Combox for:
Counter-Reply to a Protestant Take on John 6 and the Eucharist (vs. C. Michael Patton)
[15 December 2008]
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...nt-take-
on.html
I went to a talk given by Fr. J. Patrick Mullen, who is a published Scripture scholar and a serious academic. His opinion was that the clearest meaning of the passage is what you outlined here (viz., given the opportunity to clarify the misunderstanding or moderate the doctrine, Jesus refused to do so). He believed that people who said otherwise were probably unfairly discounting the Catholic interpretation, which would otherwise be taken at face value (as the Fathers did). His impression was that a great deal of Scripture scholarship was justified primarily by the rejection of Catholic principles rather than any principled basis for the interpretation, with John 6 being one of the more glaring examples.
One reason that John may not include the institution of the Eucharist at the last supper is that in John's Gospel IT IS NOT a Passover meal. The crucifixion happens on the "Day of Preparation." That is the day that the Passover Lamb is being slaughtered. However, that just strengthens the Eucharistic arguments since the Passover sacrifice (Jesus here in the NT) had to be EATEN in order for the blessing of the Passover to be given to the people. The Passover was not simply about the shedding of the victim's blood, but the EATING OF THE FLESH as well.
There is also the link between the crucifixion and the wine at Cana which is eucharistic, even if it is not as obvious as in John 6.
Have a Merry Christmas y'all!
One of the key differences between Protestants and Catholics through the years is the view of the Lord’s Supper or the Eucharist. Catholics, along with the Orthodox Church, have traditionally believed that the Eucharist represents the centerpiece of our worship to God.
So would Lutherans and Anglicans and (I think) Methodists, as well. C. S. Lewis, for example (Anglican), would have affirmed this.
Don't forget the non-Chalcedonian churches:
Coptic Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, Eritrean Orthodox, Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church (India) and Armenian Apostolic churches.
And the Assyrian Church of the East.
These broke from the Orthodox and Catholic Churches in the 300s and 400s.
Also, when the Portuguese landed in India they found the St. Thomas Christians who had been there from the 1st century. They also believed in the Real Presence.
Charles, if the synoptics have the Last Supper on the Passover, which they clearly do, and John does not, then we have an intractable contradiction, the Church's infallible proclamations on the inerrancy of Scripture are false, Scripture falls, the Church falls, and thus Christianity falls.
Please be more careful! 
"Day of Preparation" was synonymous with Hebrew Friday (Thursday evening to Friday afternoon). It was the "Day of Preparation" of the Sabbath, during the week long Passover Festival.
The Last Supper was on (our) Thursday evening and the Crucifixion was on (our) Friday afternoon in all four Gospels and also in the 2000 year Tradition of every Apostolic church.
Jimmy Akin has an excellent essay on this:
http://www.cin.org/users/james/q...stions/
q084.htm
http://www.cin.org/users/james/q...stions/
q060.htm
I'll have to look at this a little closer in terms of the "intractable problem." However, you do have the id of Jesus as the "Lamb of God" and I have seen recent research that indicates the flow of blood and water in John's Gospel is indicative of the flow of blood from the Passover sacrifices. I'll get back to you on this.
Charles, if the synoptic have the Last Supper on the Passover, which they clearly do, and John does not, then we have an intractable contradiction, the Church's infallible proclamations on the inerrancy of Scripture are false, Scripture falls, the Church falls, and thus Christianity falls.
Somewhere I have a recording of Scott Hahn discussing this and a different historian/theologian’s take on it. The short version for the uneducated (me) is that the priests/Pharisees used one schedule for the Passover and the general populace used a different one. M/M/L used the general populace schedule to describe the events but John (a relative of the priestly caste) used the Pharasitical one. This lead to the difficulties in understanding the dates involved.
Opps italics off
Martin, I've read that too. I think it was the Essene calendar that would have placed Passover a couple of days before. It's a fascinating speculation, but as Jimmy Akin mentions in the links I posted, ultimately unnecessary to explain the apparent differences in John.
I do know that Hahn does follow the interpretation of the timing in recent material on the sacramentality of John (Letter and Spirit vol. 4). I haven't seen his take on the apparent discrepancy. The one problem I see with seeing the day of prep in John as the day of prep for the Sabbath is that it destroys the Paschal Lamb imagery of the Gospel.
I also don't know if the problem if they disagree is that serious. It seems clear that the events of the Gospels are not chronologically ordered (otherwise, why would John have the cleansing of the Temple at the beginning of the ministry and the Synoptics at the end). You have another discrepancy in the number of animals in the ark in Genesis. If John made a change in the day (or calcluated differently), he was doing it not for historical, but theological reasons.
My reasoning goes like this. Clearly the eucharistic meal of the Last Supper is linked to the Crucifixion. (Most of the Gospels are linked to the crucifixion in more ways than we realize). John is making the connection between the Passover Sacrifice and the Crucifixion explicit in a different way.
I'm still not convinced that the problem destroyes the inspiration of the Gospels, but I will continue to think about it.
The one problem I see with seeing the day of prep in John as the day of prep for the Sabbath is that it destroys the Paschal Lamb imagery of the Gospel.
How? If the Sabbath that week was also Nisan 15, the first day of the seven-day Passover festival, then the Paschal Lamb imagery would not be destroyed at all, but confirmed.
I also don't know if the problem if they disagree is that serious. It seems clear that the events of the Gospels are not chronologically ordered (otherwise, why would John have the cleansing of the Temple at the beginning of the ministry and the Synoptics at the end).
Perhaps He cleansed the Temple twice, toward the start of His ministry and again just before His crucifixion.
You have another discrepancy in the number of animals in the ark in Genesis.
First Noah is told to save a pair of every kind of animal, then he is told to save five additional animals of each kind of clean animal. Not too serious a discrepancy, especially since those extra animals were probably sacrificed and/or eaten.
If John made a change in the day (or calcluated differently), he was doing it not for historical, but theological reasons.
Or doing it for both historical and theological reasons.
Of course, there is yet another possiblity: maybe Christ was bilocating!
I don't see how the Paschal Lamb imagery is necessarily lost. To have the imagery fit perfectly you'd have to have the Last Supper after the Crucifixion anyways, wouldn't you? Don't forget that the Paschal Lamb is a prototype of Christ, not the other way around.
The Paschal Lamb imagery may not be lost, but is minimized. The day of prep is the day the lambs are killed...a very strong link to the crucifixion. The amount of blood shed in the lamb's sacrifice makes the Kidron valley stream run red with the blood, linking up to the water and blood that John relates. You also have the reference to not breaking the bones of Jesus, linking him again to the Passover Lamb....John goes out of the way to make this identification. (I wish I could claim credit for all of this. See Brant Pietre's work and Scott Hahn's)
In terms of the Last Supper and Crucifixion you also have the work done by Hahn about the 4th cup of the Passover meal and Jesus drinking wine on the cross. I don't know how he then gets around the historical question of the timing. He seems to conflate the Gospel accounts, but in other places, argues for the dating.
Sorry if the last part doesn't make much sense. I am out of my field (OT guy), and it's too early in the morning. Maybe later today I can clarify.
The Paschal Lamb imagery may not be lost, but is minimized.
The Synoptics tell us that the Last Supper happened on the the day that the Passover lamb was killed, and even quote Jesus referring to the Last Supper as "this Passover." St. John tells us the same thing, though not in the same words.
The day of prep is the day the lambs are killed...a very strong link to the crucifixion.
No, the day of preparation, Paraskeue, is Friday. It never refers to any other day. So when St. John mentions that it was Paraskeue of Pascha, he is specifying that it was a Passover Friday, not just the Friday before the weekely Sabbath -- because the weekly Sabbath coincided with the Passover festival that week.
In terms of the Last Supper and Crucifixion you also have the work done by Hahn about the 4th cup of the Passover meal and Jesus drinking wine on the cross.
Of course Dr. Hahn's "Fourth Cup" hypothesis is only a hypothesis, and it might be wrong. We don't know how many cups of wine were drunk in the Jewish Passover Seder in the time of Christ. Also, Jesus never drank wine on the cross -- His lips touched a sponge that had been soaked in "vinegar," which modern translations render less accurately as "sour wine" (not that "vinegar" includes the root "vine," cognate of "wine"). This was not really wine, but wine that had begun to go bad. I think it's stretching things to identify His receiving a very, very small amount of vinegary liquid as drinking a cup of wine. Rather, Jesus elsewhere talks of martyrdom and His passion as "drinking a cup" -- if one sees anything mystical in the four cups of the Seder, it's His entire passion and death that was "drinking the wine," not just His mouth being wetted by vinegar.
I don't know how he then gets around the historical question of the timing. He seems to conflate the Gospel accounts, but in other places, argues for the dating.
He argues that the Last Supper happened on the same night that all the Jews were eating their Passover lambs, and that Jesus was crucified on the holy day, Nisan 15. He interprets St. John's reference to the priests avoiding ritual impurity because they had not yet eaten the Passover as meaning a second "seder"-type meal with sacrificed lamb. Lambs were sacrificed not just on Nisan 14, but on every day of the seven-day Passover feast. Thus, even though no one would be able to suspect it from what St. John says, and even though there is no record of the Jews ever calling these subsequent lamb-meals during Passover as "eating the Passover," Dr. Hahn argues that is what St. John was talking about: not "the" Passover meal of Nisan 15, but a Passover-ish meal on the next evening, 24 hours after the Seder.
If he's right, it would reconcile the apparent contradiction between St. John and the other three Evangelists . . . but I'm not at all convinced. It's a tad too ingenious, too convenient, too neat.
Danke,
Much to think on from both of you. Alas, now back to grading....grades are due on Sunday!
Dear Michael.
I suggest that you try and understand,that the old testament was a figure and a symbol of the new and not as you claim vice versa,and i will explain.
In John 6 , when our Lord who is the truth and never lies was speaking about Giving his body and blood as true food and true drink,He did speak about the manna.Now i am 100% sure that you truly believe that God the manna to the Israelites right?and the manna was a figure of the true manna,the Lord`s body and blood.Now consider this plz , you admit that the symbol is true,but you deny that ,what this symbol or figure symbolised was a symbol or a fiction?
I mean plz consider that our Lord was speaking and comparing the eating of the manna with the eating and chewing of his body,so why would he according to you compare the true eating of the manna,with a symbolic eating?
St. John Chrysostom said,when you hear the words of Christ,do not doubt but believe,because Jesus is the truth and never lies...
And another thing is this,if you compare John 6 with 1Cor.11:23-29 , then the idea becomes much clearer ,unless of course you believe that also Paul misunderstood the Lord?
GOD BLESS YOU
Commenting by HaloScan
