What Did He Mean?
Here's the statement Jesus made:
I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. (John 6:53-56)
Here's how some of Jesus' disciples responded:
From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. (John 6:66)
Here's how Jesus reacts to that:
You do not want to leave too, do you? (John 6:67)
And here is one disciple's reply (apparently speaking for others as well as himself):
Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God. (John 6:68-69)
Now here's the question I ask: What did Jesus mean when he said eat my flesh and drink my blood? If he didn't mean that literally, why were the disciples bothered by that? If they misunderstood Jesus (thinking he meant it literally when he didn't) then why don't we have record of Jesus saying something like, Wait, let me explain what I mean. Why did Jesus let them walk away?
I realize arguing from silence is, at best, tricky if not dangerous. But we do that with other passages of scripture - like the time Jesus tells the rich young ruler that he would have to sell everything he owned, give it all to the poor, then come and follow me. When the fellow hears that, he walks away quite sad. Why? Because he knew Jesus meant what he said literally. If he misunderstood Jesus, wouldn't we have record of Jesus trying to explain what he really wanted him to do? Or at least some commentary from the writer explaining what Jesus meant? (After all, that's exactly what we have when Jesus talked about tearing down "this temple" and he would rebuild it in three days - the gospel writer explains that Jesus wasn't talking about the human built temple but the temple of his body.)
Aaah... I know. Someone might say, "But he was speaking in hyperbole." We know Jesus used hyperbole as a teaching tool. He said, "If your right eye causes you to sin - gauge it out. If your right hand causes you to sin - cut it off." Well, maybe it was hyperbole... or maybe not. After all, is it really the eye or the hand that actually causes a person to sin? Or is it actually something else that is the "cause". Maybe this example really isn't hyperbole.
So back to my question. What did he mean about eating his flesh and drinking his blood... if he didn't mean it literally? I'm open to explanation...
posted by Jim at 9:08 PM
2 Comments:
Have you read For the Life of the World by Alexander Schmemann? I found it to be quite helpful when thinking through this issue. I don't have my copy handy, so I'll give you a quick summary, probably highly distorted, from memory.
His premise is that we can't really understand any of the sacraments until we understand the pre-fall state in Eden and how it changed as a result of the fall. Basically his argument is that before the fall Adam and Eve saw their interactions with the physical world in the context of their relationship with God. They didn't perceive eating and drinking as merely practical terms (avoid starvation) or even aesthetic terms, but saw an additional dimension of worship. Specifically, eating and drinking were a way of expressing their dependence on God and gratitude for his creation.
Something seems to go wrong even as Eve is being tempted by the apple: she begins to evaluate the apple apart from her relationship with God. If memory serves, Schmemann argues that once Adam and Eve have eaten the apple their relationship with God is broken and this is the only way that they can see the created order. Taken to an extreme this is the atheistic, closed-end naturalism of Dawkins.
However, most of the ancient world didn’t take things this far. I’ve just been listening to the Law during my walks, and it’s striking how often God associates practical matters, like lending money, with larger themes like His nature and Israel’s prior history. My general impression is that Moses and the Israelites believed that the Kingdom of God, while hidden from view, was still in some way connected to how they planted fields, dressed, treated their employees, raised their children, etc. This connection feels different than the “Bible as book of answers” that seems to be common in contemporary Evangelicalism. It comes closer to seeing all of life as worship and possible even cooperating with God in his work in the world (consider the laws around the conquest of Canaan).
It seems to me that “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood” is pointing forward to “Take and eat; this is my body.” The general crowd can’t begin to grasp this; they’re committed to a naturalistic interpretation and are mostly willing to walk away if Jesus says anything strange. The disciples are caught in a tension, but ultimately choose to follow Jesus because “You have the words of life,” not because they understand or even approve of this particular teaching. But Jesus, true to his mission to restore all things, is really pointing them back to the original meaning of the bread and wine as a way to worship God through our eating and drinking via his sacrificial death. Eventually their persistence in following Jesus will allow them to see what he was teaching.
Of course, in Protestant contexts it’s natural to ask how this relates to transubstantiation. From what I can gather transubstantiation states that there is a material, but not physical change, in the bread and wine. My guess is that the debate comes about for several reasons. First, the western church had developed the habit of integrating Greek philosophy with its teaching on communion. This seems to explain how a “material change” can be different from a “physical change.” However Greek systems were falling out of favor in Western thought by the time of the Reformation, leaving the teaching on communion somewhat stranded. The Protestant reformers were forced to assume that any material change must also be a physical change. However arguing for a physical change raised moral questions and seemed to contradict experience. In addition it placed a lot of power in the hands of the priest. To avoid these problems most Protestants decided to adopt a symbolic interpretation. In the end this leads to language during some communion services along the lines of “Communion is merely symbolic and is only for those who are already saved, for those who are true believers. This ordinance cannot save anyone.” These statements have always seemed oddly disruptive when dropped into communion services and have always left me with the question “Then, why are we doing this?” In addition I’m coming to appreciate that a faith built exclusively on these terms is cut off from the day to day world in ways that seem at odds with both the Old and New Testaments.
One of the things that is refreshing about the practice in Brethren In Christ churches is that they stay much closer to 1 Corinthians 11:23-26. This is one of the reasons that I find the tradition to be so refreshing and occasionally state that I believe that Anabaptists are closer to Roman Catholicism than other Protestant traditions. In my experience someone could sit through one of these services believing most of what Roman Catholicism teaches about communion barely flinch. On the other hand the fact that the congregation consecrates the elements is a bit disconcerting.
I've been mulling over this post and Abe's response for quite some time. It would take a book or 2 to respond as the issues which spiral out are complex & I must confess beyond my abilities to fully address.
My main concern in this comment is to offer some thoughts on the Bread of Life discourse found in John 6 following the miraculous feeding of the 5000. I go w/the simple interpretation that Jesus' words were provoked by the crowds seeking earthly food (and related benefits) from the Messiah, like the manna in the wilderness.
The spiritually dead crowds fail to feed upon the Bread of Life who the Father compassionately sent to dwell among His people and offer the Word/Light of Life. Instead they only see a prospective Messiah who must produce signs on their own terms or even, just the son of Joseph. Note: Many parables dwell upon these concerns.
The crowds, the disciples, and we are indeed challenged to feed upon the body and drink the blood of the Son of Man, i.e., see and believe in the Him, leading to everlasting life and being raised up with him up at the last day.
A literal interpretation would be difficult for the first hearers as the drinking of blood/eating of flesh was forbidden in the OT. So one might have responded that he was crazy. But the non-literal (or literal) interpretion of Jesus as the manna in the desert would also be too much. Many of Jesus' sayings were hard and continue to be such today as they are hard to follow/embrace/receive on multiple levels. Note: The use of flesh in v.63 is used in a different manner than v.48-58, similar to that of John 3:6ff.
With regard to the Lord's Supper, the Bread of Life discourse predates the celebratory/eucharistic Passover gathering our Lord had with the disciples, but highlights our mystical union with our 1 high priest through the power of his 1 time sacrifical death, physical resurrection, physical ascension, and the blessing of the Spirit (note: particularly revelant as the One through whom we partake of Christ in daily life and the One through whom we receive the Real Presence at the celebration of the Lord's Supper).
As in the wilderness, the bread is not about the bread BUT instead the reality that life can be found nowhere apart from Christ Jesus . . . He alone brings the Words of Life! As such, let us feed upon Him through the Word, prayer, the gathering of the people of God, the practices which He gave to us, and the encouragement of those who have walked with him through the generations.
I must end at this time. More later, possibly even some thoughts on early church practices. Looking forward to your response.
Post a Comment
<< Home