Early Church Evidence Refutes Real Presence?-Origen’s Exegesis and the Eucharist

In Brian’s article, very little coverage is given of Origen and his supposed rejection of the Real Presence. The main point is simply one of his Commentaries on Matthew. This post will demonstrate how Origen’s Commentary on Matthew doesn’t support Brian’s claims at all, alongside other references from Origen which demonstrate how while Origen’s understanding does not accord with Transubstantiation, it certainly falls within the realist category and a real presence in the elements is clearly presumed. One key way to demonstrate this is through understanding Origen’s theology of Scripture and exegesis which I argue will provide a way to understand his view of “symbol” and gives us a way to understand his theology of Eucharistic presence.

  1. Symbol and relation to Scriptural Exegesis

Brian’s main point is that since Origen refers to the eucharistic bread as a “typical” and “symbolical” body, ergo, he rejects any presence in the elements. Unfortunately this ignores how a “Symbol”, as Ferguson(2015,PDF pg.191), a symbol actually contains the power of what it represents. Further support for this is explained by Origen himself in Book 3 of his Commentary of the Song of Songs. He notes how the “invisible things of God” are understood via visible things(Commentary of Song of Songs, Book 3, 13, pg.218). These visible things are considered to be in the pattern of Invisible or Heavenly things and from the former, we can mount up to the latter. Through these, the soul can be instructed and learn how to contemplate heavenly things which are incorporeal(pg.220). This tendency is also reflected in other areas of his corpus, such as the Homilies on Leviticus(i.e Homily 1:1,1-4; 3:8,7; 4:1,2; 4:7,3; 4:10,3; 5:1,3).

Of course an argument could be made that perhaps the kind of relation here is merely metaphorical or symbolical in the modern sense or akin to the analogue of Calvin’s Eucharistic theology. Perhaps given that the Spiritual Invisible realities are that which we mount up to, there is no participation in them through the visible realities, thus for Origen, a symbol means one cannot adopt the more stronger and mystical sense which Ferguson noted. But as Boersma(2017,PDF pg 24-26) notes regarding this, it is a misreading and misinterpretation of this system. After all, it is only because of the visible things having the patterns of the invisible that one can mount up to them. This indicates that the visible things are the means by which the invisible is made manifest, making a separation between the two rather odd and I might say, contradictory to the system that Origen has described.

Moreover, Origen himself indicates the presence of the invisible in the visible things as he notes in Homily 1 of Leviticus(which was cited above),

As “in the Last Days”, the Word of God, which was clothed with the flesh of Mary, proceeded into this world. What was seen in him was one thing; what was understood was something else.2 For the sight of his flesh was open for all to see, but the knowledge of his divinity was given to the few, even the elect. So also when the Word of God was brought to humans through the Prophets and the Lawgiver,3 it was not brought without proper clothing. For just as there it was covered with the veil of flesh,4 so here with the veil of the letter, so that indeed the letter is seen as flesh but the spiritual sense hiding within is perceived as divinity. Such, therefore, is what we now find as we go through the book of Leviticus, in which the sacrificial rites, the diversity of offerings, and even the ministries of the priests are described. But perchance the worthy and the unworthy see and hear these things according to the letter, which is, as it were, the flesh of the Word of God and the clothing of its divinity. But “blessed are those eyes,,5 which inwardly see the divine spirit that is
concealed in the veil of the letter; and blessed are they who bring clean ears of the inner person to hear these things. Otherwise, they will perceive openly “the letter which kills, in these words.

So in light of this and the comparison of Scripture being tripartite(Body, Soul and Spirit) in Homily 5, this shoots down the possible counterargument that Brian could reply to avoid the implication of “Symbol” being more than a bare figure as the relation of things visible and invisible is described through the analogy of Christology. Moreover the “Spirit” of Scripture is hidden IN the veil of the letter. This makes Boersma’s assessment correct and one which lends support to Ferguson’s assessment as above.

Now, having said this, in order for the key point of this post to work, there must clearly be something more than the text of Scripture itself that is encountered in the activity of preaching or reading it. It cannot be just akin to reading any other book. Here, perhaps Brian will agree that the Spirit is operative in these acts or that Christ is clearly present through the mediation of Scripture. This is vital if one is to argue for the real presence in Origen’s Eucharistic theology

Lauro(2005,pg 37) claims that in his First Principles 4, Origen provides his earliest explanation of Scriptural exegesis which is threefold. These are the Somatic, psychic and pneumatic(ibid.pg 51). Indeed, the first thing on how one ought to read Scriptures in the First Principles notes how Jews rejected OT prophecies and Christ, because they could only read Scripture according to the letter, not its Spiritual sense(4.2.2,pg.489). Not long after this, Origen provides an explicit description that confirms the vital requirement for the relation between the concept of Scripture and Eucharist to work. In the Latin edition of First Principles, Origen have this to say on the Grace required to grasp the hidden mystery that lies behind the letter of Scripture,

And also in the epistles of the Apostles, which to some seem to be plainer, are they not filled with meanings so profound that by means of them, as through some small receptacle, the brightness of immeasurable light seems to be poured into those who are able to understand the meaning of Divine Wisdom?

First Principles 4.2.3,pg.495

In the Greek edition, the analogy used to describe the Scriptural letter as mediating higher truths is similar to the cited Latin where they are akin to a window into deeper sublime thoughts. Not far from this, Origen also provides a brief statement on the first sense of Scripture assigned by Lauro, the somatic/bodily sense(flesh in the Greek version). The Latin version briefly defines this first sense as the common and narratival sense(First Principles 4.2.4,pg.497). In the Greek version this is described as the obvious sense(ibid.,pg.499). For those who ascended this or “mounted up”, they can move on to the Soul of Scripture. Corresponding to Lauro’s designations, Origen also introduces in both Greek and Latin versions, the tripartite theory of Scripture of it as body, soul and Spirit.

Elaborating more on the Bodily/Somatic form of Scripture, Origen points out how there are actually some verses of Scripture that don’t possess this. Earlier I noted how Origen stated that Jews, reading only the Letter but not having the Spirit of the Scriptural texts, reject Christ. This may seem to given the contrast create the impression that this Jewish tendency and the Bodily part of Scripture are equivalent. However, Lauro(2005,pg. 52-53), argues that since not all verses of Scripture possesses the Somatic sense, reading by the Letter and grasping the Somatic sense cannot be this way. Instead, she considers the difference to be in how the Somatic sense can edify. There is also no requirement for allegorical or metaphorical understandings for this stage.

Of course like the “Letter”, this part of Scripture also indicates the material form of the words or what is first seen. The Latin version uses “frons“, indicating the outer form or appearance of a thing. In Scripture, these would be the Law and History, corresponding to when analogized to the human person, the physical body. Reflecting the Hellenic concept of accommodation and adaptation in education, Origen explains that the Somatic sense of Scripture is there for the sake of those who are unable to use them to mount up to the “sense of the Spirit of God” hidden beneath them. Through these they may be edified(First Principles, 4.2.8,pg.513).

Another function of this sense is to introduce “stumbling blocks” through things that seem impossible or nonsensical to provoke the reader to pause in reading in the literal way to a higher Spiritual way to make sense of passages that on first sight, seem to be nonsensical(Ibid., 4.2.9,pg.515). Having pointing this out, it is to be stressed that Origen doesn’t mean to collapse this sense away completely or somehow, history doesn’t matter. He makes it clear himself that in the “majority” of these cases are historical. These are events that actually happened(Ibid.,4.3.4,pg.529-530).

Now that we know what the Somatic sense of Scripture is and its functions, what about the next sense, the psychic and pneumatic senses? Behr(2017,pg.LI) seems to imply that the tripartite view of Scripture is not a methodology and in practice he rarely utilizes it. Instead, the intended point of this division is to emphasize just how the meaning of any Scriptural passage is not self evident. I consider this flawed. Indeed Origen has emphasized the difficulty in exegesis(i.e First Principles 4.2.3 On the Daughters of Lot and other OT ‘problematic’ passages). Lauro(2005,pg.63) might perhaps give an answer, like the Somatic sense, there is a focus on moral instruction. In First Principles (4.2.6,pg.503-507), a major aspect of this would seem to apply to a Figurative interpretation of the Law where the ordinances of the Old Testament are a shadow of.

The Homilies on Leviticus would further demonstrate this Psychic sense being expressed in exegesis. In Homily 8.6-7, Origen explains how one can apply Deuteronomy 21:10-13, concerning taking a wife amongst a subjugated enemy. Here, the sons of Israel who desire this are mandated to shave her hair and make her put on mourning clothes. She must remain in the house of the one who wants her, mourning for her household and family for 30 days before being his wife. The higher or psychic sense of this is how Christians who face the enemies of the Church, presumably being heretics and Pagans, should remove all that is wrong from things which are found reasonable amongst them. This is removing the hairs and nails, being the dead things from them.

Laying out this second level of Scripture, we now advance to the third level, the Pneumatic level of Scripture. Here, Lauro(pg.71) appeals to First Principles 4.2.9 where Origen describes the “spiritual” meaning in which the Latin version speaks of this sense as announcing the connection between Spiritual events, some of which have taken place and others which will take place(to be done). The end of all these seems to be based on his remarks prior(4.2.6, pg.505) is the reality of Christ Himself, as Origen explains, using 1 Corinthians 10:4 to Biblically illustrate what the Types in the OT symbolize where the Rock that followed the Israelites in the desert(which Origen is explicit the events that happened to them and their experience are Figures of things to come for future readers or Christians in the future/age to come) is Christ Himself. The application of the Figures in say Exodus and Numbers to “us” as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10:11 also entails the presence of the Church to be foretold during the era of these past events. They foreshadow its coming. I note that this has implications for the real presence, as part of these will inadvitably involve Figuring what Christians will do(i.e Baptism or worship) but I will cover these in more detail later. For now an example from Origen will be given for this exegesis in practice in Homily 12 on Numbers.

There, Origen exegetes Sihon in Numbers 21:21-24 as figuratively representing Satan. Justifying how Satan could be figuratively an earthly king, Origen appeals to John 12:31, which Satan is referred to by Christ as the “ruler of this world”(pg.70). Because of this, just as Israel will not turn aside to Sihon’s field or vineyard, so too Christians today will not drink from the Devil’s doctrine. Here too I will point out the reference to Baptism where the one getting Baptized denounces the Devil. This also makes Israel’s journey here a Figure of the Christian one which we may presume is continuing as they journey into the Holy Land promised to the saints(ibid.). Hence the Amorites here are figures of unbelievers. Due to this, in the proceeding Homily 13, Origen states how each one of “us” are cities of King Sihon before being “plundered” by Israel(Homily 13, pg.72). This clearly refers to an unbeliever converting to Christianity as he later explains where the Son of the Church, Israel, approaches a city of Sihon who is a Pagan and sieges it through swords and javelins, being the Holy Spirit and Word of God(ibid.pg74).

Now that the three levels of Origen’s Biblical exegesis are laid out with examples, a pattern to those familiar with his homilies and commentaries will emerge when these levels are utilized. They are as follows:

  1. Intertextuality is key as shown in how the Pneumetic level operates and its primary referent, Christ which necessarily ties both Old and New Testaments into one and enables the figure of the latter and Christ to be present in the former.
  2. Application to the Life of the Church. As shown in the Psychic and Pneumetic levels, there are Figures of what the Church does in the present and future hope.
  3. The Mystical sense and the Psychic and Pnuemetic senses of Scripture are present even in the Somatic sense.
  4. There is a narratival logic that binds and unites both the Old and New Testaments.

Given these three points, we could proceed to the next phase of this post, which will demonstrate how exegesis ties into the Eucharist and Real Presence. But first an explanation of what this relation is. Given that Exegetical practice will exegete the meaning and the practices from Church life in the Old and New Testaments, it follows that just as there is the Spirit operative in the activity of exegeting Scripture and presence of Christ, so too in the so called ecclesiastical practices/mysteries of the Church given that these are found in the meaning of Scriptural texts. After all, if this were not so why would they even be in the text to begin with. This also provides one hole in Brian’s use of Origen, the failure to grasp the interplay between exegesis and praxis and how they relate together.

Before getting to the interplay between Exegesis and Eucharist, I will refer to Soheid’s(2019) journal on Origen’s exegesis and homily IV on Psalm 77(78) to give an example of this interplay in more detail.

2. Exegesis and Praxis

A key part of Soheid’s(2019,pg.421-422) article on Origen’s Homily IV on Psalm 77(78) is the idea of Textual Communities. This are microsocieties organized around a shared common understanding of a script. Within a textual community, ideas within and of the script or text would influence group behavior over time. In the Early Christian context, a key location where this influence is exerted is the activity of preaching during the liturgy. On his influential study of Early Christian texts, production and use, Harry Gamble(1997,pg.39) notes the high illiteracy rate in the ancient Roman Empire which makes public reading a necessity for textual access to a wider audience than the few literate elite. Due to this, the opportunity for most Christians during this time for centuries to access Scriptures is through cathechical instruction and homilies during worship(ibid.pg10). It is this context which Origen’s homilies take place.

In this homily, Origen make reference to the Manna that Israel was given for nourishment in the desert. Moving to the Pneumetic level of meaning here, Origen invokes John 6:51(Soheid, 2019, pg.425), establishing conditions 1. and 3. as outlined. Now, given that Origen states that the bread from Heaven is the “teachings that we eat”(ibid.), this could suggest that there can’t be any Real Presence in the Eucharist given John 6 is not used Eucharistically here. However as we proceed and notice the points Origen is making, this becomes more untenable. After all, this is actually a stepping stone to involving condition 2. which begins to see the present contemporary situation of the audience in Scripture itself. Moreover, Origen also points to the ultimate referent of John 6:51, Christ the Word Himself.

This opens up the possibility of being nourished by Christ in the Eucharist although the focus here would be in listening to preaching and Scripture. In this context, applied to his audience, he points out how the Soul losing the Heavenly bread and being hunger, falls into sin(ibid.,pg.426), opening up the door to the narrative of the Christian as a Spiritual struggle(thus fulfilling condition 4.). To further emphasize this, Origen utilizes an important Rhetorical technique which has been covered when explaining Ignatius of Antioch on the Real Presence , Ekphrasis which intents to bring the subject matter before the eyes of the audience through vivid imagery.

To demonstrate this, the quote from Sohied will be provided as follows:

. . . to which there are ones being sent by the Greeks, who watch how the athlete eats: and as they happen to be at the games, they also watch if the contests happen by law and according to reason, so too they are also with the athletes who are being nourished. And they suggest to the ones being nourished as they are fighting and say that it’s time to be nourished: “well eat, truly eat, you have good hopes,” and they suggest the food itself. Then, on the one hand, in order that they receive the perishable crown, they take upon themselves the labor: the labor with the foods and with the games, and with various travels and journeys. But on the other hand, it often happens that the men are beaten against their chins and being beaten and receiving blows against the back and against their stomach, they are picked up by the overseers.

Origen, Hom. 4.4 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:393–94)

From this vivid ekphrasis of a boxing match, Origen will proceed to apply it to his audience where he later says “you do not want to endure the wounds of the athletes”(ibid.,pg.427-428). This draws the Spiritual struggle of all Christians to become easily visible and being played out before the eyes of the audience, also showing the dangers of their lack of liturgical participation. Fulfilling Conditions 3. & 4., Origen will intertextually bind more OT texts with the Psalm he is covering, alluding to Numbers 11:4-5 and quoting Exodus 16:3. The situations in these verses concern the complaints of the Israelites when they are out of Egypt, having crossed the Red Sea. Origen points out how the sins of the Israelites here are also committed by “us” right now(ibid.,pg.433). However, instead of physical food as in the context of these verses, his audience are by imitating them, sinning because of desiring the lascivious nature of the world and of bodily things.

Through this ekphrasis and application of Intertextuality, one can see how Origen does something that actually follows from a key point on the Jewish concept of memorial as covered in the Gospels and the Eucharist. One can see how as Soheid(2019,pg.439) explains of this use of ekphrasis, how it functions as a way to not make the Scriptural text of Psalm 77:23-25 a mere dead text of the past, but one that makes it alive and active in the present. Also note how the intertextuality frames the contemporary situation of Origen’s audience in terms of the Exodus narrative.

One also sees this way of approaching the text in his other homilies as well. Another example that will be invoked to further demonstrate is his Homily IV on Jeremiah. While initially beginning with discussing the more historical context of verses 3:6-11, the pattern of these events will repeat itself “Now”(Homilies on Jeremiah, pg.33-34). In fact he will tie this in with Matthew 24:12-13, Matthew 24:24 and Luke 18:8. Utilizing this intertextual links, he warns that the sins of Israel’s past will also happen in “this” age in the Church. In fact Origen’s own language indicates it is already happening at present within the members of his congregation by stating “we are not faithful”.

Shuve(2010,pg.237) describes this very tendency as making the past and present blurred. Jeremiah’s prophecy becomes one that is directly addressing the present audience, one which is bleak with few only becoming faithful of the mass of those who profess Christianity(Homilies on Jeremiah, pg. 34). In fact Origen exhorts his audience to consider how the Jews being from the Patriarchs and the Fathers of the Old Testament, were denied the blessings and promises of the Covenant by falling away, would actually entail much worse if they forsake God and Christ(ibid.pg 36). For as Origen says later on, summing this point up, “if God did not spare the natural branches, how much more will he not spare us?”(Ibid.pg 37).

From these examples, one sees how this lines up with Dawson’s(2002,pg.127) observation that the past actions and events recorded in Scripture aren’t distant, away and done with. They will occur in the present and future for the Spiritual advancement of the church. A way this is grasped is through “Figural” reading or as categorized prior, the Mystical, Pneumatic and Psychic sense of Scripture. Another significant point to note as well is that these are meant to have practical consequences that lead to action. They aren’t merely just reading and listening.

Now that two examples of Scriptural exegesis with close links to praxis are provided, we may proceed to the next and main part of this post, how exegesis can link with Eucharistic theology.

3. Exegesis and Eucharist

As stated earlier, there is a link between Exegesis and Praxis in Origen’s exegesis of Scripture. The two examples from the Homilies on Psalms and Jeremiah so far shown this with the former in relation to attendance in liturgical assembly and the latter, to have faith. Examples shewing the life of the Christian in general or specific contexts like Baptism were also shown. Here such references will be explored as it relates to the Eucharist, providing us a valuable insight to Origen’s Eucharistic theology and exposing the fatal flaw in Brian’s perspective.

I will begin with an example from Homily V on Numbers(pg.16). At the start of this homily, Origen reminds his audience of the movement between the somatic(Letter) level of interpretation to the higher Pneumatic level(Understanding of the Spirit). The verses(Numbers 4) concerns on the Somatic sense the Holy of Holies and the protocols that must be followed and its relation to Christians today. Somatically, Origen begins by stating how when Israel is about to move in the wilderness, the Tabernacle and all that is within it are covered up. No one else but Aaron and his sons are allowed to looked at it. When they are covered up, the sons of Kohath are to carry these items upon their shoulders.

Moving onto the Spiritual sense of this, Origen applies this to the presbyter(one who ministers to God) who are able to contemplate the Divine things which cannot be comprehended by others. Such a person is based on the Spiritual sense of Numbers 4:18-19, like Aaron and his sons. This person is said to,

enter into things which it is not lawful for others to approach. So if someone is like this, to him alone is the ark of the covenant exposed.9 It is he who sees the urn that contains the manna, who considers and understands the propitiatory. He gazes at both cherubim and the holy table and the candlestick of light and the altar of incense.10 That person considers these things and understands them spiritually, that is, the one who exerts himself in the word of God and in the mysteries of wisdom and who occupies himself only with God in the sanctuary.

Homily V on Numbers, 1,2(pg 16)

Now Brian may argue here that the higher Divine mysteries here only apply only to the interior of the said person without any exterior reference. Unfortunately for him, Origen will directly apply this to the various rites of worship in the Church or “ecclesial observances”. On these, Origen notes:

Moreover, in the ecclesiastical observances there are some things of this sort, which everyone is obliged to do, and yet not everyone understands the reason for them. For the fact that we kneel to pray, for instance, and that of all the quarters of the heavens, the east is the only direction we turn to when we pour out prayer, the reasons for this, I think, are not easily discovered by anyone. Moreover, who would readily explain the reasons for the way we receive the Eucharist, or for the rite of explanation by which it is celebrated, or for the things that are done in baptism, the words, actions, sequences, questions and answers? And yet, we carryall these things on our shoulders, though they are covered and veiled, when we fulfill them and follow them in such a way that we have received them as handed down and commended by the great high priest and his sons. So when we carry out all these things and things similar to these, and yet do not follow the reason for them, we raise to our shoulders and carry divine mysteries that are concealed and covered, unless there be some Aaron among us, or Aaron’s sons, to whom it is granted to gaze on these things bare and revealed. Yet it is conceded in such a way that they know in themselves that these things are to be veiled and covered, when reason demands these things to be given to others and to be set forth as a work.

Homily V on Numbers, 1.4, pg.17-18

The extension of the Old Testament rites and the ordinances that relate to handling the objects in the Holy of Holies and Tabernacle clearly relates thus to the current rites and ordinances of the Church in the New Covenant. This also includes the Eucharist and how it is to be administered and celebrated. It and the various other observances of the Church which must be done by everyone contain Divine and Higher Truths. These are also clearly analogous to how the sons of Kohath carry the things of the Holy of Holies on their shoulders, covered. In the case of Christians today, they carry these observances and rites upon their shoulders. They contain mystical truths which they do not know(hence they are covered to begin with). They are also handed down from a High Priest and His sons which is most likely Christ and the Apostles in this case.

This same tendency is also reflected in the preceding Homily IV where after listing the items in the Holy of Holies and Tabernacle to be covered according to Numbers 4:4-18(Homily IV on Numbers, pg. 15), proceeds to apply this very regulation to the current worship of the Church. The Church today is the Tabernacle of the New Covenant. Presbyters are to guard the mysteries of the Church analogous to how these sacred vessels in the Holy of Holies in the Old Covenant are to be guarded. They are not to wrecklessly display them to the public and if he needs to, they must be “veiled” or else they commit murder and “destroy the clan”(Numbers 4:18). These mysteries includes the Sacraments and thus the Eucharist which Origen labels as “ineffible”.

Recalling the way the relationship between the higher and lower levels of Scripture operates as described prior where Divine things can be hidden IN the somatic level…this logic entails that the various rites of the Church including the Eucharist contain the Higher truths of Divine things or Christ in them. They aren’t separated and there is a real conjoining of the sign and signified akin to Boersma’s description that I laid out earlier. Given this, a heavy blow has now been dealt to Brian’s attempt to cast Origen as a Zwlinglian. In contrast to Brian’s position, what Origen outlines here compliments what was covered in my post on the Last Supper in the Gospels . I noted there how the Last Supper is a Type of the Covenantal meal of Moses and the elders of Israel in the presence of the Lord in Exodus 24. This parallel and intertextual link of Old and New meshes with Origen’s own exegesis as shown so far.

Of course, there is more Origen has to say about the Eucharist throughout his Homilies. In Homily 16 on Numbers(9:2), Origen tackles the meaning of Numbers 23:24. What does it mean to “drink the blood of the wounded”? Origen appeals to the disgust that is illicited if the verse is taken in a literal manner and so allegory becomes necessary(pg.100). Worse, we are forbidden to drink blood. In order to unveil the more mystical sense of this verse, Origen links this with John 6:52-53 where when Jesus speaks of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, the Jews began to be confounded and question him. By making the intertextual link to John 6, Origen demonstrates the mystical sense of this verse to be Christological, referring to the blood Christ has shed in the Atonement. Hence him being wounded.

Origen certainly applies the “drinking” of Christ’s blood in this case to receiving the Holy Words of the Gospel and hearing them preached. However to Brian’s dismay, Origen also accepts the application of this to the Eucharist stating that it isn’t just in the Sacrament alone that we drink the Blood of Christ(ibid., pg.101). That is certainly no repudiation of the idea of eating and drinking the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist. In fact it requires them to be consumed in the Eucharist. Origen it would seem simply widened the scope of Participation in Christ to the Word of Scripture itself.

Again here, given the mechanics of exegesis that had been explained, this also entails a realist view of Eucharistic theology. Just as Christ is present in the Word of Scripture itself and the Somatic level of Scripture contains the Higher levels and Divine things, so too the Eucharistic elements although lower and physical contain Christ himself. Such naturally flows from the nature of his exegetical views. Even worse for Brian given Origen’s acceptance of Eucharistic participation in Christ and uses John 6 as his Scriptural basis to leap from, this presents an explicit Ante Nicene instance of this part of the Gospel being applied to the Eucharist without tension with a metaphorical understanding.

In this same homily Origen also emphasizes the presence of key rites of Christian worship being present in the Old Testament as well, when that same verse in Numbers 23:24 is next intertextually tied to Matthew 11:12. Origen explicitly makes clear that these are written about the Church(our people) who are covenanted into the Sacraments of Christ(ibid.). To cement this, Deuteronomy 32:14 is cited, taking the “blood of the grape” to be the blood from the true vine, which is Christ. Given the explicit reference to the Eucharistic drinking of Christ’s blood, Christians being “covenanted” into the Sacraments of Christ and the later declaration of the Church as the “true Israel” who drink the Blood of Christ, the Real Presence in the Eucharist is shown, particularly in light of his exegetical theory. In case Brian decides to use the “blood” as Scripture rather than the Eucharist, I clarify that this does NOT exclude other modes of participation apart from the Eucharist, only the Eucharist IS one of these modes besides Scripture.

Moving to his Homilies on other Old Testament books, in Homily 13 on Leviticus, Origen provides an exposition on the shewbread based on Leviticus 24:4-9. Origen suggests that “there seems to be a remembrance before the Lord” of the 12 Tribes of Israel through the 12 loaves of bread to be presented(Homily 13 on Leviticus, pg. 237). This remembrance has a propriatory function given Origen states that “a certain entreaty and supplication is seen to be done through these things for each of them.” It becomes even more explicit when he links the shewbread to Christ Himself immediately after who is set forth as a Propriation through faith in His blood. Brian may take this to refer to Christ and His sacrifice on the cross to avoid the application to the Eucharist here but Origen contrary to this expectation, applies this to the Eucharist or the “ecclesial mysteries” and through an intertext of 1 Corinthians 11:25 which is explicitly about Jesus’ commands regarding the Lord’s Supper. The Lord’s Supper is also the only rememberance which makes God gracious to men.

This ironically adds another element to Origen’s Eucharistic theology that is contrary to Brian’s Zwlinglianism because there is an explicit propitiatory element to the Eucharist. On the contrary to Brian’s Zwlingian Eucharistic theology, this meshes well with the theology of High Anglicans like Jeremy Taylor who in explaining the blessings that flow forth from the Eucharist, lists that it has the efficacy for the “remission of sins” by being an application of the Atoning work of Christ(in agreement with Cosin). Explicating this, Taylor states,

Deceive not thyself, thou hast no part nor portion in this matter. For the holy sacrament operates indeed, and consigns our pardon, but not alone; but in conjunction with all that Christ requires as conditions of pardon. But when the conditions are present, the sacrament ministers pardon, as pardon is ministered in this world, that is, by parts, and in order to several purposes, and with power of revocation, by suspending the divine wrath, by procuring more graces, by obtaining time of repentance, and powers and possibilities of working out our salvation, and by setting forward the method and economy of our salvation.

On the Worthy Communicant, Chapter I, Section IV, 3,2

Later on, Taylor will compare the ministry of Christ in Heaven, which He perpetually offers the One Sacrifice on the Cross to the Father and what He does in Heaven, He commands to be done on Earth:

Now what Christ does in heaven, he hath commanded us to do on earth; that is, to represent his death, to commemorate this sacrifice, by humble prayer, and thankful record; and, by faithful manifestation and joyful eucharist, to lay it before the eyes of our heavenly Father, so ministering in his priesthood, and doing according to his commandment and his example; the church being the image of heaven; the priest, the minister of Christ; the holy table being a copy of the celestial altar; and the eternal sacrifice of the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world, being always the same; it bleeds no more after the finishing of it on the cross; but it is wonderfully represented in heaven, and graciously represented here; by Christ’s action there, by his commandment here. And the event of it is plainly this,–that as Christ, in virtue of his sacrifice on the cross, intercedes for us with his Father,–so does the minister of Christ’s priesthood here; that the virtue of the eternal sacrifice may be salutary and effectual to all the needs of the church, both for things temporal and eternal. And, therefore, it was not without great mystery and clear signification, that our blessed Lord was pleased to command the representation of his death and sacrifice on the cross should be made by breaking bread, and effusion of wine; to signify to us the nature and sacredness of the liturgy we are about, and that we minister in the priesthood of Christ, who is a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec; that is, we are ministers in that unchangeable priesthood, imitating, in the external ministry, the prototype Melchisedec: of whom it was said, “He brought forth bread and wine, and was the priest of the most high God;” and, in the internal, imitating the antitype, or the substance, Christ himself; who offered up his body and blood for atonement for us,–and, by the sacraments of bread and wine, and the prayers of oblation and intercession, commands us to officiate in his priesthood, in the external ministering like Melchisedec, in the internal, after the manner of Christ himself.

Ibid., 4,2

Jeremy Taylor, in accordance to Origen’s description of the shewbread and its relation to the Eucharist, sees the Eucharistic sacrifice as a memorial one offered to the Father that intercedes(by virtue of the One sacrifice of the Cross) and secures propitiation of sins.

Returning to Origen, if that statement on the New Covenant version of the shewbread isn’t sufficient enough, later on in that same sermon, he will directly relate this with reception of the bread and wine of the Eucharist(Homily 13 on Leviticus, 5,5,pg.243). There he explicitly states “the Sacrament of the Lord’s Body and Soul”, which must be received with the appropriate disposition(the Spiritual/Mystical meaning of the Shewbread placed on a pure table). Doing otherwise will as St Paul puts it in 1 Corinthians 11:27(the intertext), guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord. The Eucharistic food is also described as “very holy”(An intertext of Leviticus 24:9) and “not common for all”. They are only for the saints.

These further demonstrates the Real Presence in Origen and the acknowledgement of the Eucharist as bearing a Propriatory element(most likely as a memorial sacrifice). Of course again the shewbread in Leviticus 24 goes beyond just the Eucharist. In fact given the Eucharistic elements being “holy”, this holiness must also extend to the Scriptures themselves. The “secrets” of Scriptures are reserved not for everyone but only for those who are “purified in mind”, “pure in heart” and “simple in soul”. In Homily XIII on Exodus(pg.381), the juxtaposition of proper reception of the Eucharistic bread and Scriptures also operates as in the Homily 13 on Leviticus. Treatment of Scripture must be akin to how one takes care that the Consecrated bread of the Eucharist isnt dropped or lost.

More of this juxtaposition is also seen in Peri Pascha. Origen states that,

the married man who eats the passover will also gird his loins; for blessed are they who have wives as if they did not have them (1 Cor. 7.29), said the Apostle

Peri Pascha, pg.47

According to the translators Dillon & Daly, there is a reference to the Eucharist here given the presence of those who are married eating the Passover. The key reason for this being the Greek for “eat” used here is “trogon” which is the same verb used in John 6:54-58. Furthermore, while Origen never states explicitly that the Passover is now fulfilled in the Eucharist in Peri Pascha, in Homily 19 on Jeremiah, he does explicitly takes it to be an enacted symbol of the Passover which Jesus celebrates(pg.212). Citing 1 Corinthians 10:16, that this is the Eucharist is clear, which also means when Origen states that one ought to up with Christ to celebrate the Passover, this naturally supports Dillon & Daly’s justification for detecting an allusion to the Eucharist in Peri Pascha. Thus, Giulea(2013,pg.210) is correct in noting that Origen’s disclosure on the Passover to be multifaceted. It joins together Biblical hermeneutics and liturgy together. More importantly, just as with the Origenian view of Scripture described here, Giulea considers the participation in Scripture here to entail the manifestation of the Logos(ibid.,pg.211).

Given the comparison of the Eucharist and Scripture, the close link between Origen’s theology of Scripture and the Eucharist itself is clearly established, enabling them to relate to one another. Besides these, the loaves of the shewbread can signify human action or works of mercy and kindness(Homily 13 on Numbers.,pg.237-238) and the type of prayer that one offers(ibid., pg.238-239). With these, one could see how there isn’t a single mechanical meaning of Scriptural verses as Brian seems to think via thinking if John 6 is about faith it necessarily cannot be about the Eucharist. Instead we see in Origen how the presence of one meaning of a particular verse doesn’t exclude application to others.

Having laid out the mention of the Eucharist in some of Origen’s homilies and how they relate to his view of Scripture and his exegetical views, the findings of this section can be summed up as,

  1. Origen’s “tripartite” view of Scripture and how the Higher mystical sense can be present in the Somatic sense leads to the Eucharist as also embodying this as Homily V on Numbers shows. This also leads to the real presence in the Elements in relation to this.
  2. Although Origen does not speak of “Propitiatory sacrifice” regarding the Eucharist, what we see is through exegeting the meaning of the shewbread in Homily 13 on Leviticus, there is the sense where it by being a “remembrance” before God, can secure a propitiation for sins, on the basis as with Jeremy Taylor’s description, on the One sacrifice of Christ.
  3. Given the way Exegesis and Eucharist are connected to one another, John 6 is Eucharistic as well as Scripture. Given the Spiritual nourishment from Scripture and it as a participation in Christ, it naturally follows the Eucharist does this too and hence, the Real Presence is required.
  4. Origen also considers the Eucharist as a symbol of the Passover as well as Scripture itself. This also entails the Real Presence given the Flesh of Christ in Peri Pascha is considered a participation in Christ. If this is so, then so too the Eucharist. Both are modes of partaking of Christ
  5. The Eucharist, alongside other observances of the Church are considered to be the New Covenant fulfillment and counterparts to Old Testament and Covenantal rituals and sacrifices.

4. On Brian’s use of Commentary on Matthew

Although all that has been covered is sufficient to demonstrate the Real Presence belief in Origen’s Eucharistic theology, a possible rebuttal Brian could give is that in the Commentary on Matthew, representing Origen’s most mature thought would entail a change of mind to a Zwlinglian mode of thought. Hence Origen calling the Eucharistic bread “symbolical” and stating that neither by eating or not eating we are deprived of any good thing, this means the Eucharist is of little importance soteriologically and that there is no Real Presence at all.

Thus this section will focus on the Commentary on Matthew, demonstrating the flaw in Brian’s own use of it. We begin with Chapter 25 of Book X of this series, which completely destroys Brian’s use of the proceeding Book XI in his article. Here is Origen’s brief exegesis of Matthew 14;15,

After this the word says, “And when even was come, His disciples came to Him, saying,The place is desert and the time is already past; send, therefore, the multitudes away, that they may go into the villages and buy themselves food.”(Matthew 14:15) And first observe that when about to give to the disciples the loaves of blessing, that they might set them before the multitudes, He healed the sick, in order that, having been restored to health, they might participate in the loaves of blessing; for while they are yet sickly, they are not able to receive the loaves of the blessing of Jesus. But if any one, when he ought to listen to the precept,“But let each prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread,” (1 Corinthians 6:28) etc., does not obey these words, but in haphazard fashion participates in the bread of the Lord and His cup, he becomes weak or sickly, or even—if I may use the expression—on account of being stupefied by the power of the bread, asleep

Unfortunately for Brian, Origen is explicit that there is power IN the Eucharistic elements. This only means one thing, Ferguson is correct in his assessment of the language of “symbol” when Early writings use it for the Eucharist. The power of the Eucharistic elements can cause those who partake of them with the wrong disposition to become weak, sick or in this case given the intertextual link to 1 Corinthians, struck dead. Not exactly a good sign if one wants to argue for Origen as a Zwlinglian as Brian does. This also gives us a better way to understand what he will state in Book XI, 14 when he does reference the Eucharist again.

The entire issue in this book and chapter of the Commentary on Matthew revolves around the meaning of Jesus’ reply to the Pharisees in Matthew 15:11. It is not what that enters a man that defiles him, but what comes out of his mouth. Origen states here that “simpler disciples” think the “Bread of the Lord” can sanctify. But as his exposition continues on, contrary to what Brian wants Origen to say where the bread is just normal/ordinary bread, Origen simply notes that issue is the conscience of the person. Moreover the way of thinking of the simpler disciples would entail objective efficacy regardless of the state of the person’s conscience. This meshes more with what Jeremy Taylor has stated on the benefits of the Eucharists for the remission of sins. The conscience of the person matters.

And more detrimental to Brian’s presentation of Origen, Origen still makes it clear that the bread is still sanctified by the Word of God and Prayer , which must clearly endow it with a power it does not have before consecration or reception of these things in light of Book X, Chapter 25. Still, perhaps Brian might say that since the material of the Eucharistic bread ends up cast out as with any other normal food and this is distinguished from the Word and prayer said over it, this means there is no Real Presence as there is a distinction emphasized here.

But this won’t do. A distinction or recognition that there is an additional nature that is received by the material bread doesn’t mean no real presence. This only refutes views of the real presence like Transubstantiation where the nature of the bread or its substance is changed and not views like Jeremy Taylor where the bread and wine are sacramental symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ yet by the operation of the Spirit can convey and exhibit the reality they represent. This view, known as Virtualism is still a view of the Real Presence. Even basic sacramental union can be affirmed based on Origen’s explanation so long as the nature of the bread and wine remains. Recognizing this, Origen then no longer appears to say what Brian wants him to say about the Eucharist. Instead Origen is simply stating that the material bread and wine of the Eucharist in and of themselves don’t sanctify and we arent deprived of anything by eating or not eating these. Instead, it is the Word and Prayer said over them that matters and sanctifies the person who partakes.

With this, burden then is on Brian to show how Origen entails by making a distinction in the parts of the sacrament to entail separation and explain Book X, chapter 24 in order to explain why Origen is a Zwlinglian and rejects the Real Presence.

5. Recapitulation

Putting all of this post together into this summation, I began first by describing Origen’s exegetical theory of Scripture where the Higher mystical levels are present in the somatic lower level. I also examined several examples from his homilies which show these in practice, alongside intertextuality, links they have to praxis and how the past events narrated in Scriptures can be brought about to the present.

Tying this first with Baptismal practice and the necessity of attending liturgical assembly, I then examined the presence of the Eucharist in the Homilies. Through this, we see how the Eucharist is conceived in manners that makes sense if a Real Presence view is taken in contrast with Brian’s Zwlinglian view. The juxtaposition of Scripture and the Eucharist demonstrates this where if Scripture is participation in the Word, then so too the Eucharist. We even see how the multilayered nature of Scripture applies to it too where the rites of the Church contain higher mysteries in them. Further solidifying the case of the Real Presence, we also found Origen ascribing propriatory views to the Eucharist, something impossible if he is a Zwlinglian as Brian.

Proceeding from this, we looked at Brian’s attempt at using Origen’s Commentary on Matthew. There a closer look at Origen’s words themselves shows how Brian either misunderstands what he quotes or ironically like the Catholic apologists he rails against…misuse and abuse him. It should also be telling that Brian considers Origen’s Homilies as “doubtful” but provides no reason. All that could be said of this claim is that the burden is on Brian to prove why such is the case.

With all these in mind, we return to the titular question, Early Church Evidence Refutes Real Presence?

According to Origen’s high view of Scripture and his method of exegesis, definitely not.

References

Primary Sources:

Ancient Christian Texts: Homilies on Numbers

Homilies on Leviticus, 1-16

Homilies on Jeremiah and I Kings 28

Homilies on Genesis and Exodus

Treatise on the Passover and Dialogue of Origen With Heraclides and His Fellow Bishops on the Father, the Son, and the Soul (Ancient Christian Writers Vol. 54)

Oxford Early Christian Texts: On First Principles (Edited by John Behr)

Origen: The Song of Songs, Commentary and Homilies (Ancient Christian Writers)

Commentary on Matthew

Secondary Sources:

The Oxford Handbook of Sacramental Theology-Edited by: Hans Boersma and Matthew Levering (2015)

Scripture as Real Presence: Sacramental Exegesis in the Early Church- Hans Boersma (2017)

The Soul and Spirit of Scripture within Origen’s Exegesis(The Bible in Ancient Christianity series, vol.3)- Elizabeth Dively Lauro (2005)

Scripture and Christian Formation in Origen’s Fourth Homily on Psalm 77(78)- John Solheid (2019)

Books and Readers in the Early Church- Harry Gamble (1997)

Studia Patristica. Volume XLVI: Tertullian to Tyconius, Egypt before Nicaea, Athanasius and his Opponents- Edited by:Jane Baun, A. Cameron, M. Edwards, Markus Vinzent , Peeters Publishers (2010)

Christian Figural Reading and the Fashioning of Identity- John David Dawson (2002)

Pre-Nicene Christology in Paschal Contexts: The case of the Divine Noetic Anthropos- Dragos Andrei Giulea (2013)

A Rejoinder to Jesse 2

Source: https://rationalchristiandiscernment.blogspot.com/2020/09/one-reason-baptismal-regeneration-is.html?m=1

Quickly, Jesse has replied only to beat around the bush. Now of course people can have their own understanding of what a written text says, but that doesnt change the fact that there are always good ways to interpret it and bad ways to interpret it. In Jesse’s case, we see a textbook example of a bad approach to interpreting any text where basic context or the concept of “Letting the author explain himself” is not utilized at all.

Rather than demonstrate why what I posted is wrong and inaccurate, there is a progressive and liberal level appeal to subjectivism here where there are no longer standards and clear themes or meaning that is embedded and intended by the author. Instead what the text means is based on what one wants to see or in this context “my understanding”

After all if Jesse do believe this treatsie on Re-Baptism really espouses his Zwlinglian view then he can show it from text, context or basic scholarship done on the subject.

And on Jesse’s final note one can see how rather than clarify his view on water Baptism, he simply asserts without any explanation that the view I ascribe to him does no justice to his understanding. One can only ask how? If Baptismal regeneration is false, then clearly nothing Divine is to be conjoined, attached with or even be at the spatial location of the washing by water. It’s just symbolic. It’s just a mere declaration or public testimony rather than the site of rebirth or the path to it. If Jesse wants my description proven false or to do no justice to his views, then all he have to do is simply outline his views of what water baptism accomplishes, what is its purpose.

So TL; DR, nothing worth of substance is said at all to address what I provided.

Update: finally we have a bit of reasonings against the points I have given.

https://rationalchristiandiscernment.blogspot.com/2020/09/one-reason-baptismal-regeneration-is.html?m=1

Of course nothing much but, it’s still better than what came before. So kudos to Jesse on this. However most remain unaddressed. For one Baptismal Regeneration doesnt deny one is Saved by Faith. Luther’s own Catechism and Luther scholars like Philip Cary has stressed this point.

https://www.academia.edu/29796297/Sola_Fide_Luther_and_Calvin

So claiming one is saved by faith and using this as a wedge against Baptismal regeneration fails. It even fails given that this first point doesnt address what the anonymous author describes regarding water Baptism which is associated and even connected to Spirit Baptism and even leads to glory and salvation. Again, not a good start and one that relies on a strawman.

In fact given we are now using dichotomous reasoning here, I propose that without the Sacramental logic of Luther’s view of Baptism, you cant really be saved by faith but instead literally by your own works as one is relying on some emotive inner state and its presence in the soul, not trusting what is given in the Sacraments.

Claiming my description of the nakedly symbolic view of water baptism is “reductionistic” is a mere assertion, especially when nothing clarifying your own position is given at all. So you are adding another extra sentence that adds no value to what we discern from your own statement.

Lastly, just because St Augustine believed in Baptismal Regeneration(as all Patristic figures who mention Baptism) does it make my mention of him superflous. Anyone familiar with his standard reply to the Donatist can see similarities in reasoning with this earlier 3rd cent author on the issue of rebaptism. So again, a bad excuse.

One Reason Jesse misrepresents the Early Christian treatsie on Re-Baptism

https://rationalchristiandiscernment.blogspot.com/2020/09/one-reason-baptismal-regeneration-is.html?m=1

Over here, a rather perculiar use of a 3rd century writing on Re-Baptism is used by Jesse to prove that Baptismal Regeneration is false. On the surface, the quotation by itself alone without regards to the rest of the text seems to prove Jesse’s point, there’s no regenerative or salvific quality to water baptism at all.

Of course for those who honestly read the text, we know better than to attribute distinctions between the material or physical aspects of any sacrament and its Divine reality to entail radical separation, as if the two cannot be conjoined together or that as if when water baptism happens, there is practically nothing else but bare washing taking place.

Our anoymous author here also makes this very clear for us

10. Besides, what wilt thou say of those who are in many cases baptized by bishops of very bad character, who yet at length, when God so wills it, convicted of their crimes, are even deprived of their office itself, or absolutely of communion? Or what wilt thou decide of those who may have been baptized by bishops, whose opinions are unsound, or who are very ignorant—when they may not have spoken clearly and honestly, or even have spoken otherwise than is fit in the tradition of the sacrament, or at least may have asked anything, or asking, have heard from those who answered what ought by no means 673to be so asked or answered? And still this does not greatly injure that true faith of ours, although, moreover, these more simple men may deliver the mystery of the faith without the elegance and order that thou wouldst use. And thou wilt assuredly say, with that marvellous carefulness of thine, that these too should be baptized again, since this is especially the thing which is wanting to them, or hinders their being able to receive, uncorrupted, that divine and inviolable mystery of the faith. And yet, O excellent man, let us attribute and allow to the heavenly agencies their power, and let us concede to the condescension of the divine majesty its appropriate operations; and understanding how great is the advantage therein, let us gladly acquiesce in it. And thus, as our salvation is founded in the baptism of the Spirit, which for the most part is associated with the baptism of water, if indeed baptism shall be given by us, let it be conferred in its integrity and with solemnity, and with all those means which are written; and let it be administered without any disconnection of anything. Or if, by the necessity of the case, it should be administered by an inferior cleric, let us wait for the result, that it may either be supplied by us,5454 or reserved to be supplied by the Lord

https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05/anf05.vii.iv.ii.html

When this Spiritual Baptism is for the most part associated and tied to the Baptism by water, this means that when the author makes a distinction between the Divine Operations of the Holy Spirit and the material physical actions or water that is used in water baptism, there is no indication that water baptism does nothing or it is merely just an empty testimony or symbol detached from what God is doing. Instead the author is merely affirming that God isnt restricted by the material sacrament itself which, even Catholicism believes. The end of paragraph 3 also makes it clear, noting that although Water and Spirit Baptism are associated together, they are sometimes in the New Testament, found to be apart or given in different sequences.

So ironically, by using this to deny Baptismal Regeneration, Jesse is showing he is unfamiliar with Early Christian primary sources which is the most charitable mode of assumption to go by here, or he is actually being dishonest.

After all, one doesnt invoke a very similar argument that St Augustine will later use against the Donatists where the immoral minds of the cleric invalidates the efficiacy of the sacrament if the point is that Baptism by the Spirit is completely separate from Baptism by water. That sort of argumentation and reference makes no sense of this is the point. It is to be noted as well that in Paragraph 3, after citing Jesus’ answer to Nicodemus on being born again of Water and Spirit, the author makes an affirmation that water baptism can be joined with the Spirit. Even more strongly, he makes it clear he dares not deny this.

This is practically what Baptismal Regeneration affirms, the Word joined to the visible Sacramental signs as Luther notes in his Cathechism.

14. And even to this point the whole of that heretical baptism may be amended, after the intervention of some space of time, if a man should survive and amend his faith, as our God, in the Gospel according to Luke, spoke to His disciples, saying, “But I have another baptism to be baptized with.”5469 Also according to Mark He said, with the same purpose, to the sons of Zebedee: “Are ye able to drink of the cup which I drink of, or to be baptized with the baptism wherewith I am baptized?”5470  Because He knew that those men had to be baptized not only with water, but also in their own blood; so that, as well baptized in this baptism only, they might attain the sound faith and the simple love of the laver, and, baptized in both ways, they might in like manner to the same extent attain the baptism of salvation and glory

Also a few paragraphs later, we see another statement that affirms the simple point set I had set forth. Water Baptism here is considered instrumental in attaining the Baptism of Salvation and Glory. Not exactly a good way to phrase things if one’s point is that Baptism by water avails to nothing at all and is completely detached from the operation of the Holy Spirit.

This makes more sense when the author explains what “Baptism by blood” means here a little later in the paragraph. It means martyrdom. So here, water Baptism and martyrdom are considered “certain ways of the one baptism might so be laid open to us, that at times some one of them might be wanting without mischief”.

Again not a good way to conceptualize the different kinds of Baptisms or saying that water baptism avails for nothing but a symbol detached from the Holy Spirit. After all why does water baptism function as part of Divine Grace being administered for the baptism of glory if Baptismal Regeneration is false? All Baptismal Regeneration affirms is that in water baptism, the Operation of the Holy Spirit is there in the waters accompanying and being conjoined to the material operations taking place. It isnt a naked symbol.

To end this, a similar point on Divine priority and the different sequences of how one is Saved is noted by Baptist scholar Robert Stein here,

https://equip.sbts.edu/publications/journals/journal-of-theology/sbjt-21-spring-1998/baptism-and-becoming-a-christian-in-the-new-testament/

So in conclusion, we see that either Jesse is ignorant of the very text he is quoting given the incongruity between the author himself and Jesse’s presentation of his words, or he is being dishonest and misrepresenting him. I let the reader decide and as a bonus offer, I ask that if Stein or this anoymous author do indeed contradict what I have written then by all means, explain with proof from their own writings without being triggered.

Early Church Evidence Refutes Real Presence: Dialogue with Culliton

Here, I present the most extensive interaction with Brian on the issue of the Eucharist that I had on his blog, for the benefit of readers who wishes for a detailed examination of context and scholarship against those who claim to be for context but yet fall short.

This comment is preceeded by a citation from JND Kelly’s Early Christian Doctrines(pg.440). Readers are recommended to see here for Kelly’s own views of the Real Presence in the Ante Nicene church.

Early Church Evidence Refutes Real Presence?: The New Testament in Context (1)

Over at One Fold, Brian has requested Biblical proof for my views of the Eucharist after addressing my comments on Justin Martyr’s view of the Eucharist and why the real presence cannot be reasonably inferred from his statements. A reply to this has been posted as can be seen. Here, I will answer the request of Brian which is to:

see Scriptural evidence for your view of participating in the process of applying Christ’s one true sacrifice when the bread is broken?

So take this post as a two part answer to this. The flow of my answer will start by addressing the Last Supper as a Passover meal and its connections with it,  later providing Jewish views of the Passover as participating in the Exodus narrative. The next post will move on to Paul’s description of the Eucharist in 1Corinthians. What is to be shown here is that by virtue of the Passover being when Jews would “make present” the saving past of Exodus by their self identification with that narrative, the Eucharist operates in a similar manner with one “making present” the event at the Last Supper and Christ’s sacrifice and through identification, partake of this.

1)Gospel Accounts of the Last Supper and the Passover

To say that there is a strong connection between the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper and the Eucharist is not an understatement, although In John’s Gospel (for instance opening of John 13) the placing of the Supper is “before the feast of the Passover” and the Passover being the time when Christ is sentenced to be crucified(John 19:14) thus making it Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross that is portrayed as this Passover, taking place during the festival. For now I leave this discrepancy aside and focus on the other three Gospels accounts of the Last Supper and how they are connected with it starting from Mark, Matthew and Luke. After this, then I will return to the issue of the supposed discrepancy between the Synoptics and John’s gospel.

12 And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?

13 And he sendeth forth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him.

14 And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the goodman of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples?

15 And he will shew you a large upper room furnished and prepared: there make ready for us.

16 And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.

17 And in the evening he cometh with the twelve.

18 And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with me shall betray me.

19 And they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him one by one, Is it I? and another said, Is it I?

20 And he answered and said unto them, It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish.

21 The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.

22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.

23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.

24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

25 Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

26 And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.

See: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+14&version=KJV

The first section shows Jesus instructing the disciples concerning the preparation for the Passover, no doubt for the Passover meal itself(v.12-16). This meal had been planned in advanced as Jesus instructions indicate, asking two disciples to meet a man bearing a pitcher of water and follow him and also relaying a message to the owner of the house where the meal is to be taken. One could say that Mark intends us to focus on Jesus, as he is the one who is organizing this meal, giving instructions and is designated “Master”. In Matthew 26:17-20 and Luke 22:7-14, this is also narrated with the details more or less the same.

All three narratives place the date of the Supper to be on the evening of the first day of the Feast of the Unleavened Bread. Reflecting what we know of the order of the Passover meal, we could see the climatic parts of the Supper Narrative to be akin to how during the Passover meal, the youngest child or person present must ask the father/host about why is this night during which the Passover meal is taking place be different from other nights. The host then explains why and the symbolism of the various elements of the meal(Stein,2008,pg.649: notice that Stein also states “reliving the Passover experience” in describing the Passover meal).

In v.21-26 in Mark(see the above) would be the explanation of the ‘father’/host, Jesus who explains how this night and meal would be significant, after the disciples reacted to the implication from Jesus himself that one amongst them will betray him. According to the rubrics of the Passover too, the cup that Jesus points to when he says “this is my blood” would be the third cup, which is taken at the end of the meal(ibid.,pg.650). The statement in Mark 14:24, Matthew 26:28 and Luke 22:20 in reference to the cup as the “new covenant” would echo the covenant of Moses which is the focus of the Passover. It is as Marcus(2013,pg.312) notes, an echo of Exodus 24:8. Undoubtedly too, the Passover lamb would be seen as Jesus, who would sacrifice himself for many as the body is given and blood is shed for “you”. This sacrifice of Christ is reflected in the symbology ascribed to the bread and wine used in the Last Supper.Of the bread, Marcus(pg.314-315) shown the uncanny similarity between the Passover Haggadah or the part known as Ha Lachma regarding the bread and wine and Jesus’ words of institution regarding them.

For now I note that many commentators, even some cited here(Stein,2008,pg.650; Turner,2008,pg.626; Keener,1999; Ciampa & Rosner,2010,pdf pg.526 are some examples) will  see this symbology as negating any view of a real presence in the elements or sacramental union in the Last Supper and Eucharist. All I am establishing at this point is that the Last Supper is a Passover meal and has close associations with it. This is the thrust of my argument before explaining how a sacramental union between sign and signified can be possible under it.

Despite the close connection and identification with the Passover, there are currents in New Testament scholarship that would argue that the Last Supper itself is not a Passover meal. Marcus(2013,pg.304-305) states that this is due to an issue in studies of Ancient Judaism where “more and more scholars” are considering that the Passover during the Second Temple and by default, NT period is not the same Passover with distinctive elements in a fixed order and the haggadah(the interpretation noted earlier). These elements are seen as later post 70AD developments. For instance the foundational texts of the Passover, Exodus 12-13 and Deuteronomy 16 dont provide a Haggadah or seder at all in the instructions for it(pg.305). Several texts like Jubilees 49:16-21 and 2 Chronicles 35:11-13 would imply that the Passover can only be conducted in the temple courts(pg.306) and some scholars consider that the Passover meal are eaten in haste even during the Second Temple period(pg.307).

However against the observations of such a view, Philo does demonstrate that the Passover during the Second Temple period can be conducted in a domestic setting, saying that every house is like a temple(Ant. 2.312,cited from Colautti,2002,pg.171). Moreover in his Quaestiones et Solutiones in Exodum(1.15), Philo interprets the symbolism of the unleavened bread and bitter herbs as the Jews forced to leave Egypt and suffering which is found in the Mishnah  attributed to Rabbi Gamaliel(Marcus,2013,pg.310) and also mentions the bread of affliction the Ha Lachma refers to(pg.317). These observations are missed by Turner(2008,pg.626-267) when he argues that in the Passover Seder and Haggadah that is celebrated by many churches during easter is in fact a later development projected into the NT Passover meal.

While the Sypnotics dont mention the presence of lamb at the Last Supper meals as Turner claims, this does not disqualify the possibility that lamb is sacrificed and served as part of the meal before the destruction of the Second Temple. This is widely recognized as well, for instance Philo as with Josephus, described thousands of animals were sacrificed(Colautti,2002,pg.170). Plus, it could be that the Synoptic authors wanted to indicate that the paschal lamb sacrificed would be Jesus, for the salvation of many. So while indeed the precise details of the correspondence between the Passover and Last Supper are not clear, we have evidence from the Second Temple period that can give some clarity. In Jubilees too, although it is clearly against a domestic celebration, it nevertheless does not state that the meal is eaten in haste(Marcus,2013,pg.308). By the time of the 1st century as well, it could be possible that given the large number of pilgrims that would be present in Jerusalem for the celebration, the area where it is celebrated could had been widened to the entirety of Jerusalem rather than the temple courts(Routledge,2002,pg.209).

With the parallels and clear statements of the Sypnotic Gospels on the Supper and potential objections answered, there is still the  problem of why John does not consider the Last Supper to take place during the Passover and only sets it during Christ’s crucifixion. It could be that John wanted to emphasize Christ himself and his sacrifice as the Passover and Paschal Lamb, which Keener(2003,pg.899;1100) sees such chronology as supporting John’s portrayal of Christ as the Paschal Lamb and the Passover in John as being more for symbolic purposes. This tendency also lead him to conclude that John revised an earlier Passover tradition(pg.900).

Having quite briefly presented the Last Supper as Passover meal and the parallels to it, what can be taken away from this?

Given the above, it would seem that if the Last Supper is a Passover meal, then it would seem that this memorial act which Jesus commanded to be repeated until he comes again is seen as commemorating the sacrifice of the ultimate Paschal Lamb and the Inauguration of the New Covenant, just as the Passover would commemorate their liberation from Egypt by God’s hands and the Covenant of Moses. Insofar, this rings acceptable in Brian’s ears especially since nothing establishing any sense or realism is presented and so I move on to the first step in doing so, examining how the concept of Memorial is viewed in the Jewish Passover.

2)The Presence of the Salvific Past and Eschatology in the Passover
Prior to this post, I cited Boccaccini’s Middle Judaism: Jewish Thought, 300 B.C.E. to 200 C.E that points out the Passover is seen as making the “saving past” of the liberation from Egypt in Exodus present in the celebrants. Several scholars in agreement with this had been briefly touched on just prior. Here, more detail on this shall be given.

In agreement with the assessment of Boccaccini, Macaskill(2013,pg 203-204) notes how in the Passover seder, there is the element of personalizing the Exodus story. He cites Pesahim 10:4-5 as an example of this where it is instructed that each person celebrating is to regard himself “as if he personally came out of Egypt”, identifying with the salvific acts of God. Josephus would seem to indicate this tendency given that amongst his list of the polities set by Moses is to commemorate the liberation of Israel from Egypt twice a day(Antiquities of the Jews, IV, 8, 13)

Other Jewish texts commenting on the Passover do follow the Pesahim cited by Macaskill. The Targum Neofiti(12:42) comments

The first night: when the Lord was revealed over the world to create it. The world was without form and void, and darkness was spread over the face of the abyss and the Memra ( ממריה רייי ) of the Lord was the Light ( נהורא ), and it shone; and he called it the First Night.

The second night: when the Lord was revealed to Abram ….

The third night: when the Lord was revealed against
the Egyptians at midnight: his hand slew the first-born of the Egyptians and his right hand protected the first-born of Israel ….

The fourth night: When the world reaches its appointed time to be redeemed: the iron yokes shall be broken [cf. Isa 9:4; 10:27 etc. and Jer 28:2–14], and the generations of wickedness shall be blotted out, and Moses will go up from the desert ⟨and the king Messiah ( מלכא משיחא ) from the midst of Rome.⟩ … and his Memra
מימר) )will lead between the two of them, and I and they will proceed together.

This is the night of the Passover to the name of the Lord [cf. Exod 12:11]; it is a night reserved and set aside for the redemption of all Israel, throughout their generations.

Here, one can see how the Passover encapsulates the grand narrative of history from the beginning of creation, ending at the fourth night where all of Israel is redeemed. Notice how the preceding nights cover a specific period of Old Testament history. An eschatological aspect of the Passover festival could also be detected at the final night.

Applying this logic to the Last Supper(and by extension the significance of the Eucharist) in Luke, Wilson(2016,pg 79-81) describes the Passover memorial as making participants “experience anew the past action of God as a present reality”(pg.80). For all the making present of the Past in some way being focused on, it is also important to note that the Passover also possesses eschatological expectations. With this expectation, it is not surprising that Josephus repeatedly connects the Passover with periods of political turmoil.

In Book XVII, Chapter 9 of the Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus describes the Passover as a memorial of the Exodus event. In this context, the celebration of the Passover is located in a time where Jews were lamenting those slained by Herod and desired that those who were honored by him, be punished. In Book XX, Chapter 5, Josephus describes a turmoil in Jerusalem that took the lives of many Jews, which happened during the Passover, beginning with a solider sent by procurator Cumanus exposing himself to the Jews and insulting them, causing an escalation in conflict that turned the Passover into a time of lamentation of mourning with many Jewish lives lost.

The singing of the Hallel Paslms(Pslams 113-118) during the Passover seder would also reflect the inclusion of eschatological expectations. As Wilson(pg.80) notes, this set of Psalms progress from remembrance of God’s saving acts in Exodus, praise and devotion in response to God’s mercy and then to messianic overtures and expectations. Evans(2012, pg 432) posits the possibility of this Psalms being sung in Matthew 26:30). One can also observe this sense of identification in Wisdom 18:8 where the author, after narrating and praising God for the deliverance of Israel from Egypt, he shifts into identifying himself with them by using first person pronouns.

Philo of Alexandria also demonstrates this eschatological tendency by casting the Passover in context of the illumination of the soul, progressing to God, saying,

We find this “ten” plainly stated in the story of the soul’s Passover, the crossing (διάβασις) from every passion and all the realm of sense to the tenth, which is the realm of mind and God; for we read “on the tenth day of this month let everyone take a sheep for his house” (Ex. xii.3), and thus beginning with the tenth day we shall sanctify to Him that is tenth the offering fostered in the
soul whose face has been illumined (πεφωτισμένῃ) through two parts out of three, until its whole being becomes a brightness (φέγγος) giving light to the heaven like a full moon by its increase in the second week. And thus it will be able not only to keep safe, but to offer as innocent and spotless victims its advances on the path of progress (προκοπαί).-De congressu quaerendae eruditionis gratia, 106)

This concept of participation in the past and eschatology regarding the Passover is also vindicated through studies in Social Memory where the memories of past events are integral to the present identity of social groups and their future expectations. On the commemoration of past events by a social group, Spaulding(2009,pg.14-15) describes how the social memory of the past is embodied in the act of commemoration. It organizes the subjective feelings of the past to make it conceivable through symbolic forms, drama and repetition. Following what has been outlined, the commemoration makes the past immanent in the present. It is not merely something remembered in thought alone, producing a personal identification with it.  Following this, Spiegel(2002,pg.109) states that the goal of liturgical commemoration is to make the remembered event “live again in the present”. The past is fused into the present. But liturgical commemoration don’t merely look back to the past but also, following the eschatological expectations of the Passover, looks to the future(pg.162).

Applying this to the Old Testament, Childs(1962,pg.74) pointed out that “to remember” expressed “the process by which later Israel made relevant the great redemptive acts which she recited in her tradition”. Through this act, the past events are contemporized with the present(pg.75). One can see this tendency in action in the Qumranic Pesher Habbakuk and the Damascus Document, combining an contemporized past with eschatological expectation. Both documents, starting from their present situation as being delivered to the sword(CD-A 1.3–5) and violence in the land(1QpHab 1.2–8) before revisiting the Chaldean destruction of Jerusalem(CD-A 1.6–21; 1QpHab 2–3). Despite their predicament, God has promised to preserve a remnant, an elect as the Damascus Document states,

For when they were unfaithful in forsaking him, he hid his face from Israel and the sanctuary and delivered them up to the sword. But when he remembered the covenant with the forefathers, he saved a remnant for Israel and did not deliver them up to destruction. And at the period of wrath, three hundred and ninety years after having delivered them into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, he visited them and caused to sprout from Israel and from Aaron a shoot of planting, in order to possess his land and to become fat with the good things of his soil. (CD-A 1.3–8)

Here we see just how the Scriptural past is integrated into present experience, the former being the way to interpret the latter. In the Qumranic documents, eschatological expectation is shown through the figure known as the Teacher of Righteousness who was exiled by the Wicked priest on Yom Kippur(1QpHab 11.4–8). Stuckenbruck(2010,pg.41-42) stipulates that the memory of this event functions to reinforce the Qumranic Community’s self perception, invoking and reliving it in liturgical form.

Although connections between the Passover and the Last Supper have been shown, it still remains open that the Lord’s Supper is meant to invoke the sacrificial death of Christ by “reliving” that night which Christ was betrayed all the way to his Cross and anticipating the eschatological future, as it is common in Second Temple Judaic tendencies.

Therefore I now proceed to the question of how this concept of memory is used in the New Testament.

3)The New Exodus

If the Last Supper is indeed a Passover meal and uses it as a conceptual framework to interpret the inauguration of the New Covenant and Atonement, then naturally links to Exodus must be embedded in the text. Here, I will demonstrate this link through intertextuality, drawing heavily from Hays “Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels”.

In Matthew 2:15, the flight of the Holy Family to Egypt is a fulfillment of Hosea 11:1. Here are the two verses placed side by side

15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.(Matthew 2:15)

11 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.(Hosea 11:1)

In Hosea, Israel is corporate, invoking Moses’ answer to Pharaoh in Exodus 4:22-23 where he says “Israel is my firstborn son”. Given in Matthew, Jesus being the Son is identified as Israel, this indicates that it is in Jesus where the eschatological hope of Israel lies. To use Richard Hays’ description, “recapitulated” in Christ. Choosing this allusion, it also tells us the reader something about the work of Christ. It is a work of deliverance.

Resonating with Israel suffering being enslaved in Egypt and the Second Temple tendencies of tying the suffering Israel to the Passover and Old Testament events, Matthew 2:18 speaks of Rachael weeping for her children due to the devastation caused by Herod slaying the firstborn. The location of Ramah echoes Jeremiah 40:1 where it is a staging ground for captives. It may be said that Herod slaying the firsborn echoes Exodus 1:22 where Pharaoh also orders the deaths of Israel’s firstborn sons. More directly however, Matthew 2:18 refers to Jeremiah 31:15-17 which says,

15 Thus saith the Lord; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not.

16 Thus saith the Lord; Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the Lord; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy.

17 And there is hope in thine end, saith the Lord, that thy children shall come again to their own border.

Matthew, referring to this prophecy points to Jesus’ coming and work as one that brings hope in times of turmoil. Jesus is the hope of Israel. Hence, Matthew follows in the expectations of the Second Temple Jews as shown.

Another link to Exodus mentioned by Matthew is through Jesus going off into the desert, fasting for 40 days and 40 nights. This temporal description according to Hays(2016, PDF pg.147) is a clear link to Moses who spent 40 days and 40 nights fasting in the presence of the Lord on Mt Sinai(Exodus 34:28; Deuteronomy 9:9). In Deuteronomy 9:25-26, Moses during this period prayed for mercy for Israel. Thus, Jesus in mimesis of this in Matthew would indicate that He is pleading to God on a sinful Israel’s behalf and for their mercy.

40 Days and 40 nights may also bring to mind the 40 years Israel wandered about in the desert. In fact, in the dialogue Jesus has with the Devil who tried to tempt Him, all of His lines are taken from Deuteronomy. The famous line, “Man shall not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord” is straight from Deuteronomy 8:2-3. Anyone familiar with Israel’s wandering in the desert would know of the disobedience displayed by Israel. But here, this disobedience is reversed. Jesus is obedient against the Devil. This strengthens Jesus as identifying with Israel in His salvific work.

Finally, we advance to the Last Supper at Matthew 26:26-29, which the term “Blood of the Covenant” being an intertextual link to Exodus 24:8. Given the context of Exodus 24:8, this indicates that Jesus’ sacrificial death would be the sealing of the Covenantal relationship between God and His people. The proceeding verses there also shows Moses, Aaron and the elders of Israel eating and drinking in the presence of the Lord, making the Last Supper a Type of this event in the Old Testament. To Wilson(2016,pg.83), the Apostles in this case represent the reconstituted people of God. This typological link also has the added implication that Jesus is God or the locus of Divine Presence on Earth.

As a sidenote too, given the 12 partaking of the Last Supper “in the presence of the Lord” and how it is the leadership of Israel in the Old Covenant that did so, this strengthens the case that David Wenkel makes for the kingship of the 12 Apostles in Luke-Acts.

Mark’s Gospel follows Matthew for the most part, and so I now shift gears onto Luke. In Luke’s account of the Last Supper, unlike Matthew’s and Mark’s adds the instruction from Jesus to “do this in memory of me”(Luke 22:19). This would no doubt be the very basis of the Eucharist/Lord’s Supper that Christians will conduct. Green(1997,pg.761) considers Jesus’ actions at the Last Supper to be one which pushes the meaning of the Passover in a Christological direction. He follows the typical order of the Passover celebration, yet adds an interpretive significance which while different, draws from its meaning.

The instruction to do what Jesus had done at the Supper in “remembrance” of him is one that according to Green, follows the Passover concept of memorial. While the description of this remembrance is one that can be taken in the Zwinglian sense which Brian will be most satisfied with(Green, 1997,pg.762) due to it being recalling the past for future benefit, Green notes elsewhere that the sense of re-presenting(let the past be effective in the present) is actually present in the Jewish concept of remembrance(ibid., 1988,pg.201). Besides this, “remembrance also underscores the parallel to the Passover. Dany(2016,pg.104) notes how for both the Passover and the Last Supper, the constitution of the ritual takes place before deliverance/salvation. Such placement is a sure sign that the deliverance/salvation will be successful and that the celebration of such and rituals would commence thereafter.

With converging the meaning of Passover onto Himself and commanding the Supper to be done in “remembrance” of Him, this essentially turns the Eucharist into a symbolic enactment of Jesus’ Atonement(Wilson, 2016, pg.81). This observation is supported by Costa(2013,pg.229) which the Eucharistic gathering is where Christians will relive and reenact the words and acts of Jesus in giving thanks to God. It should be noted that one of the sources cited by Costa on this subject immediately after is from the Anchor Bible Dictionary’s entry on Early Christian Worship which describes the hymns, words and prayers are meant to reactualize these past events in the minds of the worshippers. Worship then, including the Eucharist would function to actualize the salvific events narrated to the present by mimesis.

Ending this section on Luke, I would focus more on this Gospel next, showing how the importance of the theme of meals is used by him and the final chapter at Emmaus links with the Eucharist, which Pennington(2010,pg.62) accurately notes. These would point to the eschatological aspect of the Last Supper.

4)Eschatological Aspect of the Lord’s Supper

This section will begin with Luke 14:15-24 where Jesus offers a parable,

15 And when one of them that sat at meat with him heard these things, he said unto him, Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God.

16 Then said he unto him, A certain man made a great supper, and bade many:

17 And sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready.

18 And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The first said unto him, I have bought a piece of ground, and I must needs go and see it: I pray thee have me excused.

19 And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them: I pray thee have me excused.

20 And another said, I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.

21 So that servant came, and shewed his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind.

22 And the servant said, Lord, it is done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room.

23 And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.

24 For I say unto you, That none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper.

In context, Jesus is in a banquet of a Pharisee on Sabbath day. During this banquet, a man with dropsy comes, a situation which prompts Jesus to pose a question to the Pharisees, “Is it lawful to heal him on the Sabbath?”. The Pharisees held their peace and Jesus healed the man. After that he told them that if one’s ox or ass fall into a pit on Sabbath, one would not hesitate to pull it out, even if it is on the Sabbath. This answer is also in tandem with Deuteronomy 22:4.

Proceeding this is a parable where one who attends a wedding should sit at the lowest room instead of the highest room. One can only seat there at the bidding of the host. This brings to mind Proverbs 25:6-7 and also gives the reader a hint of the eschatological as verse 10 would indicate. There is also a parallel with Luke 13:30 here which itself is also eschatological in focus, referring to what is to be in God’s Kingdom.

This same eschatological focus is also present in the next parable Jesus gives about a host who sent out invites to guests who made excuses. Eventually the host invites the poor and those out on the highways and hedges. Verse 15 is a key trigger for the eschatological focus of the parable. Green(1997,pg.555) reminds us that to understand the force of this parable, one must understand the dining customs of the time where a host sending out invitation do so for the sake of social status and drawing a line between social insiders and outcasts.

With this in mind, one can see a sense of reversal where from “social insiders”, the host move to calling the outcasts, which are the poor and those on the highways and hedges. Such is also found at the beginning of Luke’s Gospel in the birth narrative relating Elizabeth’s miraculous birth despite being barren and Mary being the Mother of Jesus(see particularly the Magnificat). Having mentioned this, it would certainly raise some issues if the Host in this parable is a reference to God. More likely as Green suggests(1997,pg.557), a challenge to his audience(and the anonymous interlocutor who spake at Verse 15) to reorient the cultural norms of the time. This reorientation would no doubt, be what is expected in the eschatological feast which does not disregard the poor and outcast.

Moreover, it should also be common knowledge to the Pharisees that Jesus is speaking to here the eschatological banquet which is mentioned in OT texts such as Isaiah 25:6-9. Thus, when one sees the eschatological focus and mention of a banquet, one sees a link between eschatology and meals in Luke’s gospel, underscored when one sees Luke 12:35-37 and 13:28-30 .

Returning to Luke 14:15-24, one should notice a similar motif of reversal when the Last Supper is narrated. When the Apostles present began disputing amongst themselves which of them would be the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven, Jesus’ says the following in verses 22:26-27,

26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

27 For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.

This is not the sole link in the Supper that is eschatological(through parallels with the parable in Luke 14). As seen in the above quotation of Mark, Jesus says He would not drink the wine until the day He shall drink it anew in the Kingdom of God. Luke also records this. Preceeding this in verses 22:15-16, it is as if this is being emphasized once more in verses 17-18. On first sight, this may seem to imply that there cannot be any real presence in the Eucharist. It can only be a Zwlingian memorial since Christ said He wont drink of the wine until the Kingdom of God. However this view is rather weak, especially when seeing the eschatological connections here.

When Jesus makes such statements, what is being intimated is eschatological expectation, not the fact that Christ is now absent in the meal or cannot be present in the elements. They are better off seen in reference to the eschatological banquet, which verses before have hinted at. Here, Luke is also in support of my views here, utilizing the Passover as well. Dany(2016,pg. 92-93) observes that the Passover meal, looking to future deliverance whilst celebrating the salvific past, enables Luke to introduce a notion of future salvation in relation to it. Hence the statement would indicate a looking forward to the Parousia. It is even possible that what such statements refer to is the Christian Eucharist, which Dany considers a possible reading, although it can be contested(pg.93). My own view here is that indeed there is an anticipatory sense of the Eucharist which offers a “foretaste” of the Eschatological Banquet to come, however one must also consider the Already-Not Yet dynamic of NT eschatology which the Emmaus event in Luke 24 will make clear. Before this, we turn to Luke 23’s account of the Crucifixion that would elucidate this eschatology.

Readers familiar with the Gospels’ account of the crucifixion would know that there were two thieves that were also crucified with Christ. One of them, known as the penitent thief, defended Christ in the moment of mockery and thus he asks that Christ remembers Him. Christ’s answer is that “today” he will be with Him in paradise(See Luke 23:35-43). Wilson(2016,pg.119) notes that παράδεισος(the Greek word for Paradise) is used in Second Temple literature such as 1 Enoch 60:8 to denote the heavenly abode of the righteous. Usages in other areas of Scripture(Isaiah 51:3; Revelations 2:7) show reference to eschatological salvation. It could even denote the imagery of Edenic paradise where Jesus’ assurance to the thief is essentially a signal to the reader that His Salvific work and sacrifice will bring about a reversal of the Fall and enable a return to Eden. Luke 23:44-45 further collaborates this through καταπέτασμα, the Greek for the Temple veil.

It is used in the LXX to refer to the following,

1)The Inner veil separating the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies(Exodus 26:33; 2 Chronicles 3:14; 1 Kings 6:36)

2)The outer veil at the entrance of the courtyard(Exodus 37:16)

3)The screen between the courtyard and the Sanctuary(Exodus 26:37)

According to Wilson(2016,pg.122-124), in light of the absence of any syntactical marker, καταπέτασμα would denote 1). If so, since the Inner Veil is meant to act as a barrier between two spheres of differing holiness(more Holy and less Holy) and shielded the participants of the Israelite cult from the letheality of Divine Holiness and presence, this means the Temple veil tearing when Jesus died indicates the removal of the barrier that separates humanity from the Divine Presence. Through the cross, there is a kind of return to Paradise and access to God, which forms the “already” aspect of the “already-not yet” eschatology of Scriptures.

The same emphasis is brought into the Emmaus event in Luke 24. Here, two disciples were on the way to Emmaus after the revelation of Christ’s Resurrection. Along the way, Jesus came to them but since their eyes were “holden”, they did not know who was the person who joined them. Bucur(2014,pg.687) points out how most commentators highlight the use of Passivum Divinum here which expresses the exclusivity of Divine action which brought about this state to the two disciples. Of course this does not mean they lost their free will as this is done due to their ignorance which renders them unworthy of a greater manifestation of the risen Christ.

Jesus’ post Resurrection appearance to these two disciples here would seem to have close links to OT Theophanies(i.e Genesis 18-19, 28; Judges 6). A sense where this event is a re-enactment of Jacob is possible given the parallels of the disciples to him. Jacob’s sleep corresponds to the holding of the disciple’s eyes. Jacob realizing that the “Lord is in that place” after he woke up from his dream corresponds to the eyes of the disciples being opened. Bucur whilst raising these as possibilities for the text prefers interpreting it in the lens of “glory” language(pg.690), using Luke 24:26 as his starting point where Jesus says before explaining the OT Scriptures to them that,

26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

This “Glory” spoken of here is considered to be linked to the Transfiguration where it is explicit that the disciples saw Christ’s “Glory”(Luke 9:32). During the Transfiguration, one of the effects of beholding Christ’s Glory when He was praying at a mountain is that the disciples who behold it were heavy with sleep(Luke 9:32). Such is similar to the effect we see in Luke 24 at Emmaus when the Resurrected Christ appeared to the two Disciples. The link with Jacob’s dream may further solidify this.

Apart from links with Genesis, the appearance of Christ at Emmaus could also invoke Exodus, especially after Moses descended Mt Sinai where he had to veil his face due to it shining with Glory(Exodus 34:29-31). Initially given the luminosity of Exodus and the lack thereof in Luke, it would seem that this is unlikely. Yet, the Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum in narrating Moses’ descent from Mt Sinai, dating close to the NT actually shows how the Divine Light and luminosity on Moses’ face does not appear as visible light that is incomprehensible or have to be veiled. Rather, the light is described as invisible and simply rendering Moses’ face unrecognizable. The Israelites could only recognize Moses when he spake(Bucur 2014, pg.695-696). A similar account is also given for David when he slew the Philistine. When Goliath was struck by a rock, David asked him to open his eyes to see who has killed him. Goliath saw an angel behind David “not like a man” when he did so. After this, the angel changed David’s appearance such that Saul could not recognize him.

Here we see a parallel with Christ at Emmaus. His glory is that of invisible light that cannot be behold, unless by divine intervention. Honing in on Genesis, one can see the eschatological dimension of this event through the phrase “their eyes were opened” which is a close verbal parallel to Genesis 3:24. As before, on first sight a parallel, with Adam and Eve’s expulsion would seem out of place. However as Bucur notices, during the Second Temple period, the view of Adam and Eve being clothed in glory is in fact common(pg.699-700). In Irenaeus we see a similar view.

According to Irenaeus in Adversus Haeresies(III, XXIII, V), Adam once had the “robe of sanctity” from the Spirit but due to his transgressions, he has lost it. Two possible meanings could be garnered from this, Adam and Eve possessed the Holy Spirit pre-Fall or that they possessed Communion with God and its benefits. Regardless of which is chosen, something glorious is once possessed before the Fall, only to be lost which adds support to my point here as there is now a Patristic witness to the view of Adam and Eve clothed in glory.

With this in mind, the parallels can emerge between Adam and Eve in Genesis 3 and the Disciples in Emmaus. In both instances, the persons involved are transformed via eating. In Emmaus this would be indicated by the Breaking of the Bread, which opened the eyes of the Disciples. In Genesis 3, it is through eating the forbidden fruit that Adam and Eve’s eyes were opened. In Emmaus, the disciples gain understanding and recognize Christ but in Adam and Eve’s case, they have Fallen and are expelled, losing their place in Eden.

Looking at Emmaus in light of the Fall, it would indicate that Jesus’ Salvific work has affected a kind of return to Eden. Recalling the paradisical promise to the thief, this becomes more likely and hence an eschatological focus on the Emmaus event becomes plausible. In this event when the breaking of the bread occurs, I would posit that this is in fact a reference to the Eucharist. Note that Dany(2015,pg.104) shown how the basic term “breaking of bread” in Luke can imply a Eucharistic meal, without mentioning other elements. There are also more than one way by which one could refer to the Eucharist(i.e Lord’s Supper). Thus, to consider different eucharistic acts on account of differences would be rash. This means that when Luke mentions breaking of bread, it is essentially a shorthand for a Eucharistic meal. Pennington(2010,pg.62) also makes a similar observation, also including the post-Resurrection breaking of bread in Emmaus as a Eucharistic meal which points back to when Jesus was breaking bread at the Last Supper.

Now of course, Acts 27:35 would seem to disprove this view as in context, Paul is just sharing a meal with Pagans on a ship. But Dany(2015,pg.213-215) rightly points out that while this meal is not the Eucharist, it is still Eucharistic in its symbolism. Here, those who partake of the meal would be nourished. As these people are Pagans and the symbolism is eucharistic, it would be an indication that Salvation is now extended to the Gentiles. They are invited to eat in the Presence of the Lord ala the Apostles at the Last Supper.

Besides this, the sequence and wording of this meal in Acts suggest “strong allusions” to the Last Supper. Comparing Acts 27:35 with Luke 22:19, one can observe the same actions of taking bread, thanksgiving, breaking bread and distribution. These actions also does not occur in ordinary meals at all in the Gospels. Thus the validity of Luke using “breaking of bread” to refer to the Eucharist remains, eventhough in Acts 27 the reference operates on a symbolic level. This is also particularly the case if one sees the rescue narrative as a Type of the Passover as Dany does.

We begin with the parallels of Paul with Jesus. In Acts 21:36 and 22:22, the negative responses of the Jews to Paul’s preaching parallels that of their response to Jesus in Luke 23:18. For both Paul and Jesus, the Jews say “away with”. The Jews also wished for Paul’s death(Acts 22:22; 24:1-6) just as they do with Jesus’. Paul was also taken to the Roman court for a hearing, just as Jesus is(Acts 24-26) and finally both Jesus and Paul are vindicated by God in the end(Acts 27). The threat of death also take place towards the end of each characters’ arcs so to speak. Having said this, of course Paul is not Jesus and Jesus is not Paul, however Paul’s narrative here is in a mimesis of Jesus’ which solidifies the meal in Acts 27 as eucharistic, eventhough it is not properly Eucharistic per say but symbolic.

Hence, in light of these, the Eucharist’s eschatological context can be observed in Luke, solidifying the ground that the Eucharist is conceptualized through the background of the Jewish Passover.

5)Recapitulation

With these laid out we may now see the significance of the Eucharist based on the data of the background of the Gospels and how the Gospels use this background. In Matthew, Mark and Luke, we seen how the Last Supper meal is Eucharistic. It also utilizes intertextual links with Exodus which parallels how the Passover is about the narrative of Exodus. The Gospel events are presented as a kind of “New Exodus” so to speak and the Eucharist is the New memorial that is instituted as a celebration of it, shown by how the Last Supper images the meal Moses and the elders of Israel had before God when the Covenant is inaugurated. The term “blood of the New Covenant” also strengthens this connection further.

Moreover just like how the Passover has eschatological expectations, one can see in Luke the eschatological dimension of the Eucharist through the motif of the Eschatological banquet and situating one of the Post Resurrection appearances and activities of Christ in Emmaus where Glory language and intertextuality with Genesis 3:24 occur, making the Eucharist in this arc of Luke the accumulation and revelation which signals a kind of return to Eden and seeing the glorified Lord, just as the Transfiguration shows Christ glorified. This indicates the Eucharist would have an eschatological aspect that looks forward and celebrates the “already” aspect of the “already-not yet” view of the coming of the Kingdom of God.

In light of how Jewish conceptions of the Passover also requires that the memorial be one which the participants experience anew the liberation of Exodus, it is not surprising that the Eucharist given its conceptual background would make the participants experience anew the Saving work of Christ in the present. But not just the past that is experienced but the kind of theophanic vision at Emmaus and anticipation of the ultimate banquet and paradisical return to Eden is granted in it. The fact that the Apostles at the Last Supper are Types of Moses and the Elders eating and drinking in God’s presence would also signal that the Eucharist is a meal and celebration where Christ is present in the meal, in accordance with this image. Hence as the symbolism in Acts 27 shows, those who participate in the Eucharist will receive the benefits of Christ.

Perhaps to use in a modified form what is said by Wenham(1995), the Eucharist symbolically re-enacting the Atonement of Christ does so in a manner in which we who partake of it will experience what the Cross is all about and involve ourselves in it personally, just as Jews in the Passover would identify themselves with the Exodus generation. Recalling Ignatius’ use of ekphrasis, the Eucharist gives us a vivid look and experience of this.

In Part 2, we will look at the most detailed exposition of the Eucharist by Paul in 1 Corinthians. There we will also see how the themes mentioned here converge in his thought against the malpractice of his audience there. But, with this, one can see how according to the Gospels, or at least based on Matthew, Mark and Luke, the Eucharist is certainly no naked memorialism, especially once we look at the context.

Thus, does Early Church Evidence refute the real presence?

Three of the four Gospels would indicate not.

Secondary sources cited:

Benjamin R. Wilson-The Saving Cross of the Suffering Christ(2016)

Bogdan B Bucur- Blinded by Invisible Light, Revisiting the Emmaus Story (Luke 24,13-35), Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 90/4 (2014) 685-707

Brevard Childs- Memory and Tradition in Israel (1962)

CHRISTOPHER, DANY (2016) The Appropriation of Passover in Luke-Acts, Durham theses, Durham University

Craig A Evans- New Cambridge Bible Commentary: Matthew (2012)

Craig S Keener- A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (1999)

Craig S Keener- The Gospel of John: A Commentary 2 Vols. (2003)

David L Turner- Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Matthew (2008)

David Wenham- How Jesus Understood the Last Supper: A Parable in Action, Themelios 20.2 (Jan 1995)

Federico M Colautti- Passover in the Works of Josephus (2002)

Gabrielle M. Spiegel (2002)-Memory and History: Liturgical Time and Historical
Time. History and Theory 41:149–62.

Grant Macaskill- Union with Christ in the New Testament (2013)

Joel B Green-The Death of Jesus: Tradition and Interpretation in the Passion Narrative (1988)

Joel B Green- The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel of Luke (1997)

Joel Marcus- Passover and Last Supper Revisited, New Testament Studies, Vol 59, Issue 3 (2013)

Loren T. Stuckenbruck (2010)- The Legacy of the Teacher of Righteousness
in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Pages 23–49 in New Perspectives on Old Texts:
Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium of the Orion Center
for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 9–11
January, 2005. Edited by Esther G. Chazon and Betsy Halpern-Amaru.
STD J 88. Leiden: Brill.

Mary B Spaulding- Commemorative Identities: Jewish Social Memory and the Johannine Feast of Booths (2009)

Richard B Hays- Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels (2016)

Robert H Stein-Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Mark (2008)

 Robin Routledge- Passover and the Last Supper, Tyndale Bulletin 53.2 (2002)

Roy E Ciampa & Brian S Rosner- Pillar New Testament Commentary: The First Letter to the Corinthians (2010)

Thomas R. Schreiner, Matthew R. Crawford-The Lord’s Supper: Remembering and Proclaiming Christ Until He Comes (2010): Pennington authors a chapter in this book

Tony Costa- Worship and the Risen Christ in the Pauline Letters (2013)

Mike the Nestorian- The defective Christology of Mike and Brian Culliton

Over at One Fold, Mike whom I had interacted with before posted an issue with Transubstantiation via appealing to the Council of Chalcedon which only ironically shows a huge misunderstanding of the Council itself and even worse, presents a Christology that is basically the Nestorian Christology that has been denounced by the Council in order to use it as some smoking gun against the Roman Catholic doctrine. Agreeing with this Christology is Brian.

In this post, we will examine the theological authority of Chalcedon, that is Cyril of Alexandria alongside giving some insights into Nestorius’ own Christology which will end up eerily similar to what Mike has described. The following is the comment from Mike,

Screenshot (242)

As Price & Maddis(2006,pg.65) notes, the fathers at the Council of Chalcedon basically affirmed loyalty to Cyril of Alexandria. So much so that when it comes to judging the Tome of Pope Leo, Cyril is the standard of orthodoxy used to assess its validity. Those who take issue with certain statements in the Tome and those who defended it both appealed to Cyril. Theorodet of Cyrus, someone who is against Nestorius’ condemnation, does this as well when facing the charge that the two natures Christology of Pope Leo is questionable, pointing out,

“There is a similar instance in the blessed Cyril which contains the words,He became man without shedding what was his own, for he remained what he was; he is certainly conceived as one dwelling in another, that is, the divine nature in what is human”.’ (II. 26).-Quoted from Price & Maddis(pg66)

As a result of Cyril of Alexandria’s importance to this council, understanding his Christology becomes key to unlocking the mindset of Chalcedon. Even Pope Leo himself has the intention of following what Cyril had laid out(Mcguckin, pg.234), so much so that Roman legates at the council have to assure those concerned that some of the supposedly Nestorian sounding language has no Nestorian intent(ibid,pg.234-235). Hence, unfortunately for Mike, Cyril of Alexandria is adamant on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharistic elements as he comments on his fragmentary Commentary on Matthew,

After the Lord took the cup, he gives thanks, that is, in the form of a prayer he speaks with God the Father, manifesting that he is, as it were, the partner and cosigner of the life-giving blessing to be given to us, and at the same time giving us a pattern first giving thanks, and then breaking the bread and distributing it. Therefore, we also, placing the aforementioned objects before the eyes of God, we ask earnestly that they maybe remodeled into a spiritual blessing, that partaking of these things, we may be sanctified in body and soul. But he said quite plainly This is my body, and This is my blood, so that you may not suppose that the things you see are a type; rather, in some ineffable way they are changed by God, into the body and blood of Christ truly offered. Partaking of them, we take into us the life-giving and sanctifying power of Christ … For God puts the power of life into the offerings, bringing Himself down to our weakness, and he changes them into the energy of his own life-26:27, P.G. 72, 512CD

Here as anyone can clearly see, Cyril definitely considers the consecrated bread and wine in the Eucharist to be changed by God into Christ’s Body and Blood. They also possess the life-giving and sanctifying power of Christ. This theme is also found in his exposition on John 6 where Jesus is giving a disclosure, showing how He is the bread of life. Commenting on John 6:35, Cyril says,

What, then, does Christ promise? Nothing corruptible, but rather the eucharistic reception of the holy flesh and blood, which restores man wholly to incorruption, so that he has no further need of those things that keep death away from the flesh, by which I mean food and drink.29 He appears to call water here the sanctification brought about by the Spirit, or else the divine and holy Spirit himself, as he is so often named by the divine Scriptures. Accordingly, the holy body of Christ endows those who receive it with life and keeps us incorrupt when it is mingled with our bodies. For it is not the body of anyone else, but is thought of as the body of him who is Life by nature, since it has within itself the entire power of the Word that is united with it,30 and is endowed with his qualities, or rather is filled with his energy, through which all things are given life and maintained in being. This being the case, those who have been baptized and have tasted divine grace should know that if they go reluctantly or scarcely at all to church, and cease to receive communion for years on end, yet feign a pernicious reverence as a pretext for not wishing to participate in him sacramentally, they cut themselves off from eternal life, for they have refused to be given life. And this refusal, even if they make it seem to be in some way the fruit of reverence, becomes a snare and a stumbling block. They ought instead to make every effort to realize the power and willingness that is within them, that they might become eager to clear away sin and attempt in its place to follow a more spiritual regime, and thus run all the more courageously to participate in life.-Quoted from Russell, pg.110-111

Ironically for Mike, here we see that to Cyril of Alexandria, the very flesh and blood of Christ is life giving. It has the power of the Word united with it and thus endowed with His qualities. This contradicts what Mike has to say on the “Communication of Attributes” where there is a separation of the Divine and Human natures in Christ to the point that Christ’s body cannot be present on multiple altars where the Eucharist is taking place. Unfortunately for Mike, Cyril disagrees and considers the very power and qualities of the Word to be united with the humanity of Christ. This is why it can be life giving to begin with, having Divine Energies.

Cyril’s emphasis on the humanity of Christ possessing the qualities and power of the Divine Person of the Word is also explicit in his comments on the prologue of John’s Gospel. First he notes how man is a composite animal and during the Fall, the “breath of life” which is the Holy Spirit is lost from humanity’s earthly flesh, resulting in death. To solve this problem of death, the flesh has to be united with that which gives it life which is why the Word became flesh. Thus, the Incarnation (Russell, pg.104-105). Illustrating how the flesh is vivified by the life giving quality of the Word, Cyril uses the following analogy,

Considering that fire has the power to transfer to wood the physical quality of the energy naturally present within it and all but transform into itself whatever it comes to be in by participation,24 it would be quite absurd if we did not take it for granted that the Word of God who transcends all things could make his own proper good, which is life, operative in the flesh.-Quoted from Russell, pg.105

Again notice the life giving power of the Word of God operative in the flesh which is contrary to the comment by Mike that the Divinity and Humanity of the Word cannot interact with one another or that Divinity cannot be operative through the humanity or transform it. Giving some benefit of doubt, perhaps maybe what Mike is simply saying that the humanity and divinity of Christ are not mixed together into some hybrid substance, which Transubstantiation by entailing the conversion of the substance of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, would logically entail a Christology that is Monophysite in nature where Christ’s humanity and divinity are mixed due to the natural substances of bread and wine being changed.

This would not do as Mike accepts that the divine attributes cannot be in the humanity of Christ which runs contrary to what Cyril’s Christology demands. The Christology which is THE AUTHORITY at Chalcedon which is used to assess Leo’s Tome. This ironically entails that Mike is basically going against what Chalcedon means when it professes two natures in the person of Christ, Divine and Human. Having stated this, it should be noted that the analogy Cyril uses to describe how the flesh of Christ can be life giving is one that preserves the integrity of the humanity possessed by Him. After all, wood glowing in fire is still wood eventhough it has the energies of the fire. Cyril himself also clarifies by noting how the flesh which is assumed by the Word in the Incarnation is that which the Word has as His property(not merely by relative indwelling as Christ indwells in the Saints) and is IN and WITH the flesh, “is conceived as something separate from it”(Russell, pg.106). Not long after this he also argues against any thought of the Word being transformed into flesh. Suffering insofar as it relates to the Divine mode of being is also impossible.

From this we see the real orthodox sense in which the distinction of the Divine and Human natures of Christ is to be upheld if one wants to follow Chalcedon. Divinity and Humanity clearly don’t mix into some third substance. They retain their natural properties which is why Cyril can exclude any notion improper to the Divine mode of being regarding the Word. Yet we don’t see the radicalism of Mike where the Divinity cannot be IN the humanity and energizes it to make it life giving. This orthodox notion of the Hypostatic Union is what we also see in Leo’s Tome where he affirms,

Accordingly while the distinctness of both natures and substances was preserved, and both met in one Person, lowliness was assumed by majesty, weakness by power, mortality by eternity; and, in order to pay the debt of our condition, the inviolable nature was united to the passible, so that as the appropriate remedy for our ills, one and the same “Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus,” might from one element be capable of dying and also from the other be incapable.

While Pope Leo emphasizes the distinction between the natures more given his main opposition is Eutyches, Pope Leo shows agreement with the flesh of Christ being life giving inSermon 22.2 which conceptualizes the Incarnation of Christ as bestowing purity on a sick and sinful humanity. Sermon 24:3-4 follows in seeing the Incarnation as that which will apply to humanity. Based on the remark in chapter 3 of this sermon regarding Adam’s fall, one can see deification being mentioned clearly via Adam’s body being raised in character to heavenly glory should he obey God’s commandments. Of course as Adam fallen to the Devil’s deceit, Christ’s Incarnation becomes necessary. He takes on our human nature and “imparts it”. One partakes of this regeneration through the sacrament of Baptism which the waters of it is a Type of Mary’s womb.

Adding another layer of irony to Mike, Pope Leo who was vindicated at Chalcedon while not espousing Transubstantiation(Real Presence does not have to consider this, remember), he actually follows the same line of thought Catholics would do on the issue of the Sacrifice of the Mass where there the Mass while not repeating the Sacrifice of Christ, is propitiatory by virtue of participation in it. In Sermon 26 on the Feast of the Nativity, Pope Leo has this to say on the commemoration of this Biblical event,

But this Nativity which is to be adored in heaven and on earth is suggested to us by no day more than this when, with the early light still shedding its rays on nature , there is borne in upon our senses the brightness of this wondrous mystery. For the angel Gabriel’s converse with the astonished Mary and her conception by the Holy Ghost as wondrously promised as believed, seem to recur not only to the memory but to the very eyes. For today the Maker of the world was born of a Virgin’s womb, and He, who made all natures, became Son of her, whom He created. Today the Word of God appeared clothed in flesh, and That which had never been visible to human eyes began to be tangible to our hands as well. Today the shepherds learned from angels’ voices that the Saviour was born in the substance of our flesh and soul; and today the form of the Gospel message was pre-arranged by the leaders of the Lord’s flocks , so that we too may say with the army of the heavenly host: Glory in the highest to God, and on earth peace to men of good will.

Notice that Pope Leo contemporizes the birth narratives of the Gospels by consistently drilling on the ears of his listeners that they take place “today”. Notice that the Incarnation eventhough it is a past event, yet in the Feast of the Nativity, Christ’s Incarnation is not merely that which is in memory alone but to recur to the very eyes of those who are celebrating the Feast. Christ’s Incarnation makes Him tangible to the hands of those present. This Feast “renews” this event which shows those who celebrate it how it relates to their Spiritual birth just as the faithful are Baptized into Christ’s Passion, following Paul.

Such contemporization of the events of the life of Christ poses an issue with Mike’s interpretation of the Council of Chalcedon because clearly this tendency in the Mass is one which repeats the event without question and thus raise the issue of Christ being crucified multiple times. Of course Mike does not mention this here but this further adds distance between him and Chalcedon. And also that to use what Pope Leo has stated here, whenever Christ’s Nativity is celebrated in different Churches, it would entail the events of Christ’s Incarnation to be in multiple places contrary to the fact that as Mike says, the humanity cannot have the attribute of Omnipotence, an attribute of Divinity.

But even worse for Mike, inSermon 91.3, Pope Leo is explicit about what is being received in the mouth is believed by faith in the Eucharist. He also cites John 6 to justify this and as a result an explicit statement of the Real Presence doctrine is made where what is taken by normal digestion is considered to be the body and blood of Christ. To those who dispute this but say “Amen”, it is vain.

Now we proceed to what the title of this article claims, that Mike is a Nestorian. In order to understand why we must now move on to understanding Nestorius’ own Christology, drawing from Mcguckin’s monumental work on the Christological controversy.

Obviously Mike would not say that he teaches Two Sons, one Divine and one Human and therefore he isnt Nestorian. However unfortunately for Mike, Nestorius actually makes this denial as well as Cyril himself quotes in Against Nestorius,

That is why I wish you to applaud secure in the knowledge of what you are applauding. There is no division in the conjunction, or in the dignity, or in the sonship. There is no division in his being Christ, but there is division between the divinity and the humanity. Christ insofar as he is Christ is indivisible; the Son insofar as he is Son is indivisible; for we do not have two Christs or two Sons. Nor do we accept a first Christ and a second one, or two different Christs, or two different Sons. On the contrary, the Son himself is twofold, not in rank but in nature-Quoted from Russell, pg.148-149

Barring what Cyril thinks, one can clearly see that from Nestorius’ perspective, his Christology is one that does not entail two different sons. It just entails two different natures as the Son is twofold in natures. Against this Cyril asks what does the “indivisible conjunction” that Nestorius speaks on means? Is it the Hypostatic Union? Or is it akin to a union of two different things casually joined together as different curtains joined together by rings?

Secondly, Cyril considers that one should conceive the union of Christ’s humanity and divinity ala how a body and soul are united despite belonging to one person. After all if one kills a human being, one does not wrong two persons eventhough there is body and soul, but one person, eventhough body and soul are different by nature. Cyril’s point is not that the humanity and divinity of Christ are in some mixture but rather they are properties that belong to a single subject. This is why we can meaningfully say that a Divine person suffered and died on the cross.

Unfortunately for Mike, this is not what his comment indicates for it is not a Divine person who dies but rather a human nature. Jesus’ human nature is killed, not His Divine Nature. Clearly this differs from Cyril and Leo which although Divinity cannot die or feel pain, nevertheless it is still the Divine Logos who suffered, died and was buried. It isn’t just some disjuncted human nature that died eventhough the suffering and death of the Logos is such insofar as it relates to His humanity. But a nature cannot suffer, just as me killing a dog does not kill dog nature or cause pain to dog nature. It is an individualized subject which bears the nature of dogness that died and felt pain when I killed it, not its nature.

One special person which Chalcedonians condemn would however agree fully with Mike which spoilers ahead, is Nestorius. McGuckin(pg.130) notes that part of Nestorius’ own theological presuppositions is that the Logos being consubstantial with the Father, can in no way suffer. Yet given the Incarnation, Christ’s human attributes must also be affirmed. However any sort of “mixture” language that blends these two different natures together is seen as going Apollinarian which absorbs and takes away the human reality in the face of the divine. This is why he regards Cyril’s Christology as being defective(pg.131). Such a distinction also means that Nestorius does not really have any concept of Christ’s humanity being deified, nor any notion of deification when it comes to soteriology. This is observed by Fairbairn(2003,pg.51) regarding one of Nestorius’ supporters, Theodore of Mopsuestia which contains no notion of deification. Eventhough those who are sons of God will have immortality in the eschaton, that is not due to any quality of divine life that is being shared.

To Nestorius, Humanity and Divinity in the one Christ are “two distinct, unaltered, and unconfused natures which abide in their respective spheres of operation throughout Christ’s life to him(Pg.135). So far this axiom as Mcguckin listed sounds compatible with the Christology of Chalcedon, but when one sees how it is applied by Nestorius, one can see that these entails a different Christology than that of the Chalcedonians but one eerily similar to what Mike is saying. To understand why, we now look at Nestorius’ Prosophic theory.

Prosophon is a term that Nestorius used which would signify the distinct individualness of a thing(Mcguckin, pg.143). Being an empirical term, it denotes what we can observe of a thing and these observations or properties observed will correspond to its own Prosophon. Hence, every nature has its own Prosophon(pg.144). Therefore when one looks at Christ’s two natures, they correspond to two respective Prosopa, Divine and Human(pg.151). For instance, Christ’s body can only be in one place, this belongs to the human Prosopha of Christ, Omnipotent belongs to the Prosopa of the Divine Logos. Hence when we observe Christ, we see two Prosophon.

This means to Nestorius, one cannot say Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, because that belongs to the Divine Prosopa, not human which is what Jesus is. Instead it is the Logos who raised him from the dead(pg.152-153). Hence regarding the Nativity, the statement “God wrapped in swaddling hands” is in fact blasphemous. This also explains why he is worried when the title Theotokos is used of Mary since to him, Theos in Theotokos denotes the Prosopa of Divinity which cannot apply to that which is born.

Having laid out the basics of Nestorius’ Christology let’s see how it applies to Mike’s statements,

1)Christ is fully man and fully God-Nestorius agrees, two Prosophon Divine and Human

2)No ‘Mixing’ of the Divine and Human natures. One cannot ‘infect’ the other- Nestorius agrees, hence the two Prosophon remain in their respective spheres of operation

3)Jesus’s is fully human, it is His human nature that was tortured and killed- Nestorius agrees, only the human Prosopa of Jesus can be killed and tortured, not the Divine Prosopa

4)Jesus feels pain, God cannot feel pain- Nestorius agrees. In fact this is the clearest Mike’s been to Nestorius who also uses predicates of the Incarnate Christ in the same way in accordance with His two Prosophon. The human Jesus feels pain, the Logos cannot feel pain!

5)What God enjoys cannot be shared with the humanity of Jesus- Again Nestorius agrees, Divine and Human prosophons cannot ‘mix’

6)Jesus the man suffered and died, not the Godhood which is veiled- Again, precisely close to Nestorius’ Prosophic theory. In fact later on he follows this regarding Jesus growing in stature. Rather than using the Chalcedonian view that a Divine person in His humanity grew in stature, it is the man Jesus who grew, not God.

7)The Natures are separate- perfectly in line with Nestorius. That’s why the man Jesus didnt raise Lazarus from the dead, just the Divine Logos.

From these we can clearly see once the authorities of Chalcedon and the Christology of Nestorius are laid out clearly, one can see how Mike does not in fact adhere to what the Council of Chalcedon says for Pope Leo whose Tome was vindicated at the council clearly does not believe in the radical separation of natures in the same way Mike does. As shown, Pope Leo would emphasize distinction but the Incarnation of Christ is still that which is life giving, affecting the regeneration of sinners. In Cyril the bearer of Orthodoxy at Chalcedon, Christ’s flesh is life giving, energized by the Divine Nature and Transformed by it which is why it can possess Divine Attributes like being life giving. He also believes in the Real Presence as with Pope Leo.

In contrast, Divine attributes cannot be applied to the human nature of Jesus. Following Nestorius’ Christology, the distinction of natures is not the same as Pope Leo’s or Cyril’s which both acknowledge a Divine Person did suffer and die and was born. Instead God cannot suffer, it is the human nature who suffer.

Thus we see how Mike shows ignorance on the Council of Chalcedon, rather than scoring the slam dunk against Transubstantiation or Catholicism, which will unfortunately misinform those who buy into it. But fortunately here, a much needed corrective is given to him.

Primary Sources:

Pope Leo’s Sermons: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3603.htm

Pope Leo’s Tome: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.ii.iv.xxviii.html

Cyril of Alexandria’s Commentary on Matthew: Cited from “Christology and Eucharist in the Early Thought of Cyril of Alexandria”, Lawrance J. Welch(pgs.125-126)

Cyril of Alexandria’s Commentary on John; Against Nestorius: “The Early Church Fathers: Cyril of Alexandria”, Norman Russell

Secondary Sources:

Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae- St Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy: It’s History, Theology and Texts, John Anthony McGuckin

The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Richard Price & Michael Gaddis

Grace and Christology in the Early Church, Donald Fairbairn

What does baptism in 1Peter 3:21 mean?

Does 1Peter 3:21 mean Baptism is merely a symbol or public profession of faith?

Let’s find out, starting with its Greek.

καὶὑμᾶς ἀντίτυπον νῦνσῴζει βάπτισμα, οὐ σαρκὸς ἀπόθεσις ῥύπου ἀλλὰ συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα εἰς θεόν, δι’ ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

Although the verb ἐπερωτάω is common enough in the New Testament and wider literature, the passive cognate noun ἐπερώτημα is very rare. However based on early papyri that we got(i.e such as in P.Oxy. 9.1200, the registration of a deed dated to 266 CE,and in P.Oxy. 9.1208, the public acknowledgement of a contract of sale in 291 CE) it carries the sense of a contract or covenant, perhaps also equivalent to the Latin applicatio ad patronum, whereby one entered into a client–patron relationship.

Also at issue is how one should take the genitive συνειδήσεως.If objective, then it would refer to the pledge of a Christian to maintain a good conscience, but if subjective, it would be the good conscience from which a Christian makes a commitment to God in baptism. The present consensus seems to be in favor of an objective genitive, with the ἐπερώτημα understood as consisting of the commitment or ‘pledge’ made at baptism to preserve a good conscience, that is, mindfulness of God or proper conduct, in one’s subsequent life.

For instance see:

Achtemeier, 1 Peter,pp.271–72; Elliott, 1 Peter,p.681. Also taking it as an objective genitive, referring to the baptizand’s pledge to maintain a good conscience, are Reicke, Disobedient Spirits,p .185; J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude (BNTC; London: Black, 1969), p. 162; Roger Omanson, ‘Suffering for Righteousness’ Sake (1 Pet 3:13–4:11)’, RevExp 79 (1982), p. 444; Leonhard Goppelt, A Commentary on 1 Peter, trans. John E. Alsup (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), p. 258; R. T. France, ‘Exegesis in Practice: Two Samples’, in I. H. Marshall (ed.), New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1977), p. 275. However, Michaels, 1 Peter,p.216, holds out for a subjective genitive.

On this reading the συνείδησις ἀγαθή refers to the content of the ‘pledge’ undertaken at baptism. Hence, the view of baptism as a formal and public contract with subsequent binding force on the parties involved

So wait a minute here, Baptism is like signing a deal to enter into a relationship with God? Isnt that different from views that see baptism as something done after this relationship is entered into?

Ref: https://www.academia.edu/12720416/_Confessing_God_from_a_Good_Conscience_1_Peter_3_21_and_Early_Christian_Baptismal_Theology

A Rejoinder to Jessie

Having been busy with work, progress on posting articles have been slow and hence it took quite a while for me to realize that Jessie had provided a reply to my post responding to his citation of Craig Keener’s Commentary on Matthew. In this post, I provide my rejoinder to this.

Jesse states that citing an author does not necessarily entail supporting the author’s position on a particular issue or theology and this is true. However, care must be taken to be clear on this which Jesse failed to do. In fact this is precisely why my post in response to him calls it a misrepresentation, because while he may not want to misrepresent, what is portrayed is so vague that it leaves what is presented vulnerable to it. After all, without his reply, one could had simply assumed that Jesse wanted to convey that here is an NT scholar who denies any eucharistic change in the bread and wine and that Jesse’s view=Keener’s view, as no clarification or further explanation is given to differentiate his memorialism from Keener’s more Reformed oriented approach(of course as covered here, the concept of participation given is one which Calvin would not approve of). Now to be fair, on my end, I should had simply stated the potential vulnerability and vagueness of “symbol” rather than use the word “misrepresent” as the main bulk of my post shows a more agnostic tone, hence the question mark in the title to begin with.

Note also that I gave him some benefit of doubt and raised the question on whether Jesse could had considered participation in Jesus’ affliction in the same manner Keener would, deriving his statement from a source that is explicit on what that means. I even left things agnostic on what view he wishes to convey on this front but thanks to his reply, it is clear that it is not the same as Keener’s view, for the obvious reason of his own source when mentioning participation in Christ’s affliction by commemoration. So, Jesse saying that my aim is to show that he misrepresents Keener’s statement is not entirely accurate, as it ignores the agnostic tone and refrain from making any definitive statement on whether he did misrepresent Keener in the end.

Jesse’s comment that my rebuttal is “adding a different idea with a different citation.” sounds misleading too, as my post’s objective is to show that Keener held to the view of eucharistic commemoration in the manner that is not the same as me remembering that I ate a sandwich on Monday, which I shown by pointing out his reference when referring to how Jews participate in the Exodus narrative in the celebration of the Passover and show what that reference have to say which is plain proof of this.

By stating my post intends to show that Keener supports Roman Catholic ideology is also highly misleading as nowhere did I said this at all. I am even explicit that Keener does state the bread and wine are symbols rather than being changed into the body and blood of Christ. If what Jesse claims is the case, then ironically, he must also then by his own standard say Ignatius of Antioch supports Roman Catholic ideology or that Luther and Lutherans do.

Jesse’s closing paragraph is highly unfortunate and ironic, considering the nature of many of his blogposts too which are simply statements others had said. So perhaps do what you preach, before you tell others what to do. Screenshot (233).png

 

Galatians against OSAS

  1.  

    Why Galatians disproves Once Saved Always Saved?

  3. 1)What is Once Saved Always Saved?
  4. Once Saved Always Saved, or OSAS is the view of some Protestants, usually Baptists, that once someone confesses Christ as Lord and Saviour, there is nothing that person can do to lose his salvation. In fact as the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist pastor Steven Anderson states in his sermon on OSAS, even if you try to sin and disbelieve, you are still saved. This possibility is also acknowledged in his sermon “Shall we continue in Sin” where he states that:
  6. “Now here’s the thing, If I don’t talk to my wife and my wife doesn’t talk to me we are not going to have a good relationship. But are we still married? Yes we are, see what I mean? So if I don’t talk to God through prayer and He doesn’t talk to me through his work, we’re not going to have a good relationship (though I’m still saved).”
  8. Notice that if one doesnt pray to God after one is saved, then he is still considered saved, although he wont have a “good relationship” with God. It means clearly this person isnt going to suffer Hell for this and other intentionally sinful actions.
  10. Of course unfortunately for OSAS believers, Scripture proves them wrong and here we will look at Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians to see why such is the case.
  12. 2)Galatians 1
  13. In the opening of the epistle to the Galatians, Paul already post statements that would not make sense if OSAS is true as the following verses demonstrate:
  15. 6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
  17. 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
  19. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
  21. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
  24. Here Paul announces that he his “marvelled” at how the Galatians were “so soon removed” from the Grace of Christ. Anderson tries to avoid the implication of this statement by stating in his sermon on Galatians 1 that these Galatians arent Saved. But this view already makes Anderson inconsistent with himself. As him and many OSAS advocates believe, baptism comes after one is saved. It does not have any salvific significance, as Anderson mentions in his sermon “Easter: Fact and Fiction”,
  26. You get saved, then you get baptized
  28. Unfortunately for Anderson, he forgotten Galatians 3:27 which says:
  30. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
  33. OSAS advocates will have little wiggle room here, as even in the plain english used, “have” is used, indicating that the act of Baptism was accomplished. Had Paul wanted to emphasize this as a future act, he would had instead said “for as many of you as will be baptized”. Should v27 really entail water Baptism or even just the so called spirit Baptism of many Baptists and Evangelicals, it entails Anderson as guilty of painting Paul as inconsistent as only the Saved get both of these. Hence the only way to make his eisegesis consistent is to admit that OSAS is false and Salvation may be lost, as Galatians 1:6 would address Galatians who bewitched by the Judaizers and false brethren, had fallen away or are on the verge of doing so. We now analyse Galatians 3:27 first to show why this is such.
  35. 2)Galatians 3:27 on Baptism
  36. The context of this verse is one within the grand argument of Paul explaining how believers are to be justified by faith and not of the Law. He links believers(also his audience as the intended reader) to the blessings of Abraham and God’s promise to him where the gentiles shall participate in through faith in Jesus Christ. The Law, meant to function as a schoolmaster or pedagogue who disciplines the Israelites before the advent of Christ. These are connected to our main verse mentioning Baptism where we put on Christ, indicated by the use of “for” which serves as the connector.
  38. This connection would also entail something about Baptism, that it is connected to the process of justification by faith, in this case being an explanation of why believers are called “Sons of God” in the preceding v.26. The motif here echoes the use of Baptism in other areas of the Pauline corpus, notably Romans 6:3 and Colossians 2:12 in which Baptism is used in conjunction with the benefits of union with Christ. It would also be part of one being grafted into Christ formally under this implication.
  39. OSAS believers, Baptists and Evangelicals may simply push the view of the so called Baptism of the Spirit to avoid the implications of this. While conceding for the sake of showing Anderson’s and typical OSAS believers inconsistency would aid this refutation, an argument for why Galatians refer to water Baptism would be given, to further demonstrate the flaws in their eisegesis. For one, the updated form of Strong’s concordance and lexicon, the Bauer Lexicon opposes this in outlining the Scriptural usages of Baptism. One of the definitions for Baptism it gives is the “Christian sacrament of initiation after Jesus’ death”.
  41. Amongst the verses listed to use this definition of Baptism are the ones mentioned here. OSAS, Baptists or Evangelicals may object to this, stating that “it isnt the Bible”, but this only makes them inconsistent when they appeal to the dated Strong’s on Biblehub whenever they want to get the Greek.
  43. Perhaps even despite these, OSAS believers would simply say that it is simply a statement about how one believes and then gets Baptized after one is Saved. Even here, other verses tell us to militate against this. We use Galatians 4:8-11 as one proof of this.
  45. 3)Galatians 4:8-11
  46. 8 Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.
  48. 9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
  50. 10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
  52. 11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.
  54. To prevent this from showing OSAS and his views of the Galatians salvific status as false, Anderson claims in his sermon on Galatians 4 that it simply means that Paul simply thought they were saved when they in fact are not. So he doubts their salvation. This interpretation does not make sense as it does not match the very structure of the verse. Had Paul wanted to convey the idea that he now doubts whether they had even been Saved, he wouldnt had said that they known God or rather known by Him but rather express himself closely with his interpretation. But as the text in its english form shows, this is hardly the case.
  56. Should this plain meaning be insufficient, a more in depth analysis of these verses will be given. First off we begin at the word “know” in reference to being known by God. This term in Biblical usage typically refers to one’s relationship with God(eg, 1John 2:3, 4, 14, 3:6, Hebrews 8:11). When used in the context of “known by God”, the same sense of intimacy is the case, alongside election(eg, Genesis 18:19, Amos 3:2).
  58. “Turn ye again” in v9 or the Greek,epistrephete(ἐπιστρέφετε) is a verb that denotes a “change of mind or action for better or worse” according to the Bauer Lexicon. Indeed this term in Matthew 13:15 refers to conversion positively. In light of these positive connotations, it could be possible that Paul’s use here have an ironic sense, where the Galatians having a close intimate relationship with God but now seek after the works of the Mosaic Law. As the tense here is present in the Greek, this would indicate that the Galatians are in the process of turning and if they turn completely, Christ shall have no affect upon them. This makes the security and salvation of the Galatians conditional on their faith and in some sense even their actions, opposing the OSAS view.
  60. To understand further the gravity of this statement, we must turn a chapter back, to Galatians 3:1-5
  62. 4)Galatians 3:1-5
  63. 3 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
  65. 2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
  67. 3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
  69. 4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.
  71. 5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
  73. Anderson’s eisegesis here proves deficient. In his sermon on Galatians 3, his overall view can be expressed as: the Apostles preached the Gospel to the Galatians and ministered to them, they didnt follow and not Saved at all, they return to the Law.
  75. By analysing these verses deeper, we will start to see how Anderson’s understanding of them doesnt conform to their flow.
  77. The opening verse tells us the reason for the Galatians’ foolishness. Given the use of “bewitched”, it may be possible that their succumbing to the Judaizers could be due to an “evil spiritual influence”. Bauer’s Lexicon defines the Greek for bewitched(βασκαίνω) as to “exert an evil influence through the eye”. Usage here is metaphorical, no doubt referring to the influence of the Judaizing group. Yet this is foolishness as the Gospel was preached to them. The visual reference to Christ used here may indicate that Paul utilizes the rhetorical technique of ekphrasis which focuses on vivid imagery. This poses a problem for Anderson and those that are iconoclastic, as Paul is essentially admitting to preaching the Gospel in a manner that uses “word pictures” which create mental images. Given the main topic at hand, further explorations on this issue will be for a later time.
  79. Next, Paul asks the question of how the Galatians received the Spirit. This unfortunately for Anderson blows his case out of the water, as such indicates that Paul presuppose that the Galatians actually received the Holy Spirit. Oddly for Anderson, he doesnt mention anything about the Spirit in v2, possibly due to this. Still, it must be clarified that this reception of the Spirit is through faith, or in this case, believing the Gospel preached and given what is stated in v27, Baptism as part of this.
  81. Moving to v3, we see more confirmations that advice against taking the OSAS viewpoint. The phrase “having begun” is an aorist participle ἐναρξάμενοι(enarxamenoi) which its only other reference is Philippians 1:6 which refers to the very work God will do in the believer. Bauer’s lexicon notes that in both contexts, what is referred to here is the beginning of the Christian’s life. The two verses even parallel each other, with Galatians being more ironic given its pastoral situation. This detail is left out of Anderson’s own sermon on this chapter and it is quite obvious why, once this is considered, it would entail the Galatians as actually receiving a beginning from God who works in them and having received the Spirit. These are defeaters to his interpretation that the Galatians were never Saved in the first place.
  83. On v4, the “suffering” could invoke the sense that the Galatians went through some persecution, perhaps even due to the incursions of the Judaizers. In Anderson’s sermon, nothing of this is implied. In this verse, the particle γέ is used, as shown in the Greek render below:
  85. τοσαῦτα ἐπάθετε εἰκῇ; εἴ γε καὶ εἰκῇ
  87. This particle is meant to place focus on a single idea or place according to the Bauer lexicon. Thus this would suggest the Galatian’s experiences of “sufferings” to be the idea in focus. With v5 focusing on miracles and the ministering of the Spirit and the preceding v3 referring to the work of the Spirit in the Galatians, it is most likely that they also experienced the Spirit that aid them in these sufferings. Should they turn away now, all these would had be in vain. The tone of these experiences being in vain is one that may express a hope that they will reject the Judaizers in light of these experiences.
  88. This again, nullifies the OSAS position, as the way Paul addresses the situation is one where he sees the Galatians in a real danger of making all their experiences of being Saved as being in vain. The danger of this situation with the Judaizers expressed in Galatians 2:4:
  90. 4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage
  92. Had OSAS be what Paul had in mind, this and all we covered wouldnt be what we find when analysing the verses and letting them speak for themselves. Yet when we do, a contradictory picture of the OSAS eisegesis emerges. The context shows Paul persuading the Galatians through appeal to their spiritual experiences. Even if a baptism of the spirit is presupposed, we are still dealing with people whom by Anderson’s own beliefs would had been Saved but yet he preaches otherwise. We are left only with an inerrant Scripture contradicting itself. Yet when we look at the verses in their own proper order and context, we see a consistent Paul against the notion of OSAS
  94. Thus, we see that Galatians in fact speaks against OSAS.
  96. 5)Refs
  97. Bauer Lexicon screenshots for the Greek definitions used here: https://imgur.com/gallery/b7VPztf
  99. Steven Anderson: http://www.faithfulwordbaptist.org/page9.html
  100. (Use control+f to search more easily)

Continue reading Galatians against OSAS