Christ's real presence in Euchrist

Virtual Seminary ^ | Unkown | A.A. Hodge

[fortheDeclaration]

The Presence of Christ at the Lord's Supper Is Christ really, truly, personally present with us in the sacrament? Do we therein covenant and commune with him in person, touch to touch, immediately and really; or is this only a show, a symbol of something absent and different from what it seems?

The gross perversions of the Romanists and Ritualists, who have made it altogether a question of the local presence of Christ's flesh and blood, have occasioned much confusion of thought and many prejudices on the subject. Nevertheless, as a matter of fact, every believer knows that Christ is present in the sacrament - that he has, as a matter of fact, experienced his presence. If he is not present really and truly, then the sacrament can have no interest or real value to us. It does not do to say that this presence is only spiritual, because that phrase is ambiguous. If it means that the presence of Christ is not something objective to us, but simply a mental apprehension or idea of him subjectively present to our consciousness, then the phrase is false. Christ as an objective fact is as really present and active in the sacrament as are the bread and wine, or the minister or our fellow-communicants by our side. If it means that Christ is present only as he is represented by the Holy Ghost, it is not wholly true, because Christ is one person and the Holy Ghost another, and it is Christ who is personally present. The Holy Ghost doubtless is coactive in that presence and in all Christ's mediatorial work, but this leads into depths beyond our possible understanding. It does not do to say that the divinity of Christ is present while his humanity is absent, because it is the entire indivisible divine-human Person of Christ which is present.

When Christ promises to his disciples, "LO, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world-age," and, "Where two or three are met together in my name, there am I in the midst of them," he means, of course, that he, the Godman Mediator they loved, trusted, and obeyed, would be with them. His humanity is just as essential as his divinity, otherwise his incarnation would not have been a necessity. His sympathy, his love, his special helpful tenderness are human. He is able to be our perfect High Priest, "being touched with the feeling of our infirmities," because he "was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" (Heb. 4:15).

But what do we mean by "presence" ? It is a great mistake to confuse the idea of "presence" with that of nearness in space. This may be a condition of presence, or it may not, but it is never "presence" itself. If you walk abroad at noonday in the tropics, the most overwhelmingly present thing to you in the universe is the intolerable sun, although it is ninety-three millions of miles distance. If another person is only one foot distant, but separated from you by a wall which cuts off sight and sound, he is as absent as if in the center of a distant star. But if the same person, a hundred feet from you in an audience-room, sees you face to face, and hears every vibration of your voice, he is as truly present as if he touched you at every point. When Whitefield's preaching was fully heard and its power felt across the Delaware River, he was present really and truly wherever was heard and his matchless eloquence felt. "Presence," therefore, is not a question of space; it is a relation. Personal presence is such a relation of persons that they are conscious of each other as immediate objects of perception and sources of influence. We know nothing as to the ultimate nature of the union our souls and bodies, yet we are no less certain of the fact. So we need not speculate how it is that Christ, the whole God-man, body, soul, and divinity, is present in the sacrament, but we are absolutely certain of the fact. He has promised it. We have hundreds of times experienced it. We can neither see his face, nor hear his voice with our bodily senses; nevertheless, when we exercise faith, he, the whole Christ, speaks to us, and we hear him; we speak to him, and he hears us; he takes all we give him, he gives us and we receive all of himself. This is real, because he is present. And this is not confined to the sacrament. He makes manifest to our faith the reality of his presence with us, and communicates the same grace to us, on many other occasions and at other times, here and now and in this breaking of bread we have a personal appointment to meet our Lord. And he never disappoints those who thus seek him with faith and love.

` A.A. Hodge

[fortheDeclaration]

Bump for read

[WriteOn]

He siad "This is My Body." "This is My Blood." Paul: "Romans 1:16, Unless You Eat the Flesh of the Son of
Man and Drink His Blood You Have No Life In You"

If this isn't literal, what is? What authority are you going to appeal to to say it is figurative or symbolic? You are on a slippery slope without a Tradition old enough to point at...

[RochesterFan]

If this isn't literal, what is? What authority are you going to appeal to to say it is figurative or symbolic? You are on a slippery slope without a Tradition old enough to point at...

I think Roger Nicolle explained it best to me. He said when one holds up a picture of your mother, you don't say, "this represents my mother" but "this is my mother." Context explains it. So with Christ...

[drstevej]

Nice illustration by Dr. Nicole. Classy guy and significant scholar.


I co-officiated the wedding of hid niece. I asked him, tongue in cheek, if he believed some were predestined to be Arminians. With a glint in his eye, he said,"Oh no, God is not the author of sin!"

[WriteOn]

You're like the Jews who said, "'How can this man give us his flesh to eat?' So Jesus said to them, 'Amen, amen I say to you unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood you will have no life in you.'"

If he tells you after you ask him, "Is that a picture of your mother?" i.e. "How can you give us your flesh to eat?"
a second time the same thing, how can you doubt it?! It's God talking, the Truth, the Way and the Life. Doubt it at your own peril. Amen, amen.

[Siobhan]

The gross perversions of the Romanists and Ritualists,...

Even setting aside the tired rhetoric, this article is a waste of bandwidth.

[RochesterFan]

a second time the same thing, how can you doubt it?! It's God talking, the Truth, the Way and the Life. Doubt it at your own peril. Amen, amen.

My Protestant brothers and sisters and I do not doubt the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. We do interpret them in context and not in isolation. The verses you quote from John 6:48-59 are given in the context of John 6:25-27 where Jesus makes it clear that the motives of the people were to flock to Christ because they saw him as "a gravy train." Note the interchange with Peter in vs 66-68. Christ was looking for true believers. Then look at Christ's clear teaching in Luke 22:15-20. The context is clear that the elements represent the body and blood of Christ because His body is intact at that time. Christ's purpose is to cause us to remember His sacrifice on our behalf. And finally, look at the instructions given by Paul in 1 Cor 11:23-34. This is the teaching of the whole counsel of God.

I follow the instructions in 1 Cor 11 (esp. v. 28-31) and judge my life and confess any sin the Spirit brings to mind. Then I give thanks for His body broken because of the wrath of God that I deserved and He suffered in my place. Next, I remember His blood spilled to atone for my sin. Finally, I eat with a clear concience, thereby proclaiming His death until He comes. I do not participate in an unworthy manner. I follow His instructions. To the best of my knowledge my Protestant brothers and sisters do likewise because that is the clear teaching of the Scriptures, which we accept as God's ultimate source of truth.

[ultima ratio]

Not only did Christ mean this literally, He lost a huge part of His following as a result of His speaking so clearly. He used the Aramaic word for "eat" that was apparently unambiguous and this is the way it reads in Greek. It sounded shockingly cannibalistic--which was exactly how He meant it to sound--so that there could be no mistaking His meaning: "Unless you eat my body and drink my blood, you shall not have life everlasting." Brutally graphic stuff.

[NYer]

My Protestant brothers and sisters and I do not doubt the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. We do interpret them in context and not in isolation.

This makes each Protestant his own pope.

The context is clear that the elements represent the body and blood of Christ because His body is intact at that time.

You are wrong. Jesus said, "I solemnly assure you that unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him" (John 6:53-55).

John 6 is the classic Eucharistic passage which, along with Jesus' words of consecration at the Last Supper (Matt 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20), Catholics point to to demonstrate the Eucharist in Scripture.

There are several facts which demonstrate that Jesus was speaking literally, not figuratively, in John 6.

First, his hearers understood him to be speaking literally. They asked themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" (v. 52). After Jesus explained himself further, they still understood him to be speaking literally, and some of his disciples said, "This is a hard saying. Who can accept it?" (v. 60). Jesus replied, "Does this shock you?" (v. 61), and he allowed those who couldn't accept his teaching to leave him. He didn't call them back and tell them they had misunderstood him (which was his custom to do when his listeners didn't grasp his true meaning [e.g. Matt. 13:36-43, Matt. 16:5-12, Mark 8:14-21]). By the way, John 6 is the only example in the Bible of disciples abandoning the Lord over a doctrinal issue.

Second, we know that Jesus was speaking literally, not figuratively, because to the Jews of his day "eating someone's flesh and drinking his blood" was the idiomatic phrase synonymous with persecution, violence, betrayal, and murder. This is clear from such passages as Micah 3:3, Psalm 27:2, Isaiah 9:20, and Isaiah 49:26.

That's why, if Jesus had been speaking figuratively, his words would have made no sense at all. He would have been saying, "I solemnly assure you that unless you persecute and betray me you have no life within you. He who does violence to me has eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day." That makes no sense at all, but that's exactly what he would have been saying if his words were symbolic.

The third way we can know that Jesus was speaking literally is that the apostles believed and taught that he spoke literally (see 1 Cor. 10:16, 11:29). The same is true of the Christians of the first, second, third, and fourth centuries. Their writings show them to have understood and taught that Jesus' words in John 6 were not symbolic.

[RnMomof7]

I can not believe your inconsistancy:>) read this

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/761987/posts

[RnMomof7]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/761987/posts

[RnMomof7]

Not only did Christ mean this literally, He lost a huge part of His following as a result of His speaking so clearly. He used the Aramaic word for "eat" that was apparently unambiguous and this is the way it reads in Greek. It sounded shockingly cannibalistic--which was exactly how He meant it to sound--so that there could be no mistaking His meaning: "Unless you eat my body and drink my blood, you shall not have life everlasting." Brutally graphic stuff.

Yes it is basic stuff if you read it in context...they did NOT leave because of that .READ the verses to see WHY they left

    Jhn 6:63   It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.

He now begins to teach them that they can not work their way to heaven by keeping the Law as taught by their leaders

     Jhn 6:64   But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

No one left that Jesus did not expect to leave

     Jhn 6:65   And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

There good works meant nothing...Their law keeping meant nothing ....The Father calls those that are His and gives them to Jesus..they could not "earn "heaven with their laws or good works soooooo

     Jhn 6:66   From that [time] many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

Two very important things happened that day..Jesus told them He was God..( Yahawa..I am...He said the personal name of God NEVER said publically by a Jew and attributed it to Himself) , He said He was their Savior(the manna saved the nation in the desert)...And he told them that NO man could come to Him without the Father...So they left.They were looking for a standard Rabbi..Jesus was not a standard Rabbi...He was the Savior...

[fortheDeclaration]

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I speak to you they are spirit, and they are life (Jn.6:63)

[fortheDeclaration]

Not only did Christ mean this literally, He lost a huge part of His following as a result of His speaking so clearly. He used the Aramaic word for "eat" that was apparently unambiguous and this is the way it reads in Greek. It sounded shockingly cannibalistic--which was exactly how He meant it to sound--so that there could be no mistaking His meaning: "Unless you eat my body and drink my blood, you shall not have life everlasting." Brutally graphic stuff.

http://www.justforcatholics.org/a11.htm

I Am The Bread of Life

Question In the Gospel of John, chapter 6, Jesus repeatedly affirmed that his flesh is REAL food and his blood is REAL drink. The Apostles as well as their disciples understood this as being the literal body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. The Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ.

Answer The 6th chapter of the John is not about the Eucharist but about the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. The evangelist John does not even include an account of the Lord's Supper in his Gospel. Jesus said that His flesh is real food; He did not say that the bread is real flesh. Jesus said that His blood is real drink; He did not say that the wine is real blood.

Jesus said, "I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world" (John 6:51).

Jesus offered His sacred body and shed His precious blood as a sacrifice for sin. Now how can a sinner actually benefit from His sacrifice? Quite obviously, bread will neither nourish nor satisfy if it is not eaten and digested. Even so the body of Christ, given on the cross, and His shed blood, will be unprofitable if you do not actually participate in His infinite merits. Jesus explains: "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life" (John 6:53,54).

But how can you eat this divine bread? How can you drink Christ's blood?

We should keep in mind that when Christ said, "I am the living bread," He was simply using a metaphor, as He was accustomed to do. In the same gospel of John, Jesus uttered similar expressions:

"I am the light of the world" - His disciples follow Him. "I am the door" - whoever desires to be saved must enter through Him. "I am the good shepherd" - His sheep listen to and obey His voice. "I am the true vine" - Christians are vitally united to Him as branches are to the vine.

Nobody would dare suggest that Christ is literally light, or a door, or a shepherd, or a vine. Neither are His followers sheep or branches. They do not follow Him by walking literally after Him; neither do they enter through Him literally. We would therefore be in serious error if we understand His speech about eating His body in a literal way. These are all metaphorical figures of speech.

How then are we meant to eat His body and drink His blood in order to obtain eternal life? Several times the Lord Jesus gives us a direct and uncomplicated answer in His same speech. "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst." "Everyone who see the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life." "He who believes in Me has everlasting life" (John 6:35,40,47).

In short, eating his flesh and drinking his blood is essential for obtaining eternal life. But HOW can one eat and drink? According to Jesus himself, it is by BELIEVING IN HIM.

That is God's message, and my sincere desire for all of us. For in believing in Christ, we have eternal life.

[fortheDeclaration]

Hey, is that the picture of the 'wafer god'?

[fortheDeclaration]

The gross perversions of the Romanists and Ritualists,... Even setting aside the tired rhetoric, this article is a waste of bandwidth

It was only to show that Calvinists believe in the 'Real Presence' which is Augustianian, while, changing bread and wine into a 'god' isn't.

[Catholicguy]

If this isn't literal, what is? What authority are you going to appeal to to say it is figurative or symbolic? You are on a slippery slope without a Tradition old enough to point at

<> But, they do follow Tradition. They follow the oral traditions of the 16th Century heretics; whether it be Luther, of Cavlin, or Zwingli (they all disagreed with one another; but who cares? They all agreed to disagree with Jesus' Church)<>

[ultima ratio]

Like any good teacher, Christ sometimes used metaphor. He said he was the bread of life. That is a metaphor. But sometimes he spoke literally as well. There can be no doubt his disciples understood that he was speaking literally when he said his flesh was real food. There can be no doubt the Church Fathers understood he spoke literally as well. This has always been the Church's unbroken understanding. So the mystery is how this can be.

You argue that Christ said his flesh is real food but did not say his flesh is real bread. You are right, he didn't say his body was real bread--because it wasn't. This is not how we understand his words. He broke bread at the Last Supper and said: "This IS my body." At that moment the bread BECOMES his body, and it is no longer bread and we are no longer in the realm of metaphor. What had been bread has only the accidental appearance of bread after the Consecration, but now is in substance Christ Himself. This is the central Mystery of our faith.

You would argue this is impossible. We answer we don't understand how this can be so. We only believe it is so because Christ said it was so. And he used shocking language to make sure we got his point. This, by the way, is why the Catholic Mass differs from the Protestant Lord's Supper. Priests can re-enact the sacrificial offering to the Father because Christ is really present on the altar, whereas in the Protestant Lord's Supper there can be no such sacrificial offering. This is why we have priests and not ministers, why we have altars and not tables. It is also why Trent insisted the Mass was primarily a sacrifice rather than a memorial meal.

[Irisshlass]

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I speak to you they are spirit, and they are life (Jn.6:63)

We have no problem with those words..you do..