Pages

Friday, June 27, 2008

The Eucharist In Ignatius And Other Fathers

In another thread, Anne posted a passage from Ignatius of Antioch that Roman Catholics often cite in support of their view of the eucharist. I thought I'd repeat and expand upon my response to Anne here, since some people might find it helpful. In my experience, this passage from Ignatius is one of the most commonly cited patristic passages among Roman Catholics.

Here's the passage:

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." (Letter To The Smyrnaeans, 7)

Yet, earlier in the same letter Ignatius writes:

"Yea, far be it from me to make any mention of them, until they repent and return to a true belief in Christ's passion, which is our resurrection." (5)

Are we to conclude that Ignatius believed that Jesus' passion (or faith in His passion) is transubstantiated into our resurrection under the appearance of remaining Jesus' passion (or faith in His passion)?

Ignatius often wrote in a manner similar to what we see in the two passages quoted above. That should be a signal to the careful interpreter to proceed with caution.

There's nothing in Ignatius that tells us much about his view of the eucharist. Catholics can't claim to know that Ignatius agreed with them on this issue.

This passage in Ignatius was written in response to heretics who deny the physicality of Christ. Any of the popular views of the eucharist, including the symbolic view, would contradict the denial of Christ's physicality that Ignatius was arguing against. The symbolic view maintains that the eucharist has reference to Christ's physical body, so both a Baptist who holds the symbolic view and a Roman Catholic who adheres to transubstantation could agree with what Ignatius wrote. While it's possible that Ignatius believed in some sort of physical presence in the eucharist, nothing in the passage in question tells us that he did. When Jesus says that the cup is the new covenant (Luke 22:20), He obviously doesn't mean that the cup is transubstantiated into the new covenant. A covenant isn't something physical, and surely all of us understand how Jesus could use "is" in some sense other than transubstantiation. The same is true of Ignatius. Whether the eucharist represents Christ's physicality or is transubstantiated into it, either view contradicts a denial of Christ's physicality.

Roman Catholics often assume transubstantiation or something similar to it whenever they see an opportunity to read such a concept into a text. I would suggest that people closely examine Catholic claims on this subject, because a lot of what's commonly asserted is incorrect. A "real presence" isn't equivalent to transubstantiation. A person can believe in some type of eucharistic presence without believing in the Roman Catholic view of the eucharist. Many church fathers held a view of the eucharist that contradicts the Catholic view or could plausibly be interpreted in more than one way, not just in a Roman Catholic sense.

A good online source on this subject is Philip Schaff's church history. See section 69 here and section 95 here. I also recommend consulting Schaff's notes, since the notes cite additional passages from the fathers and cite other scholars confirming Schaff's conclusions. I don't agree with Schaff on every issue, and he doesn't include some arguments I would include, but his church history is good for a general introduction to the subject.

Contrast what Schaff and other scholars have documented with claims like these made by the Council of Trent:

"our Redeemer instituted this so admirable a sacrament at the last supper, when, after the blessing of the bread and wine, He testified, in express and clear words, that He gave them His own very Body, and His own Blood; words which, - recorded by the holy Evangelists, and afterwards repeated by Saint Paul, whereas they carry with them that proper and most manifest meaning in which they were understood by the Fathers, - it is indeed a crime the most unworthy that they should be wrested, by certain contentions and wicked men, to fictitious and imaginary tropes, whereby the verity of the flesh and blood of Christ is denied, contrary to the universal sense of the Church, which, as the pillar and ground of truth, has detested, as satanical, these inventions devised by impious men" (session 13, chapter 1, "On the real presence of our Lord Jesus Christ in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist.")

"Since Christ our Redeemer said that that which he offered under the appearance of bread was truly his body, it has therefore always been held in the Church of God, and this holy Synod now declares anew, that through consecration of the bread and wine there comes about a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. And this conversion is by the Holy Catholic church conveniently and properly called transubstantiation." (session 13, chapter 4, "Decrees Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist")

83 comments:

  1. "Those therefore who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they might rise again."

    It is not your view of the Eucharistic prescence that will condemn you, but disrespect and profaning the sacredness of the Lords Supper will- as in 'Wafer Wars'.

    "How much wiser and better to confess our ignorance on mysteries, than idly dispute on them." -Augustine

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Are we to conclude that Ignatius believed that Jesus' passion (or faith in His passion) is transubstantiated into our resurrection under the appearance of remaining Jesus' passion (or faith in His passion)?"

    Very good point.

    "Ignatius often wrote in a manner similar to what we see in the two passages quoted above. That should be a signal to the careful interpreter to proceed with caution."

    I like where you are going with this.

    "Roman Catholics often assume transubstantiation or something similar to it whenever they see an opportunity to read such a concept into a text."

    Agreed. There's no good reason to read transubstantiation in the passage.

    "The symbolic view maintains that the eucharist has reference to Christ's physical body."

    Well that seems like that just IS the gnostic and docetistic view of Christ's body and eucharistic body. Christ's body is symbolic therefore the Eucharistic body is symbolic and vice versa. Let me explain. That is, is that you can't have the *virtues* or the *operations* without also having the underlying nature OF those virtues and operations. You're correct in rejecting transubstantiation as was someone like John Wycliffe. To say that the attributes or accidents of bread remain while the underlying substance does not, was for John, no real precense at all. (Pope Gelasius has the correct doctrine) Unlike John, you err in the exact opposite of transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is docetistic in that only the *symbols* or attributes or operations of the bread remain while the substance does not; the baptist doctrine is docetistic in that the virtues of Christ or the operations of Christ are present without the underlying reality of them. The solution here is not to see a *dialectical* relationship between *symbol* and the *underlying reality* of that symbol.

    You have some good insights, but the questions that needs to be asked are more like the following:

    What is the relationship to Christ's passion and to His resurrected flesh (which is our resurrection by dent of our consubstantiality with Him)?

    And then:

    What is the relationship of the Eucharist to Christs's Incarnate and Resurrected Economy?

    "A "real presence" isn't equivalent to transubstantiation. A person can believe in some type of eucharistic presence without believing in the Roman Catholic view of the eucharist."

    Correct. Transubstantiation is based on dialectical opposition between the bread and wine vis-a-vis Christ's Incarnate body.

    Photios

    ReplyDelete
  3. Photios,

    Was it possible for Christ to set up the institution of the Lord's Supper such that it would symbolize (as a memorial) His physical death?

    Were the Jews Gnostic because they believed that several of their festivals were *memorials* of what had happened in the past?

    Does baptismal water actually turn into Christ's blood, the Holy Spirit, etc. at the moment of baptism?

    ReplyDelete
  4. "It is not your view of the Eucharistic prescence that will condemn you, but disrespect and profaning the sacredness of the Lords Supper will- as in 'Wafer Wars'."

    Of course, it's not Communion itself that Steve was making fun of, but heretical views of it - such as those held by Roman Catholics. And that's fair game in my book

    ReplyDelete
  5. ANNE SAID:

    “It is not your view of the Eucharistic prescence that will condemn you, but disrespect and profaning the sacredness of the Lords Supper will- as in 'Wafer Wars'.”

    Actually, what’s at issue is not my view of the Lord’s Supper, but your view of the church fathers. The church fathers aren’t God’s spokesmen. They aren’t the apostles and prophets. You’re putting your faith in the words of men rather than the words of God.

    You’re also putting your faith in a wafer or a chalice rather Christ. A wafer won’t save you. Only Jesus can save you. The chalice won’t save you. Only Jesus can save you.

    The Wafer Wars was, among other things, a satire of superstitious sacramentalism. The Bible itself is quite critical of that mentality. It’s a form of idolatry. The way the Hebrews came to reverence the bronze serpent (2 Kg 18:4). And the way the Hebrews treated the ark of the covenant as a rabbit’s foot (1 Sam 4).

    Because you can’t make your case from God’s word, you resort to thinly veiled threats of damnation. But various theological traditions threaten damnation if you don’t submit to their peculiar traditions.

    "How much wiser and better to confess our ignorance on mysteries, than idly dispute on them." –Augustine

    I take it that you’re quoting Augustine to censure the idle speculation of Catholic theologians like Aquinas who try to rationalize the real presence by appealing to transubstantiation.

    ReplyDelete
  6. ENERGETICPROCESSION SAID:

    “That is, is that you can't have the *virtues* or the *operations* without also having the underlying nature OF those virtues and operations.”

    You can’t? Are you claiming that when Naaman dipped in the Jordan River, he was healed by the natural therapeutic properties (“virtues and operations”) of the Jordan River?

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Are you claiming that when Naaman dipped in the Jordan River, he was healed by the natural therapeutic properties (“virtues and operations”) of the Jordan River?"

    Yes that is precisely what I'm claiming.

    When Jesus walked on water, etc., this demonstrated the “Natural” state of man, the sacramental union of the human being with creation in God. A harmony with creation. Jesus did not do something “supernatural” but “truly natural." The condition that we live in with creation, i.e. metaphysical and moral dialectical opposition, is UNnatural having to subdue it as we do.

    The point that I'm attempting to articulate is that there is no opposition no disharmony
    between creation and man in the person of Jesus Christ, the Adam we were supposed to be. The sacramental view of creation acknowledges that the material world is more than utilitarian to support the survival of the biological life of man (which is a post lapsarian condition). Baptismal water is not water that is changed into something that it was not in order to sanctify me, but a realization as to what it truly is. Hence ALL creation can indeed be equally sacramental when received with a pure heart and a full awareness of the Giver. The “grace of baptism” is “merely” water and our flesh from God, in Christ, by the Holy Spirit, which is how our flesh was to receive water from the beginning.

    Try looking at some of Schmemann's work on Orthodox sacramentology.

    Matter isn't all what science thinks it is and theology isn't a science or a dialectical exercise.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Yes that is precisely what I'm claiming.

    When Jesus walked on water, etc., this demonstrated the “Natural” state of man, the sacramental union of the human being with creation in God."

    Well, since a Memorialist doesn't accept that view of creation and that view most certainly isn't found in Scripture, aren't you begging-the-question?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anne said:

    “It is not your view of the Eucharistic prescence that will condemn you, but disrespect and profaning the sacredness of the Lords Supper will- as in 'Wafer Wars'.”

    You didn’t explain your citation of Ignatius in that manner in the previous thread, and nothing in the text of Ignatius that you quoted suggests your conclusion. You need to produce some arguments to support your assertions.

    ReplyDelete
  10. When Jesus walked on water, etc., this demonstrated the “Natural” state of man, the sacramental union of the human being with creation in God."

    This is dangerously close to Docetism. Jesus wasn't a man just like us, minus sin, the God-Man, he was Superman, from Krypton. Are you also asserting that He was incapable of contracting the common cold? Flying? Impervious to bullets...nails?

    Obviously your view can in no way be derived from the text of Scripture - but that's not surprising coming from you.

    "Are you claiming that when Naaman dipped in the Jordan River, he was healed by the natural therapeutic properties (“virtues and operations”) of the Jordan River?"

    Really? Is that what the text indicates?

    Let the record show, according to Photius, all Naaman ever had to do was dip himself in the river seven times. He would've been healed apart from any prophetic intervention.

    The River Jordan isn't just any river. It's the Fountain of Youth. In the ANE world, all anybody had to do to be healed of Naaman's ailment was dip in the river seven times. Wow.

    ReplyDelete
  11. EnergeticProcession wrote:

    “Well that seems like that just IS the gnostic and docetistic view of Christ's body and eucharistic body.”

    In the passage in question, Ignatius criticizes these people for “abstaining from the Eucharist” and “confessing not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ”. An adherent of the symbolic view of the eucharist would deny that he does either. He doesn’t abstain from the eucharist, nor does he deny that the eucharist is the flesh of Christ, if that terminology is defined as I explained in my initial post. If you want to introduce your own definitions of “gnosticism” and “docetism” into the discussion, then you’re changing the subject, and you haven’t given us reason to accept your definitions.

    You write:

    “the baptist doctrine is docetistic in that the virtues of Christ or the operations of Christ are present without the underlying reality of them.”

    You’re redefining “docetistic”. You’re attaching a heretical name to a belief that people don’t normally associate with that heretical name. If you redefine “docetistic” before applying it to baptists, then why should baptists be concerned with whether you apply the term to them?

    Apparently, you’re redefining “docetism” in such a way that a person must not only affirm Christ’s physicality in order to avoid being “docetistic”, but must also affirm that the physicality is present everywhere in which “the virtues of Christ or the operations of Christ are present”. You’ll need to explain why we should accept your definition.

    ReplyDelete
  12. ENERGETICPROCESSION SAID:

    "What is the relationship to Christ's passion and to His resurrected flesh (which is our resurrection by dent of our consubstantiality with Him)?"

    How are we any more or less consubstantial with Christ than we are with Adam and Eve or our biological parents? If anything, we're not as closely related to Christ.

    Why assume that the general resurrection is grounded in the Incarnation? And do you draw no distinction between the general resurrection and the resurrection of the just?

    ReplyDelete
  13. ENERGETICPROCESSION SAID:

    "[Hays] Are you claiming that when Naaman dipped in the Jordan River, he was healed by the natural therapeutic properties (‘virtues and operations’) of the Jordan River?"

    “[Photios] Yes that is precisely what I'm claiming.”

    Some natural substances have natural medicinal properties, but the property of curing a skin disease is not a natural property of water.

    “When Jesus walked on water, etc., this demonstrated the ‘Natural’ state of man, the sacramental union of the human being with creation in God. A harmony with creation. Jesus did not do something ‘supernatural’ but ‘truly natural’."

    i) That’s an unscriptural view of dominical miracles. Dominical miracles are indexed to his divinity, not his humanity.

    ii) Creation has natural properties. And it’s important that different natural substances have different properties. Except when it’s ice or steam, fluidity is a natural property of water. That’s why you can’t naturally walk on water.

    And that’s an important property. If solidity were the natural state of water, you couldn’t drink it. Fish couldn’t swim in it. It couldn’t evaporate and form a link in the meteorological and ecological cycle.

    Conversely, solidity is a natural property of man. It makes it possible for man to act on, or be acted on, by other natural substances, according to their distinctive natural properties.

    For man to be in harmony with nature is for man to be adapted to his natural surroundings. To respect the distinctive properties which God has conferred on different natural substances. Man exhibits his mastery of the natural order by manipulating the physical medium in which he’s been placed (including both his body and his environment) according to the distinctive properties and attendant limitations of various natural substances.

    Natural substances are finite. They have inherent limitations. And that’s a source of stability and predictability.

    Of course, Jesus isn’t bound by that. Omnipotence doesn’t require the medium of nature to get things done . And God can also empower mere men to do things contrary to nature.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I believe that Photios is saying that matter has those properties once the right "sacramental" formulation is given to it. Though this view might be found in the Platonic/Neo-Platonic influenced church fathers, it most certainly isn't found in Scripture.

    This is nothing less than sorcery/magic/manna/fetishism.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "I believe that Photios is saying that matter has those properties once the right "sacramental" formulation is given to it. Though this view might be found in the Platonic/Neo-Platonic influenced church fathers, it most certainly isn't found in Scripture."

    SS,
    Not exactly. You are confusing mechanistic views of theurgic rituals in Iamblichus which is a "popularizing" of Hermeticism as "sacred science" with an Orthodox understanding of Sacraments. NeoPlatonism has nothing to do with Orthodoxy and Orthodoxy has nothing to do with it, barring a similarity and use of common terms. NeoPlatonic terms for Orthodox Fathers are gutted of their metaphysical content and given a *whole other* import. For a NeoPlatonist the One is mediated through a pyramidical system that is *causally* deficient from the One to the ultimate Many (matter). In Orthodoxy, God's power and relation to creation is not mediated by something "supernatural" like "created grace" or any other extrinsic created relation, but rather direct and immediate. And in fact God's will is the form of creation. For the differences between NeoPlatonism and Orthodoxy I would recommend you take a look at Joseph P. Farrell's work God, History, and Dialectic: http://dialectic.wordpress.com/ghd/. Let me give you a dialogue between a Monergist and an Orthodox that might give you some hints in the right direction of my view:

    Pyrrhus: Virtues, then, are natural things?

    Maximus: Yes, natural things.

    Pyrrhus: If they be natural things, why do they not exist in all men equally, since all men have an identical nature?

    Maximus: But they do exist equally in all men because of the identical nature!

    Pyrrhus: Then why is there such a great disparity [of virtues] in us?

    Maximus: Because we do not all practice what is natural to us to an equal degree; indeed, if we [all] practiced equally [those virtues] natural to us as we were created to do, then one would be
    able to perceive one virtue in us all, just as there is one nature [in us all], and “one virtue” would not admit of a “more” or “less.”

    Pyrrhus: If virtue be something natural [to us], and if what is natural to us existeth not through asceticism but by reason of our creation, then why is it that we acquire the virtues, which are natural, with asceticism and labours?

    Maximus: Asceticism, and the toils that go with it, was devised simply in order to ward off deception, which established itself through sensory perception. It is not [as if] the virtues have
    been ***newly introduced from outside,*** for they ***inhere in us from creation,*** as hath already been said. Therefore, when deception is completely expelled, the soul immediately exhibits the splendor of its natural virtue.

    Sacramental "formulations" do not make then what did not exist now exist in a Sacrament as a coming from non-being into being. The link is recapitulation.

    Steve,

    All good questions and I hope to get back to you. Thanks for keeping it cordial with me and I enjoy often reading your blog.

    Photios

    ReplyDelete
  16. The OT rituals were types done in anticipation. Were the NT rituals to have been merely things done in remembrance also, then they would likewise be types, and nothing more. But they are not so. They are the reality. (That's what I meant to say by my other comment elsewhere, from which our whole discussion about types and allegories began).

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Were the NT rituals to have been merely things done in remembrance also, then they would likewise be types, and nothing more."

    The Passover meal was a remembrance of an actual event. In the same way, the Lord's Supper is a remembrance of an actual event.

    The Passover remembers the type event while the Lord's Supper remembers the antitype event.

    Just because the Passover foreshadowed (was a type of) the cross doesn't mean that the celebration of the antitype had to be a "recreation" (or whatever word you want to use) of the event.

    It just means that the event which the Passover foreshadowed had to be real, not necessarily the celebration of the antitype.

    ReplyDelete
  18. In other words, the Eucharist is not the antitype of the Passover. The cross is, and it was very real.

    The Eucharist simply looks back symbolically upon the very real antitype event.

    I've probably over-explained that, but oh well...

    ReplyDelete
  19. Well, ... the Temple sacrifices also looked forward, symbolically, towards the very real Sacrifice. The Jews anticipate and the Prots commemorate, but they don't possess (and, what's even more tragic, they don't even claim to possess) the Reality. (That's the saddest part). Christ did not come down on earth to give us even more types; He came to fulfill them.

    ReplyDelete
  20. lvka said...

    “Well, ... the Temple sacrifices also looked forward, symbolically, towards the very real Sacrifice.”

    At Calvary.

    “The Jews anticipate and the Prots commemorate, but they don't possess (and, what's even more tragic, they don't even claim to possess) the Reality.”

    The Reality of the Cross.

    “(That's the saddest part). Christ did not come down on earth to give us even more types; He came to fulfill them.”

    At Calvary.

    I think one of your problems is that since the Orthodox reject the forensic dimension of the atonement, you can’t possibly affirm that redemption is a once-for-all-time event.

    Instead, you have weekly doses of grace, dispensed at communion.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Part of the reason Orthodoxy doesn't view the Crucifixion as an "one-``time''-event" is because the Lamb has already been slain from the foundation of the world (and the world is founded upon that holy sacrifice). This also goes hand-in-hand with the Greeks having two words for the notion of time: one is chronos and it means linear time. I have no idead what the other word is, but what I do know about it is that it carries a much deeper meaning of time than the mere ephemeral and temporal one. (Since the Lamb was slain "before the foundation of the World", it clearly cannot refer than to chronological time: that's why in our Liturgical prayers we "remember" not only the conception, birth, preaching, healing, passion, crucifixion, death, laying down in the tomb, resurrection, ascension, descent of the Holy Spirit, BUT we ALSO "commemorate" the Second Coming and Dreadful Judgement).

    Another part of that has to do with Christ's own words about taking up our crosses, renouncing ourselves, and following Him.

    Yet another part has to do with Christ being not merely the Good Shephard or Pastor, but also the pasture of our souls, "for My flesh is food indeed and My blood is drink indeed, NOT AS YOUR FATHERS ATE MANA IN THE DESERT AND DIED". (So much for the Eucharist being "merely" a remembrance-meal, just as that of the Jewish Sedder or Passover once was). Taste and see, for the Lord is good.

    ReplyDelete
  22. You might compare the Crucifixion to a great earthquake of significant proportions: it doesn't affect merely the epicenter (Calvary, 33 AD), but has powerful reverberation throughout both space and time, changing human history as well as humanity itself. (With the coming of the Christ, the notion of humanity is redefined: John 19:5).

    ReplyDelete
  23. Even if we took your earthquake analogy as accurate, it wouldn't demonstrate what you think it does. That something has an effect throughout history does not mean that that thing is repeated throughout history. Thus, your earthquake analogy: the earthquake is a one-time event that occurs, and buildings shake and vibrate afterwards, NOT because the earthquake is being "recreated" but because of the force of the original earthquake. There is a fundamental difference here.

    By the way, what do you do with Hebrews 10:11-14 which explicity says that Christ's sacrifice is a one-time event?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Who said here anything about repeating and recreating anything? And who denied that the Christ's Crucifixion is a one-time-event, chronologically speaking? All that I'm saying is that there's more to time than chronos, and that "there's more to Acrobat than Reader". We don't need to "re-" anything precisely because of that. Our God is the Creator God, the Maker of both time and space, and thus not subject to them.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Lvka said:
    ---
    Who said here anything about repeating and recreating anything?
    ---

    Lvka previously said:
    ---
    Part of the reason Orthodoxy doesn't view the Crucifixion as an "one-``time''-event" is because the Lamb has already been slain from the foundation of the world (and the world is founded upon that holy sacrifice).
    ---

    I believe the answer is...Lvka said it. If it's not a "one-``time''-event" then what is it? One that either A) never occured or B) occures more than once (i.e., repeatedly). I assumed you didn't hold to A) since that would make you a rather unique Orthodox....

    Lvka said:
    ---
    All that I'm saying is that there's more to time than chronos, and that "there's more to Acrobat than Reader".
    ---

    A) I don't believe in "time" in the first place.

    B) Catchphrases aside, I highly doubt you have a clue what in the world you mean by what you say here. Could you explain it further? (Of course not, for explanation is the antithesis...)

    C) Since you wanna throw around some Greek terms, then how about the fact that Christ is also the Logos? You know, the source of Logic, Rationality, and Understanding. That is, not the source of the irrational. So if you wanna view something as other-than-"chronos" I maintain it still must fit with Logos.

    Lvka said:
    ---
    Our God is the Creator God, the Maker of both time and space, and thus not subject to them.
    ---

    And that has what bearing on the Eucharist, pray tell? Are you going to say that God's not being subject to spacetime means that He's no longer subject to being rational, or that the Laws of Logic (there's that Logos character again!) don't apply despite their having their origin in the very attributes of God?

    See, that's sort of a huge difference there. Space and time are created by God; Logic isn't. The fact that God exists and does not non-exist establishes the foundations of all that we call Logic. The rest flow from it. God's existence requires Logic, it does not require space or time. And therefore, what God can do in space or time is still bound to the rules of Logic. God cannot be irrational in space and time, for such would be to deny His very nature. Christ can never be non-Logos.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I was just speaking about the transcendental nature of worship. And it's not so much a matter of explaining it, as it is a matter of living it or experiencing it. And there's nothing illogical in what I said, unless You're still subject to a carnal mind. And the other word for time is kairos. Chronologically, the Crucifixion is a one-time-event (time here being chronos). Kairologically, however, the Sacrifice is from before the foundation of the world, and thus eternal in nature, everlasting and unchanging.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Lvka said:
    ---
    I was just speaking about the transcendental nature of worship.
    ---

    That's okay, I was just speaking about the intercontinental facet of polylinguistics. Hey, I can make up nonsense sentences and pretend they're relevant just as well as you can!

    Lvka said:
    ---
    And it's not so much a matter of explaining it, as it is a matter of living it or experiencing it.
    ---

    This is the first sign of someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. What I said isn't supposed to make sense, just feel it, man.

    Lvka said:
    ---
    And there's nothing illogical in what I said, unless You're still subject to a carnal mind.
    ---

    And this is the second one. Don't understand what I said? You sinner!

    Lvka said:
    ---
    Chronologically, the Crucifixion is a one-time-event (time here being chronos). Kairologically, however, the Sacrifice is from before the foundation of the world, and thus eternal in nature, everlasting and unchanging.
    ---

    And while you think you've successfully obfuscated enough, the reality remains that this still has absolutely nothing to do with the Eucharist and your misunderstanding of it.

    I'm looking forward to your response. After all, I am interested in your favorite color and what it would look like transcendentally overexposed and digitially remastered throughout kairos. That should clear up all other questions about the Eucharist, methinks. And if it doesn't, thou needs be canst but continueth calling me carnal in response.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Well, if You're unimpressed with the things themselves, no amount of blah about these things will ever make You feel or think otherwise. So, I guess this settles it then. And I'm Orthodox, not Protestant, so Your counter-experiential reflexes do not automatically impress me. (Protestantism's pedantic disdain for anything remotely existential did fuel the inception of the Charismatic and Pentecostal movements, though).

    ReplyDelete
  29. Lvka said:
    ---
    Well, if You're unimpressed with the things themselves, no amount of blah about these things will ever make You feel or think otherwise.
    ---

    THAT'S the spirit!

    Lvka said:
    ---
    So, I guess this settles it then.
    ---

    Metaphysically there is no settling. If there were, there'd be no movement. Do ye not feel it?

    Lvka said:
    ---
    And I'm Orthodox, not Protestant, so Your counter-experiential reflexes do not automatically impress me.
    ---

    Again, I have no idea what you are trying to convey by this sentence. This is a bad habit you have, and it's not just a language barrier. You have no willingness to understand, you just want to feel.

    But if you want a "counter-experiential reflex" allow me to point out the obvious: our feelings often let us down. Or let me be more specific. I have often felt something was true when it just wasn't so.

    Reason has never let me down (ignorance has, and therefore there have been times when I drew wrong conclusions from lack of knowledge, but when I knew all the information I've never been let down by reason); what I've felt however has let me down far too many times to count.

    God is a God of reason, order, intellect, and logic (again, the Logos comes to mind). Only then are there emotions. And when emotions are not subservient to reason, you end up with chaos. What do you think drunkeness is if it is not a man's passion overruling his reason? More important: Why is drunkness condemned if emotion is to reign over logic?

    So yes, there is a huge difference between East and West on this issue. But I must point out that when it comes to every day living, you are more Western than you think. You do not run out in traffic because you know the consequences, not because you feel that it may be bad. And that's just one example.

    Mysticism is a fun game to play, but it doesn't enter into reality. And while there are aspects of God that are truely mystical and we are incapable of grasping, He gave us language and logic for a purpose. Such would not be necessary if He was only interested in our having feelings.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Orthodoxy does not switch reason with feelings. (That's what Romantics do -- followers of a Western philosophical current that arose 500 yrs ago, about at the same as Humamism, Rebirth, Reform, etc). Orthodoxy focuses on the mind-bearing spirit, situated in the heart. The concepts for Mind and Heart here should NOT be mistaken for either rationalism or sentimentalism. And the Orth. Church did not invent these concept-filled words; the Jews were the ones that used "heart" and the Greeks were the ones that used "mind". [J.P. Holding, for instance, back at the Tektonics apologetic ministry, wrote an article in which he showed the Bible to be a "no-brainer", in which he speaks about these linguistical and conceptual intricacies]. If You were to read the Old Testament, You would find the word "heart" used there throughout. In the Gospels (and Acts?), You would find the same, but You'll also find the word "mind" used twice. But You'll also find "repentance" used throughout the Gospels, which is a compounded word containing the Greek word for "mind". In Paul's Epistles, You'll find both of them used interchangeably (because he writes for Diaspora Jews and Gentiles alike, which were more familiar with the use of the later)

    BTW, Your last comment reminded me of the Fourth Book of the Maccabees, and of one of the Orth. Baptismal prayers.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Lvka said:
    ---
    Orthodoxy focuses on the mind-bearing spirit, situated in the heart.
    ---

    And what does that mean? Again, you make assertions with pseudo-cryptic language and never bother to explain what that's supposed to convey. I ask, how am I to understand what you mean if you use words without meaning?

    Lvka said:
    ---
    The concepts for Mind and Heart here should NOT be mistaken for either rationalism or sentimentalism.
    ---

    Good, because I don't take them that way. But that begs the question: how should they be taken?

    You say that the Hebrews talked much about the heart. This is true; but what they meant by the heart is not what Westerners mean by the heart. So Holding's talk of the Bible being a "no brainer" is irrelevant here. It doesn't matter what internal organ is used to convey the concept of the mind (or more appropriately in Hebrew lieterature, the soul). What matters is what does the Hebrew "heart" correspond to in our world today. And that is both reason and emotion. The heart was considered the locus for both in the Hebrew system.

    But again I point out the obvious: all this waving of your hands to try to change the subject has not answered the fundamental flaws in your concept of the Eucharist. We can continue down this path, but it's obvious that you've no intention of trying to link any of this back to your theories of the Eucharist. I believe it's because you cannot do so; you are instead grasping at straws and each one leads you just a little bit further away from your original point until it's no longer recognizable what you were even trying to say in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  32. First of all, ... how did You know what Holding said or didn't say? I didn't link You the article. (I'm just curious how You've managed to find it, that's all...)

    Secondly, You're perfectly right: I have absolutely NO idea whatsoever about what exactly it is that I'm talkin' about. (But if You're willing to strengthen Your body through fasting, purify Your heart with tears, cleanse Your mind through prayer, and feed Your soul through the Eucharist, You'll find it out for Yourself, and then it will be You the one teaching me what exactly I was talkin' about all along, how it feels [1 Corinthians 2:9] and -more importantly- how to get there). In the mean time, I'll still be feeding my landlord's pigs. [P.S.: I've also managed to find out a secret to get me through: those husks taste really good, man... and I mean really good... ]

    And thirdly, we've covered a lot of ground here, from Eucharist, to sacred time and sacred space, the importance of worship for the spiritual life [and it was You the one that has prompted the changes in the first place; I've just followed pace honored them by interacting with them], so ... I just have to ask You: what exactly were "the fundamental flaws in your concept of the Eucharist" that You had in mind? (I understand that You don't agree with me, but ... what's with the evil "F"-word here?) :-\

    ReplyDelete
  33. Lvka said:
    ---
    First of all, ... how did You know what Holding said or didn't say?
    ---

    Because you previously said:
    ---
    [J.P. Holding, for instance, back at the Tektonics apologetic ministry, wrote an article in which he showed the Bible to be a "no-brainer", in which he speaks about these linguistical and conceptual intricacies].
    ---

    Since this is irrelevant to our discussion, I didn't need to actually verify what he said. I assumed your analysis of it was accurate.

    Lvka said:
    ---
    Secondly, You're perfectly right: I have absolutely NO idea whatsoever about what exactly it is that I'm talkin' about.
    ---

    Glad we cleared that up. I felt your honesty in that statement and it spoke to my spleen. It told me the number seven represented the houses of the Tabernacle, if seen through the six witnesses (one of which saw double). Therefore, Matthew 7:6 means that you ought to give me a tenth of everything you own.

    By the way, I don't think I would need to starve myself, cry, pray, or take the Eucharist to "understand" your position. In fact, your approach to interpreting Scripture doesn't seem that far removed from some of the New Agers I know, so perhaps the real key is the find my inner child, focus the feng shui, eat three grains of rice a day while standing on one leg atop a pillar while claping with one hand and meditating upon crystals.

    Or I could cut through all the red tape, smoke a bunch of marijuana and play the sitar all day long. How would that experience be any different than being a "fool for Christ"?

    Lvka said:
    ---
    And thirdly, we've covered a lot of ground here, from Eucharist, to sacred time and sacred space, the importance of worship for the spiritual life [and it was You the one that has prompted the changes in the first place; I've just followed pace honored them by interacting with them]
    ---

    I'm not at all surprised, given how poorly you read Scripture, that you misread the very comments of this post and the "Wafer Wars" post.

    Lvka said:
    ---
    so ... I just have to ask You: what exactly were "the fundamental flaws in your concept of the Eucharist" that You had in mind? (I understand that You don't agree with me, but ... what's with the evil "F"-word here?) :-\
    ---

    Well, see, I had this vision. It was of a field of wheat. One stalk of wheat had a sign on the stem that said Lvka. This piece of wheat swayed in the wind, going here and then going there. Then it was plucked up, ground under a wheel called "Orthodoxy." What came out was flour.

    This flour was poured into a container, hoisted upon the back of a donkey, and carried to a nearby bakery where it was made into bread that would not be used in the Eucharist!

    I put 1 and 1 together, came up with 11, and knew you were wrong. Then I woke up and said, "Did I not already point out the problems I have seen with Lvka's comments? Have Steve Hays and Gene Bridges and Jason Engwer not done the same?" And indeed, it was the case that the four of us (four being the number of eyes upon two sets of skulls, and two--as we all know--is the number of legs Jesus had) have already pointed out the many flaws of your methodology. Therefore, Matthew 7:6 came to mind yet again (for the second time--and again, two is the number of nostrils of Our Saviour), and thus it was so.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Say, Peter (and happy names-day, BTW!) :-)

    do You wanna get a *REAL* kicker outta me? :-) `cause if You do, I might send You something per e-mail, if You like. It's an essay that I've written quite a while back, actually, about the mystical meaning of the number seven in the Judeo-Chr. Tradition. I personally don't consider it something >wacky<, or anything like that ... but I have a pretty *GOOD* hunch You will! So, ... what do you say? (And it's really short, actually; no more than a dozen pages, or so; and they're written with a large font also...)

    ReplyDelete
  35. C'mon, man: say yes, say yes! I mean, what I'm offering You here is a very good oportunity to see how mentally deranged I really am. So, please accept this, ... please?

    ReplyDelete
  36. I won't stop you from sending anything to my e-mail. Doesn't mean I'll *READ* it, but you can send it :-P

    It's petedawg34@yahoo.com.

    FWIW, I wouldn't use the word "derranged" to describe you. It feels like a better word would be "misguided"...

    ReplyDelete
  37. I wouldn't use the word >derranged< to describe you. It feels like a better word would be >misguided<...

    Just wait till You have a chance to read my "essay" ... then tell me if Your reluctance still stands. >:) :D

    ReplyDelete
  38. Peter,

    Christ did not came to teach us "an eye for an eye". If You can't grasp that, then I'm truly sorry for You. :-( Matthew 5:43-48and Luke 6:27-38.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Lvka,

    First, I got your e-mail. I'll read it when I get a chance to (probably tomorrow since it's close to bed time for me now). Secondly, Jesus did not come to teachh us "Saul was still at Gilgal." If you cannot grasp this then I am truly sorry for you.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Oh, sorry. That was 1 Sam 13:7.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I was reffering to Your stance on the death-punishment. I thought that perhaps You might want to reconsider it. :-(

    ReplyDelete
  42. Well, that's another way of avoiding the Eucharist, I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Well, that's another way of avoiding the Eucharist, I guess

    Uhm, ... not quite sure what You mean by that: I mean, it's not like they deny them their last rites, You know ...

    ReplyDelete
  44. No, I meant that's another way for you to change the subject away from the Eucharist again.

    ReplyDelete
  45. You were the one that changed the suject to a slightly different topic (which is perfectly fine). So, ... You want me to start tweeting 'bout the Eucharist again. ("Play it again, Sam"). The only problem is that I've pretty much covered everything, and, unless You have something specific in mind that I haven't touched upon, I think I'll pass. (Sorry to be such a spoil-sport, but there's really no point in repeating myself, and I really can't understand what exactly is Your problem with us believing that the Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood of Christ -- I mean, You have different opinions, and I respect them, but what exactly do You find to be so "flawed" in our opinion? :-\ ).

    ReplyDelete
  46. Actually you've not covered much of anything. Instead, when Steve, Gene, Jason, or I point out the logical problems with your position, you wave your hands, toss a bit of smoke and flash a mirror up. "Never mind that, ladies and gentlemen! Behold the Bright and Shiney Object over here!" And then, when we're unimpressed and say, "You've changed the subject" you respond with, "You changed it. Besides, I've already finished covering it."

    Not a very satisfying way to communicate.

    So what "problem" do I have with the Wine and the Bread actually becoming the blood and body of Christ? Only the fact that they don't. Not any more than Jesus becomes a literal door when He says, "I am the door" in John 10:7. Nor does Jesus become a photon when he says, "I am the light" in John 8:12. Nor is he a plant when he says "I am the true vine" in John 15:1. So I merely ask why do we not take "I am the living bread" from John 6:51 any differently than the other comparisons Jesus makes in the Gospel of John. (Note that I've only been using John so that we can deal with his grammar, but I suppose that's too GHM for you.)

    ReplyDelete
  47. And yet were I to chose to believe that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ, what could You possibly do to prove the contrary in an absolute manner? :-\ Nothing.

    You made Your case, and I made mine, but since You abide by Sola Scriptura, Your hands are tied (since there's no way what-so-ever to positively disprove me from Sacred Scripture -- reasons are not quite the same as proofs).

    Christ also says that He is the Son of God; the Christ; the Master and the Lord; the King of Israel; the Son of David; the Resurrection and the Life; the Light of the world. -- so, why don't You spiritualize this away also? :-\

    Secondly, He is the [uncreated] Light of the world. (Nothing even remotely metaphorical about it).

    In what manner are Jesus' body and blood true food and true drink? And why did He say, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you? And why did He add Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day? Why did He chose did completely unapt metaphors to express something so completely different? (I mean, You have to admit, there's no reason to speak of either one of these two things, [eating and drinking], were He to have had Penal Substitution in mind) -- WHENCE this mysterious idea in the first place? :-\ It makes no sense, at elast not to me, personally: being killed for You to satisfy God's wrath is one thing, but ... eating Him and drinking Him? :-\

    As You can see, this is a bit more than "I am the true bread, etc".

    I'm quite aware neither of us will ever change his mind on the subject, it's just that I'm curious about Your reasons to the contrary also (regarding what I wrote in this last comment).

    ReplyDelete
  48. Lvka said:
    ---
    And yet were I to chose to believe that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ, what could You possibly do to prove the contrary in an absolute manner? :-\ Nothing.
    ---

    There's no such thing as "proof" that will settle the issue. Proof is merely that which convinces a doubting mind, and as such is completely relative. What I can do is offer evidence, but it won't convince you because you do not want to be convinced. However, for others who may still be reading this, I will offer some evidence.

    1) There is nothing quantitatively different between bread and wine used for the Eucharist and bread and wine not used for the Eucharist. If you examine it scientifically, both sets are identical.

    2) There is nothing in the text of Scripture that compells us to believe Jesus is speaking literally when he says he is the bread, or when the Institution is brought forth during the final Passover meal He had with His disciples. In fact, there are compelling reasons to believe He is speaking metaphorically (and those reasons have already been fleshed out by others above).

    3) As such, the burden of proof is on you to establish that there is a change in the Host.

    Lvka said:
    ---
    You made Your case, and I made mine, but since You abide by Sola Scriptura, Your hands are tied (since there's no way what-so-ever to positively disprove me from Sacred Scripture -- reasons are not quite the same as proofs).
    ---

    You state that as if it were a bad thing to be restricted to what Scripture says. Yet Scripture is sufficient for all Godly knowledge.

    But even in this case, we see that Scripture itself contradicts your view, both due to the nature of Calvary and due to the way God issues memorials in the past. So it's not simply a matter of you believing something extra-Scriptural, but you're believing something contra-Scriptural.

    Lvka said:
    ---
    Christ also says that He is the Son of God; the Christ; the Master and the Lord; the King of Israel; the Son of David; the Resurrection and the Life; the Light of the world. -- so, why don't You spiritualize this away also? :-\
    ---

    1) I'm not "spiritualizing" anything away (that's your job). But I do seek to understand the meaning of the terms as they are given. One quick example: when Jesus says He is the Son of God, He does not mean it in the same sense that I am the son of my father, for that would make the Mormon view of Jesus's birth accurate; yet we know from Scripture that the Logos is eternally with the Father and is therefore never created like a son is created via natural functions from the father.

    You said:
    ---
    Secondly, He is the [uncreated] Light of the world. (Nothing even remotely metaphorical about it).
    ---

    If He is uncreated (as I agree), then His Sonship is not identical to the common use of the Father/Son relationship. But despite that, Jesus is not a beam of light. Light is a created entity, and yet Jesus is not created. (Remember Genesis, before God said "Let there be light" there was no light. So are you saying that Jesus did not exist before God created Him? If so, sounds again like Mormonism and also like Jehovah's Witnesses.)

    On the other hand, it makes perfect sense when you realize what it means to know that men dwell in darkness and hate the light for their deeds are evil. Light, in this sense, refers to His righteousness and His holiness, which are the standards for us. Therefore, when He "shines" upon us we see ourselves for the evil people that we are. That's why the natural man hates Christ, because they love their wickedness.

    None of this needs your mystic beliefs. And I can counter them with a simple question: did Jesus glow in the dark?

    You said:
    ---
    In what manner are Jesus' body and blood true food and true drink? And why did He say, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you? And why did He add Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day? Why did He chose did completely unapt metaphors to express something so completely different?
    ---

    They are not "unapt" (I think you may have meant "inept", so correct me if I misunderstood here). Instead, your understanding of them is flawed. The text itself explains what is meant by giving us parallelisms. What does it mean to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ? It means to believe on Him (John 6:47, for example). It means to be given to Him from the Father (John 6:38-40). Your problem is you treat all these things as if they are seperate entities when they are all describing the exact same thing. Being given by the Father to the Son is the same as someone beleiving in the Son is the same as someone eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ. The text itself makes all our connections for us. We don't need to ponder what Jesus meant; He explained it Himself in that very passage.

    Lvka said:
    ---
    (I mean, You have to admit, there's no reason to speak of either one of these two things, [eating and drinking], were He to have had Penal Substitution in mind) -- WHENCE this mysterious idea in the first place? :-\ It makes no sense, at elast not to me, personally: being killed for You to satisfy God's wrath is one thing, but ... eating Him and drinking Him? :-\
    ---

    Makes perfect sense to me. You internalize Christ. He provides your sustinance. (You believe all this happens in the Eucharist already, don't you?) The difference is that it comes not via the Eucharist but via faith in Christ. Everything you think you gain by taking the Host is what you actually gain by having faith in Him. And again, it is spelled out in the text itself. His being the bread of life is the metaphor He used to show what belief in Him accomplishes for you.

    Lvka said:
    ---
    I'm quite aware neither of us will ever change his mind on the subject, it's just that I'm curious about Your reasons to the contrary also (regarding what I wrote in this last comment).
    ---

    I, however, know that God can effectually call anyone. I will never change your mind, but God certainly can :-)

    ReplyDelete
  49. Makes perfect sense to me.

    And I respect that, but I remain further of the opinion that what You have offered here for a defense of Your faith is totally untempting. (And I'm not saying >convincing< or "unconvincing", but untempting). Your statement that to eat Christ's flesh and drink His Blood means believing in Him reached for me the very heights of incredulity. (WHERE in the world did THAT come from !?).

    That His descension from the Heavens and His incarnation is represented by the bread that came from Heaven is A.O.K. ... But what does this have to do with the Penal Substitution of His Sacrifice on Calvary !? What -if anything!- has eating and drinking to do with EITHER believing in Him *OR* having Him vicariously die for us on the Cross? :-\ :-? :-| I am completely flabbergasted here by Your response. (Not only that You didn't convincingly answered one, but You've managed to create yet another problem for Yourself: if you would've stayed silent, you would've remained a philosopher).

    I'm also shocked that You had no idea what I, as an Orthodox, mean by uncreated Light. (We believe that God's Glory or Shekinah, which is spoken of in the Old Testament in several places as filling the Temple or the Tabernacle, and which is the same as the Light that shone from Christ during His Transfiguration, and in which He'll be clothed when He'll come again in Glory to judge the living and the dead is truly part of God, and not some created light). We also believe that the pillar of fire that lead Israel through the desert was a Theophany, and thus a Christophany.

    did Jesus glow in the dark?

    I don't know. (Was it dark during the time that the Transfiguration took place?) :-\ (I can't believe that we're even having this conversation in the first place).

    They are not "unapt" (I think you may have meant "inept", so correct me if I misunderstood here).

    It seems that what I meant to say was "inapt".

    I don't mean to further disturb or upset You with my persistent and constant nagging. You've answered what I wanted You to answer to the best of Your abilities, and I appreciate that; You're convinced, I'm unsatisfied, but that's it. There's no point in the further lingering of this already long and dry discussion.

    Now, with Your permission ... :-h

    ReplyDelete
  50. ...or what has eating and drinking Him with being given to Him by the Father !? (Whatever!). Bye! :-h

    ReplyDelete
  51. LVKA said:

    "Your statement that to eat Christ's flesh and drink His Blood means believing in Him reached for me the very heights of incredulity. (WHERE in the world did THAT come from !?)."

    Read John 6:35. Then note how often Jesus mentions faith as the passage progresses. A believer will never hunger or thirst after coming to Christ in faith. He doesn't need to add the eucharist to his faith in order to satisfy the hunger and thirst Jesus is referring to. Jesus spoke the words of John 6 during His earthly ministry. During that ministry, we repeatedly see people attain eternal life at the time they come to Jesus in faith (Mark 2:5, Luke 7:50, etc.). There was no eucharist at that point, much less did anybody have to wait for a future eucharist before having his spiritual hunger and thirst satisfied.

    There are multiple potential reasons for Jesus to refer to eating His flesh and drinking His blood without any intention of the eucharistic meaning you're suggesting. See the discussion of this passage in Craig Keener's commentary on John, for example.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I admire Your strong faith, firm belief, and unshakable conviction.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Jason,

    my (fore-)last reply goes for You too, but I initially thought You were Peter. (Sorry!). So, I'll try and individualize it a bit: that he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst is fine; but why doesn't Jesus go on to logically and calvinistically continue with the words: for coming to me is food indeed and belief in me in drink indeed ? The sentence my flesh is true food and my blood true drink doesn't fit the coming-to and believing-in conceptual tandem. SO, answer now a (fourth?) problem: WHAT IN THE WORLD has flesh to do with coming to, and blood to do with believing in ? :-\ I'm just lost here, OK ? Why the inexplicable choice of these completely inapt metaphors ?

    flesh and blood = to come to; to believe in; to be sent to Him (by the Father); etc. :-\ :-?

    ReplyDelete
  54. What I mean is this: John 6:35:

    "he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst"

    is OK because it somehow fits Your calvinistic metaphorical reading:

    "to eat = to come to and to drink = to believe"; (EQUATION from v.35)

    and IF Jesus would've continued to say, 20 verses later, in John 6:55, EITHER that:

    1) "for coming to me is true food and believing in me is true drink"

    OR

    2) "for coming to me is true flesh [reffering to food] and believing in me is true blood [reffering to drink]"

    THEN Your position would've been plausible, because they support the preceding EQUATION extracted from 20 verses ago, John 6:35; and namely:

    1) food = coming to and drink = believing in.

    2) flesh = coming to and blood = believing in.

    In any case, the equation from v.55 stupidly states the equality of two metaphorical concepts (instead of equating a "metaphor" with its "meaning", as usual):

    what we have in v.55 is

    food = flesh and drink = blood.

    Which means nothing in Calvinism. Why's that ? :-\ :-? Do You ever see Him pointlessly equating two metaphorical terms anywhere else ?

    ReplyDelete
  55. P.S.: and the [imaginarily re-constructed] sentence [from an imaginarily reconstructed vers 55]: "for coming to me is body indeed and belief in me is blood indeed", would NOT have made much meaningful sense either. (That's what I WAS trying to say, and that's what I AM still trying to say by "COMPLETELY INAPT METAPHORS"). :-\ :-|

    ReplyDelete
  56. Fifth comment in a row, sorry: do You ever see Jesus saying:

    "the Shephard is the Door and the Door is the Shepahrd"; :-\

    or "the Door is the Light and the Light is the Door"; :-|

    or "the Shephard is the Light and the Light is the Shaphard" ? :-?

    ReplyDelete
  57. Actually Jesus says:

    "for my flesh is food indeed", which would mean "for my flesh is returning indeed", according to Your interpretattion. -- senseless.

    "and my blood is drink indeed", meaning "my blood is belief indeed". -- senseless. :-\

    P.S.: ... or when do You see Jesus saying, for instance, "the [lost] sheep is the [lost] penny" ? :-\

    ReplyDelete
  58. LVKA said:

    "So, I'll try and individualize it a bit: that he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst is fine; but why doesn't Jesus go on to logically and calvinistically continue with the words: for coming to me is food indeed and belief in me in drink indeed ?"

    I don't know what you mean by "calvinistically", and I'm not a Calvinist. But since Jesus identifies coming to Him and believing in Him as satisfying our hunger and thirst, there would be no need for Him to reinforce that theme by putting it in different terms. Saying something once is sufficient. Repeating it is optional. He does go on to mention coming to Him and believing in Him again, and He makes further references to eating and drinking as the passage progresses. But He doesn't have to repeat the theme of verse 35 in the words you claim He should have used, in the place where you claim He should have said it, in order for verse 35 to have the significance I said it has. You aren't explaining verse 35 and its implications. All that you're doing is objecting that what was said in verse 35 wasn't repeated afterward in the way you demand. But that sort of repetition and rewording isn't necessary in order for verse 35 to carry the significance I suggested.

    You write:

    "The sentence my flesh is true food and my blood true drink doesn't fit the coming-to and believing-in conceptual tandem."

    Only if we assume your definition of the terms. If we assume that Jesus is referring to the same experience in different terms, however, then there's no conflict. How does separating the later verses in John 6 from verse 35 satisfactorily explain the passage? Do you think Jesus contradicted Himself? Or that He was discussing two different topics, and that He meant to say that coming to Him and believing in Him merely begins a process that isn't completed until a person participates in the eucharist (a ceremony that didn't exist at the time)?

    You write:

    "WHAT IN THE WORLD has flesh to do with coming to, and blood to do with believing in ? :-\ I'm just lost here, OK ? Why the inexplicable choice of these completely inapt metaphors ?"

    Why should we answer your questions when you keep ignoring so many of ours? You haven't explained verse 35, you haven't explained the sort of data I've cited from passages like Mark 2:5 and Luke 7:50, you haven't explained why people living prior to the Last Supper would be told that they need the eucharist to have eternal life, and you apparently haven't consulted Craig Keener's commentary on John, which I recommended.

    Jesus would emphasize His flesh and blood because He was giving His flesh and blood for the salvation of His people. It was a way of emphasizing the central role of His sacrifice. Belief in Him would involve belief in what He was doing to bring about salvation. The sort of imagery Jesus uses, often with an intention of unsettling His audience, was common in ancient times. If you aren't going to consult Keener, then here's an online source that discusses some of the relevant issues:

    http://www.christian-thinktank.com/hnoblood2.html

    Use the Ctrl F feature on your keyboard and search for "John 6".

    You write:

    "is OK because it somehow fits Your calvinistic metaphorical reading"

    Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, and others interpreted John 6 metaphorically long before Calvin was born.

    You write:

    "Do You ever see Him pointlessly equating two metaphorical terms anywhere else ?"

    Where have I said that John 6:55 involves "equating two metaphorical terms"? I haven't. I don't deny that Jesus is referring to His actual flesh and blood. The eating and drinking, however, are spiritual, as we see in verses 35 and 63, for example.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Jason dearest,

    in John 6:35, eating means coming-to and drinking means believing. (and they talk about the manna, which is obviously meant for eating ... which flesh and blood aren't ... so they aren't apt imagery for this).

    Now, let's turn to John 6:55, 20 verses later, and use the same meaning for eating and drinking as in John 6:35:

    "for my flesh is comning-to-Me indeed and my blood is belief-in-Me indeed".

    Are You sensing what I'm sensing? ('Cause what I', sensing is a lackof sense here). :-\

    Secondly, I think we must agree to disagree on any Fathers interpreting either John 6 or any Synoptic passage regarding the Eucharist in a Calvinisty manner.

    In the mean time, here's a little something from St. Augustine:

    "How this ['And he was carried in his own hands'
    (1 Samuel 21:13 LXX)] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: 'THIS IS MY BODY.' FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS." (Psalms 33 [34]:1:10).

    Now, You have to understand that this doesn't precisely fit the >spiritualistical< Calvinist classical commentary that speciffically states the exact opposite: "how could the Bread be His Body when He was still standing there, alive, present, in front of them, carrying the loaf in His hands; or how could the wine be His Blood, when it was still flowing through His hands, that held the very chalice !?". :-\

    ReplyDelete
  60. Oh, Jason,

    and as to John 6 NOT being 'bout the Eucharist, 'cause the Eucharist wasn't performed yet ... well, fiend, let me tell You one thing: now, THAT's a REAL "pearl of wisdom" coming from You, "the cherry on top of the cake".

    So, let me see if I'm able to get this one straight: Jesus was preaching numerous times about His passion, death, sacrifice, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension and sending down of the Holy Ghost while He was still very much alive, ... and yet, this does NOT lead You to say: "hey! just waitta minute here! He can't possibly be talking about it, `cause it just hasn't happened yet".

    I don't know about You, but I can definitely smell a rat here ... :-\

    ReplyDelete
  61. Aside from the fact that Jason is not a Calvinist, there is no "Calvinist" interpretation of Jn 6 vis-a-vis the Eucharist. Calvinism doesn't select for a particular view of the sacraments. There's a certain spectrum of opinion within Calvinism on the nature of the Eucharist.

    I don't interpret Jn 6 figuratively because I'm a Calvinist. My Calvinism is incidental at that point.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Lvka asked:
    ---
    Your statement that to eat Christ's flesh and drink His Blood means believing in Him reached for me the very heights of incredulity. (WHERE in the world did THAT come from !?).
    ---

    It didn't come from the world; it came from John. In any case, Jason answered this almost exactly as I would have (and then even added more!) :-)

    And as already has been pointed out to you on this, Calvinism doesn't affect this passage. Virtually all Protestants will argue that those who are given by the Father to the Son are the same as those who have faith in the Son are the same as those who eat and drink of Christ's flesh and blood. The only place that Calvinism comes into the issue is in the question, Who is it that the Father gives the Son, those whom He elects or those who He forsees having faith? As such, you'll find that arguing by label ("You're just using a Calvinist filter!") won't work here.

    Lvka said:
    ---
    That His descension from the Heavens and His incarnation is represented by the bread that came from Heaven is A.O.K.
    ---

    Thanks for your stamp of approval. I feel so validated now.

    Lvka said:
    ---
    But what does this have to do with the Penal Substitution of His Sacrifice on Calvary !?
    ---

    You're trying to redefine the battlefield. I never said Jesus was refering specifically to Penal Substitution when He said, "I am the true bread" etc. So, why does it have to refer specifically to "Penal Substitution"?

    Again, John himself provides the context for what the passage means. You're not unlike the Jews in the passage either, totally missing the point.

    But allow me to ask you a question then. If the Eucharist really is eating and drinking of Christ's flesh and blood (that is, it is not metaphorical or spiritual, but actual), then Jesus says:

    "If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever" (John 6:51).

    If you [all Orthodox, not just you personally] are actually eating Him in the Eucharist, then why do you still die? Is Jesus not referring to actual life? Does that refer to spiritual life? If so, why can't the eating refer to spiritual eating too?

    Not that I expect you to ponder this, nor do I expect you to (God forbid) actually answer a question addressed to you...but there you have it.

    ReplyDelete
  63. “His meaning is, “Ye must hear spiritually what relateth to Me, for he who heareth carnally is not profited, nor gathereth any advantage.” It was carnal to question how He came down from heaven, to deem that He was the son of Joseph, to ask, “How can he give us His flesh to eat?” All this was carnal, when they ought to have understood the matter in a mystical and spiritual sense. “But,” saith some one, “how could they understand what the ‘eating flesh’ might mean?” Then it was their duty to wait for the proper time and enquire, and not to abandon Him. That is, they are divine and spiritual, have nothing carnal about them, are not subject to the laws of physical consequence, but are free from any such necessity, are even set above the laws appointed for this world, and have also another and a different meaning. Now as in this passage He said “spirit,” instead of “spiritual,” so when He speaketh of “flesh,” He meant not "carnal things," but "carnally hearing," and alluding at the same time to them, because they ever desired carnal things when they ought to have desired spiritual. For if a man receives them carnally, he profits nothing. “What then, is not His flesh, flesh?” Most certainly. “How then saith He, that the flesh profiteth nothing?” He speaketh not of His own flesh, (God forbid!) but of those who received His words in a carnal manner. But what is “understanding carnally”? It is looking merely to what is before our eyes, without imagining anything beyond. This is understanding carnally. But we must not judge thus by sight, but must look into all mysteries with the eyes within. This is seeing spiritually. He that eateth not His flesh, and drinketh not His blood, hath no life in him. How then doth “the flesh profit nothing,” if without it we cannot live? Seest thou that the words, “the flesh profiteth nothing,” are spoken not of His own flesh, but of carnal hearing?”
    -John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily XLVII (v.63 and 64)

    ReplyDelete
  64. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever

    You believe in the words of the Apostle John as well, John 6:51 included. You also believe that by participating in the Eucharist ("spiritually", "symbolically", etc) You also inherit eternal life. You also confess to Christ being the Bread in this passage, and You also confess to "eating" and "drinking" Him, although with a "spiritual", "symbolical" twist. (So, the very same question can be addressed to You as well). And the answer is clear from the Scriptures: our (death and) resurrection follows Christ's:

    1 Corinthians 15:20
    ¶But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21  For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22  For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23  But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 26  The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 36  Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: 42  So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43  It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44  It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45  And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46  Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47  The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. 50  Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 51  ¶Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52  In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53  For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54  So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. 55  O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? 56  The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. 57  But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ
    .

    ReplyDelete
  65. He speaketh not of His own flesh, (God forbid!) but of those who received His words in a carnal manner. [...] He that eateth not His flesh, and drinketh not His blood, hath no life in him. How then doth “the flesh profit nothing,” if without it we cannot live? Seest thou that the words, “the flesh profiteth nothing,” are spoken not of His own flesh, but of carnal hearing?”

    Yet *ALL* NeoProtestants insist to the exact contrary of John Chrysostom's very clear and exact words: and namely that John 6:63 *DOES* reffer to precisely that: Christ's body or flesh, back from the preceding verses. :-|

    ReplyDelete
  66. "You also believe that by participating in the Eucharist ("spiritually", "symbolically", etc) You also inherit eternal life."

    NO, we don't.

    John 6 has nothing to do with the Eucharist except that they may share the same imagery. We "eat Christ's flesh" when we place our trust in Him and His once-for-all sacrifice.

    ReplyDelete
  67. I know You do, but You make a mental commemoration of the redeeming event in the Eucharist. In any case, the question touches upon the Bread, which is Christ's Body (we both agree with that, though in different ways), and why do people that live after Christ die in the same manner as those that preceded His coming, his life-giving Sacrifice notwithstanding.

    ReplyDelete
  68. I could've answered Peter's question easier, by simply refering to John 6:39, 40, 44, 54.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Lvka said:
    ---
    You believe in the words of the Apostle John as well, John 6:51 included. You also believe that by participating in the Eucharist ("spiritually", "symbolically", etc) You also inherit eternal life.
    ---

    And you've missed the forest for the trees. What kind of eternal life do we gain in John 6? Spiritual eternal life. What kind of "eating" of the flesh of Christ is referenced in John 6? Spiritual eating.

    Thus, after your long comments about how Protestants supposedly bounce around on what aspects are figurative and what are physical, you are the one who views half of the sentence as metaphorical and half as literal here.

    In any case, I note that you don't even want to examine what Jesus actually said in John 6, since you have to go off on a tangent in 1 Corinithians. It's because you have no case in John 6 (and you know it).

    Again, I ask plainly: if we have eternal spiritual life (but the text just says "eternal life") then why can we not have spiritual eating of Christ's flesh without saying the word "spiritual"?

    ReplyDelete
  70. I believe in the resurrection of the body. Not quite sure what You mean by "spiritual eternal life".

    ReplyDelete
  71. LVKA wrote:

    "they talk about the manna, which is obviously meant for eating ... which flesh and blood aren't ... so they aren't apt imagery for this"

    Flesh and blood aren't meant for physical eating, but it doesn't therefore follow that Jesus wouldn't refer to spiritual eating of His flesh and blood. As the sources I cited (Craig Keener, Glenn Miller) document, such language, including the speaker's intention of unsettling his audience, was common in ancient times.

    You write:

    "Now, let's turn to John 6:55, 20 verses later, and use the same meaning for eating and drinking as in John 6:35: 'for my flesh is comning-to-Me indeed and my blood is belief-in-Me indeed'."

    You keep misrepresenting the text of the passage and my view of it. Verse 35 refers to the actions of eating and drinking. Verse 55 doesn't refer to actions. It refers to food and drink. If I see the eating and drinking as coming to Christ and believing in Him in verse 35, it doesn't therefore follow that I should see the food and drink in verse 55 as the same. Eating and drinking aren't the same as food and drink.

    You write:

    "Secondly, I think we must agree to disagree on any Fathers interpreting either John 6 or any Synoptic passage regarding the Eucharist in a Calvinisty manner."

    I've cited Philip Schaff's work on this subject, which is more relevant and far more extensive than your one quotation of Augustine, which you probably got from a web site without reading the context yourself. And that Augustine passage is irrelevant. I was discussing his interpretation of John 6, not his view of a eucharistic presence. Even if we were discussing the latter topic, Augustine's view was more nuanced than your selectively misleading quotation suggests.

    Here's Augustine on John 6:

    "If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. 'Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,' says Christ, 'and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.' This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a
    figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us." (On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24)

    "But He instructed them, and saith unto them, 'It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.' Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth." (Expositions On The Psalms, 99:8)

    And Augustine repeatedly denied that Christ is physically present in the eucharist or anywhere else on earth. See, for example, Letter 98:9 and Lectures On The Gospel Of John, 50:13.

    Here are some of Augustine's comments on Psalm 34:

    http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.ii.XXXIV.html

    Notice that the translation linked above has Augustine saying that Christ carried Himself "in a manner". LVKA's passage doesn't include that qualifier. Notice, also, that Augustine goes on, in section 11, to compare John 6:53 to Psalm 34:8. Does Psalm 34:8 refer to physically eating God?

    You write:

    "So, let me see if I'm able to get this one straight: Jesus was preaching numerous times about His passion, death, sacrifice, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension and sending down of the Holy Ghost while He was still very much alive, ... and yet, this does NOT lead You to say: 'hey! just waitta minute here! He can't possibly be talking about it, `cause it just hasn't happened yet'."

    No, you didn't "get it straight". I'm not arguing that Christ couldn't have referred to future events. Rather, I'm arguing that Christ wouldn't have expected people to understand a reference to the eucharist in John 6 and wouldn't have told people that they had no spiritual life at that time without participation in the eucharist if the eucharist didn't yet exist. The interpretation I'm suggesting has the advantage of referring to a means of salvation which was available to Jesus' audience at that time and which Jesus' opponents had already rejected (faith).

    As Peter has mentioned, you're still ignoring much of what we've said on this subject. The readers might want to review our previous responses to LVKA and note how much he's ignored.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Eating and drinking aren't the same as food and drink.

    Well, if You want to be that literal, we don't have eating and drinking in John 6:35 either. (It's never hunger and never thirst). First of all, why not? And secondly, what do they mean then? :-\

    And it's not altogether clear why Jesus couldn't have refered to the Eucharist in John 6. (Your reasons or arguments aren't at all that compelling as You'd wish). :-|

    ReplyDelete
  73. And I have an entire DVD with some 400 files in 1 GB worth of CCEL stuff, Fathers and Bibles included.

    ReplyDelete
  74. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  75. I mean, if "eating" means "coming-to" then it logically follows that food means "return". And if "drinking" means "believing" then it logically follows that "drink" belief or faith. (You're right: verbs are verbs and nouns are nouns -- OK!). Thus, we have: "for My flesh is return indeed and My blood is faith indeed". Your own little commentaries clearly suggest that basically Jesus equates the two pairs of terms, and then goes on to on-and-off use them throughout the same chapter, obviously with the same meaning. :-\ God forbid to actually change the meaning depending on the context! `Cause that would actually make the Real Presence in the Eucharist really present in the passage that is [or is not] about the Eucharist. :-\ (Uh, boy!).

    ReplyDelete
  76. one quotation of Augustine, which you probably got from a web site without reading the context yourself.

    There's no relevant-to-the-subject context to that certain passage (neither preceding, nor succeeding it).

    And that Augustine passage is irrelevant.

    I'm glad it is! (EVERYTHING ELSE I EVER wrote on this blog was thus!).

    Notice, also, that Augustine goes on, in section 11, to compare John 6:53 to Psalm 34:8. Does Psalm 34:8 refer to physically eating God?

    Yes. That's *PRECISELY* what it means! (It's even used in the Liturgy at the appointed time: remember what I've told You about the lex orandi, lex credendi ? ).

    The word Lord is used, and it refers to Jesus, God incarnate, in two united and unmixed natures: the divine and the human. So yes, we can consume his flesh and blood. (obviously!).

    ReplyDelete
  77. LVKA said:

    "Well, if You want to be that literal, we don't have eating and drinking in John 6:35 either."

    Coming to Christ and believing in Him are actions that result in not hungering and not thirsting. That's why I referred to them as eating and drinking. But they don't have to be identified as eating and drinking in order to be identified as actions. Food and drink aren't actions. You're equating of the activities in verse 35 with the food and drink in verse 55 is erroneous.

    You write:

    "And I have an entire DVD with some 400 files in 1 GB worth of CCEL stuff, Fathers and Bibles included."

    And you probably have some good libraries in your area. That doesn't prove that you spend much time in them, if any. Telling us that you own a collection of "CCEL stuff" doesn't address what I discussed in my last response. You didn't even understand the issue we were discussing. Instead of addressing Augustine's view of John 6, you cited a passage about Christ's presence in the eucharist. The fact that you own "an entire DVD with some 400 files in 1 GB worth of CCEL stuff" isn't as relevant as your mishandling of the Biblical and patristic evidence.

    You write:

    "I mean, if 'eating' means 'coming-to' then it logically follows that food means 'return'. And if 'drinking' means 'believing' then it logically follows that 'drink' belief or faith. (You're right: verbs are verbs and nouns are nouns -- OK!). Thus, we have: 'for My flesh is return indeed and My blood is faith indeed'. Your own little commentaries clearly suggest that basically Jesus equates the two pairs of terms, and then goes on to on-and-off use them throughout the same chapter, obviously with the same meaning."

    No, your conclusions don't "logically follow". I'm not the one "equating the two pairs of terms" in question. You're the one who ignored the difference between the actions of verse 35 and the nouns of verse 55. I don't have to assume a consistent use of different terms. Verbs and nouns can be related, but they aren't the same.

    You don't communicate well, and you don't seem to make much of an effort to think through your arguments before posting them. In addition to your poor communication skills, you have an interest in making my understanding of John 6:55 look bad.

    If coming to Christ is being referred to as if it's eating in verse 35, why would we conclude that the food of verse 55 means "return"? Food is the object that's eaten. How is "return" the object that somebody comes to?

    Does it make sense to say that Christ's sacrifice (represented by His flesh and blood) is something we must come to and believe in? Yes. There's nothing wrong with my understanding of verse 55, even if we rephrase it in the manner you've suggested.

    You write:

    "God forbid to actually change the meaning depending on the context! `Cause that would actually make the Real Presence in the Eucharist really present in the passage that is [or is not] about the Eucharist. :-\ (Uh, boy!)."

    What change in context suggests that the eucharist is being discussed? You're not giving us any reason to prefer your eucharistic reading over the alternative, and you're ignoring much of what we've said about the problems with a eucharistic reading.

    You write:

    "The word Lord is used, and it refers to Jesus, God incarnate, in two united and unmixed natures: the divine and the human. So yes, we can consume his flesh and blood."

    How did the Jewish readers of Psalm 34 physically eat Jesus' flesh and drink His blood in, say, the year 600 B.C.?

    ReplyDelete
  78. How did the Jewish readers of Psalm 34 physically eat Jesus' flesh and drink His blood in, say, the year 600 B.C.?

    The Psalms are prophetically charged: You know that, I know that, and Augustine definitely knew that, that's why He bothered writing an entire book about them, typologically interpreting there anything he was able to.

    You could've equally asked me: why do we interpret Isaiah's words (typologically) about Jesus, when they're literally refering to Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. :-\ (since that was the "immediate", "OT" meaning, and they lived in 600 BC also).

    What change in context suggests that the eucharist is being discussed?

    The very words used: to believe and to come-to versus flesh and blood. (What I meant was: just vecause these words [eat, drink] carry a spiritual conotation in John 6:35, it doesn't necesarily imply that they still do in John 6:55 -- because Your whole point relies on that, that they never change meaning: if their meaning is spiritual once, it's spiritual every time, 'cause it HAS to be so)

    And I would pretty much be still very interested in finding out Your interpretation about the meaning of the nouns food and drink (which, were I to interpret them spiritually, I would *obviously* link the meaning of these nouns with the kindred and related verbs from 20 verses prior)

    And no, the phrase "for My body is return-to-Me indeed and My blood is faith/belief-in-Me indeed" makes NO sense what-so-ever. That's the whole point.

    ReplyDelete
  79. LVKA wrote:

    "The Psalms are prophetically charged: You know that, I know that, and Augustine definitely knew that, that's why He bothered writing an entire book about them, typologically interpreting there anything he was able to. You could've equally asked me: why do we interpret Isaiah's words (typologically) about Jesus, when they're literally refering to Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. :-\ (since that was the 'immediate', 'OT' meaning, and they lived in 600 BC also)."

    You keep ignoring what people have written in response to you in previous posts. Again, even if we assume your interpretation of Isaiah, our acceptance of what you call a typological interpretation of Isaiah would be based on the authority of the entity giving us that interpretation (the authority of an apostle, the authority of scripture, etc.). To make your interpretation of Psalm 34 comparable, you would need to show that such an authority has given us that interpretation. Without the demonstration of such an authoritative interpretation, we would interpret the passage as we would any other historical document. You've given us no reason to think that Psalm 34:8 has the prophetic meaning you're assigning to it, and you've given us no reason to think that Augustine interpreted it that way. I've cited multiple passages in Augustine demonstrating that he didn't view the eucharist as you view it. If he didn't view the eucharist as you view it, then he probably didn't think of Psalm 34:8 as a prophetic reference to your view of the eucharist.

    You write:

    "The very words used: to believe and to come-to versus flesh and blood."

    You're comparing the wrong objects. (You're comparing verbs to nouns, as you put it earlier.) The object in verse 35 of John 6 is Jesus. The object of verse 55 is His flesh and blood, defined in the context as His sacrificial work. Since both the person of Jesus and His sacrificial work are objects of Christian faith, there's no reason to think that faith couldn't be involved in both passages. Flesh and blood can refer to the eucharist, but the eucharist isn't the only context that involves Jesus' flesh and blood. The move from the person of Jesus to the sacrificial element of His identity doesn't single out the eucharist. You would need something more than that shift in focus to justify a eucharistic interpretation.

    You write:

    "What I meant was: just vecause these words [eat, drink] carry a spiritual conotation in John 6:35, it doesn't necesarily imply that they still do in John 6:55 -- because Your whole point relies on that, that they never change meaning: if their meaning is spiritual once, it's spiritual every time, 'cause it HAS to be so"

    The issue is probability, not what's "necessarily" true or "has to be so". It's possible for terminology to be used in different ways within a brief period of time, but a consistent interpretation is preferable, all other factors being equal. You can argue that other factors support your interpretation, but the consistency of my view of John 6 is an advantage that supports my view.

    I've already cited some evidence that John 6:55 has a meaning similar to verse 35. Verse 35 isn't the last verse to mention faith. References to faith continue in later verses, and verse 63 concludes the discussion with both a reference to faith and a reference to the spiritual nature of what Jesus had just said. One of the many problems with your interpretation is that it not only goes against what Jesus said 20 verses earlier, but also goes against what He said in later verses prior to verse 55 and what He said after verse 55. I've also discussed some other problems with your interpretation, such as the fact that the eucharist didn't yet exist and the fact that making the eucharist necessary for eternal life would conflict with verse 35 and with other passages of scripture that refer to people attaining spiritual life at the time of faith. Your interpretation requires a large amount of speculation and special pleading. It's the kind of interpretation that results not from exegesis, but from coming to the text with an overriding desire to find validation of your view of the eucharist.

    You've repeatedly rejected probabilities in favor of possibilities. You tell us that it's possible that Jesus was changing His use of the relevant terminology later in John 6. He wasn't necessarily being consistent. You tell us that it's possible for somebody to speak of a ceremony that doesn't yet exist as if participation in it is a current requirement for salvation. You tell us that it's possible for a passage like Psalm 34:8 to be prophetic. What does it suggest about your beliefs when, in an attempt to justify those beliefs, you so frequently bypass a more natural way of reading the text in favor of a more distant possibility?

    You write:

    "And I would pretty much be still very interested in finding out Your interpretation about the meaning of the nouns food and drink"

    I've already explained how I view the food and drink. Just as Jesus is spiritual food and drink in verse 35, the sacrificial element of His identity is spiritual food and drink in verse 55.

    What you suggested earlier was that we substitute the terms "return" and "faith" for "food" and "drink" in verse 55 in order to test my interpretation. But I've explained why such a substitution doesn't make sense. In addition to what I said in my last response to you, let's try substituting your suggested words in verse 35 rather than verse 55. According to your description of my view of John 6, I think that Jesus is "return" and "faith" in verse 35. We can make any passage in any document sound awkward if we engage in the sort of word substitution you've suggested (with your malice and your poor communication skills choosing which words to use). Language doesn't work that way. Transitioning from a verb to a noun isn't necessarily a matter of one-to-one correspondence.

    What we ought to ask is, does it make sense for Jesus' flesh and blood to be objects of faith, spiritual nourishment, etc. as Jesus is an object of such in verse 35? Yes, it does.

    You write:

    "And no, the phrase 'for My body is return-to-Me indeed and My blood is faith/belief-in-Me indeed' makes NO sense what-so-ever."

    Readers should note how careless LVKA is in continuing to use the word "return" after I explained to him why his use of that term is problematic. Does he even attempt to interact with what I said? No.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Oh, Jason, Jason, Jason, Jason, Jason ... :-(

    Your constant senseless reponses remind me in a strange ecumenical fashion of the following things:

    Qur'an, Sura 109, "The Disbelievers"

    In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.

    1: Say: O unbelievers!
    2: I do not serve that which you serve,
    3: Nor do you serve Him Whom I serve:
    4: Nor am I going to serve that which you serve,
    5: Nor are you going to serve Him Whom I serve:
    6: You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion.

    Matthew 10:14  And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. 15  Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

    Mark 6:11  And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

    Luke 9:5  And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.

    John 15:20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.

    Acts 13:50  But the Jews stirred up the devout and honourable women, and the chief men of the city, and raised persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them out of their coasts. 51  But they shook off the dust of their feet against them, and came unto Iconium.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Looks like Lvka knows he's got nothin' left to say.

    By the way, Jason, I'd recommend you posting your last response as its own blog entry because it was really good and others may benefit from it without having to scroll through 70+ comments to get to it :-D

    ReplyDelete
  82. Looks like Lvka knows he's got nothin' left to say.

    Nothing left to say, no more ace to play ... :-)

    ReplyDelete