Why do Protestants think that the Eucharist is only a symbol?

[Darryl_B]

The argument whether the Eucharist is symbolic or literal can be honestly debated and how you come out can be defended with scripture.

The Basic Symbolic argument is that the bread at the last supper was a remembrance ceremony. Jesus certainly does say that bread is his body and you must eat of it to take part in his Salvation, however, Jesus also says in various places in scripture that he is Meat, Water, Light, Bread, the morning star, the good Sheppard, etc.

My own opinion is that the Bread is really Christ’s body in the Spiritual sense. It is not physically flesh because eating it would be cannibalism and the bread does not literally resemble flesh. It is not merely a remembrance because Jesus is so specific about it being part of him.

Consider this; Christ set up two ordinances Baptism and Communion. The Bible is clear that only a believer should take part in these ordinances. My participation in these ordinances identifies me as a Christian. They are evidence to any accuser that I am guilty of practicing Christianity. I am of the Body of Christ. Both ordinances call us to examine ourselves and repent. They are also public displays of our Universal faith.

Someday we will understand these mysteries. Until then this debate will continue.

But …

Wouldn’t the logical conclusion from this approach be that since they are “symbolic” they are therefore an act of no intrinsic worth, and therefore superfluous to salvation, and therefore essentially redundant to Christianity. You have not given a reason otherwise.

The mystery has always been understood by the Catholic Church it is only a mystery to protestants, and until they understand, they will debate.

 

[Darryl_B]

I will also point out that “mystery” in Greek, means a secret thing only known to those in the know. Those outside, do not understand, those inside do understand (it is revealed to them by God), so “great is the mystery of godliness”, is not something we are still trying to comprehend, its just something hidden to those outside, but those inside understand.

 

[Darryl_B]

It’s one thing to compare yourself to light, or bread or something else. However, when those who complained that his words were too hard, and walked away, We read that Jesus repeated himself, and did not just say you must eat my body and drink my blood or you will not have life within you, the Greek says, You must chew on my body, and drink my blood. Those who rejected His command to eat His real Body walked away …

from the Catholic Church.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Unexplainable Dilemma
Since the “eating and drinking” in verse 6:54 and the “believing” in verse 6:40 produce the same result - eternal life we have an unexplainable dilemma if both are taken literally. What if a person “believes” but does not “eat or drink”? Or what if a person “eats and drinks” but does not “believe?” This could happen any time a non-believer walked into a Catholic Church and received the Eucharist. Does this person have eternal life because he met one of the requirements but not the other? The only possible way to harmonize these two verses is to accept one verse as figurative and one as literal.

Eating and Drinking Can Be Figurative
The Jews were familiar with the use of the figurative language of “eating and drinking” in the Old Testament to describe the appropriation of divine blessings to one’s innermost being. It was God’s way of providing spiritual nourishment for the soul. (See Jeremiah 15:16 and Ezekiel 2:8, 3:1)

Jesus Confirmed His Use of Figurative Language
Jesus informed His disciples there were times when He spoke figuratively to impart spiritual truths (John 16:25). He often used that type of language to describe Himself. The Gospel of John records seven figurative declarations Jesus made of Himself – “the bread of life” (6:48), “the light of the world” (8:12), “the door” (10:9), “the good shepherd” (10:11), “the resurrection and the life” (11:25), “the way, the truth and the life” (14:6), and “the true vine” (15:1). He also referred to His body as the temple (2:19). When speaking to a mixed crowd of believers and unbelievers, Jesus used parables (figurative language) so that unbelievers could not understand the mysteries of heaven which were not granted to them (Mat. 13:10-17). The reason the multitude were seeking after Jesus was because they wanted more physical food (John 6:26). Jesus was offering them spiritual food (John 6:32-33). As believers partake of Jesus, He will abide in them (John 6:53). They will never hunger or thirst. Clearly this is in a figurative sense (John 6:35). As the good shepherd, He feeds His people knowledge and understanding of Himself (Jer. 3:15).

His Words Were Spiritual
Jesus ended this teaching by revealing “the words I have spoken to you are spirit” (6:63). As with each of the seven miracles in John’s Gospel, Jesus uses the miracle to convey a spiritual truth. Here Jesus has just multiplied the loaves and fish and uses a human analogy to teach the necessity of spiritual nourishment. This is consistent with His teaching on how we are to worship God. “God is Spirit and His worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24). As we worship Christ He is present spiritually, not physically. In fact, Jesus can only be bodily present at one place at one time. His omnipresence refers only to His spirit. It is impossible for Christ to be bodily present in thousands of Catholic Churches around the world.

A Counterfeit Miracle?
There is no Biblical precedent where something supernatural occurred where the outward evidence indicated no miracle had taken place. (The wafer and wine look, taste and feel the same before and after the supposed miracle of transubstantion). When Jesus changed water into wine, all the elements of water changed into the actual elements of wine.

Conclusion
The 6th chapter of John took place three years before the Last Supper. If the Words of Christ were taken literally, why didn’t people start gnawing on His flesh after this teaching? The ones who departed from Jesus were unbelievers (6:36) who had followed him to Capernaum for another free lunch (6:26). When Jesus offered Himself as “spiritual” food they were not interested (6:63). Those who ate of the spiritual food for eternal life were believers (6:40) and remained with Jesus. He had the words [not the flesh] of eternal life (6:68). Catholics need to know that when Jesus is received spiritually, one time in the heart, there is no need to receive him physically, over and over again in the stomach. Anyone who believes they are literally eating Jesus is absurd and cannibalistic.
At the Last Supper Jesus asked believers to remember Him until He comes again. Why do Catholics remember Him if they believe He has come again the Eucharist. “For I [Paul] received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it, and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same way He took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes” (1 Cor. 11:23-26). If transubstantiation were true and Jesus is indeed physically present, why would He ask us to remember Him. Furthermore, God does not dwell in Catholic tabernacles made with human hands (Acts 7:48).

The only way to receive Jesus is spiritually by faith John 1:12-13).

Wow, this is unbelievably arrogant and poor biblical analysis even by protestant standards.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I’m non-denominational, by which I mean I follow God with all my heart, but I do so as I hope is biblically as possible, not adding anything that the first apostles didn’t do or that Jesus didn’t directly instruct. !

This part of your comment really stood out to me. I completely agree! We should practice as the apostles and Jesus instructed!

Now, imagine Jesus and the Apostles preached everyday at your church, lived with you, counseled you, and all your congregants, and lived life with you.

They wrote down a couple books about what they had taught you. Once they were gone, would the church throw away everything taught to them that was not written down explicitly in the few books they left?

Of course not!

They would use the books to supplement and teach the future the foundation of the life they were taught to live.

This is exactly what happened in the first century and what is maintained today in the Apostolic churches.

John 20:30

30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe** that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

John 21:24-25

24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.

25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.**

 

[Filioque]

Wow, this is unbelievably arrogant and poor biblical analysis even by protestant standards.

Not arrogant, nor anti biblical, as long as you suspend all historical and cultural events and presuppose Jesus and the Apostles, as well as all the writers inspired to write the OT and NT books only spoke the Queen’s English, and lived culturally devoid of any Jewish or Middle Eastern influences. Of course Jesus and the rest would also have to have been around about five centuries ago when the whole idea of Symbolic “Communion Services” denial of infant baptism, and abandonment of Apostolic Succession came about.

Just deny historical fact, invent your own definition of what the Catholic Church teaches, ignore the prohibition against false witness against the Catholic Church and her teachings, and viola, it all makes sense.

 

[rfournier103]

On this topic I would recommend John Salza’s “The Biblical Basis for the Eucharist.” It is an amazing book loaded with overwhelming Biblical evidence (at least that’s MY opinion), and relys SOLELY on Scripture.

Only in the last chapter does the author use any evidence NOT found in the Bible - the Early Fathers. Some of THIER statements predate the Bible.

The book addresses the most common Protestant objections; with each chapter devoted to addressing a particular objection.

The only downside is that at times it reads like a legal treatise (Mr. Salza is an attorney); and can be a little harsh towards Protestants. However, if one can get by that, it’s VERY good and has been INVALUABLE to my knowledge of the Faith.

 

[glorifyhisname]

Priests do not exalt themselves … even the Pope is not exalted … the Pope is “the servant of the servants of God” Priests are people who dedicate their lives in service to Jesus … just as you and I do … only they do so with a singular purpose - forsaking marriage and family to do so … as do religious [sisters, brothers, monks and nuns in addition to priests]

Thank you for your thoughts. I guess to clarify, I should say that I believe there is much to be learned outside of scripture, but I am reluctant to accept priests or the Pope because Jesus never mentioned them in his time teaching and the Bible never really instructs us to have them. So yes, we have what we call earthly fathers. I just think that we should look to Christ as our only infallible authority. Because of this view, the fact that God sanctifies the Eucharist only through the hands of a priest is confusing to me.

Sorry, this has very little to do with the Eucharist! Maybe I should search for threads specifically about the Pope and priests.

I thank you all again for helping me to search out God’s instructions in Scripture.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Thank you for your thoughts. I guess to clarify, I should say that I believe there is much to be learned outside of scripture, but I am reluctant to accept priests or the Pope because Jesus never mentioned them in his time teaching and the Bible never really instructs us to have them. So yes, we have what we call earthly fathers. I just think that we should look to Christ as our only infallible authority. Because of this view, the fact that God sanctifies the Eucharist only through the hands of a priest is confusing to me.

Sorry, this has very little to do with the Eucharist! Maybe I should search for threads specifically about the Pope and priests.

I thank you all again for helping me to search out God’s instructions in Scripture.

A couple thoughts to ponder.

God did institute priests in the Old Testament and we find Christ a practicing Jew saying that he did not come to abolish the priesthood but to fulfill it.

He did institute the power to absolve sins to his Apostles and we see that authority passed down. We also see examples of the ordained being the head of the churches and conducting the Eucharist in Scripture.

We see the early church, like ignatius of Antioch, people who knew the Apostles talking about these issues in a way Catholics can clearly identify and many Protestants scratch their head over.

John tells us in Chapter 20 and 21 that Jesus did much more than is written that the whole world could not hold the books that could be written. It’s as if Jesus taught at your church for 3 years, wrote nothing, and then his closest followers write a few books of basics, and then when their gone you cease practicing the faith taught to you everyday and trade it for only the things explicitly mentioned in the foundational writings. Hopefully you can see why the oral tradition is just as important as the written.

I’d suggest reading the church father’s quotes here and then diving in to them deeper.
therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html

 

[AlexanderC]

I’m non-denominational, by which I mean I follow God with all my heart, but I do so as I hope is biblically as possible, not adding anything that the first apostles didn’t do or that Jesus didn’t directly instruct. I believe, to begin with, that priests are no different than anyone else. Matthew 23:8-11 says: 8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant.

I understand this as: if you are physically a human, none of you is more holy or greater than another. You are all sinful. Do not exalt yourself as better than anyone else.

**I think the reasons Protestants don’t think that the Eucharist actually involves the physical body and blood of Christ is that when Jesus is speaking to his disciples, he says to take the bread and wine “in remembrance of me.” As Protestants, we interpret this as instruction to take communion as a way of remember and filling ourselves with Christ’s sacrifice. But we think it is unnecessary to be sanctified by a priest or a pastor because it is an act of thanksgiving and humbling ourselves before him. **

I hope this helps understand our position to some extent. I respect the Catholic view of the Eucharist. My grandmother is a devout Catholic and one of the most godly women I know. Also, I am 15. I haven’t delved into many theology books yet; I’ve read the Bible eagerly.

God bless you all as we search for the truth in the Bible!

Thank you glorifyhisname for your insight! More food for thought if anything. Thank you also for being respectful in your reply! God bless!

 

[JonNC]

Hi Mike. From a Lutheran perspective:

=Mike SoCal;11795341]The argument whether the Eucharist is symbolic or literal can be honestly debated and how you come out can be defended with scripture.

The Basic Symbolic argument is that the bread at the last supper was a remembrance ceremony. Jesus certainly does say that bread is his body and you must eat of it to take part in his Salvation, however, Jesus also says in various places in scripture that he is Meat, Water, Light, Bread, the morning star, the good Sheppard, etc.

Where Christ uses the figurative, “I am the door”, etc., it is clear he is using the metaphor.
OTOH, in the Lord’s Supper accounts, the language is different. Here he does not say I am something, but instead He holds the bread and say “This is my body”, IOW, this IS me. Not figurative at all, but literal.

My own opinion is that the Bread is really Christ’s body in the Spiritual sense. It is not physically flesh because eating it would be cannibalism and the bread does not literally resemble flesh. It is not merely a remembrance because Jesus is so specific about it being part of him.

Again, my perspective, there is a confusion of the terms literal and physical. It does not need to be obviously physically body and blood to actually be body and blood. It is, literally and spiritually, body and blood in a miraculous and supernatural way, so that we receive His body and blood not only spiritually by faith, but also literally, by the mouth.

Consider this; Christ set up two ordinances Baptism and Communion. The Bible is clear that only a believer should take part in these ordinances. My participation in these ordinances identifies me as a Christian. They are evidence to any accuser that I am guilty of practicing Christianity. I am of the Body of Christ. Both ordinances call us to examine ourselves and repent. They are also public displays of our Universal faith.

It gets off the topic to discuss why infant baptism is proper and valid both biblically and historically, but these two sacraments, as well as the sacrament of Confession/Holy Absolution, do more than call us to self examination and repentance, they also work forgiveness of sins. In short, they are the means of grace.

Someday we will understand these mysteries. Until then this debate will continue.

When one considers that the Lord’s Supper is indeed a miraculous mystery, the easier it is to see that the Supper is, truly and substantially, His body and blood.

Jon

 

[Filioque]

The very Scriptures that many Protestants claim to be the sole rule of Faith, and which they have individual discretion to interpret (leading to thousands of sects which contradict and condemn each other) tells us.

These and many other things did Christ say and do, if they were all written down not all the books of the world could contain them.

If you believe that the Bible does not contradict itself, you have to have some way of accommodating for the verses which Speak of Jesus as the chief cornerstone, and the Church was built on Him. However the Bible also says that the Church was built on the Apostles, and it says that Jesus changed Kepha’s name to Peter, and built the Church on Peter, then gave Peter the keys to the kingdom.

Well either Jesus was a liar in two of the three cases, and the Bible contradicts itself; or as the Catholic Church has held since the time of the Apostles, Jesus, who is true God and True Man. Being God, He has the authority to delegate His authority and power. When He chooses Peter as the first vicar, or representative for Himself on Earth, He does so because as God He alone can create and Grant that office. When He gives the Apostles the authority to forgive sin, (remember that only God has the authority to forgive sin, but don’t forget God can delegate that to a man. In the OT the priest pronounces God’s absolution on those who had suffered from leprosy and other manifestations of sin, and ritual impurities, just as a priest has the authority given by God to pronounce the absolution today.) So either the Bible is telling the truth that Jesus delegated men to do the work which only God or it is contradictory.

We also see where Jesus tells us that we should call no ,man Father, only our Father in heaven. However St. Paul tells us that he is the spiritual father of those who he received into Christ. And the Command is to honor our Father and Mother. Either Jesus did not know the Scriptures, (I don’t find that proposition to be very likely) or He was talking about the Role played by the First person in the Trinity, which has a different role than that of a priest or our earthly father.

All in all, to read the Bible in English or any other translation, devoid of the understanding of the Apostles and Early Church Fathers, without understanding the terms and context of the Jews in the OT and the time of Jesus, cultural, religious, and linguistics, and to impose on the Scriptures what we want them to say is to not know what the Scriptures tell us. To choose a handful of “proof texts” and ignore the rest of the Bible, as if it is just a collection of laws, some of which we regard and others which we ignore, because they are difficult to believe, or because we think we understand it based on what one “Pastor” or founder of a sect tells us is to accept a Christ different from the Biblical Christ, who never commanded that anything be written, but did command that the Gospel be preached to the ends of the earth, and that those preaching the Gospel baptize, and that they do what He did at the Last Supper. He further told the Apostles, after He laid hands on them that they could forgive or retain sins, and Peter specifically that he would be given the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

Which set of beliefs and practices sounds Biblical? Those who reject what Jesus said or did because it is too hard to hear, or those who submit themselves to what He said, and even if they don’t understand how it works, agree that because He said it would work accept Him at His word.

 

[zz912]

The argument whether the Eucharist is symbolic or literal can be honestly debated and how you come out can be defended with scripture.

The Basic Symbolic argument is that the bread at the last supper was a remembrance ceremony. Jesus certainly does say that bread is his body and you must eat of it to take part in his Salvation, however, Jesus also says in various places in scripture that he is Meat, Water, Light, Bread, the morning star, the good Sheppard, etc.

My own opinion is that the Bread is really Christ’s body in the Spiritual sense. It is not physically flesh because eating it would be cannibalism and the bread does not literally resemble flesh. It is not merely a remembrance because Jesus is so specific about it being part of him.

Consider this; Christ set up two ordinances Baptism and Communion. The Bible is clear that only a believer should take part in these ordinances. My participation in these ordinances identifies me as a Christian. They are evidence to any accuser that I am guilty of practicing Christianity. I am of the Body of Christ. Both ordinances call us to examine ourselves and repent. They are also public displays of our Universal faith.

Someday we will understand these mysteries. Until then this debate will continue.

Jesus gave several instances where He said that He was something. Only twice did He declare that something was HIM. The first was when He said of the bread, “This is My Body.” and of the wine He said, “This is My Blood”. The second was when He said to Saul, “Why are you persecuting Me?”

Are you literally of the Body of Christ? Then why does the bread not change into His Body?

 

[SPH1]

Where Christ uses the figurative, “I am the door”, etc., it is clear he is using the metaphor.

I actually believe that Christ is the door. One must go through Him…literally.

 

[cararolen]

I was raised Southern Baptist and converted when I was 17. The thought that the “Lord’s Supper” was anything but symbolic, was never even entertained.
The first time I ever heard of the real presence was when I entered RCIA.
I realized that doesn’t necessarily answer why, just an example of how apart they are from the Catholic church on this teaching…

 

[JonNC]

I actually believe that Christ is the door. One must go through Him…literally.

Well, yes, I agree. He is the door; “no one comes to the Father except through Me.” But I don’t think anyone would view that as Him having hinges. That’s the metaphorical part. OTOH, in the Eucharist, there is no metaphor. He is clear; “This [bread] IS My body.”

Jon

 

[chero23]

I’m non-denominational, by which I mean I follow God with all my heart, but I do so as I hope is biblically as possible, not adding anything that the first apostles didn’t do or that Jesus didn’t directly instruct. I believe, to begin with, that priests are no different than anyone else. Matthew 23:8-11 says: 8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant.

I understand this as: if you are physically a human, none of you is more holy or greater than another. You are all sinful. Do not exalt yourself as better than anyone else.

**I think the reasons Protestants don’t think that the Eucharist actually involves the physical body and blood of Christ is that when Jesus is speaking to his disciples, he says to take the bread and wine “in remembrance of me.” As Protestants, we interpret this as instruction to take communion as a way of remember and filling ourselves with Christ’s sacrifice. But we think it is unnecessary to be sanctified by a priest or a pastor because it is an act of thanksgiving and humbling ourselves before him. **

I hope this helps understand our position to some extent. I respect the Catholic view of the Eucharist. My grandmother is a devout Catholic and one of the most godly women I know. Also, I am 15. I haven’t delved into many theology books yet; I’ve read the Bible eagerly.

God bless you all as we search for the truth in the Bible!

What you are missing is how Jesus is called the Lamb, which cleanses the sins. In the OT what they ate for the forgiveness of sins was a real lamb, not a symbol of a lamb but a real lamb. Jesus Is the real lamb. There’s just so much parallels between Jesus and the Lamb with the passion, the manna. I mean theirs tons.

 

[TobyLue]

I do not take credit for the following response. I made a copy of it and kept it but its self-explanatory. If somebody here posted it first, please take credit for it but I don’t.

John 6:51-58 is to be interpreted literally and is one of the strongest passages that testify to the Real Presence in the Eucharist. In the Gospel of John, there is a certain pattern that helps to shed light on John 6. Whenever Jesus makes an ambiguous statement, it is usually followed by a misunderstanding/question, and this, in turn, is followed by a clarification either by Jesus or the Evangelist. So, this is the basic outline of this pattern:

1. **Ambiguous Statement by Jesus **
2. Misunderstanding/Question
3. Clarification

Now here are some examples from the Gospel of John:

John 2:19-21

Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and you will raise it up in three days? But He was speaking of the temple of His body."

John 3:3-5

Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he? Jesus answered, "Truly Truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

John 4:32-34

"But He said to them, “I have food to eat that you do not know about.” So the disciples were saying to one another, 'no one brought Him anything to eat, did he? Jesus said to them, " My Food is to do the will of Him who sent me and to accomplish His work."

John 8:31-34

So Jesus was saying to those Jews who believed in Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” They answered Him, "We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, “You will become free.” Jesus answered them, "Truly, Truly I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.

Now let’s look at John 6:51-53 and see if it fits the Ambiguous Statement/Question/Clarification pattern:

"I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh." Then the Jews began to argue with one another, 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 yourselves.

So, following the established pattern, verse 53 is a clarification of verses 51-52. If he were merely speaking figuratively, then we would have expected the literal meaning of the “figurative” language he used, as it happens in the verses I gave above and in many other places in the Bible. Instead, what we see in verse 53 is a reaffirmation of what the Jews understood Jesus to mean. So the clarification is that Jesus was speaking literally, not figuratively. If he were speaking figuratively, He would have indicated that in verse 53.

The point of the above post is that when Jesus is speaking figuratively, either Jesus Himself or the Gospel writer explains what He means. He often uses progressive revelation as a teaching method, going from ambiguity to greater clarity. There are numerous examples of this in the 4 Gospels. Here are some more:

John 4:10-14

**10Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.”
11She said to Him, “Sir, You have nothing to draw with and the well is deep; where then do You get that living water?
12"You are not greater than our father Jacob, are You, who gave us the well, and drank of it himself and his sons and his cattle?”
13Jesus answered and said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again;
14but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.”
(contd-) **

 

[TobyLue]

to continue–
John 8:56-58

56"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad."
57So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” 58Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."

John 10:1-10

1"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is a thief and a robber.
2"But he who enters by the door is a shepherd of the sheep.
3"To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.
4"When he puts forth all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice.
5"A stranger they simply will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers."
6This figure of speech Jesus spoke to them, but they did not understand what those things were which He had been saying to them.
7So Jesus said to them again, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.
8"All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them.
9"I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.
10"The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.

John 7:38-39

38"He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.’"
39But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive

John 12:32-33

**32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.” 33 This He said, signifying by what death He would die. **

John 21:18-19

**18 Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish.” 19 This He spoke, signifying by what death he would glorify God. **

Matthew 16:6-12

**6 Then Jesus said to them, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.” 7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, “It is because we have taken no bread.”
8 But Jesus, being aware of it, said to them, “O you of little faith, why do you reason among yourselves because you have brought no bread?[a] 9 Do you not yet understand, or remember the five loaves of the five thousand and how many baskets you took up? 10 Nor the seven loaves of the four thousand and how many large baskets you took up? 11 How is it you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread?—but to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

(contd-)
**

 

[TobyLue]

continued–

This does not happen in John 6.30 So they said to him, “What sign can you do, that we may see and believe in you? What can you do? 31 Our ancestors ate manna in the desert, as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” 32 So Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” 34 So they said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.” 35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst. 36 But I told you that although you have seen (me), you do not believe. 37 Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me, 38 because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me. 39 And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it (on) the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him (on) the last day.” 41 The Jews murmured about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven,” 42 and they said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph? Do we not know his father and mother? Then how can he say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” 43 Jesus answered and said to them, “Stop murmuring among yourselves. 44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him, and I will raise him on the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets: ‘They shall all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to my Father and learns from him comes to me. 46 Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47 Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;50 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.” 52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?” 53 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."59 These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. 60 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” 61 Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "Does this shock you?

John 6:63

63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life

This verse does not mean that Jesus was speaking figuratively. The word “Spirit” is used to refer to those things that pertain to God and the word “flesh” refers to those things that pertain to sin. We constantly see the Spirit vs. flesh construct throughout the Bible:

Galatians 5:16

16 I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. 17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish.

Romans 8:5-6

5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace

So what Jesus meant in John 6:63 was not that he was speaking figuratively. Rather, that His words originate from God (i.e. Spirit) and they are life giving (i.e. life). He said this in response to the rejection of His teaching. Those who were “carnally minded” rejected His teaching, while those who were “spiritually minded” accepted it. If one is in the flesh, one cannot accept His words because the flesh wars against the Spirit, effectively cutting off the person from the source of life. Consequently, the flesh profits nothing because its end is death. Those who are in the Spirit receive life (Romans 8:6). To be “carnally minded” does not mean to be literally minded. It means to have a mind that is in rebellion against God. Those who were in such a state did not accept Jesus’ words.

One big difference is that Jesus doesn’t die when we eat His glorified, immortal flesh and blood. I really don’t know all the details, but I do know that immortal flesh cannot die, get sick, or be injured in any way and is nothing like human flesh. It possesses the fullness of the divine nature. It is perfected. No eye has seen, nor ear has heard, nor has it entered into the mind of man what God has prepared for those who love him (1Cor2:19). At present, we are partakers of the divine nature (2Pet 1:4).