Applying common literary rules to Matthew 26:26 and John 6:51

[razzelflabben]

Another poster and I were talking about how to know if the interpretation we hold is true or false. This passage came up as an example. Personally, when I apply common literary rules to the text, that is the elementary teachings of reading for comprehension I can only find figurative/symbolic interpretation to reflect what is intended in the passage. Can someone please point out how a good reading for comprehension would lead to a literal understanding? Thank you...please provide details

 

[spockrates]

Hi @razzleflabben. Thanks for starting the conversation. Just to make it easier for me, let me quote the two passages from the NIV:

Matthew 26:26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

John 6:51 "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
​

So just so everyone knows, I'm not a Catholic. I have, however discussed both passages with thoughtful Catholics, which has helped me to see their point of view and causes me to wonder what interpretation is true.

 

[spockrates]

That is, when Jesus held up the bread and said, "This is my body," was he speaking literally (as Catholics tell me) or was he speaking figuratively? This is He question I'm trying to answer for myself.

 

[razzelflabben]

Hi @razzleflabben. Thanks for starting the conversation. Just to make it easier for me, let me quote the two passages from the NIV:

Matthew 26:26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

John 6:51 "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
​

So just so everyone knows, I'm not a Catholic. I have, however discussed both passages with thoughtful Catholics, which has helped me to see their point of view and causes me to wonder what interpretation is true.

glad we get to talk some more

 

[razzelflabben]

That is, when Jesus held up the bread and said, "This is my body," was he speaking literally (as Catholics tell me) or was he speaking figuratively? This is He question I'm trying to answer for myself.

as I said and stand firm on, common literary rules tell us that it is figurative. I am anxious to see why others disagree but for the life of me I can't find any viable reason to think it is literal though I know some take it that way.

 

[spockrates]

as I said and stand firm on, common literary rules tell us that it is figurative. I am anxious to see why others disagree but for the life of me I can't find any viable reason to think it is literal though I know some take it that way.

Sorry for sounding ignorant, here. Will you briefly state one of the applicable rules for me?

 

[razzelflabben]

Sorry for sounding ignorant, here. Will you state one of the applicable rules for me?

context...When I went to school to learn how to teach reading the number one rule we were taught to teach elementary students learning to read for comprehension was context. Both the context (Passover) and the comment suggest a loaf or piece of bread not a chunk of flesh. In fact, that evidence alone is so strong it's hard to understand why we need to look further.

 

[spockrates]

context...When I went to school to learn how to teach reading the number one rule we were taught to teach elementary students learning to read for comprehension was context. Both the context (Passover) and the comment suggest a loaf or piece of bread not a chunk of flesh. In fact, that evidence alone is so strong it's hard to understand why we need to look further.

Understood. We should consider both the immediate context of the passage and the broader context of the whole of scripture.

Condidering the immediate context, are you saying that since Jesus was holding bread (and not human flesh) in his hands, the context tells us he wasn't speaking literally? Or is there some other information in Matthew 26 that tells us Christ was speaking figuratively?

 

[razzelflabben]

Now you and I haven't talked much about John 6 but I want you to look at verse 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

something we did talk about...Duet. 8:3 He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your ancestors had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD.

Notice that the bread of Life is the very word of God. Now if Jesus is saying He is the bread of Life what would that mean He is claiming? We can look up more passages if you want.

 

[spockrates]

Now you and I haven't talked much about John 6 but I want you to look at verse 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

something we did talk about...Duet. 8:3 He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your ancestors had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD.

Notice that the bread of Life is the very word of God. Now if Jesus is saying He is the bread of Life what would that mean He is claiming? We can look up more passages if you want.

OK. Do you first want to finish talking about the immediate context before considering the wider context? Or do you prefer to start with the wider context? (I'm OK either way.)

 

[razzelflabben]

Understood. We should consider both the immediate context of the passage and the broader context of the whole of scripture.

Condidering the immediate context, are you saying that since Jesus was holding bread (and not human flesh) in his hands, the context tells us he wasn't speaking literally? Or is there some other information in Matthew 26 that tells us Christ was speaking figuratively?

Both He is holding bread thus obvious figurative but also where He took the bread from, the Passover meal.

Now let's look at it another way, I often find that if we look at something several different ways and come to the same conclusion it is even harder to deny truth.

this quote is from..."Unleavened Bread. The Passover Feast started with the removal of leaven, bread baked with yeast, from the home (Exodus 12:14-20). Then they were to eat only unleavened bread, or Matzah, for the next seven days of the feast. Leaven was a symbol of sin (1 Corinthians 5:8); so unleavened bread, bread without yeast, was symbolic of a sinless life." https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-...on/what-is-the-meaning-of-the-passover-foods/

See, the bread He was holding was symbolic of being without sin, one site says humble...the very identity of Christ. Why do you think He chose bread and not say bitter herbs?

 

[razzelflabben]

OK. Do you first want to finish talking about the immediate context before considering the wider context? Or do you prefer to start with the wider context? (I'm OK either way.)

your choice I am flexible

 

[spockrates]

OK. Let's start with the last supper. It seems you are saying this:

1. It's absurd to think Jesus was holding his body in his hands. I mean, come on! How is that possible?

2. The bread is a symbol of the Passover lamb, which is a symbol of the reality. That reality is Christ crucified.

Am I understanding the immediate context as you see it, or did I miss something?

 

[razzelflabben]

OK. Let's start with the last supper. It seems you are saying this:

1. It's absurd to think Jesus was holding his body in his hands. I mean, come on! Who is that possibles?

I wouldn't say it's absurd as much as that there is nothing in the text that would lead us to this conclusion. Ah let me think of an example...if He was holding His literal flesh we should have some key words (another literary rule) like blood was dripping, or He took His heart from His chest, or something like that. These would be words that key us into the fact that this is figurative bread and literal body.

Remember based on my premise we are basing our conclusions on common literary rules for comprehension.

2. The bread is a symbol of the Passover lamb, which is a symbol of the reality. That reality is Christ crucified.

NO, the Passover lamb would be symbolic of the Lamb (Christ) the bread is that of purity, that is without sin. Now remember that the context (wider context) is referring to the coming suffering of Christ and His death. This is why the bread was chosen and not the Lamb at least in part why. We are talking about fulfilled prophesy. The bread represents the purity of Christ a purity we are to take part in. We cannot die as He died, we can be righteous, as in partaking of the purity that the bread represents.

Am I understanding the immediate context as you see it, or did I miss something?

 

[spockrates]

I wouldn't say it's absurd as much as that there is nothing in the text that would lead us to this conclusion. Ah let me think of an example...if He was holding His literal flesh we should have some key words (another literary rule) like blood was dripping, or He took His heart from His chest, or something like that. These would be words that key us into the fact that this is figurative bread and literal body.

I believe you're misunderstanding the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation. I'm not a scholar, but it goes something like this: The bread Jesus held in his hands had the form of bread but the essence of his body. It looked like bread, sounded like bread, felt like bread, smelled like bread and tasted like bread, but the reality was it was the body of Christ. Catholics believe the bread they eat at their mass is the same. They call it the Eucharist and say it is a sacrament.

Remember based on my premise we are basing our conclusions on common literary rules for comprehension.

Yes, but we should also keep in mind that God is the center of the context. This isn't merely a man holding the bread in his hands. It's one who is both God and man. Is any good thing impossible for God?

NO, the Passover lamb would be symbolic of the Lamb (Christ) the bread is that of purity, that is without sin.

I understand. Thanks for clarifying.

Now remember that the context (wider context) is referring to the coming suffering of Christ and His death. This is why the bread was chosen and not the Lamb at least in part why. We are talking about fulfilled prophesy. The bread represents the purity of Christ a purity we are to take part in. We cannot die as He died, we can be righteous, as in partaking of the purity that the bread represents.

Let's move on to the wider context when we're satisfied with our investigation of the immediate context, if that's OK with you.

 

[spockrates]

Just to be clear, I should repeat that I'm not a Catholic. I'm just comparing what Catholics tell me these verses mean with what I've been taught they mean as a non-Catholic Christian, and I'm trying to make up my own mind which of the interpretations have stronger logical arguments to support them.

 

[razzelflabben]

I believe you're misunderstanding the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation. I'm not a scholar, but it goes something like this: The bread Jesus held in his hands had the form of bread but the essence of his body. It looked like bread, sounded like bread, felt like bread, smelled like bread and tasted like bread, but the reality was it was the body of Christ. Catholics believe the bread they eat at their mass is the same. They call it the Eucharist and say it is a sacrament.

vs. 26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”...see, for this to be true, every single passover loaf would have to be the body of Christ...is that is Catholic teaching? But we digress, what key words tell you that the Catholic teaching is true? You offer none only a "correction" of the teaching whether I understand it wrong or not. This is usually how such discussions go...instead of answering the question there is a slight of hand so that the question can be avoided.

Yes, but we should also keep in mind that God is the center of the context. This isn't merely a man holding the bread in his hands. It's one who is both God and man. Is any good thing impossible for God?

We are not looking at what is possible we are looking at what the text tells us as per common literary rules. What key words tell you that we should look into "what is impossible for man is possible for God"? Cause I will then take you to the cross where Jesus said "where I am going you cannot follow." Which would take us once again back to the understanding of figurative/symbolic bread. See, this is the problem, no matter how we look at it the only way we can see it as not figurative/symbolic is if we remove all logical understanding of how to read for comprehension which is in my opinion a very good way to open ourselves to false interpretations.

I understand. Thanks for clarifying.



Let's move on to the wider context when we're satisfied with our investigation of the immediate context, if that's OK with you.

sure

 

[razzelflabben]

Just to be clear, I should repeat that I'm not a Catholic. I'm just comparing what Catholics tell me these verses mean with what I've been taught they mean as a non-Catholic Christian, and I'm trying to make up my own mind which of the interpretations have stronger logical arguments to support them.

the only interpretation I am interested in is God's intended interpretation and the only way to figure that out is scripture itself. Scripture interprets scripture so to speak, which is what we have been talking about.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

They are as follows:

1. Ḳal (ḳol) wa-ḥomer: "Argumentum a minori ad majus" or "a majori ad minus"; corresponding to the scholastic proof a fortiori.
2. Gezerah shawah: Argument from analogy. Biblical passages containing synonyms or homonyms are subject, however much they differ in other respects, to identical definitions and applications.
3. Binyan ab mi-katub eḥad: Application of a provision found in one passage only to passages which are related to the first in content but do not contain the provision in question.
4. Binyan ab mi-shene ketubim: The same as the preceding, except that the provision is generalized from two Biblical passages.
5. Kelal u-Peraṭ and Peraṭ u-kelal: Definition of the general by the particular, and of the particular by the general.
6. Ka-yoẓe bo mi-maḳom aḥer: Similarity in content to another Scriptural passage.
7. Dabar ha-lamed me-'inyano: Interpretation deduced from the context.
Concerning the origin and development of these rules, as well as their susceptibility of logical proof, see Talmud—Hermeneutics.
RULES OF HILLEL, THE SEVEN - JewishEncyclopedia.com

 

[razzelflabben]

They are as follows:

1. Ḳal (ḳol) wa-ḥomer: "Argumentum a minori ad majus" or "a majori ad minus"; corresponding to the scholastic proof a fortiori.
2. Gezerah shawah: Argument from analogy. Biblical passages containing synonyms or homonyms are subject, however much they differ in other respects, to identical definitions and applications.
3. Binyan ab mi-katub eḥad: Application of a provision found in one passage only to passages which are related to the first in content but do not contain the provision in question.
4. Binyan ab mi-shene ketubim: The same as the preceding, except that the provision is generalized from two Biblical passages.
5. Kelal u-Peraṭ and Peraṭ u-kelal: Definition of the general by the particular, and of the particular by the general.
6. Ka-yoẓe bo mi-maḳom aḥer: Similarity in content to another Scriptural passage.
7. Dabar ha-lamed me-'inyano: Interpretation deduced from the context.
Concerning the origin and development of these rules, as well as their susceptibility of logical proof, see Talmud—Hermeneutics.
RULES OF HILLEL, THE SEVEN - JewishEncyclopedia.com

okay, but as the OP says we are talking about common literary rules not hermeneutics but I have no problem adding them in just want to be clear about what we are talking about...we can get into Exegesis and Eisegesis as well.