Iconography

Posted on by
Reply

In his book Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, Stephen Jay Gould discusses the impact of iconography on the way we interpret data. By iconography he means visual representations of our ways of thinking. His argument is that the visual depictions of evolution as the March of Progress or the Tree of Life not only are a misrepresentation of evolution, but also impact the way scientists themselves interpret data.

The March of Progress has become a visual trope used in a variety of mediums. The idea is to show the gradual evolution from primitive organisms to more complex, “evolved” organisms, culminating in modern man.

The March of Progress

The March of Progress

This trope is used in popular culture a lot, as in this amusing example I included for the Dr. Who fans.

The Dalek March of Progress

The March of Progress, along with its analogue, the Tree of Life, is wrong. It promotes the idea of evolution as a progression from disorder to order, from simple to complex. It hides the actual complexities involved, and causes scientists to try and shoehorn fossils into a place on the tree of life as ancestors of modern creatures.

 

Modern paleontology had to undo and reinterpret much of the work done by earlier scientists who were wedded to the idea of evolution as the March of Progress, and who therefore tried to fit morphologically distinct organisms into the Tree of Life. In fact, as Stephen Jay Gould likes to point out, evolution looks more like a bush (although I think it looks more fern-like). After the Cambrian explosion, there were more than twenty kinds of arthropods that have no living descendants. These different body plans died out in the Late Devonian extinction, leaving only the current four families of arthropods. (Arthropods are a phylum of invertebrates which currently is made up of spiders, insects, crustaceans, and myriapods like centipedes.)

The Bush of Life

The Bush of Life

I find this argument fascination, as it provides an interesting way to think about the functioning of religious iconography. Take, for example, this representation of Jesus that is popular with Protestants. This Jesus has distinctly European features with classic movie star good looks.

Protestant Jesus

Protestant Jesus

If you think about this theologically, you’ll notice that the Protestant Jesus looks like us. He is clearly human; this representation provides no clue to His divinity. This is a Jesus you could have a crush on, a Jesus who would not be out of place in People magazine. In addition, the Protestant Jesus is not looking at us. While we are gazing at Him, He is gazing elsewhere. This Jesus is seemingly not engaged with us; he does not look at us with either compassion or judgment.

By contrast, Roman Catholic versions of Jesus are often more sentimental. One stylized depiction is called The Sacred Heart of Jesus, and is often used by various Roman Catholic Churches. In this depiction, Jesus has classic European features but is somewhat effeminate looking. He is gazing out at us with love. Catholic devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus has to do with the human and Divine Heart of Christ, particularly as it represents and recalls His love for us. This painting is designed to use as an aid in stirring up our imaginations and increasing our devotion to Christ.

The Sacred Heart of Jesus

The Sacred Heart of Jesus

Note, as well, the aureola (halo, or glory cloud), representing the holiness of Christ. While this Christ is clearly human, the aureola serves to indicate His divinity as well. Like the Protestant Jesus, Catholic representations of Jesus pay great attention to representing the humanity of Christ. Christ and his surroundings are painted so as to simulate reality. This is true even in their stylized depictions of the crucifixion.

The Crucifixion of Christ

Catholic Iconography of the Crucifixion

The crucifixion is often depicted with a certain sentimentality. This Christ is the object of desire. As such, this is not the Christ of scripture, the one who has no beauty that we should desire Him. This is not the Christ who had been beaten and scourged to the point that he was unable to carry his own cross. And this Christ is, once again, not looking at us with love, but looking up to heaven. The intent of this painting is for us to use our imaginations to stir up our devotion to Christ.

Contrast this with one of the oldest extant representations of Christ the Pantocrator from St. Catherine’s Monastery, Egypt. This is a representation of Christ as God Almighty, the Lord of Hosts. This icon famously shows the two sides of Jesus. On the left side, He is looking at us with compassion; on the right side, with judgment. Instead of a standard halo, we see Jesus depicted with a halo containing a cross, although only three arms are visible. These three arms represent the trinity. On each arm is written one of three Greek letters (omega, omicron, nu) representing the phrase “He Who Is”. This phrase reminds us of The Name of God as revealed to Moses: “I am that I am.” Jesus Christ is God, and His existence is not contingent on anyone. We, on the other hand, do not exist of ourselves; our existence is contingent.

Icon of Christ the Pantocrator

Icon of Christ the Pantocrator

Note the position of the hands. Jesus right hand is held up in blessing, with two fingers extended (representing the divine and human natures of Christ), and with the ring finger and the little finger touching the thumb (representing the Holy Trinity).

There is much to love about this depiction of Christ, but there is no sentimentality. This Christ is gazing upon us, just as we are gazing upon Him. This is the Christ who is the Captain of the Host, the one who could have called upon 12 legions of angels, but who at the same time is involved with us.

Does God Exist?

Posted on by
Reply
Jesus casting out demons

Jesus casting out demons

“To oppose something is to maintain it. …To be an atheist is to maintain God. His existence or his nonexistence, it amounts to much the same, on the plane of proof.” Ursula K. Le Guin.

If God exists, why does He not provide incontrovertible proof of His existence? I believe in the existence of God. I have been blessed by experiences that constitute, for me, proof. But those experiences do not, and indeed cannot, prove God’s existence to you. I believe, but I cannot believe for you. I have had certain experiences, but those experiences were meant for me, and me alone.

One definition of a miracle is that it provides access to the divine. It is, therefore, personal. Even when a miracle is performed in public, that miracle is interpreted individually. The individual may choose to internalize or rationalize what they have seen, to accept or deny the event. A person’s response to the miracle is what is important, not the miracle itself.

In the case of Jesus’ miracles, we see at least two reactions. Some people were astonished and praised God. Others argued that Jesus performed miracles by the power of Beelzebub. The same miracle occurred before all, but it was interpreted and assimilated differently.

What if God were to provide incontrovertible proof of His existence? What then? The interpretation and assimilation of that proof take place within each person. Some would love God, some would hate Him. But to provide absolute and incontrovertible proof would be to end the question. Each person’s reaction would, at that point, be fixed and immutable. For some, the love of God would be paradise; for others, the love of the God whom they hate would be a torment. And so God, in His mercy, leaves the question open and provides the opportunity for true repentance.

Thou Shalt Not Desire

Posted on by
Reply
Decalogue parchment by Jekuthiel Sofer 1768

Decalogue parchment by Jekuthiel Sofer 1768

The 10th commandment is summed up by the following two statements:

  • You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife
  • You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor

That word “covet” is not a word we use much anymore. The only place I ever hear it is while reading the Bible or listening to a sermon. We don’t use the word in everyday speech, and we’ve lost the sense of what it actually means. In one of Rene Girard’s books I learned that in other languages, it is translated as “desire.” This changes everything. What is obscure is suddenly clear.

  • You shall not desire your neighbor’s wife
  • You shall not desire anything that belongs to your neighbor

To desire is to lust after. In the book of James we read:

But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death (Ja 1:14-15.)

An old proverb comes down to us in many variations, but the modern variation is known as “For Want of a Nail.”

For want of a nail, the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe, the horse was lost.
For want of a horse, the rider was lost.
For want of a rider, the message was lost.
For want of a message, the battle was lost.
For want of a battle, the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

The meaning of the 10th commandment boils down to cutting the chain of events that leads to sin. If we can cut off our desire for what is not ours, we end up not murdering, stealing, bearing false witness, and a host of other sins. But the only way to cut off our desire is not by sheer willpower, but by the keeping of the summation of the law — to love the Lord your God with your heart, soul, and spirit, which leads to loving your neighbor as yourself.

Finitum (non) Capax Infiniti

Posted on by
Reply
The Great Panagia (Our Lady of the Sign)

The Great Panagia (Our Lady of the Sign)

Finitum (non) Capax Infiniti

Finitum non capax infiniti: the finite cannot contain the infinite. This is the argument of the Reformed (Calvinist) confession against the idea that the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ is present in the Eucharistic bread and wine. The Lutheran position states finitim capax infiniti: the finite can contain the infinite — that god is everywhere present, but makes Himself known only where and how He wills.[1] The theological shorthand for this argument is (non) capax, meaning it is a question of whether the infinite God who is everywhere present and filling all things can also be locally and bodily present in the bread and wine.

The source of this disagreement is Aristotle: specifically, the application of Aristotle’s philosophic speculation to theology. In Book 3 of Aristotle’s Physics, he writes: “the infinite body will obviously prevail over and annihilate the finite body.”[2] Following Aristotelian logic, the finite cannot contain the infinite. This means the Son of God cannot be contained by the bread and wine.

If we accept the argument that the infinite God cannot be contained in the bread and the wine, we must extend this argument further to encompass both the Incarnation and the person of Jesus Christ. If the infinite Son of God cannot be present in the bread and wine, how then can the infinite Son of God be present in Mary’s womb? If the finite cannot contain the infinite, then how can Christ be fully God and fully man?

Some Protestants deal with the problem through Kenotic Theology, which is derived from the Carmen Christi, or the Hymn to Christ.

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Ph 2:6-11)

In Kenotic Theology, the passage from Philippians 2 is taken to mean the kenosis (or self-emptying) of the Son of God had to do with the Son of God emptying Himself of his divinity so as to fit within the confines of the human body. Kenotic Theology is contradicted by the Apostle Paul, who writes: “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” (Co 2:9). Clearly we cannot accept any diminution in the divinity of the Son of God, for then the fullness of the Godhead would not be present in Jesus Christ.[3]

In 451 A.D., the Fourth Ecumenical Council was called to settle disputes as to the relationship of the divine and human natures in Jesus Christ. They settled the issue as follows:

Following the holy Fathers we teach with one voice that the Son [of God] and our Lord Jesus Christ is to be confessed as one and the same [Person], that he is perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood, very God and very man, of a reasonable soul and [human] body consisting, consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood; made in all things like unto us, sin only excepted; begotten of his Father before the worlds according to his Godhead; but in these last days for us men and for our salvation born [into the world] of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God according to his manhood. This one and the same Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son [of God] must be confessed to be in two natures, unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably [united], and that without the distinction of natures being taken away by such union, but rather the peculiar property of each nature being preserved and being united in one Person and subsistence, not separated or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and only-begotten, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, as the Prophets of old time have spoken concerning him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ hath taught us, and as the Creed of the Fathers hath delivered to us.[4]

If orthodox theology is correct, if Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, then God built for Himself a body of flesh taken from the Virgin Mary and took up residence in Mary’s womb. The Virgin Mary became the container of the uncontainable (χώρα άχωρήτου),[5] just as the human body of Jesus was united with the divinity of the Son of God in the person of Jesus Christ. Iconographically, this is represented by the icon of the Panagia (a.k.a. Our Lady of the Sign), which depicts the Virgin Mary at the moment of the Annunciation, a medallion showing Jesus Christ in her womb, and her hands raised in prayer. Her extended hands also depict the boundlessness of Him who is contained in her womb. Ephrem the Syrian (c. 306-373 A.D.) writes the following in Hymn 3 of his Hymns on the Nativity.

Glory to that One Who never before could be measured by us;
our heart is too small for Him and our intellect too weak.
He dazzles our smallness by the wealth of His forms.
Glory to the All-knowing Who cast Himself down,
and asks to hear and to learn what He already knew
to reveal by His questions the treasure of His benefits.[6]

In this hymn, St. Ephrem is describing the vast gulf that separates us from God. Our finitude is too small to contain God — that is, until God Himself enlarged our finitude by His presence. Our Lord’s infinitude was hidden behind the veil of His flesh and revealed only when He desired it for the salvation of souls. By uniting our humanity with His Divinity, our Lord Jesus Christ made it possible for our common humanity — by God’s grace — to grasp His likeness.

In the Christian West, the issue of whether the finite could contain the infinite is extremely important. In the Christian East the issue is not even raised. Indeed, this is an example of how the Christian East considers Roman Catholics and Protestants to be two sides of the same coin, for they ask the same questions — only their answers are different. The Christian East looks at the issue quite differently. Of course, the finite can contain the infinite; in fact, that is the very purpose of creation itself.

In the first creation account, God says: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Ge 1:26). God is by definition infinite; we as His creation are finite. And yet what does it mean for God to create humanity in His image and likeness? Does it not imply that humanity was created to be like God in all things, excluding God’s essence? How can the finite be like the infinite if the finite does not contain within itself the capacity for infinitude — if the finite is not meant to share, by God’s grace, in God’s infinitude?

In the tabernacle, we see the Holy of Holies as the dwelling place of God. We see this recapitulated in Solomon’s temple. Once the temple was built, the ark placed within the Holy of Holies. In the book of 1st Kings we read:

And it came to pass, when the priests were come out of the holy place, that the cloud filled the house of the LORD, So that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud: for the glory of the LORD had filled the house of the LORD. Then spake Solomon, The LORD said that he would dwell in the thick darkness. I have surely built thee an house to dwell in, a settled place for thee to abide in for ever. (1Ki 8:10-13).

The glory of the LORD filled the temple, for God dwelt there. How can this be? How can the infinite God be fully present with His people in such as way as to dwell among them? Somehow, in a way beyond our understanding, God is not constrained by His infinitude. He is fully present with His people while at the same time being everywhere present and filling all things. Although the Son of God chose to empty Himself and took our poverty upon Himself, yet in accordance with His judgments, He used the gift that He received from us for His own adornment and majesty.[7]

God revealed Himself to Moses not as the impersonal absolute, but as a person. Elder Sophrony writes: “But He Whom I had discarded as ‘unnecessary’ …suddenly put before me the Bible text, the revelation on Mt. Sinai: ‘I AM THAT I AM’ [Exod 3:14]. BEING is I. God, the absolute Master of all the celestial worlds is PERSONAL — I AM.” [Brackets in the original.][8] In speaking of the relationship between human persons and the personal God, Elder Sophrony later said: “By the grace of God, I am.”[9]

So yes, the finite can contain the infinite. By grace, the Holy of Holies contained the glory of God. By grace, the Holy Virgin’s womb contained the uncontainable God. By grace, the body of Jesus contained the infinite Son of God. By grace, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is (1Jo 3:2).

Bibliography

Anonymous. 2005. Finitum capax? Some tricky theology. November 21. Accessed June 8, 2016. http://www.christianforums.com/threads/finitum-capax-some-tricky-theology.2325926/#post-20117952.

Archimandrite Aacharias (Zacharou). 2015. Man, the Target of God. Essex: Stravropegic Monastery of St John the Baptist.

Archimandrite Sophrony (Sakharov). 2006. We Shall See Him as He Is. Platina: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood.

Aristotle. 350 B.C.E. “Physics.” The Internet Classics Archive. Accessed June 7, 2016. http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/physics.3.iii.html.

Cabasalis, Nicholas. 2013. “Homily on the Annunciation by St. Nicholas Cabasalis.” MYSTAGOGY RESOURCE CENTER. March 25. Accessed June 7, 2016. http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2013/03/homily-on-annunciation-by-st-nicholas.html.

Peltomaa, Leena Mari. 2001. The Image of the Virgin Mary in the Akathistos Hymn. Boston: Brill.

Schaff, Philip. 2005. NPNF2-14 The Seven Ecumenical Councils. Vol. 14. 14 vols. Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library.

St Ephrem the Syrian. 1989. Hymns. Translated by Kathleen E. McVey. New York: Paulist Press.

Endnotes

[1] (Anonymous 2005)

[2] (Aristotle 350 B.C.E.)

[3] In Kenotic Theology, the Son of God is said to have emptied Himself of his divinity prior to His resurrection.

[4] (NPNF2-14, 388)

[5] (Peltomaa 2001, 138)

[6] (St Ephrem the Syrian 1989, 85)

[7] (Cabasalis 2013)

[8] (Archimandrite Sophrony (Sakharov) 2006, 28)

[9] (Archimandrite Aacharias (Zacharou) 2015, 79)

The Eastern Orthodox Church

Posted on by
Reply
Three-barred cross, Eastern Orthodox Church

Eastern Orthodox Church

She is now, as she was from the beginning, multiplex in her arrangements, simple in her faith, difficult of comprehension to strangers, easily intelligible to her sons, widely scattered in her branches, hardly beset by her enemies, yet still and evermore, what she delights to call herself, One, Only, Holy, Catholic and apostolic.

Such she is: and yet being so, she has not escaped, any more than her great Head escaped, the tongue of calumny. Protestant controversialists attack her, because she holds uncorrupted the Faith of S. Athanasius and S. Chrysostom; Roman theologians condemn her as a withered and sapless branch, cut off from the communion of the first See, and now ready for the fire; infidel travelers contrast the ‘noble simplicity’ of the Impostor of Mecca with the ‘complicated superstitions’ of the Christian East. Everywhere is the cry against her, that her Priests are sunk in ignorance, her people enslaved to bigotry; that she exists only because she has so long existed, and acts with the mechanism of an automaton; that her want of missionary zeal proves her deficiency in vital energy, and that the hour of peril will crush her, like a hollow image, to dust.

For eighteen hundred years, it might be answered, this venerable Communion has fought the good fight, and born about in her body the marks of the LORD JESUS. Since she armed Athanasius against Arius, and sent forth Cyril against Nestorius, unnumbered heresies have assailed her; foes in every shape have surrounded her; without have been fightings, within fears; her existence itself has oftentimes been a very agony; yet the gates of hell have never prevailed against her.

Rev. John Mason Neale, M.A.

A History of the Holy Eastern Church: Part I; General Introduction

1850

General Introduction to the Eastern Orthodox Church

The Church and The Apostles’ Creed

Posted on by
Reply
Icon of the Synaxis of All Saints

Synaxis of All Saints

The Apostles’ Creed (along with the 10 Commandments and The Lord’s Prayer) is the basis for the Catechisms of the Western Churches. The Apostles’ Creed belongs to the Western Church and has never been accepted as a Creed in the Eastern Church. There are a number of reasons for this, but most importantly it is because The Apostles’ Creed both contains theological errors and is the source of even more.[1]

The primary theological problem with the Apostles’ Creed is that it is divided into only three articles: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.[2] In The Apostles’ Creed, the person and work of the Holy Spirit are combined with that of the Church, leading to confusion.[3]

On the other hand, The Nicene Creed has four articles, representing the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, and the Church. The third article on the Holy Spirit is more extensive, describing the person and work of the Holy Spirit apart from His work in and through the Church.[4] The lack of a similar emphasis in The Apostles’ Creed, along with the conflation of the Holy Spirit and the Church, is the basis upon which the Reformers and their Confessions rejected the authority of the Church and replaced it with the idea that the Holy Spirit works individually instead of corporately. On the other hand, the Nicene Creed separates the Church into its own article, making Nicene Christianity distinct from that of the Western Church.[5]

Luther used the Apostles’ Creed as the structure for both his Small and Large Catechisms. In Luther’s Small Catechism, there is no discussion of the Church. However, his Large Catechism contains the following:

“I believe that there is upon earth a little holy group and congregation of pure saints, under one head, even Christ, called together by the Holy Ghost in one faith, one mind, and understanding, with manifold gifts, yet agreeing in love, without sects or schisms. I am also a part and member of the same, a sharer and joint owner of all the goods it possesses, brought to it and incorporated into it by the Holy Ghost by having heard and continuing to hear the Word of God, which is the beginning of entering it. For formerly, before we had attained to this, we were altogether of the devil, knowing nothing of God and of Christ. Thus, until the last day, the Holy Ghost abides with the holy congregation or Christendom, by means of which He fetches us to Christ and which He employs to teach and preach to us the Word, whereby He works and promotes sanctification, causing it [this community] daily to grow and become strong in the faith and its fruits which He produces.”

It might be difficult to recognize, but Luther’s definition of the Church is based upon his distinction between the visible and invisible Church. The visible Church is the Eucharistic assembly and contains a “mixed multitude” (Ex 12:38; Ne 13:3). The invisible Church is what Luther has in mind, which is his “little holy group and congregation of pure saints”. Luther’s visible Church is without authority while the authority of the invisible Church is the Holy Spirit.

Lutherans recite the Apostle’s Creed in their Divine Service, reserving The Nicene Creed for limited occasions. The lack of familiarity with The Nicene Creed prevents Lutherans (and perhaps others) from recognizing that what they have theologically combined into a single article is divided into two separate articles in The Nicene Creed. Consequently they (along with other Protestants) feel comfortable in rejecting the Church as a source of authority.

The Reformed Churches follow the Heidelberg Catechism which contains the text of The Apostles’ Creed and organizes its questions and answers around the same. Like the Lutheran Creeds, the Heidelberg Confession subsumes the Church into the work of the Holy Spirit.[6]

The Anglican Catechism of 1662 contains the text of The Apostles’ Creed. Moreover, it divides its questions and answers around the Creed’s three articles. The Catechism continuously mentions the Church as an authority, but never defines it – not even in the context of the Holy Spirit.

I find it interesting that the Protestants of the Magisterial Reformation all organize their confessions of faith in the same manner as does the Roman Catholic Church. Part I of the Catechism of the [Roman] Catholic Church is organized around the three articles of The Apostles’ Creed. Because Rome’s Catechism runs to 904 pages (including indices and glossary), it can spend a great deal of time on the single clause concerning the Church, treating this single clause as though it bears the same weight as the fourth article of The Nicene Creed. The more succinct Protestant Catechisms do not take The Nicene Creed into account and thus are easily able to reject the Church as a visible, corporate, and authoritative entity through which the Holy Spirit works.

  1. A subtle theological problem with The Apostles’ Creed has to do with when Jesus descended into Hell. The Apostles’ Creed would insist you believe this happened prior to the resurrection, leading to the belief among some that the Christ suffered the pangs of Hell. The problem does not have to with the timing as such (since the Orthodox Church’s liturgy for Holy Saturday is explicitly about Christ’s descent into Hell), but with the inclusion of this without a proper theological explanation. The lack of a reference to Christ’s “leading captivity captive” has led to a variety of speculative theologies about what Christ was doing during His time in Hell, leading some to infer that Christ suffered there for our sins, and leading others to infer that the “spirits in prison” were the demons, to whom Christ proclaimed His victory. ↑
  2. The Heidelberg Catechism makes this clear: “Q. How are these articles divided? A. Into three parts: God the Father and our creation; God the Son and our deliverance; and God the Holy Spirit and our sanctification. Luther’s Small Catechism uses the same division. ↑
  3. The Apostles’ Creed, Article III: I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen ↑
  4. The Nicene Creed, Article III: And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father; Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; Who spoke by the prophets. ↑
  5. The Nicene Creed, Article IV: In one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, And the life of the world to come. Amen. ↑
  6. I do not imply the Holy Spirit does not work in the Church; far from it. Instead, it is clear that the Holy Spirit works corporately, in and through the Church. This in no way indicates that the Holy Spirit does not deal with individual people, but rather that such work is always in the context of the Church of Christ. ↑

This is My Body: Hermeneutics and the Eucharist

Posted on by
Reply
The Eucharist - Priest communing a young child.

The Eucharist

The first written account of The Last Supper is found in 1 Cor 11: 20-34. The Synoptic Gospels also contain an accounting (Mt 26:26-28; Mk 14:22-24; Lk 22:19-20). In all these accounts we find the words “This is my body.” The meaning of this phrase was settled for more than 1500 years — Jesus was referring to his actual flesh and blood. Then came the Reformation; its hostility towards the Roman Catholic Church formed the basis for scriptural interpretation.

In general, Protestants claim a certain scientific basis for their individual interpretations of scripture. They claim to have principles of interpretation which, when applied correctly, provide the correct interpretation.[1] Even the Lutherans, who accept the literal interpretation of Christ’s words, adopted explanatory wording which is problematic. In rejecting the ideas of Impanation (that Christ is imparted to the bread and wine), Consubstantiation (that Christ is next to the elements), and Transubstantiation (that the bread and wine are changed into the substance of Christ’s body and blood, while maintaining the appearance of bread and wine), the Lutherans adopted the position that Christ was present “in, with and under” the bread and wine.[2] In attempting to reject rationalistic explanations for Christ’s Real Presence, Lutherans nonetheless created a dogmatic formulation that suffices for an explanation — the very thing they were trying to avoid.

At the Marburg Colloquy (1529), Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli attempted to resolve their theological differences. They came to an agreement on 14 of 15 articles, but the one point that divided them was the phrase hoc est corpus meum (this is my body). Luther accepted Christ’s words as written, while Zwingli could not accept that Christ could be locally present at the right hand of God the Father, and also be present at the Eucharist. Vincent Medina notes this argument is fundamentally about a difference in Christology.[3] The problem is what happened at the Incarnation: did the Son divest Himself of certain attributes in order to be contained within a human body, or did the Son take humanity into Himself? How can the Son be always present and filling all things if He is circumscribed by human form?[4]

Modern Protestants take their cue from Zwingli in rejecting the idea that the phrase “This is my body” is anything other than a symbol. They apply their supposedly scientific methods of interpretation to the text, trying to determine exactly what type of figure of speech Jesus was using, and which word is the symbolic portion of the statement. In this they cannot agree.

Hal Schee and E.W. Bullinger are two people who agree that the phrase “This is my body” is symbolic and that the important word is “is”. Yet they give very different explanations for why this is so. Hal Schee writes: “In Aramaic (as in Hebrew), the verb ‘to be’ in the present tense is implied, not explicitly stated; as such, when Jesus says ‘this is my body’ or ‘this is my blood’, his meaning should be taken as symbolic.”[5] E. W. Bullinger’s explanation is more detailed, and seemingly more scientific. Bullinger acknowledges that Hebrew “has no verb substantive or copula answering to the Greek and English verb “to be”. …In the Greek, as we shall see below, whenever a Metaphor is intended, the verb substantive must be used; otherwise it is often omitted according to the Hebrew usage.”[6] The preceding passage comes in the middle of the first four pages about the use of Metaphor in the bible. But when Bullinger gets to a discussion of the phrase “This is my body” his discussion takes on an entirely different and hostile tone.

“Few passages have been more perverted than these simple words. Rome has insisted on the literal or the figurative sense of words just as it suits her own purpose, and not at all according the laws of philology and the true science of language. …So the Metaphor, ‘This is my body,’ has been forced to teach false doctrine by being translated literally. …Luther himself was misled, through his ignorance of this simple law of figurative language. In his controversy with Zwingle, he obstinately persisted in maintaining the literal sense of the figure, and thus forced it to have a meaning which it never has. He thus led the whole of Germany into his error!”[7]

It is only after this verbal onslaught that Bullinger adds to his description of Metaphor. “The whole figure, in a metaphor, lies, as we have said, in the verb substantive ‘IS’; and not in either of the two nouns;[8] and it is a remarkable fact that, when a pronoun is used instead of one of the nouns (as it is here), and the two nouns are of different genders, the pronoun is always made to agree in gender with that noun to which the meaning is carried across, and not with the noun from which it is carried, and to which it properly belongs. This at once shows us that a figure is being employed; when a pronoun, which ought, according to the laws of language, to agree in gender with its own noun, is changed, and made to agree with the noun which, by metaphor, represents it. Here, for example, the pronoun, ‘this’ (τοϋτο, touto), is neuter, and is thus made to agree with ‘body’ (σώμά, soma), which is neuter, and not with bread (άρτος, artos), which is feminine.”[9] Bullinger goes on for six pages building his case that the phrase “This is my body” is a Metaphor or Representation — “A Declaration that one Thing is (or represents) another; or, Comparison by Representation.”[10]

I find Bullinger’s hubris astounding. He claims to have finally discovered the truth in 1898, a truth that had been hidden for nearly 1,900 years. All biblical scholarship throughout history was dismissed out of hand, to be replaced by Bullinger’s ideology. I also find it interesting that instead of defining the undergirding philology at the beginning of his nine page article on metaphors, he buries this until he comes to the passage “This is my body”. Now it is true the preceding three pages mostly covered Old Testament metaphors, and only now are we dealing with Greek texts.[11] However, the proper place for this discussion would have been immediately upon beginning with the New Testament, not waiting until a specific passage was in view. Moreover, once Bullinger begins dealing with the phrase “This is my body”, he abandons all pretense of working his way through the New Testament metaphors, but devotes the rest of his article to proving that “This is my body” is a metaphor.

Bullinger, like many Protestants, abandons the principles of Protestant Hermeneutics when it comes to this passage. There are many different formulations[12] of these, but here are a few.

  • Interpret scripture in harmony with other scripture. (Protestants usually fail to deal with John’s gospel, which does not contain an account of the Lord’s Supper, but instead provides its theological rationale. For example: “Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.” (Jo 6:53-56.)
  • Interpret the unclear in light of the clear. (Once again, Jesus’s meaning is clear when taken in context with His other discourses.)
  • Derive normative theological doctrine from didactic passages that deal with a particular doctrine explicitly. (This expands upon the previous two principles. It is not enough that a passage be clear, but that it be didactic. The discourses of Jesus are exceedingly clear, while the parables are intentionally obscure.)

Using the Protestant’s own principles of biblical interpretation, it should be clear that Jesus’ meaning was not symbolic — that Jesus was not using figurative language. The Jesus repeated references to himself as the bread of life, and to the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood make this abundantly clear. Instead, Protestants impose their own prejudices and preconceived notions upon this passage, rejecting its literal interpretation in harmony with other passages of scripture. In the case of Bullinger, his hostility towards Roman Catholicism colors not only his treatment of the passage, but his treatment of those Reformers with whom he disagrees.

  1. Why then are there so many different denominations, each claiming to rightly interpret scripture? ↑
  2. Luther’s Small Catechism uses the phrase “in and under” the bread and wine. Philip Melanchthon, Luther’s friend and theological confidant, preferred “in and with” the bread and wine. The Formula of Concord, written after both Luther and Melanchthon died, uses the phrase “in, with and under”. ↑
  3. ↑
  4. Note that Zwingli’s position assumes that God the Father exists in a locality; that the Father is in a place, that place has a throne, and that God is has a spatial presence in such a manner as to have a right and a left, a front and a back, a top and a bottom. ↑
  5. The problem is that the New Testament texts are in Greek, not Hebrew, so his argument does not apply. ↑
  6. ↑
  7. ↑
  8. J. Edwin Hartill defines Metaphor as follows: “Words are taken from their literal meaning and given a new and striking use. The figure is a distinct affirmation that one thing is another which it resembles. The two nouns must always be mentioned. The figure lies in the verb. ‘IS’ is equivalent to ‘REPRESENTS’.” Hartill’s examples are from the Old Testament: “flesh is grass” (Isa 40:6) and “sheep of his pasture” (Ps100:3b). J. Edwin Hartill says the metaphor must have two proper nouns, and does not allow for the use of pronouns. ↑
  9. ↑
  10. ↑
  11. E. W. Bullinger does not use the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Old Testament. ↑
  12. A simple Google Search for “Principles of Hermeneutics” returns almost 500,000 results. I looked at a number of them, and while they often have something in common, there are significant differences. Thus the supposed rationality of their systems is exposed as nothing more than personal preference. ↑

Kangaroo Court

Posted on by
Reply
Creation Icon

Creation Icon

When I was younger I was indoctrinated into the Creationist myth. We had an answer for everything. We were thoroughly convinced, although not convincing to others. I now know the arguments once so convincing were (and still are) based upon old data, bad science, and faulty theology. Yet I still hear the same old nonsense over and over again. The echo chamber never learns.

We had our own definition of terms which we applied to everything. Our understanding of a scientific theory was akin to the scientist’s definition of a hypothesis. “It’s just a theory,” we would say, ignoring the scientific definition of theory — which has its basis in evidence. This is similar to the atheist’s definition of faith. To the atheist, faith is always blind, devoid of any evidentiary basis; yet for Christians, faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen. Faith is both substantial and based on evidence, much like a scientific theory.

The creationist runs a Kangaroo Court. The decision has already been rendered before the evidence has been heard; the quality of the argument is of no consequence. The creationist has run afoul of the existential fallacy, in that the argument begins with a universal premise and affirms a particular conclusion. In the beginning, God created; therefore, evolution is false. But the universal premise does not preclude the particular conclusion. Moreover, the creationist fails to deal with scripture as the author intended, and as the audience would have understood it. The Genesis accounts are an exercise in demythologizing. No matter what the pagans affirmed, the Genesis accounts contradicted them. No matter which God they worshipped, the God of Genesis was greater still.

The apostles warned us to be on guard against the Judaizers. The early church fathers warned us against the literalistic interpretation of scripture as used by the Jews. It should be obvious that the bible is written in poetry, not prose; yet the evangelical Christian has an entirely prosaic view of the bible.

So go ahead and bang that gong. Clang that symbol. Just be aware that intransigence is contrary to the Gospel.