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.
Yet when Catholics point out obvious Scriptural inconsistencies held by Protestants, we are told such things are "spiritually" (whatever that needs to mean) discerned, or similar rationalizations.
Such as?
“So am I right or not Puny? Why won’t you answer a simple question?’
It’s not a matter of “why won’t I,” I simply didn’t give a detailed response since you ignored the scripture and my post. If you will not engage it, what good is it to talk to you? And it’s not as if what you wrote is so profound that it hasn’t been seen and answered for over 2,000 years, whether it is Augutine answering it, or Paul, or Christ, or Calvin and Luther.
But to answer your question now, Adam’s sin killed us all, so that all those who have been brought forth from his loins have been spiritually dead from the womb, incapable of seeing, already blind, and dumb, and doomed. In this we could say that man is his own killer, and chose to blind himself, and all men from thenceforth, inheriting the evil nature of Adam, now sin willingly and truly according to their own desires, which are utterly depraved unless God cause them to be renewed:
“And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)”
(Eph 2:1-5)
Before that, there is no one who seeks after God, or who can understand Him, because we are depraved:
What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
(Rom 3:9-12)
But on the other hand, God not only permitted Adam’s fall, and the birth of every individual whom He would not save, but actively decreed it:
Pro 16:4 The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble
Not only that, but even after this initial condemnation and decree of reprobation, He still holds the right to blind anyone even more, and harden them, and cause them to do His will, according to His own purpose:
Pro 21:1 The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will.
Exo 4:21 And the LORD said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles that I have put in your power. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go.
So on the one hand, man is responsible for His own sin; yet, God not only decreed their birth, but also, with His power, does not let them run free, but uses them for His own purpose, and raises them up accordingly. Whether that is to be hardened, like Pharaoh, or to be freed from shackles, as all the elect.
The reason why I called your post blasphemous is because you do not have a fear of God, but yet say these things freely without taking a moment to respond to the scripture. Why call God evil if God declares in Holy Writ, that “no man can come to me unless it is given to Him by my Father”?
Who are you to judge who God hardens and who He does not harden? I’ll give you the advice of two men, one greater than the other, but both our worthy Christians. The first, Paul:
Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
(Rom 9:19-21)
And now Augustine, commenting from John 6:
“Murmur not among yourselves: no man can come unto me, except the Father that sent me draw him. Noble excellence of grace! No man comes unless drawn. There is whom He draws, and there is whom He draws not; why He draws one and draws not another, do not desire to judge, if you desire not to err.” (Augustine, Tractate 26)
” If your god blinded me, why do you think you can help me and other Catholics see? “
I cannot, as, obviously, no man can call Christ Lord but by the Holy Ghost (1 Co 12:3). Though, God works through the preaching of the Word, so that though a man isn’t converted through human reason, yet we who preach the Gospel move according to the will of God in How he reaches the elect:
Act_13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
I'm getting there....
If "God's word" is synonymous with "the Bible," where is the Old Testament prophesy informing Simeon he would not see death before seeing the Messiah?
NO
Are you speaking of Christ’s first coming or the 2nd advent?
“If “God’s word” is synonymous with “the Bible,” where is the Old Testament prophesy informing Simeon he would not see death before seeing the Messiah?”
Presumably what you’re trying to argue is that Roman Catholic tradition is the word of God. If that’s the case, then the holy word of God/Tradition ends up pointing you back to scripture as our final authority to begin with:
Cyril of Jerusalem on Sola Scriptura:
“Have thou ever in your mind this seal, which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning , but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. Lecture 4, Ch. 17)
It’s a circle of doom for the Papists.
Thanks for the clarification, Greetings. Picking at nits and proudly. jeesh...:)
I refer to the events in Luke 2
Actually, I'm referring to the Protestant penchant for using extra-biblical traditions to claim all their interpretations are biblical.
Well, how about being a little less obtuse? WHat is it you’re groping for here?
“Actually, I’m referring to the Protestant penchant for using extra-biblical traditions to claim all their interpretations are biblical.”
IOW, extra biblical tradition supports Sola Scriptura, and not Sola Ecclesia as you need it to. I am okay with this exchange, though, I can skin your cat using just the scripture itself as well. But, it doesn’t matter, since you’re defeated already.
You can’t figure out the problem, but I’m the one that’s “obtuse?”
Typical.
If you have my argument already, you don’t need me then, do you?
“If you have my argument already, you don’t need me then, do you?”
If by “have” you mean, already popped its bubble, then, yes, you are no longer needed. But, I do like how Papists vainly try to change the goal posts once they lose.
Ahhhh, “typical”..the “Bachhhh” of arguments. The problem is your posts have nothing to do with the gospel of the grace of God, or studying God’s word of truth rightly divided to be a workman for Him. Or preaching the reconciliation between God and man based on Christ’s finished work. First of all, you’re in “time past” with Simeone, under the law, not grace, and following OT teachings. So what is there to gain from your great findings? Does it bring us one step closer to the present time, the “but now” of God’s word? Do you even know that there is a “but now” and we are living in it? And when it began and when it will end? Just like the “time past” ended at a specific time and for a specific purpose. How about moving a little closer to NOW, or explain in detail what you’re aiming at.
Allow me to remind you of proverbs 18:13.
What you see is not a “changing the goalpost” but a recognition of your inability to carry on a dispassionate, critical discussion.
That’s okay, you’re certainly not the first.
“Allow me to remind you of proverbs 18:13.”
Hey, so a Papist does know how to use the Bible! Keep it up and maybe you’ll rescue yourself from your crappy “arguments”.
Yet you did refer to me as “obtuse” despite your lack of comprehension.
Does that seem like ground to grow a productive discussion on to you?
Funny, I as a Protestant find myself taking communion each Sunday.
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.