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

The readings this Sunday feature two “hard sayings,” one on the Eucharist, the other on marriage. One is hard because it defies our sensibilities, the other because it is out-of-season and politically incorrect. This is a long reflection. What I present here is really two separate sermons, but both merit some attention.

The first “hard saying” is Jesus’ insistence that the Eucharist is actually His Body and Blood. He says that we must eat His true Flesh and drink His true Blood as our true food, as our necessary manna to sustain us on our journey through the desert of this life to the Promised Land of Heaven.

We have examined this teaching extensively in previous weeks and it is clear that the Lord is not speaking figuratively or symbolically. His listeners understand Him to be speaking literally; He is insisting that they eat His flesh, really, truly, and substantially. The severe reaction of His listeners can only be explained if they believe that Jesus is speaking literally. The listeners scoff and murmur, but Jesus only doubles down, insisting that unless they gnaw (trogon) on His flesh and devour His blood they have no life in them (cf Jn 6:53-54).

This leads to the crowd’s response: This saying is hard; who can accept it? The Greek word translated here as “hard” is Σκληρός (skleros) and does not mean hard in the sense of being difficult to understand. Rather, it means hard in the sense of being violent, harsh, or stern. It describes a position (or person) that is stubborn and unyielding; it describes something (or someone) that won’t bend or submit.

Despite every protest, Jesus will not back down. He will not qualify what He said or in any way try to minimize its impact. So essential is the food of His Flesh and Blood that He will not even hint that there is some way out of this “hard saying.”

The upshot is that many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. Knowing this and seeing it, Jesus still sticks to His teaching. He poses this question: Do you also want to leave?

The Eucharist remains a “hard saying” because it goes against our senses. Of the five senses, four are utterly deceived, for the Eucharistic elements still look, taste, smell, and feel like bread and wine. Only the sense of hearing is safely believed: “This is my Body … This is my Blood … The Bread that I will give is my flesh.”

Yes, it is hard; will you leave? Maybe you won’t leave, but will your faith in the Eucharist be tepid, the kind of faith that is not devoted? Will you drift away from regular reception of the Eucharist? Where do you stand on this “hard saying”?

How consoled the Lord must have been by Peter’s words: Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God. How joyful He must be hearing your “Amen” each Sunday as you are summoned to faith: “The Body of Christ.” Yes, you stand with Christ.

Sadly, others leave. Only about a quarter of Catholics today go to Mass. Further, many others reject the dogma of the True Presence in the Holy Eucharist even though Jesus paid so dearly to proclaim it to us. In light of the recent scandals and the loss of trust, I am immensely grateful that many of the faithful can look beyond the mess and still find Jesus. He is still here and some live beautifully this old saying: “Don’t leave Jesus because of Judas.”

The second “hard saying” is hard for a different reason: it is (way) out-of-season and politically incorrect. It insists not only on headship within marriage but male headship. The Holy Spirit and the apostles apparently never got the memo that this teaching is a “no go” in our modern, “enlightened” age. Indeed, the text Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord is like a stick in the eye to most moderns. Talk about a hard saying!

There are cultural and worldly notions that underlie the rejection by many Catholics and Christians of the biblical teaching on the headship of the husband. This concept is unpopular in our culture, which usually gets pretty worked up over questions of authority in general, but that is because the worldly notion of authority usually equates it with power, dignity, rights, and being somehow better than someone else.

That is not the biblical view of authority. Consider what Jesus says about authority:

Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority and make their importance felt. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mk 10:41-45).

Jesus sets aside the worldly notion of authority, wherein those in authority wield their power by “lording it over” others using fear and the trappings of power. In the Christian setting there is authority (there must be), but it exists for service.

Consider a classroom teacher. She has authority; she must, so that she can unify and keep order. However, she has that authority in order to serve the children, not to berate them and revel in her power over them. The same is true for a police officer, who has authority not for his own sake but for ours, so that he can protect us and preserve order.

Having authority in a Christian setting does not make one person better than another, for authority is always exercised among equals. Our greatest dignity is to be a child of God, and none of us is more so just because we hold a position of authority.

Worldly notions of authority do affect Christians. Many harbor resentments against authority because they think of it in worldly ways. Further, many who have authority (and most of us have some authority in some capacity) can fall prey to these worldly notions and abuse their leadership role.

The key to understanding the authority of a husband and father within the home is to set aside worldly notions of authority and see the teaching in the light of the Christian understanding of authority: that it exists for love and service, to unite and preserve.

With that in mind, let’s turn to the highly unpopular and politically incorrect notion of wives being submissive to their husbands. The teaching is found in several places in the New Testament: Ephesians 5:22ff (today’s text); Col 3:18; Titus 2:5; and 1 Peter 3:1. In all these texts, the wording is quite similar: wives are to be submissive to, that is under the authority of, their husbands. In each case, however, the teaching is balanced by an exhortation that the husband is to love and be considerate of his wife.

The most well-known of these passages is today’s text from Ephesians 5: Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is Head of the Church … so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything (Eph 5:20-21, 23).

This may grate on your nerves, but don’t just dismiss what God teaches here. One of the great dangers of this passage is that it is so startling to modern ears that many people just tune out after the first line and miss the rest of what God has to say. There is text that follows. And before men gloat over the first part of the passage, or women react to it with anger or sadness, they should pay attention to the rest of the text, which spells out the duties of a husband.

You see, if you’re going to be the head of the household there are certain requirements that must be met. God is not playing around here or choosing sides. He has a comprehensive plan for husbands that is demanding; it requires them to curb any notions that authority is about power and to remember that, for a Christian, authority is always given so that the one who has it may serve. Before we look at submission we might do well to look at the requirements for the husband:

Love your wife – Pay attention, men! Don’t just tolerate your wife. Don’t just bring home a paycheck. Don’t just love her in some intellectual sort of way. Love your wife with all your heart. Beg God for the grace to love your wife tenderly, powerfully, and unconditionally. Do you hear what God says? Love your wife! He goes on to tell husbands to love their wives in three ways: passionately, with a purifying love, and with a providing love.

Passionate love – The text says that a man is to love his wife even as Christ loved the Church and handed himself over for her. The Greek word παραδίδωμι (paradidomi), translated here as “handed over,” always refers in the New Testament to Jesus’ crucifixion. Husbands, are you willing to give your life for your wife and children? Are you willing to die to yourself and give your life as a daily sacrifice for them? God instructs you to love your wife (and children) with the same kind of love He has for His Bride, the Church. That kind of love is summed up in the cross. Love your wife passionately. Be willing to suffer for her. Be willing to make sacrifices for her and for your children.

Purifying love – The text says of Christ (and of the husband who is to imitate Him) that He wills to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. Now a husband cannot sanctify his wife in the same way that God can, but what he is called to do is to help his wife and children grow in their relationship with Jesus Christ. First, he is to be himself under God’s authority, thus making it easier for his wife and children to live out their baptismal commitments. He ought to be a spiritual leader in his home, praying with his wife and children, reading scripture, and seeing to it that his home is a place where God is loved and obeyed, first of all by him. His wife should not have to drag him to Mass. He should willingly help her to grow in holiness and pray with her every day. He should become more holy himself as well, thus making it easier for his wife to live the Christian life. He should be the first teacher of his children, along with his wife, in the ways of faith. In too many American homes, the man does not act as the spiritual leader of his household. If anyone at all is raising up the children in the Lord, it is usually the wife. Scripture has in mind that the husband and father should be the spiritual leader to his wife and children. Scripture says, Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord (Eph 6:4). Fathers and husbands need to step up and not leave all the burden on their wives.

Providing love – So also husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it. Husbands, take care of your wife in her needs. She needs more than food, clothing, and shelter. These days, she can get a lot of that for herself. What she needs more is your love, understanding, and appreciation. She needs for you to be a good listener. She needs an attentive husband who is present to her. Like any human being, she needs reassurance and affirmation. Tell her of your love and appreciation; don’t just assume that she knows. Show care for your wife; attend to her needs just as you do instinctively for your own. Encourage her with the children. Confirm her authority over them and teach them to respect their mother. Show her providing love by taking up your proper role and duty as a father who is involved with his children. That is what God is teaching here.

So, scripture does teach that a wife should submit to her husband, but what kind of husband does Scripture have in mind? A husband who really loves his wife, who is a servant-leader, who makes sacrifices for his wife, who is prayerful and spiritual, who submits to God’s authority, and who cares deeply for his wife and her needs. The same God who teaches submission (and He does) also clearly teaches these things for the husband. The teaching must be taken in its entirety, but all that said, there is a teaching on wives submitting (properly understood) to their husbands.

There is just no way around it. No matter how much the modern age wants to insist that there doesn’t need to be headship, there does. Every organization needs a head. Consider your own body. With two heads you’d be a freak; with no head you’d be dead. The members of your body need a head to unify the parts, otherwise there would be disunity, decay, and decay. Every organization needs headship. It needs an ultimate decision maker, a person to whom all look when consensus on a significant issue cannot be reached. The Protestants have tried to have a “Church” without a head, without a Pope, and behold the division. Even this country, which we like to call a “democracy,” is not actually a pure democracy. There are legislators, judges, law enforcers, and many other people and mechanisms that exercise local, state, federal, and final headship and authority.

Thus, in a family, where consensus and compromise may often win the day, there nevertheless must be a head, a final decider to whom all look and submit, in order to resolve conflicts that cannot otherwise be worked out. Scripture assigns this task to the husband and father. Headship just has to be, but remember to shed your worldly notions of it when considering the teaching of Scripture. Headship (authority) is for love and service; it is for unity and preservation not for power, prestige, or superiority.

I think it's simple - Jesus said it so and repeated it three times

So we must believe it

if we read John 6 - just the words of Jesus recorded

he said to Philip, “Where can we buy enough food for them to eat?”
Philip answered him, “Two hundred days’ wages[e] worth of food would not be enough for each of them to have a little [bit].”
Jesus said, “Have the people recline.”
He gave thanks, and distributed them to those who were reclining, and also as much of the fish as they wanted.

they saw Jesus walking on the sea[k] and coming near the boat, and they began to be afraid. 20 But he said to them, “It is I.[l] Do not be afraid.”

“Amen, amen, I say to you, you are looking for me not because you saw signs but because you ate the loaves and were filled. 27 Do not work for food that perishes but for the food that endures for eternal life,[o] which the Son of Man will give you. For on him the Father, God, has set his seal.”

“This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent.”

, “Amen, amen, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

“I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst. 36 But I told you that although you have seen [me], you do not believe. 37 Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me, 38 because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me. 39 And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it [on] the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him [on] the last day.”

“Stop murmuring[r] among yourselves. 44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him, and I will raise him on the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets:

‘They shall all be taught by God.’

Everyone who listens to my Father and learns from him comes to me. 46 Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47 Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; 50 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. 51 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.”

“Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54 Whoever eats[s] my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”

“Does this shock you? 62 What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?[u] 63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh[v] is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.”
“For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”

“Did I not choose you twelve? Yet is not one of you a devil?” 71 He was referring to Judas, son of Simon the Iscariot; it was he who would betray him, one of the Twelve.

Jesus’ deeds and words are clear

1. God will feed the multitudes
2. I am God - I can walk on water
3. Do not work for food that perishes but for the food that endures for eternal life,[o] which the Son of Man will give you
4. This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent
5. my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.
6. I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger,
7. I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
8. unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54 Whoever eats[s] my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

===== +++ =======

He is crystal clear - and He emphasizes that this is not an allegory, but repeats thrice that this is what you are to do - eat of His Body and drink of His blood

only folks like you who believe in 19th century innovations like dispensationalism etc. deny Christ's very words

-- if you read in the Bible, starting from John 6:30, we read

30 So they asked him, What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?
31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
32 Jesus said to them, Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.
34 Sir, they said, always give us this bread.
35 Then Jesus declared, I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.
36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.

They asked Him for a sign, saying that Moses gave them manna in the desert. If Jesus (according to them) was aspiring to the level of Moses, He should do something as big as that.

and Jesus says something strange to them -- He says Moses didn't give you bread, My father did, and bread that comes down from heaven. Then He says that HE is the bread of life, HE is the manna -- and manna was to be eaten.

The people around Him made the same mistake you did, which is to think he was speaking as a metaphor.

Yet Jesus REPEATED the same thing, saying

48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died.
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

And now the crowd is openly rebellious saying How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
And

53 Jesus said to them, Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.

Note -- Jesus doesn't clear up the Metaphor, like he did in Matt. 16:512

5 When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread.
6 Be careful, Jesus said to them. Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
7 They discussed this among themselves and said, It is because we didnt bring any bread.
8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread?
9 Do you still not understand? Dont you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
11 How is it you dont understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

So, Jesus DOES indicate when it is a metaphor and when it isn't.
In this case, look at the reaction of his DISCIPLES, people who had heard his teachings for so long and followed him

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?...

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

You cannot say that this was just bread and wine of that this is a metphor for coming and having faith in the Lord or some kind of metphor for believing in Christ because of the reaction of the Jews and the very language -- to eat one's flesh and drink the blood means to do violence on some one. You see it even in Hindi where a threat is "Mein tera Khoon pie jaongaa" or "I will drink your blood" -- and this is among vegetarians! To drink a persons blood means a serious threat of injury.So, if you believe that this was just a metphor, you mean to say that Christ is rewarding people for crucifying Him?!! That's nonsensical, sorry.

You cannot even say it was a metaphor by incorreclty comparing it to John 10:9 (I am the gate/doorway) or John 15:1 (I am the true vine) is because this is not referenced in the entire verse in the same way as John 6 which shows the entire incident from start to finish of Jesus saying His body is to be eaten, repeating it and seeing his disciples go and not correcting them (as he did in Matthew 16).

Even in the literal sense -- Christ says he is the gateway to heaven and the vine such that we get nourishment with him as the connecting path. But John 6 is much much more than mere symbolism as He categorically states that "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).

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 youthey 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.

Just using human logic as Calvinist thought does, without God's blessings behind it fails in grace.John 6:63 does not refer to Jesus's statement of his own flesh, if you read in context but refers to using human logic instead of dwelling on God's words.

And, all of this 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.

Finally, the Earliest Christians also said any consideration of this as just a metaphor was false -- Ignature of Antioch (disciple of Apotle John) wrote in AD 110 wrote about heretics who abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (Letter to the SMyrnaens). The earliest Christians beleived this to be the ACTUAL body of Christ. Why, they were also accused by pagans of being cannibals and Justin MArtyr had to write a defence to the Emperor saying "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus"

in view of this overwhelming evidence from scripture and supplemented by the practise and belief of the earliest Christians, we can only say that there IS a real presence in the Eucharist. Martin Luther too believed it -- he said that Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. --> only Calvin/Zwingli turned around what Christ had said

as our Protestant Lutheran brethren say From the Lutheran LCMS.org website

All three accounts of the institution of the Lord's Supper in the Gospels (Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:14-23) explicitly state that Jesus took BREAD, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to his disciples saying, "Take, eat; this [i.e., this BREAD, which I have just blessed and broken and am now giving to you] is my body." Jesus uses similar language in referring to "the cup" (of wine) as "his blood."...
Perhaps the most explicit expression of this truth, however, is found in 1 Cor. 10:16-17, where Paul writes: "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread."
Paul clearly says here that we all "partake" of "BREAD" when we receive the Lord's Supper--even as we also partake of and "participate in" the true body of Christ. And he says that we all "partake" of the wine (the cup), even as we also partake of the true blood of Christ.
Similarly, in 1 Cor. 11:26, Paul says: "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." Paul expressly states here ........................that those who eat this bread and drink this cup are also partaking of the true body and blood of Christ.
So "real" is this participation in Christ's body and blood, in fact, that (according to Paul) those who partake of the bread and wine "in an unworthy manner" are actually guilty of "profaning the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:27). (Partaking of the Lord's Supper "in a worthy manner," of course, is not something that we "do" or "accomplish" on the basis of our "personal holiness" or "good works." It means receiving God's free and gracious gifts of life and forgiveness offered in the Lord's Supper in true repentance produced by the work of the Spirit through God's Law and in true faith in Christ and his promises produced by God's Spirit through the Gospel).

"This leads to the crowd’s response: This saying is hard; who can accept it?...He will not qualify what He said"

Actually rather, than the Lord doubling down on a literal understanding, the Lord told them He would not even be on earth (and thus personally provide this flesh ), and that as far as food goes (which they presumed He was speaking of), the flesh profits nothing for it is the Spirit that gives life thru His word which must be received, which is the only understanding that conforms to John the Scriptures that follow:

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. (John 6:60-64)

"Some of you that believe not" were those carnally minded Jews who were not born of the Spirit by believing the gospel, but as protoCatholics were governed by their natural mind, and ignore or dismiss the abundant use of metaphorical language in Scripture regarding food. And which is includes David plainly stating that water was human blood, and thus he would not drink it but poured it out unto the Lord. (2 Samuel 23:16-17) And that the Cannanites were "meat" for Israel, etc. with the use of metaphorical language in John. In John 1, the Lord is called the "Word became flesh," as representing Truth being incarnated, and "the Lamb of God" even though He took on humanity.

Then in Jn. 2:19,20, the Lord referred to Himself as the temple but 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 unbelieving 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.

In Jn. 3:3, the Lord referred to spiritual birth in such an way that its was misunderstood as physical, so 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) 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) thereby giving Nicodemus a clue to figure it out, inviting and requiring seeking, rather than making it very clear. And which requires more revelation 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)

And 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)

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, and that one "lives by" (upon) God's word as well, having first by repentant faith in the gospel and then by effectually feeding upon the word of God and thus obeying it. 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" (1Co. 3:2; Heb. 5:13; 1Pt. 2:2) by which believers are "nourished" (1Tim. 4:6) and built up, and with the preaching of which being the primary active function of pastors. (Acts 20:32) Thanks be to God.

The Lord - btw, we also know that Jesus is God no matter what you may say - the Lord God Jesus Christ tripled down on the fact that this was the REAL body of Christ

"Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst. But I told you that although you have seen (me), you do not believe. Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me, because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me. And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it (on) the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him (on) the last day."

It is this language that arouses murmuring from the Jews about its meaning, and rightfully so; at this point, our Lord is using language that is somewhat symbolic and could be interpreted any number of ways. He has yet to clarify His meaning. Our Lord will go on to clarify His statement with an even more shocking assertion:

"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." (John 6:51)

This is the first time our Lord mentions His flesh in this discourse, and the word He uses for "flesh" is sarx (σάρξ).

This word sarx is typically used to denote real, physical flesh. Strong's Concordance (a Protestant book, remember), defines sarx as, "flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beasts."

Sarx can occasionally mean simply body in a generic sort of way, but the Greek has another word for body: soma. The word soma is used for body in the Synoptic Gospels at the Last Supper, as well as in 1 Corinthians 10. Yet here, when the Jews are looking for our Lord to clarify His meaning on how He is the Bread of Life, He chooses the word sarx, which is a more univocal term and denotes physical flesh.

Our Lord is insisting on a literal interpretation.

"Note -- Jesus doesn't clear up the Metaphor, like he did in Matt. 16:512,,n this case, look at the reaction of his DISCIPLES, people who had heard his teachings for so long and followed him 60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?... 66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. You cannot say that this was just bread and wine of that this is a metphor for coming and having faith in the Lord or some kind of metphor for believing in Christ because of the reaction of the Jews and the very language"

Wrong, as you must ignoring what I just showed you, and thus jump from v. 60 to 66! Meanwhile, as explained, you not only do not take the words of consecration literally, but as you have been shown, only the metaphorical understanding easily conflates with Scripture, and the metaphysical Cath contrivance is not what the NT church manifestly believed.

1. Taken literally, did the flesh and blood that the Lord said to eat at the last supper refer to His body which was to be crucified (broken) and the blood that was to be shed? Yes. 2. Was the incarnated and crucified body and blood of Christ that which appeared (along with other evidences of literal physicality) as an incarnated manifestly physical body, or as an inanimate object?

3. Does Scripture emphasize the manifestly physical body of Christ in countering an idea of Christ that was not materially, physically what He appeared and otherwise manifested Himself to be? Yes.

4. Is the body of your Eucharistic Christ that which is manifest as the incarnated physical body of Christ, or is that which appears (along with other evidences of literal physicality) to be inanimate objects, while it is claimed to be something different than was it materially appears to be?

5. Is the book of Acts and the rest of the NT the only wholly inspired substantive record of how the NT church understood the gospels? Yes.

Does the book of Acts and the rest of the NT show that:

6. Literally physically consuming anything ever a means of obtaining spiritual life (versus expressing faith) in Scripture aside from the interpretation of John 6?

7.Is spiritual life within oneself obtained by taking part in the Lord's supper, (cf. John 6:53) or by believing the word of the gospel that was preached, resulting in regeneration? (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13)

8. Is conducting the Lord's supper described as a primary unique function of a separate class of believers like as with Jewish priests, and thus for whom the distinctive word for such is distinctively used?

9. Is the primary active function of NT pastors that of changing bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ and offering it as a sacrifice for sins and feeding the flock thereby? Or is the word of God what is referred to as spiritual food, as "milk" (1Pt. 2:2) and "meat" Heb. 5:12-14 by which one is nourished (1Tim. 4:6) and built up, (Acts 20:32) by which word (Scriptures) man is to live by, (Mt. 4:4) and who are to let the word of God dwell in them richly, and thereby teach others, (Col. 3:16) as Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) doing His will being His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34) and with the preaching of it the evident means of feeding the flock? (Acts 20:28; cf. 2 Timothy 4:2)

10. Is the Lord''s supper manifestly mentioned in the epistles except for one (besides the cursory reference in Jude 1:12)?

11. In 1 Corinthians 10:16-22 did the pagans have communion with devils by consuming their flesh or by taking part in the dedicatory feasts?

12. Is the church described as one bread therein in communion with Christ via the Lord's supper?

13. Contextually, why did Paul state that the Corinthians were not actually coming together to eat the Lord supper in 1 Corinthians 11:20-22?

14. Is "not discerning the body" in 1 Corinthians 11:29 contextually referring to the nature of the elements consumed, or the church as the bod of Christ not being recognized as such due to their not treating members of it as souls who were bought by His sinless shed blood?

15. What did Paul say they did when taking part in the Lord's supper? By interpreting the bread and wine as themselves being the body of the Lord or that they were showing/declaring the Lord's death by sharing in the communal meal as one body?

16. What was the solution to the problem whereby the Corinthians were not coming together to eat the Lord's supper, not discerning the Lord's body? A teaching on the bread and wine themselves being the Lord's body or that they needed to stop eating separately (and thus not come hungry)?

17. In the Old Testament is literally consuming human flesh and or blood affirmed or set forth negatively?

18. Is metaphorically consuming human flesh ever set forth positively except by metaphor?

19. Is water ever plainly called and treated as human blood? 20. Is consuming the word referred to as literal or spiritually?

That should be enough to deal with. See The Lord's Supper here for answers, by the grace of God.

The Lord - btw, we also know that Jesus is God no matter what you may say - the Lord God Jesus Christ tripled down on the fact that this was the REAL body of Christ "Our Lord is insisting on a literal interpretation."

Absurd, and not any more than the Lord insisted on a literal interpretation of being the lamb of God, and living water, or of destroying the temple, and is no more literal than Jesus bread and living by the Father meaning by actually consuming and ignores what I already showed you. So here it is again for stubborn possessed provocative prevaricating propagandists.

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)

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.