Choosing Scripture (2) Gospel Truth?

29 Wednesday Jul 2020

Posted by John Charmley in Bible, Catholic Tradition, Faith, St John, St Luke's Gospel, St Mark's Gospel

Tags

gospels

Trying to summarise the vast amount of scholarship on the New Testament is an enterprise to be understaken with huge caution, and something probably only to be done with prayer. That said, what follows reflects what I perceive to be broad consensus. That is not the same as saying there is complete agreement – in what field of scholarship is that ever so?

The spectrum is vast: at one end are those who would tells us that the Gospels are written by Sts Mark, Matthew, Luke and John (in that order, except for those who have Matthew first), between about 60 AD. and the year 100 AD; at the other end are those who would say that none of that is true and that they are collections of writings given Apostolic names for a variety of reasons, and that we can”t say anything much about dating other than that they are at best, late first century and possibly early to mid second century AD.; in between there are those who, to take one of my favourites, would argue that “John” is written by John, but not that John, but by another chap of the same name; reminds me of Homer and the Illiad. So what can be said in short compass without either wearying the reader or simplyfying to the point of misrepresentation?

At the end of this I append a list books which have helped guide me and from which I derive what I write here.* I am an historian, not a Scripture scholar, and my Latin and Greek are not what they were. But enough, let us press on.

For many centuries, and indeed until recent times, it was the fashion to say that Mark’s Gospel was “primitive”, a collection of sayings recorded in rather rustic Greek which acted as a source for Sts Matthew and Luke. More recent scholarship has taken a less dismissive view and has tended to recognise that far from being a somewhat defective “biography” it is a different genre, one which has no real precedent.

Papias, one of the earliest Christian writers who died around 130 AD. called Mark Peter’s interpreter”, telling is that he:

wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order, of the things said and done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had followed him, but later on, followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord’s oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down single points as he remembered them.

Irenaeus, who lived in the next generation, recorded the same tradition, and Justin Martyr, who wrote in the 140s AD., called Mark’s Gospel the “memoir” of St Peter. Mark himself has long been identified with what is now the Coptic Church, and some have said he was that “John Mark” who fled naked from the garden at Gethsemene, and who later appears in the Acts of the Apostles and elsewhere [Acts 12:23-13:13, 15:36-39; Colossians 4:10; 2 Timothy 4:11; and 1 Peter 5:13.} as a companion of St Paul. Others have said differently, although with Tertullian and Origen all identifying Mark with Peter, the tradition is strong, although of course they could all be relying on Papias, but as they do not quote him elsewhere, that seems a little unlikely. What we do know is that from the very earliest times Mark’s account was accepted as a record of St Peter’s testimony and preaching.

It isPapias to whom we owe the identification of the writer of the Gospel attributed to St Matthew. The problem here is that the text is ambiguous:

Matthew compiled (or ‘arranged,’ or ‘composed’) the logia (‘oracles,’ ‘sayings’ or perhaps ‘gospel’) in the Hebrew (or, ‘Aramaic’) language (or, ‘style’?), and everyone interpreted (or, ‘translated’) them as best they could.

He identifies this “Matthew” with the tax collector the other Synoptics call “Levi,” although later commentators doubt this, reasoning that if the author had been an Apostle he would hardly have relied as heavily as he did on Mark’s Gospel. On the other hand, if he was the “Levi” mentioned, and knew that Mark was Peter’s “interpreter”, he might have had good reason to use him as a source. Papias’ comment is not helpful either, because if, as he seems to say, the original of Matthew was in Aramaic, then it does not explain why the text we have reads more like a Greek original. Of course, it may be that Matthew’s original in Aramaic was adapted and used as the basis for the Gospel we have, making that original the famous Q source which scholars think is a lost “sayings” text which Luke and Matthew used as well as Mark. Whatever the truth of the matter, it remains the case that as far back as we can trace tradition, “Matthew’s” Gospel was treated as Canon.

The same is true of St Luke’s two books. It is purely accidental that “Acts” does not follow on from Luke’s Gospel as they are clearly by the same author. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and others all list Luke as the person mentioned throughout Paul’s letters (Colossians 4:7–17, Philemon 24, and 2 Timothy 4:11), from which we learn that he was a doctor. The interest he takes in how Gentiles respond to the Good News adds weight to the view that he was a Gentile, perhaps one of the “God fearers” who attended Synagogue. He tells us at the beginning of his Gospel that he has done a lot of research, and it seems clear that among his sources were either Mary of Nazareth or else others from the wider family of Jesus, as events such as the Annunciation can only have come from such a close source. As for when it was written, most scholars date it to after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD., but it may date from as early as the following decade.

That takes us to the most majestic and mysterious and poetic of the Gospels, that of John. The scholarship here is even more contested than for the Synoptics, and it was the Gospel least widely received in the early Church because of its association with heretical movements, a reading which gathers some strength from the schisms in the Johannine community about which we learn in 2 John. There are those who think it the last of the Gospels, there are a smaller number who think it was the first. As it seems to have been finished by a later hand, or hands, there is no intrinsic reason why both hypotheses might not be true, of course. Papias tells us about two men called John, or at least he writes about the “Apostle” and the “Elder,” who may, of course, be the same man, as Apostles were Elders! Opinion is split, with some very eminent scholars opting for John “the Elder” and others opting for the Apostle, and some for someone else called John! But amidst these debate, no one contests that the Gospel was part of the Canon from early in the history of the Faith.

So, to sum up. What we do know is that the early Church Fathers received only Four Gospels as the Canon of faith, and by 200 AD. we know they were bound together as a Codex. Long before there were any Church Councils, the Church knew which texts were Canon and named the authors. But what, you might say, of other so-called Gospels? It is to that we shall turn next.

*Short Bibliography

JDG Dunn, Ûnity and Diversity in the New Testament (1977)

Austin Farrer, St Matthew and St Mark (1954)

Wayne Gudrum et al (eds.) Understanding Scripture (2012)

Martin Hengel, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ (2000)

CE Hill, Who Chose the Gospels? (2010)

Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament (1987)

Graham N Stanton. The Gospels and Jesus (1989)

He is Risen

01 Sunday Apr 2018

Posted by Neo in Easter, Faith, St Luke's Gospel, St Mark's Gospel, St Peter

≈ 13 Comments

Tags

Apostles, Christianity, church, Faith, Grace, history, Jesus, Salvation, sin

Well after Nicholas’s kind words yesterday, maybe I should share this. This is my traditional Easter Sunday post, although I edited it for today, it remains very much as it was.

That’s the importance of the day. Jesus the Christ is risen from the dead. This is the most important day for Christians.

Let’s speak a bit on the history. You may know that Easter is an Anglophone term for what nearly everybody else calls some form of Pasch. There’s a myth about that, which The Clerk of Oxford does a fine job of debunking.

How was Easter celebrated in Anglo-Saxon England? There’s a popular answer to that question, which goes like this: ‘the Anglo-Saxons worshipped a goddess called Eostre, who was associated with spring and fertility, and whose symbols were eggs and hares. Around this time of year they had a festival in her honour, which the Christians came over and stole to use for their own feast, and that’s why we now have Easter’.

Yeah, not so much, Eostre was mentioned in two sentences by St Bede, the rest is mostly 19th-century fabrication.

The women and the angel at the tomb, from the Benedictional of St Æthelwold
(BL Additional 49598, f. 51v)

The reenactment of this scene – the women and the angel at the empty tomb – forms one of the best-known elements of the early medieval Easter liturgy, famous because it is often said to be one of the oldest examples of liturgical drama. To quote from Regularis Concordia, as translated in this excellent blogpost at For the Wynn:

When the third reading [of Nocturns] is being read, let four brothers clothe themselves, one of whom, clothed in white and as if about to do something else, should go in and secretly be at the burial place, with his hand holding a palm, and let him sit quietly. And while the third responsory is being sung, let the remaining three follow: all clothed with cloaks, carrying censers with incense in their hands, and with footsteps in the likeness of someone seeking something, let them come before the burial place. And let these things be done in imitation of the angel sitting on the tomb and of the women coming with spices, so that they might anoint the body of Jesus.

And when the one remaining has seen the three, wandering and seeking something, approach him, let him begin, with a moderate voice, to sing sweetly: ‘Whom are you seeking?’ When this has been sung to the end, let the three respond with one voice: ‘Jesus of Nazareth’. To whom he should say: ‘He is not here. He has risen, as he said before. Go, announce it, because he has risen from the dead.’ With this command, let those three turn around to the choir, saying, “Alleluia, the Lord has risen.’ When this has been said, let the one sitting turned back, as if calling them back, say this antiphon: ‘Come and see the place’.

Saying these things, let him rise and lift up the veil and show them the place devoid of the cross, but with the linens placed there which with the cross had been wrapped. When they have seen this, let them set down the censers which they were carrying in the same tomb, and let them take the linen and spread it out in front of the clergy, and, as if showing that the Lord has risen and is not wrapped in it, let them sing this antiphon, ‘The Lord has risen from the tomb’, and let them lay the linen upon the altar.

This is a dramatic replaying of the crucial moment in the Easter story, bringing it to life through the voices and bodies of the monks. Although presumably the primary audience for this liturgical play was the monastic community itself, it may also have been witnessed by lay people. That appears to be the implication of a miracle-story told by Eadmer, describing something which he saw take place as the ritual was being performed in Canterbury Cathedral in c.1066:

There is quite a lot more at her post which is linked above and recommended highly.

We have often spoken about Jesus the leader, and his unflinching dedication to the death to his mission. On Easter, this mission is revealed. It finally becomes obvious that His mission (at this time, anyway) is not of the Earth and it’s princelings. It is instead a Kingdom of souls.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,

that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

And so we come to the crux of the matter. The triumph over original sin and death itself. For if you believe in the Christ and his message you will have eternal life. This is what sets Christianity apart, the doctrine of grace. For if you truly repent of your sins, and attempt to live properly, you will be saved. Not by your works, especially not by your wars and killing on behalf of your faith, valid and just though they may be, but by your faith and your faith alone. For you serve the King of Kings.

And as we know, the Christ is still leading the mission to save the souls of all God‘s children. It is up to us to follow the greatest leader in history or not as we choose. We would do well to remember that our God is a fearsome God but, he is also a just God. We shall be judged entirely on our merits as earthly things fall away from us. But our God is also a merciful God. So be of good cheer for the Father never burdens his people with burdens they cannot, with his help, bear.

As we celebrate the first sunrise after the defeat of darkness, Hail the King Triumphant for this is the day of His victory.

He is Risen indeed!

And hath appeared unto Simon!

Even Simon, the coward disciple who denied him thrice

“Christ is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon!”

to Simon Peter the favoured Apostle, on whom the Church is built

Crossposted from Nebraska Energy Observer.

The Eucharist: Christ’s True Presence

16 Friday Jun 2017

Posted by Patrick E. Devens in Faith, St Luke's Gospel, St Mark's Gospel

≈ 55 Comments

Tags

Holy Communion, Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, The Eucharist, The True Presence

The Eucharist, (derived from the Greek noun eucharistia, which means “thanksgiving”) also known as Holy Communion and Holy Viaticum, is defined by the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) as the following:

“The holy Eucharist completes Christian initiation. Those who have been raised to the dignity of the royal priesthood by Baptism and configured more deeply to Christ by Confirmation participate with the whole community in the Lord’s own sacrifice by means of the Eucharist.”

(CCC 1322)

“At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. This he did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a Paschal banquet ‘in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.'”

(CCC 1323)

“Holy Communion, because by this sacrament we unite ourselves to Christ, who makes us sharers in his Body and Blood to form a single body. We also call it: the holy things (ta hagia; sancta) – the first meaning of the phrase “communion of saints” in the Apostles’ Creed – the bread of angels, bread from heaven, medicine of immortality, viaticum…”

(CCC 1331)

As shown in the text above, the Catholic Church teaches that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist is truly the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, Who is present under the appearances of bread and wine. The Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist was instituted by Jesus Christ on Holy Thursday, at the Last Supper with his Twelve Apostles. The Eucharist is the most treasured of the Catholic Church’s Seven Sacraments, due to the reality of God Himself being substantially present among us, under the appearances of bread and wine. The name given to how bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ is called transubstantiation.

“By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity.” (CCC 1413)

The Catholic Church’s teaching on the Holy Eucharist has a strong biblical basis. In both the Synoptic Gospels and the Epistles of St. Paul, the Real Presence is taught and defended.

Also, there is a strong historical basis for the Catholic argument. The doctrine of the Real Presence (the teaching of the Eucharist being truly Christ’s Body and Blood) since its institution at the Last Supper, has been believed by Catholics throughout history even till now. The Early Christians testified of Christ’s true Presence in the Eucharist, and some, mostly those who lived before the Edict of Milan, were brutally murdered for their unwavering beliefs in the Real Presence.

In this paper, we shall look over the texts of the Sacred Scriptures, and also the early writings of the first Christians, in order to defend the Catholic doctrine from attackers.

Who are the attackers? Let’s take a look. Many of the attackers are the common Fundamentalist and Evangelical Protestants; mostly those who go under the title “Bible Christian”, and yet do not profess a doctrine the Bible clearly teaches. Some of these people who disagree with the Catholic teaching are only doing so out of ignorance, while others have biased anti-Catholic beliefs which are made up of hateful lies, and twisted, misrepresented truths. Here’s a rundown of the common Protestant argument against the Catholic teaching of the Eucharist.

First, the Eucharist is only a symbol of Christ’s Passion and Death on the Cross, nothing more; and Second, Jesus did not change bread and wine into His Body and Blood at the Last Supper, and did not mean for His teaching to be taken literally.

This is the common argument of a Protestant who disbelieves in the Real Presence. Some other hardcore anti-Catholic Fundamentalists go even farther in their accusations against the Real Presence.

For instance, in his comic book The Death Cookie, anti-Catholic publisher Jack Chick accuses the “Holy Papa”, presumably the Pope, of “creating” the belief of the Real Presence of the Eucharist while being influenced by Satan himself. The “wafer” is to be believed by all to be the Body of Christ, or, Chick states, the Catholic Church will murder the every doubter. Chick says that the inscription on a communion host is IHS, which stands for the names of three Egyptian gods; Isis, Horus, and Seb. He caps off his comic book by saying that many rulers and leaders in the world today are held in fear under the power of the Church’s doctrine of the Real Presence. If anyone publicly denies it, the Church leaders will have them silenced by being killed for not worshipping this “idol”. There are many other fanciful histories of the Catholic Church that this bigoted anti-Catholic hate-literature writer has put together. These stories make Catholics look like brainwashed dummies who are idol worshippers. The key to answering accusations such as these is to use common sense and reason, along with a deep understanding of the truths of the Catholic Faith.

The point proven here is that the opponents of the Church recognize the importance of one of Catholicism’s core doctrines. What’s more, the attacks show that Fundamentalists are not always literalists. This is seen in their interpretation of the key biblical passages concerning the Eucharist. Let’s now look at the Catholic Church’s biblical basis for its doctrine of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.

The Text of John 6

The 6th chapter of the Gospel of John is a key biblical passage in the teaching of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. John 6 begins with Jesus traveling over the sea of Galilee being followed by a great multitude of people, who are pursuing Him because of how He raised the dead to life. (John 6:1-3)

Jesus, seeing the crowd following Him, asks if there is any bread to feed the crowd. The Apostles bring Jesus five barley loaves and two fishes. Jesus then miraculously multiplies the loaves an fishes and has the Apostles distribute them to the crowd. After the crowd is finished, the Apostles collect the remains of the meal, and the food fills twelve baskets.

(John 6:4-13)

Afterwards, the crowd wants to seize Jesus to make Him their king. Jesus flees alone to a nearby mountain, while His Apostles go out onto a boat into the sea. Later, Jesus meets the Apostles on the sea, by walking on the water. After conversing with them, Jesus goes to Capharnaum, and His Apostles soon follow. It is here that the Jews ask Jesus for a sign that they may believe that He is the Christ. (John 6:14-30)

Here, in the second half of John 6, begins the instruction on the Eucharist.

The Bread From Heaven

The Jews tell Jesus that their ancestors ate the manna while in the desert, that is, the bread that came down from Heaven. Could Jesus top that? (John 6:31)

Jesus responds by saying:

“Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you; Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world.” (John 6:32-33)

The Jews reply with:

“They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread.” (John 6:34)

The Jews want this bread that, according to Jesus, comes down from Heaven. They want to see what Jesus can give them in contrast with the manna that fell from Heaven to their forefathers. They wish to see if Jesus can give them something that will prove to them that He is the Christ.

John 6:35 says:

“And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.”

Notice how Jesus says ” ‘I am’ the bread of Life”. An interesting note is that in the Old Testament, God tells Moses that “I AM” is His name.

“God said to Moses: I AM WHO AM. He said: Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: HE WHO IS, hath sent me to you.” (Exodus 3:14, emphasis added)

Here Jesus uses the name of God to say that “I AM (GOD IS) the bread of life.”

The Bread is My Flesh

Here is where the Jews think that Jesus has just lost His sanity. Let’s look at what exactly happens. Jesus says:

“I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.” (John 6:51-52, emphasis added)

Woah, Woah, Woah! What’s He saying?! Jesus says that the bread of life that He is to give the world is His flesh! The Jews respond by saying:

“The Jews thereof strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (John 6:53)

The Jews are freaked out! Why are they freaked? Because they understand Jesus to be speaking to them literally–and they are correct. They are questioning Jesus because they think He truly means for them to eat the flesh of His body. Now, if Jesus was just talking in parables; metaphorically that is, He would tell the crowd what He means, right? If he only meant to eat His flesh symbolically, He would of made that clear, wouldn’t He? Let’s read on.

Jesus replies to the Jews with these words.

“Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.” (John 6:54-59, emphasis added)

Those are some pretty powerful words! Jesus didn’t tell them of a symbolic meaning of what He spoke. He didn’t soften up His words; He reinforced them! No one now thought that He was speaking symbolically. He made no attempt to express any “symbolic” meaning; because there was none!

Jesus says that unless we eat His flesh and drink His blood we won’t have life within us! His flesh is meat–indeed! And His blood is drink–indeed! If Jesus only meant that this was all symbolic, then He has really been confusing His followers.

In the text above, Jesus says that if we eat His flesh and drink His blood, He will abide in us and we in Him. This is very important because:

“Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abide in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine: you the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing. If any one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and cast him into the fire, and he burneth. If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, you shall ask whatever you will, and it shall be done unto you.” (John 15:4-7, emphasis added)

No Corrections

Christ’s disciples murmur among themselves:

“Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?” (John 6: 61, emphasis added)

Jesus’ own disciples are questioning His teaching now! So far, Jesus has made no corrections to their literal understanding. Instead, he goes on even further, saying:

“Doth this scandalize you? If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. But there are some of you that believe not.” (John 6:62-65)

Here is where the Protestant objections and “corrections” arise. One thing they may say is:

“Hey! He said that it’s the spirit that benefits, and that the flesh is worthless! He couldn’t mean that we are to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood!”

First of all, Jesus said nothing about His flesh not being of profit. If Jesus Christ’s flesh is worthless and has no benefit, then we are all damned. It was Jesus’ flesh that was scourged, buffeted, spit upon, and hung on a tree for our salvation. What is that interpretation supposed to mean? “Eat my flesh, but it won’t help you.” NO! If Christ’s flesh does not profit, then He was born, lived, died, and resurrected for no reason. Jesus’ flesh itself does indeed profit much.

The term “flesh” here is referring to a man’s inclination to judge things by natural human reason. That is, to judge by worldly judgment. Natural human judgment, when unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable and erroneous. This “fleshy” or “carnal” judgment is rebuked in John 8.

“You judge according to the flesh: I judge not any man. And if I do judge, my judgment is true: because I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.” (John 8:15-16,emphasis added)

Here are further explanatory passages for the usage of the term “flesh”.

“For they that are according to the flesh, mind the things that are of the flesh; but they that are according to the spirit, mind the things that are of the spirit.” (Romans 8:5, emphasis added)

“That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit.” (John 3:6, emphasis added)

The term “flesh” when used in the Bible usually means the sinful human inclinations of living life. In the instance of John 6:63, this is the true meaning. The text does not mean that Jesus’ flesh is worthless. On the contrary, it avails much.

After this, Protestants will usually say that since Jesus said “The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life”, then the word “spirit” means “symbolic”. That’s the explanation of this passage! He was just speaking symbolically! Wait…was He?

This Fundamentalist conclusion can only be reached when someone is trying their hardest to evade the Catholic interpretation. The word “spirit” is never used anywhere in the Bible as a synonym for “symbolic”! That is a horrible, lame conclusion! Jesus never corpus-christi mentioned the third Person of the Holy Trinity as the “Holy Symbol”. The usage of the term “spirit” here only means that what Christ said can only be understood by faith; apposed to the interpretation according to the flesh. The carnal interpretation is of no avail.

No Room For Symbols

The only conclusion a person can make from the text of John 6 is that Jesus intended us to literally eat and drink His flesh and blood. It couldn’t be more explicit, right? Fundamentalists usually make a few more claims before realizing they don’t add up. Some may say:

“In John 6:35 Jesus said ‘I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.’ That means that eating His flesh is coming to Him, and having faith in Him is drinking His blood.”

There are problems with this interpretation. First, when read in context of the verses that follow, it is clear that Jesus meant for His flesh to be eaten literally. Second, the phrase “to eat the flesh and drink the blood” of a person, when used figuratively among the Jews, meant to inflict upon a person a severe injury. This usually meant to injure someone by calumny or slander. Using a figurative interpretation would mean that Jesus is promising the Jews everlasting life if they slander His name. Doesn’t sound right, does it?

Some Fundamentalists assert that Jesus was speaking symbolically when they cross-reference the discourse of John 6 with other Scripture passages. Jimmy Swaggart for instance, in a column in his magazine, The Evangelist (October 1985), says that Catholics should likewise begin worshipping Jesus as a door (John 10:7-9), and also as a vine (John 15:5), since they believe He was speaking literally about His flesh in John 6.

Well, these analogies have drastic difference with the discussion of John 6. There is no logical comparison with the phrases used by Jesus in John 6 (eating and drinking His flesh and blood) and those of John 10 and 15. In John 10, it is clear that Jesus was not claiming to be a literal door, composed of a slab of wood, knob, hinges, and key hole. In a spiritual sense though, Jesus Christ is like a door; we all go to the Father in Heaven through Him, don’t we (John 14:6)? Jesus is also like a vine since all Christians get their spiritual life, or “sap” through Him. But as for us eating His flesh, there is no symbolic comparison. Jesus Himself did say “the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world”. This cannot be expressed symbolically, and only leaves people like Swaggart scratching their heads.

Language of the Text

There is another problem with the symbolic interpretation of John 6. The Gospel of John was recorded in Greek. Beginning with the text in John 6:54, Jesus uses the Greek word for “eat” which is “trogon“, and translates as “chewing” or “gnawing”. Trogon is used to replace the word Jesus had previously been using for eat, which is “phago“. Phago is a more general, generic term for the word “eat”. By using this graphic term, trogon, Jesus sends the message of the literal eating of His flesh. John reinforces this literal meaning by using trogon four times within John 6; verses 54, 56, 57, and 58. Is Jesus was trying to leave a possible symbolic interpretation of His words on the table, then He would have continued to use the word phago throughout His teaching. But He did not. He chose to use the more graphic term for His literal teaching.

The Loss of Followers

After Jesus finishes His Eucharistic instruction, some of His followers choose to leave Him. It is recorded as:

“After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.” (John 6:67, emphasis added)

After listening to Him, many of Jesus’ followers leave Him! This is the only recorded time when Jesus lost followers due to doctrinal teaching. They obviously found something wrong with His teaching! They understood Jesus to be speaking literally, not symbolically. And, if Jesus was actually only speaking symbolically, then why did He not call the crowd back, and tell them of the true symbolism? Because there were not symbols. Jesus showed that He truly was speaking literally, saying that He intended for His flesh to be actually eaten for the life of the world.

After losing a number of his disciples, Jesus turns to His Apostles next.

“Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.” (John 6:68-70)

Peter and the Apostles do not entirely grasp Jesus’ teaching, but they remain because they know that He is the promised Messiah, the Son of God.

In the entire text of the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John, there is no symbolic teaching of eating of Christ’s flesh, only a literal understanding.

The Synoptic Gospels

I shall now move on to the accounts of the Last Supper as written by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. These Gospel passages of the Last Supper are the fulfillment of Christ’ promise in John 6, when He foretold the Eucharist.

The Text of Matthew 26

Matthew 26 opens up with the Jews conspiring against Jesus (Matthew 26:1-5), and is followed by Jesus having His feet anointed at the house of Simon the leper (Matthew 26:6-13). After this, Judas betrays Jesus to the chief priests (Matthew 26:14-16), and the Pasch is prepared for Jesus and His Apostles (Matthew 26:17-25).

After eating the Pasch meal, the following is recorded:

“And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.” (Matthew 26:26-28, emphasis added)

Jesus takes bread, blesses it, breaks it, and distributes it to His Apostles. He tells them that it is His body! There is no symbolic language. He does not say “This is a symbol of my body” or “This means my body”. He only says “This is my body”.

The Text of Mark 14

The Last Supper story of Mark 14 is preceded by Jesus ending two of His disciples to prepare a room for the Pasch (Mark 14:12-16). After gathering for the meal, Jesus tells the group that there is a traitor among them; Judas (Mark 14:17-21). The following words are then recorded.

“And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is my body. And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it. And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.” (Mark 14:22-24, emphasis added)

The Text of Luke 22

The text of Luke 22 begins about the same as Mark 14. Jesus sends His Apostles to prepare a room for the Pasch (Luke 22:7-14). He then eats the meal with them (Luke 22:15-18). He then institutes the Eucharist, saying:

“And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.” (Luke 22:19-20, empahsis added)

In all of the three Gospel accounts of the Last Supper, Jesus takes bread, gives thanks (or blessed) for it, and says that it is His body! There is absolutely no symbolism here. He eucharist1 speaks to them plainly. It is in like manner to the chalice of wine. He said that it is the new testament in His blood. He does not say “These are symbols of by body and blood” or “These represent my body and blood”. He says that they are His body and blood!

The Fruit of the Vine

Protestants try to disprove the reality of the Real Presence by citing the phrase “fruit of the vine” that appears in the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper, as to say that Jesus understood that the contents of the chalice were mere wine and not His blood. Let’s look at the context of the phrase in Matthew and Mark. Matthew 26:26-30 states the following.

“And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins. And I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father. And a hymn being said, they went out unto mount Olivet.”

Mark 14:22-26 says:

“And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is my body. And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it. And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many. Amen I say to you, that I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it new in the kingdom of God. And when they had said an hymn, they went forth to the mount of Olives.”

It appears that Jesus is referring to the chalice of His blood as “fruit of the vine”, and not really His blood. Most Fundamentalists make the mistake of not taking into account the passage in the Gospel of Luke. Unlike Matthew and Mark’s Gospels, Luke’s Gospel places the phrase “fruit of the vine” before the institution of the Eucharist. Let’s take a look at Luke’s recording.

“And he said to them: With desire I have desired to eat this pasch with you, before I suffer. For I say to you, that from this time I will not eat it, till it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And having taken the chalice, he gave thanks, and said: Take, and divide it among you: For I say to you, that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, till the kingdom of God come. And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.” (Luke 22:15-20, emphasis added)

It appears that when Jesus uses the phrase “fruit of the vine”, He is not speaking of the chalice of His blood, but rather that of the wine of the Pasch meal. If Jesus is actually referring to the drink of the meal, and not of the Eucharist, then the Fundamentalist reasoning is rendered useless. The point here is that someone cannot enforce the Fundamentalist interpretation with the real uncertainty of the verses meaning.

The Pauline Epistles

Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians

“The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.” (1 Corinthians 10:16, emphasis added)

St. Paul says that chalice that is blessed is in communion of the blood of Christ. The bread which is broken is partaking of the body of the Lord. Notice he doesn’t say they are only mere symbols.

Here is Paul’s account of the Last Supper, and also his instruction on the Eucharist.

“For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.” (1 Corinthians 11:23-30, emphasis added)

Here St. Paul gives a near identical account of the Last Supper as that of the Synoptic Gospels, but he then follows it up with several firm words on the Eucharist. He said that who ever partakes unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord! How can you be guilty of such an offence if the Eucharist is only symbolic? He who eats unworthily eats and drinks judgment unto himself! Harsh words for an apparent “metaphor” or “symbol”! He says this punishment is for those who do not discern the body of the Lord. If the Eucharist is not truly Christ’s body, then what is Paul referencing to? St. Paul obviously taught the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, as he was writing part of the infallible Word of God under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Third Person of the Blessed Trinity would not allow Paul to commit such an error if meaning to convene the reality of symbolism in the Eucharist. Paul’s words make sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.

Paul says that there are many that are infirmed and weak among the Corinthians. This is because when they did not discern the body of the Lord, and received His body unworthily, which contributed to spiritual loss of grace. Paul’s words for the Corinthians are very firm and seemingly un-symbolic. The Fundamentalist “figurative” interpretation is useless here.

The Road to Emmaus

The Text of Luke 24:13-35

In Luke 24:13-35, on the road to Emmaus, the resurrected Jesus appears to some of His disciples, but his identity is unknown or “hidden” from them. He then discusses the scriptures that pertain to Him, and then sits down to table and breaks bread with his disciples. At the moment of Consecration, (the breaking of the bread) the true identity of Jesus is made known to His disciples, and then he disappears! This is the reality of the Real presence today! Jesus is made present in the Eucharist at the moment of Consecration, after the praying the prescribed words that Jesus uttered at the Last Supper. He is truly present at the breaking of the bread!

After examining the biblical evidence of the Eucharist, I am uncertain of how a person can still view the Eucharist as only a symbolic remembrance of Christ’s death.

The Testimony of the Early Christians with Commentary

The Didache, Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (70 AD)

“Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: ‘Do not give to dogs what is sacred’.” (Didache 9:5)

St. Ignatius of Antioch (lived 35-108 AD, Disciple of St. John)

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible.” (Letter to the Romans 7:3)

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God…They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1)

They abstain from the Eucharist because they do not confess it to be the flesh of Jesus Christ. Sounds a lot like a Fundamentalist Protestant, doesn’t it? Ignatius was writing against heresy that is still alive today, but now goes under the title “Christian”. Let’s look at the others.

St. Justin Martyr (lived 100-165 AD, pagan convert)

“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus.” (First Apology 66)

St. Justin speaks of the Catholic teaching on the requirements of the Eucharistic recipients. They are required to be baptized for the remission of their sins and has true belief in the Catholic teaching. He takes to heart the words of St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:23-30 in order to further protect the disbelievers and those who are ignorant of the Real Presence.

St. Irenaeus of Lyon (lived 130-202 AD, student of St. Polycarp)

“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33–32)

“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (Against Heresies, 5:2)

St. Clement of Alexandria (lived 150-215 AD, teacher of Origen)

“’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children.” (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3)

St. Clement does not teach that Jesus was speaking symbolically, nor does he admonish the Christian people for believing literally, but rather teaches the Catholic theological standpoint.

Origen (lived 184-253 AD, student of Clement of Alexandria)

“Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.’ ” (Homilies on Numbers 7:2)

St. Cyprian of Carthage (lived 210-258 AD, pagan convert)

“He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord.” (The Lapsed 15–16)

St. Aphrahat the Persian Sage (lived 280-345 AD)

“After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink.” (Treatises 12:6)

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (lived 313-386 AD, Doctor of the Church)

“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ.” (Catechetical Lectures 19:7)

“Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ…[Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so,…partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul.” (Catechetical Lectures, 22:6, 9)

St. Ambrose of Milan (lived 340-397 AD, Archbishop of Milan)

“Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use!…Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ.” (The Mysteries 9:50, 58)

St. Augustine of Hippo (lived 354-430 AD, Doctor of the Church)

“I promised you, who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table….That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ.” (Sermons 227)

“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction.” (Sermons 227, 272)

Council of Nicaea I (325 AD)

“It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters, whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it].” (Canon 18)

Council of Ephesus (431 AD)

“We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the un-bloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving.” (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius)

None of the Early Christians believed in a merely symbolic presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but rather a substantial presence, the same Catholic teaching of today that has been believed through the ages. If the Church had believed this from its beginning then that means the Fundamentalist interpretation is only a relatively recent half-baked theory. The symbolic interpretation is an addition to the Christian Faith that was ONCE delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3), thus a man-made tradition that nullifies the Word of God.

Even Martin Luther, the Father of Protestantism, did not believe that the Eucharist is merely a symbol.

Martin Luther (lived 1483-1546 AD, Protestant Revolutionist)

“If a hundred thousand devils, together with all fanatics, should rush forward, crying, How can bread and wine be the body and blood of Christ?, I know that all spirits and scholars together are not as wise as is the Divine Majesty in His little finger. Now here stands the Word of Christ: Take, eat; this is My body; Drink ye all of it; this is the new testament in My blood, etc. Here we abide, and would like to see those who will constitute themselves His masters, and make it different from what He has spoken. It is true, indeed, that if you take away the Word or regard it without the words, you have nothing but mere bread and wine. But if the words remain with them, as they shall and must, then, in virtue of the same, it is truly the body and blood of Christ. For as the lips of Christ say and speak, so it is, as He can never lie or deceive.”

(The Large Catechism of Dr. Martin Luther; On the Sacrament of the Altar)

If the Eucharist was only meant to be a symbol, then it should be evident through the first centuries of Christianity that this was believed, but it is not found. It was all the way until the 9th century that the first public denial of the Real Presence came about. It was the start of another Protestant man-made tradition.

Why are many Protestants so keen on denying the Real Presence of the Catholic Eucharist? They just can’t seem to get over the fact that spiritual grace can be given by God through matter. Protestants just don’t like the fact that Catholics “walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Corinthians 5:7).

Dios este contigo

— Patrick E. Devens

St Mark

25 Monday Apr 2016

Posted by John Charmley in Bible, Faith, St Mark's Gospel

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

Catholic Church, Catholicism, Christianity, St Mark

Mark

St Mark’s Gospel is the shortest of the four Gospels, and perhaps for that reason, and because much of the material it contains is in the other Gospels, was the subject of fewer Patristic studies; as those of you kind enough to read and comment on my selections from the Fathers may recall, last year, when the Gospel for the lectionary was that of St Mark, it was sometimes hard going to find enough to make a decent post. But in some ways the neglect of Mark is odd.

If, as the Church holds, Mark was the follower of Peter, who is mentioned by St Peter, and is identical with the John mark of whom we read in the Acts of the Apostles, and his account is based on Peter’s teaching, then the form of the Gospel makes perfect sense. The short and sharp nature of the stories, with the punch line, work very well as homilies; we may, here, have some of St Peter’s own preaching. We cannot be sure of Mark’s exact role, but we can see from the final form of his Gospel that he has crafted a set of wonderful examples of what the Good News is and why it matters. If we envisage the Gospel as circulating, like Paul’s letters, throughout the churches of the Mediterranean world, we are probably not far from realising its original intention and context. It would certainly explain why, despite not being a first-person account, and being so short, it got such an immediate hearing from Christians.

It is difficult to be certain of Mark’s identity, but there is a clue in his account of the passion. In mentioning Simon the Cyrenian, he mentions his sons, ‘Alexander and Rufinus’ in a way which assumes his hearer knew who they were. The ‘John Mark’ in Acts is a friend of Barnabas, who was a wealthy merchant from Cyprus, who would have been part of that great network of trading settlements across the Mediterranean region, and it seems likely that in the mention of Alexander and Rufinus, we have members of a trading family who Mark’s readers would have known; it is difficult to account for their being mentioned otherwise. It would also make sense of Mark’s association with Alexandria (where he is said to have founded the Egyptian Church), which had a huge Jewish population involved in trade.

If we posit a Mark who had worked with Peter and Paul, who is writing in the aftermath of their deaths and the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in A.D> 70, we get some sense of why he wrote and why his message is so urgent. His portrait of Jesus draws us directly into a relationship with him; we understand why he changed Mark’s life and Peter’s life, and so many lives; we want him to change our life too. History has been changed, and the challenge for us is clear – if we are changed, then nothing will be the same again. God attests to His Son, the demons protest, the world is utterly changed by Jesus – and we will be too.

Mark’s Gospel calls us to repentance and to the knowledge that the kingdom of God is at hand, and on this, his feast day, we acknowledge his message remains as urgent now as it was when Peter first heard the Lord deliver it.

Gospel 33rd Sunday in OT: Year B

15 Sunday Nov 2015

Posted by John Charmley in Bible, Commentaries, Early Church, End times, St Mark's Gospel

≈ Comments Off on Gospel 33rd Sunday in OT: Year B

Tags

Catholic Church, Christianity

This is the last of our readings from Mark for Year B of the Lectionary Cycle, and in the new liturgical year, C, where we go after Advent, we shall be reading St Luke, who offers quite a contrast for the Patristic commentator. There will be a reflection on Mark’s Gospel as our second post today. C 451.

Mark 13:24-32

It is, Victorinus of Petrovium reminds us, a mistake to think of this passage as an exact chronology, apocalyptic visions are to be read for their meaning, not used to terrify the credulous. St Ambrose sees in the image of the moon one of the churhch, which, when the vices of the flesh stand in the way of celestial light, can no longer borrow the splendour of its light from the sun of Christ; the stars are an image of the leaders of the church who will fall as the bitterness of persecution mounts.

St Augustine comments that when impious persecutors rage beyond measure, and when the fortunes of this world seem to smile upon them and fear leaves them and they say “peace and security” then the powers of heaven shall be moved the stars will fall, and many who had shone brightly as leaders will yeild to the persecutors, and even the strongest will be shaken.

Tertullian reminds us that the Son of Man will come again in the midst of calamities and promises – to the grief of nations and according to the promises he has made to the saints.

It is no wonder, Bede tells us, that ordinary men and women will be troubled at the judgment, the very sight of which makes even the angels tremble. At this last advent he will come, Augustine reminds us, to judge the quick and the dead – and as he told us:

Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

We shall not be able to resist the second coming, so let us not resist his first coming, and let us seek the Lord whilst he is to be found.

Tertullian comments that just as we know from the sproutings of the tree that the summer is coming, so do the great conflicts of the world point towards the end times. But we must not presume we know the hour, for he tells us no one but the Father knows the hour.

Methodius and Origen both remind us that the world will not end, but rather the present order of things will pass away and then the word of God will prevail. God has ordained these things from the beginning, and his faithful should have no fear.

Mark’s Gospel & St Peter

04 Wednesday Nov 2015

Posted by John Charmley in Bible, Faith, St Mark's Gospel, St Peter

≈ 8 Comments

Tags

Apostles, Catholic Church, Catholicism, Christianity, history, St Peter

At the beginning of the liturgical year I offered some comments on Mark’s Gospel as a source for patristic commentaries – mainly to the effect that there were not a great many of them. But that did not mean that the early Church did not value the Gospel, indeed it received it as the best extant record of what St Peter thought and, indeed, as effectively his memoir. As Eusebius of Caesarea (c.262-c.339) – who had access to the best library in Palestine and the traditions recorded therein, wrote:

Mark writes thus, and Peter through him bears witness about himself. For the whole of Mark’s Gospel is said to be the record of Peter’s teaching. Surely, then, men who refused (to record) what seemed to them to spread their good fame, and handed down in writing slanders against themselves to unforgetting ages, and accusations of sins, which no one in after years would ever have known of unless he had heard it from their own voice, by thus placarding themselves, may justly be considered to have been void of all egoism and false speaking, and to have given plain and clear proof of their truth-loving disposition. And as for such people who think they invented and lied, and try to slander them as deceivers, ought they not to become a laughing-stock, being convicted as friends of envy and malice, and foes of truth itself, who take men that have exhibited in their own words good proof of their integrity, and their really straightforward and sincere character, and suggest that they are rascals and clever sophists, who invent what never took place, and ascribe gratuitously to their own Master what He never did?

He concluded, and this was the consensus of the Fathers, that Mark was ‘a written monument of the doctrine which had been [by Peter] orally communicated to them.’ We know that from the earliest days it was read at the Divine Liturgy. We see this tradition at Rome, in Antioch, in Alexandria and Constantinople, and they seem, as far as we can reconstruct them, to be independent of each other – that is to say that everywhere it was known that Mark was Peter’s interpreter and what he wrote was Peter’s, not his own. As Athanasius the Apostolic put it: ‘Mark, the Gospel writer … uses the same voice [as Peter did in his confession of Christ as Messiah], speaking in harmony with the Blessed Peter’ [Sermon on the Nativity of Christ, 28]

That most learned translator and scholar, St Jerome, wrote, in his Lives of Illustrious Men [chapter 8]:

Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter wrote a short gospel at the request of the brethren at Rome embodying what he had heard Peter tell. When Peter had heard this, he approved it and published it to thechurches to be read by his authority as Clemens in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes and Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, record. Peter also mentions this Mark in his first epistle, figuratively indicating Rome under the name of Babylon She who is in Babylon elect together with you salutes you and so does Mark my son. So, taking the gospel which he himself composed, he went to Egypt and first preaching Christ at Alexandria he formed a church so admirable in doctrine and continence of living that he constrained all followers of Christto his example. Philo most learned of the Jews seeing the first church at Alexandria still Jewish in a degree, wrote a book on their manner of life as something creditable to his nation telling how, as Luke says, the believers had all things in common at Jerusalem, so he recorded that he saw was done at Alexandria, under the learned Mark. He died in the eighth year of Nero and was buried at Alexandria, Annianus succeeding him.

Jerome concluded that, in effect, Mark’s Gospel was the testimony of St Peter himself.

Soon we shall bid farewell to Mark’s Gospel as the subject of the Sunday patristic commentaries, but, for all the occasional frustrations at the slim pickings it offers from that point of view, it has been a privilege to follow it through the year and to walk in the footsteps of St Peter himself.

Gospel 30th Week in OT Year B

25 Sunday Oct 2015

Posted by John Charmley in Bible, Commentaries, Early Church, Faith, St Mark's Gospel

≈ Comments Off on Gospel 30th Week in OT Year B

Tags

Catholic Church, Catholicism, Christianity

Mark 10:46-52

St Augustine reminds us that it is the wretched helplessness of sinful humanity which is witnessed to in the blindness of Barimaeus. Grace calls for responsiveness on our part, Chrysostom comments, adding that God’s electing and assuring promise neother coerces our will nor denies our free response. God will save us, as he has promised, but that promise involves our being willing to respond.

Clement of Alexandria tells us that the commandment of the Lord shines clearly, enlightening the eyes. If we receive Christ, we receive the power to see, we receive light by which we can recognise God. This light is more desirable than honey, richer than gold, and it is waiting for us if we will but heed his call. We should shake off our lust for the things of this world, for the things that fade, and we should seek for the eternal riches which do not fade. He was not afraid to die for us, and we should die to sin and be norn again through him. He is the true light which lights the world, and in him there is no darkness.

We are like the blind beggar, we see not, and we are in want – and there is one name only through whom we can be healed. Like Bartimeus, we need Christ – and through him we shall be restored to the image of God in whom we are made.

Gospel truth

20 Tuesday Oct 2015

Posted by John Charmley in Bible, Early Church, Faith, St Mark's Gospel, St Peter

≈ 11 Comments

Tags

Apostles, Catholic Church, Catholicism

As we have only a few weeks left now of Liturgical Year B and I am coming to the end of the commentaries on St Mark, I am preparing a piece to commemorate that, but in so doing, I have had occasion to re-read Eusebius of Ceasarea’s The Proofs of the Gospel, which dates from around A.D. 314 (with thanks to the indefatigable Roger Pearse), and was much struck by the comments he has to make on that Gospel.

Eusebius, still writing in a world where it was dangerous to be a Christian, engages with critics of the Gospel, and points out that it is implausible to think that the Apostles and earliest disciples all conspired not only lie about Jesus, but to maintain the very same lie (the shameful crucifixion, the resurrection, the ascension). This is especially true, he argues, given the number of embarrassing (to Christians) things Mark records about the ignorance and weakness of the disciples. No one, he argues, would put such things in their sacred book unless they were true. That being so, we have to assume that Jesus taught his disciples the value of the truth so well that they included even things which reflected badly on them. That being so, it is absurd, he thinks, to argue that the disciples would have lied about the miracles of Jesus or the words he spoke.

Eusebius points out that had the disciples omitted all the embarrassing things, and ironed out what some saw as inconsistencies between the Gospel accounts, then by his own time, no one would have known that had happened, and the life of the apologist would have been much easier. But that did not happen, and it did not happen because the Gospel writers were men bound to tell the truth as it had been revealed to them, and they did so, regardless of what men thought.

Written as it was seventeen hundred years ago, this still seems to me one of the best pieces of apologetics on the subject. I can think of no other sacred text where the authors present themselves in such a poor light, or where they so obviously leave themselves open to being contradicted by their own words.

We might add to these considerations one which seems to me overwhelming. On Good Friday we see a defeated and firightened bunch of men slink away to lick their wounds. Only the young John is there with the women at the foot of the Cross. Yet, a few days later this same demoralised crew is up and out there and proclaiming what must have seemed arrant nonsense – that the crucified Jesus had risen. It is not simply that the Roman were unable to produce the body (although we know from the Gospels that they claimed it had been stolen away), it is the actions of the disciples themselves. Men who had robbed a tomb and were hiding the rotting body of their dead Master would not have had the courage or nerve to go out and risk, and accept, martyrdom for that. No, something happened that third day after the crucifixion, and it changed their lives, as it changes our lives. He is Risen!

Gospel, 29th Sunday in OT: year B

18 Sunday Oct 2015

Posted by John Charmley in Bible, Commentaries, Early Church, St Mark's Gospel

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Apostles, Catholic Church, Christianity, Church & State, Faith

Mark 10:35-45

Many want position and privilege, but, Chrysostom reminds us, these things are not to be had without a price – and that price is a willingness to follow Christ to the Cross. He, like the Venerable Bede, notes that the sons of Zebedee, like the other Apostles, had heard Jesus, but still not understood the fullness of his message. They were assuming that there would be an earthly kingdom to come, and they might have their reward now, in it; they thought the time had come for crowns and rewards.

Bede notes that, like Peter, James and John were renamed by Jesus: Peter, on account of the strength and endurance of his faith, was named ‘Rock’, whilst James and John were called Boanerges or ‘sons of thunder’ because they heard (along with Peter on Mt Tabor) the Father honouring the Lord, and they recognised more of the mysteries of the faith than the others. They truly loved Jesus and clung to him, but they failed to grasp quite what following their beloved Master would mean.

This, as St Augustine comments, allows Jesus to remind them of the need for humility and self-sacrifice and the narrow way, which is to suffer in Christ with Christ and for Christ; if we would rise with him, we must first die with him. Chrysostom adds that Jesus seizes this opportunity to teach them, and us, about what it means to follow him. They were talking about an earthly kingdom, though he had never promised them this. He is able to bring them to a realisation of the true path which they will have to tread – as well as the glory at the end of it.

In the martyrdom of Polycarp, the bishop declares, as he goes to meet his death for the faith, that he follows the path of the sons of thunder; he knows now the path and will pay the price – confident that he will receive his reward.

Here, Jesus calls his crucifixion a cup, and his death a baptism. He comes to the cross willingly, because it is the road to the baptism by which the world is washed clean of sin; he knows he will rise again. He now, Chrystostom adds, goes to erase the curse of Adam, to triumph over death, to open paradise and to throw down death.

St Gregory Nazianzus adds that Christ is our sanctification, his purity will make us pure; he is our redemption because he sets us free from the chains of sin; he is the ransom for the sins of the world. the expiation for our sins. Through his suffering we are redeemed, and if we must follow him we shall surely rise with and in him.