Never Thirst-Taking Jesus" Literally" can be Fatal

Thoughts of Francis Turretine ^ | July 17, 2014 | TurretinFan

[RnMomof7]

Never Thirst - Taking Jesus "Literally" can be Fatal

Roman Catholics like to try to claim that they are just taking Jesus "literally" when they interpret "this is my body" to mean that what was in Jesus' hands was not bread but his physical body [FN1]. Three passages in John help to illustrate the problem with that approach: John 4, John 6, and John 7.  In the first, Jesus refers metaphorically to living water, in the second Jesus refers to himself as food and drink, and in the third Jesus offers drink to those who thirst.

In John 4, Jesus interacts with the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well.  He asks her for water, she objects because he's Jewish, and he responds that she should be asking him for water, because the water he offers is better than the water from Jacob's well. She misunderstands him as speaking physically, even after some further explanation.  She wants to stop the labor of drawing water and misunderstands Jesus' comments about "never thirst."

John 4:6-15
Now Jacob's well was there. Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus on the well: and it was about the sixth hour. There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink. (For his disciples were gone away unto the city to buy meat.) Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans. Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water? Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle? Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.

In John 6, Jesus interacts with a number of "disciples" who want Jesus to repeat the miracle of the loaves that's reported at the beginning of the chapter.  Jesus explains that the person who believes on him will never thirst and whoever comes to him will never hunger, calling himself the "bread of life" that "came down from heaven." Jesus insists that the bread he offers is better than the manna that the people ate in the wilderness.  Jesus talks about them eating his flesh and drinking his blood, but they take him physically and go away in disgust.  Jesus explains that the words he speaks are spirit and life.  Jesus asks the twelve if they will go away too, but Peter (speaking for the group) says that they will stay with him because they believe and know that his words are the words of eternal life.

John 6:26-71
Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work? Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
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. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve. 

In John 7, Jesus interacts with those at the temple for the feast.  Jesus offers the thirsty people water.  John explains to us that Jesus is speaking about the Spirit as the "rivers of flowing water."

John 7:37-39 
In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

These passages illustrate Jesus' fondness for using food as a metaphor for trust in him.  We approach the Lord's table by faith, coming to Him as represented by the bread and cup.  We gain a benefit from this if we do so by faith, but not if we do so any other way.  It is not the physical elements that provide the benefit we receive, it is the Spirit.

Remember what Jesus said about clean/unclean foods:

Matthew 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?

Unfortunately, it seems our Roman Catholic friends and relatives fail to understand this.  Christ is our spiritual food and drink, not our physical nourishment.

Isaiah 44:3 For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring:
Psalm 105:41 He opened the rock, and the waters gushed out; they ran in the dry places like a river.
Isaiah 48:21 And they thirsted not when he led them through the deserts: he caused the waters to flow out of the rock for them: he clave the rock also, and the waters gushed out.
Psalm 78:20 Behold, he smote the rock, that the waters gushed out, and the streams overflowed; can he give bread also? can he provide flesh for his people?
1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

The blessings we receive in Christ are primarily spiritual blessings.  We drink the spiritual drink from the spiritual Rock, and that Rock is Christ.  He is our Rock, we trust in Him.

To the glory of his grace!

TurretinFan

Footnote 1: I should add that the Roman Catholic position is particularly absurd in that it takes "this is my body" as implying that the bread ceases to be bread and becomes the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus.  Likewise, it is claimed that "this is ... my blood" implies exactly the same thing about the contents of the cup.  That's quite far from taking the words literally, in which the bread would just be the body, and the contents of the cup would just be the blood.

[9thLife]

Taking Jesus" Literally" can be Fatal

What's it called when the heretic says something heretical to the heresy?

[daniel1212]

Apostle Paul — partaking of Communion unworthily is to be “guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord” (I Cor 11:27). In what way does a symbol entail personal examination (vs. 28) to avoid guilt? A symbol in itself doesn’t command that level of personal scrutiny and the consequence of sin — unless it is the sign of Jesus Christ’s real presence in the bread and wine.

“To be deep into history is to cease to be Protestant” — John Henry Newman Actually, even RC scholarship provides evidence contrary to RC propaganda which they swallow, while to be deep in Scripture and then in history is to cease to be RC, which is basically invisible in Scripture , if faithful to the that as supreme.

[daniel1212]

Not only what you posted but the account lacks centuries of sample custody.

That is part of what i meant by lacking real substantiation. Thanks.

[LukeL]

You mean he had to have siblings? Also his mother was married.

[LadyDoc]

Who is Turrantine and why should I care what he thinks?
And why is this posted as religious news when it is a vanity post?

[Prince of Space]

Who was the Blessed Mother married to at the time of Jesus’ death?

[Prince of Space]

You were a cradle Catholic, and yet you still post such silly garbage attributed to the Catholic faith? Yeah, right.

[Rashputin]

LOL, Chubby Checker fan are we?

He obviously and clearly didn't have siblings and the comment to which I responded is just an example of people who try to have it both ways and hope no one will notice. If Christ obeyed the Old Testament Law then he had no siblings which is something people who make the argument about Christ obeying all Old Testament Law like to ignore when they make their silly arguments based on their refusal to accept Scripture.

The sacrificial lamb is what is in question and Christ, being that lamb, is different than a mere human being in that He is God in addition to His human form.

Apparently denying the perfection of the Holy Spirit leads Protestants to totally disregarding the fact that Christ is God when they feel like considering Christ as a man only which is far, far, more often than they consider Him to be God incarnate.

All Protestant and Protestant derived doctrine relies ultimately on Self and Self Alone which without fail leads people to considering either the human aspect of Christ or the Holy aspect as if they're seperate when the individual interpreter of Scripture wants them to be and joined when the individual interpreter wants them to be.

People say Christ kept all the Old Testament law but does that mean Scripture is wrong and Christ actually stoned the woman caught in adultry to death? No, of course not. Nor does it mean that Christ violated OT laws other than when it was important to His showing that He was God incarnate just like when He forgave the woman and just like when He said, This is my body to show that partaking of His flesh and blood was unique in spite of His doing so driving away His followers who could only accept Him as Christ if He fit their preconceptions.

Enjoy preconceptions all you like, they clearly do not do justice to Christ being God incarnate but for people who insist the Holy Spirit is imperfect I guess that's not too big a deal.

[Iscool]

The problem of interpreting Jesus words rests with the Apostles and their successors, and they aren’t biting on the “symbol only” theory.

The Apostles didn't interpret scripture...They wrote it...And there are no apostolic successors...You're wrong on both counts...

2. Ignatius of Antioch (as a child, heard Apostle John) —

Another fable...

“they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”

The writings of Ignatius are forgeries...Any honest Catholic will admit that...

Conclusion: No argument for the “symbol only” theory gained any following among Christians for a 1000 years, and then only after an individualistic interpretation theory took hold in Germany under Luther that ran counter to Scripture: “The Church is the pillar of the truth.” (I Tim 3:15)

Luther put the bible into the common language so Catholics could actually read it...As they read the scriptures, they left your religion, just as they do now...

I like to see this kind of fire-spewing anti-Eucharist rant. That was me a few a years ago, before I converted. “To be deep into history is to cease to be Protestant” — John Henry Newman

So now you cling to the 'widsom' of a flaming homosexual Catholic...

Yer on a roll...

[terycarl]

I was born and raised RC..Catholic school through college ..I know the doctrine and it is a lie from the pit of hell

THANK YOU....THANK YOU!!!...After 2,015 years of misinterpretation of the Bible by untold BILLIONS of people....you come along to set Catholicism straight.....just in time too.......you probably have the date for the end of time also.....please let us in on your amazing insight!!!!

[qwertyz]

The subject of this thread was whether or not the bread and wine of Holy Communion becomes the body and blood of Jesus Christ. You did a bait and switch saying “RC scholarship provides evidence contrary.” That link leads to a different rant on a different subject. I recommend sticking to the anti-Eucharist subject. Learning what and why billions of Christians have believed the doctrine of the Real Presence for nearly 2000 years is a worthwhile project. Why?

1. The Holy Spirit just might have guided them into the truth — just as Jesus promised the disciples that the Holy Spirit “will guide you into all the truth” (John 16:13).

2. Apostle Paul had a definite plan to make sure his successors got the proper interpretation passed along without error: “The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” (2Tim 2:2)

3. Peter emphasized that the authority to interpret Scripture does not rest solely with the individual: “no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation.” (2Peter 1:20)

Frankly, you don’t sound like a Protestant. Are you a Jeh. Witness? A Protestant usually brings up Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia into their anti-Eucharist argumentation.

[qwertyz]

See post 51 for my reply. Assertions don’t make arguments. Otherwise, I’m happy you know so much about the early Christians and Newman. It takes several years to read through them (not counting the years to learn Greek and Latin).
For those who want to hear the early Christians in their own words, go here: http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html

[ealgeone]

Why does junk -- I use the word after due consideration -- like this ALWAYS point the finger at "Roman Catholics," and the proceed to trash a belief that's held equally by Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, traditional Lutherans, and traditional Anglicans?

I tend to think it's because "Roman Catholic" is some sort of talismanic boogie man to a large part of the evangelical Protestant world, and that's really what this is all about.

Cause usually it's roman catholics who are posting on this board. But if it makes you fell any better the same would apply to any group advocating the false positions of Rome.

[conservonator]

I was born and raised RC..Catholic school through college ..I know the doctrine and it is a lie from the pit of hell

John 6:66.

[CommerceComet]

Then obviously Christ had no siblings since leaving His mother in the care of someone not a family member would have been breaking Old Testament Law.

Where exactly is that requirement in the Old Testament that Jesus must assign responsibility for the care of his mother to his siblings and not to someone else?

[daniel1212]

You did a bait and switch saying “RC scholarship provides evidence contrary.” That link leads to a different rant on a different subject.

What? Why do you engage in such reactionary fallacy, as it was you who poster who said you converted and boldly asserted, “To be deep into history is to cease to be Protestant”!

So you expect you can make such a provocative assertion and not be countered? My response was entirely fitting for one is going to pass that propaganda off. Newman whom you quote was not referring simply to Eucharistic beliefs, not did you say that this was the aspect of history that led to your conversion.

Learning what and why billions of Christians have believed the doctrine of the Real Presence for nearly 2000 years is a worthwhile project. Why?

And which is another fallacy, as we most certainly see no record in the life of the not church in Scripture that manifested the Lord's supper as being the central means of grace, around which all else revolved, it being “the source and summit of the Christian faith” in which “the work of our redemption is accomplished,” by which one received spiritual life in themselves by consuming human flesh, so that without which eating one cannot have eternal life (as per RC literalism, of Jn. 6:53,54).

Nor is there any record of pastors distinctively titled "priests" and engaging in any unique sacrificial function, that of turning bread into human flesh and dispensing it to the people, or even dispensing bread as their primary ordained function, versus preaching the word. (2Tim. 4:2) Which is what is said to "nourish" believers. (1Tim. 4:6) and build them up. (Acts 20:32)

Nor do we even come close to knowing what all early church "fathers" taught on this, though most of those we can read of held to some sort of "Real Presence" (apparently originally an Anglican term), but some of which RCs contrive to say what some did not say, in order to support docrtines that latter developed.

Yet they are not Scripture and determinative of doctrine, despite the often falsely cited “unanimous consent” of the fathers.

1. The Holy Spirit just might have guided them into the truth — just as Jesus promised the disciples that the Holy Spirit “will guide you into all the truth” (John 16:13).

Out of which RCs extrapolate the novel premise of perpetuate ensured magisterial infallibility, which nowhere seen or necessary in Scripture for God to provide and preserve Truth. But which promise cults emoploy as well to justify their additions to Scripture.

Yet this promise is not new, as God has engaged in progressive revelation from the beginning, which will go on after the Lord returns, and is not usually realized thru the magisterium, nor does it promise preservation from error, any more than it did for the OT magisterium, even though disobedience was a capital crime. (Dt. 17:8-13)

Nor is the church the supreme authority for what Truth is thru its magisterium, despite the presumption of Rome, as Scripture is, and the church began upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

2. Apostle Paul had a definite plan to make sure his successors got the proper interpretation passed along without error: “The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” (2Tim 2:2)

More erroneous extrapolation in order to compel Scripture to say what it does not. For this charge was no different than what God charged the pastors in the OT, and does not teach perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility, upon which specious premise RCs have their assurance of Truth.

Instead, God often raised up men from without the magisterium to reprove it and provide and preserve Truth, and thus the church began and faith has been preserved.

3. Peter emphasized that the authority to interpret Scripture does not rest solely with the individual: “no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation.” (2Peter 1:20)

Which is another fallacious parroted polemic which actually argues against Rome, or at least RCs, being the correct interpreters of Scripture.

For in reality 2Peter 1:20 in not about interpreting Scripture, when it is about how Scriptural prophecy came to be given, which is not a result of mans interpretive wisdom, but instead such were found "Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow." (1 Peter 1:11)

In contrast to being the product of man's wisdom and false prophets and teachers, Peter tells us, "We have also a more sure word of prophecy," "for the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 119,:21)

This sets forth Scripture as the "more sure word," not any magisterium of men. And even the claimed "infallible" decrees of popes are not wholly inspired words of God. >

Moreover, unlike 2Pt. 1:20 has been infallibly interpreted by Rome, then this RC interpretation itself is a fallible interpretation, and which RCs engage in all the time in seeking to support Rome, while disallowing that we may do so.

Frankly, you don’t sound like a Protestant. Are you a Jeh. Witness? A Protestant usually brings up Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia into their anti-Eucharist argumentation.

Frankly, you seem to have read very little, not even my tag line, which is not what you are going to hear from JW clones, or many RCs either, as both have a organization to "sell" for salvation.

I apologize if i have been too curt, but while i have never seen your here before, i keep getting the same parroted polemics from regulars, which are exposed as specious, and then they do not respond, only to engage in the same routine on another thread. On and on.

[LukeL]

To say Protestants deny the perfection of the Holy Spirit is wrong. The Evangelical view of Christ is that he is 100% God and 100% Man. He is not a demigod in that he was half God and half man, nor was he human and became God at his baptism, nor did he become God when needed and man when needed.

John 1:1 states in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the Word was God. Christ has always been, he was not created.

[LukeL]

You also seem to think Protestants believe in Arianism or Modalism which is not true for 99% of Protestants.

The Holy Spirit came upon man on the day of Pentecost and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is a sign of salvation and the grace of God is upon you.

Christ the man had to be 100% without sin to be the perfect sacrifice and Passover Lamb (The Passover Seder is a prophecy of Christ's Death) it is his upholding the law that the chains of the law are broken and we are no longer bound to it.

[Rashputin]

Jewish custom and tradition held in the same regard as the law, hence Christ rebuking Pharisees for setting aside money for the Temple which obligated the Rabbis to take care of their parents rather than taking care of their own parents.

Honoring your parents, according to Jewish tradition, included caring for them when they were dependent the way they cared for you when you were dependent and not placing responsibility for them on anyone not their child.

Anyone who wants to find more details can easily find them and anyone who prefers their own preconceptions is free to wallow in those preconceptions. Mox Nix.

[Rashputin]

Whatever they are in theory, in practice they're Modalists as their claim that there is a complete separation between the body of Christ and the Eucharist proves.

have a nice day