingli’s Lord’s Supper is a sacrament.
And, of course, they could have also understood that it was a non-cannibalistic mystery to be explained later, but that was not provided either and takes but a few more words.
Well, if those disciples that left did so b/c they understood Jesus’s words to require cannibalism (which is an assumption), then that is also a false stumbling block if a RP view is to be believed… Jesus could have provided a simple clarification by stating that this would be done in a way that totally avoided cannibalism.
Further, I think you are missing the importance of John’s effort to point out that:
*….But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life,….
Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.” 66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him…*
As such, with quotes from Christ at the start and at the end of the BOL passage John emphasizes that:
a) No one can come to Jesus unless helped by the Father
b) All given by the Father will come to Christ
c) Jesus will not drive any away that have been given to him
In doing so, (IMHO) John is stressing that the turning back of many of Jesus’s disciples was a foreseen and planned event and was not something that Christ would have tried to avoid (by chasing after them with conciliatory words of clarification).
the text somehow fails to mention a profound mystery to follow……again, this would have been a simple statement for Christ to have added. The text indicates that they were let go (but not driven off) b/c Jesus knew that they wouldn’t believe in him.
for the benefit of the ones among them that had been drawn by the Father and so that the ones who fell away could not claim that they hadn’t received the good news
I think you are jumping the gun here….there is no indication that any view of the Eucharist was even contemplated as it had not been instituted yet. It should be three views on how one eats Christ’s flesh:
a) Literal eating….bite off and actually gnaw the flesh of Jesus
b) Figurative eating….as described by Augustine or something of that sort
c) otherworldly eating….including the RP view
There are probably other possible views out there, but three should do for our purposes.
I don’t know that Jesus is pointing to something about his miraculous abilities. Rather I understand him to be referring to his authority, as in, “If you saw me return to stand at the right hand of the Father would you still be offended by what I said or would you then know that I came down from heaven and speak for the Father?”
The offense need not have been that they thought that Jesus was requiring them to commit an act of cannibalism…it could have been merely that they found it offensive for Jesus to figuratively describe belief in himself by graphically speaking about a grossly sinful act. Such would not be something to be taken lightly by Jews who took dietary laws so seriously.
Bless you.
P
pneuma07
Guest
R
Radical
Guest
In one instance (wrt eating Jesus’s flesh) Augustine contrasts figurative with literal (and says that the figurative interpretation is correct) and in the other instance Augustine (wrt eating Jesus’s flesh) described Christ’s explanation of his words as: “Understand spiritually what I have said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken.” Although I would not use the equal sign, Augustine points out that the literal approach is the carnal approach. He also said that we are to understand spiritually what Christ said and that the correct understanding of Christ’s words is the figurative one.
I am not saying that the former is more spiritual than the latter… I don’t see that Augustine even contemplates the latter as a possibility. Augustine said that we are not to drink the blood that was poured out by Jesus’s crucifixion…yet the RCC claims that RCs do just that. This is very odd wording on Augustine’s part if what he really meant is that we don’t drink the blood that was poured out by Jesus’s crucifixion in a literal fashion, but we do drink the blood that was poured out by Jesus’s crucifixion in a otherworldly fashion
agreed!
Are you arguing that Hebrews 10:26 has only eating the bread or drinking the cup in an unworthy manner in mind when it speaks about continuing to deliberately sin? Are you are arguing that such is Chrysostom’s understanding?
My confidence comes from this reasoning:
a) in 1 Cor 11 Paul said, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord” in the context of the Lord’s Supper
b) In Hebrews 10, to “deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth,” is equated with trampling the Son of God under foot and with treating as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him. In that passage there is no indication that there is one and only one way to “deliberately keep on sinning “ (namely by eating the bread or drinking the cup in an unworthy manner)
c) Since the Eucharist is the one and only thing claimed to involve a RP, and since Hebrews 10 does not indicate that there is one and only one way to “deliberately keep on sinning “ (namely by eating the bread or drinking the cup in an unworthy manner), then there must be a way to trample the Son of God under foot and to treat Jesus’s blood as an unholy thing w/o having anything to do with a RP.
d) Given the nature of the guilt described in (c) above, there is no need for a RP to be involved for one to be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord
R
Radical
Guest
I don’t understand your question here, but let’s look at the verses in question:
For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
I don’t see how the passing from “or” to “and” is something that is any more problematic for the symbolic view than it is for the RP view.
First, all the translations that I have looked at consider it appropriate to put a “therefore” at the start of verse 27. As such, the reasoning as to why “whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord” should be set out in verse 26. In that verse it is stated that whenever we eat the bread and drink the cup we proclaim the Lord’s death. The Lord’s death involved the pouring out of his blood and the giving of his body. Therefore, if we attempt to proclaim his death whilst in an unworthy state we sin against his blood and his body (being the two things that were poured out and given in the process of his death). The “therefore” in verse 27 follows from the fact that the act is a “proclamation” of Christ’s death. The “therefore” in verse 27 does not follow from the claim of a RP in verse 26.
Second, even w/o the “therefore” in verse 27 I don’t see how a real presence accounts for the passing from “or” to “and”. Christ’s blood and his body are distinct things. It would not be correct to say that Christ’s body was poured out for us. My hand and my foot are also distinct things that possess an actual bodily presence. If someone stabs my hand or stabs my foot, he is not guilty of stabbing my hand and my foot even though they are really present…real presence, in and of itself does not justify the passing from “or” to “and”. Something more is needed and as shown above, the “therefore” exists b/c both the blood and the body were key to the death that is proclaimed.
often I am not so sure about the “little”.
trust me, we have more than our own share of contributions to crazinessThe branch of Christianity you grew in is probably considered just a bit less crazy than Apostolic Churches, thanks to rejecting RP.
the Mrs…cancer again.
Bless you
P
pneuma07
Guest
P
pneuma07
Guest
I do not believe they got the Sola Fide version of Jesus’ speech. Let’s say the understood figuratively. Then , the figurative meaning offered by the linguistic environment for the Lord’s expression about eating someone’s flesh was “kill”, or “brutally exploit”. Rather unpalatable and non-sensical, isn’t it ?
We should postulate that this time Jesus chose to express the concept of salvation through faith by expressions which seemingly could be only repulsive. In short, really “hard” saying.
Moreover, this should happen in spite of the fact that in other contexts the Lord expresses the same concept in plain words. Salvation through faith was not a truth to be revealed later, but one He would preach all along His public life. Shall we prefer consider that for some peculiar reason an open content of His preaching was just for once covered with the most obscure language?
I’d prefer to consider that it is much more plausible seeing here the expression of a peculiar “hard” concept.
P
pneuma07
Guest
R
Richard_Kastner
Guest
Hello Holly, Please note Matt13:10And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
15For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
16But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.
17For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.
34All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:
35That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.
Jesus spoke to the multitude in parables in order to weed out the unbeleivers.
What Jesus is talking about in Jn 6 is stated very clearly by Jesus and then affirmed by Peter 63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
68Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
Jesus says in Jn 6:53:Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
and in Jn1:14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. It’s clear to me that Jesus is talking of His word when He tells us to eat His flesh and drink His blood.
P
pneuma07
Guest
Hi Richard !
The parallel you quote is an interesting one.
i’m trying to show why IMHO it does not fit here.
- You’re right in that we have somehow mysteryous language in the BOL passage, but there is no parable there.
- The Apostles do not receive the key of the speech more than the other people. In Matthew 13 you will note the parable is made plain for them
- By this explanation we know the content of the message which was delivered to the 12 but not, at that moment, to larger groups. In the BOL what is the peculiar message which had to be hidden ?
- Is verse 63 against the very verse 1:14 in the same John you quote in your conclusion “The Word was made flesh” ?
Isn’t the flesh of verse 63 something different from the one involved in Incarnation ?
A biblical idiom, used several times the term flesh as a figure of “our natural capacities, our human weekness” See for example Matthew 16, Peter’s confession. - In the verse introducing Incarnation we see “the Word (logos) was made flesh”. It goes about the Word here , not words, ie God the Son who became flesh for us. The Word would preach in words, and give us Himself (the Word) in the Eucharist, where you can receive Jesus, the Word, made flesh.
P
pneuma07
Guest
R
Radical
Guest
Pneuma07…thanks again for (yet) another well thought out response…before this last one came along I was about 90% complete in formulating a response to your last set of responses and so I’ll add this to the package…after that, I am thinking that it might be time to summarize (in other words after you respond to my next multiple response I’ll sum up) and, of course, it is your turn for the last word. (unless you would like further clarification from me) Thanks also for your Christian charity as displayed here:
) Survival rates are decent and once we decide on a treatment our lives should return to normal…and we are very thankful for the 10 years that we have enjoyed since it first became a part of our lives.
Chemo and radiation are not useful/available in this case and so it is an attempt to find the least disruptive hormone therapy (with artificially induced menopauseDear Radical, may the Lord be with all of you in this new difficulty. Any news ?
Receive my prayers.
) Survival rates are decent and once we decide on a treatment our lives should return to normal…and we are very thankful for the 10 years that we have enjoyed since it first became a part of our lives.
R
Radical
Guest
Pneuma07, sorry for the delay,…I think that with what follows, I’ll be caught up. Please grab a coffee and enjoy my long winded response(s)
nope….Jesus builds upon the fact that they are hoping for more food and that they referenced manna in regard to their request for a miraculous sign. In response he tells them what they should really desire. Jesus uses (as figures) those things which are later symbolized by the elements of bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper. I would classify this as a common and consistent usage, but not as a promise of a Eucharist. Further, prior to this Jesus had stated that his “food” is to do the will of the Father.
I do not believe that taking a head count of realistic vs figurative is the correct approach. For example, look at John 2….is there anything in it that is not a realistic expression before Jesus’s declaration of, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days"? In contrast, John 6 has many terms that the RP crowd do not take literally and as such, (IMHO) any presumption towards literal and away from figurative is negated.Lord’s flesh and the bread to be given : just figurative even if realist expressions prevail thorugh the passage ?
(“(I’m the bread” sounds very figurative. But that depends from the line above. )
In my list of four views wrt presence I was contrasting purely symbolic with the view that claims (what a lot of people call) a spiritual presence………like “sacramental understanding”, a “spiritual understanding” is something that can be attributed to any one of the views with respect to the nature of the presence (except for the literal/ordinary view). Therefore, I consider a spiritual understanding to be a different thing than a spiritual presence.
You know , today I attended a Corpus Domini procession, lead by our bishop, with wife and children ( I mean mine, not the bishop’s, you see how far from perspicuous are our small simple sentences
sounds like a very good day
R
Radical
Guest
It is not that I don’t like it…it is that it is too broad. Anyone can claim that theirs is a sacramental Supper, notwithstanding where they stand wrt a RP. “Really” is also used in a variety of ways.
Well at this point in Christ’s ministry I think that only 3 interpretations (for his audience) should be expected wrt Jesus’s words in John 6:You seem to consider that option unthinkable yourself, after so many contacts with it.
If so , you cannot expect those “few words” to be taken immediately at face value by those poor fellows as the most normal thing in the world.
a) they could have taken it in a literal fashion that would have required a cannibalistic act. (I don’t think many would have understood Jesus’s words in this fashion. Most disciples should have known Jesus well enough to know that he took the law seriously and requiring cannibalism would have been out of line with what they would have observed).
b) they could have taken it as “what in the world is he talking about?..and why is he using such vulgar words and why is he utilizing a grossly sinful act to describe what we must do in order to follow him?..this is just nuts!” (This describes how I think the bulk of his disciples received his message that day)
c) they could have understood that he was talking about belief in him (derived from Jesus’s repeated reference to that belief based on his earlier figurative language wrt food and living water), but I expect that this understanding would have still been accompanied by a “…why is he using such vulgar words and why is he utilizing a grossly sinful act to describe what we must do in order to follow him?..this is a hard teaching!" reaction. Peter seems to have gotten this far.
W/o considerably more from Jesus I don’t see how any one could have possibly taken his words (that day) to be a promise of a future rite involving a real bodily presence. Nothing else we know about (in either the natural or supernatural realms) is of the same nature as the alleged RP …so how could one envision such a possibility unless it was clearly described to them?..or unless they decided that they should take his words literally, witnessed a Lord’s Supper where no visible change occurs and then spent at least a few decades philosophizing about it.
Likewise, w/o considerably more from Jesus I don’t see how any one could have possibly taken his words (that day) to be a foreshadowing of his death for us on the cross. Afterwards his disciples would have been able to look back at this speech and then realize that they could have taken it in a figurative fashion along the lines of Augustine’s interpretation (but at the time they wouldn’t have been able to reach that understanding)
Rather than provide the lengthy explanation that would have allowed his disciples to understand the full meaning of his words (in either case), Jesus provides only a “just trust me, I offer life” sort of reassurance with his words at v. 63.
In both cases the “eating” is not in a cannibalistic manner. In one instance it is figurative eating and in the other instance it is otherworldly eating…and I would suggest that the disciples really didn’t know what to make of his words that day. Until the idea of an otherworldly eating is developed, “eating” would be a stumbling block b/c they wouldn’t know how it could be possible w/o a cannibalistic act (if they were inclined to treat his words in a non-figurative fashion)
the recorded reaction is: “How can this man give us his flesh to eat.”
It seems they understand the What (they must do), but can’t envision the How (either figuratively or otherworldly)…I can’t fault them on that. Where they err is by not taking the next step (as Peter did) and simply acknowledge that although these words are hard to understand and accept, they are (somehow) the words of eternal life.
Christ started by pointing out that although they had seen him, they still didn’t believe…their faith wasn’t sufficient for them to believe that Jesus came from the Father
if it was pointed to, it was done in such an incomplete fashion that no one could have possibly understood that Jesus was talking about changing the Passover meal to focus on the elements of bread and wine and to use those elements to proclaim his upcoming death by crucifixion…and where the elements of bread and wine are transubstantiated into his flesh and blood. One can’t fail to accept what hasn’t been offered and not one of these details was offered. No one was given the chance to decide whether an otherworldly eating was an unpalatable thing or not.
R
Radical
Guest
continuing where last post left off;
On the other hand, if we focus on what Jesus revealed about his audience, then it is not about the words at all. When Jesus starts the BOL teaching he includes the message (vs 36-39) that “You have seen me and still you do not believe. All that the Father gives to me will come to me…” In answer to their grumbling about how he could claim that he came down from heaven, Jesus (at vs. 43-46) again declares that no one comes to him unless drawn by the Father. When they refuse to accept his words of life he repeats that message again (v. 64-65). Three times inside of 31 verses we are told that what happened (who came to Christ and who wouldn’t believe) was as a result of the Father either drawing that person or not drawing that person.
If one focuses on the words provided concerning bread and flesh, then it has to be a matter of wording b/c in neither case were they given enough words to be able to begin to understand what you and I now read back into the passage. You look back and see a promise of a mysterious Eucharist. There is absolutely no way that the disciples could have even began to derive that meaning at that time. They didn’t have the information (unless John left that detail out). Jesus makes no attempt to provide an answer as to how he will give them his flesh to eat…so even if you are right, it would be a matter of words as no one was given the chance to decide whether an otherworldly eating was a hard teaching or not…b/c that aspect wasn’t taught.
On the other hand, if we focus on what Jesus revealed about his audience, then it is not about the words at all. When Jesus starts the BOL teaching he includes the message (vs 36-39) that “You have seen me and still you do not believe. All that the Father gives to me will come to me…” In answer to their grumbling about how he could claim that he came down from heaven, Jesus (at vs. 43-46) again declares that no one comes to him unless drawn by the Father. When they refuse to accept his words of life he repeats that message again (v. 64-65). Three times inside of 31 verses we are told that what happened (who came to Christ and who wouldn’t believe) was as a result of the Father either drawing that person or not drawing that person.
Christ begins and ends the BOL passage by pointing out that there are some that don’t believe. The passage is about belief. Christ points out that they “still do not believe” before he (allegedly) delivered the promise of the Eucharist in verse 51. After verse 51 Christ does not declare that they have failed to believe a new thing…at the end (as at the beginning) it is still that some do not believe that he is the Holy one of God.
- Status