Jesus is a perfectly clear communicator. However, as His audience in John 6 demonstrates, the problem lies with those who come to Him with predetermined ideas of what is possible. He clearly tells them that if they come to Him, they will not hunger, and if they believe on Him, they will not thirst, and that what He teaches them about eating His flesh and drinking His blood is a spiritual teaching, not a about the flesh, but about believing in Him, in His words.
But despite all these obvious guard rails against misinterpretation, His audience can only think in crude mateialistic terms. Recall how earlier in the chapter, when He had fed them, He slipped away from them, when He perceived they were going to try and make Him king by force. And when they did track Him down, He chides them for seeking Him only because He fed them. Not even the miracles got through to them. They were only thinking in fleshly terms.
So when He tells them about eating His flesh and drinking His blood, even though He makes it blazingly clear it is a spiritual and not a fleshly thing of which He speaks, they don't get it. His communication cannot be faulted. But the spiritual deadness of His listeners led them to their own false conclusions.
As for Peter and the Rock controversy. who do you suppose is at fault for Augustine thinking like we evangelicals do? Again, one cannot fault Jesus. But if a particular denomination has staked it's entire claim to authority on a spurious list of popes, in combination with a novel doctrine of transmissible Petrine supremacy, and they come to this passage a few centuries later, it is not at all surprising they would find in it what they are looking for. Psychologically, this is called confirmation bias. Fortunately for us, nearer to the beginnings of Christianity that misconception was not so deeply entrenched, which is doubtless why Augustine, not having the Roman party spirit, was able to see objectively that Jesus made the distinction he did between Rocky and the Rock for good and wholesome purpose.
Or did you not know that names are often given to point us higher than ourselves? What, for example, does Johnathan mean, but "gift of God?" But not everyone so named acts accordingly. But it is still a good name to have, because it reminds the bearer of his higher calling. And what if some mother names her son "Jesus," because she wants him to aspire to godliness? Is that wrong? Is it not clear that no mortal imitator of Jesus actually has to actually
be Jesus to receive that name? And if Jesus calls Peter Rocky, does that necessarily mean He intends Peter to become the Rock upon which the full weight of the Ecclesia must rest? Or could He simply be pointing both Peter and us to Christ the Rock, and our need to have faith in Him, as exampled by Peter?
1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
1 Peter 2:7-8 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, (8) And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
No, if the not-so-Roman patristic writers, including Augustine, were able to get this right, and are joined by both Peter and Paul in seeing Jesus as
the Rock, then there is no way Jesus can be faulted as a communicator, simply because some newer kids on the block are unwilling to remember these simple and easily accessible things. To paraphrase the Bard, the fault is not in our Savior, but in ourselves.
Peace,
SR
I would like your commentary on these scriptures.
Matt. 26-29.
26 And they were eating, Jesus took the bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27 and he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
Could the 29th verse be read in a way that Jesus, Himself, affirmed that what he was drinking was 'fruit of the vine', and he will drink 'the fruit of the vine' AGAIN. Thus affirming that what he drank was not blood, but, "FRUIT OF THE VINE".
Where am I going wrong? I do not see where the Romist can come to any other conclusion.