The Divine Eucharist
This last weekend I was in LA to attend a debate between Dr. James White and Shaykh Mustafa Umar on the divinity of Christ.
Despite Dr. White’s rather scathing view of Catholicism, even denying it the classification of “Christian”, I jumped at the opportunity to see him in-person. You see, I have consumed a lot of his material over the years. His apologetics material concerning the Watchtower, Mormonism and Islam have been of considerable help to me in my own encounters with members of those groups. Not only that, but my understanding of Reformed theology is almost entirely drawn from his various videos which are available online.
The debate itself was constructive and enjoyable, despite having a rather disappointingly truncated Q&A session at the end. After the debate, the line for Dr. White was considerable, but I did get a change to speak to Shaykh Umar. Although I found the Shaykh’s answers to my questions unconvincing, I found him to be down-to-earth and very pleasant.
Aside from announcing that I’ve ticked off another bucket list item, I wanted to do a quick post about this last weekend because I wanted to briefly mention a line of argumentation used by Dr. White during the debate…
Figurative Father?
To support Shaykh Umar’s denial of Jesus’ divinity, he attempted to explain away many problematic passages of Scripture by saying that Jesus was speaking figuratively, not literally. For example, the Shaykh contended that when Jesus referred to God as His “Father”, He only meant it in a broad, inclusive, figurative sense.
Naturally, Dr. White objected to this explanation, proving his point by examining the reaction of the crowds to Jesus’ words. For example, in John 5, Jesus heals a man at the pool of Bethzatha. When the Jews come to Him complaining that the miracle was performed on the Sabbath, Jesus responds by saying “My Father is working still, and I am working”. How did they react to these words? Did they conclude that Jesus was speaking figuratively? No, instead we read that “This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God“. They took Jesus at His word.
Dr. White then turned to Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin. Jesus was sentenced to death under charges of blasphemy, yet at no point does Jesus attempt to correct his accusers saying “No, no, you misunderstand, I’m only speaking figuratively!” I know that if I was sentenced to death due to a misunderstanding, I would do everything in my power to clarify and correct the misunderstanding! However, Jesus doesn’t do this…He keeps silent.
As a Christian, I obviously agreed with Dr. White’s analysis. The reaction of the Jews is only understandable if Jesus meant what He said. However, as Dr. White explained this in the debate, it called to mind another Gospel passage…
Figurative Bread?
A few chapters earlier in John, Jesus says something else which evoked a strong reaction among the people:
I am the living bread that came down from heaven… This bread is my flesh… For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink… – John 6:51-54
When this passage came to mind in the debate, I considered what would happen if we took Dr. White’s argument concerning Jesus’ divinity and applied it to this passage. How did Jesus’ listeners respond to these words?
Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” … After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. – John 6:60, 66
Surely we must conclude that Jesus was speaking literally? His hearers certainly took Him at His word! Why else would this be “a hard saying”? Why would they be offended if Jesus was only speaking figuratively? Not only that, but would Jesus really let a large number of souls walk away from Him based on a misunderstanding? Wouldn’t Jesus clarify? Wouldn’t He explain the metaphor? Wouldn’t He soften His language? Yet why then do we see Jesus’ language in John 6 become increasingly vivid and explicit unless we should understand His words at face value?
As a Catholic, I can apply Dr. White’s argument consistently. Using his argument, I conclude both that Jesus is divine and also that He is truly present in the Eucharist. His flesh is “real food” indeed!
I can’t imagine that Dr. White would agree with my understanding of John 6 and I had hoped to ask him what fault he would find in my applying his argument to this passage. Unfortunately, as I said at the beginning of the post, the line to meet Dr. White was long and many of us at the end of the line did not get a chance to meet him. However, if you’re reading this and you’re not Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, I’d be very interested in hearing your thoughts on my reapplication of Dr. White’s argument.
I agree with your reasoning, Pilgrim. Sadly, anything that supports a Catholic Doctrine/Dogma must be “interpreted” from a different angel for anti-Catholics. We’ll just keep praying.
It is very sad. I had the same feeling after I read the books, “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist” and “The Case for Christ”. You can follow the same line of thinking used in those books to prove that the Catholic Church is the Church of Jesus Christ. But they stop short of it.
I think your application is one of several possibilities. I’ll give you two more. The very fact that he suggests that he is the manna from heaven rather than what Moses gave is enough to offend the crowds, even if Jesus meant what most evangelicals think he meant: that believing and coming to him are eating and drinking from him. My other suggestion would be that Jesus specifically says “my words are spirit and life.” There’s no comparable verse in John 5. And before you say it, I am not interpreting “spirit and life” as “figurative.” However, unless you are saying that Jesus has been parceling out pieces of his earthly flesh and portions of his actual 2,000 year old liquid blood, then we are all taking Jesus’ words somewhat figuratively. I take “my words are spirit and life” to mean that we are literally, spiritually partaking of his body and blood. I do take “eating” figuratively, widening it into “partaking,” as in “taking him into us.” The spiritual sense I see is that his body, the one that matters, is no longer just the physical one in heaven, but the many-membered body that is in heaven and earth. Of that we partake both in the church’s fellowship meal and every time we come together.
The only thing I’d say here is that the question they ask is “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”. Their consternation appears to concern how such a thing would be possible.
I’d draw a distinction between “figurative” and “sacramental”. We believe that the Eucharist is symbolic, sure, but it’s also more than just a symbol. To quote Tertullian, “The flesh feeds on the Body and Blood of Christ,
so that the soul too may fatten on God”.
I guess I speak a somewhat different dialect of Christianity. I can’t say I understand the difference between those two words, though they are obviously two different words. I don’t disagree with how you explain Jesus’ words here. I am on my phone, so I can’t check for sure, but I’m pretty certain I would’ve avoided the work “symbolic.” You added that. I used “figurative.” I might not be Roman Catholic in my interpretation of the Eucharist, but I’m certainly not the typical Protestant. I think I can honestly say that I don’t believe God does anything that is only symbolic. He is God. If he touches something, it is infused with power.
Sorry, I’ve been travelling across the country. Yeah, you didn’t use the word “symbolic” and while it’s not the same word as “figurative”, it’s probably its step-brother, or close cousin at least 🙂 When we say “Sacramental” we’re closer to what you describe as something being “infused with power”.