MacArthur Study Bible on True Presence

[FanOfU2]

Hello Everyone,

I’m a Southern Baptist, and as you know we do not believe in Christ’s literal presence in communion. However, I am starting to believe that when Christ said This is My Body, he was speaking literally.

Anyway, I own a MacArthur study bible, and wanted help refuting his notes on Luke 22:19

LUKE 22:19
"And when He had taken some break and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”

MacArthur Study Bible Notes on Luke 22:19
“This is My body. I.e, it represented His body (c.f the words of 8:11, “the seed is the word of God”- and also v. 20). Such metaphorical language was a typical Hebraism. No eucharistic miracle of transubstantiation was implied, nor could the disciples have missed the symbolic intent of His statement, for His actual body- yet unbroken- was before their very eyes. See note on Mt. 26:26. do this Thus He established the observance as an ordinance for worship. remembrance of Me. Passover had looked forward to the sacrifice of Christ; He transformed the seder into an altogether different ceremony, which looks back in remembrance at His atoning death.”

 

[valentino]

Christ is the word of God./The seed isn’t the word unless you are saying Christ is the seed.Christ said"take ye all…for you".From that verse alone one may say that doesn’t mean this is His actual body but when you take it in unison with other bible passages you can get the meaning.Christ also said:my body is food indeed and no one will enter life unless he eats my body and drinks my blood.You won’t have life in you.Indeed My flesh is more than food and My blood more than drink.

 

[FanOfU2]

Thanks for the response:

One thing that strikes me as odd- southern baptists adhere to a strict and literal interpretation of scripture, so you’d think that when Christ says This is My body, they would take it’s meaning as being more than symbolic.

 

[pnewton]

I will attempt what you asked.

"This is My body. I.e, it represented His body (c.f the words of 8:11, “the seed is the word of God”- and also v. 20). Such metaphorical language was a typical Hebraism.

Yes, metaphors are common. However, so is plain speech. The fact the Jesus could have used a metaphor does not mean he did. However, the insertion of the word "represented " by JM is just that, an insertion into the Scripture. I think you will find that when other people insert words into Scripture that John MacArthur condemns it heartily.
,

nor could the disciples have missed the symbolic intent of His statement, for His actual body- yet unbroken- was before their very eyes.

Actually, this is not true. “Strike the shepherd and the sheep will scatter.” None of the disciples except John hung around. They went into hideing.

do this Thus He established the observance as an ordinance for worship. remembrance of Me. Passover had looked forward to the sacrifice of Christ; He transformed the seder into an altogether different ceremony, which looks back in remembrance at His atoning death."

This has nothing to do with the Real Presence of Christ. Something real can be done for remembrance as can something symbolic. For my anniversary, I can get a card, or I can take my wife on a second honeymoon.

The thing is, this passage could never prove or disprove the Real Presence. John 6 is where Jesus taugh that principle. FYI - I too am a former hard-core Southern Baptist, though not so much a U2 fan.

 

[William_Pitts]

Was symbolic flesh nailed to the cross? Did a metaphor die to redeem fallen man? It was real flesh and real blood. Have you read the 6th chapter of John? It is no accident that bread is used throughout the OT to represent God’s provision to sustain life. Jesus said, “You must be born again.” Do you not feed newborn babies? The new spiritual baby must have spiritual food to sustain spiritual life.

Joh 6:26,27 Jesus answered them, ‘Very truly, I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For it is on him that God the Father has set his seal.’

Joh 6:31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, “He gave them bread from heaven to eat.”’
Joh 6:32 Then Jesus said to them, ‘Very truly, I tell you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.
Joh 6:33 For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.’
Joh 6:34 They said to him, ‘Sir, give us this bread always.’
Joh 6:35 Jesus said to them, 'I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.
Joh 6:36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.
Joh 6:37 Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and anyone who comes to me I will never drive away;
Joh 6:38 for I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me.
Joh 6:39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.
Joh 6:40 This is indeed the will of my Father, that all who see the Son and believe in him may have eternal life; and I will raise them up on the last day.’
Joh 6:41 Then the Jews began to complain about him because he said, ‘I am the bread that came down from heaven.’
Joh 6:42 They were saying, ‘Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, “I have come down from heaven”?’
Joh 6:43 Jesus answered them, 'Do not complain among yourselves.
Joh 6:44 No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me; and I will raise that person up on the last day.

Joh 6:49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
Joh 6:50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.
Joh 6:51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live for ever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.’
Joh 6:52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’
Joh 6:53 So Jesus said to them, ‘Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
Joh 6:54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day;
Joh 6:55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.
Joh 6:56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.
Joh 6:57 Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me.
Joh 6:58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live for ever.’

Joh 15:4 Abide in me as I abide in you. Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it abides in the vine, neither can you unless you abide in me.
Joh 15:5 I am the vine, you are the branches. Those who abide in me and I in them bear much fruit, because apart from me you can do nothing.
Joh 15:6 Whoever does not abide in me is thrown away like a branch and withers; such branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.
Joh 15:7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask for whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.
Joh 15:8 My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit and become my disciples.

This is central. When you believe that the Eucharist is being described here you will understand much. The mass is about the Eucharist. All 4 Gospels say, "This is My body and this is My blood.

God bless you on your journey home.

 

[AF_Fugue]

MacArthur Study Bible Notes on Luke 22:19
"This is My body. I.e, it represented His body (c.f the words of 8:11, “the seed is the word of God”- and also v. 20). Such metaphorical language was a typical Hebraism.

One important fact that is ignored in this commentary is that Luke 8:11 is an explanation of a parable. Parables are, by definition, symbolic; therefore it is correct to say that the seed is not literally the word of God. However, the Last Supper is not a parable, nor can it possibly be cast as merely symbolic. None of Jesus’s other statements during the Last Supper are understood symbolically, so why would the words “This is My Body” be taken symbolically?

 

[asd72]

Another thing to note is throughout church history (including Luther), the real presence was understood and accepted.

Best wishes in your search for the truth.

 

[po18guy]

The Word of God is One. It is united, universal, inseparable, indivisible, integral. Each and every Word that issues from the mouth of God is related, in some fashion, to each and every other Word that has come from Him. To consider one Word of God while disregarding the others risks a departure from the truth. Jesus wore a seamless garment that was also indivisible. So, let’s view scripture as a big picture - via the seamless garment method. Dissecting scripture, divorcing it from the entirety of God’s Word, has great risks - it enables an unlimited number of interpretations to be applied to each and every verse. Ah, but scripture was not written in verses: each Gospel, Letter or Epistle was written as a miniature seamless garment. Chapter and verse were added hundreds of years later. And, we also know that each bit of scripture does not tell the complete or accurate story once separated from the other elements of the story.

Thinking in this manner, we can see that all other descriptions of the meal in the upper room must be taken into consideration when considering Luke’s version. This includes the sixth chapter of John, in which Jesus not only prophesies the establishment of the Eucharist, but makes Himself its very Substance. Additionally, the other scriptural references to the Holy Eucharist must also be considered. Luke cannot be taken as definitive without also consulting with Saint Paul in 1 Corinthians 10 & 11, for example. And, Saint Paul teaches that the Eucharist is a “participation” in the Body and Blood of the Lord - not a parable, but participation - a huge difference. He teaches that a man needs to examine himself (make an examination of conscience) before consuming. He teaches that unworthy consumption causes one to eat and drink damnation unto oneself! Damnation! In repeating a parable? Inconceivable. One is guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord if he unworthily consumes. This is literal, my brothers!

One also cannot and must not separate the Word of God from the form, direction and teaching of the fledgling Church which the Apostles formed - its beliefs and practices. What the Eucharist actually is, was not well known or understood at first. The Apostles obediently did what our Lord commanded them: “Do this…”. If we turn our focus to the “in remembrance”, we lose sight of what the “this” in the “Do this…” actually is. When we “Do this…”, we eat and drink the Body and Blood of the Lord. Why else would Paul teach that we are guilty of the Lord’s Body and Blood if we profane the Eucharist?

Back to the big picture: Christ’s true Presence was not doubted until very recently in Christian history. This is very troubling, since it represents a fundamental change in the Gospel - a “different Gospel”,(Galatians 1:6-9) if we wish to be provocative. Our Lord very clearly spoke of Himself as being the Bread that came down form heaven. In silence, He watched most of His followers leave after telling them time and time again, that they must eat His flesh and drink His Blood to have life in them. He even asked them why they were grumbling. Why? Because they did not believe. Christ would not have allowed followers to depart over a simple misunderstanding - this would have been a failure of His teaching mission - impossible! It is the human heart which fails, not Jesus’ perfect teaching.

The search for the Truth, which is Jesus Christ, does not involve a new teaching, or new thinking, or new anything - it requires adherence to His exact meaning as He taught it, and as practiced consistently for nearly 2,000 years.

 

[Salvatore123]

Fan,

You sound like an educated person who truly wants to discover the truth of the matter, and I sincerely wish you well on your journey.

Using your own God-given intellect and reasoning, ask yourself:

Why would Jesus have allowed many of his followers (and he had quite a few by the time in his life when John 6 was recording this particular event - we Catholics call it the Eucharistic Discourse) to leave and depart from him as followers if they were leaving based on a mistaken interpretation of what he had said?

1. Christ tells everyone gathered around that his body is true food and his blood true drink.
2. Christ tells everyone that they should consume his body and blood in remembrance of him.
3. Many of those following Christ begin to openly criticize Christ for his Eucharistic teaching - so much so that their criticism is actually recorded in John’s gospel.
4. When those who are critical of Christ basically call him “crazy” for saying what he did, note that Christ NEVER tells them anything along the lines of, “Wait - you misunderstood!” or “My followers - I am talking through a parable, not literally!”
5. Seems to me that this would have been the perfect time to correct them - BEFORE they left - rather than let them leave with the impression that he was “crazy” for talking as he did.
6. Instead of correcting those who left, he turns to his Apostles and asks them if they will leave him too. St. Peter gives the most tender response in all of the NT: “Where will we go?”

Aside from all of the arguments regarding sentence structure, his use of a certain word when he spoke of “eating” (the actual word he used meant something akin to “munch” or “chew” - just as one would do if someone really were eating flesh and blood), and how he often spoke in parables, one is still left with the unalterable fact that Jesus allowed a great many of his disciples to leave him and NOT tell them they had just misunderstood his literal teaching, when he could have easily done so.

Fan, ask yourself: If you were teaching a group of people and wanted them to follow and understand you, and some of them began to disagree with what you were saying and started to call you “crazy”, would you stop them and tell them they were misunderstanding what you were saying (if, in fact, they WERE misunderstanding you?) so as to keep them as your disciples, or would you continue to “stick to your guns” and teach what you meant to teach and not back down, if what you were teaching was exactly what you said, and if the truth meant the loss of followers, then so be it?

I think you already know the answer, my friend.

 

[Nita]

Hello Everyone,

I’m a Southern Baptist, and as you know we do not believe in Christ’s literal presence in communion. However, I am starting to believe that when Christ said This is My Body, he was speaking literally.

Anyway, I own a MacArthur study bible, and wanted help refuting his notes on Luke 22:19

LUKE 22:19
"And when He had taken some break and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”

MacArthur Study Bible Notes on Luke 22:19
“This is My body. I.e, it represented His body (c.f the words of 8:11, “the seed is the word of God”- and also v. 20). Such metaphorical language was a typical Hebraism. No eucharistic miracle of transubstantiation was implied, nor could the disciples have missed the symbolic intent of His statement, for His actual body- yet unbroken- was before their very eyes. See note on Mt. 26:26. do this Thus He established the observance as an ordinance for worship. remembrance of Me. Passover had looked forward to the sacrifice of Christ; He transformed the seder into an altogether different ceremony, which looks back in remembrance at His atoning death.”

To me “the seed is the word of God” actually supports the Catholic understanding of “This (the bread) is My Body” - that the reality is Jesus Incarnate/Word of God.

In the expression “the seed is the word of God” do Protestants think “seed” is reality and the “word of God” is only symbolic – in the truth Jesus was preaching to them? I think not.
The reality, the truth, Jesus was teaching was that His word/Word has to be received properly to grow and bear fruit.

So why then, in Jesus’ words “This (bread) is My body”, do they think “bread” is the reality and Jesus’ Body is only symbolic?

In both cases (seed and bread) there is a symbolism in the physical items to the realities they serve to put forth. That no doubt is why Jesus chose to use those particular physical items for their respective purposes.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

protestants would have to do some heavy editing to erase all hints of catholic teaching from Scripture

 

[nickiswank]

One important fact that is ignored in this commentary is that Luke 8:11 is an explanation of a parable. Parables are, by definition, symbolic; therefore it is correct to say that the seed is not literally the word of God. However, the Last Supper is not a parable, nor can it possibly be cast as merely symbolic. None of Jesus’s other statements during the Last Supper are understood symbolically, so why would the words “This is My Body” be taken symbolically?

This. :yup:

But seriously, that’s really helpful. I’m so glad God has gifted you (and many others of course) with the ability to make connections like this, because I’m no good at it! But the more I learn, the easier it seems to get, so there’s hope for me yet!

 

[mcrow]

Thanks for the response:

One thing that strikes me as odd- southern baptists adhere to a strict and literal interpretation of scripture, so you’d think that when Christ says This is My body, they would take it’s meaning as being more than symbolic.

Yes, it is odd considering they are extremely literal and fundamentalist in nature when it comes to reading the bible.

This is part of what turned me on to the Catholic faith. Catholics tend to read the bible as a whole and each verse in it’s context. Some verses are meant to be symbolic, some are literal, some are simply parables. There are different literary forms in the Bible as well which can change the way something should be interpreted.

Most protestant fundamentalist readers completely ignore context and literary form. Or at least that’s my experience.

 

[ChadS]

Was symbolic flesh nailed to the cross? Did a metaphor die to redeem fallen man? It was real flesh and real blood. Have you read the 6th chapter of John? It is no accident that bread is used throughout the OT to represent God’s provision to sustain life. Jesus said, “You must be born again.” Do you not feed newborn babies? The new spiritual baby must have spiritual food to sustain spiritual life.

Joh 6:26,27 Jesus answered them, ‘Very truly, I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For it is on him that God the Father has set his seal.’

Joh 6:31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, “He gave them bread from heaven to eat.”’
Joh 6:32 Then Jesus said to them, ‘Very truly, I tell you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.
Joh 6:33 For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.’
Joh 6:34 They said to him, ‘Sir, give us this bread always.’
Joh 6:35 Jesus said to them, 'I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.
Joh 6:36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.
Joh 6:37 Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and anyone who comes to me I will never drive away;
Joh 6:38 for I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me.
Joh 6:39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.
Joh 6:40 This is indeed the will of my Father, that all who see the Son and believe in him may have eternal life; and I will raise them up on the last day.’
Joh 6:41 Then the Jews began to complain about him because he said, ‘I am the bread that came down from heaven.’
Joh 6:42 They were saying, ‘Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, “I have come down from heaven”?’
Joh 6:43 Jesus answered them, 'Do not complain among yourselves.
Joh 6:44 No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me; and I will raise that person up on the last day.

Joh 6:49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
Joh 6:50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.
Joh 6:51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live for ever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.’
Joh 6:52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’
Joh 6:53 So Jesus said to them, ‘Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
Joh 6:54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day;
Joh 6:55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.
Joh 6:56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.
Joh 6:57 Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me.
Joh 6:58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live for ever.’

Joh 15:4 Abide in me as I abide in you. Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it abides in the vine, neither can you unless you abide in me.
Joh 15:5 I am the vine, you are the branches. Those who abide in me and I in them bear much fruit, because apart from me you can do nothing.
Joh 15:6 Whoever does not abide in me is thrown away like a branch and withers; such branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.
Joh 15:7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask for whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.
Joh 15:8 My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit and become my disciples.

This is central. When you believe that the Eucharist is being described here you will understand much. The mass is about the Eucharist. All 4 Gospels say, "This is My body and this is My blood.

God bless you on your journey home.

I remember the first time I had these verses pulled together for me. How do you abide in Christ? You abide in him by eating his flesh. It just blew my mind and there they’d been sitting a few chapters apart and it’d never occured to me to see them as belonging together. When I did it just cemented even more firmly in my mind that I had to become Catholic.

ChadS

 

[porthos11]

Hello Everyone,

I’m a Southern Baptist, and as you know we do not believe in Christ’s literal presence in communion. However, I am starting to believe that when Christ said This is My Body, he was speaking literally.

Anyway, I own a MacArthur study bible, and wanted help refuting his notes on Luke 22:19

LUKE 22:19
"And when He had taken some break and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”

MacArthur Study Bible Notes on Luke 22:19
“This is My body. I.e, it represented His body (c.f the words of 8:11, “the seed is the word of God”- and also v. 20). Such metaphorical language was a typical Hebraism. No eucharistic miracle of transubstantiation was implied, nor could the disciples have missed the symbolic intent of His statement, for His actual body- yet unbroken- was before their very eyes. See note on Mt. 26:26. do this Thus He established the observance as an ordinance for worship. remembrance of Me. Passover had looked forward to the sacrifice of Christ; He transformed the seder into an altogether different ceremony, which looks back in remembrance at His atoning death.”

“Remembrance” here is used in this commentary using its much weaker English meaning. However, the Greek word (anamnesis) is the counterpart of the Hebrew zikkaron, which is a more real, mystical type of remembrance, that being the event commemorated is actually made present, not just mentally recalled.

A word study on anamnesis might help.

 

[FanOfU2]

Thanks for the speedy answers everyone.

I’ll go ahead and add in what the MacArthur Study Bible says about John 6:53-58

John 6:53-58
"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. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he will also live because of Me. This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever”. These things he said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.

Sounds like Christ was being pretty literal to me.

Here is the MacArthur Study Note on John 6:53-58

6:53-58 eat…drink. Jesus’ point was an analogy that has spirtual rather than literal, significance; just as eating and drinking are necessary for physical life, so also is belief in His sacrificial death on the cross necessary for eternal life. The eating of His flesh and drinking of his blood metaphorically symbolize the need for accepting Jesus’ cross work. For the Jews, however, a crucified Messiah was unthinkable (cf Acts 17:1-3) Once again, the Jews in their willful and judicial blindness could not see the real spiritual significance and truth behind Jesus’ statements. Moreover, Jesus’ reference here to eating and drinking was not referring to the ordinance of communion for two significant reasons: 1) communion had not been instituted yet, and 2) if Jesus was referring to communion, then the passage would teach that anyone partaking of communion would recieve eternal life.

It seems that with MacArthur everything is symbolize, symbolize, symbolize. There isn’t any sense of God working through a supernatural or mystical sense, and I’m starting to see through this type of teaching.

 

[porthos11]

Thanks for the speedy answers everyone.

I’ll go ahead and add in what the MacArthur Study Bible says about John 6:53-58

John 6:53-58
"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. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he will also live because of Me. This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever”. These things he said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.

Sounds like Christ was being pretty literal to me.

Here is the MacArthur Study Note on John 6:53-58

6:53-58 eat…drink. Jesus’ point was an analogy that has spirtual rather than literal, significance; just as eating and drinking are necessary for physical life, so also is belief in His sacrificial death on the cross necessary for eternal life. The eating of His flesh and drinking of his blood metaphorically symbolize the need for accepting Jesus’ cross work. For the Jews, however, a crucified Messiah was unthinkable (cf Acts 17:1-3) Once again, the Jews in their willful and judicial blindness could not see the real spiritual significance and truth behind Jesus’ statements. Moreover, Jesus’ reference here to eating and drinking was not referring to the ordinance of communion for two significant reasons: 1) communion had not been instituted yet, and 2) if Jesus was referring to communion, then the passage would teach that anyone partaking of communion would recieve eternal life.

It seems that with MacArthur everything is symbolize, symbolize, symbolize. There isn’t any sense of God working through a supernatural or mystical sense, and I’m starting to see through this type of teaching.

From v. 54 onwards, Jesus shifts from phago (eat) to trogo (chew, gnaw, a more primal type of eating). Further, to “eat [one’s] flesh” is a Hebraism, an idiom that meant “to inflict grave bodily harm.” Therefore, Jesus is essentially saying, if interpreted “symbolically”, that “unless you cause me grave bodily harm, you have no life in you” which is utter nonsense.

When Jesus switched to trogo, it became clear that he could not be speaking symbolically. This is exactly what disgusted his listeners, precisely because they did understand him, and corrrectly. Except that Jesus, contrary to what he usually does, didn’t correct them or call them back.

While “eat” is indeed used in the Old Testament as a metaphor for “accept” or “believe”, it is never used in this context together with flesh. Every time “eat” is used with “flesh” it always refers to an act of violence, not belief.

 

[po18guy]

Here is the MacArthur Study Note on John 6:53-58

6:53-58 eat…drink. Jesus’ point was an analogy that has spirtual rather than literal, significance; just as eating and drinking are necessary for physical life, so also is belief in His sacrificial death on the cross necessary for eternal life. The eating of His flesh and drinking of his blood metaphorically symbolize the need for accepting Jesus’ cross work. For the Jews, however, a crucified Messiah was unthinkable (cf Acts 17:1-3) Once again, the Jews in their willful and judicial blindness could not see the real spiritual significance and truth behind Jesus’ statements. Moreover, Jesus’ reference here to eating and drinking was not referring to the ordinance of communion for two significant reasons: 1) communion had not been instituted yet, and 2) if Jesus was referring to communion, then the passage would teach that anyone partaking of communion would recieve eternal life.

It seems that with MacArthur everything is symbolize, symbolize, symbolize. There isn’t any sense of God working through a supernatural or mystical sense, and I’m starting to see through this type of teaching.

Once you decide to cross fully into the symbolic realm, scripture is all you need or want. You then require no priesthood, no established Church, no authoritative leaders, no divine liturgy. Thus begins the deconstruction of the Church - an entropic process whereupon Christianity devolves into a heterogenous mass of individuals, all having private relationships with Christ, but a decreased sense of being part of the Body. As well, there is a diminished sense of relationship with one another. Being part of the Body requires a sense of subjection, of belonging, of obedience to a larger whole, which meshes rather well with Jesus’ counsel in Luke 9:23 “If a man will follow Me, let him deny himself, take up his cross, then come, follow Me”.

A side issue, but the major issue for many non-Catholics is that of Church authority. However, Jesus gave unprecedented authority to the twelve, and advised his hearers to take disputes to “the Church” for final resolution. I note that nothing can be taken to the bible for final resolution - only for further dispute and argumentation about just what those words “symbolize”.

If you are looking for a Catholic bible with footnotes, please avoid the New American Bible (NAB), even the revised New America Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE). The footnotes are closer to being Catholic, but are still very squishy and imprecise for Catholics, and those who desire to learn more of the Catholic faith. Salvatore123 can point you in the right direction.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Here is the MacArthur Study Note on John 6:53-58

6:53-58 eat…drink. Jesus’ point was an analogy that has spirtual rather than literal, significance; just as eating and drinking are necessary for physical life, so also is belief in His sacrificial death on the cross necessary for eternal life. The eating of His flesh and drinking of his blood metaphorically symbolize the need for accepting Jesus’ cross work. For the Jews, however, a crucified Messiah was unthinkable (cf Acts 17:1-3) Once again, the Jews in their willful and judicial blindness could not see the real spiritual significance and truth behind Jesus’ statements. Moreover, Jesus’ reference here to eating and drinking was not referring to the ordinance of communion for two significant reasons: 1) communion had not been instituted yet, and 2) if Jesus was referring to communion, then the passage would teach that anyone partaking of communion would recieve eternal life.

It seems that with MacArthur everything is symbolize, symbolize, symbolize. There isn’t any sense of God working through a supernatural or mystical sense, and I’m starting to see through this type of teaching.

I listen to MacArthur regularly and even have his study Bible at home. But what cause does he offer that the bread and blood are metaphorical symbols other than that what he says? Remember, in John 6, Jesus refers to the Old Testament manna that fell from heaven to give life. If the NT “bread” is merely a symbol, then it violates the basic Biblical principle that New Testament antetypes are superior to their Old Testament types. For MacArthur, the OT bread actually produced physical life. Yet, the NT bread for him avails nothing more. It is no better. In fact, it does not even have supernatural origin like the OT manna from heaven. MacArthur makes the NT bread inferior to the OT manna. That is a very fundamental, basic error in his interpretation that someone who considers himself a pastor and scholar should be ashamed to make.

Others have provided a good walkthrough of the rest of the John 6 passage. I think the fact that there were people who walked away that took Jesus literally (and that Jesus let them walk away thinking that) damns the “symbol-only” interpretation (not to mention 1 Cor. 11:29 which explicitly says the bread and wine are to be discerned as Jesus’ “body.”)

Further, MacArthur confuses the issue by saying that communion “had not been instituted yet.” MacArthur has created an arbitrary rule that Jesus is not allowed to teach the importance of something yet to come. For instance:

John 3:5 Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Jesus said this, present tense, well before He died. So according to MacArthur’s logic, a person had to presently be born of water and Spirit (before Pentecost) and thus could be saved without Christ having died and risen. It would be like if I said, unless you teach your child to drive he/she cannot pass a driver’s test. According to MacArthur, it is apparently not possible that the speaker could be talking to parents of 5-year-olds because “teach” is present tense. But in reality, the speaker is referring to when the audience is in the situation to teach—whenever that may be—he must teach. MacArthur’s reasoning is just poor.

 

[bogeydogg]

Hello Everyone,

I’m a Southern Baptist, and as you know we do not believe in Christ’s literal presence in communion. However, I am starting to believe that when Christ said This is My Body, he was speaking literally.

Anyway, I own a MacArthur study bible, and wanted help refuting his notes on Luke 22:19

LUKE 22:19
"And when He had taken some break and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”

MacArthur Study Bible Notes on Luke 22:19
“This is My body. I.e, it represented His body (c.f the words of 8:11, “the seed is the word of God”- and also v. 20). Such metaphorical language was a typical Hebraism. No eucharistic miracle of transubstantiation was implied, nor could the disciples have missed the symbolic intent of His statement, for His actual body- yet unbroken- was before their very eyes. See note on Mt. 26:26. do this Thus He established the observance as an ordinance for worship. remembrance of Me. Passover had looked forward to the sacrifice of Christ; He transformed the seder into an altogether different ceremony, which looks back in remembrance at His atoning death.”

So in other words when Christ said “this is my body” he meant something other than “this is my body.” Why does it never occur to folks like MacArthur that if Jesus had wanted us to understand the bread was like his body he would have said “this represents my body”.

No matter how anyone tries to parse this verse the only way to understand it is to clearly let the words have meaning. Otherwise God speaks with the forked tongue and let us eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.

Stop listening to MacArthur.

God Bless