On the Lord's Supper

[Guest]

Hello, Steve,

Thank you again for your latest response! I appreciate your taking the time to engage my ideas.

I don't look at it from the viewpoint of spiritualizing something physical , i see it as purely a spiritual abiding in Christ being confirmed by something physical which is not cannabalism by any stretch of the imagination. I think i understand your point how it could be viewed as offensive but i honestly don't think it was meant as imagery for anything physical but rather a metaphorical way of talking about abiding in Christ.

My point is that the imagery being used is unholy. Neither you nor I feel that actual cannibalism was taking place in the Last Supper, or even intended to be understood as taking place (cf. transubstantiation). The problem is that (according to the traditional understanding) an unholy symbolism was being invoked for a holy moment. Where else do we find an example of something unholy being introduced as the image for celebrating something holy? There is no reason that Jesus could not have utilized other imagery to serve his metaphorical purpose. Why would he have chosen such unholy imagery?

It may or may not be related to something hellanistic but it sure does sound similar to Isaiah 55 "Come all of you who are thirsty,come to the waters, and you who have no money, come buy and eat. Come buy wine and milk, without money and without cost. Why spend money on what is not bread, and your labor on what does not satisfy?"
This uses physical imagery but is describing a spiritual covenant through David and ultimately through Christ.

I have no objection to the use of physical imagery to express spiritual concepts. But Isaiah 55 does not introduce any unholy imagery. Bread, water, wine, and milk were all fully acceptable foods. My argument as framed above does not deny the use of physical emblems; in fact, it hinges upon the use of wine and bread as symbols for theological concepts.

As for John's agenda to portray Christ as a cosmic divine figure i've heard the identical criticisms made about Paul. Sounds like either they conspired together or they just believed they were telling the truth that Christ is the Son of God who came down from heaven.

It would not have been necessary for John and Paul to conspire together to arrive at similar conclusions; both labored in Hellenistic contexts, and could have been similarly motivated to develop their thought in similar directions. But on the other hand, there is no reason why the theological perspective of one could not have influenced the other. And it is quite possible that both fully believed they were preaching the truth - but their convincement does not make their concept(s) true. If Jesus were actually God, then the other gospels made a major omission when they failed to highlight this. What Christian today, if asked to tell the story of Jesus, would neglect to mention his divinity?

(BTW, we need to be very careful about conflating "son of God" language with a claim to divinity. The epithet "son of God" was a messianic metaphor from the Hebrew bible, without any implied ontological divinity.)

...probably Emmet is correct in that they were offended, the obvious question is why did Jesus use these descriptions.

Yes - why indeed?


Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hello, TK,

Thank you for your responses! I appreciate your taking the time to engage this topic.

it seems obvious to me, since Jesus knew he was about to die, that when he talked about taking the bread and wine in remembrance, this is exactly what he meant. in other words, "hey guys, i am about to die for you. i am going to be tortured and my blood will be spilled. so when you are together at times like this, remember what i did for you."

The scenario/interpretation that I have proposed does take Jesus' imminent martyrdom into account. The play off of Jewish liturgy is especially poignant in light of his imminent death, and the purpose of the covenant gains new dimension in light of its timing.

But beyond this, I would argue that the martyrdom of Jesus was not necessarily supposed to take the theological role that it wound up assuming in early Christian religion. If one looks at the eucharistic prayers in the Didache, they involve his messiahship and imagery of the kingdom, as well as celebration of his revealing life and knowledge. The Didache in no place makes mention to Jesus' death as being of theological significance, at least so far as relating to salvation theory.

It is not surprising that some followers of Jesus wanted to attribute cosmic significance to the horrific loss of their leader. This is a very natural human response to catastrophe. But the cosmic significance of Jesus might more properly be discerned in his life, rather than his death.

isnt that the simplest explanation?

"Simplest" is in the eye of the beholder. The traditional understanding may appear simplest because it is familiar, and because our culture is generally insensitive to Jewish paradigms - but the traditional understanding poses its own complications (as I have beaten like a dead horse ). I will acknowledge that my proposal above does not seem simple from our twentieth/twenty-first-century perspective, but the first-century context would have found different modes of interpretation to be rather more "simple" or obvious.

...arent we making the hearers of Jesus's teaching in John 6 kind of stupid-- i.e. do we really think that they took Jesus literally?-- i.e. that he was inviting them to take a bite out of him and tap his jugular vein? preposterous! they knew he was using an object lesson-- i think they purposefully chose to find the teaching distasteful so they wouldnt have to follow his hard teachings.

It is possible that the hearers were seizing upon a pretext for criticism, but 6:66 states that many of his disciples turned away from him over this saying, so even in this narrative the saying was not only problematic for a hostile audience. But John has a recurring motif of presenting characters as misunderstanding Jesus' imagery (e.g., Nicodemus and being "born again"), so we might chalk this up to John's literary foil. Given the character of John's gospel, there is no reason to assume that the exchange is historical.

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hi Emmett,

Sorry to intrude. This has been an interesting conversation which has given me something interesting to think about this morning.

The problem is that (according to the traditional understanding) an unholy symbolism was being invoked for a holy moment. Where else do we find an example of something unholy being introduced as the image for celebrating something holy?

Is the imagery of the cruxifiction another example since Gal 3:13 and Deut. 21:23 say:"...for he who is hanged is accursed of God."

Thanks

[Guest]

i think so, michelle. good one!

TK

[Guest]

Hello, Michelle,

Thank you for responding! You are not intruding at all .

Quote: The problem is that (according to the traditional understanding) an unholy symbolism was being invoked for a holy moment. Where else do we find an example of something unholy being introduced as the image for celebrating something holy?

Is the imagery of the cruxifiction another example since Gal 3:13 and Deut. 21:23 say:"...for he who is hanged is accursed of God."

Interesting suggestion. I suppose it would depend upon one's perspective. According to some Christian understanding, Jesus' crucifixion is not only a symbol of unholiness - it actually is unholiness. "Christ [became] a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is everyone that hangs on a tree" [Galatians 3:13]. Jesus, in assuming the sins of the world (from such a perspective) actually becomes sin for humankind and a thing accursed. "He made him who knew no sin [to be] sin on our behalf..." [2 Corinthians 5:21]. (Of course, none of this would hold from a Jewish perspective, since one person cannot die on behalf of the sins of another; that much is apparent from the Hebrew bible.)

But in any case the parallel is not exact. It is not forbidden to hang a person, nor is it forbidden to be hanged. It is forbidden, however, for either Jew or Gentile to eat blood. I probably should not have used "holy/unholy" language, because that is not strictly appropriate to the situation. I probably should have asked something like: "When else have the faithful been asked to act out something sinful as a symbol of something faithful?" It is one thing for ritual symbolism to employ the image of something sinful as a marker of something that actually is sinful, but in this case the act of faithfulness is being embodied in ritual pantomime of one of just a very few things forbidden to all humanity.

Thank you again for the privilege of your response!

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Emmett wrote:

"When else have the faithful been asked to act out something sinful as a symbol of something faithful?"

i believe God's command to Hosea to marry a prostitute and keep taking her back (to demonstrate His patience toward his faithless people) might fit this category.

TK

[Guest]

Emmett wrote:

Quote:
"When else have the faithful been asked to act out something sinful as a symbol of something faithful?"

In my mind God's command to Abraham to sacrifice his son would qualify.

[Guest]

It would not have been necessary for John and Paul to conspire together to arrive at similar conclusions; both labored in Hellenistic contexts, and could have been similarly motivated to develop their thought in similar directions. But on the other hand, there is no reason why the theological perspective of one could not have influenced the other. And it is quite possible that both fully believed they were preaching the truth - but their convincement does not make their concept(s) true. If Jesus were actually God, then the other gospels made a major omission when they failed to highlight this. What Christian today, if asked to tell the story of Jesus, would neglect to mention his divinity?


Emmet, The other gospels while not highlighting Jesus's divinity do strongly allude to it . For example when Jesus is sleeping in the boat with some disciples crossing over lake Galilee a violent storm engages them and Jesus calms the storm. The disciples say "what manner of man is this who commands the winds and the waves" which according to Psalms only God can control nature.
I don't agree with the rational that because the focus of John's gospel is different then the synoptics it implies something negative nor do i see any reason to not give John and Paul the benefit of the doubt. We can speculate almost anything about them but i start from a default position of believing them until specific evidence persuades me differently, but you're entitled to see it differently.
Re why Jesus seemed to delibertely offend his disciples, i'm just thinking out loud. If one believes Jesus is God the Son then i think he would have the authority and the right through his sovreignty to use this method to accomplish his aims which may have been to whittle down the disciples to a select few. In the OT was it necessary for all the Cannanites to be killed including women and babies? Apparently it was, so should we question Moses or Joshua about the authenticity of their writings because some things appear to make God a bit unloving or should we trust that God can see and know a whole heck of a lot more then us.
One thing is very clear to me which is that Jesus was not trying to win any popularity contests or save to many while he walked the earth. After all he called his disciples a "little flock."

[Guest]

Hello, TK,

Thank you for your response!

Quote: "When else have the faithful been asked to act out something sinful as a symbol of something faithful?"

i believe God's command to Hosea to marry a prostitute and keep taking her back (to demonstrate His patience toward his faithless people) might fit this category.

Actually, the specifics of Hosea have been under debate even within evangelical scholarship. It is not clear that Gomer is a prostitute when Hosea marries her in the beginning; her later activity may be what qualifies her for the epithet "wife of whoredoms."

But in any case, what we have here is more than acting out - what we have is actual commission. This would be a parallel to Jesus actually giving his disciples blood to drink. This raises the question of whether what God asked of Hosea was actually sinful. What sin, exactly, would you say Hosea committed? Which commandment was it that he was breaking? If it actually were a sin, then we have the theological problem of God commanding someone to sin, to break his commandment and his covenant. At such a juncture, we might fairly ask whether it was actually God doing the commanding or not.


Thank you again for your response, TK!

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

thanks emmett-- you caught me-- after i posted this i realized that Hosea wasnt being asked to do anything sinful. at most it can be said that God asked Hosea to do something distasteful, which is different. Thus, Hosea was not acting out anything sinful, but Gomer (assuming she was a prostitute) was. Hosea was acting out God's part (toward Israel). so i obviously "typed before thinking" which is never a wise enterprise on this forum.

TK