Bread of life discourse as metaphor

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholictiger
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

catholictiger

Guest
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.
 
When Jesus says that you must eat the flesh of the Son of Man, the language in Greek is quite vivid. In Greek, the word He uses for “eat” really means “to chomp” or “to gnaw”. Therefore, He is being quite literal here.
 
catholictiger said:
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.
Click to expand...
Jack’s answer is very clear and concise.

Jesus’ discourse on “eat my flesh and drink my blood…” was a cause for some of His first disciples to turn away from Him and His teaching. John 6:51-70.

In this passage He does not let them “off the hook” (so to speak) by allowing them the opportunity to make His words into a symbol. Instead He drives the point to the hilt by insisting that it IS His blood and it IS His body.

So much so that He turns to the apostles and asks them, “[what are you going to do]”. Peter being the de facto spokeperson of the apostles take the lead and says, " who are we going to go to Lord, you have the words of life".
 
The point mangy dog brings up is important. People walked away from Jesus because they did NOT take him metaphorically and Jesus let them walk away thinking that. If Jesus was obviously speaking metaphorically, those disciples would have simply said, “Oh! He’s speaking metaphorically as he often does!” So I think it is rather obtuse for people to argue that because He said “I am the vine” elsewhere in John that He is required to speak metaphorically always, especially since nobody walked away from him there.
 
catholictiger said:
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.
Click to expand...
Jesus states that his flesh is food three times. Each time the disciples grumble and each time he explains himself in ever increasing physical terms.

***1) I am the bread of life. **(John 6:35)

2) 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)

**3) 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. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. *(John 6:53-55)

Time and time again, Jesus is asked to explain himself when he speaks in parables or uses metaphors. This time is no different and he does explain himself, three times, very clearly and in the end, let’s his disciples just walk away without saying “Wait, it was just a metaphor!”

-Tim-
 
One of the more effective strategies, imo, to respond to this claim is to ask exactly what the metaphor is. There is never a coherent answer that does not involve janky interpretations.
 
thanks for all the responses but please respond to this question bellow
Another thing how are we not breaking OT laws when we drink his blood?
Click to expand...
this comes from Leviticus 17

[BIBLEDRB]Leviticus 17:11-16[/BIBLEDRB]
 
catholictiger said:
thanks for all the responses but please respond to this question bellow
Click to expand...
The forbidding of drinking of blood was a disciplinary practice (not an issue of faith or morals like “thou shall not kill”) of OT Israel to which the New Testament Church is not bound.

As well, we do not metabolize blood corpuscles or anything like that. In the physical order, the properties of bread and wine remain empirically. We call these the “accidents” of the Eucharist. Rather the Eucharist is Christ’s blood in substance, ontologically, sacramentally.

But not that it would matter since we are not bound to OT ordinances—like we aren’t required to abstain from wearing clothing made of wool and linen either (Deut 22:11).

As well, Father Serpa answers this exact question in the Ask An Apologist forum. :o
 
catholictiger said:
thanks for all the responses but please respond to this question bellow

this comes from Leviticus 17

[BIBLEDRB]Leviticus 17:11-16[/BIBLEDRB]
Click to expand...
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.
 
catholictiger said:
someone told me that becuase I am the vine is a metaphor then the bread of life must be a metaphor.
Click to expand...
Sometimes Jesus used metaphors when referring to himself. For example, he said that he is a vine and a gate.

Sometimes Jesus referred to himself in literal terms. For example, he said that he is the way, the truth and the life (and he is literally the personification of such things).

In light of all this, it is faulty logic for someone to say that because Jesus sometimes uses metaphors, the bread of life must be a metaphor. Indeed, such logic could even be denounced as being janky! After all, the same kind of argument can be made to claim that Jesus meant the term “bread of life” literally.

When interpreting what someone may be saying in the gospels, one needs to take note of not only what the person said, but also the reaction of the listeners. The reaction of all the listeners described in John 6 was that Jesus was speaking in literal terms.
catholictiger said:
I’m sure this has been discussed time and time on this board but Idk if people brought this up.
Click to expand...
The last time I remember this specific topic coming up was just over a year ago in the following thread (and it was on the Apologetic Board rather than Sacred Scripture).
John 6 Does Not Teach Real Presence

As you can see, the OP did a very poor job in trying to demonstrate that the language of John was that of a metaphor. Anyway, you may want to look through some of the Catholic posts therein to see how the literal interpretation of John 6 can be defended. FWIW, as a rebuttal to his opening post, throughout that thread I repeatedly told him what I posted above (that Jesus sometimes spoke metaphorically and sometimes literally) and he repeatedly ignored it.
 
catholictiger said:
thanks for all the responses but please respond to this question bellow

this comes from Leviticus 17
Click to expand...
Verse 14 of Leviticus 17 cited is interesting.

Since the life of every living body is its blood, I have told the Israelites: You shall not partake of the blood of any meat. Since the life of every living body is its blood, anyone who partakes of it shall be cut off. (Leviticus 17:17)

Leviticus is a worship manual. The first half of the book was written as a manual to the Levitical priests on how to perform temple worship. The second half was written to Israilites and the priests on how they were to obey the law and participate in temple worship. Leviticus 1, 3 and 4 deal directly with how animals are to be sacrificed. Chapter 3 deals with the slaughter and offering of herd animals such as lambs, goats and bulls and goes into some details about how they are to be slaughtered and what is to be done specifically with blood and certain fats.

***He shall lay his hand on the head of his offering, and then slaughter it at the entrance of the meeting tent; but Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall splash its blood on the sides of the altar. *(Leviticus 3:2)

Blood is reserved for the priests alone to use.

If he presents a lamb as his offering, he shall bring it before the LORD, and after laying his hand on the head of his offering, he shall slaughter it before the meeting tent; but Aaron’s sons shall splash its blood on the sides of the altar. (Leviticus 3:7-8)

Again, only priests may use blood for any purpose.

If he presents a lamb as his offering, he shall bring it before the LORD, and after laying his hand on the head of his offering, he shall slaughter it before the meeting tent; but Aaron’s sons shall splash its blood on the sides of the altar. … This shall be a perpetual ordinance for your descendants wherever they may dwell. You shall not partake of any fat or any blood." (Leviticus 7:17)

Fat and blood is to be reserved for priests only. But then Jesus, the Great High Priest tells us that we must drink his blood.

Jesus said to them, "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. (John 6:53)

This is what was so abhorent to the disciples who walked away. Not only was drinking Jesus’ blood grotesque, but it appears to have violated 1000 years of Jewish tradition and law.

But you are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of his own, so that you may announce the praises” of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. (1 Peter 2:9)

Peter the Pope clues us in. We are all priests. We have died and risen with Christ through Baptism. Through baptism we share in the common priesthood of Christ as his brothers, as children of His Father, and members of his body. As a member of Christs’ common priesthood we have access to the blood.

Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. (1 Corinthians 11:27-29)

But just like the Levitical priests, we are held accountable. We are responsible for doing so in a worthy manner.

-Tim-
 
Also, notice the reason for the ordinance in Leviticus. Consuming a creature’s blood is considered to be taking its life into yourself, and the life of every creature belongs to God.

In the case of the Eucharist, Jesus specifically wants us to take His life into ourselves by consuming His blood.

Usagi
 
MarcoPolo said:
The forbidding of drinking of blood was a disciplinary practice (not an issue of faith or morals like “thou shall not kill”) of OT Israel to which the New Testament Church is not bound.
Click to expand...
snip

It is precisely because of the Leviterite prohibition that they said “This is a hard saying” and left Him.

Yes, the requirement to “drink His Blood” does fly in the face of the Mosaic Law. But what did He say about the Law? “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.” He is the Lord behind the Law. Why was consumption of blood prohibited? Because it is “life.” And in His Blood, provided to us by the Lord Himself, we are restored to life - life eternal.
 
catholictiger said:
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.

…
Click to expand...
Yes, Jesus said “I am the vine” and speaks about the necessity of abiding in Him. But, He never picks up a vine and says “This is Me; take it and abide in it. Do this in memory of Me”. If He had, we would also be taking real vines and “abiding” in them in whatever manner He would have shown to the apostles.

**If Jesus had only given the Bread of Life discourse **(John 6) and never have taken real bread and wine at the Last Supper saying “This is My Body; take and eat. … Do this…”, **we would have had to agree that the Bread of Life discourse was only symbolic **-- for we would have had no idea how to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood.
 
catholictiger said:
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.
Click to expand...
Additionally, and, from my mangy dog perspective,

This is the first instance of protestantism because these were disciples of Jesus. They were followers of His doctrine and teaching but just like in modern times, they were stuck on certain [dogma] even though it came straight from Jesus - God made flesh. They will be taught by God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top