Posted on 11/18/2013 3:07:47 PM PST by NYer
In my 2011 debate with Dr. Peter Barnes, a Presbyterian minister and apologist in Australia, the topic was the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and it centered on Jesus’ famous words in John 6:53: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” After about three hours of debate, I could sum up Barnes’s central objection in one sentence—a sentence which just happens to be found in the New Testament:
How can this man give us his flesh to eat? (John 6:53)
Dr. Barnes could not, and would not, deny the Lord said what he said in Scripture. His only recourse (as is the case with all who deny the real presence), ultimately, was to claim Jesus was speaking “metaphorically.” And after all, he had to be… right? I mean, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” In other words, his ultimate objection to the Catholic and biblical position is not so much rooted in the text as it is in a fundamental incredulity when it comes to the words of the text.
I argued in that debate, and I will again in this post, that if we examine the text carefully, not only is there nothing in it that indicates Jesus was speaking metaphorically, but the text itself actually points in the opposite direction.
Just the Facts
First, everyone listening to Jesus’ actual discourse 2,000 years ago believed him to have meant what he said. That is significant. This is in stark contrast to other places in the gospel where Jesus did, in fact, speak metaphorically. For example, when Jesus spoke of himself as a “door” in John 10, or a “vine” in John 15, we find no one to have asked, “How can this man be a door made out of wood?” Or, “How can this man claim to be a plant?”
Compare these to John 6. Jesus plainly says, in verse 51, “I am the bread come down from heaven and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world” (vs. 51). The Jews immediately respond, as I said above, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’” They certainly understood him to mean what he said.
Moreover, when people misunderstand Jesus, he normally clears up the misunderstanding as we see in John 4:31-34 when the disciples urge our Lord to eat and our Lord responds, “I have food to eat which you do not know.” The disciples ask each other if anyone had brought any food because they thought our Lord was saying he had to bring his own food because they had forgotten to do so. They misunderstand him. But our Lord immediately clears things up saying, in verse 34, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work.”
A Real Barnes Burner
In our debate, Dr. Barnes had a very interesting rejoinder to this point. He claimed, in essence, that in at least some cases when his listeners misunderstood our Lord, he purposely made no attempt to clear up the misunderstandings. And Dr. Barnes then cited three more examples claiming this to be a pattern in the gospels.
1. In John 3:3-4, Dr. Barnes claimed, Jesus left Nicodemus in the dark when after he declared to him, “… unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God," Nicodemus responded, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"
Response: Even a brief perusal of John 3 and John 6 shows a substantial difference between the two. In John 6:52-53, the Jews were “disputing among themselves and saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’” That is the context in which Jesus then appears to confirm them in their thoughts and reiterates, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”
No matter how one interprets Jesus’ response to Nicodemus beginning in John 3:5, he doesn't come close to saying anything like, “Amen, amen I say to you, unless you climb back into your mother’s womb a second time and be born anew, you cannot have eternal life.” He says you must be “born of water and spirit… the wind blows where it will, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know whence it comes or whither it goes; so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit (vs. 5-8).” This seems to me to be clarification that he is not speaking about climbing back into a mother’s womb. Being “born anew” is a spiritual experience that transcends literal birth from a womb.
2. In John 4:7-15, Dr. Barnes claimed, Jesus left the famous “Samaritan woman at the well” in her misunderstanding when she thought Jesus was offering her literal, physical water. But is that really what we find in the text?
Response: When Jesus asked this Samaritan woman for a drink in verse seven, she was most likely not only shocked that a Rabbi would speak to a Samaritan woman in public, but that any Jew would ask an “unclean” Samaritan to draw water for him. But in verse 10, Jesus answered her,
If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, “Give me a drink,” you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.
The woman then responds, in verse 11, "Sir, you have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep; where do you get that living water?” To which, Jesus responds, in verse 13-14,
Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again, but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst; the water that I shall give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.
In verse 15, the woman then begs our Lord, “Sir, give me this water, that I may not thirst, nor come here to draw.”
There is no doubt the Samaritan woman has it wrong here. But far from leaving her in her error, our Lord responds most profoundly, beginning in verse 16, “Go, call your husband…” And when the woman responds, “I have no husband,” in verse 17, Jesus reads her soul and tells her, “You are right… for you have had five husbands, and he whom you now have is not your husband.”
He now has her attention, to say the least. And he then turns the conversation to what he was really speaking about in terms of the “living water” he came to give that would “well up to eternal life.” In verse 23, he declares,
But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him. [24] God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
When the woman then responds, in verse 25, “I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ); when he comes, he will show us all things," Jesus then tells her plainly, in verse 26, “I who speak to you am he.”
It seems clear that the woman then understood that Jesus’ words were metaphorical concerning the “living water,” because she immediately “left her water jar,” went back to her fellow countrymen and urged them to, “Come, see a man who told me all that I ever did. Can this be the Christ” (verses 28-29)? And according to verse 39, “Many Samaritans… believed in him because of the woman’s testimony.” She came to realize Jesus was about much more than filling war jars.
3. Dr. Barnes also claimed that when Christ said “beware of the leaven of the Pharisees” in Matthew 16:6, the apostles thought he was speaking literal, which is true. But Matthew 16:11-12 could hardly be plainer that Jesus did not leave them in their ignorance:
How is it that you fail to perceive that I did not speak about bread… Then they understood that he did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Spirit vs. Flesh
There is much more about the text of John 6 and the greater context of the New Testament in general that make a “Catholic” understanding of John 6:53 unavoidable. In our debate, Dr. Barnes and I grapple with many of those texts.
But John 6:63 is probably the most important of all to deal with as a Catholic apologist. This is a verse that is set within a context where not only "the Jews" who were listening, but specifically “the disciples” themselves were struggling with what Jesus said about "eating his flesh" and "drinking his blood." “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it” (verse 60)? It is in this context that our Lord says to the disciples: “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”
The Protestant apologist will almost invariably say of this text, “See? Christ is not giving us his flesh to eat because he says ‘the flesh is of no avail.’”
There are at least four points to consider in response:
1. If Jesus was clearing up the point here, he’s a lousy teacher because he didn’t get his point across. According to verse 66, “many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him” immediately after this statement. They obviously still believed his earlier words about "eating [his] flesh" to be literal because these "disciples" had already believed in and followed him for some time. If Jesus was here saying, “I only meant that you have to believe in me and follow me,” why would they be walking away?
2. Jesus did not say, “My flesh is of no avail.” He said, “The flesh is of no avail.” There is a big difference! He obviously would not have said my flesh avails nothing because he just spent a good portion of this same discourse telling us that his flesh would be “given for the life of the world” (John 6:51, cf. 50-58).
“The flesh” is a New Testament term often used to describe human nature apart from God’s grace (see Romans 8:1-14; I Cor. 2:14; 3:1; Mark 14:38).
3. That which is “spiritual,” or “spirit” used as an adjective as we see in John 6:63, does not necessarily refer to that which has no material substance. It often means that which is dominated or controlled by the Spirit. For example, when speaking of the resurrection of the body, St. Paul writes: “It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body” (I Cor. 15:44). Does this mean we will not have a physical body in the resurrection? Of course not! Jesus made that clear after his own resurrection in Luke 24:39:
See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have.
The resurrected body is spiritual and indeed we can be called spiritual as Christians inasmuch as we are controlled by the Spirit of God. Spiritual in no way means void of the material. That would be a Gnostic understanding of things, not Christian.
4. In verses 61-62, Jesus had just said, “Do you take offence at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?”
Jesus wants to ensure the apostles do not fall into a sort of crass literalism that would see the truth of the Eucharist in terms of gnawing bones and sinew. It is the Holy Spirit that will accomplish the miracle of Christ being able to ascend into heaven bodily while also being able to distribute his body and blood in the Eucharist for the life of the world. A human body—even a perfect one—apart from the power of the Spirit could not accomplish this.
Thus, Jesus words, “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail” refers to the truth that it is only the Spirit that can accomplish the miracle of the Eucharist and it is only the Holy Spirit that can empower us to believe the miracle.
And, whether you like it or not, at least 50% of all Catholic scholars agree with me!
As an obviously different type of PROTESTant, can I ask, "Why?"?
Well, I don’t know, papertyger. You are determined to discuss apples. And I am discussing oranges. So you tell me.
Do you think the Pharisees were mollified by Jesus' refutation when they charged the Disciples of "harvesting on the Sabbath?"
Then it would appear I found something you didn't, and you've yet to discover something I did.
I find that hard to believe as I'm giving you credit for knowing what "obtuse" means.
I get attacked all the time, sometimes by name
Amen.
I feel sad that Catholics don’t believe they have Christ living within them 24/7/365 but have to go to some ritual to “get Him”.
Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Galatians 2:20 “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith OF the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.”
Galatians 2:20: I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me.
I John 3:24: Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit which He has given us.
Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
2 Corinthians 1:22 Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.
How is that different than the RCC?
CCC424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church. "To preach. . . the unsearchable riches of Christ" [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1D.HTM]
I'm sure there is an ODD number of angels that can dance on a pinhead.
Sorry, but I don't understand your response either. Perhaps you could clarify what you mean so I could respond meaningfully.
Truly you have a dizzying intellect, I read what you wrote and I am still baffled. Did your god dam me to hell for all eternity before I was even born despite any and all of my earthly actions or not. Throw me a bone here.
Jesus said it. I believe Him.
I can see that this thread has garnered a lot of negative attention.
It seems that it is not enough to let us be to discuss this incredible gift without their derision and ridicule and hateful jabs at this holy Sacrament.
For those here who whine that too many posts such as this are made, and who feel the need to come into the thread, rather than ignoring it, with snide comments....why do you continue to spew the same old tired and tiresome garbage.
These posts are very well thought out and written and there are many Catholics who enjoy the discussion about the Source and Summit of our faith.
There are also those who may not be Catholic who would like to lurk here and follow the discussion which is why they are not all made into caucus threads.
Last but not least, there are Catholics who need their faith strengthened by what they read here.
I don’t understand the need to come into the thread and post such things. Me thinks you do protest too much!
**I don’t understand the need to come into the thread and post such things. Me thinks you do protest too much!**
Ditto and double ditto!
Thank you again NYer for taking the time to bring this to FR so that I can easily see it and read it. I know it is difficult to constantly have to see such brutal responses to the beautiful mystery that is the Eucharist, but please know that what you do here is edifying for so many of us.
I know and believe the Lord knows that discord is not the desired outcome of your testimony. It is not you or what you write that sows the discord, it is those who cannot accept and believe that must lash out against what they are rejecting.
May God bless you for your faith.
“Truly you have a dizzying intellect, I read what you wrote and I am still baffled. Did your god dam me to hell for all eternity before I was even born despite any and all of my earthly actions or not. Throw me a bone here.”
I was quite clear, but to repeat myself, yes, when God predestinates the elect to salvation from before the foundation of the world, He also chooses not to predestinate others to salvation, and therefore destines them to condemnation.
“For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.”
(Rom 9:11-17)
As Augustine explains it, commenting on these verses:
“And, moreover, who will be so foolish and blasphemous as to say that God cannot change the evil wills of men, whichever, whenever, and wheresoever He chooses, and direct them to what is good? But when He does this He does it of mercy; when He does it not, it is of justice that He does it not for “He has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardens.” And when the apostle said this, he was illustrating the grace of God, in connection with which he had just spoken of the twins in the womb of Rebecca, who “being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calls, it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.” And in reference to this matter he quotes another prophetic testimony: “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” But perceiving how what he had said might affect those who could not penetrate by their understanding the depth of this grace: “What shall we say then?” he says: “Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.” For it seems unjust that, in the absence of any merit or demerit, from good or evil works, God should love the one and hate the other. Now, if the apostle had wished us to understand that there were future good works of the one, and evil works of the other, which of course God foreknew, he would never have said, not of works, but, of future works, and in that way would have solved the difficulty, or rather there would then have been no difficulty to solve. As it is, however, after answering, God forbid; that is, God forbid that there should be unrighteousness with God; he goes on to prove that there is no unrighteousness in God’s doing this, and says: “For He says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” “ (Augustine, The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love, Chapter 98. Predestination to Eternal Life is Wholly of God’s Free Grace.)
Ouch so how do you know we’re not both
in the same boat?
I don’t disagree with you. I post in these threads as much for the lost unknown silent reader as anyone else.
Do you find it odd that when Matthew 16 comes up all we hear about are keys, stones and binding and loosing? What might I ask is the importance of the entire passage? Yes it is Peter’s
confession. The same confession the Father leads us to.
I think it's a different kind of "Christ" they get with the ritual versus what they get when they are baptized.
Scripture quite clearly says that we are filled with the Holy Spirit, He is within us as the "earnest" (guarantee) of our inheritance, will never leave us or forsake us and confirms that we are His because we have the Spirit of God within us, when we receive Jesus Christ by faith, believing and trusting in His sacrifice for us. We have the assurance that we belong to God and have been adopted into His family by His grace through faith. When we partake with other believers in the ordinance of the Lord's Supper, we are doing so as a remembrance of Him - as He said we should do - and as an outward confirmation that we have inwardly received the participation of His body and blood and have placed our faith in Him to save us and as a testimony of the one loaf all believers are part of: "Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.." (I Cor. 10:17)
In Catholicism, the Lord's Supper/Eucharist is received ONLY after a full confession is done, penance performed and a "state of grace" is achieved by eating the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice for those sins we just got done confessing. So, the Eucharist is part of the finishing touch, so to speak, of placing one in a state of grace so that heaven is attainable - at least as long as we remain sin-free. When we sin, the cycle begins anew. I really don't think Catholics view the presence of the Holy Spirit within each believer as equal to having Christ within them - which they get by going to Communion and which only lasts as long as until the next time they sin.
Historically, the Roman Catholic Church did not always view the Eucharist as expiatory. They did not see it as a reenactment of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross that made participation critical to a person's very salvation. That doctrine developed over many centuries and just as we can see the doctrine of justification by faith change to faith AND works, so, too, did this sacrament change to be THE most essential part of the worship service and life of the Catholic.
Now, I'm sure there will quickly come the castigations, sarcasms and accusations that I wasn't properly catechized and that I didn't say it "right", that I don't know what I am talking about, and so forth, but this IS the way most Catholics view this part of their faith. It's why they can patronize and condescend to us non-Catholic Christians and say they feel sorry for us because we miss out on getting "God" in us like they do. In reality, I'd much rather have Christ within me 24/7/365 than once a week (if I'm a good girl) with no assurance of salvation. We can KNOW we HAVE eternal life and this is because we have believed in Christ and God's grace imputes HIS righteousness to our account through faith. We are saved NOT by the righteous things we do - like receive the Eucharist or getting baptized - but by grace and mercy given to us through faith. I think this is the far more wonderful truth!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.