There are several approaches one can take to discussing / debating the sacraments (in particular the Eucharist) with those who teach a “merely symbolic” view. Generally, those holding to a non-sacramental view believe in sola-scriptura, and this complicates the debate. Any argument you utilize (even from Scripture) may or may not be dismissed as mere adherence to tradition. As such, the debate on this issue typically falls back into a debate on sola-scriptura vs. not-sola-scriptura. One approach, then, is simply to argue against sola-scriptura.
A second approach is to refuse to engage in the sola-scriptura debate and to focus on deep exegetical debates over the relevant passages of Scripture. Ultimately, I do think this can succeed, but not in a short and casual debate. Additionally, though many won’t like what I’m about to say, the Scriptures have a lot of ambiguity. That makes debating over them rather difficult. It’s the same difficulty people have in debating over literature – there are “better” interpretations (more insightful, more honest to the text), but it is difficult to establish (on the basis of the text itself) a single, correct, interpretation. Indeed, even the literary theory (new historicist, formalist, phenomenological, etc.) can vary. In a certain sense, this is the real issue between sola-scriptura and more traditional systems. We agree (to a point) on the text, but have different theories of interpretation.
So a third approach, the one I prefer and will use in this post, is to utilize the debate over the meaning of the Eucharist to demonstrate WHY sola-scriptura produces more division and tradition works better to produce concrete answers. This works, in particular, because the earliest sources really do show a consensus on the meaning of communion. Why? Because the docetist heresy denied the Eucharist’s reality (along with denying that Christ ever had a body at all), and this gave occasion to orthodox writers to defend the reality of the Eucharist.
Continued below the jump.
So I’ll start with a scriptural analysis (albeit a surface level one). From there, I'll see if the early tradition of the church has anything to say on the matter, and see if that enlightens our view... By this, I intend to illustrate that scripture without reference to the understanding of the early church can be used to justify multiple positions, whereas scripture with reference to tradition limits our theological options (in a good, safety net sort of way), and, further, that the LIVING tradition (that is, the one learned from the Church) gives us the Truth in a way that is consistent with scripture, and consistent with the traditional understanding of that scripture.
For reference, I'll post three significant passages.
First, Matt 26:26-28
For reference, I'll post three significant passages.
First, Matt 26:26-28
"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples saying: 'Take, eat, this is my body.' Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying: 'Drink from it, all of you. For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."
In a very cursory analysis we note that there is no commandment to continue this sort of behavior. It could be viewed as implied (but that's what it would be - an implication; not a "clear" indication or direct statement by the text). So already, we have two different camps of legitimate understanding of this text:
- A) Those who say there is no command to continue the Eucharist
- B) Those who DO see this passage as a command to continue the Eucharist.
Another tricky part of this passage is the word "is." From a literary standpoint, it can indicate two things. One: it could indicate a metaphorical relationship. For example, "is" implies a metaphorical relationship in the following sentence: "Sally is a fat cow." Or, at least, if we assume that Sally is in fact a human being, that would be metaphorical. If Sally were a cow, then it reveals the second usage of "is" - direct equivalence. "Sally is a human.”
What is initially apparent in this passage is that bread does not "equal" flesh nor wine "blood." So we may be tempted to assume metaphor. However, we are talking about God here. And when Christ says "Before Abraham was, I AM" (there's that "is" verb again), we don't assume that to be metaphor just because man does not "equal" God. Instead, we view it in light of the incarnation - If God can become fully incarnate in man, being fully human and fully divine, then Christ - God - can become fully incarnate in bread and wine - fully bread and wine, fully flesh and blood, in the same sort of mystery present in the Incarnation.
Both interpretations, from a literary standpoint, are plausible. There's no surrounding context in the book of Matthew to tip us one way or the other. So now, we have four possible interpretations:
What is initially apparent in this passage is that bread does not "equal" flesh nor wine "blood." So we may be tempted to assume metaphor. However, we are talking about God here. And when Christ says "Before Abraham was, I AM" (there's that "is" verb again), we don't assume that to be metaphor just because man does not "equal" God. Instead, we view it in light of the incarnation - If God can become fully incarnate in man, being fully human and fully divine, then Christ - God - can become fully incarnate in bread and wine - fully bread and wine, fully flesh and blood, in the same sort of mystery present in the Incarnation.
Both interpretations, from a literary standpoint, are plausible. There's no surrounding context in the book of Matthew to tip us one way or the other. So now, we have four possible interpretations:
- 1) Those who think the bread and wine were flesh and blood, but do not consider this an ongoing commandment.
- 2) Those who think the bread and wine were not flesh and blood, but consider this to be metaphor, and do not think of this as an ongoing commandment.
- 3) Those who think of the bread and wine as metaphor, but do think of this as an ongoing commandment.
- 4) Those who think of the bread and wine as true flesh and true blood, and do think of this as an ongoing commandment.
All four of those are legitimate understandings of this text, just exegeting the text on its own. Let's see if the other two passages help narrow this down, or widen the gap a bit...
Second, John 6:33, 35, 47-51, 53-57, 66
Second, John 6:33, 35, 47-51, 53-57, 66
"For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world... I am the bread of life, He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst... Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life. I AM the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. I AM the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world... Most assuredly, I say to you, 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 food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in Me, and I in him..." From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.
Let's start with the first line: "For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." There's that dastardly "is" verb again, but this time it ties DIRECTLY into the incarnation v. "bread" discussion above. This passage directly refers to the incarnation (Christ coming down from heaven, as He says elsewhere in the passage). But He specifically refers to bread - that could be seen as implying a connection to the Eucharist / communion. Now we have four possibilities here, that I can see:
- 1) He could mean literal bread, but not Eucharistic bread.
- 2) He could mean figurative bread (in connecting this with the manna from heaven), but not be referring to communion.
- 3) He could mean literal bread, AND connect it with the manna from heaven (Eucharist)
- 4) He could mean figurative bread, but still preserve the connection to communion as symbolic.
Some of those mesh rather nicely with the four possibilities from the passage above, some mix and match, some are incompatible. Essentially, the number of legitimate "harmonizings" of these two passages is growing exponentially... One could mix passage one option four with passage two option three, or passage one option 1 with passage two option four or one or two... take your pick. Let's keep going...
"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life."
Well, this could be taken a number of ways as well. I'll focus on its implications for the Eucharistic possibilities of this passage, skipping the Soteriological implications. I see two strong possibilities, I'm sure there are others:
"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life."
Well, this could be taken a number of ways as well. I'll focus on its implications for the Eucharistic possibilities of this passage, skipping the Soteriological implications. I see two strong possibilities, I'm sure there are others:
- Some might take this as implying a purely symbolic reading for the passage, saying that this shows that by "eat and drink" Christ only meant "have faith." However, the passage doesn't directly state that implication. It's possible, but it's also possible that...
- Christ meant one must have faith to have life, and eat His flesh and drink His blood to have life. This has two sub-possibilities:
- For the crowd that believe the communion is a commandment but is purely symbolic, they could agree that one must eat His flesh and drink His blood, but that, once again, these are just metaphors.
- For the Eucharist crowd, this fits fine as well. They see Eucharist as a command and as literal flesh and blood. Now they simply have to agree that one must also have faith.
Still haven't narrowed down the initial four, nor have we narrowed down the four options for understanding this passage as per its first line. We'll have to keep looking.
I could continue with every line, but I'll skip to the one most likely to be contentious:
"Most assuredly I say to you, 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 on the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in Me, and I in him."
Score one for the Eucharistic crowd, right! I mean, this says it "clearly": "my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." The symbolist has recourse, though: perhaps this doesn't refer to bread and wine... it doesn't explicitly say "my flesh is real BREAD" does it? What if the "real food" isn't physical? It doesn't say "real, physical bread," does it? Furthermore, wouldn't "spiritual" bread that one received by faith still fit the "food" moniker in this metaphor? It would be "real food" for the soul, though. Additionally, there's the possibility that Christ is using hyperbole here.
So all four initial possibilities remain. The Eucharist-is-a-command-and-is-really-Christ crowd might be "ahead" here, thanks to that last line – but, ultimately, we haven't narrowed anything down. Furthermore, we've multiplied the possibilities, since many of the initial four options from the Matthew passage are combinable with multiple of the different possibilities for each line of this passage. I haven't done the math, but we could be up to as many as 16 possible understandings of how to harmonize these two passages without reference to any outside material or pre-conceived theological or practical assumptions. Let's see if Paul has anything to say about that...
Third, 1 Cor 11:20-32
I could continue with every line, but I'll skip to the one most likely to be contentious:
"Most assuredly I say to you, 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 on the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in Me, and I in him."
Score one for the Eucharistic crowd, right! I mean, this says it "clearly": "my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." The symbolist has recourse, though: perhaps this doesn't refer to bread and wine... it doesn't explicitly say "my flesh is real BREAD" does it? What if the "real food" isn't physical? It doesn't say "real, physical bread," does it? Furthermore, wouldn't "spiritual" bread that one received by faith still fit the "food" moniker in this metaphor? It would be "real food" for the soul, though. Additionally, there's the possibility that Christ is using hyperbole here.
So all four initial possibilities remain. The Eucharist-is-a-command-and-is-really-Christ crowd might be "ahead" here, thanks to that last line – but, ultimately, we haven't narrowed anything down. Furthermore, we've multiplied the possibilities, since many of the initial four options from the Matthew passage are combinable with multiple of the different possibilities for each line of this passage. I haven't done the math, but we could be up to as many as 16 possible understandings of how to harmonize these two passages without reference to any outside material or pre-conceived theological or practical assumptions. Let's see if Paul has anything to say about that...
Third, 1 Cor 11:20-32
Therefore, when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the Church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you. For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me." In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes. Therefore, whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged, But when we are judged we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.
Here we go! What John 6 was for the Eucharist crowd, this certainly is for the "symbolic crowd" - no matter what wrinkle of that group one finds oneself in after the first 2 passages. St. Paul "clearly" says "do this in remembrance" right? That means metaphor, and since he's quoting Christ, he's quoting the first Eucharist - he's quoting a similar saying to the one found in Matthew, but with additional detail - remembrance. That means metaphor, right? And since Paul indicates that churches are doing their own version of this last supper together, we have evidence that the apostles believed this to be an ongoing command. Option three from the Matthew passage wins. It's clear. It's obvious. Wahoo!
But wait just a minute. The Eucharist crowd isn't done yet. Remembrance carries with it, in particular with regards to Paul's statement that this act "proclaims the Lord's death till He comes," an implication of funeral remembrance. We're commemorating a death. Bodies are often present at funeral commemorations, aren't they? Nothing stops it from being remembrance just because it happens to actually have the body really truly present. We don't go to a funeral that someone calls a "remembrance" service, see the body, and scoff because we assumed it was "metaphorical" when they said that our departed friend was going to be there just because they called it a "remembrance." The passage doesn't explicitly say "metaphorical remembrance." It doesn't say that the elements are 'just symbols.' Furthermore, it specifically DOES say that those who eat and drink of this service in an unworthy manner are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord - hard to be guilty of violating something that isn't even present, isn't it? And how can I "fail to discern the body" (as per the end of the passage) if the body isn't present?
The symbolist will fire back that each of those things can be seen metaphorically, and that the passage is more about spiritual states of being when coming together as a Church - not about Eucharist and elements of bread and wine / body and blood.
Furthermore, since the passage doesn't specifically command this to continue until Christ's second coming (but just says "as often as you do this" - which could imply choice), we could still assert the first options of the Matthew passage which say that the Eucharist was not an ongoing commandment. We can CHOOSE to imitate it, but it wasn't a command nor was it central to the gospel in any way.
Goodness me! We've gotten nowhere. Some passages seem to line up perfectly for one group, some for another, all are compatible, and we've no real progress made. What will determine which camp one falls into? That depends on the individual. Some who are inclined towards self-criticism and free thinking will make up their own mind based on "what makes sense to them" and then go find a church that believes that. Some will allow a preacher or teacher to tell them the "answer" and then follow them zealously. Some will wallow in indecision, doing nothing and believing nothing. Some will pick arbitrarily, assuming their first instinct is correct. Some will be any of the above at different times and in different places.
But wait just a minute. The Eucharist crowd isn't done yet. Remembrance carries with it, in particular with regards to Paul's statement that this act "proclaims the Lord's death till He comes," an implication of funeral remembrance. We're commemorating a death. Bodies are often present at funeral commemorations, aren't they? Nothing stops it from being remembrance just because it happens to actually have the body really truly present. We don't go to a funeral that someone calls a "remembrance" service, see the body, and scoff because we assumed it was "metaphorical" when they said that our departed friend was going to be there just because they called it a "remembrance." The passage doesn't explicitly say "metaphorical remembrance." It doesn't say that the elements are 'just symbols.' Furthermore, it specifically DOES say that those who eat and drink of this service in an unworthy manner are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord - hard to be guilty of violating something that isn't even present, isn't it? And how can I "fail to discern the body" (as per the end of the passage) if the body isn't present?
The symbolist will fire back that each of those things can be seen metaphorically, and that the passage is more about spiritual states of being when coming together as a Church - not about Eucharist and elements of bread and wine / body and blood.
Furthermore, since the passage doesn't specifically command this to continue until Christ's second coming (but just says "as often as you do this" - which could imply choice), we could still assert the first options of the Matthew passage which say that the Eucharist was not an ongoing commandment. We can CHOOSE to imitate it, but it wasn't a command nor was it central to the gospel in any way.
Goodness me! We've gotten nowhere. Some passages seem to line up perfectly for one group, some for another, all are compatible, and we've no real progress made. What will determine which camp one falls into? That depends on the individual. Some who are inclined towards self-criticism and free thinking will make up their own mind based on "what makes sense to them" and then go find a church that believes that. Some will allow a preacher or teacher to tell them the "answer" and then follow them zealously. Some will wallow in indecision, doing nothing and believing nothing. Some will pick arbitrarily, assuming their first instinct is correct. Some will be any of the above at different times and in different places.
And some, despite really being one of the above, will claim inspiration by the Holy Spirit. That’s when the debate gets fun. The Holy Spirit cannot contradict Himself – God is Truth! The SAME thing the Holy Spirit was revealing in the early church, doctrinally speaking, should be revealed to us today. So if someone claims the Holy Spirit as their reason to prefer their interpretation over some other interpretation, the traditionalist has a tremendous recourse to demand looking at how the Holy Spirit has inspired believers in the PAST (that is, recourse to TRADITION).
Aside from such a bold claim as inspiration from God, though, it seems entirely subjective. Can we possibly gain some insight into what the early church did from her writings? I will attempt to do so in my next post, which I'll begin typing immediately. In it, I will examine the Eucharistic discussions of the early church, I'll offer a few lines from the liturgy, commentary on the Matthew passage by the Orthodox Church, and explain what I've been taught by the contemporary Church. By this, I hope to show a consistent, single line of succession teaching ONE of the above four options (that the Eucharist is a command of God and IS Christ's body and blood, in an Incarnational sense).
Aside from such a bold claim as inspiration from God, though, it seems entirely subjective. Can we possibly gain some insight into what the early church did from her writings? I will attempt to do so in my next post, which I'll begin typing immediately. In it, I will examine the Eucharistic discussions of the early church, I'll offer a few lines from the liturgy, commentary on the Matthew passage by the Orthodox Church, and explain what I've been taught by the contemporary Church. By this, I hope to show a consistent, single line of succession teaching ONE of the above four options (that the Eucharist is a command of God and IS Christ's body and blood, in an Incarnational sense).
That post will likely go up tomorrow.
In Christ,
Macarius
No comments:
Post a Comment