Comments on: This Is My Body – Part Three

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 16 May 2008 12:48:00 +0000

By the way, the quotes above should be attributed to St. Ignatius and St. Justin Martyr. Sorry for leaving that out.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 16 May 2008 02:00:00 +0000

David and Derek
I very much appreciate your dialogue and while I may not be able to enter into some of the arguments that you present, I would like to offer my take.
The primary sense of scripture has to be the literal. The verb that Jesus uses in John 6 changes during the bread of life discourse. When he first says that one must “eat my flesh” he uses the verb phago which could be interpreted as a symbolic eating. However, as the followers begin to question him, Christ becomes more emphatic opting to use the verb trogo which very literally means “to gnaw” or “crunch.” So it is clear from the text that Jesus meant that there was to be a literal eating. Not a cannibalistic eating, but a sacramental eating as Derek noted. Another reason that the metaphorical interpretation won't work is due to the fact that in Jesus' day to symbolically “eat the flesh” of someone was to disgrace them. There was no way that Jesus was saying to his followers that you must disgrace me in order to have life within you.
In order to add further clarity we should look at the words of Jesus in the context of Jewish restoration eschatology.
Deut 18:15
“The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brethren – him you shall heed
Deut 34:10
And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face…
The Jews were awaiting the return of the northern tribes from exile. And who better to lead them in this new exodus but a new Moses? Jesus is the new Moses. The Jews also knew that there couldn't be a new exodus (cf. Luke 9:31) without a new Passover. Just as the lamb of the passover meal had to be consumed, so the lamb of the new passover must be consumed. Paul refers to Jesus as our paschal lamb (cf. 1 Cor 5:7).
The connection between John 6 and the Supper is quite clear if kept in the context of the passover (cf. John 6:4). If you look closely at the Last Supper, you will see that the passover isn't completed in the upper room. The passover meal consisted of four cups of wine and only three are consumed in the synoptic accounts. Jesus then prays in the Garden of Gethsemene and asks for the “cup” to pass from him. The cup was the final cup of the passover that Jesus takes just before declaring “it is finished.” This climax of this passover is the very crucifixion where he was both priest and victim. The Last Supper and the Crucifixion is one sacrifice continuously offered in the heavenly liturgy. We get a chance to partake of the heavenly liturgy when we come to the Lord's Supper. Notice in Rev. 5 when John sees the Lion of Judah, the conquerer in Heaven that he sees a “Lamb standing as though slain.”
The presence of Christ in the Eucharist is further evidenced in the account of the disciples on the road to Emmaus. Keep in mind that when Jesus multiplied the loaves and fish he “took, blessed, broke and gave”, when he instituded the Eucharist at the last supper he “took, blessed, broke and gave.” Now when he meets the disciples on their way to Emmaus he “went in the stay with them.” (Luke 24:29) He then “takes” the bread, “blesses” it, “breaks” it and “gives” it to them. Their eyes are then opened to see him and he vanishes from their sight. Is it a coincidence that he goes in to stay with them and them vanishes when they recognize him in the breaking of the bread? Of course not. He is with them and he is with us always in the breaking of the bread.
The church fathers attested to this as well. Here are a couple of quotes:
“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
God Bless.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 08 May 2008 03:17:00 +0000

The “Reply” link was missing from the bottom of your last post, David, so my comment ended up down at the bottom. Sorry!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 08 May 2008 03:15:00 +0000

Moore identifies, I think, a very real pattern in John's gospel (chapter six included) of Christ being misunderstood by his hearers. This much is uncontroversial. At issue, of course, is the nature of these misunderstandings--specifically, 1. How is Christ's teaching understood by those in attendance? and 2. What did Christ really mean? To distill these two questions down, as Moore does, into a literal/metaphorical dichotomy is a bit of an oversimplification. Take, for example, John 2. When Christ says, "Destroy this temple...", is he being literal? Think before you answer. The misunderstanding here ("It has taken forty-six years to build this temple...") is not simply a matter of Christ speaking figuratively and being understood literally; it's a matter of his audience not apprehending Christ's body as the true temple of God. The Shekhinah now resides in the person of Jesus Christ, not in "a house made by human hands". So our Lord is being quite literal here, albeit in a way not immediately obvious to his listeners. His statement possesses a sort of... "meta-literality" (if I may), where a higher (not metaphorical) truth is expressed, though is obscured for those whose minds are not "set on things above." It's important that we agree on this. Jesus is not, in John 2, saying (as Moore's argument would lead us by analogy to believe), "My body is like this temple." He's saying, "My body is the temple." The same pattern is evidenced in Moore's other examples, though I'll spare you a prolonged explanation. You obviously get the pattern. So what about John 6, then? Same deal. The Capernaites clearly misunderstand Jesus' words as referring to a crass, carnal, cannibalistic tearing of the flesh from his body. Their misunderstanding has been enshrined throughout Christian history, as a "Capernaitic eating" is decried in countless writings--patristic texts, Protestant confessions, you name it--as a gross butchering (no pun intended) of Jesus' teaching. Justin Martyr defended the church of the second century from precisely this accusation not by affirming, with Moore, that the eating is symbolic, but rather, of a different kind--a sacramental eating. Having said all that, I really don't think that John 6 is genial to the type of discussion we're having. While I do think this chapter clearly alludes to the Lord's Supper, it's hardly a restatement of the words of institution. In fact, I think John, with his different theological emphasis, presupposes the Synoptic accounts. It would be interesting to see a separate post on the sacraments in John's gospel, but they don't really bring much to bear here, seeing as they establish no Lutheran Eucharistic dogma. Towards your other point about arguing positively for a literal interpretation, I think you've misunderstood me. I only meant to describe an uncontroversial principle of basic hermeneutics, that one always begins with the "plain sense" of the words before exploring other options. There are certainly good reasons to stray from the natural reading of something (e.g., the speaker is employing a known idiom), but you don't start there. You actually demonstrated that point nicely by giving me an argument ("Are we meant to think they understood this to mean that the bread somehow became a literal extension of his (not yet glorified!) body?") for why the plain meaning cannot be admitted. And while this sort of objection would (and should!) carry the day in any hermeneutical context not involving the omnipotent creator of heaven and earth, I'm not sure it works very well here. It amounts to a sort of "argument from incredulity" which, if admitted, seems like it would likewise discredit a great number of other core Christian doctrines. The perceptions of those listening (as Moore has demonstrated) are mostly useless in trying to understand what Jesus actually meant. But I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this. I won't know until I actually hit the POST button, but I feel like I've typed way too much. I'm not trying to monopolize the discussion here, and I promise to pare down future comments.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 05 May 2008 16:50:00 +0000

I'm still a little uncertain about the relationship between John 6 and the Supper. On the one hand, I have heard many a Protestant theologian argue that it doesn't really make sense to connect the two, since Jesus had not yet instituted the Supper in John 6 and no one (Apostles included) would have understood the allusion. They are also quick to point out that John is the only gospel not to include the institution of the Supper. But of course, neither of these things has any bearing on whether or not John meant this passage to explicitly allude to the Supper. And given the obvious correlation of eating the body and drinking the blood, I'm inclined to think that John 6 is very much intended as an allusion to Communion. The upshot, though, is that if John 6 is meant to directly correlate to the Supper (and perhaps is even a replacement of the words of institution in the synoptics), then Moore's argument, if it's valid, holds sway over the words of institution as well. My only point regarding Luther's penchant for the dramatic was that, typically, there is at least some small articulatable reason, usually internal to the text, that gives us cause to go one way or the other. So, there ought to clues or markers of some sort that cause us to think that Christ must be speaking literally. Or, negatively, there ought to be solid reasons for thinking that Christ is not speaking metaphorically. So, I suppose I'm asking for two things: One is a positive case for the literal interpretation. I know you've already mentioned that the literal interpretation tends to be something that you don't really have a positive case for, but I don't think that will work here. A metaphorical meaning actually seems to be a more likely default position to me, if only because, as so many Memorialists have pointed out, Jesus was sitting right there in front of them when He told them that the bread was His body. Are we meant to think they understood this to mean that the bread somehow became a literal extension of his (not yet glorified!) body? This just seems unlikely. It seems to me that the supposed literal interpretation is the one that needs to be argued for. Or, if you prefer, the second thing I'm asking for is a response to Moore. Like I said, if his argument is a good one, AND we take John 6 to be a foundational eucharistic passage, then even the synoptics' words of institution are in trouble.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 04 May 2008 01:07:00 +0000

Sure, Luther's table-chalking at Marburg might seem a bit grandiose to our postmodern sensibilities, but I'm sure those in attendance probably considered it quite charming.
At any rate, if it seems like the Lutheran position advances no arguments for a literal reading of the words of institution (have you read any Chemnitz, by the way?–not a challenge; just curious), it's likely because, as a rule, defending the literal meaning of an utterance doesn't lend itself well to argumentation. We generally accept the plain sense of any passage of Scripture unless the text gives us some reason to believe otherwise. So in a very real sense, a literal reading is the “default position.” All I can do by way of argument, then, is wait for someone to challenge that reading, at which I point I can offer a counterargument.
Now Moore has apparently lodged such an argument, but (and of course I'm responding only to your brief summary) I don't find it particularly persuasive. Nobody questions whether Jesus used figures of speech. He did. At question is whether Jesus was speaking figuratively in his institution of the Supper. Moore can keep multiplying examples of metaphor in other, unrelated issues, and it won't prove his conclusion any more than it would prove mine if I cited thirty instances of Christ speaking literally in John's gospel. He would need to provide instead some textual reason why Jesus' words couldn't mean what they actually say.
Of course, looking back now at your initial post, I'm noting that Moore's argument means only to address John 6, and not the words of institution themselves. If that's the case, his argument holds up a little better–at least as it concerns John 6. I agree with Scaer that this passage does, at least, allude to the Lord's Supper (much like John 3 does to Baptism), even if it doesn't provide a dogmatic definition, as such. The issue of the Sacraments in John's gospel requires a bit more nuanced discussion than would probably work here, but suffice it to say that, despite the absence of any explicit institution narratives of Baptism or the Lord's Supper, John's language is intensely sacramental throughout. But I think for this type of discussion, we should limit ourselves to the synoptic accounts and I Corinthians 10 and 11.
By the way, let me quickly echo Aaron's sentiments below. You're a magnanimous sparring partner, David. Such a change of pace from Roger…

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 02 May 2008 21:11:00 +0000

Hi David and Derek,
I just wanted to say I've found your exchange both gracious and helpful. Thanks for that!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 02 May 2008 09:45:00 +0000

Ok. I actually agree withe the second, weaker version of the axiom as well.
I think what happened was that I misapplied the axiom to the debate. It isn't meant to be a direct argument against Lutheran/Catholic views of the Supper (because, as you rightly pointed out, in order for it to do that it would also have to be an argument against the incarnation). It is actually meant as a defense on behalf of the Reformed view against the charge that the Reformed view is Nestorian. So, because Calvin's doctrine denied the ubiquity of Christ's human nature, and has the divine nature present in the Supper without the human nature, some of Calvin's Lutheran interlocutors accused him of dividing the natures, and thus being Nestorian. To defend against this, Calvin employed this axiom. Even though deity dwells fully within the man Jesus, the infinite remains infinite, and thus “spills over” outside of his human body. But the natures remain united. In this way, it is possible to have the divine nature present during Communion, but not the human nature, without a division between them. And of course, because of the mystical union of the human and divine natures, when we partake of the divine nature, we also mystically partake of the human nature.
Yes, I do believe that the words of institution are important here, but the image of Luther debating the other Reformers and slamming his fist on the table and repeatedly shouting “This is my body” immediately comes to mind. It has always seemed to me that that is about all Lutherans and Catholics can do, is insist without much supporting argument that we ought to take the words literally (as where the non-literal view can offer arguments such as Moore's). If you have some arguments for why we ought to take the words of institution literally, I'd be happy to think about them.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 01 May 2008 04:10:00 +0000

I suppose it depends on what you think it means. If you ratchet this principle down so tightly that even the Incarnation is excluded, well then I think we'd both agree it's false. If you're lax enough in its application so as to allow the Incarnation, well then I would have no trouble affirming such a limp-wristed axiom, since it could mount no respectable argument against a Catholic/Lutheran understanding of the Supper. I'm sympathetic, by the way, to Scaer's point about theology-by-axiom. Perhaps at some point we can get around to discussing the relevant Scripture passages. Thus far, we've had no exegetical arguments offered for either side, unless you include your brief (constraints of the paper, I know) reference to Moore's argument against John 6. But certainly the very words of institution are relevant here, yes?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 07:54:00 +0000

I think I understand the point you were trying to make now. But I'm still confused on a few points. To clarify: Do you agree with the axiom, but not with its application to the Lord's Supper? Or do you reject the axiom itself?