The Body and Blood are Symbolic

[Eden]

This thread is a result of the request by Kevan in the thread “Protestants: Why don’t you follow his command? 'Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood” to create a new thread for defending the belief by some Protestant faiths that the Eucharist is symbolic.

So, if you believe that Jesus was instituting a symbol in John 6 please defend this teaching here.

 

[Gnosis]

I think it is rather clear that Jesus was speaking symbolically in regards to his discourse in the Gospel fof John. While some have pointed out that Jesus was using literal language, this does not neccessarily imply that he was speaking of his flesh being “literal bread”.

Jesus first makes an allusion to the time of Moses when God provided mana to the Israelittes in the desert. While the Israelites ate this bread they still died. Jesus declares however, that he is indeed the true bread that came down from heaven. This is overtly symbollic. Jesus is not declaring himself to be a literal piece of bread, obviously, but is declaring himself to be a life saving essence from the heavenly realm. The Israelites would have starved in the desert had God not provided them with mana. A key Christian idea is that God takes the initial step in the process of salvation, not man. Here, Jesus is stressing that God has taken the first step in redemption by sending Him to give life. Hence bread becomes the primary metaphor.

“I am the bread of life, your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, but they died”

Jesus is stressing the insufficiency of the Jewish tradition. What God provided in the Hebrew scriptures is not complete, for death was not escaped.

So far, Jesus’ references of himself as bread have been purely symbolic. However, would be obviously inciting to his audience.

He has already subtly attacked the Jewish tradition by noting that the forefathers died. He has already implied that the life not found in this tradition is now found in him. He then overtly pushes this idea.

“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”

This is a logical extension of the metaphor. Jesus has already refered to himself as the bread that gives life. What better way to convey the lifegiving power within him than consumption? Jesus is known to place an over-emphasis on certain aspects of his teachings, and he is known not to say things in the clearest manner. Thus, I think he intentionally caused confusion when stressing the cannibalistic nature of what he was saying. The crowd had already expressed that it was suspicious of what he was saying. Thus, what he said would further push away those who would not accept his message, while draw another level of intimacy with those who did accept his message.

Secondly, Jesus emphasized his “flesh and blood” in anticipation of the passion. He would, quite literally, shed his blood and tear his flesh (as though “being chewed”) for the sake of giving life to the world. Consumption becomes a very suitable metaphor. The Gospel of John does not even have the breaking of the bread. Thus, we must question what emphasis John was placing on the “sacramental aspect”

Lastly, if we turn to the Epistles, we see very little emphasis on the eucharist, of course, it is not refered to as so. It is not mentioned in accordance with any redemptive notions, Paul nor any other author says “we must eat the literal flesh of Christ to be saved”, rather he emphasises the cross.

 

[viktor_aleksndr]

If that is symbolic the Jesus could have stated "…this is the SYMBOL of my Body…

Why would Jesus speak such things as “Eat my Flesh and Drink my Blood” in front of the Jews that he knows that Jews will hate him if that is just a symbolic. Or why did Jesus did not take back what he had said during the sermon when the jews left him on that place because of that teaching?

It is because Jesus taught not of symbols but of truth.

 

[Eden]

So, when I make John 6 symbolic, this sounds logical to you, Gnosis?

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is a cracker which will symbolize my flesh, for the life of the world. 53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us a cracker to eat as symbol of his flesh ? 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, Amen I say unto you: Except you eat* a cracker which is a symbol of *the flesh of the Son of man, and drink grape juice as a symbol of his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth a cracker which is a symbol of my flesh , and drinketh grape juice which is a symbol of my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

56 For *a cracker as symbol of *my flesh is meat indeed: and grape juice as a symbol of my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth a cracker as a symbol of my flesh, and drinketh *grape juice as a symbol of *my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me in symbolic form as crackers and grape juice, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread which is symbolic crackers and grape juice, shall live for ever. 60 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.

61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying that we must eat crackers and drink grape juice to symbolize his Body and Blood is hard, and who can hear it? 62 But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you to hear me say that you must to eat crackers and drink grape juice as a symbol of my Body and Blood? 63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth:the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. 65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him. 66 And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. 67 After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him. 68 Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? 69 And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 70 And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.

 

[Lischou]

Great post, Eden! Well illustrated.

Questions for those who think the Body and Blood were ‘merely symbolic.’ Why did disciples leave and follow no more simply over a ‘ceremony?’ What is there that is scandalous about a ‘symbolic ceremony?’ They didn’t have time to celebrate it? It would add too much extra time to the Sunday service and people wouldn’t be able to get home in time to remove the pot roast from the oven? What?

You must explain the reaction of the listeners. It doesn’t jive with the “symbolic explanation.”

Lisa

 

[Lischou]

Gnosis:

Lastly, if we turn to the Epistles, we see very little emphasis on the eucharist, of course, it is not refered to as so. It is not mentioned in accordance with any redemptive notions, Paul nor any other author says “we must eat the literal flesh of Christ to be saved”, rather he emphasises the cross.

Not true. Paul directly addresses the Eucharist in 1Cor. 11:23 - 30. If this is ‘merely symbolic,’ how could one possibly “eat and drink judgement on himself?”

While some have pointed out that Jesus was using literal language, this does not neccessarily imply that he was speaking of his flesh being “literal bread”.

You have this backwards, the bread becomes His flesh.

Jesus is known to place an over-emphasis on certain aspects of his teachings, and he is known not to say things in the clearest manner. Thus, I think he intentionally caused confusion when stressing the cannibalistic nature of what he was saying. The crowd had already expressed that it was suspicious of what he was saying. Thus, what he said would further push away those who would not accept his message, while draw another level of intimacy with those who did accept his message.

Christ intentionally causing confusion on a major teaching?!! Not logical. God is purposely providing a way of salvation to humanity and has put it in very simple language: This is my body. This is the cup of my blood. If God intentionally set things up to be purposely confusing He would not be a loving God then would He? And why in the world would He intentionally subject Himself to the Passion if He was just “setting up humanity,” trying to trick them or see which of them would be “smart enough” to figure out His puzzle? Doesn’t fly. Sorry.

Lisa

 

[Mickey]

Gnosis:

I think it is rather clear that Jesus was speaking symbolically in regards to his discourse in the Gospel fof John.

In St John’s Gospel chapter six, Jesus allows His disciples to walk away because the teaching of the Real Presence is too hard for them. If Jesus was speaking symbolically, why did he not clarify His meaning instead of allowing them to walk away. Could it be because Jesus was not speaking symbolically? Jesus would clarify such a grave misunderstanding, would He not? Let us look at another misunderstanding five chapters later in the Gospel of St John to see if Jesus corrects the communication barrier.

**John 11 **11:14

Thus he spoke, and then he said to them, “Our friend Laz’arus has fallen asleep, but I go to awake him out of sleep.” The disciples said to him, “Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover.”
Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that he meant taking rest in sleep.
Then Jesus told them plainly, "Laz’arus is dead;

 

[Fredricks]

In St John’s Gospel chapter six, Jesus allows His disciples to walk away because the teaching of the Real Presence is too hard for them. If Jesus was speaking symbolically, why did he not clarify His meaning instead of allowing them to walk away.

Let me address that like I did on another thread.

JESUS SPEAKS 6:29-58

**Jhn 6:59 ** *These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. *

JESUS STOPS

Jhn 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard [this], said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
DISCIPLES DO NOT LIKE IT

Jhn 6:61 *When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? *

Jhn 6:62 ** [What] and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
**
DO NOT SKIP OVER THIS, JESUS EXPLAINS WHAT HE MEANS
Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.
DO NOT SKIP OVER THIS, JESUS EXPLAINS WHAT HE MEANS

Jhn 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

Jhn 6:65 *And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. *

Jesus is the way to eternal life.

Jhn 6:66 *From that [time] many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. *
They left AFTER he clarifed.

**Jhn 6:67 ** *Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? *

Jhn 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

PETER GETS IT. His words are eternal life, nothing about his flesh.

Jhn 6:69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

John 6:63 is the explanation. They walk away after the explanation.

 

[Mickey]

Fredricks:

PETER GETS IT. His words are eternal life, nothing about his flesh.

For Fundamentalist writers, the scriptural argument is capped by an appeal to John 6:63: “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” They say this means that eating real flesh is a waste. But does this make sense?

Are we to understand that Christ had just commanded his disciples to eat his flesh, then said their doing so would be pointless? Is that what “the flesh is of no avail” means? “Eat my flesh, but you’ll find it’s a waste of time”—is that what he was saying? Hardly.

The fact is that Christ’s flesh avails much! If it were of no avail, then the Son of God incarnated for no reason, he died for no reason, and he rose from the dead for no reason. Christ’s flesh profits us more than anyone else’s in the world. If it profits us nothing, so that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ are of no avail, then “your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished” (1 Cor. 15:17b–18).

In John 6:63 “flesh profits nothing” refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. Thus in John 8:15–16 Jesus tells his opponents: “You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me.” So natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true.

And were the disciples to understand the line “The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life” as nothing but a circumlocution (and a very clumsy one at that) for “symbolic”? No one can come up with such interpretations unless he first holds to the Fundamentalist position and thinks it necessary to find a rationale, no matter how forced, for evading the Catholic interpretation. In John 6:63 “flesh” does not refer to Christ’s own flesh—the context makes this clear—but to mankind’s inclination to think on a natural, human level. “The words I have spoken to you are spirit” does not mean “What I have just said is symbolic.” The word “spirit” is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (cf. John 6:37, 44–45, 65).

**(excerpt from article at Catholic Answers)

**

 

[Fredricks]

Mickey
I have actually read that on this site.

"In John 6:63 “flesh profits nothing” refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them.

I cannot imagine that anyone would find this convincing. I have read interpretations that stretch credibility before and this would be one of the most imaginative.

In order to accept your contention that this whole passage is not really about eternal life, we have to accept this interpretation and ignore the words of Peter, which show this discourse was about eternal life, and not the literal interpretation that Catholicism applies to it.

 

[jesusfirst]

ok i’ve been lurking on here long enough. i’ve got the hang of things on here, which is why i’ll probably not post again.

Fredricks-you can talk till you’re blue in the face and they still won’t understand it.

the only things that happens with these type of threads, are that someone will ask a question to a pretestant- they’ll answer and the op will STILL say the same thing over and over.

why would you keep on doing that.???

sonia

 

[Mickey]

Fredricks:

I cannot imagine that anyone would find this convincing. I have read interpretations that stretch credibility before and this would be one of the most imaginative.

Oh contrare! I find your symbolic revisionist interpretation most imaginative beyond comprehension!

Notice that the crowds clearly understand him to say that to live they must eat his flesh (v. 52), and, although they understand him in a carnal way (not seeing that his flesh will be veiled under the appearance of bread and wine), they grasp the basic truth of his words. The proof is that he does not try to correct them as if they had misunderstood, but rather reiterates and amplifies what they have understood from his saying in verse 51. Notice with what solemnity (Truly, truly...'') and how many times he reaffirms this teaching (vv. 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, and 58). Each of these verses is a categorical affirmation of the crowd's understanding of his words. There is no indication that Jesus is speaking figuratively here; we must humbly accept the words of our Lord, even though if it require a great leap of faith. We must not allow our predispositions or traditions or even the purely empirical knowledge of our own senses to restrict our full recognition of the truth given from the mouth of God made Man: Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.’’ (John 20:29) We must humbly ask God for the faith to believe in this truth beyond all expectation, tradition and sense. ``Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.’’ (Mark 10:16)

Some interpret verse 63 to mean that the flesh about which Jesus has just been speaking does not contribute to salvation. The problem with this interpretation is that it denies the role of the Incarnation in our salvation: if Jesus’ flesh is not beneficial to our salvation, why did he become a man and sacrifice himself? The correct interpretation is, as we have already noted, that flesh' refers to the senses and the mind enslaved to the senses. Jesus is saying, Don’t judge by your senses; judge by the Spirit: have faith in me!’ Besides, as St. Thomas Aquinas points out, Jesus gives us in the Holy Eucharist not just his body, but also his blood, soul, and divinity; Jesus died only once and these can never be separated from his body again.

(From an article by theThe Augustine Club at Columbia University)

 

[Mickey]

jesusfirst:

Fredricks-you can talk till you’re blue in the face and they still won’t understand it.

The disciples who walked away did not understand.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Eden:

So, when I make John 6 symbolic, this sounds logical to you, Gnosis?

That’s an awesome argument Eden! :bowdown:

Jesus is known to place an over-emphasis on certain aspects of his teachings, and he is known not to say things in the clearest manner. Thus, I think he intentionally caused confusion when stressing the cannibalistic nature of what he was saying. The crowd had already expressed that it was suspicious of what he was saying. Thus, what he said would further push away those who would not accept his message, while draw another level of intimacy with those who did accept his message.

1Co 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion…

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Hi Lisa, the fact that Jesus was calling for commitment in his teachings explains why people left.

Jesus used metaphors in his “I am the” teachings — door, vine, good sheppard, etc.,

in the end of John 6, Jesus refers to the wine as “fruit of the vine”

I Cor 11

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

besides Jesus did not say ouch at the last supper.

 

[Mickey]

Daniel Marsh:

besides Jesus did not say ouch at the last supper.

The old cannibal theory is getting a little tired and old. Shame on you. That is what the earliest Chritians were accused of by the pagans–and now Daniel Marsh makes the same accusations. :crying:

 

[Fredricks]

Mickey:

Oh contrare! I find your symbolic revisionist interpretation most imaginative beyond comprehension!

Notice that the crowds clearly understand him to say that to live they must eat his flesh (v. 52), and, although they understand him in a carnal way (not seeing that his flesh will be veiled under the appearance of bread and wine), they grasp the basic truth of his words. The proof is that he does not try to correct them as if they had misunderstood, but rather reiterates and amplifies what they have understood from his saying in verse 51. Notice with what solemnity (Truly, truly...'') and how many times he reaffirms this teaching (vv. 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, and 58). Each of these verses is a categorical affirmation of the crowd's understanding of his words. There is no indication that Jesus is speaking figuratively here; we must humbly accept the words of our Lord, even though if it require a great leap of faith. We must not allow our predispositions or traditions or even the purely empirical knowledge of our own senses to restrict our full recognition of the truth given from the mouth of God made Man: Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.’’ (John 20:29) We must humbly ask God for the faith to believe in this truth beyond all expectation, tradition and sense. ``Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.’’ (Mark 10:16)

Some interpret verse 63 to mean that the flesh about which Jesus has just been speaking does not contribute to salvation. The problem with this interpretation is that it denies the role of the Incarnation in our salvation: if Jesus’ flesh is not beneficial to our salvation, why did he become a man and sacrifice himself? The correct interpretation is, as we have already noted, that flesh' refers to the senses and the mind enslaved to the senses. Jesus is saying, Don’t judge by your senses; judge by the Spirit: have faith in me!’ Besides, as St. Thomas Aquinas points out, Jesus gives us in the Holy Eucharist not just his body, but also his blood, soul, and divinity; Jesus died only once and these can never be separated from his body again.

(From an article by theThe Augustine Club at Columbia University)

I detest arguing with articles.
Its so impersonal.

Could you find an article then that deals with Peters comments as well then?

 

[Mickey]

Daniel Marsh:

Jesus used metaphors in his “I am the” teachings — door, vine, good sheppard, etc.,

Fundamentalist writers who comment on John 6 also assert that one can show Christ was speaking only metaphorically by comparing verses like John 10:9 (“I am the door”) and John 15:1 (“I am the true vine”). The problem is that there is not a connection to John 6:35, “I am the bread of life.” “I am the door” and “I am the vine” make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, “For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (John 6:55).

He continues: “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me” (John 6:57). **The Greek word used for “eats” (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of “chewing” or “gnawing.” This is not the language of metaphor.
**
(Catholic Answers)

 

[Fredricks]

Mickey:

The old cannibal theory is getting a little tired and old. Shame on you. That is what the earliest Chritians were accused of by the pagans–and now Daniel Marsh makes the same accusations. :crying:

Mickey
Respectfully, I also see it that way.
Let me ask you to do something.

Explain what happens to the host that makes it nonsymbolic in your own words.