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.”
Clement says,
Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: "Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood;" describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,--of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood.
Here Clement says that Christ teaches, by metaphor, that the church is "compacted of both" faith & hope, just as the Lord is compacted of both flesh & blood.
Right, you already cited this. Again, it is in a fuller context in which Clement is describing a wide variety of metaphors used of the Word, e.g., milk, meat, food, etc. I don't have to prove how this is NOT transubstantiation. It is more than evident that Clement does not provide a full-orbed doctrine of transubstantiation. It is on you & on your church to show how Clement's teaching is agreeable to the doctrine of transubstantiation. Moreover, it is on you & your church to prove the doctrine not just from Clement, but from Scripture - and by your church's own standards, from all of the orthodox fathers. The task is an impossible one, except by obfuscation & misdirection.
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
This passage really doesn't say as much as you think it says. In context, Clement is teaching about how Christians should approach the drinking of alcohol. He says it is admirable to abstain from wine as much as possible, drinking only water, but that wine is blessed by Christ & may be drunk in moderation, specifically by mixing water into the wine. He says in you citation that as Christ's blood is mixed with salvation, so the wine of the Eucharist is mixed with water. Indeed, further on in Book II, Ch. 2, Clement writes:
In what manner do you think the Lord drank when He became man for our sakes? As shamelessly as we? Was it not with decorum and propriety? Was it not deliberately? For rest assured, He Himself also partook of wine; for He, too, was man. And He blessed the wine, saying, "Take, drink: this is my blood"--the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word "shed for many, for the remission of sins"--the holy stream of gladness. And that he who drinks ought to observe moderation, He clearly showed by what He taught at feasts. For He did not teach affected by wine. And that it was wine which was the thing blessed, He showed again, when He said to His disciples, "I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, till I drink it with you in the kingdom of my Father." But that it was wine which was drunk by the Lord, He tells us again, when He spake concerning Himself, reproaching the Jews for their hardness of heart: "For the Son of man," He says, "came, and they say, Behold a glutton and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans." Let this be held fast by us against those that are called Encratites.
Note again that Clement takes the Eucharist itself as figurative, and consistently he says that the wine of the Eucharist is wine, the "blood" or "fruit of the vine." The doctrine of transubstantiation, by contrast, teaches us to believe that the wine of the Eucharist is no longer wine once it has been consecrated, except in mere appearance, but that its substance is the physical blood of Christ.
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.
Let me be clear that I do not claim that Clement's position is my own; I am only showing that his position is not the same position espoused by Rome. But I dispute neither that Christ has redeemed our bodies by the shedding of His blood nor that the Lord's Supper is a means of bodily sanctification (as too is baptism). What I dispute is that the physical body & blood of Christ are present in the elements served at His holy table, and I dispute that Scripture teaches such a thing. Moreover, I dispute that the bread & wine are TRANSFORMED into the substance of Christ's flesh & blood. Again, these things cannot be proved from Scripture, and indeed, the plain meaning of Scripture is that the bread & wine are symbolic representations of Christ's flesh & blood, & when we partake of the Supper worthily, we are thereby spiritually fed by Christ & nourished by His death on our behalf.
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.
You're arguing an anachronism.
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.
This is proof of nothing. I've already shown why it is metaphor, and I've proved it in the simplest manner. Why don't you attempt to respond to what I've already shown?
“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.
Why should we avail ourselves of I Cor. when John is making use of the same word in the same chapter already? Let us take our meaning of the word from the immediate context, where it clearly refers to physical flesh. There is no reason its meaning must change within the passage, unless you presuppose transubstantiation!
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.
I have nowhere said nor implied that "bread" or "flesh" are metaphors for "spirit." What I have said is that eating Christ's blood & flesh is a metaphor for believing in Christ's atoning death. I have explicitly stated at least twice in this thread that the atonement is effective only because Christ took on the flesh & blood nature of man. Indeed, how else could Christ act in the stead of man without Himself becoming a Man & fulfilling the duty required of man, as well as enduring the punishment due to man? Yes, His incarnation is not only intrinsically valuable but absolutely essential to the salvation of flesh & blood men. You will not catch me affirming Docetism. But the value of the incarnation is not so that we may literally eat His flesh & blood to attain salvation - which is such blasphemous nonsense, the simplest believer must shudder with horror at the very thought of cannibalizing our Lord.
(By the way, I think human nature is capable of being omnipresent. “With God, all things are possible.”).
This simply reflects your lack of understanding. So, all things are possible with God? Is it possible that God lie or do evil? Is it possible that God cease to exist? You clearly have not considered the CONTEXT, once more. Tell me what kind of created physical body can be present everywhere simultaneously. Is it not so, according to Roman Catholic teaching, that there is but one, unique human body with this capacity, the body of Jesus? And if it is the case that Christ's human body is unique, then He does not share the same human nature with the rest of mankind, and the entire work of the atonement is nullified.
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.
Have you not considered that you are here on a Protestant website, & we do not unquestioningly accept the presuppositions of Roman Catholicism? But there are a vast number of witnesses in the history of the Church, especially since the Reformation, who have indeed denied both the bodily presence & transubstantiation. You reject their witness; so be it. But let us go "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" (Is. 8:20). My authority is the Word of God in Scripture, NOT the written or unwritten traditions of men.
