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!
My conclusion is that what happens in communion is what happens. It’s not dependent on our believing it or not for it to happen.
So if the bread and wine change into the literal flesh and blood of Jesus at some point, they do regardless of whether of the people who deny it.
Likewise, if it doesn’t change into the literal flesh and blood of Jesus, it’s not going to no matter how much some people believe it’s going to.
The actual facts of the event are what they are, independent of any of mankind’s belief otherwise.
Having been on both sides of the equation (for lack of a better term) I can understand the Catholic’s acceptance of transubstantiation. However, I don’t find enough Scriptural support for it and it does cause direct conflict with other passages of clear teaching elsewhere in the Bible. Which is why I now believe that it’s a ceremony of remembrance, just as the Passover was.
The big problem I see with the way the Catholics interpret the passage, is that that allows for someone like Kennedy or Chavez to partake of communion and be saved.
If eating and drinking is the requirement for eternal life, it works, all the time. Therefore, it would give eternal life to whoever takes it regardless of who they are and what they’ve done.
That’s the reason that God drove Adam and Eve out of the garden and put cherubs to guard the Tree of Life. The Tree of Life would give eternal life to them, meaning they would be eternally sinful, they would never have the opportunity to die and be free of the curse of sin.
The Tree of Life would work because it’s its nature to work, regardless of the state of sin of Adam and Eve. Same for the body and blood. It would have to work because it is its nature to work.