We have to face, however, another
problem concerning the interpretation of these texts. Catholic scholars have
seized upon them to make Clement a witness of the doctrine of the Real Presence
and transubstantiation, whereas their protestant colleagues claimed them as
supporting their conception of a symbolic or spiritualistic presence. The
latter view undoubtedly finds a strong support in Clement's own terminology. It
could be, however, that this is asking the wrong question; it does not take
into account, or rather it ignores, the context of Clement's language. His
preoccupation is not with the precise nature of the Lord's presence in the
Eucharist, as seems to be that of his interpreters; if this were so, Clement's
terminology would urge us to admit a similar (real or symbolic) presence of the
Logos in milk (e.g. 49,3) or honey (51,1). In fact, what he wants to show is
that one and the same Logos is in many ways allegorically described (πολλαχῶς ἀλληγορεῖται
ὁ λόγος, 47,2). He is more interested in the communion with the Logos, i.e. the
res sacramenti, than in the visible, sacramental means by which this happens.
If we consider the Logos as food (a common idea in Clement, and, indeed, in
Alexandrian theology, since Philo), it does not really matter, whether this
food is described as bread, wine, or milk, and honey. It is the communion with
the divine Logos on which Clement's concern seems to turn. This also accounts
for the allusive character of his exegesis of John 6,53 in 42,2–43,3, which
must be particularly disconcerting for the advocates of a “massive” realism. We
should by no means say, therefore, that 42,4–43,3 gives only an allegorical
interpretation of John 6,53 (the real one being the eucharistic), or that his
exegesis has no bearing on the Eucharist, but only on “doctrine” (Batifol's
opinion). That this does no justice to Clement's theology, is particularly
evident from a passage in which he comments Mk. 14,25:
“‘Take, drink, this is my blood’.
He allegorically calls (ἀλληγορεῖ) the blood of the vine (cf. Ped. 2,19,3) the
Word, ‘shed for many, for the remission of sins’, a holy stream of gladness.” (Ped.
2,32,2)
The “holy stream of gladness” (εὐφροσύνης)
undoubtedly refers to the Eucharist, εὐφροσύνη being often used in this
context. We see, then, that Clement uses also the word ἀλληγορεῖν when speaking
of the Eucharist. Moreover, we notice that he replaces αἷμα by λόγος as subject
of ἐκχεόμενον: here again, the Logos seems all-important. A better
understanding of the allegory as theological method would keep us from making
such statements as the above; it would appear, that Clement ignores the
distinction between allegory, and typology or symbolism. All such terms as ἀλληγορία,
τύπος, εἰκών, παραβολή, αἴνιγμα, σύμβολον are equivalent. A more detailed study
of this method would show, that it has its reason in the hidden character of
the Truth, which is only accessible to those who are initiated. This
hidden-ness is an essential characteristic of the whole revelation.
To conclude, in this (6th)
chapter of the first Book of Clement's Pedagogue (esp. from 33 onwards),
many allegories or symbols are used to signify one and the same res,
i.e. the Logos; milk, or honey are as much a symbol of the Logos as bread, or
wine. So it has no sense here to ask questions about the real presence in bread
and wine; these questions prove themselves inadequate.
At the end of this discussion of Ped.
1,25–52 let us list the points on which some passages of this section can be
usefully compared with some sayings of Ev.Phil.:
(1) The elements of the Eucharist
are in both writings bread and the mixed cup.
(2) Though these elements are not
explicitly mentioned, Ev.Phil. 23 and Ped. 1,42,3–43,3 refer in a
rather allusive way to the Eucharist. In both passages John 6,53 is quoted,
though more literally in Ev.Phil.; for both Clement and the author of Ev.Phil.
the ultimate reality “behind” the images of flesh and blood are Logos and
Pneuma; but whereas the former speaks of a κρᾶσις of Logos and Pneuma in the
Lord, and of a κρᾶσις of these both with man, the latter expresses this
“communion” in terms of Valentinian mythology; according to this myth Soter and
Sophia (or Achamoth), i.e. in Ménard's interpretation Logos and Pneuma from
say. 23, are united in a συζυγία, of which the συζυγία of the pneumatic man and
his angel is a part. Ped. 1,39,1 shows that John 6,51 ff was also used
by the gnostics fought by Clement.
(3) If we take Ev.Phil. 23
(104,31–105,3) as a description of the effect of the Eucharist, it seems that
both here and in Ped. 1,43,1 this effect is seen as a stripping off the
flesh and as a putting on Christ, i.e. Logos and Pneuma.
(4) Neither Clement nor the
author of Ev.Phil. excludes the body from the salutary effect of the
Eucharist.
(5) Finally, the resemblance
between the two writings is not only verbal, there is also a similarity of
thought-pattern which becomes particularly evident in the exegesis of John
6,53. For both Clement and Ev.Phil. words or names, and all (other)
symbols refer to a deeper, or rather, the ultimate reality “behind” them. For
both the words of the Scripture and the sacramental liturgy of the Church give
access to the eschatological reality, this is only disclosed (in these symbols)
for one who has γνῶσις. Both seem more interested in this eschatological
reality itself (what we have called the res sacramenti), than in the
symbols because of the provisory, and according to Ev.Phil., even
deceiving, character of the latter. Both agree, that “Truth”, “Pleroma”, “God”
can only be known and only reveal themselves by means of symbols, images and
allegories, and that only the gnostic succeeds in reaching the eschatological res.
In short, Clement shares with Ev.Phil., the same pattern of symbolic,
even sacramental thinking. The main difference seems to lie in the fact that
for Ev.Phil. the sacraments are the mirror by means of which the gnostic
(re-)discovers his true self. (A. H. C. Van Eijk, “The Gospel of Philip and
Clement of Alexandria: Gnostic and Ecclesiastical Theology on the Resurrection and
the Eucharist,” Vigiliae Christianae 25 [1971]: 116-19)
