The Eucharist: Is the Real Presence Biblical?

The "Real Presence" of Jesus in the Eucharist is rooted in Christ's own teachings.

When Jesus taught about the Eucharist, he spoke with a profound realism. At the Last Supper, he didn't say, "This is a symbol of my body." He said, "This is my body…" And when he gave his most in-depth teaching on the Eucharist, he spoke in a very realistic way — in a way that makes clear that the Eucharist is not just a symbol of Jesus, but is his flesh and blood made sacramentally present.

Let's enter into that dramatic scene, known as "The Bread of Life Discourse" in John's Gospel chapter six. Jesus had just performed his greatest miracle so far, multiplying loaves and fish to feed 5,000 people. The crowds are in awe. They declare him to be the great "prophet who is to come" and want to carry him off to make him king (John 6:14-15).

But the very next day, Jesus says something that sends his public approval ratings plummeting, something that makes those same raving fans now oppose him. Even some of his own disciples will walk away from him. What does Jesus say that was so controversial? He taught about partaking of his body and blood in the Eucharist. Jesus first says, "I am the bread of life…the true bread come down from heaven" (John 6:35). And he makes clear that he is not bread in some vague, figurative sense. He concludes, "…and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh" (John 6:51).

The people are shocked at this. They say, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" (John 6:52).

The Jews listening that day don't take Jesus as speaking metaphorically, as if we are to somehow only symbolically eat of his flesh. They understand Jesus very well. They know he is speaking realistically here, and that's why they are appalled.

Now here's the key: Jesus has every opportunity to clarify his teaching. But notice how that's precisely what he doesn't do. He doesn't back up and say, "Oh wait…I'm sorry…You misunderstood. I was only speaking metaphorically here!" He doesn't soften his teaching, saying "You just need to nourish yourself on my teaching, my wisdom, my love." Jesus does just the opposite. He uses even more graphic, more intense language to drive his point home: "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" (John 6:53). And he goes on to underscore how essential partaking of his body and blood is for our salvation.

"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" (6:54-55).

In fact, Jesus now uses a word for "eat" that has even greater graphic intensity — trogein, which means to chew or gnaw — not a word that would be used figuratively here!

This is not the language of someone speaking metaphorically. Jesus wants to give us his very body and blood in the Eucharist. In fact, Jesus now uses a word for "eat" that has even greater graphic intensity — trogein, which means to chew or gnaw — not a word that would be used figuratively here!

So challenging is this teaching that even many of Christ's disciples are bewildered, saying "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" (John 6:60). Indeed, Christ's words on the Eucharist were too much for some of them to believe. Many of his disciples rejected Jesus over this teaching and left him (John 6:66). And Jesus let them go. He didn't chase after them, saying, "Wait! You misunderstood me." They understood quite well that Jesus was speaking about eating his flesh and blood, and they rejected this teaching. That's why Jesus let them go.

So it's clear that Jesus wants to give us his Body and Blood in the Eucharist. But we still must ask, why? In the Jewish, Biblical worldview of Jesus' day, the body is an expression of the whole person and the life is in the blood. So by giving us his Body and Blood in the Eucharist, Jesus is giving his very life to us, and he wants to unite himself to us in the most intimate way possible. He wants to fill us with his life and heal us of our wounds, strengthen us in his love change us to become more and more like him. That's the life-transforming power of the Eucharist in our lives. In Holy Communion, we have the most profound union with Our Lord Jesus Christ that we can have here on earth.

NKP Don’t feel despised or belittled. Protestants are just as passionate about their own beliefs as you are about yours. Don’t take it personal. I found a little info and wanted to get your take on it:

From 1200-1970 AD, Roman Catholics laity were forbidden to drink the blood. This is known as communion under one kind, or communion of one species. During this time, Roman Catholics are permitted to eat the bread (body) of the Lord’s Supper, they are generally not allowed to drink the wine (blood) of the Lord’s Supper, as any Catholic knows from his own experience from attending Mass. (Except on rare special occasions.)

The laity (the people in the pews) are withheld the cup of the Lord and it is usually reserved for church leaders only. Yes there are denominations within the Roman Catholic “communion” where some RC sects actually offer the juice, but most Mass attending Catholics know they rarely drink the cup of wine.

Historical note: Two early popes condemned withholding the cup, (Pope Leo I [died 461 AD] and Pope Gelasius [died 496 Ad]; but in the 12th century the practice was begun, and formally approved by the Catholic Council of Constance in 1415 AD.

So for the first 1000 years, the Catholics in the Pews drink the cup, then the Pope changed this apostolic tradition. Under the reforms of Vatican II, the laity were once again permitted to have “communion under both kinds/species”. Today many Roman Catholics are unaware that for almost 900 years, the average members were forbidden to drink the blood. While Catholics have restored their practices back to the original first century tradition which they call, “communion under both kinds”, it illustrates the ever shifting and changing doctrinal evolution that is present in the Roman Catholic church.

uhhhhhhhhhhhh, it's not the Catholics that dropped books from the Bible....

No it is Catholic Church that lies

1: Martin Luther Did Not Remove Books From The Bible

An obvious sign that someone has not read anything about Luther and the canon is the assertion, “Luther removed books from the Bible,” or “Luther removed books from the New Testament.” It is a simple historical fact that Luther’s translation of the Bible contained all of its books. Luther began translating the New Testament in 1521, and released a finished version in 1522. He published sections of the Old Testament as he finished them. He finished the entire Bible by 1534. During these years, various incomplete editions were released. Some Protestants might be surprised to learn that Luther also translated the Apocrypha. The editors of Luther’s Works explain, “In keeping with early Christian tradition, Luther also included the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. Sorting them out of the canonical books, he appended them at the end of the Old Testament with the caption, ‘These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.’”[9]

Even after Luther finished his translation, he never ceased revising it. Phillip Schaff has pointed out, “He never ceased to amend his translation. Besides correcting errors, he improved the uncouth and confused orthography, fixed the inflections, purged the vocabulary of obscure and ignoble words, and made the whole more symmetrical and melodious. He prepared five original editions, or recensions, of his whole Bible, the last in 1545, a year before his death. This is the proper basis of all critical editions.”[10] Great care and work went into Luther’s Bible. This means that every book in the Bible was given great concern and attention. No book of the Bible was left un-translated. As Catholic writer John Todd observed, “The work was done with great method…”[11] Todd then relates this famous description:

“Dr. M. Luther gathered his own Sanhedrin of the best persons available, which assembled weekly, several hours before supper in the doctor’s cloister, namely D. Johann Burgenhagen, D. Justus Jonas, D. Creuziger, M. Philippum, Mattheum Aurogallum; Magister Georg Roerer, the Korrektor was also present…M. Philipp brought the Greek text with him. D Creuziger a Chaldean Bible in addition to Hebrew. The professors had their rabbinical commentaries. D. Pommer also had the Latin text…The President submitted a text and permitted each to speak in turn and listened to what each had to say about the characteristics of the language or about the expositions of the doctors in earlier times.”[12]

Thus, Luther’s Bible is not simply the result of Martin Luther: “Especially in his work on the Old Testament, Luther considered himself to be only one of a consortium of scholars at work on the project. He was convinced a translator should not work alone, for as he said, ‘the correct and appropriate words do not always occur to one person alone.’”[13] Rather than Luther expressing authoritarian power over the translation or removing books from the Bible by fiat, the facts of history show Luther involved other capable scholars. They worked throughout their lives to translate every book of the Bible, and even those books which “are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.”

Those who assert Luther took books out of the Bible sometimes wrongly use this sentiment interchangeably with “Luther removed books from the canon.” For an example of such confusion, see the claims of this Catholic apologist here. If indeed Luther took books out of the Bible, then one expects to open Luther’s Bible and find certain books missing. One does not. Catholic apologists that equivocate in such a way should either define their arguments more carefully, or account for the fact that Luther included all the books in his Bible.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140803220107/http://tquid.sharpens.org/Luther_%20canon.htm#a2

but if you study the Eucharistic miracles that have happened — you will find real human tissue in the host and real blood in the chalice.

And what would be the evidence that the human tissue is from the body of Jesus Christ? Do you have His DNA to compare?

More importantly ... Let me ask you ... is it His bodily tissue from BEFORE He was resurrected and glorified ... or after?

Did that tissue decay or is it available for inspection today? Since Jesus has a resurrection body today ... that tissue produced in this so called Eucharistic miracle has to be from His resurrected body, since He is resurrected now. And that tissue decomposes or is not available for inspection today ... then this falsifies your claim.

But I suspect there is no tissue to examine, no blood to look at under a microscope ...

Jesus Christ Himself explicitly states as a straight forward fact, "This is my body".

I am the door ...
I am the light of the world ...
I am the good shepherd ...
I am the vine ...
The son of Man is the sower ...

I can go on and on ...

It reminds me of the old commercial ...

Person is shown holding an egg ...
"This is your brain" ...
Person cracks the egg into a pan with hot butter in it ...
"This is your brain on drugs ... any questions?"

Is there any doubt that an egg is not a literal brain ... that a frying pan with butter in it is doing drugs? Its a picture meant to illustrate a point.

Apparently some people cannot tell when someone is using an illustration to make a point. Jesus used the bread as an illustration of his physical body ... He broke that bread ... as His body was about to be broken ... and then He commanded to "do this in remembrance of Me" ... not "do this because eating my actual flesh and drinking my actual blood will give you spiritual life."

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.