Is the Priesthood Essential?

Discussion in 'Faith, Devotion & Formation' started by Tiffy, May 17, 2020.

  1. bwallac2335

    bwallac2335 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    519
    Likes Received:
    260
    Religion:
    ACNA
    Perhaps create was not the correct wording to use but I am sure we all get what I meant. The church was never without an essential order of ministry. You see in the Book of Acts, where the Apostles replace Judas with a new Apostle and they continued to do likewise with other priests and bishops. That is how we know our priests and bishops stand in Apostolic order because they can trace their lineage all the way back to the Apostles in succession from those who the Apostles consecrated and then who the newly consecrated priests and bishops consecrated to follow them.
     
    Stalwart likes this.
  2. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,185
    Likes Received:
    601
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian
    Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.
    And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined.
    -- Justin Marytr, First Apology​

    I find it interesting that Justin did not say, "to the priest." Although he did name the deacons (as "those who are called [deacons] by us"). There was one of the brethren who 'presided.' I wish Justin had said more about this 'president.'
     
  3. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,261
    Likes Received:
    1,448
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Chapter 67. Weekly worship of the Christians
    And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.​

    It seems to me that the role Justin Martyr describes is not unlike the Parish Priest as we know it.
     
    Tiffy and Rexlion like this.
  4. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,185
    Likes Received:
    601
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian
    Yes, certainly not unlike... it's just puzzling that he doesn't call this person a priest or presbyter or bishop, or any familiar title. It almost sounds like the president is just one of the brethren, the one they all chose to lead the assembly and such.
     
    Tiffy likes this.
  5. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,261
    Likes Received:
    1,448
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Not at all, the role of the priest in the Eucharist is presiding. Indeed in the case of Justin Martyr's description it may well be a Bishop.
     
  6. Tiffy

    Tiffy Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,240
    Likes Received:
    413
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    But not a 'prince of the church' in the way Bishops are regarded today. The meaning of the word 'bishop' has shifted over time, as the church became more universally organised and politically synonymous with the state. Bishops at the time this was written would merely be an elected and respected leader of a local church, not a person elevated over local priests and deacons with diocesan oversight of an entire province, with considerable political power, as had become the case in the medieval era, and priests did not exist as the clerics we know of today, whose ordination is conferred by a 'prince of the church'.
    .
     
  7. Tiffy

    Tiffy Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,240
    Likes Received:
    413
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    True! The chuch has never in it's existence lacked oversight.
     
  8. Tiffy

    Tiffy Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,240
    Likes Received:
    413
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    Clearly a person of ability recognised as worthy of the role by the Christian community in the locality. The word assent even implying that the president is a spokesperson voicing the unity of agreement of the people, in what has been said. Hence the Amen, i.e. "We all agree".
    .
     
  9. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,527
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    We need to be careful: he never said "just".

    In other places, he teaches:
    John 6:32, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven."

    John 6:49, "Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die."

    John 6:53, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."

    In short our Lord makes a clear connection with the Old Testament manna; and if anything makes the Sacrament a stronger version of the manna, not weaker.

    Now, he also said this word remembrance. But he never used the English word 'remembrace' which to us is facile, deflated, and utterly worthless. The word we have in the Scriptures is 'anamnesis' which is charged with powerful intent and significance, because it has a liturgical significance in the Old and New Testaments to indicate an intense, nearly literal kinship with a past event or a past person. Those who sit on a couch, with chips on their t-shirt, and take a few moments to remember an ancestor, are not engaging in Anamnesis. Those who walk out in the rain, to lay flowers at the grave, with tears and joy, and spend the following day/week relating to their children the person, making him real in front of everyone's eyes -- they ARE engaging in Anamnesis.

    So our Lord is commanding us to engage in 1. this powerful Anamnesis (from within us); and 2. to receive the Body and Blood (from outside), which came down from heaven, even stronger than Manna.


    Are we reading the same St. Paul?
    1 Corinthians 10:1-4: "For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and all ate the same spiritual food; and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ."

    1 Corinthians 10:17: "Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread"

    1 Corinthians 10:27: "Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?"

    And that is why he says,
    1 Corinthians 10:27: "Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord."
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2020
  10. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,185
    Likes Received:
    601
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian
    I won't repeat the entire, detailed explanation I've posted elsewhere of my reasons why I believe this discourse of John 6 was not in regard to Eucharist, which hadn't yet taken place, but Jesus showed that He was the antitype of the manna which foreshadowed Him, and Jesus' words were about partaking of Him in "spirit" because "the flesh counts for nothing."

    Is the strength of our emotional response now a critical element in conducting a proper remembrance (anamnesis) as we receive the Eucharist?

    My question was, did Paul teach 'otherwise,' meaning, did Paul teach that receiving Eucharist is necessary for salvation or did he teach that receiving Eucharist is a means of receiving saving grace. In 1 Corinthians 10, I can see Paul saying that Eucharist is a sacred event in which God is present in a special way, and that the pillars of cloud and fire as well as the passing through the Red Sea were sacred events in which God was present in a special way. And also that God's providence to Israel way back then was a type and foreshadow of the coming Messiah. But I'm not seeing Paul say that receiving Eucharist is a necessary means of salvation or saving grace. If you do see this, perhaps you could expound further?
     
    Tiffy likes this.
  11. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,185
    Likes Received:
    601
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian
    Hmm, that's interesting also. Justin didn't say the president would pray according to the liturgy, according to tradition, or according to the prayer book; but "according to his ability." Did they extemporize the consecration invocation back then (around 155 A.D.)?
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2020
  12. Tiffy

    Tiffy Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,240
    Likes Received:
    413
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    I think that may have happened, though the words of Jesus and the action were very well known among the faithful, as Paul seems to indicate in the 1 Corinthians passage where he quotes them. They were already almost a primitive form of Catechism. If you didn't know them, you were not 'in the loop', so to speak.

    I think it probably more likely that (according to his ability) meant that the body of Christ, the church, already had a selection process going similar to our Bishops Advisory Panels in the Church of England, in principle, where vocations were tested and credentials and suitability for the role were examined before their 'ability' was considered adequate and suitable for the honoured role of Officiant or President.

    It is also pretty clear that in Corinth at least this was an actual real meal Paul was talking about, not just a symbolic ritual. They had real food and real drink and real fellowship, just as the last supper was a real meal, but with special significance. The problem at Corinth appears to have been wealthy believers being unwilling to share with the poorer hungry believers who tended sometimes to 'pig out' because they didn't know where their next square meal would be coming from. The church 'formalised' and 'ritualised' the Eucharist for the express reason of curbing the excesses mentioned in 1 Corinthians, and ensuring that the church's central fellowship meal remained dignified and orderly as befitting of a solemn but also joyful occasion.

    I think that, at that time it was largely regarded as a memorial meal, much as the feast of Passover had been memorial, wherein past events were commemorated and their significance to the current faith community expounded by an orator.
    .
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2020
    Rexlion likes this.
  13. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,261
    Likes Received:
    1,448
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    The didache may give you some insights. There is no doubt that in the primitive church liturgy as we would conceive it was at best in embryonic form. The Eastern Church lays claim to the earliest liturgies we have that are know, most notably the Liturgy of St James, though there are fragments I have heard of in the Coptic tradition (Liturgy of St Mark) which may be earlier.

    Most of the contemporary Western rites have some basis in the liturgy of hippolytus. It is clear that when Augustine reached England for the Latin Mission there were already alternative rites to the Gregorian rites he sought to bring to England, and in part that was resolved with some compromises, the Date of Easter being the big thing that the Celtic Church gave up.

    We simply do not have enough detail of the post Apostolic Church to know what really transpired. Most likely not everyone could read, however the conduct of the gatherings would have needed some reading, - gospel accounts, words of institution, letters, maybe even the Roman Symbol, so it is likely that those who had leadership in these communities were most likely literate, and quite possibly well enough off to have a house big enough for visitors.

    Things we know as part of the liturgy, reading scripture, the words of institution, a prayer of thanksgiving, would seem likely to have played a role. Justin Martyr writes in the context of a community of faith in transition, somewhere between the post apostolic and the pre conciliar Church. However they were not developing in a vacuum, the the other faith communities with whom they competed had the rites and rituals, and it is reasonable to think that some part of synagogue liturgy would have travelled into early Christianity.
     
  14. Tiffy

    Tiffy Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,240
    Likes Received:
    413
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    The other 'big thing' was haircuts. :laugh: :pray2: :pray3:
    .
     
  15. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,527
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    While the Lord's Supper had not yet taken place, that does not preclude our Lord's teaching about the eating his flesh. There are many times in his teaching where he says something which will only make more sense later, and his Apostles go away scratching their head completely befuddled; but after all is finished, what he meant then becomes understood.

    It's not an exaggeration to read John 6 in this context, because he says a lot about eating his flesh, repeating it in various forms six or seven different times. Eat my flesh, you must eat my flesh, without eating my flesh, those who eat my flesh. It's an incredible, unrelenting assault against those who say that there is nothing real other than emotions to the Christian faith.

    And let's be clear about the underlying Greek: his saying "eat my flesh" is not some metaphor or analogy for "believe unto me" or something like that. He says (eg. John 6:52-55),

    "The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?” Then Jesus said to them, “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."

    The original greek (from the 1550 Stephanus New Testament), is:

    52 εμαχοντο ουν προς αλληλους οι ιουδαιοι λεγοντες πως δυναται ουτος ημιν δουναι την σαρκα φαγειν
    53 ειπεν ουν αυτοις ο ιησους αμην αμην λεγω υμιν εαν μη φαγητε την σαρκα του υιου του ανθρωπου και πιητε αυτου το αιμα ουκ εχετε ζωην εν εαυτοις
    54 ο τρωγων μου την σαρκα και πινων μου το αιμα εχει ζωην αιωνιον και εγω αναστησω αυτον τη εσχατη ημερα
    55 η γαρ σαρξ μου αληθως εστιν βρωσις και το αιμα μου αληθως εστιν ποσις

    The words I have bolded there have the specific translation of "chew on". So not only is he specific about my flesh, and thereupon amplifying it with my blood (starkly opposite to just saying "me" in general); but the bolded verb he uses indicates manducation. It is obvious where the Romans took their doctrine of transubstantiation but thankfully the early Church never read these texts in that physical way (S. Augustine being a strong case). Nevertheless, they (and we) said that we do in a real and substantial way take, and even chew/gnaw/manducate on his Body verily, and truly indeed, understanding it to be his real spiritual body. So we gnaw on his spiritual flesh, and receive it through faith. It is a true, real, a verily reception, as our liturgy and the whole history of the Church testifies.


    You keep equating spiritual reception with a fake symbolic reception. Remember, to the Romans, unless it's physical it isn't real, which is an oddly atheistic tinge to the whole Roman theology. Are you sure you're not carrying over something of that? To us spiritual is 100% real, perhaps even more real than the physical. The physical is not the limit to our reality.


    The emotional response will be different in each person; I am talking about the personal investment in the action. If a person invests slightly in the action, it is memory, remembrance; if a person invests totally in the action, it is Anamnesis, which takes immense personal commitment and attachment to the person, and an investment to continue making them real in our and other's eyes.


    I see it from the opposite angle: he does not state that receiving it will save us; but he does say that receiving it wrongly will damn us. That's frankly as strong as the John 6 language.
     
    Botolph likes this.
  16. Tiffy

    Tiffy Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,240
    Likes Received:
    413
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    Jesus often used the rabbinic device of exaggeration to emphasise the importance of what he was saying, particularly when he was speaking to those who were 'hard of hearing' in metaphorical or spiritual senses.

    Take John 2:18-22 for instance.

    Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? Jesus answered and said unto them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up". Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body. When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

    Jesus having thrown out the money changers etc. from the temple, is challenged by the 'the Jews', (we can assume this means more specifically the Pharisees and Priests), to justify his actions.

    His reply is sufficiently confusing to the literalist Pharisees that they use it as an accusation at his trial. Mark 14:57-58.

    And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying, We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.

    So these witnesses did not actually purger themselves. They merely took literally what Jesus had actually said, without understanding what he meant.

    Which was: 'When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said'.

    There was a common belief that, after the time of troubles a new or restored temple would be granted to the people of God. The notion appears in many apocalyptic writings. What they failed to understand was that Jesus had predicted not just a renewal of or improvement upon Solomon's or Herod's temples but the body of Jesus himself was to become the place where God and man are united. So far as the church is the body of Christ, it is also the new temple.

    It is at least decidedly probable that the John 6:52-55 passage is not intended to be taken literally, even though it contains similarly exaggerated language.

    The explanation which follows at Jn. 6:57-65, uses eucharistic language and imagery as the introduction of blood, at Jn. 6:53-56 shows. It is however significant that Jesus speaks not of 'body and blood' but rather of 'flesh' and blood. This common biblical phrase points to the humanity of the son of man, which is indeed, Jn.6:55, that which supplies life to mankind.The discourse as a whole is summed up in Jn.6:57. The Father sent the Son, as (Son of man), and the Son lived not of his own account but by doing the Fathers will. (see Jn.4:34). Through Christ's complete sacrifice of himself arises the possibility that we may feed on Him, that is, may enter into relationship with the Son, similarly to the relationship the Son has with The Father; thus we will in turn have life. (see Jn.5:21). It is about being spiritually united with Christ, (i.e. regeneration), not about drinking human blood or eating human flesh in any literal or even in symbolic manner.
    The 'Remembrance' of Christ's death and resurrection, for all of us, is impossible. We were not present to witness the events so cannot possibly remember them. That is logically self evident. So the Eucharist is not really about remembrance of physical events, only about the retelling of their happening historically in time.

    The Eucharist is more about the recollection of spiritual events, of supreme significance to us, and the spiritual event it is intended to evoke is our own act of submission to Christ's regenerative power in our lives as Followers of The WAY. This can be either a historical event of years past and an immediate event actually at the table of The Lord the instant we understand the meaning of that which we partake in.

    Which nicely leads into the very truth of what you say here Stalwart:
    Though I think God is astonishingly tolerant of our ignorance, and extremely unwilling to 'damn' his children for mere stupidity, I agree with what Paul says at 1 Cor.11:29-32. However due reverence for the Eucharist need not involve likening it to canibalism in some super spiritual sense.
    .
     
    Rexlion likes this.
  17. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,185
    Likes Received:
    601
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian
    This is a fine little dance, weaving in between the literal and the metaphorical interpretations. One the one hand, you reject the idea that Jesus was speaking metaphorically or exaggeratedly. On the other hand, you also reject the obvious literal meaning of Jesus' words, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. This is the conclusion reached by the Romans, for the very reason that it is the literal understanding of Jesus' words. If this discourse were meant to be taken literally, then we are obliged to continue applying the literal understanding to these words just like to the others. Are we to assume that Jesus suddenly shifted course right in the middle and changed from literal to figurative? Upon what basis do we make that determination, unless it be by way of confirmation bias? Can we have our cake and eat it too? No. Either Jesus was speaking literally throughout this conversation or else he was speaking figuratively/metaphorically throughout.

    Literal or figurative: which should it be? Let's examine the passage for clues.

    John 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. Was Jesus going to produce beef from heaven? Was Jesus speaking of literal meat? Of course not. He was speaking figuratively.

    John 6:35 I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. Did Jesus intend anyone to understand that He is literal baked bread? Or that believers would never suffer from an empty belly or a parched mouth? This was figurative.

    John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. Again, is Jesus saying He personally is literal flour mixed with water and cooked into bread? Or that people could eat some sort of literal bread and not die? After all, the literal meaning of "live forever" is the absence of physical death. But once again we see that Jesus could not have been speaking literally.

    And then we get into John 6:53-56. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat (chew on) the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. To which you claim that "chew on" proves He was speaking of literal eating and drinking, but at the same time (and strangely enough) that "chew on" was not so literal as the Romanists take it. :dunno:

    But since we can plainly see that Jesus was speaking figuratively just prior to these verses, doesn't it make more sense to conclude that Jesus was still speaking figuratively in these verses? After all, the people in His audience knew it couldn't be literal (The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?) and His own disciples knew it couldn't be literal (This is an hard saying; who can hear it?). Why can't we take Jesus' word for the matter? He stated outright, the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. Jesus Himself explained it! He didn't say, "Look, you thick-headed people, my words are literal!" No, He said His words are spiritual... i.e., the words are non-literal.

    Tiffy has given us just one of the many, many great N.T. examples of Jesus' metaphorical sayings. We understand them as metaphors by examining the context of the remarks and applying deductive reasoning, exclusive of preconceptions.

    The Eucharist is a literal eating. But the John 6 discourse should not be used to 'prove' anything about the Eucharist, because in it Jesus was not discussing a literal "eating" but rather a spiritual reception of Himself (see verses 29, 39-40, 44-47 in which Jesus revealed the true importance of His message in the discourse). Jesus was saying, 'I am the Messiah. I am like the manna, only far better. I am going to die for your sins, and you have to receive that sacrifice as your own by faith and partake of My redemptive act spiritually by faith; then I will give you eternal life. Chew on that!'

    Peace! :)
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2020
    Tiffy likes this.
  18. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,527
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Literal — his body. The spiritual meat of his heavenly body.


    This is literally the bread and wine, pointing to the Body and Blood. Not sure why this is so difficult.


    He is literally saying that he is the manna that’s came down from heaven. The Hebrews were saved through manna, which was a prefiguring of us being saved by the sacrament. Is this really so hard? And the sacrament does not compete with faith, just as the Jews faith did not compete with the manna; they were saved by faith, AND saved by the manna. We are justified by faith, through works, unto salvation (etc); and what helps us on this journey through life is the manna, with the Body of Jesus come down from heaven. No issues for me.


    No they THOUGHT it couldn’t be literal. And when he said his ‘hard sayings’ they were so shocked by what he seemed to say, as you are, that they left him!

    John 6:61-64:
    “When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured ad at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? ... But there are some of you that believe not.”
    “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.”
     
  19. Tiffy

    Tiffy Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,240
    Likes Received:
    413
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    No they knew it couldn't be literal because if Jesus was being literal and not using metaphor then he was inciting them to break The Law of Moses. The ones that stayed with him knew he could not be inciting them to sin, so they stuck with him to find out more concerning what he had actually meant by his words. The ones that were scandalized were the ones that took offence, and the reason they took offense was because they took him literally at his word. Gen.9:4, Lev.17:10-16. Deut.12:23. Acts.15:20.

    What Jesus was hinting at was that HE was the reason the law against drinking blood existed. HE was the source of life and that life is the life of The Spirit, for flesh availeth nothing. John 6:63. John 3:1-21. John 1:12-13. John 1:16-17.
    .
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2020
  20. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,527
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Yup, the law against drinking fleshly blood. The blood he was commanding them to drink (his blood), was not red, didn't flow like a liquid, didn't have nutrients or t-cells; it was not a fleshly blood. Just like the flesh he was commanding them to eat was not the fleshly flesh. As you keep saying, the flesh availeth nothing.

    Eating and drinking fleshly body and blood was a sin. Eating and drinking spiritual and heavenly body was literally manna, something which the Hebrews had already partaken in the desert. Jesus and S. Paul are explaining that the manna from the desert, way back during the Old Testament exhile, was already the spiritual body and blood of the Consubstantial Son, the eternal Logos of the universe.

    And it's something which every Christian can avail himself of now, due to God's grace.

    We are to eat heavenly food, not fleshly food. I'm right there with you.

    This is precisely what the Romans keep getting wrong, because they think the physical flesh is what will save them. But there's a very real question about what kind of physical flesh Jesus even has in heaven, how material flesh can be in multiple places at once, how they can avoid the sin of cannibalism, and how they can avoid the charge of utter blasphemy when claiming that His Flesh is eaten by mice and pooped out in the toilet. The doctrine of any kind of physical presence is awful.

    And yet on the other hand, we have to maintain that the Jesus we consume is real, actual, true, verily so. And the only way to do that according to the Church is to remember that Jesus has a spiritual flesh and blood, and that perhaps we are able to eat of the divine essence itself, when the Hebrews ate the manna and when we receive the Sacrament.