The Noble Bereans

We're getting a bit long in the comments on the prior post, so I thought I would post a new one up for continuing discussion.

Jennie wrote: The Lord didn't GIVE us the church, we ARE the church. He gave us the Holy Spirit and His word and the Spirit gifts each of us in different ways, including men who can teach and lead others. We all have the Holy Spirit to teach and guide us, however, and have the responsibility to compare teachings to scripture, as those often cited Bereans did.

Barbara replied: Never mind that in the context of Acts 17 the Bereans were obviously comparing Paul's teachings to the Hebrew Scriptures (not the NT). Secondly the Bereans are being held up as nice guys because they are willing to listen to give Paul's story a fair chance instead of rising up against him like those in Thessalonica. Third, no where does it say that to be a like a Berean one must compare teachings to scripture on a regular basis to make sure they are true or that everyone should be like the Bereans to be a Christian.

If anything, the Berean story reflects fair-minded tolerance for listening to another's viewpoint and giving it fair consideration instead of just striking out at those who say things you don't want to hear.

I understand that "being a Berean" has become some sort of rallying cry for some sola scriptura Christians, but I think it has been blown way out of Biblical context.


Barbara reminded me privately of an article written by Steve Ray for Catholic apologetics magazine This Rock, back in 1997. It is available online here.

When Protestants use this passage as a proof text for the doctrine of sola scriptura, they should realize that those in question were not Christians; they were Hellenistic Jews. There was no doctrine of sola scriptura within Jewish communities, but the Scriptures were held as sacred. Although the Jews are frequently referred to as "the people of the book," in reality they had a strong oral tradition that accompanied their Scriptures, along with an authoritative teaching authority, as represented by the "seat of Moses" in the synagogues (Matt. 23:2). The Jews had no reason to accept Paul’s teaching as "divinely inspired," since they had just met him. When new teachings sprang up that claimed to be a development of Judaism, the rabbis researched to see if they could be verified from the Torah.

If one of the two groups could be tagged as believers in sola scriptura, who would it be, the Thessalonians or the Bereans? The Thessalonians, obviously. They, like the Bereans, examined the Scriptures with Paul in the synagogue, yet they rejected his teaching. They rejected the new teaching, deciding after three weeks of deliberation that Paul’s word contradicted the Torah. Their decision was not completely unjustified from their scriptural perspective. How could the Messiah of God be cursed by hanging on a tree like a common criminal, publicly displayed as one who bore the judgment of God? What kind of king and Messiah would that be? This seemed irreconcilable to them (see Simon J. Kistemaker, Acts [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1990], 614).

When some of the Greeks and prominent citizens did accept Jesus as Messiah, the Jews became jealous—and rightfully so, from their perspective, since the new believers separated themselves from the synagogue and began meeting elsewhere, at Jason’s house. The Jews naturally considered themselves the authoritative interpreters of the Torah. Who were the Gentiles to interpret Scripture and decide important theological issues or accept additional revelation? They were the "dogs," not the chosen custodians of the oracles of God (see William Barclay, The Acts of the Apostles [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster Press, 1976], 128).

We can see, then, that if anyone could be classified as adherents to sola scriptura it was the Thessalonian Jews. They reasoned from the Scriptures alone and concluded that Paul’s new teaching was "unbiblical."

The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept Paul’s new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:13). The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were noble-minded precisely because they "received the word with all eagerness." Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded—not that they searched the Scriptures. A perusal of grammars and commentaries makes it clear that they were "noble-minded" not for studying Scripture, but for treating Paul more civilly than did the Thessalonians—with an open mind and generous courtesy (see I. Howard Marshall, "The Acts of the Apostles" in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1981], 5:280).

Invincible Ignorance Exhibit A

The Catholic church, for years, tried its best to keep the Bible from getting into the common people's hands. They even killed people who tried to get the Word of God to the common man. However, the Word of God has always been available to anyone who seeks for it, as Christ promised. 


Sometimes Candy's lack of world history knowledge astounds me. None of it surprises me however.  Her perspective of the Church and the Bible is directly influenced by Samuel Gipp whom I wrote an entire series on here.

Contrary to what Candy thinks, it was the Catholic church that got the scriptures into the hands of the common man.  First of all the Catholic Church determined which books should be preserved and in the canon and then under the authority of the pope, the canon of the bible was closed.  That canon remained intact until Martin Luther and the Reformation.  So the Protestant bible is only 500 years or so old.  Prior to that, it was the Catholic version used by Christendom.

Secondly, the church preserved the written word with great perseverance. Before the printing press, scripture had to be COPIED BY HAND. The volumes were HUGE.  And although anti-Catholics like Candy will bash the church for having copies of the bible chained in the church, it wasn't to prevent the people from having access to them, but rather to make sure everyone could have access to them! Much like important volumes in the public library available to all but not available for check out and circulation.

Thirdly, the church kept the word of God alive ORALLY and in art and music because the great majority of people COULD NOT READ! The beautiful art in the great churches and cathedrals wasn't just there for atmosphere - it's there to help the people learn the bible stories and to inspire them.

Fourthly, I would point out that prior to the printing press, and a mass distribution system, producing cheap, easy to produce and distribute copies of the bible, owning a bible would have been prohibitive anyway, which is another reason I think sola scriptura is erroneous.

Here is an excerpt from How We Got the Bible - Henry Graham:
Now one could go on at any length accumulating evidence as to the fact of monks and priests reproducing and transmitting copies of the Bible from century to century, before the days of Wycliff and Luther; but there is no need, because I am not writing a treatise on the subject, but merely adducing a few proofs of my assertions, and trying to show how utterly absurd is the contention that Rome hates the Bible, and did her best to keep it a locked and sealed book and even to destroy it throughout the Middle Ages. Surely nothing but the crassest ignorance or the blindest prejudice could support a theory so flatly contradicted by the simplest facts of history. The real truth of the matter is that it is the Middle Ages which have been a closed and sealed book to Protestants, and that only now, owing to the honest and patient researches of impartial scholars amongst them, are the treasures of those grand centuries being unlocked and brought to their view. It is this ignorance or prejudice which explains to me a feature that would be otherwise unaccountable in the histories of the Bible written by non-Catholics. I have consulted many of them, and they all, with hardly an exception, either skip over this period of the Bible's existence altogether or dismiss it with a few off-hand references. They jump right over from the inspired writers themselves, or perhaps from the fourth century, when the Canon was fixed, to John Wycliff, 'The Morning Star of the Reformation', leaving blank the intermediate centuries, plunged, as they imagine, in worse than Egyptian darkness. But I ask—Is this fair or honest? Is it consistent with a love of truth thus to suppress the fact, which is now happily beginning to dawn on the more enlightened minds, that it was the monks and clergy of the Catholic Church who, during all these ages, preserved, multiplied, and perpetuated the Sacred Scriptures? The Bible on its human side is a perishable article. Inspired by God though it be, it was yet, by the Providence of God, written on perishable parchment with pen and ink; liable to be lost or destroyed by fire, by natural decay and corruption, or by the enemies, whether civilised or pagan, that wasted and ravaged Christendom by the sword, and gave its churches and monasteries and libraries to the flames. Who, I ask, but the men and women, consecrated to God by their vows and devoted to a life of prayer and study in monasteries and convents, remote from worldly strife and ambition—who but they saved the written Word of God from total extinction, and with loving and reverent care reproduced its sacred pages, to be known and read of all, and to be handed down to our own generation, which grudges to acknowledge the debt it owes to their pious and unremitting labours?

When was the Old Testament compiled? Some would decide for about the year 430 B.C., under Esdras and Nehemiah, resting upon the authority of the famous Jew, Josephus, who lived immediately after Our Lord, and who declares that since the death of Ataxerxes, B.C. 424, 'no one had dared to add anything to the Jewish Scriptures, to take anything from them, or to make any change in them.' Other authorities, again, contend that it was not till near 100 B.C. that the Old Testament volume was finally closed by the inclusion of the 'Writings'. But whichever contention is correct, one thing at least is certain, that by this last date—that is, for 100 years before the birth of Our Blessed Lord—the Old Testament existed precisely as we have it now.

Of course, I have been speaking so far of the Old Testament, in Hebrew, because it was written by Jewish authority in the Jewish language, namely, Hebrew, for Jews, God's chosen people. But after what is called the 'Dispersion' of the Jews, when that people was scattered abroad and settled in many other lands outside Palestine, and began to lose their Hebrew tongue and gradually became familiar with Greek, which was then a universal language, it was necessary to furnish them with a copy of their Sacred Scriptures in the Greek language. Hence arose that translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek known as the Septuagint. This word means in Latin 70, and is so named because it is supposed to have been the work of 70 translators, who performed their task at Alexandria, where there was a large Greek-speaking colony of Jews. Begun about 280 or 250 years before Christ, we may safely say that it was finished in the next century; it was the acknowledged Bible of all the 'Jews of the Dispersion' in Asia, as well as in Egypt, and was the Version used by Our Lord, His Apostles and Evangelists, and by Jews and Gentiles and Christians in the early days of Christianity. It is from this Version that Jesus Christ and the New Testament writers and speakers quote when referring to the Old Testament.

But what about the Christians in other lands who could not understand Greek? When the Gospel had been spread abroad, and many people embraced Christianity through the labours of Apostles and missionaries in the first two centuries of our era, naturally they had to be supplied with copies of the Scriptures of the Old Testament (which was the inspired Word of God) in their own tongue; and this gave rise to translations of the Bible into Armenian and Syriac and Coptic and Arabic and Ethiopic for the benefit of the Christians in these lands. For the Christians in Africa, where Latin was best understood, there was a translation of the Bible made into Latin about 150 A.D., and, later, another and better for the Christians in Italy; but all these were finally superseded by the grand and most important version made by St Jerome in Latin called the 'Vulgate'—that is, the common, or current or accepted Version. This was in the fourth century of our era. By this time St Jerome was born, there was great need of securing a correct and uniform text in Latin of Holy Scripture, for there was danger, through the variety and corrupt conditions of many translations then existing, lest the pure scripture should be lost. So Jerome, who was a monk, and perhaps the most learned scholar of his day, at the command of Pope St Damascus in 382 A.D., made a fresh Latin Version of the New Testament (which was by this time practically settled) correcting the existing versions by the earliest Greek MSS. he could find. Then in his cell at Bethlehem, between (approximately) the years 392-404, he also translated the Old Testament into Latin directly from the Hebrew (and not from the Greek Septuagint)—except the Psalter, which he had previously revised from existing Latin Versions. This Bible was the celebrated Vulgate, the official text in the Catholic Church, the value of which all scholars admit to be simply inestimable, and which continued to influence all other versions, and to hold the chief place among Christians down to the Reformation

Early Bibles

I had planned to write about the virtue of hope today, but it looks as if that might be put on the back burner. I had time to post a few comments at lunch, but now I need to get back to real life. Hopefully, I can write more this evening.

I'm putting my comments and Candy's here for reference, as comments are not archived on her site. Although Candy did not post all of my comments, she was very polite about it.

They hid their Bibles inside of the lining of their jackets.

They might have smuggled Bibles in wooden barrels, but the manuscripts for that time period were huge! It would be impossible to fit more than Philemon, Jude, or other short letters inside a cloak (jackets weren't worn at that time).

The common language of that time would have been either Latin or Greek, for those who could read. --Kelly


I also submitted this comment separately, because I was pretty sure she wouldn't post it:

The Catholic church didn't come into existence until about 300 years later.

I'm curious, if you don't think the Catholic Church came into existence until close to the year 400, then how do you explain the writings of the early Christians which had so many Catholic elements?

For example, Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp both mention being part of the Catholic church, and they wrote in the 100s. They also write about Jesus being physically present in the Eucharist, actually using the word Eucharist, as well as priests and bishops, and other elements that you would consider Catholic.

It is easy to find these writings online. They are usually referred to as the Apostolic Fathers or Early Church Fathers.

I'm not actually aware of any early Christian writings which don't contain at least some Catholic elements, but if you have run across some references to them in your research, then please let me know so I can look them up. --Kelly


Candy replies to the first comment, and declines the second:

Kelly, they weren't carring around scrolls and stone tablets. They were carrying around the Bible, translated into Latin (NOT Jeromes' Vulgate, which came years later, and is seriously corrupted). Bibles were very small - the Latin was handwritten, and was in VERY small print.

Many of the common pre-wycliffe Bibles were so small, that once could almost fit it in the back pocket of a pair of Jeans.

The Bibles were made small, partially for the purpose of hiding them from those who wished to burn the Bibles.

pre-wycliffite Bibles are in several museums - some of those Bibles were TINY. Many Wycliffite Bibles were very small as well.

BTW, they didn't necessariy have both old and new testaments on these missionary journeys. Sometimes it was the Gospels and some of the writings of Paul. The O.T. was always available in the major Synagoges. Meanwhile, all of the Bible could be read from people who had it, and shared it, like the Vaudois and others.

Bible memorization was a major theme then as well. Whole books of the Bible were commited to heart, recited to crowds, and then those crowds commited it to heart.


I responded:

Kelly, they weren't carring around scrolls and stone tablets. . .Bibles were very small - the Latin was handwritten, and was in VERY small print.

I'm not sure what you mean by stone tablets, because that is an entirely different time period. But the Bible wasn't put into bound book form (called a codex) until the 400s. If the Bible was spread prior to that time, then it would have been in scrolls, and made of parchment or vellum.

The print may be small, and without spaces between words, but it still took up a lot of space. Vellum doesn't fold into a small book very easily, either.

pre-wycliffite Bibles are in several museums - some of those Bibles were TINY. Many Wycliffite Bibles were very small as well.

What exactly do you mean by pre-wycliffite Bible? Anything before the 14th century? Do you remember any of the museums offhand, because a lot of museums have their collections online now. I've just never seen anything from that time period, Bible or not, that wasn't enormous.

For example, the Codex Sinaiticus is available for online viewing here:
http://www.codex-sinaiticus.net/en/manuscript.aspx

I realize you feel that it is a corrupt manuscript, but other manuscripts would have used the same materials, and taken up approximately the same amount of space. --Kelly


Kelly, I don't have the time to get into a full discussion of Bible history here on my blog with you - as that would require that I answer you fairly quickly, instead of when I have time.

Therefore, I extend this invitation to you... If you truly with to discuss this, then let me know, and I'll email you, and we can discuss it via email, where we don't have to answer each other right away, but answer when we have the time.

My final response:
I really appreciate that Candy! Thank you so much for the answer. Please e-mail at your convenience. --Kelly

Did the Catholic Church Give Us The Bible?

According to Candy's sidebar, she is now reading Did the Catholic Church Give Us The Bible? by David Daniels. As Jack Chick is the illustrator, I would venture to guess that the book will conclude that the Catholic Church did not give us the Bible.

As an alternative, I suggest reading Where We Got The Bible: Our debt to the Catholic Church by Rev. Henry Graham. Available to read online.

You might also read through a series Elena did a while back, when Candy was reading a different history of the Bible.

A review of John 6 and the Eucharist for Candy.

In light of Candy's look at John 6 today, Kelly and I thought it was important to bring this article forward from last fall.  

John 6:51-55

A There is good news here. I don't have to have a "take" on it, I just need to read the Bible, and see what it says about said passage. Roman Catholics take these verses and try to use them to prove that their IHS cracker in each mass is Jesus Christ Himself. However, that is NOT at all what said passage says. RCs are stopping at verse 55 or earlier, and are therefore interpreting the scripture incorrectly. Lets follow the biblical principle of scripture interpreting scripture, shall we? Is it okay to drink blood? NO:

Well let's look at the entire passage then.


Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
48
I am the bread of life.
49
Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
50
this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
51
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."
52
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?"
53
Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54
Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
Remember this is where Candy says we Catholics stop and therefore misinterpret the passage.
56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."
59
These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60
20 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?"
61
Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "Does this shock you?
62
What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 21
63
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh 22 is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
64
But there are some of you who do not believe." Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
65
And he said, "For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father."
66
As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

I find this quite stunning. The disciples reject Christ's teaching of the Eucharist at John 6:66. 666!

"
67
Jesus then said to the Twelve, "Do you also want to leave?"
68
Simon Peter answered him, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
69
We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God."
70



Now back to Candy Brauer's comments.

"Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people." -Leviticus 7:27

"That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood." -Acts 15:29a

It is clear that it is a both Old and New Testament command that we are not to drink or eat blood. God is consistent, and He does not contradict Himself.

Since the Bible is the Word of God, it cannot contradict itself, thus, Jesus can't literally mean that we are going to eat his flesh and drink his blood, and he didn't mean that. He explains to the disciples that what he said was not literal. Read further in the same chapter:

If Candy has such a love for the Old Testament, she might learn something THE EUCHARIST’S LONG SHADOW ACROSS THE BIBLE (This Rock: January 1999)"from this article.

In the sacrifice of Isaac and the offering of Melchizedek there is a Eucharistic imprint that deserves serious consideration and prayerful meditation. In fact, the Eucharist is present in the three distinct stages of salvation history: In the Old Testament it is present as a type; with the arrival of the Messiah it is present as the event; and in the age of the Church it is present as a sacrament. The purpose of the figure or type was to prepare for the event, and the purpose of the sacrament is to continue the event by actualizing it in Jesus’ mystical body, the Church.

From the marital-covenantal theme that the Holy Spirit inaugurates in Genesis and develops in the succeeding books of the Bible until its culmination in the marriage feast of the Lamb (Rev. 21), the Eucharist is seen as the sublime consummation of Christ’s marital oneness with his bride. This union is anticipated in the covenants God established with the human race through Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Esra, and Nehemiah, all of which find their fulfillment in the marital covenant that Christ established with his church: "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood" (Lk. 22:20).

In a profound sense, as Raniero Cantalamessa points out in his book The Eucharist, Our Sanctification, the "entire Old Testament was a preparation for the Lord’s Supper" (p. 6). In Matthew’s Gospel Jesus proclaims the parable of the "king who gave a marriage feast for his son and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the marriage feast" (Mt. 22:2–3). In this light, those servants can be seen as the Old Testament prophets.

The first of these was Melchizedek. St. Paul declares that Jesus is "a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek" (Heb. 6:20) who, in offering bread and wine, is clearly a type of Christ (Heb. 7:1 ff; Ps. 110:4; Gen. 14:18). John’s Gospel (6:31) makes the connection between the Eucharist and the manna Yahweh sent to feed the Israelites in the desert (Ex. 16:4 ff), but it is Jesus who shows that the manna is a mere foreshadowing of the "true bread from heaven" (Jn. 6:32–33).

The greatest Old Testament figure of the Eucharist is the Passover (Ex. 12:23). That night when God smote all the first-born of the Egyptians, he spared the first-born of Israel. Why? "The blood shall be a sign for you upon the houses where you are; and when I see the blood I will pass over you, and no plague shall fall upon you to destroy you (Ex. 12:13). But was it the blood of the Passover lamb alone, into which a hyssop was dipped to sprinkle blood on their doorposts, that saved the Israelites? No. This was a type: What God foreshadowed by it was the blood of the Lamb of God—the Eucharist.

Catholics understand that we are not eating Christ's earthly mortal body the same as when he lived on earth 2000 years ago. We instead are partaking of his mystical body that, the resurrected body.

The word "mystery" is commonly used to refer to something that escapes the full comprehension of the human mind. In the Bible, however, the word has a deeper and more specific meaning, for it refers to aspects of God's plan of salvation for humanity, which has already begun but will be completed only with the end of time. The Eucharist is a mystery because it participates in the mystery of Jesus Christ and God's plan to save humanity through Christ. We should not be surprised if there are aspects of the Eucharist that are not easy to understand, for God's plan for the world has repeatedly surpassed human expectations and human understanding. For example, even the disciples did not at first understand that it was necessary for the Messiah to be put to death and then to rise from the dead. Furthermore, any time that we are speaking of God we need to keep in mind that our human concepts never entirely grasp God. We must not try to limit God to our understanding, but allow our understanding to be stretched beyond its normal limitations by God's revelation.

By his real presence in the Eucharist Christ fulfills his promise to be with us "always, until the end of the age" (Mt. 28:20). St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, "It is the law of friendship that friends should live together...Christ has not left us without his bodily presence in this our pilgrimage, but he joins us to himself in this sacrament in the reality of his body and blood". With this gift of Christ's presence in our midst, the church is truly blessed. As Jesus told his disciples, referring to his presence among them, "Amen, I say to you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it" (Mt. 13:17). In the Eucharist the church both receives the gift of Jesus Christ and gives grateful thanks to God for such a blessing. This thanksgiving is the only proper response, for through this gift of himself in the celebration of the Eucharist under the appearances of bread and wine Christ gives us the gift of eternal life.

We refer to this as the true presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, in the host.

Back to Candy Brauer:

"When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? (The disciples made the same mistake Roman Catholics do. They thought Jesus literally meant that he should be cannibalized and vamparized)

Catholics don't make that mistake at all. We understand that we are partaking of Jesus Christ's true presence in the Eucharist in a divine in a holy mystical way. We understand that we are not cannibals or vampires.

But Candy is missing the point. What the disciples did not understand was that Jesus was speaking of his mystical body/true presence in the Eucharist, but he was very clear that it was himself that would be consumed and because the disciples did not understand it, they left.

And Jesus did not change his story.

Here is what This Rock Magazine had to say on this part of the chapter:
This Is a Hard Teaching (This Rock: September 1999): "Eucharist: Forceful Repetitions To many non-Catholics, the Eucharist is a thing to do occasionally as a remembrance of the Last Supper, but it is not the body and blood of Christ. They argue that passages such as John 6 are to be read symbolically.

So when Christ said, 'Eat my flesh,' he did not really mean, 'Eat my flesh' but 'Believe in me.' In defending the Eucharist to a Protestant, we can ask the same question we used in defending Christianity to a non-Christian: What did the people who saw and spoke with Jesus think he was saying? Did they think he was using symbolic language? If they misunderstood him, why didn't he correct them? Christ repeats himself to three different groups to emphasize his point. He does not withdraw it. When Jesus first made his claim, his hearers began to argue with one another. 'How can this man give us his flesh to eat?' They thought he was saying to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood. And so they rejected this teaching and left. Did Christ change his teaching? Did he tell his hearers, 'No, no, you've misunderstood, here is what I really meant'? He did not. Many of the disciples who followed Christ-like many people of today-had this to say about the Eucharist: 'This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?' When they left Christ, did he try to correct their thinking? It is unlikely that he would have allowed them to remain in error. Unlike the Jewish leaders he would later stand before, these were his followers, the ones favorably disposed to him. But even to them he repeated rather than retracted this hard teaching (John 6:60-66).

Next, he challenged the Twelve Apostles on the issue: "Do you also wish to go away?" He did not correct the "misconception" of his audience or the Twelve. Why? Because their understanding was true. They had not heard him wrong. There was no misconception. Just like he didn't correct the members of the Sanhedrain when confronted over his Messiah-ship, he did not correct even the thinking of those who loved him most because there was nothing to correct. There was no misunderstanding; the teaching was true and to be accepted. The disciples responded, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the holy one of God" (John 6:67-69). They were saying in essence, "Yes, this is a hard teaching, but we will take it on faith, for you are the Christ."

When we look at how his audience, disciples, and the Twelve interpreted the teaching of Christ, we soon discover that there was no other option left open to them other than the literal teaching of eating his flesh and drinking his blood. The merely symbolic reading wasn't left open to them, and it isn't left open to us.

And why did they leave?

Christ in the Eucharist: "He continues: 'As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me' (John 6:57). The Greek word used for 'eats' (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of 'chewing' or 'gnawing.' This is not the language of metaphor.

Mrs. Brauer:

What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: (Here Jesus is giving us a distinction between spirit and flesh) the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit Jesus just said here that we are not to literally eat his flesh and blood, but spiritually), and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not." -John 6:61-64a

Candy makes the classic Fundamentalist error:

For Fundamentalist writers, the scriptural argument is capped by an appeal to John 6:63: "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." They say this means that eating real flesh is a waste. But does this make sense?

Are we to understand that Christ had just commanded his disciples to eat his flesh, then said their doing so would be pointless? Is that what "the flesh is of no avail" means? "Eat my flesh, but you’ll find it’s a waste of time"—is that what he was saying? Hardly.

The fact is that Christ’s flesh avails much! If it were of no avail, then the Son of God incarnated for no reason, he died for no reason, and he rose from the dead for no reason. Christ’s flesh profits us more than anyone else’s in the world. If it profits us nothing, so that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ are of no avail, then "your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished" (1 Cor. 15:17b–18).

In John 6:63 "flesh profits nothing" refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. Thus in John 8:15–16 Jesus tells his opponents: "You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me." So natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true.

And were the disciples to understand the line "The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life" as nothing but a circumlocution (and a very clumsy one at that) for "symbolic"? No one can come up with such interpretations unless he first holds to the Fundamentalist position and thinks it necessary to find a rationale, no matter how forced, for evading the Catholic interpretation. In John 6:63 "flesh" does not refer to Christ’s own flesh—the context makes this clear—but to mankind’s inclination to think on a natural, human level. "The words I have spoken to you are spirit" does not mean "What I have just said is symbolic." The word "spirit" is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (cf. John 6:37, 44–45, 65).

Read ALL of chapter 6, and you'll see that there is no way that Jesus is saying that we are to literally eat and drink Him.

Yes, do read all of Chapter 6 and I think it's clear that Candy Brauer's take on the Eucharist is severely flawed. She may live to regret all the disrespectful times she referred to our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament as a "cracker."

I could not believe my good fortune then for Candy calling on the early church as testimony for her stand!!

Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, "Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). "To answer for the body and blood" of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine "unworthily" be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.

Jesus clearly tells us that to "spiritually" eat His flesh and drink His blood is to BELIEVE ON HIM. Hence, saved by grace through faith (see Ephesians 2:8-9), you do not receive Christ by physically eating and drinking something or someone. Believe to Receive. See Romans 10:9-11 and Mark 16:16.

Meanwhile, in regards to communion...

The IHS cracker is not Jesus Himself. The Bible nowhere states this. Communion is done in remembrance of Jesus, and is modeled off of the Last Supper. Did the disciples cannibalize and vampirize Jesus at the Last Supper? Certainly not.

What Did the First Christians Say?

Anti-Catholics also claim the early Church took this chapter symbolically. Is that so? Let’s see what some early Christians thought, keeping in mind that we can learn much about how Scripture should be interpreted by examining the writings of early Christians.

Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to "those who hold heterodox opinions," that "they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (6:2, 7:1).

Forty years later, Justin Martyr, wrote, "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66:1–20).

Origen, in a homily written about A.D. 244, attested to belief in the Real Presence. "I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence" (Homilies on Exodus 13:3).

Cyril of Jerusalem, in a catechetical lecture presented in the mid-300s, said, "Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy
of the body and blood of Christ" (Catechetical Discourses: Mystagogic 4:22:9).

In a fifth-century homily, Theodore of Mopsuestia seemed to be speaking to today’s Evangelicals and Fundamentalists: "When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood,’ for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements], after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit, not according to their nature, but to receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1).



I think it's clear that there is a little bit more to the Catholic Eucharist that Candy Brauer's assessment. Candy's readers would do well to remember that she is no way a bible authority or scholar.

Reading the bible and imitating Jesus

So when we read the Bible, we need to read it on two levels at once. We read the Bible in a literal sense as we read any other human literature. But we read it also in a spiritual sense, searching out what the Holy Spirit is trying to tell us through the words. See Catechism 115-119.

We do this in imitation of Jesus, because this is the way He read the scriptures. He referred to Jonah (Mt 12:39) Solomon (Mt 12:42), the temple (Jn 2:19) and the brazne serpent (Jn 3:14) as "signs" that prefigured Him. We see in Luke's gospel, as our Lord comforted the disciples on the road to Emmaus that "beginning with Moses and all the prophets, He interpreted to them what referred to Him in all scriptures" (LK 24:27). After that spiritual reading of the Old Testament, we are told the disciples, hearts burned within them.

What ignited the fire in their hearts? Through the scriptures, Jesus had initiated His disciples into a world that reached beyond their senses. A good teacher, God introduced the unfamiliar in terms of the familiar. Indeed, He had created the familiar with this end in mind, fashioning the persons and institutions that would best prepare us for the coming of Christ in the glories of his kingdom.

Hail, Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the Word of God page 22-23.

Professor Hahn is preparing the reader for the imagery and symbols that he is going to use in coming chapters that prefigure Christ, and also His mother Mary. We are going to see why an understanding of the culture and the times of scripture are so imperative to a correct and holistic approach to the scriptures - pretty exciting stuff!