Never Thirst-Taking Jesus" Literally" can be Fatal

Thoughts of Francis Turretine ^ | July 17, 2014 | TurretinFan

[RnMomof7]

Never Thirst - Taking Jesus "Literally" can be Fatal

Roman Catholics like to try to claim that they are just taking Jesus "literally" when they interpret "this is my body" to mean that what was in Jesus' hands was not bread but his physical body [FN1]. Three passages in John help to illustrate the problem with that approach: John 4, John 6, and John 7.  In the first, Jesus refers metaphorically to living water, in the second Jesus refers to himself as food and drink, and in the third Jesus offers drink to those who thirst.

In John 4, Jesus interacts with the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well.  He asks her for water, she objects because he's Jewish, and he responds that she should be asking him for water, because the water he offers is better than the water from Jacob's well. She misunderstands him as speaking physically, even after some further explanation.  She wants to stop the labor of drawing water and misunderstands Jesus' comments about "never thirst."

John 4:6-15
Now Jacob's well was there. Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus on the well: and it was about the sixth hour. There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink. (For his disciples were gone away unto the city to buy meat.) Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans. Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water? Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle? Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But 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. The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.

In John 6, Jesus interacts with a number of "disciples" who want Jesus to repeat the miracle of the loaves that's reported at the beginning of the chapter.  Jesus explains that the person who believes on him will never thirst and whoever comes to him will never hunger, calling himself the "bread of life" that "came down from heaven." Jesus insists that the bread he offers is better than the manna that the people ate in the wilderness.  Jesus talks about them eating his flesh and drinking his blood, but they take him physically and go away in disgust.  Jesus explains that the words he speaks are spirit and life.  Jesus asks the twelve if they will go away too, but Peter (speaking for the group) says that they will stay with him because they believe and know that his words are the words of eternal life.

John 6:26-71
Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work? Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 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. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 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.
But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve. 

In John 7, Jesus interacts with those at the temple for the feast.  Jesus offers the thirsty people water.  John explains to us that Jesus is speaking about the Spirit as the "rivers of flowing water."

John 7:37-39 
In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

These passages illustrate Jesus' fondness for using food as a metaphor for trust in him.  We approach the Lord's table by faith, coming to Him as represented by the bread and cup.  We gain a benefit from this if we do so by faith, but not if we do so any other way.  It is not the physical elements that provide the benefit we receive, it is the Spirit.

Remember what Jesus said about clean/unclean foods:

Matthew 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?

Unfortunately, it seems our Roman Catholic friends and relatives fail to understand this.  Christ is our spiritual food and drink, not our physical nourishment.

Isaiah 44:3 For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring:
Psalm 105:41 He opened the rock, and the waters gushed out; they ran in the dry places like a river.
Isaiah 48:21 And they thirsted not when he led them through the deserts: he caused the waters to flow out of the rock for them: he clave the rock also, and the waters gushed out.
Psalm 78:20 Behold, he smote the rock, that the waters gushed out, and the streams overflowed; can he give bread also? can he provide flesh for his people?
1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

The blessings we receive in Christ are primarily spiritual blessings.  We drink the spiritual drink from the spiritual Rock, and that Rock is Christ.  He is our Rock, we trust in Him.

To the glory of his grace!

TurretinFan

Footnote 1: I should add that the Roman Catholic position is particularly absurd in that it takes "this is my body" as implying that the bread ceases to be bread and becomes the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus.  Likewise, it is claimed that "this is ... my blood" implies exactly the same thing about the contents of the cup.  That's quite far from taking the words literally, in which the bread would just be the body, and the contents of the cup would just be the blood.

[Campion]

If Jesus literally meant His actual flesh and blood, we would be practicing cannibalism in Holy Communion

Funny, that's exactly what the pagans accused the Christians of doing, 1200 years before your reformation. Where do you suppose they got that idea?

But you and they are both wrong, because cannibalism is killing someone in order to eat his dead body. Jesus isn't dead. "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life within you."

Thank you Jesus, for replacing the empty symbols of the old covenant with the "Living Bread come down from heaven" of the New.

[Campion]

Your last paragraph nails it.

[WriteOn]

I will say it again. Examine the miracles surrounding the Holy Eucharist and you will be converted. You want to argue “logic” but God sees your logic and raises you one with Eucharistic miracles. Argue all you want, you cannot deny the facts of miracles.

[Mark17]

Good work mom.

[agere_contra]

When did Christ institute a sacrament of living water?

Answer: He didn't. This is why no-one celebrates such a sacrament today.

But He did institute a sacrament of His Body and Blood. He spoke in metaphor about living water - but he spoke literally about His body and blood.

He commands us to eat His Body and Blood. His words are unmistakeable.

I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

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.

Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

Christ literally gives Himself to us as real food and real drink. There's nothing to misinterpret here. There's no room for manoeuvre.

Moreover when we consider the language used in the Gospel of John, the literal interpretation becomes undeniable.

In John 6:50-53 we encounter various forms of the Greek verb phago, 'eating.' . As in 'Sarcophagus'.

However after the Jews begin to express incredulity at the idea of eating Christ’s flesh, His language intensifies.

In verse 54, John begins to use trogo instead of phago. Trogo is a decidedly more graphic term, meaning 'to chew on' or to 'gnaw on'—as when an animal is ripping apart its prey. The text is closer to:

Whoever gnaws on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.

If anything more needed to be said: St Paul is also abundantly clear

Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

All this: not to mention Christ's insitutution of what we now call the Eucharist at the Last Supper.

From Luke:

And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."

If any corroborating evidence were needed, St Paul speaks about the Eucharist in Corinthians.

And when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

I quote these to show that Christ's Body and Blood were eaten and drunk in the very early Church.

You can post a hundred times a day - and I don't doubt that you intend to do so - yet you cannot efface the words of Christ.

It's midnight here. I am off to bed. I daresay that another attack thread exactly like this one will be along tomorrow - so to all, good night and God Bless.

[ExGeeEye]

[F]undamental to all Protestant doctrine is the assertion that the Holy Spirit is imperfect and implicit in that assertion is the replacement of the Holy Spirit with the Self and Self Alone...

I have to say that as a 50-year old Baptist (44 years old in Christ), this is news to me.

I'd be interested in seeing a doctrinal statement from a non-Catholic Christian denomination or even a local independent church of <30 members that said anything like it.

[qwertyz]

The problem of interpreting Jesus words rests with the Apostles and their successors, and they aren’t biting on the “symbol only” theory.

1. Apostle Paul — partaking of Communion unworthily is to be “guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord” (I Cor 11:27). In what way does a symbol entail personal examination (vs. 28) to avoid guilt? A symbol in itself doesn’t command that level of personal scrutiny and the consequence of sin — unless it is the sign of Jesus Christ’s real presence in the bread and wine.

2. Ignatius of Antioch (as a child, heard Apostle John) — “they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”

3. Justin Martyr (150 AD) — “For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.”

4. See many more here — http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html

Conclusion: No argument for the “symbol only” theory gained any following among Christians for a 1000 years, and then only after an individualistic interpretation theory took hold in Germany under Luther that ran counter to Scripture: “The Church is the pillar of the truth.” (I Tim 3:15)

I like to see this kind of fire-spewing anti-Eucharist rant. That was me a few a years ago, before I converted. “To be deep into history is to cease to be Protestant” — John Henry Newman

[9thLife]

How true. The Roman Catholic cult adds more ridiculous claims and keeps touting the old canards...

I'm not sure even Martin Luther, the rebel Catholic priest, believed this business.

[RnMomof7]

I was born and raised RC..Catholic school through college ..I know the doctrine and it is a lie from the pit of hell

[RnMomof7]

Do you ever get thirsty?? So much for a literal reading

[daniel1212]

But you and they are both wrong, because cannibalism is killing someone in order to eat his dead body. Jesus isn't dead. "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life within you."

So since you must hold to this as an absolute unequivocal imperative like other "verily verily" statements are, then why are you not consistent and disallow all those who reject the literalistic interpretation from obtaining spiritual life?

You do hold that consuming the flesh of Christ is how one obtains spiritual life, like the verse says don't you?

[RnMomof7]

But He did institute a sacrament of His Body and Blood. He spoke in metaphor about living water - but he spoke literally about His body and blood.

And you know this how?? Why was He not literal as the water or the door of the sheep gate or a Grape vine?

Could you please provide the infallible magisterium teaching on JOHN 6 referring to communion bread and the others as metaphors

And when you let me know where the document or statement that contains the interpretation is stated to be infallible.

I await your infallible source

[daniel1212]

So you really buy the lie that SS means that the individual alone is the supreme authority on what Truth is, as if he were a pope, versus Scripture being supreme, and that they must also reject the Biblical magisterium?

Or that deciding what conclusions the Scriptures and other evidences warrant makes one the infallible supreme authority?

Some RCs cannot be reasoned with but i trust you can do better, despite your affirmation of that fallacy.

[LukeL]

What about the OT prohibition of eat the flesh of a living animal? ie cutting off the leg of a lamb and eating that so the lamb can live so you can harvest fresh flesh later on?

Christ would never break any of the OT laws even though we are no longer bound to them.

[Rashputin]

So Christ was holding water in His hands when He said this?

So much for the heresy of Self and Self Alone and the insane lengths such Self Worshipers will go to in order to avoid the clear teaching of Scripture.

Five and six year old kids can understand the difference between the two verses but for some reason those who insist their Self is superior to the Holy Spirit just can't grasp the difference. A sure sign that such folks are under a strong delusion.

So, which Watchtower Russelite argument is next?

[terycarl]

Old heresies never die.

and new ones keep springing up whenever protestants attempt to justify their abandonment of Christ's Catholic church....sad

[Rashputin]

Christ would never break any of the OT laws even though we are no longer bound to them.

Then obviously Christ had no siblings since leaving His mother in the care of someone not a family member would have been breaking Old Testament Law.

[Iscool]

Why does junk -- I use the word after due consideration -- like this ALWAYS point the finger at "Roman Catholics," and the proceed to trash a belief that's held equally by Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, traditional Lutherans, and traditional Anglicans?

I tend to think it's because "Roman Catholic" is some sort of talismanic boogie man to a large part of the evangelical Protestant world, and that's really what this is all about.

I would guess it's because the other religions you mentioned aren't dumb enough to claim they are the one true church that Jesus founded...And that no one can attain eternal life except that they believe the fables your religion invented...

[daniel1212]

For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

Rather than the practice of this principal and prevalent practice being manifest as such in the life and epistles of the NT church, (outside of Jude 1:12 referring to a “feast of charity”) it is only manifestly described in one epistle, in 1Co. 10 and 11...

in which Paul reproves Corinthian church for coming together to eat the Lord's supper, as he charges them with not actually doing so because they were eating what is supposed to be a communal meal, the “feast of charity,” (Jude 1:12) independently of each other, so that “in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken,” and thus what they were doing was to “shame them that have not.” (1Co. 11:20-22)

Therefore Paul proceeds to reiterates the words of Christ at the institution of the Lord's supper, ending with “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew [kataggellō=preach/declare] the Lord's death till he come.” (1 Corinthians 11:23-26)

For while they were supposed to be showing/declaring the Lord's unselfish sacrificial death for the body by unselfishly sharing food with other members of the body of Christ, whom Christ purchased it with His own sinless shed blood, (Acts 20:28) instead they were both eating independently and selfishly. And thus were effectively treating other members as lepers, and as if the body was not a body, and as if others were not part of the body for whom Christ died. This lack of effectual recognition is what is being referred to as “not discerning the Lord's body,” that of the body in which the members are to treat each as blood-bought beloved brethren, as Christ did. Because they were presuming to show the Lord's death for the body while acting contrary to it, therefore they were eating this bread and drinking the cup of the Lord unworthily, hypocritically, and were chastised for it, some unto death. (1Co. 11:27-32)

Because this was the case and cause of condemnation — that of not recognizing the nature of the corporate body of Christ in independently selfishly eating — versus not recognizing the elements eaten as being the body of Christ — then the apostle's solution was, “Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.” (1 Corinthians 11:33-34)

And which leads into the next chapter in which Christ-like love is described. Paul himself was asked of the Lord, “why persecutest thou me” (Acts 9:4) as Paul was attacking the church, thus showing His identification with the church.

While silently consuming a piece of bread and a sip of wine as is done today may not be that of ignoring others and their needs, yet it hardly corresponds in form to the communal feast of charity referred to here, and misses how we are to show the Lord's death by this supper, and instead it often results in seeing the Lord's death as simply being for individuals and abstract from the corporate body.

And to “take communion” by yourself (unseen in Scripture) is a contradiction in terms to its manifest description of communion. And the Catholic focus upon the elements which are consumed, and in which service many Catholics sees interaction with others as an intrusion, and with man with hastening to leave the service afterward, misses the meaning even more.

While the superficial observance of this ordinance may not always result in manifest chastening (which judgment is relative to light given) unto death, yet “not discerning the Lord's body” as described does result in the corporate body being “weak and sickly” a compared to the NT church. And I must repent of being selfish sometimes myself.

[daniel1212]

I'd be interested in seeing a doctrinal statement from a non-Catholic Christian denomination or even a local independent church of <30 members that said anything like it.

Don't hold your breath, but while we are told we cannot tell RCs what they believe, they presume their closet of strawmen must be accepted as valid, despite having seen them burn up here many times already. Bless God.