Bread of life discourse as metaphor

[Kay_Cee]

someone told me that becuase I am the vine is a metaphor then the bread of life must be a metaphor.

If I were you, I would ask my friend where the Bible says that because I am the vine is a metaphor then the bread of life must be a metaphor.

If it doesn’t say this (and it doesn’t), point out that this is no more than his personal, fallible assumption.

 

[Tiberius1701]

someone told me that becuase I am the vine is a metaphor then the bread of life must be a metaphor.

there is also the issue that in verses 52 and 54 they use a separate word for eat. So they think why would he use something else it must be a metaphor.

Another thing how are we not breaking OT laws when we drink his blood?

Thanks for any help.

Another way to approach this question is to look very closely at all the other “metaphors” that Jesus uses.

“I am the door of the sheep” (John 10:7). Is He being metaphorical? Or is He really exactly as much of a door as He is bread and wine? A door opens and closes, allowing people in and barring their way. This is exactly what Jesus does. He may not look like a door, but He acts like a door. Except through Him, no one comes to unity with God.

Now look at “I am the true vine” (John 15:1). What does He say about the vine? He says that we are grafted in. This is exactly what the Church teaches. We literally become grafted into Christ’s Body through Baptism. We become the Vine. And what happens when we sin mortally? What happens when we cut ourselves off from the life-giving Grace of God? We* literally* cease to be members of Christ. We are pruned, cut off! This is an image from the physical world, but every word of it is the metaphysical Truth of what really happens. He truly, literally is the Vine, and we truly, literally are the Branches of that One Vine. We truly cannot bear fruit unless we abide in Him, remaining in a state of Grace via the Sacraments. If we allow sin to get between us and God, we cease to bear fruit and He cuts us off. This is no less true of a physical vine and its branches than it is of the metaphysical Vine and His Branches.

This is exactly the same amount of analogous, metaphysical Truth as He uses in John 6. “I am the bread which came down from heaven” (John 6:41). Did He not come down from Heaven as did the manna? No Protestant would deny that He did. So then, does He not, in the Eucharist, do exactly what bread and drink do? Does He not feed us? He not quench our thirst? Of course He does! “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” (John 6:51) Is He not living? Do we not live forever because we eat Him? Is the Bread which we receive and on which we masticate not that Flesh which He literally gave “for the life of the world” by dying on the Cross? This is exactly as Truthful a claim as are all the others. And this is exactly the claim the Church maintains.

To believe that Jesus becomes Truly, substantially present in the Holy Eucharist is to believe in exactly the same level of metaphor as we believe when we see Jesus as the Door, or the Vine, or the Way, or the Truth, or the Life. It is not a departure from the logic applied in the other cases; it is a radical continuation of logic! It is a continuation that they cannot abide simply because this Truth sounds too disgusting to be of God, not because it does not follow the same patern as the other I AM statements of our Lord. Ask the Protestants who deny it to show you, when faced with the exact, parallel metaphysical Truth behind all the other I AMs, how their rejection of the Real Presence can even come close to that analogous Truth.

 

[WCH]

We are no longer bound by the disciplinary laws of the Old Covenant. Just like we don’t have to eat kosher or avoid clothes made out of two different fabrics. etc.

Not so, according to James in Acts 15 which keeps the prohibition against blood in effect (Acts 15:20, 29).

 

[TimothyH]

Not so, according to James in Acts 15 which keeps the prohibition against blood in effect (Acts 15:20, 29).

Indeed, it does mention blood.

namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell.’" (Acts 15:29)

It would be interesting to learn the circumstances around this command of the Church. I have to believe that it was a condescension to the Jews or something. Either way, I’m with Christ on this one, who commands that we drink his blood.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

Not so, according to James in Acts 15 which keeps the prohibition against blood in effect (Acts 15:20, 29).

Indeed, it does mention blood.

namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell.’" (Acts 15:29)

It would be interesting to learn the circumstances around this command of the Church, perhaps the social context under which the rule was handed down. I have to believe that it was a condescension to the Jews and that it does mean the blood of animals and not Christ. Either way, I’m with Christ on this one, who commands that we drink his blood.

Off I go to drink Christ’s blood tomorrow morning at 7:00 AM. I’m gonna pray to some saints too, maybe Augustine and Benedict, and pray for the dead as well. whadayagonna do?

-Tim-

 

[Tiberius1701]

Indeed, it does mention blood.
namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell.’" (Acts 15:29)
It would be interesting to learn the circumstances around this command of the Church. I have to believe that it was a condescension to the Jews or something. Either way, I’m with Christ on this one, who commands that we drink his blood.

-Tim-

Actually, I believe the circumstances of this command had nothing to do with the Jews, but rather with the pagans - the Romans and the Greeks with their pantheon of gods and goddesses. Paul says elsewhere that to partake in food sacrificed to pagan gods is to participate in the worship of demons. It is these sacrifices to which the Jerusalem Council Fathers are referring, not to the sacrifices of the Jews in the Temple. Keep in mind, too, that both before and after this passage Acts talks about “the breaking of the bread,” which is a reference to the Eucharist.

 

[WCH]

I have to believe that it was a condescension to the Jews and that it does mean the blood of animals and not Christ.

I believe that also because what the early church was doing regarding the Eucharist was “eating the bread,” and “drinking the cup” (1 Cor 11:24-29).

 

[TimothyH]

Actually, I believe the circumstances of this command had nothing to do with the Jews, but rather with the pagans - the Romans and the Greeks with their pantheon of gods and goddesses. Paul says elsewhere that to partake in food sacrificed to pagan gods is to participate in the worship of demons. It is these sacrifices to which the Jerusalem Council Fathers are referring, not to the sacrifices of the Jews in the Temple. Keep in mind, too, that both before and after this passage Acts talks about “the breaking of the bread,” which is a reference to the Eucharist.

Yes, Idols and strangled meat. Makes sense. Thanks. That brings up a question in my mind about if and how blood may have been used in worship by the pagans.

And reading through the Catchism, 1322 and on re. The Eucharist, it occurs to me that the blood of animals was the blood of the old covenant, the blood of imperfect sacrifices. Christ’s blood is the blood of the new and everlasting covenant.

In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he “poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” (CCC 1365)

It’s not the imperfect blood of animals, but the blood of the second person of the Trinity.

-Tim-

 

[Tiberius1701]

Yes, Idols and strangled meat. Makes sense. Thanks. That brings up a question in my mind about if and how blood may have been used in worship by the pagans.

And reading through the Catchism, 1322 and on re. The Eucharist, it occurs to me that the blood of animals was the blood of the old covenant, the blood of imperfect sacrifices. Christ’s blood is the blood of the new and everlasting covenant.
In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." (CCC 1365)
It’s not the imperfect blood of animals, but the blood of the second person of the Trinity.

-Tim-

Amen to that!

 

[Barbkw]

I’m sure this has been discussed time and time on this board but Idk if people brought this up.

someone told me that becuase I am the vine is a metaphor then the bread of life must be a metaphor.

there is also the issue that in verses 52 and 54 they use a separate word for eat. So they think why would he use something else it must be a metaphor.

Another thing how are we not breaking OT laws when we drink his blood?

Thanks for any help.

The Apostles didn’t believe this, they didn’t teach it in Church either. Nor did the Early Catholic Church belief that the Eucharist was a metaphor.

St. Justin Martyr’s Apology - 150AD

"No one may share the Eucharist with us unless he believes that what we teach is true, unless he is washed in the regenerating waters of baptism for the remission of his sins, and unless he lives in accordance with the principles given us by Christ.

We do not consume the eucharistic bread and wine as if it were ordinary food and drink, for we have been taught that as Jesus Christ our Savior became a man of flesh and blood by the power of the Word of God, so also the food that our flesh and blood assimilates for its nourishment becomes the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus by the power of his own words contained in the prayer of thanksgiving.

The apostles, in their recollections, which are called gospels, handed down to us what Jesus commanded them to do. They tell us that he took bread, gave thanks and said: Do this in memory of me. This is my body. In the same way he took the cup, he gave thanks and said: This is my blood. The Lord gave this command to them alone. Ever since then we have constantly reminded one another of these things. The rich among us help the poor and we are always united. For all that we receive we praise the Creator of the universe through his Son Jesus Christ and through the Holy Spirit.

On Sunday we have a common assembly of all our members, whether they live in the city or the outlying districts. The recollections of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as there is time. When the reader has finished, the president of the assembly speaks to us; he urges everyone to imitate the examples of virtue we have heard in the readings. Then we all stand up together and pray.

On the conclusion of our prayer, bread and wine and water are brought forward. The president offers prayers and gives thanks to the best of his ability, and the people give assent by saying, “Amen”. The eucharist is distributed, everyone present communicates, and the deacons take it to those who are absent.

The wealthy, if they wish, may make a contribution, and they themselves decide the amount. The collection is placed in the custody of the president, who uses it to help the orphans and widows and all who for any reason are in distress, whether because they are sick, in prison, or away from home. In a word, he takes care of all who are in need.

We hold our common assembly on Sunday because it is the first day of the week, the day on which God put darkness and chaos to flight and created the world, and because on that same day our savior Jesus Christ rose from the dead. For he was crucified on Friday and on Sunday he appeared to his apostles and disciples and taught them the things that we have passed on for your consideration."

crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/532/Sunday_Eucharist_in_the_Early_Church_St._Justin_Martyr.html

 

[Tiberius1701]

The Apostles didn’t believe this, they didn’t teach it in Church either. Nor did the Early Catholic Church belief that the Eucharist was a metaphor.

Amen. Pray for us, St. Justin the Martyr!

 

[Barbkw]

See also:

crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/383/Real_Presence_of_Christ_in_the_Eucharist_in_the_Early_Church__St._Cyril_of_Jerusalem.html

Its author, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, was bishop of Jerusalem in the middle of the fourth century and one of the most important sources we have for how the early church celebrated the sacraments during this era as well as what the early Church believed about the sacraments.

crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/185/This_is_My_Body____St._Ambrose_on_Eucharistic_Consecration.html

While the word “transubstantiation” is not employed here, the substance of this doctrine of Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist is evident in this passage from St. Ambrose’s treatise On the Mysteries (Nn. 52-54. 58: SC 25 bis, 186-188. 190) dating back to about 380 AD.

 

[Tiberius1701]

See also:

crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/383/Real_Presence_of_Christ_in_the_Eucharist_in_the_Early_Church__St._Cyril_of_Jerusalem.html

crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/185/This_is_My_Body____St._Ambrose_on_Eucharistic_Consecration.html

While the word “transubstantiation” is not employed here, the substance of this doctrine of Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist is evident in this passage from St. Ambrose’s treatise On the Mysteries (Nn. 52-54. 58: SC 25 bis, 186-188. 190) dating back to about 380 AD.

Ah. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, one of my very favorites. My patron, St. Macarius of Jerusalem, ordained him a deacon and passed on to him everything that he here inscribes for the benefit of the catechumen. Sts. Macarius and Cyril, pray for us and for all Christians!

 

[WCH]

The Apostles didn’t believe this, they didn’t teach it in Church either. Nor did the Early Catholic Church belief that the Eucharist was a metaphor.

The apostles, in their recollections, which are called gospels, handed down to us what Jesus commanded them to do. They tell us that he took bread, gave thanks and said: Do this in memory of me. This is my body. In the same way he took the cup, he gave thanks and said: This is my blood. The Lord gave this command to them alone. Ever since then we have constantly reminded one another of these things. The rich among us help the poor and we are always united. For all that we receive we praise the Creator of the universe through his Son Jesus Christ and through the Holy Spirit.It’s interesting that like Paul, Justin doesn’t refer to John 6 at all, and Paul’s account is directly from Jesus, who also doesn’t refer Paul to the account of John 6.

 

[Tiberius1701]

The apostles, in their recollections, which are called gospels, handed down to us what Jesus commanded them to do. They tell us that he took bread, gave thanks and said: Do this in memory of me. This is my body. In the same way he took the cup, he gave thanks and said: This is my blood. The Lord gave this command to them alone. Ever since then we have constantly reminded one another of these things. The rich among us help the poor and we are always united. For all that we receive we praise the Creator of the universe through his Son Jesus Christ and through the Holy Spirit.
It’s interesting that like Paul, Justin doesn’t refer to John 6 at all, and Paul’s account is directly from Jesus, who also doesn’t refer Paul to the account of John 6.

Justin didn’t refer directly to John 6 because he wasn’t appealing to people who knew the Gospels, he was explaining Christian practice to the Roman Emperor and the Roman Senate. You’ll note that he does refer to the Gospels in general, which obviously include John, as well as Matthew, Mark, and Luke. So, indirectly, actually he does refer to John 6 (since it’s just one part of the Gospel of John). Besides, in such a brief synopsis of the order and meaning of the Mass, it would hardly be fitting to go into a long discourse about a similarly long discourse contained in just one of the Gospels, would it? He explained the Catholic understanding of John 6 whether he directly quoted John 6 or not.

 

[Barbkw]

It’s interesting that like Paul, Justin doesn’t refer to John 6 at all, and Paul’s account is directly from Jesus, who also doesn’t refer Paul to the account of John 6.

Are you familiar with Justin’s Apologies? And to whom he was writing?

1.The First Apology addressed to Antoninus Pius, his sons, and the Roman Senate;
2. A Second Apology addressed to the Roman Senate;

The Dialogue is a later work than the First Apology; the date of composition of the latter, from the fact that it was addressed to Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, and Lucius Verus his adopted sons, must fall between 147 and 161.

 

[WCH]

Justin didn’t refer directly to John 6 because he wasn’t appealing to people who knew the Gospels, he was explaining Christian practice to the Roman Emperor and the Roman Senate.

Then I expect he should have referred to John 6 which, clearly, he doesn’t.

You’ll note that he does refer to the Gospels in general, which obviously include John, as well as Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

Justin is referring only to the synoptics. I know this because John’s Gospel account of the supper says nothing at all of what Justin mentions from the synoptics to which he does refer.

So, indirectly, actually he does refer to John 6 (since it’s just one part of the Gospel of John). Besides, in such a brief synopsis of the order and meaning of the Mass, it would hardly be fitting to go into a long discourse about a similarly long discourse contained in just one of the Gospels, would it? He explained the Catholic understanding of John 6 whether he directly quoted John 6 or not.

He doesn’t mention John 6 at all, and neither does the Lord relate anything about John 6 to Paul in Paul’s account of the supper in 1 Cor 11.

 

[Barbkw]

Then I expect he should have referred to John 6 which, clearly, he doesn’t. Justin is referring only to the synoptics. I know this because John’s Gospel account of the supper says nothing at all of what Justin mentions from the synoptics to which he does refer. He doesn’t mention John 6 at all, and neither does the Lord relate anything about John 6 to Paul in Paul’s account of the supper in 1 Cor 11.

Are you refusing to acknowledge the first two paragraphs that Justin wrote?

"No one may share the Eucharist with us unless he believes that what we teach is true, unless he is washed in the regenerating waters of baptism for the remission of his sins, and unless he lives in accordance with the principles given us by Christ.

We do not consume the eucharistic bread and wine as if it were ordinary food and drink, for we have been taught that as Jesus Christ our Savior became a man of flesh and blood by the power of the Word of God, so also the food that our flesh and blood assimilates for its nourishment becomes the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus by the power of his own words contained in the prayer of thanksgiving.

 

[guanophore]

Not so, according to James in Acts 15 which keeps the prohibition against blood in effect (Acts 15:20, 29).

No, what was given in Acts 15 is a pastoral instruction. It was given specifically for mixed communities of Jews and Gentiles, to keep the Gentiles from giving scandal to the Jews, causing a stumbling block. James, along with the other Apostles, received Jesus’ “he declared all foods clean”.

The apostles, in their recollections, which are called gospels, handed down to us what Jesus commanded them to do. They tell us that he took bread, gave thanks and said: Do this in memory of me. This is my body. In the same way he took the cup, he gave thanks and said: This is my blood. The Lord gave this command to them alone. Ever since then we have constantly reminded one another of these things. The rich among us help the poor and we are always united. For all that we receive we praise the Creator of the universe through his Son Jesus Christ and through the Holy Spirit.It’s interesting that like Paul, Justin doesn’t refer to John 6 at all, and Paul’s account is directly from Jesus, who also doesn’t refer Paul to the account of John 6.

Justin would not need to make such a reference, since he was a recipient and custodian of the sacraments.

Paul’s account was written perhaps as much as a half century before Jn. 6 was written, so of course he could not refer to it.

Then I expect he should have referred to John 6 which, clearly, he doesn’t.

By what criteria do you determine what he “should” write?

Justin is referring only to the synoptics. I know this because John’s Gospel account of the supper says nothing at all of what Justin mentions from the synoptics to which he does refer.

Makes you wonder if he had John’s gospel.

He doesn’t mention John 6 at all, and neither does the Lord relate anything about John 6 to Paul in Paul’s account of the supper in 1 Cor 11.

And how do you surmise this, since Paul himself testified that he was not permitted to speak of these things?

Besides, Paul never gave an “account of the Lord’s supper”. He is writing instructions to the faithful about how to behave, not a narrative of events.

2 Cor 12:4-5
4 and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter.

You are assuming things about Paul that are contrary to the Scriptural account.

 

[NHInsider]

The apostles, in their recollections, which are called gospels, handed down to us what Jesus commanded them to do. They tell us that he took bread, gave thanks and said: Do this in memory of me. This is my body. In the same way he took the cup, he gave thanks and said: This is my blood. The Lord gave this command to them alone. Ever since then we have constantly reminded one another of these things. The rich among us help the poor and we are always united. For all that we receive we praise the Creator of the universe through his Son Jesus Christ and through the Holy Spirit.It’s interesting that like Paul, Justin doesn’t refer to John 6 at all, and Paul’s account is directly from Jesus, who also doesn’t refer Paul to the account of John 6.

John’s Gospel hadn’t been written yet when Paul wrote to the Corinthians, and it was still a disputed text when Justin Martyr was writing. Not only that but Justin was writing in part to refute rumors that the Christians were practicing ritual cannibalism, so John’s account with Jesus’ very graphic language about chewing on His flesh and drinking His blood would not have been a helpful source. . .

Besides, even if you want to be Marcionist and rely only on Luke and Paul, 1 Cor. 11:27-29 is pretty explicit.