A Tale of Two Eucharists

  • Thread starter Thread starter Socrates4Jesus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Socrates, your problem comes from misunderstanding the use of the word “remembrance”. Do a study on the Hebrew word “zikkaron”. During their celebrations such as passover, which of course directly correlates to the Eucharist, the Jews believe the past truly becomes present. That is what Jesus meant by remembrance, and that’s what his apostles (Jews themselves) understood him to mean.

Here’s an excerpt from a website bringyou.to/apologetics/p39.htm I just found, but you could find several more by googling “zikkaron”.

So the point is that the Eucharist is a zikkaron event. The past is made present and we are brought to cavalry. That’s why we celebrate mass over and over again. Not to recrucify Jesus or because his sacrifice needs to be performed repeatedly, but because we ourselves are able to participate in the same sacrifice and receive its grace repeatedly.
Aaron:

I’m not sure why you believe Jesus used that Hebrew word. The New Testament was originally written in a form of Greek, and the passage to which you referred is translated to English this way:

And he took bread, and gave thanks, and broke it, and gave it unto them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. This do in remembrance of me.”*(Luke 22:19)*The English word remembrance in this verse is translated from the Greek word *anamnesis, *which means a commemoration or a memorial. My lexicon has this to say of anamnesis:

… as applied to the Lord’s Supper. In remembrance of Me means that the participant may remember Christ and the expiatory sacrifice of His death. The memory of the greatness of the sacrifice should cause the believer to abstain from sin.
 
Well, People who have the darkest tans usually don’t live where there is 4 feet of snow on the ground. 😃
LOL!

😃

And what of worshiping the sun or moon? Is it what Catholics should do?
 
If the Manna in the desert(a prefigure of the Eucharist), that feed the Israelites, on their journey to the promised land was indeed real food, which the Scriptures tell us is true, doesn’t it seem that we would be fed with “real food” that sustains us on our journey to the promised land(read heaven here!)
Good question, MJ! Please allow me to think about it and get back to you. (Also, please remind me if i forget, as i sometimes do.)

👍
 
Good question. I suppose the answer might be found by considering the answer to this question:

In the United States, one might see two symbolic rituals take place:

  1. *]Reciting the pledge of allegiance to the United States flag
    *]Taking a leak on, dragging through the mud, and burning the United States flag
    Do you think either of these acts are offensive to some? If so, which one offends and why?

    🤷

  1. People find it offensive.
    1. Some people find one offensive because it shows an allegiance to a secular government, and oaths should only be made to God.
    2. Some people find this offensive because they are trampling on everything the country stands for, the people that fight and died for the country and what-not.
    But there are two things in the context of the Eucharist that must be considered.

    a) In John 6, the last two “eat my flesh” commands, literally mean “gnaw on the flesh of”… “grind on with your teeth”. They are really extreme in their language. If this kind of symbolic “eating of flesh” is what Jesus meant, then He is using this as “you must loathe and revile me in order to have eternal life” for that it what the symbolic interpretation of Jesus’ words would have meant to the ancient Jew. This is the conundrum the ancient Jews had when Jesus was speaking.
    • Do I literally have to eat this man’s flesh to gain eternal life?!? Oooohhh!!!
    • Or do I literally have to hate and revile this man in order to gain eternal life?!?
    Do you see now why some of them walked away.

    b) If God is telling us that you must discern the Body (and Blood) while eating the host, but only in a symbolic way, then God is placing us in danger of falling into idolatry. Didn’t God just spend about 1400 years trying to strip the Israelites from the abomination of Idolatry?
 
You mention two of the I AM statements our Lord made about Himself:
“I am the vine; you are the branches.” (John 15:5)

and

“I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep.” (John 10:7)

Please tell me, how do these make metaphorical sense to you? I mean to ask, what did Jesus mean by comparing Himself to a grape vine and to a gate to a sheep pen?
The vine and branches would have been a vivid analogy to the agrarian Jews. Israel had often been called a vine or a vineyard by the prophets, so this wasn’t knew territory for the prophet Jesus to discuss. They knew that all the nutrients and water flowed through the vine - all the necessities of life. If they were not a part of the vine, if they rejected His teachings, then they would not “live”.

The gate for the sheep is another easy one for the Jews. Many of the ancient prophets called the Israelites sheep. The leaders of Israel were the shepherds. The sheep had been scattered during the Diaspora. God had promised to send a new Shepherd (himself) to restore the sheep to the flock. When sheep were put into a pen they had to pass through the gate to enter the pen. The only entrance to the pen was through the gate (at least for the sheep, this was the only means of entrance). Jesus, the gatekeeper would only allow His sheep to enter the pen. One must be a disciple of Christ to enter the flock, so to speak.

Again, this is why the “Bread of Life” discussion would have been so hard on the Jews. They knew how sacriligious it was to eat of another’s flesh and drink any animals blood, and yet, here is this great prophet, this wonderful miracle maker, telling them that this is exactly what they must do. Either that or hate and revile Him as I discussed in my previous post.

This “I am” statement is a hard teaching, and hence, many that were implacable, walked away.

Peter certainly didn’t understand what Jesus meant, but this was one of his “Faith Moments”. “Lord, to whom else should we turn. For you alone have the words of Eternal Life” (paraphrasing).

Sometimes, I think Peter was bi-polar and this was one of his lucid moments. 😉
 
John 6:51-58 is to be interpreted literally and is one of the strongest passages that testify to the Real Presence in the Eucharist. In the Gospel of John, there is a certain pattern that helps to shed light on John 6. Whenever Jesus makes an ambiguous statement, it is usually followed by a misunderstanding/question, and this, in turn, is followed by a clarification either by Jesus or the Evangelist. So, this is the basic outline of this pattern:
  1. **Ambiguous Statement by Jesus **
  2. Misunderstanding/ Question
  3. Clarification
Now here are some examples from the Gospel of John:

John 2:19-21

Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and you will raise it up in three days? But He was speaking of the temple of His body."

John 3:3-5

Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?Jesus answered, "Truly Truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

John 4:32-34

"But He said to them, “I have food to eat that you do not know about.” So the disciples were saying to one another, 'no one brought Him anything to eat, did he? Jesus said to them, " My Food is to do the will of Him who sent me and to accomplish His work."

John 8:31-34

So Jesus was saying to those Jews who believed in Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” They answered Him, "We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, “You will become free.” Jesus answered them, "Truly, Truly I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.

Now let’s look at John 6:51-53 and see if it fits the Ambiguous Statement/Question/Clarification pattern:

"I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh." Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat? So Jesus said to them, 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 yourselves.

So, following the established pattern, verse 53 is a clarification of verses 51-52. If he were merely speaking figuratively, then we would have expected the literal meaning of the “figurative” langauge he used, as it happens in the verses I gave above and in many other places in the Bible. Instead, what we see in verse 53 is a reaffirmation of what the Jews understood Jesus to mean. So the clarification is that Jesus was speaking literally, not figuratively. If he were speaking figuratively, He would have indicated that in verse 53.

God Bless,
Michael
 
The point of the above post is that when Jesus is speaking figuratively, either Jesus Himself or the Gospel writer explains what He means. He often uses progressive revelation as a teaching method, going from ambiguity to greater clarity. There are numerous examples of this in the 4 Gospels. Here are some more:

John 4:10-14

**10Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.”
11She said to Him, “Sir, You have nothing to draw with and the well is deep; where then do You get that living water?
12"You are not greater than our father Jacob, are You, who gave us the well, and drank of it himself and his sons and his cattle?”
13Jesus answered and said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again;
14but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.” **

John 8:56-58

**56"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad."
57So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” 58Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” **

John 10:1-10

**1"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is a thief and a robber.
2"But he who enters by the door is a shepherd of the sheep.
3"To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.
4"When he puts forth all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice.
5"A stranger they simply will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers."
6This figure of speech Jesus spoke to them, but they did not understand what those things were which He had been saying to them.
7So Jesus said to them again, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.
8"All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them.
9"I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.
10"The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. **

John 7:38-39

38"He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.’"
39But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive


John 12:32-33

**32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.” 33 This He said, signifying by what death He would die. **

John 21:18-19

**18 Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish.” 19 This He spoke, signifying by what death he would glorify God. **

Matthew 16:6-12

6 Then Jesus said to them, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.” 7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, “It is because we have taken no bread.”
8 But Jesus, being aware of it, said to them, “O you of little faith, why do you reason among yourselves because you have brought no bread?[a] 9 Do you not yet understand, or remember the five loaves of the five thousand and how many baskets you took up? 10 Nor the seven loaves of the four thousand and how many large baskets you took up? 11 How is it you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread?—but to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.


This does not happen in John 6.

God Bless,
Michael
 
Here are a couple of more examples:

John 8:21-24

**21Then He said again to them, “I go away, and you will seek Me, and will die in your sin; where I am going, you cannot come.”
22So the Jews were saying, “Surely He will not kill Himself, will He, since He says, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come’?”
23And He was saying to them, “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.
24"Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” **

John 8:26-29

**26"I have many things to speak and to judge concerning you, but He who sent Me is true; and the things which I heard from Him, these I speak to the world."
27They did not realize that He had been speaking to them about the Father.
28 So Jesus said, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me.
29"And He who sent Me is with Me; He has not left Me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to Him.” **

God Bless,
Michael
 
John 6:63

63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life

This verse does not mean that Jesus was speaking figuratively. The word “Spirit” is used to refer to those things that pertain to God and the word “flesh” refers to those things that pertain to sin. We constantly see the Spirit vs. flesh construct thorughout the Bible:

Galatians 5:16

16 I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. 17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish.

Romans 8:5-6

5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace

So what Jesus meant in John 6:63 was not that he was speaking figuratively. Rather, that His words originate from God (i.e. Spirit) and they are life giving (i.e. life). He said this in response to the rejection of His teaching. Those who were “carnally minded” rejected His teaching, while those who were “spiritually minded” accepted it. If one is in the flesh, one cannot accept His words because the flesh wars against the Spirit, effectively cutting off the person from the source of life. Consequently, the flesh profits nothing because its end is death. Those who are in the Spirit receive life (Romans 8:6). To be “carnally minded” does not mean to be literally minded. It means to have a mind that is in rebellion against God. Those who were in such a state did not accept Jesus’s words.

God Bless,
Michael
 
When Jesus said that He would give His flesh for the life of the world, the Jews reponded (John 6:52):

**52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?” **

This is similar to an earlier response to Jesus’s claim that He is the Bread that came down from heaven (John 6:41-42):

**41 The Jews then complained about Him, because He said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” 42 And they said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He says, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” **

In the case of the latter, did the Jews understand Jesus correctly, namely, that He literally came down from heaven? They did! Jesus literally - not figuratively - came down from heaven. This is one instance where Jesus was speaking literally and the Jews understood Him to be speaking literally. The other example comes a couple of verses later in John 6. Jesus makes a statement that the Jews take literally and He reaffirms that their basic understanding of what He said is correct (John 6:51-58). Eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood is as literal as His coming down from Heaven. His return to Heaven (ascension) will reaffirm the truths of His origin and of what He said of His flesh and blood. That’s why He responds (John 6:61-62):

61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before?

His ascension will vindicate His words and thus prove that the words He spoke are spirit and life, that is, that they are of God and are life-giving.

God bless,
Michael
 
Some have argued that John 6:51-58 is about faith and that Jesus gives the explanation of the “metaphor” prior to actually using the metaphor. However, this goes against Jesus’s established teaching methods. Whenever Jesus explains a parable, the explanation usually comes after he has given the parable, such as in the case of the parables of the sower and the wheat and the tares. If John 6:51-58 were talking about faith, then there would be no controversy because he just talked about faith in v.v. 29 -35. And as I have shown in two other posts, the established pattern in Jesus’s method of teaching/preaching is one of progressive revelation. He moves from ambiguity to greater clarity, not from clarity to greater ambiguity. So he would not start with the literal meaning first (i.e. faith) and then use the figure, as occurs in John 6. Also, when He does use figurative language difficult to understand, either He or the evangelist explains what He means. Moreover, John 6:56 talks about “abiding.”

56"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

The Greek word translated “abiding” is “meno,” which means to continue, stay, remain, etc. Thus the assumption is that the person who abides in Christ has already come to faith in Him and has already been incorporated into Christ. Hence, abiding occurs subsequent to coming to Christ in faith and incorporation. What is being decribed here is an act rooted in faith, but not identical to faith.

John 15:3-4
**3"You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
4"Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me. **

1 John 2:28

28Now, little children, abide in Him, so that when He appears, we may have confidence and not shrink away from Him in shame at His coming.

So eating the Body of Christ and drinking His Blood is a means of abiding in Christ. Thus it was most appropriate for Him to start with faith in chapter 6 and then move to abiding in Christ through the Eucharist because coming to faith precedes abiding and one must believe* first *before partaking of the Eucharist. Only those who abide in Christ will continue to have eternal life and will be raised on the last day.

John 15:4-6

**4"Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.
5"I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.
6"If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned. **

God Bless,
Michael
 
40.png
mikeledes:
John 6:51-58 is to be interpreted literally and is one of the strongest passages that testify to the Real Presence in the Eucharist. In the Gospel of John, there is a certain pattern that helps to shed light on John 6. Whenever Jesus makes an ambiguous statement, it is usually followed by a misunderstanding/question, and this, in turn, is followed by a clarification either by Jesus or the Evangelist. So, this is the basic outline of this pattern:
  1. Ambiguous Statement by Jesus
  2. Misunderstanding/ Question
  3. Clarification
The point of the above post is that when Jesus is speaking figuratively, either Jesus Himself or the Gospel writer explains what He means
.
**Matthew 18:8-9

“If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire.

“If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell.**There is no explanation offered to the above statements by either Jesus, or the Gospel writer; therefore, if you really believe what **your free-spirited, and creative hermeneutic states,
you should be handless, footless, and eyeless. **🙂
 
Matthew 18:8-9

“If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire.

“If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell.There is no explanation offered to the above statements by either Jesus, or the Gospel writer; therefore, if you really believe what your free-spirited, and creative hermeneutic states,
you should be handless, footless, and eyeless. 🙂
Hello again, my friend! :hug3:

Okay, so let’s see my actual hermeneutic first:
  1. Ambiguous Statement
  2. Misunderstanding/ Question
  3. Clarification
Example of my “free-spirited and creative” hermeneutic, besides the ones I’ve already given:

Matthew 15:11, 15-20

**11"It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man." **
**15Peter said to Him, “Explain the parable to us.” **
16Jesus said, "Are you still lacking in understanding also?
17"Do you not understand that everything that goes into the mouth passes into the stomach, and is eliminated?
18"But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man.
19"For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.
20"These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man."


Regarding Matthew 18:8-9, there were no objections raised that leads to clarification, no questions asked that needed answers. And we automatically know - as your reaction illustrates - that Jesus could not be speaking literally. Regarding John 6, we have passages that reaffirm what Jesus said:

1 Corinthians 7:16

16Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?

God Bless,
Michael
 
Matthew 18:8-9

“If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire.

“If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell.There is no explanation offered to the above statements by either Jesus, or the Gospel writer; therefore, if you really believe what your free-spirited, and creative hermeneutic states*,
  • you should be handless, footless, and eyeless. 🙂
Are you sure anybody misunderstood Him. Doesn’t Michael’s detailed analysis show that Jesus or the author corrected the crowds only when they showed a misunderstanding?

This hyperbole seems to be evident to even the simplest Jew.
 
40.png
mikeledes:
Okay, so let’s see my actual hermeneutic first:
  1. Ambiguous Statement
  2. Misunderstanding/ Question
  3. Clarification
Regarding Matthew 18:8-9, there were no objections raised that leads to clarification, no questions asked that needed answers. And we automatically know - as your reaction illustrates - that Jesus could not be speaking literally.
NotWorthy said:
Doesn’t Michael’s detailed analysis show that Jesus or the author corrected the crowds only when they showed a misunderstanding?

In the post immediately subsequent to Mike’s hermeneutic, he states:
The point of the above post is that when Jesus is speaking figuratively, either Jesus Himself or the Gospel writer explains what He means…
Those who were listening to Jesus in Jn 6 were constantly “grumbling and arguing”
about what He was saying thereby indicating that they were "objecting to" or "misunderstanding what" Jesus was saying.

Jesus was continually expanding, and explaining what He was saying from the beginning of
the chapter.

Therefore, the point of the hermeneutic, shown above in red, is clear.

Namely, Jesus was speaking "figuratively,” and not “literally,” because He was continually expanding and explaining in response to the grumbling and
the arguing; wouldn’t you agree?


I’m just using the hermeneutic. 🤷
 
As a sidenote. Keep in mind that by the time John wrote his Gospel, the Church was in existance for decades. They knew exactly what John was talking about in John 6. The writings of the ECFs attest to this, and nobody ever questioned it before the 17th century.
John six makes no sense apart from the Eucharist.
 
But Jesus didn’t “explain” Himself. He simply stayed on the same point.
You must eat my flesh.
Truly, truly, you must eat my flesh.
You must gnaw and grind on my bones.
etc. etc.

In other example’s
“Destroy this Temple”
becomes
“The Jews thought He was speaking of the Jewish Temple but actually Jesus was speaking of His Death and Resurrection.”
 
As a sidenote. Keep in mind that by the time John wrote his Gospel, the Church was in existance for decades. They knew exactly what John was talking about in John 6. The writings of the ECFs attest to this, and nobody ever questioned it before the 17th century.
John six makes no sense apart from the Eucharist.
Actually, I understand that John’s Gospel was in response to the Gnostics who questioned whether Jesus was Truly God and Truly Man.

This doesn’t change the point you were making, but it does help to explain why John covered some of the stories that He put in his Gospel.
 
In the post immediately subsequent to Mike’s hermeneutic, he states:[/indent]Those who were listening to Jesus in Jn 6 were constantly “grumbling and arguing”
about what He was saying thereby indicating that they were "objecting to" or "misunderstanding what" Jesus was saying.

Jesus was continually expanding, and explaining what He was saying from the beginning of
the chapter.

Therefore, the point of the hermeneutic, shown above in red, is clear.

Namely, Jesus was speaking "figuratively,” and not “literally,” because He was continually expanding and explaining in response to the grumbling and
the arguing; wouldn’t you agree?

I’m just using the hermeneutic. 🤷
:confused: And the hermeneutic is clearly stated as being:

1)Ambiguous Statement
2)Misunderstanding/QUESTION
3)Clarification

Note, I did not say “Figurative Statement.” I said Ambiguous statement. Which means that the less than clear statement can either be figurative or literal. This ambiguity leads to a question and/or objection which elicits a clarifying response from Jesus or the inspired author. Based on His response, we can know whether He was speaking literally or figuratively. If He’s speaking figuratively, then He or the inspired author indicates what that figure signifies.

God Bless,
Michael
 
But Jesus didn’t “explain” Himself. He simply stayed on the same point.
You must eat my flesh.
Truly, truly, you must eat my flesh.
You must gnaw and grind on my bones.
etc. etc.

In other example’s
“Destroy this Temple”
becomes
“The Jews thought He was speaking of the Jewish Temple but actually Jesus was speaking of His Death and Resurrection.”
:amen:

God Bless,
Michael
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top