Replies

Was is just an oversight that you didn't address the metaphorical examples given by hopefulpilgrim? I thought they were very pertinent.

I'm at your service. I reject a metaphorical understanding of John 6 in particular and the Eucharist in general because, in the Bible, to eat a person's flesh and drink his blood in a metaphorical sense means to persecute him in a bloody manner and to destroy him. See Psalms 27, Isaiah 9:20; 49:29, Micah 3:3. Due to the Biblical prescident of symbolically using "eat my flesh", are we to believe that we must hate and persecute Jesus in order to have eternal life? No, this is why the standard line of Protestants using John 6:63 to invalidate the clear, literal teaching of Christ in the proceeding verses is wrong. BTW verse 63 is talking about human thinking vs. thinking with the eyes of faith.

I also reject a metaphorical understanding of John 6 because of the way the listeners of Jesus reacted to His statements. They understood him literally as is evident in their question in verse 52; a understanding which Jesus did not take to correct as he had done on other occasions (see Matthew 16:5-12; John 3:3-7, 4:31-34) But they understood only in the human sense(Is He going to hack off His arm and feed it to us?) and not in the supernatural sense as is evident in Christ's explaination in verses 60-63. They left Jesus over a matter of supreme importance and if we are believe in a symbolic Eucharist, they abondoned Jesus over a gross misunderstanding with possible eternal consequences. My Lord is not that reckless.

Also, the Greek word used for "eat" is trogo which literally means "to gnaw". Pretty graphic, and dare I say literal, description, if you ask me.

Also, OT types are fullfilled in a greater manner by their NT counterpart realities. The manna of the Exodus which is a type of the Eucharist is just bread. Supernatural, but bread none the less. If a symbolic Eucharist is true, then all we is just plain old natural bread, inferior to its OT type(manna).

When it comes to the Last Supper, the fact is that is where Christ's Passion began. The Crucifixtion is an extension of the Last Supper and the Last Supper is only completed by the Crucifixtion. (which is a whole other post in itself :) )

Because of those reasons and due to the fact that the historical understanding and teaching of Christianity is that the Eucharist is literally the Body and Blood of Christ, I reject a symbolic or metaphorical Eucharist.

Pray for John Paul II

You wrote: I reject a metaphorical understanding of John 6 in particular and the Eucharist in general because, in the Bible, to eat a person's flesh and drink his blood in a metaphorical sense means to persecute him in a bloody manner and to destroy him.

Not always, dignan. For instance, does "O taste and see that the Lord is good!" mean that we are persecuting or killing the Lord? (or perhaps you employ this verse as a eucharistic blessing?) There are some other instances in the Word which don't agree with your rule, but I can't think of even one at the moment. (I took an Ambien a while ago) Help me out, Protties!

You also wrote: I also reject a metaphorical understanding of John 6 because of the way the listeners of Jesus reacted to His statements...they abondoned Jesus over a gross misunderstanding with possible eternal consequences. My Lord is not that reckless.

Yes, some of His listeners were offended by Jesus' suggesting that they eat him and drink His blood. But Jesus did correct their thinking when He proclaimed that there is nothing profitable in flesh; rather it is THE SPIRIT who gives life---and the words He had been speaking were of a spiritual nature which would bring life to the hearers...if they believe. They didn't abandon Jesus because they misunderstood; it clearly says that they left because they did not BELIEVE.

You also wrote: Also, the Greek word used for "eat" is trogo which literally means "to gnaw". Pretty graphic, and dare I say literal, description, if you ask me.

This doesn't prove anything. Aren't there several Greek words for "eat"? They are all basically the same, Just because "gnaw" is graphic, doesn't mean He was speaking literally. In the figurative sense, "gnaw" is just as graphic!

You also wrote: due to the fact that the historical understanding and teaching of Christianity is that the Eucharist is literally the Body and Blood of Christ, I reject a symbolic or metaphorical Eucharist.

OK---please show me the historical record which indicates that the first century Christians really believed in this hocuspocus. Draw the record from the book of Acts or the epistles...or even from Clement or some other early church father's writings in that century.

to eat a person's flesh and drink his blood in a metaphorical sense means to persecute him in a bloody manner and to destroy him. See Psalms 27, Isaiah 9:20; 49:29, Micah 3:3. Due to the Biblical prescident of symbolically using "eat my flesh", are we to believe that we must hate and persecute Jesus in order to have eternal life?

The point isn't that they would be the persecutors and destroyers. The point was that they were to partake of the happenstance. Oops. Participation in his death and ressurection doesn't mean they have to kill or raise him, just means they have to be involved, witnessing any of it is to partake of it. Just as a crowd at a Nascar event partakes of the race, doesn't mean they are pit crew or driving, they are there. You get it right up to the point that your doctrine kicks in and takes over your thought process.