Skip to main content

On the Eucharist: An Open Letter to Shawn Willson



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

Popular posts from this blog

Wanna Make Things Right? Stop Prioritizing Justice

  Image by  Jill Wellington  from  Pixabay It seems to me that there is an intuitive sense within us fallen human beings to prioritize justice in a cold, blind sense before everything else. Yes, even before love or friendship, we aim to make sure that we are given our due and that people who have hurt us should be hurt as well, so that he or she can feel what we also felt. For instance, if we learn that a person we consider a friend is actually stabbing us in the back, the reasonable response seems to be to break the friendship apart and complain about this same friend to other people. This seems what is just in our eyes. And for us, as long as our sense of blind justice is preserved, all will be well. But for Christ, making things right does not mean prioritizing justice in the retributive sense of the word. Rather, for Him, justice is merely secondary to gratuitous, no-holds-barred Divine Mercy. Mercy always and everywhere is primary. Only when Mercy precedes justice can things be ma
Post a Comment
Read more

A Man Motivated By Love

Image by  Francesco Nigro  from  Pixabay First, a word about the 1988 movie The Truman Show starring Jim Carrey.  In the said movie, the main character, Truman Burbank (played by Carrey) lived in the biggest studio ever, which he thought was the real world, since he was the baby. Basically, everything around him is fake. He would interact with other people in his "island" not knowing they were simply paid actors. In short, he is living a life ruled by deception.  But there was a moment in his life where he met a woman named "Lauren" (whose real name is Sylvia), and fell in love with her. Lauren was also the first person in the whole show to tell Truman that he was living a lie, because in reality, she is a member of the "Free Truman" movement. Unfortunately, so that Truman would not know the truth, "Lauren" was taken off the show. To make the long story short, she became the motivating factor for Truman to leave his Island, a voyage which would u
Post a Comment
Read more

Saint Thomas Aquinas, My Beloved Professor in Heaven: The four most important lessons I learned from the Angelic Doctor

                 It’s been three years since I first discovered and seriously personally studied the works of Saint Thomas Aquinas, and I can happily say that I am far from really scratching the surface. The Angelic Doctor has this awe-inspiring gift of deep insight when it comes to philosophical and theological truths; this great awareness of both the metaphysics of the cosmos and the infinite divine power and love that moves the planets, of both what things are in themselves and He Who Is, of the words that come from the wisdom of antiquity and the Word that breathes forth Love, Who is the Logos of God through Which the Father expresses His design in creation and through Which the Father recreates us in redemption. In short, Aquinas’s thought is this one, big, wholesome vision of God, our First Cause and Last End, and His mysterious and astonishing relationship with the universe that one cannot really claim to be an “expert” when it comes to his teachings (one can have a specialty in
Post a Comment
Read more