Four reasons why the Bread of Life Discourse cannot be a metaphor

I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world. […] Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life. […] Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

Most, though not all, Protestants wiggle and fidget as they come to the Bread of Life Discourse in the sixth chapter of the Gospel according to St. John; and they have good reason to be disturbed! Our Savior speaks quite plainly of the Eucharist when he states, For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed (John 6:56).

The common solution for many modern Protestants (following the path set out by Zwingli) is to call upon the words which follow toward the end of the discourse: It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life (John 6:64). Appealing to these words, which reference the spirit as opposed to the flesh, these Protestants will claim that the Bread of Life Discourse is an extended metaphor.

There are four reasons why our Savior’s words in John 6:26-72 cannot be understood as an analogy or a metaphor. Among these, the second is perhaps rather unknown. [all four reasons come from Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma]

1) From the nature of the words used One specially notes the realistic expressions “true” and “real” referring to the “food” and “drink” which is our Savior’s body and blood. Likewise, we note the concrete expressions employed to denote the reception of this Sacrament: the Greek word commonly translated as “to eat” is more literally “to gnaw upon” or “to chew”. The bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. […] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed (John 6:52,56).

2) From the biblical usage of the figure “to eat one’s flesh” In the language of the Bible, to eat another’s flesh or to drink his blood in the metaphorical sense is to persecute him, to bring him to ruin and to destroy him. Thus, if Christ tells the Jews that we all must eat his flesh and drink his blood, and if he means this metaphorically, we would be led to conclude (following the witness of Sacred Scripture) that our Savior intends us to reject him.

Consider how the metaphor of eating flesh and drinking blood functions in the Scriptures: Whilst the wicked draw near against me, to eat my flesh. My enemies that trouble me, have themselves been weakened, and have fallen. (Psalm 26:2)

By the wrath of the Lord of hosts the land is troubled, and the people shall be as fuel for the fire: no man shall spare his brother. And he shall turn to the right hand, and shall be hungry: and shall eat on the left hand, and shall not be filled: every one shall eat the flesh of his own arm: Manasses Ephraim, and Ephraim Manasses, and they together shall be against Juda. (Isaiah 9:19-20)

And I will feed thy enemies with their own flesh: and they shall be made drunk with their own blood, as with new wine. (Isaiah 49:26)

You that hate good, and love evil: that violently pluck off their skins from them, and their flesh from their bones? Who have eaten the flesh of my people, and have flayed their skin from off them: and have broken, and chopped their bones as for the kettle, and as flesh in the midst of the pot. (Micah 3:2-3)

Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl in your miseries, which shall come upon you. […] Your gold and silver is cankered: and the rust of them shall be for a testimony against you, and shall eat your flesh like fire. (James 5:1,3)

And the ten horns which thou sawest in the beast: these shall hate the harlot, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and shall burn her with fire. (Revelation 17:16)

3) From the reactions of the listeners The listeners understand Jesus to be speaking in literal truth – How can this man give us his flesh to eat? (John 6:53) – and Jesus does not correct them, as he had done previously in the case of misunderstandings (cf. John 3,3; 4:32; Matthew 16:6). In this case, on the contrary, he confirms their literal acceptance of his words at the rist that his disciples and his apostles might desert him. Indeed, our Savior is willing to test his apostles on this point: Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? (John 6:68)

4) From the interpretation of the Fathers and the Magisterium Finally, we can recognize that this text is not to be understood as a metaphor from the interpretation of the Fathers, who ordinarily take the last section of the Bread of Life Discourse as referring to the Eucharist (e.g. St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexander, St. Augustine, et al.). Moreover, the interpretation of the Council of Trent confirms this. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life In John 6:64, Jesus does not reject the literal interpretation, but only the grossly sensual interpretation. Our Savior insists that the Eucharist is spirit and life insofar as it gives life. For the body we receive in the Eucharist is not dead flesh, but profits us unto eternal life.

So St. Augustine says, “This Flesh alone profiteth not, but let the Spirit be joined to the Flesh, and It profiteth greatly. For if the Flesh profiteth nothing, the Word would not have become Flesh.” The same (lib. 10, de. Civit. Dei) says, “The Flesh of itself cleanseth not, but through the Word by which it hath been assumed.” And S. Cyril, “If the Flesh be understood alone, it is by no means able to quicken, forasmuch as it needs a Quickener, but because it is conjoined with the life-giving Word, the whole is made life-giving. For the Word of God being joined to the corruptible nature does not lose Its virtue, but the Flesh itself is lifted up to the power of the higher nature. Therefore, although the nature of flesh as flesh cannot quicken; still it doth this because it hath received the whole operation of the Word.”

Hence, we do well to pray: May the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ guard my soul unto everlasting life. Amen.

This is simply redundant Romanism. So how many times must your your pasted polemics be exposed as specious?

1) From the nature of the words used One specially notes the realistic expressions “true” and “real” referring to the “food” and “drink” which is our Savior’s body and blood.

Wrong. In the very same book leading up to Jn. 6 the Lord said that eternal life was obtained by "drink," and that doing His Father's will was His "meat." (Jn. 4:24) For indeed, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (Matthew 4:4)

And which Jn. 6:57 corresponds to:

As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. (John 6:57)

And which was said to explain how we are to live by consuming Christ, which John and the rest of Scripture nowhere says is by literally physically eating anything, but by receiving and believing His word in our innermost being, which word is the only thing that is said to "nourish" the believer spiritually, (1Tim. 4:6) and which builds him up. (Acts 20:32)

In addition, David plainly and distinctly said drinking water was the blood of men, and thus would not drink it, but poured it out on the ground as an offering to the Lord, as it is forbidden to drink blood.

And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the Lord . And he said, Be it far from me, O Lord, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. (2 Samuel 23:16-17)

Thus, consistent with the Catholic "plain language" hermeneutic, this must by taken literally, and explained by some metaphysical philosophy. But which abundant use of figurative language the apostles would have been familiar with. .

Thus the "realistic expressions" polemic does not warrant its conclusions

Wrong, as the apologist has just displayed his ignorance of Scripture in not knowing of David calling drinking water the blood of his noble men, who essentially laid down their lives for David.

In addition, it is irrelevant whether the use of “to eat one’s flesh” is in the negative sense, as the point is that such language is used metaphorically. Paul said the same thing to believers as the Philistines said to each other in "quit you like men, be strong," (1Co. 16:13; cf. 1Sam. 4:9) but the former is not disallowed by the latter.

Moreover, Christ was brought to a type of ruin, and Moses said that the Canaanites were “bread for Israel: “Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us” (Num. 14:9)

And other examples of such metaphorical language include:

The Promised Land was “a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof.” (Num. 13:32)

David said that his enemies came to “eat up my flesh.” (Ps. 27:2)

And complained that workers of iniquity ”eat up my people as they eat bread , and call not upon the Lord.” (Psalms 14:4)

And the Lord also said, “I will consume man and beast; I will consume the fowls of the heaven, and the fishes of the sea, and the stumblingblocks with the wicked; and I will cut off man from off the land, saith the Lord.” (Zephaniah 1:3)

While even arrows can drink: “I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh ; and that with the blood of the slain and of the captives, from the beginning of revenges upon the enemy.' (Deuteronomy 32:42)

But David says the word of God (the Law) was “sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. (Psalms 19:10)

Another psalmist also declared the word as “sweet:” “How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!” (Psalms 119:103)

Jeremiah likewise proclaimed, “Your words were found. and I ate them. and your word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart” (Jer. 15:16)

Ezekiel was told to eat the words, “open thy mouth, and eat that I give thee...” “eat that thou findest; eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.” (Ezek. 2:8; 3:1)

John is also commanded, “Take the scroll ... Take it and eat it.” (Rev. 10:8-9 )

And which use of figurative language for Christ and spiritual things abounds in John, using the physical to refer to the spiritual:

• In John 1:29, Jesus is called “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” — but he does not have hoofs and literal physical wool.

• In John 2:19 Jesus is the temple of God: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” — but He is not made of literal stone.

• In John 3:14,15, Jesus is the likened to the serpent in the wilderness (Num. 21) who must “be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal” (vs. 14, 15) — but He is not made of literal bronze.

• In John 4:14, Jesus provides living water, that “whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life,” — but which was not literally consumed by mouth.

• In John 7:37 Jesus is the One who promises “He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water” — but believers were not water fountains, but He spoke ”of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive.” (John 7:38)

• In Jn. 9:5 Jesus is “the Light of the world” — but who is not blocked by an umbrella.

• In John 10, Jesus is “the door of the sheep,” and “the good shepherd [who] giveth his life for the sheep”, “that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” vs. 7, 10, 11) — but who again, is not literally an animal with cloven hoofs.

• In John 15, Jesus is the true vine — but who does not physically grow from the ground nor whose fruit is literally physically consumed.

Therefore the metaphorical use of language for eating and drinking is well established, and which again, the apostles would have been familiar with, and would have understood the Lord's words by, versus as a radical new requirement that contradicted Scripture, and required a external Aristotelian type of metaphysical explanation to justify.

Wrong again, as in Jn. 2:19,20, the Lord spoke in a way that seems to refer to destroying the physical temple in which He had just drove out the money changers, and left the Jews to that misapprehension of His words, so that this was a charge during His trial and crucifixion by the carnally minded. (Mk. 14:58; 15:29) But the meaning was revealed to His disciples after the resurrection.

Likewise, in Jn. 3:3, the Lord spoke in such an apparently physical way that Nicodemus exclaimed, "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" (John 3:4)

And in which, as is characteristic of John, and as seen in Jn. 6:63, the Lord goes on to distinguish btwn the flesh and the Spirit, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit," (John 3:6) leaving Nicodemus to figure it out, requiring seeking, rather than making it clear. Which requires reading more than that chapter, as with Jn. 6, revealing being born spiritually in regeneration. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13; 2:5)

Likewise in Jn. 4, beside a well of physical water, the Lord spoke to a women seeking such water of a water which would never leave the drinker to thirst again, which again was understood as being physical. But which was subtly inferred to be spiritual to the inquirer who stayed the course, but which is only made clear by reading more of Scriptural revelation.

And thus we see the same manner of revelation in Jn. 6, in which the Lord spoke to souls seeking physical sustenance of a food which would never leave the eater to hunger again. Which again was understood as being physical, but which was subtly inferred to be spiritual to the inquirers who stayed the course. But which is only made clear by reading more of Scriptural revelation.

In so doing the Lord makes living by this "bread" of flesh and blood as analogous to how He lived by the Father, "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me." (John 6:57)

And the manner by which the Lord lived by the Father was as per Mt. 4:4: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

And therefore, once again using metaphor, the Lord stated to disciples who thought He was referring to physical bread, "My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work." (John 4:34)

And likewise the Lord revealed that He would not even be with them physically in the future, but that His words are Spirit and life:

“What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” (John 6:62-63)

But as with those who imagined the Lord was referring to the physical Temple, the Lord left the protoCatholics to go their own way, who seemed to have yet imagined that the Lord was sanctioning a form of cannibalism, or otherwise had no heart for further seeking of the Lord who has "the words of eternal life" as saith Peter, not the flesh, eating of which profits nothing spiritually.

From the interpretation of the Fathers and the Magisterium Finally, we can recognize that this text is not to be understood as a metaphor from the interpretation of the Fathers, who ordinarily take the last section of the Bread of Life Discourse as referring to the Eucharist

Wrong on more than one count, as first, Augustine is not even teaching what the RC quotes him here as doing, from what i could find, but in context in his ill-defined rambling discourse (which is what it would be seen as if posted here by one of us) he says, "it is said "the flesh profiteth nothing" in the same manner as it is said that "knowledge puffeth up... Therefore add thou to knowledge charity, and knowledge shall be profitable...so here also, "the flesh profiteth nothing" only when alone. Let the Spirit be added to the flesh, as charity is added to knowledge, and and it profiteth very much." "If the apostles' flesh profited us, could it be that the Lord's flesh should have profited us nothing?.... Whence should writing come to us? All these are operations of the flesh, but only when the Spirit moves it, as if it were its organ. "We are united by faith, quickened by understanding...." This is what is meant by the ministration of Christ's body and blood.

Nor is Cyril manifestly teaching the RC "Real Presence" in the other quote, at least not there. Secondly, these uninspired men are not Scripture, nor is the often claimed “unanimous consent” of the fathers even a literal reality, while we have freely available only a small portion of all the 20 or so are estimated to have written.

And paradoxically it seems that the collections we have available were compiled by Protestants.

Instead of these men being as Scripture, they often passed on erroneous traditions of men that are not in Scripture and even contrary to it.

Finally, nor does Rome take their word as gospel, but judges them more than they judge them. For Rome is her own autocratic authority, while her own basis for that, that of the premise of perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility, is unScriptural, and unseen and unnecessary in the life of the church, as is her separate class of believers distinctively titled "priests," offering up "real" human flesh and blood as a sacrifice for sin, and literally consuming this to obtain spiritual life, around which act all else revolves, and looking to Peter as the first of a line of exalted infallible popes reigning over the church from Rome, and a separate class of believers distinctively titled "saints," and praying to created being in Heaven, and being formally justified by ones own sanctification/holiness, and thus enduring postmortem purifying torments in order to become good enough to enter Heaven, and saying rote prayers to obtain early release from it, and requiring clerical celibacy as the norm. Etc.

What was it specifically, in the article that you felt denigrates everyone else?

For one thing, the very literalistic interpretation that is insisted upon effectively damns all who reject this novel means of obtaining spiritual life.

For Jn. 6:53 is an absolute “verily verily” imperative, that one must consume the body and blood of Christ in order to obtain spiritual life.

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:53-54)

And which, if literal, excludes all those who reject the literalistic interpretation as unScriptural from obtaining spiritual and eternal life Also if literal, then we must see the Lord's Supper being preached in Acts and other places in the life of the church as the means of regeneration, that of obtaining spiritual life.

And which literal understanding is one which the apostles and NT church manifestly did not get, nor the rest of Scripture. For nowhere did the apostles preach the Lord's Supper as the, or a means to obtain spiritual life, as instead they preached that this is obtained by believing the gospel of grace.

Peter preached “To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins” (Acts 10:43) resulting in the Gentiles believing and being born again.

Referring to this, Peter stated, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (Acts 15:7-9)

And after which souls live by Christ by obeying His words. For His words are spirit, and are life. (Jn. 6:63)

And nowhere else in Scripture was literally eating anything physically the means of obtaining spiritual and eternal life. Therefore in addition to a novel miracle explained by a novel theory, we have a novel yet essential means of obtaining spiritual life, and which to be consistent) excludes all those who cannot believe this unScriptural teaching.

However, rather than souls in Jn 6 rightly understanding the Lord's words as literal but rejecting them, instead they represent another example of carnally minded souls who are presented in John (especially) who do not seek the meaning of the Lord's enigmatic words. For we see many examples of the Lord speaking in an apparently physical way in order to reveal the spiritual meaning to those who awaited the meaning, which, as elsewhere, the Lord revealed to true seekers. Meanwhile, the rest of Scripture and John in particular only teach that spiritual life is obtained by believing the gospel of grace, and then one lives that out by obeying the word of God, as Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57), doing His will being His "meat." (Jn. 4:24)

Only the metaphorical view is consistent with the rest of Scripture. eternal life More .

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.