The Body and Blood are Symbolic

[Fredricks]

Some Christians claim that Jesus in chapter 6 of John’s Gospel was speaking figuratively since He commonly spoke in parables while preaching to the crowds. However, this does not appear to be the case here; His audience took Him literally and became angry.
No where in the Gospels do the crowds become angry when Christ taught in parables.

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

The murmured and were offended.
Happened all the time. Why would a parable be so special?
Look at these verses.

Mat 13:57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

Mat 15:12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?

Mat 26:31 Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended ** because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.
**
Mat 26:33 Peter answered and said unto him, Though all [men] shall be offended because of thee, [yet] will I never be offended.

Right here Peter says Christ will offend all men. Why should it matter that it was in a parable?

After John

6:60, Jesus was no longer speaking to the crowds but speaking privately with His disciples (
That is simply not true.
Prove it.

 

[Writer]

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.

You make some good points, but doesn’t it boil down to the fact that, if we accept it as symbolism alone, Christ would be seen as consciously confusing those listening (and later, reading) as to the nature of communion/Eucharist? There are less important aspects of Scripture which are certainly confusing or mysterious, but you support a position which seeks to make Christ the purveyor of confusion or even falsehood regarding a crititcal element of Christian tradition. How does this fit with admonition against even making one’s brother stumble? Furthermore, the reactions of the crowd and the disciples make it clear that they were not thinking in terms of a symbol. If Christ intended that it be seen as a symbol, it would have been His nature to later clarify this point. He did not; it is not a symbol.

 

[Fredricks]

[Fundamentalists]
say that in John 6 Jesus was not talking about physical food and drink, but about spiritual food and drink. They quote John 6:35: “Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.’” They claim that coming to him is bread, having faith in him is drink. Thus, eating his flesh and blood merely means believing in Christ.

But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, "The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation.

I would need a source for the person saying this.
They are saying that they exactly knew how a crowd of Jews 2000 years ago would figuratively understand a phrase.

To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense" (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions

, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.
**(CA)
**

This apologist knows that Jews would have known that Jesus is referring to Micah, even though the passage does not record them saying that.
John Edwards, look out!

 

[TamaraS]

Fredricks:

You did respond on the other thread. Protestants will sometimes get 10 responses. Granted yours are high quality and so let me try to respond.

Why thank you. You have great responses, too.

Fredricks:

Jhn 6:35 *And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. *

How can this be literal? It is talking about eternal life.

See, I have no problem with this verse at all. It seems acceptable to me. Our spirits are just as real as our bodies. What we do with our bodies also effects our souls as well. We take in Christ physically, but it nourishes our souls. We don’t seperate the spiritual realm from the physical one so to speak. The physical and spiritual are tied. We are not only nourished by reading the scriptures and by prayer, but we are nourished by our participation eucharist as well.
But I don’t only receive it for the “nourishment”. Everytime we have the mass, it’s when heaven meets earth. After the bread and wine are changed into his body and blood. Christ is present in his glory, but he is “veiled” by the bread and wine. We as the Bride, are “consummating” are marriage with our Bridegroom by receiving him into us through the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.

Fredricks:

Christs solider
You do not celebrate it the way they did. It was supposed to be people eating together at the same time. Bread and wine, not a priest consecrating a host etc etc

I’m not sure what you are implying here. The priest takes the bread and says those words, like Jesus did. Then the priest takes the cup and says those words, like Jesus did. There are other prayers said. The priest consumes and we all go up and receive. Does this mean that we really are not partaking together? That seems a little too legalistic even for me! Would it make you feel better if we all took our hosts and a small plastic cup of our own filled with Christ’s Blood back to our pews and ate at the very same time? It seems like the way we do it now seems like we are trying to make it something we are all partaking together, while still maintaining the respect due to our Lord’s Body and Blood. I’m sorry, I guess just don’t know what you are getting at, sometimes I’m a knucklehead!

Fredricks:

“Therefore, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that your meetings may not result in judgment. The other matters I shall set in order when I come”

Paul was upset that people were treating this like a true meal, instead of the religious act it is.

Okay, here I go again. You just told Christ’s Soldier that it was meant to be eaten all together (like a meal is?). But here you are saying Paul was upset because people were treating it like a true meal instead of the religious act that it is. I’m confused. Everytime my family eats our meals at home, we all eat together. So is the mass treating it like the a true meal, or a religious act? Which is right and which is wrong? Can it be both a meal and a religious act at the same time?
I’m sorry, I just feel like catholics just can’t win.

On that note, please don’t think I’m ever over here tapping my fingers waiting for you to comeback with a response to everything. If you didn’t respond I would not take that as a big copout or anything like that. Gosh, we are all so busy, there’s no way we could do that or we would have no life outside of the forums!

 

[Fredricks]

ChristsSoldier:

Be Blessed,
First, thank you Fred. Thank you for your time and tone. It must be daunting to be here and I respect that.

I often think if we all started treads on what we all believed in common, we would never repeat threads and hardly run out of things to say - but that wouldn’t be as fun or destructive!

Second (different thread), Christ WAS the NEW temple that housed the God of the Jew’s. It WAS raised in 3 days. Just like Mary was the Arch of the New covenant. (again, different thread)

I think the consecration was done today as was then. I agree that we do not ‘literally’ all eat at the same time today (although think the Coptic’s still do), but this is more a question of logistics today. Of course, there is also the concern of one not believing or not consuming the Host and taking it elsewhere (different thread - but understanding what we believe I’m sure you can understand this point).
I also agree that it is not a typical meal. Paul was (as often found) frustrated with several things. Some of which he did not list, most of which he intended to address in person, but I do not see where Paul calls it symbol. Nor do I see where he implies it. Apart from your already well thought out research, can you point this out to me in 1Cor 23?

Peace,
CS

I can show you where he refers to the body of Christ as symbolic AND literal.
I can show you verses where the shed blood of Christ is used to convey a symbolic point. Do we actually contend that sins are tangible and that when the shed blood(I am saying blood was literally shed do not misunderstand me) covers them, this is something that can be seen?

 

[ChristsSoldier]

Be Blessed,
My point was simply that Paul did consecrate as his predossors due and that he seemed to be speaking quite literally to me (and the RCC). Indeed this was the tradition handed down.
So either Paul ‘got it’ and his followers missed it, or Peter ‘got it’ and handed it down to all the RCC, includeing Paul.
Peace,
CS

 

[Mickey]

Fredricks:

Mat 13:57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

Mat 15:12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?

Mat 26:31 Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be **offended **because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.

Mat 26:33 Peter answered and said unto him, Though all [men] shall be offended because of thee, [yet] will I never be offended.

If it makes you feel good in your revised theology to sling verses around that include the word “offend”, that is your perogative. But it is not only the word “offend” that is in the context of this very important teaching.

60: Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, **“This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”
**61: But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this?
66: After this **many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. **
67: Jesus said to the twelve, "Do you also wish to go away?"

Fredricks:

That is simply not true.

61: But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this?

He was speaking directly to His disciples.

 

[Pjs2ejs]

Jesusfirst, I read your post about the people here responding to a protestant’s answer and saying the same thing over and over again. Two things to note here.

1. We say the same thing over and over again
2. We have been saying it for 2000 years

We’re just following what the apostles passed on to the first century Christians, who passed on to the 2nd century Christians, who passed it…for 2000 years…who passed it to us.

Who gave you your interpretation?

 

[JoeyWarren]

I sent a PM to JesusFirst about this and informed him that I used to be a Pentecostal. He responded that he was an ex-Catholic.

 

[Fredricks]

After John 6:60, Jesus was no longer speaking to the crowds but speaking **privately ** with His disciples **( **

No one is saying that he was not speaking to his disciples directly because that is not what was said. It said privately and there is absolutely NOTHING in this context to show that the disciples, not to be confused with the 12, the 12 and the Jews could not hear him.
This is potentially one of the weakest semantical arguments I have ever heard. Are you telling me that when you are speaking to three groups of people at one time, you cannot turn to one group and speak? There is nothing that says this occured “privately”. Its not there. Are you saying he said this out of earshot of the 12? Do you see the part where the Jews left?
Stop it.

 

[jim1130]

Fredricks:

I can show you where he refers to the body of Christ as symbolic AND literal.
I can show you verses where the shed blood of Christ is used to convey a symbolic point. Do we actually contend that sins are tangible and that when the shed blood(I am saying blood was literally shed do not misunderstand me) covers them, this is something that can be seen?

Peace.

One weekend during a run after having read and re-read John 6, I began to think of it as a movie:

Act 1 - Verses 22-35: The introduction to the discourse and lesson. Christ is preparing those around Him for the discourse (Remember that the Jewish Feat of Passover was near: 6: 4. “Now the pasch, the festival day of the Jews, was near at hand.” This would be the future setting of the Last Supper. Foreshadowing?).

Act 2 - Verses 36-59: The discourse itself (We have Christ’s oath, 6:54 “Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you” then re-emphasized, 6:56 “For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.”).

Act 3 - Verses 60-71: The end, portraying the reaction of the disciples and St. Peter’s confession.

Jesus says four times (35, 41, 48, 51) “I AM the bread from heaven.” It is He, Himself, the eternal bread from heaven, and there is a parallel between the manna in the desert, which was physically consumed/eaten, and this “new” bread which will be consumed/eaten. As a simile, He is saying just as you ate manna you will also consume Me. It would not make sense for Christ to say “Just as you ate real manna in Heaven, so will I be like bread, but only figuratively.”

In Verses 54-58, the word used for eat translates to “gnaw” and “munch.” There is nothing figurative about the choice of words. So disturbed were the disciples that it caused them anxiety and doubt, and subsequently caused them to walk away.

Lastly, Christ was a master communicator. I doubt He miscommunicated. Had He done so then he would have corrected the misunderstanding as He had done previously (refer to Matthew 16:5-12, John 3:1-5, 22, and John 10:10-16).

Peace.

 

[Mickey]

Fredricks:

Stop it.

Settle down my friend. You are not forced to believe that Jesus was speaking only to His disciples (including the 12). And it does not matter. The teaching is clear.

 

[Fredricks]

Mickey:

Settle down my friend. You are not forced to believe that Jesus was speaking only to His disciples (including the 12). And it does not matter. The teaching is clear.

Old English teachers detest weak semantical arguments. I will settle though. Very good.

 

[jim1130]

Fredricks:

No one is saying that he was not speaking to his disciples directly because that is not what was said. It said privately and there is absolutely NOTHING in this context to show that the disciples, not to be confused with the 12, the 12 and the Jews could not hear him.
This is potentially one of the weakest semantical arguments I have ever heard. Are you telling me that when you are speaking to three groups of people at one time, you cannot turn to one group and speak? There is nothing that says this occured “privately”. Its not there. Are you saying he said this out of earshot of the 12? Do you see the part where the Jews left?
Stop it.

Peace.

When I read and re-read John 6 a few weeks ago, I read 3 miracles:

Miracle # 1 – The multiplication of the loaves. The disciples believed because they saw.

Miracle # 2 – Christ walked on water. The disciples believed because they saw.

Because of Miracle # 1 and Miracle # 2, people wanted to visually see another miracle.

Miracle # 3 – Christ foreshadows the greatest of all miracles, the Eucharist. The disciples could not visually “see” this miracle and the literal interpretation of it caused them to disassociate with Christ.

It seems the faith of many was based on Christ’s visual “performances.”

But the Apostles, who had come to know Christ even if they did not completely understand what He had said, believed, as stated by St. Peter: “You have the words of everlasting life.”

I also think of Mark 9:8-9 about the Transfiguration: “Mark 9:8. And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them not to tell any man what things they had seen, till the Son of man shall be risen again from the dead. 9:9. And they kept the word to themselves; questioning together what that should mean, when he shall be risen from the dead.”

Christ did not ALWAYS reveal everything to his Apostles or anyone else at the moment He addressed it. There was nothing symbolic about what He stated in John 6. Those who stayed, believed.

Peace.

 

[Mickey]

It really is quite simple. If Jesus was speaking symbolically, the disciples would not have become angry and walked away. It is clear that they were understanding Him literally. Jesus knew this! If the disciples had interpreted His words symbolically, they would not have been scandalized.

Knowing that they understood Him literally, if Jesus had been speaking metaphorically, He would have plainly and clearly corrected them. Jesus is not the author of confusion!

Please, please my protestant brothers and sisters—remove the veil from your eyes! Zwingli was instrumental in distorting a very important teaching. I pray that you may understand this.

Peace to all,
Mickey

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Mickey:

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

The author John is the connection, it is his style.

And, Jesus ends passover meal with

Luke 22:18
For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes."

were not the somewhat earily christians acused of killing babies to drink their blood? where is this recorded?

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Acts 15:20
Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and **from blood.
**

Acts 15:29
You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.

Acts 21:25
As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality."

 

[Gnosis]

Jesus intentionally confused his audience before.

“He spoke everything in parables so that they may hear but not understand”

It was only to his inmost circle of followers that he would explain these parables. As noted, Jesus makes many claims in the Gospel of John, many of which he does not explain.

In the case of “You must eat my flesh”, I don’t think his disciples originally understood what he was saying, but they took it on faith. It was only after his crucifixion that they understood what he had meant. For his death had given them life.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Here we have proof of transubstantiation from one of the Earliest Church Fathers:
Cyril of Jerusalem:

1. Even of itself the teaching of the Blessed Paul is sufficient to give you a full assurance concerning those Divine Mysteries, of which having been deemed worthy, ye are become of the same body and blood with Christ. For you have just heard him say distinctly, That our Lord Jesus Christ in the night in which He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks He brake it, and gave to His disciples, saying, Take, eat, this is My Body: and having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, Take, drink, this is My Blood. Since then He Himself declared and said of the Bread, This is My Body, who shall dare to doubt any longer? And since He has Himself affirmed and said, This is My Blood, who shall ever hesitate, saying, that it is not His blood?
2. He once in Cana of Galilee, turned the water into wine, akin to blood, and is it incredible that He should have turned wine into blood? When called to a bodily marriage, He miraculously wrought that wonderful work; and on the children of the bride-chamber, shall He not much rather be acknowledged to have bestowed the fruition of His Body and Blood?
3. Wherefore with full assurance let us partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to thee His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood; that thou by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, mayest be made of the same body and the same blood with Him. For thus we come to bear Christ in us, because His Body and Blood are distributed through our members; thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter, we become partakers of the divine nature.
4. Christ on a certain occasion discoursing with the Jews said, Except ye eat My flesh and drink My blood, ye have no life in you. They not having heard His saying in a spiritual sense were offended, and went back, supposing that He was inviting them to eat flesh.
5. In the Old Testament also there was shew-bread; but this, as it belonged to the Old Testament, has come to an end; but in the New Testament there is Bread of heaven, and a Cup of salvation, sanctifying soul and body; for as the Bread corresponds to our body, so is the Word appropriate to our soul.
6. Consider therefore the Bread and the Wine not as bare elements, for they are, according to the Lord’s declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ; for even though sense suggests this to thee, yet let faith establish thee. Judge not the matter from the taste, but from faith be fully assured without misgiving, that the Body and Blood of Christ have been vouchsafed to thee.
7. Also the blessed David shall advise thee the meaning of this, saying, Thou hast prepared a table before me in the presence of them that afflict me. What he says, is to this effect: Before Thy coming, the evil spirits

, and said, This is My blood, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

1. Therefore Solomon also, hinting at this grace, says in Ecclesiastes, Come hither, eat thy bread with joy (that is, the spiritual bread; Come hither, he calls with the call to salvation and blessing), and drink thy wine with a merry heart (that is, the spiritual wine); and let oil be poured out upon thy head (thou seest he alludes even to the mystic Chrism); and let thy garments be always white, for the Lord is well pleased with thy works; for before thou camest to Baptism, thy works were vanity of vanities. But now, having put off thy old garments, and put on those which are spiritually white, thou must be continually robed in white: of course we mean not this, that thou art always to wear white raiment; but thou must be clad in the garments that are truly white and shining and spiritual, that thou mayest say with the blessed Esaias, My soul shall be joyful in my God; for He hath clothed me with a garment of salvation, and put a robe of gladness around me.
2. Having learnt these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man’s heart, to make his face to shine with oil, “strengthen thou thine heart,” by partaking thereof as spiritual, and “make the face of thy soul to shine.” And so having it unveiled with a pure conscience, mayest thou reflect as a mirror the glory of the Lord, and proceed from glory to glory, in Christ Jesus our Lord:—To whom be honour, and might, and glory, for ever and ever. Amen.

^ Now this is Catholic teaching.

Who do Evangelicals think they are when they think they know more about the Faith than the Early Fathers who studied under the Apostles themselves and think that their interpretation of Sacred Scripture is better?

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Daniel Marsh:

The author John is the connection, it is his style.

And, Jesus ends passover meal with

Luke 22:18
For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes."

were not the somewhat earily christians acused of killing babies to drink their blood? where is this recorded?

The passover meal Jesus was instituting here was not completed till He was ressurected from the dead. This is the new paschal sacrifice, the Lamb of God. Jesus is the bread of Life, the Lamb. At the passover sacrifice, the Jews would not just merely kill the lamb, but they would consume it, and use its blood to redeem them from their sins. This is what Jesus did for you.