Please cross-reference the Last Supper, where Jesus fills in the details about the Bread being His Body.
Also, in John 6, Jesus tells us that the Bread that He will give is His Flesh for the life of the world.
It's not that hard to put the pieces together.
My point is that it is clear that JESUS did use figurative language in this discussion (i.e. I am the Bread of Life).
Obviously, JESUS is not physical bread (i.e. composed of ground cereal grains, moistened, and baked). But JESUS is saying in this passage that, in some way, He is the Bread of Life.
When, later in this same discussion, JESUS says that one must eat His flesh and drink His blood, in order to have everlasting life, the question again arises. Is JESUS using figurative language here also, as He did earlier in the dialogue.
I would agree that this is a valid discussion, however, I would argue that the case for JESUS' use of figurative language, in this instance, is more compelling.
I believe this because ...a.) JESUS' usage of figurative language in this instance would be consistent with His similar usages throughout His ministry (as testified to by the disciple John), as well as earlier in this particular passage.
b.) If the issue of a valid Transustantiation was correct and was central to the issue of Christianity, I would have expected that the Apostles would have been much clearer in their writings that this was so.
c.) Certainly, I would expect that JESUS own words (as recorded by the Apostles), would have been more reflective of the centrality of the teaching (like, say His words were on the issue of belief).
My point is that this is not figurative language. He is truly the Bread of Life.
Obviously, JESUS is not physical bread (i.e. composed of ground cereal grains, moistened, and baked). But JESUS is saying in this passage that, in some way, He is the Bread of Life.
Jesus comes to us physically under the appearance of physical bread. He is truly the Bread we eat to gain Life.
When, later in this same discussion, JESUS says that one must eat His flesh and drink His blood, in order to have everlasting life, the question again arises. Is JESUS using figurative language here also, as He did earlier in the dialogue.
He did not use figurative language earlier.
I would agree that this is a valid discussion, however, I would argue that the case for JESUS' use of figurative language, in this instance, is more compelling.
Only when you don't add in the Last Supper, to decode the meaning. Jesus says I am Bread from Heaven. Jesus says "you must eat my flesh."
Then, at the Supper, He takes the bread and says "this is my body." It all clicks together.
a.) JESUS' usage of figurative language in this instance would be consistent with His similar usages throughout His ministry (as testified to by the disciple John), as well as earlier in this particular passage.
Jesus used non-figurative language in His ministry as well. We must discern which is which. And there is no figurative language earlier in the passage.
If the issue of a valid Transustantiation was correct and was central to the issue of Christianity, I would have expected that the Apostles would have been much clearer in their writings that this was so.
Well, I would think that if salvation was by faith alone that the phrase would appear in the Bible more than the one time when it says salvation is not by faith alone.
Likewise, I woudl think that the principle of "Bible alone" would be made explicit somewhere as well.
I guess we'll have to deal with the fact that the Text is not as clear as we would like it. That's not a problem for me, I'm not the one teachign that it is.
Certainly, I would expect that JESUS own words (as recorded by the Apostles), would have been more reflective of the centrality of the teaching (like, say His words were on the issue of belief).
Why do you seperate the Eucharist from belief? Yes, we need to believe. And when we believe we need to do what He told us. And He told us to do this in His memory.
SD