Josh Bigbee's Unpopular Opinions

The genre of urban legend has been much expanded by the oft repeated but fictitious Roman Catholic claim that the ancient church thought "symbol" or "figure" was the reality of the very thing it symbolized or figured. Dustin Quick and Sam Shamoun (Holy Smokes, episode 126 (41:00)) make such an argument, dutifully reciting the urban legend as if it were an established fact. Dustin alleges, "What [Protestants] don’t understand is for the early church they used symbol differently. The symbol becomes the thing that it represents." Dustin offers as "evidence" Augustine's words, "at the last Supper Christ held himself in his own hands". Sam pipes in, "for Tertullian figure did not mean simply symbolic. It means these figures convey the reality of which they become." Such subterfuge is necessitated by the fact that the ancient church repeatedly used the terms symbol, figure, antitype, likeness, similitude, metaphor and allegory to refer to the consecrated elements of the Supper. The early writers knew what these words meant and used them repeatedly. They knew that the figure, the symbol, the antitype was by definition NOT the thing it symbolized. They were not confused. Augustine: "In the first place, we must beware of taking a figurative expression literally." (On Christian Doctrine 3.5). "in addition to the foregoing rule, which guards us against taking a metaphorical form of speech as if it were literal, we must also pay heed to that which tells us not to take a literal form of speech as if it were figurative. In the first place, then, we must show the way to find out whether a phrase is literal or figurative." On Christian Doctrine 3.10) Tertullian: "But, in truth, all are not figures, but there are also literal statements” (On the resurrection of the Flesh, chapter 20). Clement (not clement of Rome or Alexandria): “No one then who corrupts the copy (antittype, ἀντίτυπον), shall partake of the original (authenticon, αυθεντικον)” (2 Clement 14, The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, vol ix, Menzies, Allan, D.D., ed (New York: The Christian Literature Company (1896) 255). Figures, symbols, metaphors, and antitypes are not the literal things themselves. The propensity of the early writers to contrast the figure, metaphor, antitype with the literal and the real is well established. They knew what these words meant. So let's return to Dustin's claim about Augustine. Here's what Augustine actually said: Jesus “took into His hands that which the faithful know, and in a manner (quodam modo) carried Himself, when He said ‘This is my body.’” (Exposition on Psalm 34) “Quodam modo” is the equivalent of “after a fashion,” or “in a way,” in English and does not mean "literally," or “in a literal way." Dustin did not quote Augustine accurately, leaving out the very words that show Augustine was speaking figuratively of Jesus carrying Himself in His own hands. As shown above, Augustine used figure and symbol exactly as you'd expect. In a way (a figurative way) He carried Himself in His own hands at the Supper. Augustine does not suggest in the least here that Jesus had carried himself "literally" in His own hands at the Supper. Now let's look at Shamoun's claim on Tertullian. He is referring (I believe) to Tertullian's statement in Against Marcion 4.40, "He made it His own body, by saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body." Did Tertullian think that "figure of my body" was literally His body? By no means. In the same work, he explicitly ruled it out: "Now the image is not in any case equal to the very thing. It is one thing to be like the reality, and another thing to be the reality itself" (Against Marcion 2.9). The figure is not the thing. He knew better than to suggest it was. Where the Roman Catholic thinks to prevail is in Tertullian's language in which, after saying "a figure of my body," he writes, "A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body." See? The bread was both a figure of His body AND His veritable body! No, not really. The Gnostics, against whom Tertullian was arguing, so detested creation that they could not believe Christ had taken on a created body. All created things to them were evil, so even figurative things were figures of other figures, but could not figure a created reality. This is why Tertullian observed rhetorically, "A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure" (Against Marcion 4.40). Jesus would not have used solid bread to figure a non-solid incorporeal body, a phantom which itself is not a solid created thing. So if there was a figure of a body (bread), then Jesus must have had a real body. Jesus used a figure of bread to figure His real body. Therefore Jesus had a veritable body. But the bread was not His veritable body. This is perfectly consistent with Tertullian's observation that "It is one thing to be like the reality, and another thing to be the reality itself" (Against Marcion 2.9). He does not suggest in the least that the figure is itself the reality. He's saying if there is a figure, there must somewhere be the thing that is figured. Thus, "How can you hold up a mirror for your face, if the face nowhere exists?" (On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 20). The reflection in the mirror is not your face. It's merely the reflection of your face. The image, the figure, not the reality or the verity of your face. The bread is not His body. The bread is a figure of His body. Likewise with the blood. Turtullian says the very fact that Jesus mentioned the cup as a figure for His blood "affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh." If bread and wine are figures of his body and blood, then Jesus must have really had a body and blood. It does not suggest at all that Tertullian thought the bread and wine were literally His body and blood. They were figures, not the reality. It will be instructional to hear Dustin and Sam attempt to make their case for the ancient symbol being the thing it symbolized. Such a use cannot be found in the ancient writers, yet the Roman Catholic—as if to convince himself—repeats the lie that to ancient writers, the symbol was the thing it symbolized. Not at all. In fact the ancient writers insisted the very opposite. The figurative is not the literal and the image is not the reality, the figure is not the verity and the antitype is not the authentic. It's very straightforward, though the Roman Catholic very much wishes it were not. youtube.com/watch?v=cUzzHD5a…