Question for protestants - Real Presence

[goodcatholicman]

Some Protestant apologists claim that not all the Fathers took a literal view of the Real Presence. This view is without the slightest shred of doubt a historically untenable one. Nonetheless, I would like to hear from protestants how they understand the following passage from the Bible. It seems clear (in some ways too clear)what Jesus was saying. I have a hard time understanding how it can be read otherwise. Please remember to be respectful as I am truly curious.

I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

 

[angelusm]

I don’t know what protestant apologists say. I know that real presence is a fact based not only on the Bible but also on Eucharistic miracles confirmed by the CC.

 

[Rebelecka]

I was raised in the Episcopal church. The average Episcopalian either ignores that passage (hoping it will go away, I guess), or feels that it is the truth and that they do eat and drink the flesh and blood of the Christ. BTW, that’s basically the difference between “low church” Episcopalians and “high church” Episcopalians.

 

[bengal_fan]

not that i agree with this view but…

most protestants would say it is symbolic. that Jesus is saying we must share in Him and partake of Him (on a spiritual level). that is the way i understand most protestants to think. not all of course, i do think some overlook the passage and there are those few who take it literally.

 

[inthecloud]

Do protestants (high church anglicans and lutherans excluded) use the Early Church Fathers or pagan critics of the early christians as a guide of how this should read?

 

[Rightlydivide]

The crux of the passage is if you believe on Christ you will have eternal life. That is what Jesus was saying and how Peter summarized.

 

[mozart-250]

There are at least two problems that make it difficult for Protestants like myself to believe that this passage supports the Real Presence
(1) The passage predates the communion
(2) Jesus equates eating his flesh and drinking His blood with having His life (salvation). Whatever communion is, we do not believe it is a prerequiste for eternal life with Christ

I have always believed that when you are converted to Christ (born again) that in some sense you are eating His flesh and drinking His blood.

That having been said, I don’t think you make your best case anyway by attempting to prove the Real Presence through Scripture. That argument devolves into “these scriptures prove the real presence” “no they do not” “yes they do”. Now IMHO they do not prove the real presence. But at the same time there is no proof for symbolic only, and this line of argument lets the Protestant off the hook for proving his case.

I think the best argument you can make is to show that the case for a real presence Scripturally is at worst equal the case for symbolic only. Then you turn to history…

That being said, I don’t think it terribly important what belief you hold concerning communion. The only specific commandments in the Bible in regards to communion that I see are that you observe it and do not partake of it unworthily.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I think the best argument you can make is to show that the case for a real presence Scripturally is at worst equal the case for symbolic only. Then you turn to history…

That being said, I don’t think it terribly important what belief you hold concerning communion. The only specific commandments in the Bible in regards to communion that I see are that you observe it and do not partake of it unworthily.

The problem with the symbolism of Eucharist is that it is not implied in Scripture specifically. Paul made this very clear in see 1 Cor 11:30. Paul addressed the bread and wine as the Body and Blood of the Lord.

I recall John Salza had a debate with a Protestant about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. John explained to him that in all three Synotic Gospel accounts of the Last Supper, as well as in Paul’s teaching, which he received directly from Christ, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and said, “This is my body.” In the same manner, He took wine, and gave thanks, and said, “This is my blood.” It is noted that Jesus did not say, “This represents my body and blood,” or “This is a symbol of my body and blood.”

John further explain to him that God does not, and cannot, declare something to be without making it so. For example, when God said, “Let there be light,” there was light. John challenged him to find a Scripture verse where God declare something without making it so, to prove John wrong. The Protestant could not find it.

John made another interesting point. He ask the Protestant to take down a picture of his wife., which was pinned up in his cubicle, and gave it to John, and said, “This is my wife.” Then he asked him, “But it is not really her, is it?” He thought he had John out gutted.

John congratulate him on having beautiful wife. John then pretend to rip up the picture and after it fell to the ground, pretended to stop all over it. He looked at John with an expression of surprise and confusion. JOhn did asked him, “Am I now guilty of profaning your wife’s body and blood?”

After a quite pause, he responded, “No.”

“No.” John Salza repeated. “Of course not. The picture of your wife is just a symbol of her, and you can’t profan a symbol can’t you?” He agreed. Then John drove home to his point. “Then why,” John asked him, "does Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:27 declare us to be guilty of profaning Christ’s body and blood if we receive the Eucharist unworthily? If the Eucharist were just a symbol, wouldn’t that be an unjust penalty?

If it was indeed symbolic, Paul would not make a issue in his Epistle to the Corinthians. He insist that before the reception of the Holy Communion, he must examine himself first.

Symbolic meaning of Eucharist is absent in John 6:51-59.

 

[Rightlydivide]

But we do not think John 6 is talking about the Eucharist. They never tie the two together in any of the gospels. People can get sick from improper thoughts and actions, although it appears the Lord does not do that to people know if they improperly partake of the Lord’s Supper. After all in Acts, people drop dead from stealing from the Lord!

 

[Mannyfit75]

But we do not think John 6 is talking about the Eucharist. They never tie the two together in any of the gospels. People can get sick from improper thoughts and actions, although it appears the Lord does not do that to people know if they improperly partake of the Lord’s Supper. After all in Acts, people drop dead from stealing from the Lord!

The word Eucharist derives from the Greek word εὐχαριστία" (transliterated as “eucharistia”). It means thankfulness, gratitude, giving of thanks.

I think much of the English language has lost the meaning of Biblical meaning of the word eucharist. During the Last Supper, Jesus and the disciple were eating. Jesus took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and give it to the disciple and said, “Take eat; this is my body.” And he took the a chalice and when he had given thanks (eucharista) he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for the forgiveness of sins.”

The Three Gospels account of the Jesus as the Paschal Meal is very clear. They are clearly connected th John 6:51-59 as well as 1 Corinthians 11:30. The NT concerning the Eucharist Meal. Let us take a look again at John 6:51-59.

“I am the bread of life, which came down from heaven; if anyone eat this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

The Jews then disputed among themselves saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus 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 flesh in you; he who eats my flesh and drink my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the Father sent me, and I live because of the Fagther, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.” This he said in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. We see in later passages, the 70 disciples left Jesus and return to their normal lives because the refused to believe that they have to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

Jesus was born in Bethelem, which in Hebrew means house of bread, or house of meat. Bethlehem (Tiberian Hebrew: Bêṯ léḥem / Bêṯ lāḥem; Arabic: بيت لحم, Bayt Laḥm (help·info), lit “House of Meat”; Greek: Βηθλεέμ; Hebrew: בית לחם‎, Beit Lehem.

So when Jesus said “This is the bread which comes down from heaven…” makes this even more clear that Jesus is truly the Bread of Life.

The Eucharist is Paschal Lamb, a pure sacrifice offered to God the Father. The prophet Malachi speaks about the pure offering.

Malachi 1:11

From the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts.

The parallel to this and the Eucharistic Prayer III is striking similar.

Father, you are holy indeed, and all creation rightly gives you praise. All life, all holiness comes from you through your Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, by the working of the Holy Spirit. From age to age you gather a people to yourself, so that from east to west a perfect offering may be made to the glory of your name. And so, Father, we bring you these gifts. We ask you to make them holy by the power of your Spirit, that they may become the body and blood of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at whose command we celebrate this eucharist.

I know in the Latin Rite Catholic Church incense is rarely use except during Lent, but it is very common in the Eastern Rite or Oriental Catholic Churches in their Liturgy. We can see that the prophecy of Malachi is fullfilled in the **Catholic Church **as well as the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman in John 4:21 saying,

“Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.”

Today, Jesus is worshipped from East to West. His presence is with us in the Blessed Eucharist. In the Church, the Eucharist is stored in the Tabernacle, the Holy of Holies is truly amongst us. God dwelling with his people.

 

[SyCarl]

Jesus says a number of things in John 6.

“For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” (John 6:40 NASB)

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. (John 6:53-54 NASB)

Jesus says that unless we eat His flesh and drink His blood, we have no life in us. If this is taken literally it would mean that nobody could be saved unless they partook in Communion as understood by Catholics. But He also says that everybody who beholds Him and believes in Him will have eternal life. This promise has no conditions placed on it so, according to it, the Eucharist is not required. Jesus does not contradict Himself so He cannot be speaking literally when He talks about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. Also if it was literal, all anyone would have to do is go into a Catholic Church and receive Communion, even if he did not believe. I know that Catholic doctrine does not allow this participation, but if someone illicitly partook of Communion, Jesus promises that he who eats His flesh and drinks His blood will have eternal life, again without condition. For these reasons Jesus cannot be speaking literally of eating His flesh and drinking His blood in John 6. Taking the two quotes together we see that by eating and drinking His flesh and blood He is referring to believing in Him.

At this time I am just dealing with John 6, not other passages dealing with the Eucharist.

Whatever he may actually have believed about the Real Presence, Augustine would seem to agree with my reading of John 6.

1. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” John 6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.-Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, Book 3, Chapter 16, Paragraph 24)
   newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm

1. “They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “Labor not for the meat which perishes, but for that which endures unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perishes, but that which endures unto eternal life. To what purpose do you make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and you have eaten already.-Augustine (Tractates on the Gospel of John, Tractate 25, Paragraph 12)
   newadvent.org/fathers/1701025.htm

Again I am just dealing with Augustine’s view of John 6, not hhs view on the Real Presence which is a different issue.

 

[bengal_fan]

There are at least two problems that make it difficult for Protestants like myself to believe that this passage supports the Real Presence
(1) The passage predates the communion
.

this is the main problem i have with the argument. Jesus also said, “destroy this temple and i will raise it in 3 days.” this predates the resurrection but we all see this as Jesus predicting His resurrection. John 6 could be a prediction of what was to come in the eucharist. i agree that people can interpret it any way they want to. we then have to look to other parts of the scripture (Paul’s letter to the Corinthians where he tells them to take the communion very seriously as it is a danger to partake of the body and blood with sin upon you… seems it is definitely more than symbolic there) and when they are accompanied with John 6 we get a stronger biblical argument. then look at history and it is pretty clear that early on the followers held an extremely high view of the eucharist and their detractors accused them of being cannibals (because they said they eat the flesh and blood of their Lord). add them all up and the idea that it is purely symbolic cannot stand. sure, look at each thing independently and you might be able to make the argument, but not when looking at everything together.

 

[mozart-250]

this is the main problem i have with the argument. Jesus also said, “destroy this temple and i will raise it in 3 days.” this predates the resurrection but we all see this as Jesus predicting His resurrection. John 6 could be a prediction of what was to come in the eucharist.

I actually thought about that after I posted. The predating argument is rather weak.

I think Sy Carl stated better than why John 6 has never read to me as referring to the eucharist. Maybe if I read it again I will get it, but then again maybe not.

However, even if John 6 does not refer to the eucharist, it does not mean that the real presence is false.

I still believe the best argument for the eucharist is based on history. Interpretations of any historical document that are close to the time period that the document was written in are more reliable than those interpretations that are developed later. This is true in fields as diverse as music and constitutional law. Why wouldn’t that be true of the Bible?

 

[ncgolf]

That having been said, I don’t think you make your best case anyway by attempting to prove the Real Presence through Scripture. That argument devolves into “these scriptures prove the real presence” “no they do not” “yes they do”. Now IMHO they do not prove the real presence. But at the same time there is no proof for symbolic only, and this line of argument lets the Protestant off the hook for proving his case.

The proving thing is overrated. I have never seen gravity either but I know through experience it is real and it is a matter of life and death. I do not even have to be a physicist to understand gravity.

The believing in the what the Eucharist is comes down to a faith. How far are you willing to follow what Christ says? Is there a point at which the words of Christ become so difficult that one cannot follow? This happened before with the rich young man. Christ asked him to sell everything and come follow him but he could not. He followed all the other commandments dutifully but could not come to assent to Christ’s demand of him. No doubt it would have been difficult for the man to do what Christ asked. Same thing in John 6. What Christ is demanding of each person present was to believe him but all left except the twelve and I am sure they were wondering why they were staying.

Christ’s demands of us are not easy to sometimes believe and even do. I think with the Eucharist most put the cart before the horse. They want to understand first then believe. It works only by believing then trusting the understanding will come.

I do agree that there is that there is an opening that allows for both interpretations to exist … it comes down to how far are you willing to let Christ lead you?

That being said, I don’t think it terribly important what belief you hold concerning communion.

The Catholic Church holds the Eucharist as “the source and summit of the Christian life” (Lumen gentium, no. 11; cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1324). For us it is terribly important.

 

[bengal_fan]

can i just say how nice this thread is. everyone is being so civil even while disagreeing. everyone is open to each other’s thoughts. it doesn’t happen often on this forum and i really had to comment on it.

back to the subject

 

[ralphinal]

Why use the words “eat and drink” if he means believe and partake in my kingdom? That, to me anyway, does not make sense. Why did he let them leave if he did not mean “eat and drink?” Why did he not clarify that he was speaking figuratively? Could it be that the people heard eat my flesh and drink my blood and understood it as such but Jesus did not mean that? Was Jesus ever this ambiguous on a teaching without clarifying it later?

 

[mercygate]

Do protestants (high church anglicans and lutherans excluded) use the Early Church Fathers or pagan critics of the early christians as a guide of how this should read?

I was a High Church Episcopalian, seminary educated as a priest. YES! the Early Church Fathers are highly regarded. WE are not a “sola Scriptura” tradition.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Why use the words “eat and drink” if he means believe and partake in my kingdom? That, to me anyway, does not make sense. Why did he let them leave if he did not mean “eat and drink?” Why did he not clarify that he was speaking figuratively? Could it be that the people heard eat my flesh and drink my blood and understood it as such but Jesus did not mean that? Was Jesus ever this ambiguous on a teaching without clarifying it later?

Why do you think people left because they did not understand?

 

[mozart-250]

Christ’s demands of us are not easy to sometimes believe and even do. I think with the Eucharist most put the cart before the horse. They want to understand first then believe. It works only by believing then trusting the understanding will come.

I do agree that there is that there is an opening that allows for both interpretations to exist … it comes down to how far are you willing to let Christ lead you?

Then the question is what are the specific commandments of Christ concerning the eucharist.

The only specific command that I read is to observe it.

Later St. Paul adds a command concerning not eating and drinking unworthily. What else is there?

The Catholic Church holds the Eucharist as “the source and summit of the Christian life” (Lumen gentium, no. 11; cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1324). For us it is terribly important.

I understand that the Eucharist is important.

Anything that Jesus tells us to do is important.

I am not sure that understanding the Eucharist is as important as observing it however.

 

[ralphinal]

Why do you think people left because they did not understand?

They left because they understood what was said, but they did not understand how. Someone could better explain it than can, but the word used for “eat” means to grind the flesh with the teeth. The people there HEARD Jesus say eat, they took it to mean physically eat, and they did not understand and walked away. Jesus KNEW they heard eat, that they understood it to mean physically eat, and He let them leave. Does it make sense to you that he let them leave on a misunderstanding?