Two Hard Sayings in One Day – Jesus’ insistence that the Eucharist is actually His Body and Blood

ADW.org ^ | 22 August 2021 | Msgr Pope

[Cronos]

Even at the end of John 6, Jesus rebukes those who think of what He has said as a metaphor by emphasising that

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you?
62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life.
64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.”

Jesus repeats the rebuke against just thinking in terms of human logic (Calvin's main problem) by saying

John 8:15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.
16 But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me.

[Cronos]

For while the Lord's supper is nowhere referred to as spiritual food anywhere interpretive of John 6 (Acts thru Rev.), the word of God is what is taught as being spiritual nourishment, being that which is called "milk" and "meat"

Wrong - the Body of Christ present in the Eucharist is confirmed in Paul's writings to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 10:16)

6 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

and also 1 Cor 11:27-29

27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.
29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

How clear can Paul get? "The bread IS a participation in the body of Christ" and "who eats the bread... will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" This is not just mere bread and wine anymore. This is the body and blood of Christ.

[Cronos]

What the heck is an RCC? We're not Italians living in Roma

We're Catholic and as Paul wrote in 1 Tim 3:15 you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

The "rightly divided divided Word of God" is your gibberish - the Word of God is Jesus Christ, not some 19th century dispensationalist nonsense

[Campion]

For the Holy Spirit only and always taught that that spiritual life was obtained by receiving the word of the gospel, and never shows this was by actual physical ingestion of anything

The Passover Lamb called up -- he wants his life back.

Come on, Daniel, the central ritual of the Jewish liturgical year, instituted directly by God, absolutely demanded the "actual physical ingestion" of the lamb. Not a "lamb cookie", not merely remembering the lamb, but no, there's that "actual physical ingestion" thing involved.

And Passover is absolutely the OT type of salvation. So the Passover Lamb is the type of ... what, exactly?

And what does John the Baptist say when he sees the Christ? "Behold, the Lamb of God ..."

[daniel1212]

"and also 1 Cor 11:27-29 27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. How clear can Paul get? "The bread IS a participation in the body of Christ" and "who eats the bread... will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" This is not just mere bread and wine anymore. This is the body and blood of Christ."

Rather, in the context of 1 Co. 11:17-34 means to effectually remember and thus show/declare the sufferings and death of the Lord by manifesting its effect, that of unity with Christ and each other, redeeming souls and purchasing them with His sinless shed blood as the body of Christ.

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)

Which means that to remember the Lord's death is to show it, which here is by sharing food with fellow members of the body, confirming that they are such and as soul "bought with a price," and which thus are to be holy and caring for each other as members of that body of Christ, thus showing union with Him and each other.

For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. (1 Corinthians 11:26) For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s. (1 Corinthians 6:20)

Which holiness and caring union is so much emphasized by Paul in particular, as one who used to be persecute Christ by mistreating its members, and thus this theme continues into the next chapter.

And consistent with that emphasis Paul reproves the Corinthians for acting just the opposite of showing the Lord's death by how they treated its members for whom Christ died: Declaring that even though they came together for the purpose of eating the Lord's super, and were indeed eating under that presumption, yet they were not acting eating the Lord's supper, because they were acting completely contrary to what the Lord's death meant by mistreating members bought by His blood, thus not showing unity with Christ and each other, but treating members as if they were spiritually unclean:

Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. (1 Corinthians 11:17-22)

Therefore the apostle re-minds of the Lord's institution of that memorial meal and its purpose,

For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. (1 Corinthians 11:23-25)

Paul (by the Spirit of Christ) then adds,

For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. (1 Corinthians 11:26-29)

It is not the nature of the bread and the cup that is the focus, but the purpose of the meal, which is to show (kataggellō: to proclaim, promulgate: - declare, preach, etc.) the Lord's death, which again is by sharing food with other members bought His the Lord's sinless shed blood. And thus to treat other holy members of that body as if they were outcasts was to not recognize the Lord's body, which Paul here refers to as the church he used to persecute.

Thus in the previous chapter the church is called "one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread," (1 Corinthians 10:17) thereby showing communion/fellowship with Christ and each other, just like pagans have fellowship with demons by taking part in their dedicatory feasts, as would Christians if they took part in them:

Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils. (1 Corinthians 10:18-21)

Again, to take part in such feasts is to have fellowship with the object of the dedicatory feasts, but which was not be literally consuming the flesh and blood of them, while to act contrary to the Lord's death and its purpose, by mistreating holy members of it, is to not actually eat the Lord's supper and have and signify fellowship with Christ and each other.

And as that was the sin being reproved in 1 Co. 11:17-34, of some eating separately in lust for food, and ignoring others to their shame who were given nothing, then the solution was for members to examine their spiritual condition in the light of this, and as a practical measure, not come hungry to the Lord;'s supper, and be driven by hunger so as to treat it as if satisfying oneself with food itself was the purpose.

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 as the body of Christ as the church (for whom Christ died) was the subject, then in the next chapter that theme continues.

[Cronos]

If our Lord meant this to be symbolic, He has an odd way of showing it. If someone mistakes your words for literal when you mean them to be symbolic, what you certainly do not do is rephrase yourself in a more stringently literal fashion. Yet this is what our Lord does here. Contrast this with our Lord's behavior in Matthew 16:11, when the disciples take His words about bread literally when He only meant it figuratively (""How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees") or in John 11:13-14 ("Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that He was speaking of literal sleep. Then therefore Jesus said to them plainly: "Lazarus is dead"). In each case, the disciples think Jesus is speaking literally when He is actually speaking figuratively, and to ensure that He is not misunderstood by His followers, Christ clarifies Himself. Note how differently He behaves in John 6: The people are scandalized by what appears to be a very shocking statement of literal truth, and far from dissuade them from this opinion, our Lord goes out of His way to state the truth even more literally and bluntly!

This is demonstrated more plainly in the verb Jesus choose for the word eat. Initially, the verb is phago (φάγω), which simply means "to eat", and much like the English word, can have a variety of meanings. I can eat something literally. I can "eat something up" as a way of expressing delight in it. I can say "eat my dust" to express that I am faster than the person I am saying it to. "Eat your heart out" means to suffer from envy or jealousy while to say I could "eat a horse" simply means I am really hungry. To eat one's words means to be proven wrong about a fact previously asserted, while when I was a kid, Bart Simpson popularized the phrase "eat my shorts", which meant "Get lost." Phago has all the same shades of meaning. Our Lord uses phago in John 6:48-53.

But interestingly enough, in John 6:54 Jesus switches the verb He uses to represent the concept of eating. Instead of the broad, equivocal term phago, He changes to the very pointed term trogon. Trogon (τρώγω), unlike phago, has one very, specific, literal meaning: to gnaw, crunch or chew. It is a univocal term with a single meaning. When our Lord begins to use trogon for "eat" in John 6:54, He is removing the last kernel of doubt from His listeners as to the proper interpretation of His words. The proper English equivalent of trogon would be masticate, which is the scientific term for the act of chewing and is unambiguous.

From John 6:54 on, Christ only uses the word trogon when referring to how believers will "eat" His flesh. A particularly interesting passage in John 6:58, where our Lord uses both phago and trogon together. The passage reads:

"This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eats of this bread shall live for ever."

The verb "eat" is used twice here, once with reference to the Israelites eating the manna, the other to the faithful eating the Body of Christ. In this passage, Jesus uses phago when referring to the Israelites eating manna but again uses trogon when referring to Himself. The meaning is plain; Jesus wants us to understand that we will "eat" His Body in the most literal, direct sense of the word. This is why He uses sarx for flesh and trogon for eat. Had He meant this teaching to be symbolic, it is hard to understand why He would have

[Campion]

Oh, and BTW, I forgot to remind you: just Who was being crucified on the hill at Calvary on the same afternoon that the Passover Lambs were being slaughtered at the Temple?

[Campion]

John 6:27 is another interesting passage. "Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that lasts for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal." -- NASB.

Some (bad) Protestant translations use the phrase "seal of approval", but "of approval" is eisegetical; it's not in the Greek. This is actually a reference to the practice of bread-baking in ancient times. A village would have a communal oven; housewives would bring their loaves of bread to bake, and would impress an identifying seal on top of the loaves so the baker could identify them when they were removed from the oven.

Jesus is saying "I am the true bread come down from heaven; God the Father has put his seal on me so you may know that I am his."

[kinsman redeemer]

What you wrote: The "rightly divided divided Word of God" is your gibberish

Maybe it was a reference to 2 Tim 2:15.

14 Remind them of these things, charging them before the Lord not to strive about words to no profit, to the ruin of the hearers. 15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 16 But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. 17 And their message will spread like cancer.
2 Timothy 2:14-17 NKJV (emphasis added so you can find it)

... not "gibberish", not "dispensationalist nonsense"

And, in fact - the full context of the referenced phrase reveals several other timely and pertinent truths.

(File under things that make you say, "Hmmm...")

[daniel1212]

For the Holy Spirit only and always taught that that spiritual life was obtained by receiving the word of the gospel, and never shows this was by actual physical ingestion of anything

" The Passover Lamb called up -- he wants his life back. Come on, Daniel, the central ritual of the Jewish liturgical year, instituted directly by God, absolutely demanded the "actual physical ingestion" of the lamb. Not a "lamb cookie", not merely remembering the lamb, but no, there's that "actual physical ingestion" thing involved."

" And Passover is absolutely the OT type of salvation. So the Passover Lamb is the type of ... what, exactly? And what does John the Baptist say when he sees the Christ? "Behold, the Lamb of God ..."

Come on Campion, you Catholics typically have a short memory and forget/ignore what refutes you, for you just tried this specious reasoning 13 days ago, mistaking obedience (taking part in the Lord's supper, etc.) as a result of obtaining spiritual life by faith, versus obtaining spiritual life by literally physically ingesting something, as was explained to you. Faith and works go together as cause and effect, as did forgiveness and healing in the case of the palsied man, (Mark 2:1-11) but the latter is not be to confused as being the former.

Thus your objection to "the Holy Spirit only and always taught that that spiritual life was obtained by receiving the word of the gospel, and never shows this was by actual physical ingestion of anything" is simply invalid, as is that of Catholics enlisting John 6:53 in support, and of making the Lord's supper into a sacrifice for sin and spiritual food via the the exclusive ministration of Catholic priests.

Try to remember this next time.

[kinsman redeemer]

We're Catholic I was thinking about this recently. I met a RCC over the weekend. We had a great convo. She has a lot of questions.

I have a question for you: Do you think of yourself FIRST as a Christian or as a Catholic?

You can say, "They're the same!" and run through some "logic" or "evidence" to prove your point...but play along: Which label is more important to you?

[daniel1212]

" And Passover is absolutely the OT type of salvation. So the Passover Lamb is the type of ... what, exactly? And what does John the Baptist say when he sees the Christ? "Behold, the Lamb of God .."

And so you take that literally, with the wool and hoves. And eternal life is literally living water, and the food of Jesus was also literal. (John 4) And the water David said was human blood and thus poured out on the ground unto the Lord, and the Canannites were bread for Israel was literally that. Etc. OK.

[DoodleBob]

Well....it's a bit like some people being ashamed to say they're an America when some loser like the current President* is in the WH.

I am a proud American always, because America transcends whoever is in the Executive, Legislative, or Judicial branches. Even when Reagan or Trump were President, my love of or fidelity for country didn't hinge on them.

The Catholic Church is similar. Just because this Pope or that Cardinal or that layperson or this priest says whatever, that doesn't change the Church that Jesus built. Men are men, and disposed to the evils that men can do. But Jesus and the Church Trimuphant remain as my Guide.

So I'm an American and a Catholic, even if the two current respective executives leave much to be desired.

[daniel1212]

"If our Lord meant this to be symbolic, He has an odd way of showing it. If someone mistakes your words for literal when you mean them to be symbolic, what you certainly do not do is rephrase yourself in a more stringently literal fashion."

Rather, as in other places before this, after testing the hearers with seemingly physical language (birth, water, temple) in order to lead true seekers into spiritual Truth, in John 6 the progression, as explained, to toward the spiritual understanding. As ignored,

Had those carnally-minded Jews in John 6, who were looking for physical food, continued on in seeking the spiritual meaning, then they would understood, "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 "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 6:63)

For just how did Christ "live by the Father"? The answer is that 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." Thus for the Lord Jesus who lived by every word of God and said were are to, (Mt. 4:4) the doing of His will was "meat."

For 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 (which the lost Jews presumed would be needed under a literal meaning), but that His words which transcendent time and space 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) Indeed, "hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness." (Isaiah 55:2)

For as with the rest of John and Scripture, it is faith which obtains spiritual life by believing the gospel. As John esp. makes clear, contrary to consuming flesh. Thus as Peter affirmed, "thou hast the words of eternal life." (John 6:68)

"Trogon (τρώγω), unlike phago, has one very, specific, literal meaning: to gnaw, crunch or chew. It is a univocal term with a single meaning. "

Actually the word is used for simply eating bread, even by Judas, and by common eating even by lost souls in Noah's day!

I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth [trōgō] bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.(John 13:18)

For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, (Matthew 24:38)

Rather desperate, while again, the Holy Spirit only and always taught that that spiritual life was obtained by receiving the word of the gospel, and never shows this was by actual physical ingestion of anything. And the way Christ lived by the Father which He likened to how believers are to live (John 6:53) was by His word, (Mt. 4:4) doing His will, this being His "meat." (John 4:34)

Enough of your plagiarizing prevaricating profuse propaganda.

[daniel1212]

"What does Jesus do? Jesus TRIPLES down that the Eucharist is His flesh "

Your recourse is to simply assert again what has been refuted, and thus no more needs to be said!

[daniel1212]

"you are calling Jesus Absurd??"

That response itself is absurd, being a logical fallacy, presuming the very thing that needs to be proved, that your interpretation is correct, confecting the Lord's supper into a sacrifice for sin and spiritual food via the the exclusive ministration of Catholic priests contrary to the evidence shown.

[daniel1212]

"John 6:27 is another interesting passage. "Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that lasts for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal." -- NASB. Some (bad) Protestant translations use the phrase "seal of approval", but "of approval" is eisegetical; it's not in the Greek. This is actually a reference to the practice of bread-baking in ancient times. A village would have a communal oven; housewives would bring their loaves of bread to bake, and would impress an identifying seal on top of the loaves so the baker could identify them when they were removed from the oven."

Really desperate: the Greek word simply denotes a official seal or "stamp" which is used as such in various places in the NT (like for the tomb, seal of redemption, scroll), but never as pertaining to food. sealed, Rom_15:27-28 (2), 2Co_1:22, Eph_1:13, Eph_4:30, Rev_7:3-8 (15) Joh_3:33, Rev_10:4, Rev_20:3, Rev_22:10 Joh_3:33, Rev_20:3 Mat_27:66

[daniel1212]

"Oh, and BTW, I forgot to remind you: just Who was being crucified on the hill at Calvary on the same afternoon that the Passover Lambs were being slaughtered at the Temple? "

Yes, Jesus is indeed a metaphorical "Lamb" - real manifestly incarnated man, scapegoat and sin offering, whose appearance and testable proprieties corresponded to what He was - "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have" - (Luke 24:39) versus inanimate objects which are said to not even exist, yet manifest and test to be what they appear.

[daniel1212]

"It is this language that arouses murmuring from the Jews about its meaning..Sarx can occasionally mean simply body in a generic sort of way..."

Sarx is used about 15 times in the NT, including in the negative sense in "the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" and as referring to the fallen sinful nature in Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. (Romans 8:12-13)

Meanwhile you are not only posting propaganda but pilfering and while passing it off as your own, unless you just forgot to mention where you copied your pasted polemic from. http://unamsanctamcatholicam.com/apologetics/87-eucharistic-apologetics/240-flesh-in-john-6.html

Regardless, they all have been shown to be specious in the years here and such hardly warrants further reproof.

[kinsman redeemer]

You wrote:

Well....it's a bit like some people being ashamed to say they're an America when some loser like the current President* is in the WH. I am a proud American always, because America transcends whoever is in the Executive, Legislative, or Judicial branches. Even when Reagan or Trump were President, my love of or fidelity for country didn't hinge on them.
The Catholic Church is similar. Just because this Pope or that Cardinal or that layperson or this priest says whatever, that doesn't change the Church that Jesus built. Men are men, and disposed to the evils that men can do. But Jesus and the Church Trimuphant remain as my Guide.
So I'm an American and a Catholic, even if the two current respective executives leave much to be desired.

< ctl-F> Christ*

Nothing Found