Adrian Teo wrote:
> > AT: Thanks for clarifying your position. How do
> > you understand
> > John 6 about
> > Jesus insisting that they had to eat his flesh and drink his
> > blood? Also in
> > the context of the last supper, when he said, "This is my body...."?
I have posed similar questions in the past here about texts dealing
with Baptism and the Lord's Supper and have been met with an embarassed
reticence to discuss the topic, as if I had committed some kind of childish
faux pas. Discussion about sacraments is considered unseemly while it's OK
for us to go at it about creation & evolution, creatio ex nihilo vs process
theology &c. Frankly I don't get it. There are at least 2 good reasons
why the topic is germane, only one of which [tease] I will point out here.
Are we to interpret texts "literally" or "figuratively" (to put it
rather simplistically)? A large body of Christians (mostly conservative
Evangelicals) insists that Gen.1-3 must be understood literally but that
"This is my body", "born of water and Spirit" & other sacramental texts
must not be understood literally. Another large body of Christians (many
Roman Catholics, Lutherans, & Anglicans) says that Gen.1-3 either needn't
be or shouldn't be read as literal history but that the sacramental texts
should be interpreted in their literal sense. (There are also some who say
that neither should be understood literally & some who say that both should
be but let's not confuse things right now.)
Neither group simply approaches scripture with the assumption that
everything in it is to be read literally (whatever they may say). So what
criteria are being used to decide the question? & it ought to be
emphasized that this is not just a question of historical accuracy. Those
in the first group will agree that Jesus did in fact say "this is my body"
(or actually the underlying Aramaic) but that what he said is not to be
understood in the literal sense.
The point is that we all approach biblical texts with fundamental
principles of interpretation which may or may not be explicitly
recognized. What are those principles? & where do they come from? Are
they foreign criteria imposed on scripture or are they themselves
scriptural? & are the ways in which we deal with Genesis & the sacramental
texts consistent or are we simply influenced far more than we think by
denominational traditions & implicit assumptions about what's "reasonable",
I think that some attention to these questions might shed some
light on the different ways in which we deal with Genesis - which seems to
be the #1 item of interest on this list.
George L. Murphy
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 04 2002 - 12:56:08 EDT