John 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.
Do people who partake of communion thinking that it is changed into His literal body and blood ever get hungry or thirsty again? And I'll betcha, when people go home from church, they get hungry and thirsty.
If we're going to take the passage literally to mean that it is His literal body and blood, then the rest of the passage needs to be interpreted literally as well, to be consistent. That means anyone who has taken communion, it being the literal body and blood of Christ, would neither hunger, nor thirst, nor die any more.
There are also MANY places in Scripture where the eating of blood is strictly forbidden, the last being the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. God says the life is in the blood, it is given for atonement. It is NOT to be eaten.
At the end of John 6, which is the primary source Catholic use to support their doctrine, Jesus says this..... John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all.The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
Additionally, if Jesus had given His followers actual blood to eat, He would have caused them to sin as that would have violated the Law, which as Peter said in Acts 10, he had never eaten anything unclean. Being observant Jews, the disciples could not have eaten blood and remained clean for the Passover. They would not have done it had they thought it was actual blood.
Rnmom has an excellent explanation of the Last Supper and its meaning.
Catholics also do not take this verse literally, not recognizing the security of the believer....
John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
And yet here is the promise of eternal life without the necessity of eating or drinking, but merely believing.
Jesus said that those who ate His body and drank His blood would never die. Do we see people die or do we see people 2,000 years old? John 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. Do people who partake of communion thinking that it is changed into His literal body and blood ever get hungry or thirsty again? And I'll betcha, when people go home from church, they get hungry and thirsty.
Well, we both know that Jesus' REALITY was well beyond the demarcation of a coffin, or defining what we "live on" beyond the oven:
Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’” (Matthew 4:4)
My query is along the lines that perhaps we cannot readily assume that themes in the Bible can always readily be shaped by our "literal vs. metaphorical" schemes.
Example: 60 Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God.” (Luke 9)
Now is Jesus talking literally here? Metaphorically? Both? Commentators usually say both: "Let the spiritually dead bury their own physically dead." (Yet Jesus didn't take the time to explain this mid-sentence switch, now did He?)
So my encouragement is to ask "Why?" Why didn't He plainly say, "I am speaking spiritually with that initial reference to 'dead?'"
And...what I may suggest is that Jesus simply speaks upon what is.
What is...REAL.
To Jesus, the spiritually dead are dead.
To us, that means we have to make an adjustment and distinguish between spiritually-dead existence and life.
But to Jesus, "life" isn't life outside of knowing Him (John 17:3).
And death is death outside knowing Him.
What I am also suggesting is that we need to allow for wee bit more "mysteries" within certain teachings than trying to nail down all the nth degree of dogmatic detail.
Allow me to provide another example:
Jesus BOTH said: Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. (John 16:7)
...while also saying: "And surely I am with you ALWAYS, to the very end of the age.” (Matthew 28:20)
So which is the "literal" there? A Jesus who went away, even if temporarily, or a Jesus who never left?
Dogmatists on both sides of this could claim their "proof text" of either verse.
Mysteries -- paradoxes -- allow for seeming discrepancies to both be so.
Here's another one:
No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. (John 6:46)
Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? (John 14:9)
So, which is it. Has only Jesus seen the Father? Or, have those who have seen Jesus also seen the Father?
Isn't it a bit of "mystery" that God is omnipresent, and yet the Bible makes it clear He has a local Presence -- a Local Glory -- that makes the Sun uncontrastable?
How can God be both immanent and transcendent? How can God be both local and omnipresent?
So...to get back then to John 6...
Verse 55: 55 For my flesh IS REAL FOOD and my blood IS REAL DRINK.
It seems to me that Catholics get "caught up" with the literal...and it seems to me that Evangelicals get "caught up" with the metaphorical. Yet to Jesus, explaining Himself as the Sacrifice was neither simply "literal" nor "metaphorically." Jesus REALLY died. And yet He REALLY died more than a simple death that any other man goes thru.
The apostle Paul said Jesus was "made to be sin" (2 Cor. 5) and a "curse" (Gal. 3). Hence, an understanding of Jesus' death that focuses ONLY upon the physical aspects doesn't fully understand the cross. Jesus REALLY was sin. Jesus REALLY was a curse. (And He wasn't just metaphorically "sin" and a "curse.")
He was made to be a sin and a curse on our behalf.
Our substitute.
Likewise, Jesus' body is REAL Food.
Jesus' blood is REAL drink.
Jesus isn't playing word games here...otherwise, He would never let those disciples go (John 6:66-67)
Evangelicals need to review their dogmatism as focused on ruling out the "real."
And for Catholics: Jesus' Body & Blood doesn't need to do undergo some transmutation within wine & wafers for Him to be REALLY present within them. The atoms of the elements don't need to substantially change for Jesus to REALLY be there.
The omnipresent Jesus who "went away" (John 16:7) doesn't need to yield His omnipresence (Matt. 28:20) just because some Evangelicals can't live with mystery-paradoxes. And the omnipresent Jesus (Matt. 28:20) doesn't have to create a "Jesus-free" zone -- of all places -- on the altar of churches as they serve the Eucharist/communion...just because some Evangelicals think that gets "too close" to Catholic "transsub" teaching!