Hi Kyle,

Thank you. I agree that the first section of Clement which you cite supports an allegorical or symbolic view of Jn 6:51-8. I don’t agree that the Instructor supports your purely symbolic view of Jn 6, as Clement refers here in your passage to “the Lord of flesh and blood.” Cf. also 1:6:43:3 Here is another pertinent passage:

"For the blood of the grape--that is, the Word--desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord's immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both--of the water and of the Word--is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul." Clement of Alexandria,The Instructor,2(ante A.D. 202),in ANF,II:242

As complex as his mind and method is, he saw “the blood of His flesh” as having redeemed the human bodies from corruption, and he clearly saw the Eucharist as the efficient cause of bodily sanctity. Moreover, Clement wasn’t formally challenging the name or teaching of “the Catholic Church”, which he regarded in its “Catholic”ity as a reflection of the divine unity as against so many “sects.” Cf. Stromata 7:17. Thus he wasn’t heretically challenging Irenaeus or Justin or Ignatius, a Bishop of Rome, or any Catholic about their Eucharistic views (as quoted above). Nor was he challenging their understanding of Catholic Church hierarchy of Bishop, priest, and deacon, which he also approves. Cf. Stromata 13.

The context of verses 63 and 64 in Jn 6 support the Bodily view, since Christ emphasizes his “metaphor” over and over, even after people take it literally. Cf. verses 51-58. Moreover, this degree of emphasis or repetition—which covers about twenty five verses (33-58)--is used nowhere else in Scripture.

“Flesh” is used in Scripture for the human body, but also for human weakness or infidelity to the Word. Compare 1 Cor 3:3 with Jn 6:63-64. If “flesh” were necessarily expressing futility, it hardly would have been used metaphorically for Jesus’s Gift. Thus, a purely symbolic interpretation cannot be proven from Sola Scriptura, but only suggested.

If “bread” and “flesh” are not referring to Christ’s body, then verse 51 has Jesus metaphorically saying he would give his Spirit for the life of the world. This seems to imply that the Word’s Incarnation into human nature—which by nature includes body and soul--has no intrinsic value. Cf. 2 Jn 1:7. (By the way, I think human nature is capable of being omnipresent. “With God, all things are possible.”).

Is there is one father between 100 and 1000 A.D. that formally denied the bodily presence or transubstantiation of Christ in communion? If there is no record of a few fathers in this 900 year span which usually, roughly held to the reformation principles and doctrines—as Irenaeus or Cyprian or Basil reflect Catholic teachings--is this not significant as to Biblical exegesis? Is not the Body of Christ a historically visible and true entity? Cf. Mt 5:14, Is 56:7.

I decided that I would leave the Catholic name if I ever found a better theology. But the Catholic Church has not defined that the Church fathers—not even the Doctors--always and everywhere wrote infallible definitions. She does hold that the modern Catholic doctrines are found in the fathers—both Biblical and and post-Biblical--who reflect the true development of the Kingdom. Cf. Mk 4:31etc. For example, this is true in regard to the Eucharist, Baptism, Penance, Apostolic Succession and the divine authority of Tradition.

In the Holy Spirit,
Dan Schultz










Last edited by patricius79; Sat Sep 19, 2009 9:38 PM.