There's an important difference though. After the teachings you reference, Jesus didn't turn to his apostles and ask if they would leave too. And Peter wasn't prompted to make a profession of faith.
As the apostles were Jews they would have no problem understanding “this is my body” as the elements referring to representing Christ,
In 1 Cor 5:7, Paul tells us that Jesus is the Paschal Lamb. Jews understood that the Passover lamb was killed, had its blood sprinkled, and then was eaten. Apart from addressing the crowd with the teaching of John 6, Jesus also privately and in the context of the passover seder ate his Last Supper with the apostles, instructing them to "Take, eat; this is my body." (Mt 26:26)
I think your observation about the apostles being Jews is a good one. An important one. And one that underscores that at the Last Supper, they well understood Jesus was instituting something new and that it transcended symbolism.
And which would be unlike any other physical miracle, for in these there was an actual detectable change.
Jesus told us, as I noted in a post above, that the only sign would be the sign of Jonah, i.e. his resurrection. After he arose, he said those who believed without seeing were blessed. Why does faith alone not suffice for taking Jesus at his word at his last meal with his apostles? Peace be with you.
After the teachings you reference, Jesus didn't turn to his apostles and ask if they would leave too. And Peter wasn't prompted to make a profession of faith.
That is because the cast was different in each event in which the Lord did these things, but which does not negate Jn. 6 from exampling the same methodology. And that by faith in Christ one obtains living water, which the women at the well was invited to receive by faith, and no one else needed the Lord's supper to spiritual live, and which fits perfectly with the words of John. And who wrote "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. " (1 John 5:13) Yet none of the “things” he wrote therein talks about the Lord's supper, except by way of living selflessly, recognizing and treating other believers as members of the Body of Christ, which was the message in 1Cor. 10-12. Thus Christ's “meat” was doing the Father's will in service to Him and man. (Jn. 4:34)
In 1 Cor 5:7, Paul tells us that Jesus is the Paschal Lamb. Jews understood that the Passover lamb was killed, had its blood sprinkled, and then was eaten.
The Jews also understood that you did not drink the blood of the sacrifice, and that it was to be roasted with fire, and that what remained till morning was to be burned with fire, (Ex. 12:8-10) which things were not literally part of the death of the Messiah, but spiritually fulfilled as is often the case in typology.
Thus rather than defining the Passover as representing the elements being changed into the literal body of Christ, Paul's application is spiritual, with ritual purity of the Passover representing heart purity in the body of Christ, (1Cor. 5:8) with “not discerning the body” in 1Cor. 11 referring to effectually not recognizing other members as being part of the body.
The Lord’s Supper is not a sacrifice, but a festal commemoration of a sacrifice designed to bring believers to examine whether they are living and loving consistent with Christ's sacrificial giving of Himself for the church, therefore that and they are the focus in application, not the elements, and thus in the communal agape feast (Jude 1:12; 1Cor. 1:21; Acts 2:46) of the Lord's Supper and overall, members are to be treated more as Catholics treat the elements in their focus upon them.
Apart from addressing the crowd with the teaching of John 6, Jesus also privately and in the context of the passover seder ate his Last Supper with the apostles, instructing them to "Take, eat; this is my body." (Mt 26:26)
This secret instruction on this is pure conjecture, and the absence of any real theological instruction in transubstantiation, being such a radical novel doctrine as consuming human flesh and blood, is contrary to the manner in which the Holy Spirit provides for the atonement (and other primary doctrines).
I think your observation about the apostles being Jews is a good one. An important one. And one that underscores that at the Last Supper, they well understood Jesus was instituting something new and that it transcended symbolism.
I find this frankly absurd, as “well understood” all depends upon your hypothetical secret instruction in transubstantiation 101, while what Scripture evidences is that they did not even understand that Christ had to die, (Lk. 24:13-44) thus they would hardly have comprehended how giving His flesh for the world translated into physically consuming Him, and much later the apostles did not yet even understand that they could eat pork, (Acts 10:9-14) let alone drink human blood.
Instead, being Jews they would have no problem understanding “this is my body” as being allegorical, it being consistent with Jewish language and the Lord's own abundant use of metaphor, as the door and sheepgate, etc. and who giving living water and makes believers into water fountains. (Jn. 4:10; 7:37)
That is because the cast was different in each event in which the Lord did these things, but which does not negate Jn. 6 from exampling the same methodology. And that by faith in Christ one obtains living water, which the women at the well was invited to receive by faith, and no one else needed the Lord's supper to spiritual live, and which fits perfectly with the words of John. And who wrote "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. " (1 John 5:13) Yet none of the “things” he wrote therein talks about the Lord's supper, except by way of living selflessly, recognizing and treating other believers as members of the Body of Christ, which was the message in 1Cor. 10-12. Thus Christ's “meat” was doing the Father's will in service to Him and man. (Jn. 4:34)
In 1 Cor 5:7, Paul tells us that Jesus is the Paschal Lamb. Jews understood that the Passover lamb was killed, had its blood sprinkled, and then was eaten.
The Jews also understood that you did not drink the blood of the sacrifice, and that it was to be roasted with fire, and that what remained till morning was to be burned with fire, (Ex. 12:8-10) which things were not literally part of the death of the Messiah, but spiritually fulfilled as is often the case in typology.
Thus rather than defining the Passover as representing the elements being changed into the literal body of Christ, Paul's application is spiritual, with ritual purity of the Passover representing heart purity in the body of Christ, (1Cor. 5:8) with “not discerning the body” in 1Cor. 11 referring to effectually not recognizing other members as being part of the body.
The Lord’s Supper is not a sacrifice, but a festal commemoration of a sacrifice designed to bring believers to examine whether they are living and loving consistent with Christ's sacrificial giving of Himself for the church, therefore that and they are the focus in application, not the elements, and thus in the communal agape feast (Jude 1:12; 1Cor. 1:21; Acts 2:46) of the Lord's Supper and overall, members are to be treated more as Catholics treat the elements in their focus upon them.
Apart from addressing the crowd with the teaching of John 6, Jesus also privately and in the context of the passover seder ate his Last Supper with the apostles, instructing them to "Take, eat; this is my body." (Mt 26:26)
This secret instruction on this is pure conjecture, and the absence of any real theological instruction in transubstantiation, being such a radical novel doctrine as consuming human flesh and blood, is contrary to the manner in which the Holy Spirit provides for the atonement (and other primary doctrines).
I think your observation about the apostles being Jews is a good one. An important one. And one that underscores that at the Last Supper, they well understood Jesus was instituting something new and that it transcended symbolism.
I find this frankly absurd, as “well understood” all depends upon your hypothetical secret instruction in transubstantiation 101, while what Scripture evidences is that they did not even understand that Christ had to die, (Lk. 24:13-44) thus they would hardly have comprehended how giving His flesh for the world translated into physically consuming Him, and much later the apostles did not yet even understand that they could eat pork, (Acts 10:9-14) let alone drink human blood.
Instead, being Jews they would have no problem understanding “this is my body” as being allegorical, it being consistent with Jewish language and the Lord's own abundant use of metaphor, as the door and sheepgate, etc. and who giving living water and makes believers into water fountains. (Jn. 4:10; 7:37)
And again, one obtains life in them by repentant faith in the gospel message, not by eating the Lord's Supper.
And again, one obtains life in them by repentant faith in the gospel message, not by eating the Lord's Supper.