One of many ways Scripture teaches the Real Presence

Some Biblical interpreters do not believe the bread and wine of the Eucharist become the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. One of the verses used by these interpreters to demonstrate this idea is John 6:63 which comes toward the end of Christ's discourse including the well-known words: "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you."

I made a post on the Catholic Answers forums recently on this subject, and since it was "blog-length," :) I thought it fitting to include here with some minor touch-ups for improvement.

Let's look at John 6:63

John 6:63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.

Those who interpret this as Jesus canceling out all His prior literal language in the chapter in favor of a symbolic understanding of the Eucharist run into a problem. First, if their interpretation were correct, to be consistent they would have to say Christ's sacrifice of blood on the cross counts for nothing.

But second, that is not what Jesus meant by "the words I have spoken are spirit." Consider the flow of the text in John 6 (which by the way comes right after 2 miracles: multiplication of loaves & fishes and walking on water).

Jesus' audience in John 6 is a signpost for the Real Presence. It's actually important to know that Jesus often spoke symbolically of Himself, like when He said: "I am the door" (John 10:7), or "you are the salt" (Mat. 5:13), or "take my yoke" (Mat. 11:29). Since the disciples knew Jesus sometimes spoke symbolically, it makes no sense that they would suddenly take "symbolic" words literally if He was indeed speaking symbolically yet again. They would have naturally said, "Oh! He's speaking symbolically of course! As He often does!" (EDIT 12/15/10: See later in John an example of Jesus clarifying Himself when His disciples actually did misunderstand him John 11:11-14.)

But the audience understood Jesus literally. "How can He give us His flesh to eat?" they said (John 6:52) and "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" (John 6:60). Jesus does not reply, "Because I'm speaking symbolically" or the like. Instead, He responds, "Do you take offense at this?" (John 6:61). And the gospel writer adds: "Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe" (John 6:64). These untrusting disciples departed from Jesus over this issue. And Jesus let them walk away thinking He had spoken literally.

If a person insists Jesus was speaking symbolically, then that person as a byproduct makes Jesus a deceiver for seeing they did not understand Him correctly and still letting them depart from Him. Jesus actually confirmed their literal understanding when He did not correct them but rather asked: "Does this offend you?"

Of course, those departing disciples correctly understood Jesus literally. And Jesus knew it. Peter, who was there, did not understand how Jesus could be speaking literally either---but he knew by faith to trust Jesus. "To whom shall we go?" (John 6:68) Peter said when asked by Jesus if he also wished to depart. Peter's faith preceded his understanding. Such as it is with the mystery of the Eucharist. But the point is, not a single member of Jesus' audience, whether those who departed nor those who remained, understood Him to be speaking symbolically. And Jesus confirmed their understanding in His responses.

So what does "the words I have spoken are spirit" mean from John 6:63? It means His words were spoken such that they are understood not by the mind of "flesh." In other words---His words are not understood by human reason, a natural understanding. Rather, only a spiritual person can understand how Jesus can give us His literal flesh and blood to eat.

I think St. John Chrysostom, ca 390 A.D., explains this verse well:

His meaning is, 'Ye must hear spiritually what relateth to Me, for he who heareth carnally is not profited. (Homilies on John)

Christ's words are spiritual words, not carnal words. Spiritual does not equal "symbolic."

Jesus made a similar statement earlier in the gospel of John:

John 3:12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?

Here we see the same contrast between the carnal and the spiritual with regard to understanding what Jesus says.

Consider two final passages from Paul that tie into this:

1 Corinthians 2:14 The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

1 Corinthians 11:28-29 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.

You see how Paul teaches the exact same thing about discerning Christ's body in the Eucharist by using a spiritual understanding?

What the Pope really said about condoms: "not a moral solution"

As journalists continue to interpret the Pope's recent comments on condoms 180° wrong, I thought it fitting to share an excerpt of what he actually said.

Pope Benedict XVI: As a matter of fact, you know, people can get condoms when they want them anyway. But this just goes to show that condoms alone do not resolve the question itself. More needs to happen. Meanwhile, the secular realm itself has developed the so-called ABC Theory: Abstinence-Be Faithful-Condom, where the condom is understood only as a last resort, when the other two points fail to work. This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves. This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also a part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man’s being.

There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.

Peter Seewald: Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?
Benedict XVI: She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.

So that's the context. You can read the full excerpt at Catholic World Report. For now, I'm not going to go into the validity of the Pope's comments, which I do think are correct. But even someone who disagreed with the Pope's comments should agree that he has been badly misrepresented. This blog post is to educate any readers of what the Pope actually said, and show how badly his comments were distorted in the media and elsewhere.

For instance, in today's Chicago Sun-Times, an unknown contributor admitted that the Pope said condom use was "not a moral solution." Despite that, this author concluded that the Pope's comments were an "acceptance of the use of condoms"!

To help anyone who could still be conceivably confused, consider the following parallel. Let's say there are two thieves. One thief breaks into a home and steals the TV, cash, but declines to steal a big personalized gold trophy. A second thief breaks into a similar home and steals the TV, cash, and the personalized gold trophy. If I said the first thief may have exhibited some sign of prudence that indicates a step closer to moral consideration than the second thief, it doesn't mean I am approving the first thief's actions.

So if you read confounding comments like the Sun-Times piece above, and if you're feeling like you're living in the Twilight Zone where up is down and hot is cold, don't worry, you haven't lost your mind. Such interpretations of the Pope's comments are indeed 180° incorrect.

St. Paul taught one Savior for Gentile or Jew

Following is a paper I did in my Pauline Soteriology master's class. It is a critique of the book Reinventing Paul by John S. Gager.

In the book Reinventing Paul, John S. Gager proposed the admittedly novel idea that Paul taught two paths to eternal salvation. For Jews, this path remains unchanged from the Old Covenant. For Gentiles (aka. Greeks), this path is rooted in faith in Jesus Christ. “Paul does not conceive of Israel’s salvation with reference to Christ,” wrote Gager (46).

The path for salvation Gager posited for the Jews was not entirely clear. He cited a fourth century Rabbi’s opinion that “[t]he word of the Lord went forth in two aspects, slaying the heathen who would not accept it, but giving life to Israel who accepted the Torah” (56). In a negative way, Gager more often advanced the idea that Israel is not saved through faith in Christ (e.g. 46).

To stick close to the three-to-four page parameter of this assignment, I will just present a few of the more glaring errors in Gager’s conclusions. These should suffice to dismantle his premises that Jews can attain salvation apart from Christ.

Paul only preached to Gentiles in the synagogues?

One of Gager’s mantras is the claim that Paul’s audience was invariably Gentile, and therefore when Paul rejected such Israelite practices like circumcision, he only meant it applied to Gentiles (e.g. 52). Gager insisted Paul only ever focused on Gentiles (51, 68) to support his theory that Paul was not condemning OT ordinances for Jews since his audience was always Gentile. Yet Gager does not address Acts 18:4 which reads: “And [Paul] argued in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded Jews and Greeks.” Furthermore, Gager never considers that the reason Paul rejects OT ordinances for Gentiles could be because they neither save Gentiles nor Jews.

Christ not the Messiah for Jews?

Gager denied that Paul understood Jesus as the Messiah anticipated by the Jews. “For Paul, Jesus is neither a new Moses, nor the Messiah, he is not the climax of . . . God’s dealings with Israel, but he is the fulfillment of God’s promises concerning the Gentiles” (142). This is problematic. For example, in Acts 17, Paul preached in the synagogues “of the Jews” (v.1) that “[t]his Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ” (v.3). This resulted in some of them being persuaded as well as “many of the devout Greeks” (v.4). The context distinguishes part of the audience from the Greeks who were also there. Both parties were persuaded. To validate the notion that Jews were included as the intended audience of Paul’s preaching of Jesus as the Christ anticipated by the Jews, we can continue in Acts 17 when Paul and Silas preached to the Berean Jews. The Bereans searched the Scriptures to see if what Paul said about Christ was true. These Berean Jews, again distinct from the “Greeks” (v.12) present, believed.

Gager’s dismissal of Galatians 3:28

One of the more straightforward verses supporting the traditionalist view is Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” This is stated immediately after Paul teaches that baptism unites one to Christ. Gager denied that the Jew has any such connection to Jesus Christ, and certainly wouldn’t be bound to Christian baptism.

Gager expends few words on this verse, dismissing it by quoting his theological ally on this matter, Lloyd Gaston. Gaston says the purpose of this verse is to affirm that “as women do not need to become men . . . so Jews do not need to become Gentiles nor do Gentiles need to become Jews” (90). Gager adds: “It is a formula of inclusion, not exclusion” (90). Gager is correct that the verse is one of inclusion. But it does not mean what Gager argues throughout the book – that salvation for Jews is not in Christ. Gager’s brief dismissal does not reflect what the text says. The text says the Jews are among the “all” who are “one in Christ,” which is damning to Gager’s position. He gives these words in the verse no attention.

The irony in Gager’s escape here is that he insisted that traditionalists, ever looking at the text with “Western” (51) or “modern” (e.g. 72) bias “complete [Paul’s] sentences for him, to supply missing words, and . . . make explicit what he leaves unspoken” (23, cf. 110). Yet, this is precisely what Gager does to the text of Romans 3:28. The traditionalist view is consistent with the text. Jews are included – in Christ.

Gager’s dismissal of Romans 3:30

I will include the pertinent Greek words in the verse that reveal the flaw in Gager’s interpretation. Using Gager’s translation, Romans 3:30 reads: “God will justify the circumcised out of faith (ek pistis) and the uncircumcised through faith (dia pistis).” In verses 22, 24, and 26, Paul described faith as being “in Jesus.” However, Gager denies that verse 30’s two mentions of faith both refer to faith in Christ. He claims the different prepositions preceding the word faith indicate the different kinds of faith necessary to Jews and to Gentiles. He does not believe Paul is simply using different ways of saying both Jews and Gentiles are justified by faith in Christ.

Gager wrote: “[T]he use of different prepositions (ek and dia) with pistis points to different paths for Jews and Gentiles . . .” (121). The rule Gager imposed on the text is that ek pistis is faith for Jews and dia pistis is faith for Gentiles.

But this rule becomes extremely problematic when applying it to other verses. We see Paul using the term ek pistis in both Romans and Galatians to specifically refer to faith “in Christ” (e.g. Rom. 5:21, Gal. 3:22). Paul also uses the term dia pistis elsewhere to mean faith “in Christ” (e.g. Eph. 2:8). In other words, citing the Greek in Romans 3:30 only hurts Gager’s position because Paul used the terms ek pistis and dia pistis interchangeably to mean faith in Christ.

Audio MP3s: The X-Files & Catholicism

I put together the following one-time MP3 show called The X-Files & Catholicism. In this 2-part MP3, I go through the Catholic "moments" in the history of the The X-Files TV show with many audio clips from the show included. Occasionally, I'll discuss the accuracy of a Catholic portrayal or teaching, so it's small-part-apologetic too! An abbreviated written version of this study can be seen at the Catholic forums in a thread I started earlier this year. That thread also includes some "Catholic" screenshots from the show. Remember... The Truth is Out There... Enjoy!

The X-Files & Catholicism part I (54:38, 25.1MB)

The X-Files & Catholicism part II (1:02:43, 28.8MB)

.