Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Importance of sacrifice Message-ID: Date: 2 Sep 90 03:53:58 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 37 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Larry Enos claims that the passages in John 6 are being taken out of context: >[...] and therefore [miss] what Jesus said to further explain his word about >eating His flesh and drinking His blood: > "It is the spirit that gives life: the flesh profits nothing. > The words that I have given you are spirit and are life." I just don't see that this passage says what is claimed for it here. In context, the passage is talking about the fact that people find what Jesus says hard to swallow (so to speak). What Jesus is saying is that the Spirit makes it possible for people to accept his word. I don't see how this is telling us to take a less literal interpretation. Going to a symbolic reading is nearly everyone's first attempt at dealing with a difficult saying; Jesus doesn't chastize them for their literal-mindedness, but for shutting out the Spirit. I also cannot see that there is any parallel being drawn between Jesus' flesh and the "flesh" of this verse. Indeed, to assert this sort of parallel raises a major theological problem. It leads to a gnostic view in which the flesh of Jesus, being equated with the flesh which is dead, becomes unnecessary to salvation, and salvation loses any real connection with Jesus' saving acts. The passage makes clear that it is Jesus' claims to divinity here which offend the crowd, not the literalness of his language. If I can swallow the Incarnation, I can swallow (so to speak) God contained in a morsel of bread and a sip of wine. An interesting parallel passage occurs in John 3 in the visit to Nicodemus. Jesus starts off with a metaphor. Nicodemus' question in reply should not be understood as being dumbfounded, but basically as a demand for Jesus to explain himself. But Jesus refuses, and basically says "look, you aren't taking me seriously." Here there is no question that what Jesus says is not supposed to be taken literally. In John 6, it is not so clear. But it appears to me that the reasons for the interpretation are external: real presence is a scandal to the greeks.