Questioning the Eucharist

[ryanmac]

The following is a list of questions I’ve gathered over the years that have most challenged my Protestant theology regarding the Eucharist. Please contribute your own questions, and for Protestants, please add another line of questions that lead toward your understanding of the Lord’s Supper.

John 6:51-58
“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.” The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 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 you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at 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 living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, 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.”

1. 
   *] Jn 6:48-69 - If Jesus did want to convince his followers of the Real Presence, what could he have added to make it clear?
   *] v.55 - When is “indeed” or “true” (ἀληθής, 227) used for symbolism in Scripture?
   *] v.54,56-58 - When is “eat” (τρώγων, 5176) used metaphorically in Scripture?
   *] v.52 - Did the Jews take Jesus literally?
   *] v.53-58 - Did Jesus explain this mistaken interpretation?
   *] v.60 - Did the Jews take Jesus literally?
   *] If they misunderstood Jesus’ teaching, why didn’t He clear it up as He did on other occasions (Jn 3:3; Jn 4:32; Mt 13:34; Mt 16:6)?
   *] In a metaphorical interpretation, is it fair to say that the Jews left Jesus not because of what Jesus taught (symbolism), but because of what they thought He taught (realism)? Is this typical in Scripture, or the only time in Scripture where this happens?
   *] In Scripture the phrase “eat my flesh” and “drink my blood”, when used metaphorically by the Jews refer to slander, hate, persecution, murder, etc. (Deut 28:53; Deut 32:42; 2 Sam 23:17; Ps 27:2; Isa 9:20; Isa 49:26; Eze 5:10; Mic 3:3; Rev 17:6,16)… Was Jesus really teaching the disciples to hate, murder, slander Him? If so, can you rephrase this section to make sense with your metaphorical interpretation? If not, how do you deal with this problem? [this is a giant one for me!]
   *] v.63 - Does “the flesh” here refer to Christ’s flesh or our flesh?
   *] If in the Old Testament Sacrifices were meant to be eaten (Gen 22:9-13; Ex 12; Lev 7:15; Lev 17:11,14; 2 Chron 30:15-17; 2 Chron 35), what Bible verse(s) teach that this practice stops for the ultimate sacrifice, the Lamb of God?
   *] Was it important that the Jews at the Passover (Ex 12) not only sacrifice the lamb according to the Lord’s command, but also eat the lamb?
   *] If the Eucharist is purely symbolic, why are the consequences for unworthy partaking so drastic? (1 Cor 11:27-30) How are these consequences not unjust if it’s merely a symbol?
   *] How do you explain the sacrificial language used in Lk 22:19 and 1 Cor 11:24?
   

   “Do this in remembrance of Me.”
   τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰςτὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν
   ποιεῖτε, Strong’s 4160 = to make or do (used in Ex 29:38 in the LXX to “offer” a lamb on the altar)
   ἀνάμνησιν, Strong’s 364 = remembrance (used Heb 10:3 for a reminder of sacrifice; Also Lev 24:7 and Num 10:10 in LXX for memorial sacrifice or offering)

   *] What historical evidence (Early Church Fathers, creeds, councils, etc.) is there that the early Church operated under the symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist?
   *] Do you think that the apostles’ interpretation of Scripture would be reliable?
   *] In light of what Ignatius of Antioch wrote in his Epistle to Smyrnaeans (~110), how did he, a disciple of John, the author of the Gospel (~96), interpret John 6:48-69?
   

   Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 6,2 - The eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father in His goodness raised.

   Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 - They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.

   *] If Ignatius, a disciple of John, is any indication, what was John’s interpretation of Jesus’ teaching on the Eucharist?
   *] Is it possible (and Scriptural) that Jesus Christ meant for His Church to experience Him in the Eucharist in a way unknown by Protestants?
   *] Is symbolic belief in the Eucharist essential for salvation?
   *] Does belief in the Real Presence disqualify one from salvation?

 

[By_His_Mercy]

I always include 1 Cor 10:16…

1 Cor 10:16 Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?

The cup is a “sharing in the blood of Christ”. Sure, other passages say to do this in rememberance. We remember what Jesus said and did (“rememberance of Me”)…and we also share in His blood and body itself (sacramentally).

God bless you,

 

[cfh99nyc]

here is a wonderful piece by scott hahn called the fourth cup.
catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9109fea1.asp

notice when jesus says “the flesh profits nothing” he is clearly not referring to his own flesh. the only other place where “the flesh” is used in john’s gospel is John 8:15 where he says you judge wrong because you judge “according the flesh”.

The apostles had to wait until the “holy spirit” had been given on the day of pentecost so they could understand jesus:

“But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing[a] in Him would receive; for the Holy** Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” -John 7:39

This characterizes the difference between protestants and catholics. to worship in “spirit and truth” John 4:23 means to be able to discern spiritual things like the eucharist. this reminds us of the gospel of matthew

“Watch and pray, lest you enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.”” - Matthew 26:41**

 

[WesleyF]

*] In Scripture the phrase “eat my flesh” and “drink my blood”, when used metaphorically by the Jews refer to slander, hate, persecution, murder, etc. (Deut 28:53; Deut 32:42; 2 Sam 23:17; Ps 27:2; Isa 9:20; Isa 49:26; Eze 5:10; Mic 3:3; Rev 17:6,16)… Was Jesus really teaching the disciples to hate, murder, slander Him? If so, can you rephrase this section to make sense with your metaphorical interpretation? If not, how do you deal with this problem? [this is a giant one for me!]

According to me, Protestants would interpret “eat my flesh” as “read and meditate on God’s word”. Because Jesus is the Word of God, eating Jesus’ flesh could mean (for Protestants, i.e.) to “eat” (i.e. read and meditate upon) God’s word in the scriptures.

However, in my understanding, that viewpoint has a lot of problems. If eating Jesus’ flesh meant to meditate on God’s word, then Jesus would have said, “(the food) which the Son of Man is giving you” (John 6:27) ,i.e.in the present tense, for he was really giving them God’s word. But Jesus instead used, “will give you”, i.e. in the future tense, implying it was something that he would do in the future. For Catholics, that is simply the institution of the Eucharist which Jesus gave later (Mt 26:26-28).

 

[cranster]

According to me, Protestants would interpret “eat my flesh” as “read and meditate on God’s word”. Because Jesus is the Word of God, eating Jesus’ flesh could mean (for Protestants, i.e.) to “eat” (i.e. read and meditate upon) God’s word in the scriptures.

One of the largest holes in that interpretation as far as I’m concerned is the Septuagint was the only Scripture at the time of Jesus. Shouldn’t they limit themselves to that if that’s what Jesus was refering to? The New Testament was not available at the time except in the person of Jesus Christ.

I don’t think there was any misunderstanding at the words of Jesus because many people walked away from Him because His saying was HARD! Why would anyone abandon Him if He was only refering to reading something that wasn’t even written yet? If He was refering to reading and meditating on the New Testament nobody would have had a clue what He was talking about. He did mean to eat the Word of God, literally.

He said what He meant, and meant what He said… period!