Body and Blood Figurative?

[phil8888]

Ok, some Protestants will say that when Jesus said “eat my body, drink my blood”, he was speaking figuratively or symbolically. They will reference other sayings of Jesus like “unless you hate your mother and father and follow me…” or “if your eye causes you to sin, rip it out…” etc.

But my question, and perhaps it doesn’t have an answer, and that’s the point, but if Jesus was speaking figuratively about eating his body and drinking his blood, what the heck point was he trying to make?

For his other sayings, they are clearly hyperbole, because we can see what he means in an exaggerated way. So cutting off your hand means doing whatever is necessary to stop sin, because it’s better to get into heaven maimed than to go to hell intact.

But what on Earth could he mean by “eat my flesh” and “drink my blood”?? How could this be hyperbole? How could it make sense?

That’s my question. Thanks.

 

[RuthByzCat3]

Umm…

The words He used for “eat” were at first just the normal “eat.” However, He then proceeded to use much more graphic words, which translate most literally into English as words in the neighborhood of “gnaw.” He lost a lot of followers over this. If He was just being symbolic, don’t you think He would’ve called them back and said something like: “Hey guys, don’t leave, I was just being symbolic!”

 

[GEddie]

It doesn’t.

Our protestant brethren cling to this interpretation because if they gave it up, they would be logically required to become Catholic (or Orthodox). But when Saint Paul says (1 Co 13) that those who receive unworthily receive “judgement” because they do not discern the BODY, that’s not figurative.

Giving of the body is a nuptial act. It is not figurative. There can be no marriage by mail; the BODIES have to be involved for marriage to exist. Likewise, if the “body” in the Sacrament is figurative, it is in fact meaningless.

The Greek word for body is SOMA, which refers to the whole human being. In this instance, our LORD HIMself. If you have the body, you have our LORD. No body — nobody!

ICXC NIKA.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

He stated, holding the bread in his hands, “This is my body”. He stated, while holding the cup of wine, “This is my blood. The blood of the new and eternal covenant. It will be shed for you, and for all. Do this in memory of me”.

Now, it essentially comes down to this simple thing. Either you believe that he meant exactly what he said, or he did not.

He was not telling a parable at the last supper. There is no indication that he was doing anything other than teaching the Apostles what they were to do when he was gone from them.

I choose to believe that he meant EXACTLY what he said. That the bread IS his body and the wine IS his blood.

You may choose to believe whatever you choose to believe. BUT, if you do not believe that he meant exactly what he said, then you can not be a Catholic.

 

[po18guy]

Once you take the entirety of scripture into account, stop cherry picking it, view it within its historical context, and receive authoritative interpretation of it, the larger picture comes into focus. This is the beauty of Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Bible Christians base their view on their personal opinion of the tiny fraction of God’s word that was actually written and preserved by men. Then, in a feat of reverse engineering, they impose a 21st century template of their preferences over the ancient world and its practices. This is akin to reconstructing a human face from a skull. You may have the gender correct and the age close, but hair type, style, length and color, as well as eye color, skin tone, shape of the nose and mouth, facial expression and quality and language of the voice will be only guessed at. It’s a perfect picture for the one who constructs it - but is it the truth?

God has always used men with authority to interpret. A bible Christian somehow derives “authority” from the bible itself - although no such thing is claimed by the bible. That, in a nutshell, is the problem.

If the Lord’s Supper is only symbolic, then Saint Paul failed to teach that we eat and drink symbolic damnation unto ourselves for unworthy consumption of the symbolic Body and Blood (1 Corinthians 11:29). He also failed to teach that a man should also only symbolically examine his conscience before consumption of the symbol (1 Corinthians 11:28). In another shocking error, Saint Paul also failed to teach that communion was only a symbolic participation in the symbolic Body and Blood (1 Corinthians 10:16). But, poor old Saint Paul didn’t have a bible, so he could not have been as smart as modern man.

 

[trogiah]

Perhaps Jesus’ own words can shed some light on what he meant. Earlier in John’s gospel, chapter 4, Jesus has the following exchange with his disciples.

"Meanwhile, the disciples urged him, “Rabbi, eat.” 32 But he said to them, “I have food to eat of which you do not know.” 33 So the disciples said to one another, “Could someone have brought him something to eat?” 34 Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the will of the one who sent me and to finish his work."My understanding of the words you ask about is that Jesus would have us do God’s will and finish his work as though our lives depended on it… because it does.

Also in Chapter 4:

"God is Spirit, and those who worship him must worship in Spirit and truth."I think some would use these words to justify saying Jesus was only speaking “figuratively” or “Symbolically”. Those words may apply in some sense but to say he was “only” speaking that way is very much missing the point. Jesus was speaking spiritually about a spiritual matter. There is nothing “only” about that. Our state of spirit is our most important state and doing God’s will is what feeds our spirit.

Jim

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Ok, some Protestants will say that when Jesus said “eat my body, drink my blood”, he was speaking figuratively or symbolically. They will reference other sayings of Jesus like “unless you hate your mother and father and follow me…” or “if your eye causes you to sin, rip it out…” etc.

But my question, and perhaps it doesn’t have an answer, and that’s the point, but if Jesus was speaking figuratively about eating his body and drinking his blood, what the heck point was he trying to make?

For his other sayings, they are clearly hyperbole, because we can see what he means in an exaggerated way. So cutting off your hand means doing whatever is necessary to stop sin, because it’s better to get into heaven maimed than to go to hell intact.

But what on Earth could he mean by “eat my flesh” and “drink my blood”?? How could this be hyperbole? How could it make sense?

That’s my question. Thanks.

Actually, Protestants believe that Jesus’ statement was merely figurative because Protestants do not believe in a philosophical concept known as “substance theory”. This is more than a scriptural debate, believe me.

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

 

[trogiah]

For the record, the statements about hating one’s parents for Jesus sake and cutting off one’s hands if they need to are, in the appropriate time and place, very literally true. Any person trying to engage in a direct and genuine relationship with God will, at some point, have to confront the fact that their parents were flawed people and coming to terms with those flaws will require, at least temporarily, distancing themselves from their parents. For some people that struggle will be greater than others.

 

[phil8888]

Thanks for your responses.

Just for the record, I am Catholic and believe in the Real Presence.

 

[garysibio]

Umm…

The words He used for “eat” were at first just the normal “eat.” However, He then proceeded to use much more graphic words, which translate most literally into English as words in the neighborhood of “gnaw.” He lost a lot of followers over this. If He was just being symbolic, don’t you think He would’ve called them back and said something like: “Hey guys, don’t leave, I was just being symbolic!”

I’ve heard this before from different sources. What I don’t understand is how this provides evidence that Jesus was speaking literally. I’m Catholic and I believe that Jesus was speaking literally. I just don’t understand why the use of the two different words here is relevant.

 

[steveb1]

I’ve heard this before from different sources. What I don’t understand is how this provides evidence that Jesus was speaking literally. I’m Catholic and I believe that Jesus was speaking literally. I just don’t understand why the use of the two different words here is relevant.

I think the differing words issue is significant. In the first part of John Chapter 6, the discourse introduces the idea of Jesus as the manna from heaven/bread from heaven, connecting the idea of accepting Jesus with the idea of ingesting him.

Some object: How can this man have come down from heaven, and how can he give us his flesh to eat?

The second part transforms the idea that to accept Jesus is to ingest him, to the idea that eating Jesus’s flesh is a **real **act of eating real food. This is why the second part of the discourse uses words that mean “tear with the teeth” and “munch”. The literal power of these words underscores that Jesus - contrary to his hearers’ hopes that he’s just being symbolic - is being literal. His flesh **will **be given and eaten as real food.

In this manner Jesus is foreshadowing his future practice of the Eucharist at the last supper. Chapter 6 is John’s portrayal of the institution of the Eucharist, and probably this is why he omits the institution service at Jesus’ last meal, and talks about the foot washing instead.

Therefore, I do think that the second part of John 6 is important because it uses words that can only be applied to the real eating of real food - an idea that Jesus insists upon in the face of his skeptical opponents…

 

[garysibio]

I think the differing words issue is significant. In the first part of John Chapter 6, the discourse introduces the idea of Jesus as the manna from heaven/bread from heaven, connecting the idea of accepting Jesus with the idea of ingesting him.

Some object: How can this man have come down from heaven, and how can he give us his flesh to eat?

The second part transforms the idea that to accept Jesus is to ingest him, to the idea that eating Jesus’s flesh is a **real **act of eating real food. This is why the second part of the discourse uses words that mean “tear with the teeth” and “munch”. The literal power of these words underscores that Jesus - contrary to his hearers’ hopes that he’s just being symbolic - is being literal. His flesh **will **be given and eaten as real food.

In this manner Jesus is foreshadowing his future practice of the Eucharist at the last supper. Chapter 6 is John’s portrayal of the institution of the Eucharist, and probably this is why he omits the institution service at Jesus’ last meal, and talks about the foot washing instead.

Therefore, I do think that the second part of John 6 is important because it uses words that can only be applied to the real eating of real food - an idea that Jesus insists upon in the face of his skeptical opponents…

I get it now. Thanks.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Ok, some Protestants will say that when Jesus said “eat my body, drink my blood”, he was speaking figuratively or symbolically.

Speaking before a crowd assembled at a synagogue in Capernaum, Jesus delivered a teaching that has divided the Catholic and Protestant churches since the time of the Reformation. 1500 years earlier, his words had a similarly divisive effect on the audience who heard them for the very first time.

After Jesus declared Himself to be “the living bread that came down from heaven,” the very next verse of scripture tells us: “Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’” Why were they arguing? If they understood Jesus to be speaking metaphorically, then there would have been hardly an eyebrow raised. For example, on other occasions, Jesus said, “I am the gate for the sheep” (Jn 10:7) and “I am the true vine” (Jn 15:1) but on those occasions, the listeners easily discerned that Jesus was speaking metaphorically. In contrast, an argument did break out when Jesus said, “this bread is my flesh,” and this indicates that those in the crowd held different opinions about what he meant. Some said, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat? He’s crazy!” while others may have responded, “Of course he can’t do that…his words must have a symbolic meaning!” The one group rejected Jesus’ ability to give us his body and blood as real food and drink while the other missed his true meaning altogether. Either way, the crowd was divided.

Of course, Jesus knew what they were saying amongst themselves, and if it was merely his intent to draw a symbolic parallel between his flesh and the bread of heaven, he could have put an end to their misunderstanding immediately. Instead, Jesus reiterated and strengthened the literal meaning of his words by declaring,

“I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 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. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Our forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever. He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.” (Jn 6:53-58)

Rather than quieting the crowd which had broken out into arguments about what he had just told them, Jesus pressed his point home even more emphatically: “my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.” In fact, whereas he had initially said positively, ”If a man eats of this bread, he will live forever,” now he has just stated the negative result of failing to do so: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” Thus, Jesus has clarified his meaning by stating what happens if we do – and do not – eat his flesh and drink his blood.

The next verse is particularly revealing: “On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” (Jn 6:60) Notice that it was not Jesus’ typical enemies, the Pharisees and Sadducees, who rejected his teaching on this occasion but his disciples – those believers who followed him from place to place and hailed him as the Messiah. They had seen Jesus perform many miracles and heard him teach wondrous things. But this was too much even for them.

“Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said this to them, “Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” Jn 6:61-64

Not only does Jesus continue to uphold the literal meaning of his teaching, but also he presses even further by asking that if this bothers them, what will they do when they see him ascend to heaven? Protestants do not deny the ascension of the resurrected Jesus, yet here Jesus places two key truths side by side. He is saying, in effect, “If eating my flesh causes you theological problems, just wait until you see what else I have planned…you ain’t seen nothing yet!”

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

The gospel continues: “From this time, many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve. Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.” Jn 6:66-69

There is a lot going on in these three verses; let’s look at them closely. After hearing Jesus declare that his flesh is real food and his blood is real drink, his disciples, his followers, could not accept his words and no longer followed him. Of course, if they had understood that his body and blood were being used as symbols, they would have had no complaint. It was precisely because they understood exactly what Jesus meant that they refused to follow him any longer. Therefore, there can be no doubt as to what the eyewitnesses understood Jesus to be saying.

Now, imagine the scene: Jesus has been teaching a crowd, and many of them have gotten up to leave because they could not or would not accept his words. In rejecting his teaching, they rejected the one who gave it and turned their backs on the savior of the world. Thus, their souls were at risk of eternal separation from God. Jesus came to seek and save what was lost; therefore, if these disciples had a simple misunderstanding of the metaphorical language he had used that might cause them to spend eternity in Hell, Jesus would have corrected their error. But we do not see him chasing them down the road saying, “Wait, everyone. I think there’s been a misunderstanding … let me explain what I meant.” **Jesus could not correct a misunderstanding because there had been none. **

Instead, he watched sadly as they departed and then turned to the Twelve, the closest of his disciples, and put the question directly to them: “What about you? Are you leaving too?” In doing so, Jesus was risking everything he had been working for since he had first called Simon and Andrew to follow him by the shore of the Sea of Galilee. If the Twelve had abandoned him at this crucial moment, Jesus would have had to begin again with a new group of Apostles to whom he would entrust his teachings and upon whom he would build his church. By God’s grace, Simon Peter, the first among the Apostles, responded in faith acknowledging that Jesus is the Holy One of God and accepting this difficult teaching.