Pints With Aquinas - Spirit and Life | Bible Study W/ Aquinas

Episode Date: June 18, 2020

Today we'll take a look at what Thomas Aquinas has to say about our Lord's words, "the words I have spoken to you are spirit and life." John 6:63. I'll also give 5 reasons that our Lord's words do NOT mean the Eucharist is metaphorical. GIVING  Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mattfradd This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer coproducer of the show.  LINKS Website: https://pintswithaquinas.com/ Merch: https://teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: https://www.strive21.com/  SOCIAL Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mattfradd Twitter: https://twitter.com/mattfradd Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mattfradd MY BOOKS  Does God Exist: https://www.amazon.com/Does-God-Exist... Marian Consecration With Aquinas: https://www.amazon.com/Marian-Consecr... The Porn Myth: https://www.ignatius.com/The-Porn-Myt... CONTACT Book me to speak: https://www.mattfradd.com/speakerrequestform Website - mattfradd.com  Facebook - facebook.com/mattfradd/ Twitter - twitter.com/mattfradd

Hello and welcome to another Bible study with Aquinas. I believe that this is the fourth Bible study that we're doing. If you're new to these Bible studies, it's so good to have you here. We're not kind of doing this in order, so if you've missed the last three, that's okay. We're going to be looking at something entirely different today. But what we are looking at is the commentary on St. John's Gospel from St. Thomas Aquinas. Thomas wrote commentaries on Matthew's Gospel and others. Today, in particular, I want to look at John chapter 6, especially I want to look at verses 60 through 70.

So, before we dive in, why don't we take a breath and make the sign of the cross. In the name of the Father, and of the the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Amen. Dear Lord Jesus Christ, we give you thanks and praise. We glorify you. You are our righteousness. Thank you for dying for us, for rising for us, so that we can have life in you. and have life in you. Holy Spirit, help us to hear the Word of God as we read through this verse and these verses. We ask this in the name of Jesus, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Amen. All right, where to begin? I just did a debate with Protestant apologist Cameron Bertuzzi on the Catholic understanding versus the symbolic

understanding of the Eucharist. If you want access to this, please become a patron, patreon.com slash Matt Fradd, other than we'll send you signed copies of books and stickers and all that as well, but you'll get immediate access to this two hour plus video debate that debate that we did, which is, again, only available to patrons. The reason we're keeping it just to patrons is I'm trying to raise money to start a Pints with Aquinas Español channel where I pay Spanish speakers to professionally dub Pints with Aquinas clips so that we can better minister to our Spanish-speaking brothers and sisters. Patreon.com slash Matt Fradd to see that debate. But that's why it's on the forefront of my mind. Cameron takes, as many Protestants do, the symbolic reading of John 6. This is, of course, where our blessed Lord says, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

But what Cameron does and what other Protestants do is they want to point to this verse here in verse 63, yeah, or 64, where our blessed Lord after this says, it is the Spirit you are to take his words metaphorically. I'm going to show why that's not the case. We're going to begin by looking at what Thomas Aquinas has to say on these verses. And keep in mind, Thomas Aquinas isn't writing as an apologist for the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I will be. Now, why didn't Thomas Aquinas devote a lot of apologetics to this? Well, frankly, because the first Christian to seriously

challenge the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist was Berengarius of Tours in the 11th century. After that, you've got the sort of proto-Protestant John Wycliffe in the 14th century. He tries to revivify Berengarius' ideas by appealing to the early church unsuccessfully because the entire early church believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, that Jesus was present bodily. So it wasn't really a big deal. I mean, you have transubstantiation being used in the Fourth Lateran Council in the 13th century. But again, the Protestant Reformation hadn't taken place. So that's why it's not on the forefront of Aquinas' mind to defend it. I will be, but let's take a look at what Aquinas has to say here.

Let's read the verse in context. I'll be reading from the Vulgate, and then we'll jump into what he says. Many of his disciples, hearing it, said, this saying is hard, and who is able to accept it? Let me make two points. Number one, this saying is hard and who is able to accept it? Let me make two points. Number one, this is a hard teaching. Just because we believe that Jesus Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, body, blood, soul, and divinity, it doesn't mean it's easy. Except by the grace of God and the

Holy Spirit assisting us, this is a very difficult teaching. But it's also difficult to believe that God became man. It's also difficult to believe that God became man. It's also difficult to believe that God died. But we do believe that, even though it's difficult. My point is, the Catholic Church's teaching on the Eucharist is radical, but that shouldn't surprise us because Christianity is a radical religion. The second thing I want to point out from this verse, many of his disciples hearing it said, this saying is hard. Who is able to accept it? Is that even though many Protestants read John 6 and say, oh my goodness, this is obvious that he's speaking metaphorically. I think they should pause a moment and ask themselves, okay, you're reading a translation of the Bible 2,000 plus years removed.

You read it and say it's obvious that he was speaking metaphorically. thousand plus years removed, you read it and say it's obvious that he was speaking metaphorically. You need to explain why the eyewitnesses all believed he was speaking literally, the Jews as well as Christ's followers. So after that, he says, Jesus says, knowing that his disciples murmured at this, he said to them, does this scandalize you? It is the spirit that gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

But there are some of you who do not believe. For Jesus knew from the beginning who believed and who would betray him. So let's just jump right over here and see what Thomas Aquinas has to say. All right. So he says, the words that I have spoken to you, about eating my flesh, that is, are spirit and life. Aquinas says,

that is, they have a spiritual meaning. And understood in this way, they give life. And it is not surprising that they have a spiritual meaning because they are from the Holy Spirit. It is the Spirit who tells mysteries, 1 Corinthians 14.2. And therefore, the mysteries of Christ give life. I will never forget the justifications because through them you have brought me to life, Psalm 118, 93. Now, Aquinas continues. He says, Augustine explains this passage in a different way. He understands the statement flesh profits nothing as referring to the flesh of Christ. It is obvious that the flesh of Christ

as united to the word and to the spirit, does profit very much and in every way. Otherwise, the word would have been made flesh in vain and the father would have made him known in the flesh in vain. Okay. And so we should say that it is the flesh of Christ considered in itself that profits nothing and does not have any more beneficial effect than other flesh. For if his flesh is considered as separated from the divinity and the Holy Spirit, it does not have different power than other flesh. But if it is united to the spirit and the divinity, it profits many because it makes those who receive it abide in Christ. For man abides in God through the spirit of love. We know that we abide in God and God in us because he has given us his spirit. 1 John chapter 4 verse 13. And this is what our Lord says. The effect I promise you that is eternal life should not be attributed to my flesh as such because understood in this way flesh profits nothing. But my flesh does offer eternal life as united to the spirit and the divinity. Galatians 5.25 says, if we live by

the spirit, let us also walk by the spirit. And he adds, the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. That is, they must be understood of the spirit, united to my flesh, and so understood they are life. That is, the life of the soul. For as the body lives its bodily life through a bodily And then he quotes Psalm 103, verse 30. Okay. I want to back up a little bit here for where he says, again, you know, it is spirit. It's the spirit that gives life. So we're kind of backing up in the verse there. He settles the offense that the disciples took at what he said.

And as Chrysostom says, he distinguished two ways in which his words could be understood. And second, he showed which way was appropriate here at the words that I have spoken to your spirit and life. With respect to the first, we should note that Christ's words can be understood in two senses, in a spiritual way and in a material way. Thus, he says, it is the spirit that gives life. That is, if you understand these words according to the spirit, that is, according to their spiritual meaning, they will give life. Now, what about the flesh profits nothing? What does that mean? That is, if you understand them in a material way, they will be of no benefit to you. They will rather be harmful.

For if you live according to the flesh, you will die. Romans 8.13 What our Lord said about eating flesh is interpreted in a material way when it is understood in the superficial meaning and as pertaining to the nature of flesh. And it was in this way that the Jews understood him. But our Lord said that he would give himself to them as spiritual food, not as though the true flesh of Christ is not present in the sacrament on the altar, but because it is eaten in a certain spiritual and divine way. Thus, the correct meaning of these words is spiritual, not material. Notice what Chrysostom

says here. The Jews thought he meant, you know, what, you want us to bite your arm and like start chewing your feet? Like, what does this even mean? Right? The disciples believe that as well. But when we understand Christ's words spiritually, we do not conclude that he was speaking metaphorically. Rather, we ought to conclude, and the disciples eventually learned at the Last Supper, that we would take in the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ in a spiritual, sacramental way. So, let me pause there for a moment, because maybe what I just said brought up more questions than answers. Here's why verse 63 does not mean that we do not take in the body, blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Here's why 63 does not prove that Jesus just meant this metaphorically.

And I want to say three things. Number one, notice that the Eucharistic discourse, and here I'm going to pull out my Bible so I can read it to you. Notice that the Eucharistic discourse ends in verse 58, right? So that's the first thing to point out. There is a slight disconnection between the Eucharistic discourse and then what he's saying next. And we know this because after he says these words about, truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. My flesh is food indeed. My blood is drink indeed.

It sort of comes to a close here in verse 59 where it concludes this he said in the synagogue as he taught at Capernaum. And then it moves on. And it's still referring to the discourse, but that discourse does come to somewhat

of an end. Secondly, when Chrysostom and other people say we're receiving the Eucharist spiritually, they do not mean that we're not receiving the body and blood in a literal sense. Rather, what they mean is we're receiving it in a sacramental sense. The word spirit is nowhere used in the Bible to mean metaphorical. The spirit, the spiritual, is every bit as real as the material. Here's the third reason, and I find this very interesting. In verse 63, Jesus...

You know what? I said I'm going to give you three reasons. I'm going to give you more. In verse 63, Jesus is contrasting the natural or carnal man. And this is, again, what Aquinas quotes Chrysostom as saying. In the Garden of Gethsemane, Christ says to the apostles, the spirit is willing, the flesh is weak. Pray that you do not fall into temptation right so he's contrasting here the natural and the supernatural right the

spiritual and the carnal and let me give you two scripture verses that show this to be the case if you want to flip to romans chapter 8 verse starting with verse 5. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. So another way, if you're understanding this in a fleshly way, that is to say in a carnal, non-faith based way, you're not going to understand Christ's words. But if you understand this in a spiritual way, you should be going to understand Christ's words. But if you understand this in a spiritual way, you should be able to understand that we receive the body and blood of Jesus literally under the form and the appearance rather of bread and wine. Let me just jump to

another verse that shows this contrast between the spiritual and the fleshly. Verse 14, let's see here. First letter of Paul to the Corinthians, chapter 2. 2 Corinthians, sorry. Chapter 2, verse 14. The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man judges

all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. Okay. So that's what we're talking about. Jesus is not saying, right, he's not going faithless man who's going to understand these mysteries. All right, here's a fourth reason we should agree that Jesus was speaking literally and why this verse in verses 60 through 70, especially verse 63, do not disprove it. In verses 60 through 70, especially verse 63, do not disprove it. Notice that Jesus says, my flesh, when discussing the Eucharist. And in this verse, he says, the flesh, when referring to the carnal man. So again, that's another reason to see that he's obviously not talking about his flesh. He just spent the whole chapter or most of the chapter saying that his flesh is necessary for life.

And here, you know, when Augustine refers to the flesh, meaning Christ, he's saying, right? Yeah, if Christ were not God, if it was just his flesh per se and not united right to the Godhead, then it wouldn't it wouldn't do anything. But Jesus Christ is the second person of the Blessed Trinity. Obviously, his flesh profits much. But here he doesn't say my flesh doesn't profit much. He says the flesh. Again, this kind of goes back to this idea of the faith-filled man and the carnal man or the faithless man. All right.

Here, this is really interesting. And this is the final point. So I think, what are we on, like 0.5? Notice that if you want to say, let's see if we can find it here, John chapter six. If you want to say that in this verse, Jesus was explaining that he was speaking metaphorically,

then you have to be able to explain why it was after this, not before this, that his disciples abandoned him. In other words, if in John chapter 6, the disciples left and then he said to the 12, okay, boys, here's what I really meant. Okay. But that's not what happened. He explained to his followers first, you have to understand this in a spiritual sense. And again, spiritual does not equal metaphorical, right? And his disciples leave him.

So clearly the disciples who left him believed him to be speaking literally prior to this verse 63, and after he says, the words that I speak are spirit and life. So why don't we read from verse 63 and then going on to where the disciples, many of his disciples left him. Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life. The flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe. All right, so he goes on. So he's explained that. In verse 66, three verses later, this is where we see disciples abandoning Christ. And it's important to note, this is the only time in the Gospels that we see disciples

abandoning Christ over a doctrine, over one of his teachings here. So verse 66, after this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer walked with him. and no longer walked with him afterwards, not before. So if verse 63 was meant to explain that this was just meant to be taken as a metaphor and they didn't get it, how do you account for that? Then Jesus said to the 12, will you also go away? In other words, he's saying, I meant what I said. So you have to accept it or you can leave.

And what does Simon Peter do? Simon Peter does what you and I ought to do, right? Even if this is something we don't fully comprehend, and of course it isn't, we can still say with Peter, Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed and have come to know that you are the Holy One of God. In other words, if we come to believe that Jesus Christ is who he claims to be, if we accept salvation, then even when we encounter a difficult teaching, we do not, as many of his disciples did, abandon him.

Nor do we say, I totally understand what you're saying, right? It's clear as day. Rather, we can just be honest and say, look, I don't fully comprehend this, but I know that I can trust you. Right. And if you say this is my body, then I can accept that this is your body. body. I want to kind of conclude here by again reading those lines from Chrysostom because I'm afraid that maybe as I was going through this, I made things more confusing than I needed to. Part of the confusion is often when we engage with our Protestant brothers and sisters, they have a very either or kind of understanding

of things, right? Either the Bible or tradition, you know? Either, you know, either he was speaking spiritually or he was speaking literally, okay? Whereas as a Catholic, we often accept the both and. It's a false dilemma. We can say, yeah, no, no, no. The Word of God is the Bible and tradition. We can say, you know, spirit, yeah, this is a spiritual way he was talking. But spiritual does not equal metaphorical. Spiritual equals literal in this sense.

So let's read again what Chrysostom says, okay? It is the spirit that gives life. That is, if you understand these words according to the spirit, that is according to their spiritual meaning, they will give life. The flesh profits nothing. That is, if you understand them in a material way, that is to say, you're going to literally be, you know, ripping off flesh of the second person of the Trinity and like ruining him and destroying his flesh as you digest it, right? If you're understanding it in that way, right, they will be of no benefit to you. They will rather be harmful. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die. What our Lord said,

now listen really carefully to this. What our Lord said about eating his flesh is interpreted in a material way when it is understood in its superficial meaning and as pertaining to the nature of flesh. Again, think cannibalism. And it was in this way that the Jews understood him. But our Lord said that he would give himself to them as spiritual food, not as though the true flesh of Christ is not present in this sacrament of the altar, but because it is eaten in a certain spiritual and divine way. Thus, the correct meaning of these words is spiritual, not material. This was more apologetically based than many of our talks have been in the past, many of our Bible studies, but I hope that was a help.

Let me refer to you, let me refer a couple of books that I've read in these studies. One has been the commentary on the Gospel of John by St. Thomas Aquinas. The other was Apologetics, Beginning Apologetics by Father Frank Chacon and Jim Burnham. Another has been The Father's Know Best by Jimmy Akin. Another has been Early Christian Doctrines. This is actually a Protestant scholar, J. N. D. Kelly, who affirms unambiguously that the earliest Christians all believed that this was meant to be taken literally. Trent Horn's book, The Case for Catholicism. and then, of course, the most important thing, the Word of God, the Bible. So, as I said earlier, if you want to get access to that debate, go to patreon.com

slash mattfradd, become a patron for $10 a month. In addition to all the other free stuff I send you, you'll get access to that debate. I'd love to hear your thoughts on it. And then I'm also going to be posting a video soon on what the early Christians believed about the Eucharist. So please look out for that. One way you can make sure you don't miss it is by subscribing and clicking that bell button. Thank you very much for being here. God bless you.