Dear Shawn Willson,
Just a few months ago, you uploaded a video of yours
in your YouTube channel called “Jesus and The Jewish Roots of the Eucharist Book Review” wherein you – as the title suggests – review Dr. Brant Pitre’s
book, Jesus and The Jewish Roots of the Eucharist. To be honest, I haven’t
read that book yet, although I’ve read Dr. Pitre’s longer treatment of the Last
Supper entitled Jesus and The Last Supper. Nonetheless, your critique of
the Jewish Roots book seem to miss the point regarding the Catholic view
on the Eucharist and its Biblical basis. Allow me to raise a few points about it:
1. The verses you cited in order to show that the wider context of John's
Gospel support a merely allegorical reading of passages wherein Jesus speaks of
having to eat His flesh to have eternal life seem to not support your reading
at all. The immediate context of John 3:5 and 4:14 (being born of water and
spirit and receiving living water from our Lord), for instance, can be said to
talk about baptism (this can be seen from the fact that after Jesus' dialogue
with Nicodemus, John 3 proceeds in recounting the time Jesus and his disciples
baptized people (v. 22), the only instance in Scripture where Christ is said to
baptize people). So, if anything, those verses can be interpreted in favor of a
Sacramental view of Baptism as indeed giving eternal life and enables us to
enter the Kingdom.
Regarding John 12:25, it seems to me that you are (1)
confusing allegory with hyperbole and (2) maybe equivocating on the term
"hate". I don't think that Jesus would agree with you if you say to
him "Well, we don't really need to 'hate' our life in this world to have
eternal life, right? You just wanted to emphasize belief in yourself,
right?". No, I think he really meant that we Christians ought to hate our
life here on this earth, though He is of course speaking hyperbolically. It may
be analogous to someone saying "What time will you arrive, Fred? I've been
waiting for you for 10 years!". A person may not really wait for Fred for
a decade, but I don't think he's speaking allegorically either. His point is
that he's been waiting for Fred for a long time, and we should understand that.
Even if Jesus wasn't really speaking hyperbolically, one can still say that
Jesus still literally meant what He said, namely, that we are to
"hate" our lives on earth in the sense of prioritizing our life as
Christians. When St. Paul says in Romans 8:13 that we should "put to death
the deeds of the flesh", I don't think he's merely speaking
metaphorically/allegorically, he really commanded to put the deeds of the flesh
"to death" in the sense of living a virtuous life and not giving in
to our bodily appetites at the expense of properly living as a Christian. In
other words, Paul is using the term "put to death" in a different way.
But "different" doesn't mean simply "metaphorical". I'd say
the same thing with Jesus' saying on "hating" our life on earth. It
might be a peculiar way of using the term, but it nonetheless reflects
something literally true.
2. You're also presupposing your own soteriology in
explaining the Bible, namely that it is only by trusting God that gives you
eternal life, apart from any "works of religion", a variation of what
may be considered a traditionally Protestant understanding of "Sola
Fide". I know Justificiation is not the topic of this video, but I just
wanna point out that if you're presupposing your non-Catholic soteriology, then
of course Catholics will disagree with you from the very start. It may be the
case that your interpretation of John 6 is correct... IF we use your
soteriology as an interpretative lens. But the fact is that Catholics don't
(and need not to) use said interpretative lens.
3. Once again, the verses you cited to prove your
soteriological position will only be correct IF we are already assuming the
kind of traditional Protestant understanding of Justification that you believe
in. Another important point to say here is the fact that Catholicism doesn't
even disagree with the idea that one is saved through faith/belief/trust in God
by grace alone. What Catholicism won't accept is the dichotomy you're trying to
propose: that, in terms of being saved, it's either faith or good works (I'm
speaking of the believer's ongoing Justification here according to Catholicism;
I firmly believe that good works cannot be a condition for a person's INITIAL
justification). Catholics will just say that it is a false dichotomy: that the
grace we receive in initial justification empowers us to do works that will
help us grow in righteousness, including receiving our Lord in the Eucharist.
So, like I said, I have no issue with the verses you cited, I only have an
issue with your interpretative lens.
4. I know you didn't outline your own preferred way of reading and interpreting Scripture in this video because that's not what you're trying to do, but why should anyone think that those passages that you think are allegorical - such as those verses where Jesus says we have to eat His flesh and drink His blood - should really be taken allegorically while those verses that you think are literal - such as verses that say one has to have faith in order to have eternal life - should necessarily be taken literally? This is more of a rhetorical question but it's still valid: Why not have them the other way around? Why not interpret Jesus saying that we have to eat His flesh as literal while verses such as "Whoever does not believe stands condemned already" (John 3:18) as allegorical/non-literal?
The real dispute, then,
is soteriology and Biblical hermeneutics. I suggest you read Jimmy Akin's book
called The Drama of Salvation for a basic overview and defense of Catholic
Soteriology. I would also recommend another book by Brant Pitre (Co-authored
with Michael Barber and John Kincaid) called Paul, A New Covenant Jew, which
has chapters on a "cardiac righteousness" view on Justification and a
defense of a Sacrificial view of the Lord's Supper in Paul's letters.
One with you in pursuing the truth of Christ and His
Church,
Matthew Luis D. Antero
Comments
Post a Comment