Posted on 05/28/2008 1:33:50 PM PDT by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
Unless You Eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and Drink His Blood You Have No Life In You
Are these words of Jesus from John 6:53 to be taken literally or figuratively? The Roman Catholic Church teaches the context of John chapter six and the above headlined verse 53 are literal. Thus Jesus is giving absolute and unconditional requirements for eternal life. In fact, this literal interpretation forms the foundation for Rome's doctrine of transubstantiation -- the miraculous changing of bread and wine into the living Christ, His body and blood, soul and divinity. Each Catholic priest is said to have the power to call Jesus down from the right hand of the Father when he elevates the wafer and whispers the words "Hoc corpus meus est." Catholics believe as they consume the lifeless wafer they are actually eating and drinking the living body and blood of Jesus Christ. This is a vital and important step in their salvation and a doctrine they must believe and accept to become a Catholic.
If priests indeed have the exclusive power to change finite bread and wine into the body and blood of the infinite Christ, and if indeed consuming His body and blood is necessary for salvation, then the whole world must become Catholic to escape the wrath of God. On the other hand, if Jesus was speaking in figurative language then this teaching becomes the most blasphemous and deceptive hoax any religion could impose on its people. There is no middle ground. Therefore the question of utmost importance is -- Was the message Jesus conveyed to the Jewish multitude to be understood as literal or figurative? Rome has never presented a good argument for defending its literal interpretation. Yet there are at least seven convincing reasons why this passage must be taken figuratively.
Counterfeit Miracle
There is no Biblical precedent where something supernatural occurred where the outward evidence indicated no miracle had taken place. (The wafer and wine look, taste and feel the same before and after the supposed miracle of transubstantion). When Jesus changed water into wine, all the elements of water changed into the actual elements of wine.
Drinking Blood Forbidden
The Law of Moses strictly forbade Jews from drinking blood (Leviticus 17:10-14) A literal interpretation would have Jesus teaching the Jews to disobey the Mosaic Law. This would have been enough cause to persecute Jesus. (See John 5:16)
Biblical Disharmony
When John 6:53 is interpreted literally it is in disharmony with the rest of the Bible. "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you," gives no hope of eternal life to any Christian who has not consumed the literal body and blood of Christ. It opposes hundreds of Scriptures that declare justification and salvation are by faith alone in Christ.
Produces Dilemma
It appears that the "eating and drinking" in verse 6:54 and the "believing" in verse 6:40 produce the same result - eternal life. If both are literal we have a dilemma. What if a person "believes" but does not "eat or drink"? Or what if a person "eats and drinks" but does not "believe?" This could happen any time a non-believer walked into a Catholic Church and received the Eucharist. Does this person have eternal life because he met one of the requirements but not the other? The only possible way to harmonize these two verses is to accept one verse as figurative and one as literal.
Figurative In Old Testament
The Jews were familiar with "eating and drinking" being used figuratively in the Old Testament to describe the appropriation of divine blessings to one's innermost being. It was God's way of providing spiritual nourishment for the soul. (See Jeremiah 15:16; Isaiah 55:1-3; and Ezekiel 2:8, 3:1)
Jesus Confirmed
Jesus informed His disciples there were times when He spoke figuratively (John 16:25) and often used that type of language to describe Himself. The Gospel of John records seven figurative declarations Jesus made of Himself -- "the bread of life" (6:48), "the light of the world" (8:12), "the door" (10:9), "the good shepherd" (10:11), "the resurrection and the life" (11:25), "the way, the truth and the life" (14:6), and "the true vine" (15:1). He also referred to His body as the temple (2:19).
Words Were Spiritual
Jesus ended this teaching by revealing "the words I have spoken to you are spirit" (6:63). As with each of the seven miracles in John's Gospel, Jesus uses the miracle to convey a spiritual truth. Here Jesus has just multiplied the loaves and fish and uses a human analogy to teach the necessity of spiritual nourishment. This is consistent with His teaching on how we are to worship God. "God is Spirit and His worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth" (John 4:24). As we worship Christ He is present spiritually, not physically. In fact, Jesus can only be bodily present at one place at one time. His omnipresence refers only to His spirit. It is impossible for Christ to be bodily present in thousands of Catholic Churches around the world.
When Jesus is received spiritually, one time in the heart, there is no need to receive him physically, over and over again in the stomach.
False.
Disagreeing with a foul distortion of Catholic teaching is simply a failure think it through.
LOL
Me too. I guess there must be something in our natural side that can't stand not to have a hand in our own salvation. . .we must be worthy of it because we do thus and so. . .we can't accept that we are unworthy and are saved only because of God's mercy and compassion.
There were many times Christ was speaking in a spiritual or symbolic sense where He didn't 'straighten out' those who misunderstood what He was saying. And sometimes, when He did 'straighten them out', He only did that for a select group, i.e. the 12.
By the way, do you think the 12 understood all that Jesus taught at the time He was teaching it, and where they didn't He 'straightened them out'? No, of course not, or they wouldn't have all been hiding in the upper room after He had been crucified. They wouldn't have been so surprised when the women came and told them that Jesus had arisen.
Jesus' death on the cross and His subsequent resurrection was spoken of by Him more frequently than communion/the eucharist, and yet He didn't 'straighten out' His followers about that.
Exactly. He loves us so much that He’s made it easy. We can’t work our way in; we just have to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and we will be saved. Of course we can’t keep living the old way but if we’re truly saved, we won’t!
Jesus also said if your eye offends you, pluck it out. He said if your hand offends you, cut it off. Never seen a Catholic missing an eye or hand that he’d removed himself. I guess Jesus wasn’t being literal there.
1. Logic is your friend
2. There is nobody (Protestant or Roman Catholic or any other faith I know of that denies Jesus used figurative language - so don’t imply that without asserting it - and if that’s not what you did your comment is meaningless.
3. The question remains as to whether John six in this regard is figurative.
4. The scritpure does backflips to keep you from allegorizing here.
5. “And some ceased to follow him ...”
6. Origin an others did cut off their offending parts
7. The Church outlawed this practice expressly and rendered a definitive conclusion as to the interpretation of that passage re: cutting of members
8. Prots have no way to know if there is a definitive interpretation and each new generation of Prots needs to decided what is right in their own eyes.
9. I’m not an RC]
10. The Church knows of four primary senses for the interpretation of scripture. 1. Literal 2. Moral 3. Sacramental 4. Spiritual/mystical
11. RCs and Prots are both stuck on this because they live in a 2D world on these matters instead of 4D
Yuck!
Don’t get caught up in all this scholastic logic and enlightenment indivudalism. The Lord was speaking with the plural ‘you’ here. The Lord feeds the Church with Himself and it would not be the Church if He did not.
In your anxiety to offer up some defense of your position, you must have missed the first sentence of my referenced post.
John 6:60 is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons.
But he knew some did not believe. (It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) "After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him" (John 6:66).
By the way, do you think the 12 understood all that Jesus taught at the time He was teaching it, and where they didn't He 'straightened them out'?
John 6:30 begins a colloquy that took place in the synagogue at Capernaum. The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that "our ancestors ate manna in the desert." Could Jesus top that? He told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. "Give us this bread always," they said. Jesus replied, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst." At this point the Jews understood him to be speaking metaphorically.
Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: "‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52).
His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56).
Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood." The Apostles may have been fishermen but they were not stupid. They got it and those who rejected it, walked away. Jesus did not call back these disciples. Sadly, the same is true today as it was 2000 years ago.
Following your logic, a doctor should be able to look at an x-ray of your brain and see your intellect.
Indeed. And it is simply not logical that Jesus would have us become cannibals.
2. There is nobody (Protestant or Roman Catholic or any other faith I know of that denies Jesus used figurative language - so don’t imply that without asserting it - and if that’s not what you did your comment is meaningless.
Oh, I know that both do. That was my point.
3. The question remains as to whether John six in this regard is figurative.
No question in my mind Jesus was speaking of spiritual things, not physical.
4. The scritpure does backflips to keep you from allegorizing here.
I disagree. The 'real' Jesus is refering to here is what is eternal, not what is physical. After all, what is saved but our soul/spirit. Putting some food into your body that then is digested and passes out of the body isn't going to save.
5. “And some ceased to follow him ...”
Sorry, that doesn't mean He was being literal. That just means they MISunderstood Him, and He didn't correct them. Wasn't the only time He did that.
6. Origin an others did cut off their offending parts
So they took it literally.
7. The Church outlawed this practice expressly and rendered a definitive conclusion as to the interpretation of that passage re: cutting of members
I agree that they should have outlawed the practice. Jesus was speaking figuratively there, to show the seriousness of sin. Just as He was speaking figuratively when saying we would eat His flesh and drink His blood, so we would remember His atonement for our sins on the cross when we celebrate communion.
8. Prots have no way to know if there is a definitive interpretation and each new generation of Prots needs to decided what is right in their own eyes.
LOL Well, this 'Prot' knows that the definitive interpretation comes from the Holy Spirit, not from some guy that is elected. (I recall a guy named Mathias that was elected by the apostles, but it seems God had a different idea and chose Paul.)
9. I’m not an RC
If you say so.
10. The Church knows of four primary senses for the interpretation of scripture. 1. Literal 2. Moral 3. Sacramental 4. Spiritual/mystical
Seems like you're actually pointing to classifications of scripture. Again, the only way to truly interpret scripture is by the Holy Spirit. (And by the way, all believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit.)
11. RCs and Prots are both stuck on this because they live in a 2D world on these matters instead of 4D
LOL So tell me, what is your take on the verse in question that would be different from RCs and Prots?
I agree - pagan rituals dressed up as Christian doctrine IS yucky.
Good thing Catholics avoid that.
Not the case. Read up on "transubstantiation."
Jesus did not teach cannibalism.
Thus, neither does Catholicism.
Intersting response. I will beleive your saying it is figurative if you show me 1 instance in the early churches where they believed communion and the eucharist were not the real presence - just one exampl before say 400 a.d.
If it is as you say, it should be easy to find many, many examples. For the record I can point to multiple early teachings that the body and blood are the real presence in that time period.
I disagree. The ‘real’ Jesus is refering to here is what is eternal, not what is physical. After all, what is saved but our soul/spirit.
You realize this is heresy even for a Protestant don’t you? Oh, that’s right, the Holy Spirit is the only interepter and He told you this.
RE: My take:
The Lord is speaking to the community, as He often did and we over-individualize His words and create false dichotomies.
Spiritual does not exclude Physical. Specifically, do you believe Jesus still has a human body in heaven? If so, is it spiritual or physical? Answer is He DOES have a human body and it is physical and spiritual. He feeds us with His resurrected body because we ARE His body. He saved body, soul and spirit. Not soul or soul and spirit.
This whole reality is spiritually discerned in community in the Spirit. No individual isolated from the body will understand it even if in the end He takes some number of such into heaven. They will understand it then.
There is a new creation ‘in Christ.’ It is of a completely different aeon (the eighth day.) Trying to impose 7th day logic on this passage doesn’t work.
How is it heresy for a Protestant?
Oh, that’s right, the Holy Spirit is the only interepter and He told you this.
Yep.
Specifically, do you believe Jesus still has a human body in heaven?
Yep, a glorified one, so it is different from our current physical bodies in that it is incorruptible.
If so, is it spiritual or physical?
Physical, but different from our earthly bodies.
He feeds us with His resurrected body because we ARE His body.
So we literally eat ourselves? Um, okay. By the way, the first time the apostles celebrated communion with Christ, He had not yet died and been raised. Are you saying Jesus reached into the future, pulled some of His resurrected flesh back through the 'corridor of time' and fed it to his apostles? Also, what about the believers in Christ who were not present at that event? Were they not saved because they didn't eat of this time-traveling flesh?
He saved body, soul and spirit. Not soul or soul and spirit.
Yes, we will receive glorified bodies on resurrection day, but once we pass from this life, our 'bodyless' spirit is with God until that day.
This whole reality is spiritually discerned in community in the Spirit.
So a person who is cut off from the community due to being in prison for his/her faith or whatever cannot discern such things?
There is a new creation ‘in Christ.’
Indeed, and we as new creations don't need to keep being recreated by cannibalizing the flesh of Jesus repeatedly over our lifetimes.
Trying to impose 7th day logic on this passage doesn’t work.
Whatever that means.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.