Does the Bible Teach That Communion Brings Healing?

Theology
22

If this was meant in jest, it’s forgiven, brother; still, John’s trōgein — ‘to chew’ — humbles me, showing how carefully Christ chose His words and how profound His gift truly is.
A.Trōgō
You say that trōgō in John 6:54-58 allows a figurative reading because it appears metaphorically in John 13:18 ( ho trōgōn mou ton arton, citing Ps 41:9, LXX,“the one who eats my bread”)..tell me isnt this misreading??
In Koine Greek, trōgō is a vivid, onomatopoeic verb denoting physical mastication, crunching, gnawing and chewing, often associated with animals devouring raw flesh or humans eating coarse food like vegetables. It usage in classical and Hellenistic texts like Xenophon, Anabasis 4.5.14, Philo’s De Vita Mosis 1.118, overwhelmingly describes literal eating, never abstract concepts like belief. In the NT trōgō appears only five times:
John 6:54, 56-58 (Eucharistic context), John 13:18 (poetic betrayal idiom), and Matt 24:38 (literal eating before the food).
The shift from phagō (generic, “to eat” Jn 6:51-53) to trōgō in vv 54-58 is deliberate, escalating the discourse to emphasise visceral, corporeal consumption. The crowd’s revulsion reflects this, evoking a cannibalistic horror that a mere metaphor wouldnt.
About grammar
The present active participle ho trōgōn (“the one chewing”) in John 6:54, 56-58 underscores continuous, habitual action, aligning with the repetitive nature of Eucharistic participation, not a one-time faith act. Your answer that this parallels ho pisteuōn (“the one believing”) doesnt work because
Johannine participles ho echomenos, “the one coming”, ho pisteuōn, “the one believing”, ho trōgōn, “the one chewing” consistently denote ongoing states as in John 15:4-5 ( menō, abide). The Eucharist is the sacramental means of abiding in Christ (v.56 “Whoever chews my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him”). Your metaphorical reading flattens this into mere belief, ignoring the scandal that drove the disciples away (v. 66: “many of his disciples turned back”). **If Symbolic, why no clarification, as with Nicodemus or the Samaritan Women?
Jesus instead intensifies the offence (V.62 “What if you see the Son of Man ascending?”) demanding faith in mystery.
You cite John 13:18 to argue trōgō is figurative, but this undermines your case. The Psalm 41:9 quotation is a covenantal betrayal idiom, irrelevant to John 6’s Eucharistic context. If anything, your appeal to trōgō as metaphorical in one verse highlights its shocking literality in John 6, where no poetic precedent exists. The early Church saw this clearly:
St. Ignatius of Antioch (107AD), not Barns who came in the 19th century and was affected by the post-Reformation trend, said “The Eucharist is the flesh of our saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins”, condemning symbolic views as Docetist heresy.
Justin Martyr in 150AD, not Barns, not Robertson, said “Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these, but the flesh and blood of that incarnated Jesus”.
The quote from Robertson’s “mystical symbolism” is anachronistic, and its projecting 19th-century protestant bias onto a text whose partistic exegesis unanimously affirms literality.
John 6:55 should end all problems: "My flesh is true food [alēthēs brōsis] and my blood is true drink [ alēthēs posis]. The adjective alēthēs denotes ontological reality, not figurative language.

B. Estin
First is Grammar so
in the institution narratives Jesus declares,
“This is my Body” (touto estin to sōma mou, Matt 26:26; Luke 22:19)
“This is my Blood” ( touto estin to haima mou, Matt 26:28; cf. Luke 22:20, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood”)
The verb estin (third person singular of eimi, “to be”) asserts identity, not representation.
In Greek, estin without a predicate norminative (e.g “This is like my body”) denotes equivalence, as in John 1:1 (“the Word was God”, ho logos ēn theos), Am I right, @Johann. The Absence of qualifiers like hōs (“as”) or eikōn (“images”) precludes a symbolic reading. The Passover context reinforces this: the lamb’s flesh and blood were literal covenantal elements, prefiguring Christ as the true Paschal Lamb.
Your appeal to “the fruit of the vine” post-consecration is doubtful.
Transubstantiation, formalised by Aquinas (ST III, q. 75-77) and Trent (Sess 13, Can.1) holds that the substance of bread and wine becomes the Body and Blood of Christ, while accidents (appearance, taste, smell) remain. Jesus’ reference to “the fruit of the vine” reflects the accidents, not the substance, which is not his blood. Your arguments thus confirm transubstantiation, as the vinous qualities persist while the reality is transformed. Irenaeus (180 AD) explains “The bread, when it receives the invocatio,n is no longer common bread but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly”
You claim the synoptics’ language supports a symbolic “memorial” yet anamnesis (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24-25) is not mere recollection but participatory re-presentation, rooted in Passover’s zikkaron, where the exodus event is made present. Your symbolic views severs this typological link, reducing Eucharist to a mental exercise and nullifying its covenantal power.
I will say thank you, @Johann, because the Early Church, from Justin to Ambrose, saw the consecrated elements as Christ’s literal Body and Blood, not a figure. The “fruit of the vine” argument that you told, aligns with the catholic dogma.

23

C. John 6:63
Ok, “the flesh profits nothing” (John 6:63, this is my third time explaining this, hē sarx ouk ōphelei ouden) as negating Christ’s incarnate flesh??
In Johannine theology, sarx often denotes unregenerate human understanding (John 3:6, 8:15), not Christ’s life-giving flesh ( hē sarx mou, v. 51: “the flesh I will give for the life of the world”). Jesus’ earlier claim that his flesh is “true food” contradicts your reading, unless you posit an incoherent self-contradiction within twelve verses. The Spirit (to pneuma) enables faith to receive the sacramental mystery, as St. Cyril of Alexandria articulates, not Barns, “The flesh of Christ, united to the Word, is life-giving through the Spirit.” Peter’s confession in v.68 affirms the entire discourse, including the Eucharistic mandate.
If sarx in John 6:63 means human reasoning, it condemns the symbolic reductionism as carnal misreading, unable to grasp the divine mystery of the Real Presence.
D. 1 Cor 11
Your reducation of 1 Cor 11 to ecclesial ethics ignores the sacramental weight. Paul warns that eating “unworthily” makes one “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” ( v. 27: enochos tou sōmatos kai tou haimatos). This phrase implies profaining Christ’s actual presence, not a symbol. The physical judgements echo OT sanctions for mishandling holy things confirming the Eucharist’s sacred reality. “Discerning the body” primarily refers to Christ’s Eucharistic body, with ecclesial unity, as a secondary implication. Your analogy to James 2:10 doesnt work brother:
Just as breaking one law violates the whole, profaning the Eucharist incurs guilt against Christ’s body and blood, not mere symbol
Paul’s tradition “from the Lord” anchors the Real presence in apostolic revelation.
Your “proclamation” argument supports the Catholic view:
the Eucharist proclaims Christ’s death by making it sacramentally present “until He comes”.

E. Theological Coherence
Your appeal to Hebrews 10:10 misrepresents Catholic teaching.
The Mass is the re-presentation of Christ’ singualr sacrifice as Trent (Sess 22, Ch.2) and Hebrews 13:10 (“We have an altar”) affirm. Malachi 1:11’s “pure offering” among the Gentiles is fulfilled in the Eucharist, not a symbolic gesture. John’s Incarnational theology (John 1:14, “The Word became flesh”) undergirds the Real Presence: Christ’s sarx is salvific, extended sacramentally.
Your faith-sacrament dichotomy is a false binary, as faith receives Christ’s real presence.
Soo…

  1. You call Passover a mere “memorial” but its zikkaron required literal lamb consumption, prefiguring Christ’s Eucharistic flesh. Your symbolic view breaks this typology, undermining Christ as the Paschal Lamb (Jn 1:29)
  2. You equate “eating” with “believing” but this ignores the scandal of vv. 52.66. Faith enables sacramental participation, not replaces it. Your metaphor fails to account for the disciples’ apostasy
  1. Regarding Barnes’ assertion: His claim that literal eating is ‘absurd’ reflects a reliance on purely rational categories (sarx), rather than acknowledging the miraculous nature of transubstantiation as articulated by Aquinas (ST III, q. 75)

Peace
Sam

24

Incorrect @Samuel_23

The claim that trōgō in John 6 demands literal chewing collapses under both grammatical and contextual scrutiny. First, trōgō does indeed denote physical eating in classical and Hellenistic texts, but that does not force a literal reading here. John 6 already sets the pattern: Jesus repeatedly equates eating with coming and drinking with believing.

The crowd is scandalized not by the impossibility of chewing, but by the claim that life comes through union with Him. Verse 63, τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν τὸ ζωοποιοῦν, ἡ σὰρξ οὐκ ὠφελεῖ οὐδέν, explicitly teaches that the flesh profits nothing; the words themselves give life through the Spirit.
Any insistence that trōgō mandates literal mastication ignores the interpretive key that Jesus Himself provides.

Your appeal to John 13:18 and the LXX citation of Psalm 41:9 as a precedent for metaphorical use only strengthens the argument that context dictates meaning. In John 13, trōgō describes betrayal, not bodily consumption.
John’s authorial principle is clear: verbs carry metaphorical or covenantal weight when context demands. The absence of a parallel in John 6 to poetic or betrayal idioms does not force literal reading; rather, it intensifies the metaphor of abiding, participating spiritually in Christ.

The notion that disciples’ scandal proves literal cannibalism is superficial. Verse 66, where many turn back, is consistent with any teaching that demands faith in a scandalous mystery, not literal violation of dietary law.
Jesus repeatedly tests faith by words that demand trust in Him, not digestive compliance.

The verbs ἐρχόμενος, πιστεύων, μένων, τρώγων, πίνων all emphasize continual, habitual participation, which is precisely the language of abiding in Christ by faith.

Literal chewing is unnecessary and contextually prohibited by Levitical law.

Regarding alēthēs in 6:55, truth here is ontological, but John defines it in spiritual terms: the flesh gives life through union with Him by the Spirit. This is consistent with John 6:63 and John 20:31.
Literal consumption is contradicted by the Spirit’s interpretive authority, which John explicitly records. The early Church Fathers, Ignatius and Justin, affirm the Eucharist as Christ’s flesh and blood, but their affirmation must be read within the sacramental and covenantal context. They do not require readers to chew physically; they recognize the spiritual reality of union with Christ.

On estin, the synoptics, and the Passover typology, your critique misses the nuance. Touto estin to sōma mou asserts identity, but John 6 and 1 Corinthians 11 confirm that the real nourishment comes through faith and abiding, not literal mastication. The Passover lamb is a typological framework: the bread and wine are transformed sacramentally, as Aquinas formalized in transubstantiation, but the substance of Christ’s reality is spiritual as well as sacramental. The “fruit of the vine” reflects accidents, not essence; the consecrated elements participate in the heavenly reality.

Anamnesis in Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24–25 is participatory, not symbolic only. To reduce it to mental recollection severs the covenantal link and contradicts the very grammar and context of the Johannine text.

The Eucharist is not memory alone; it is a present participation in Christ’s sacrificial death through faith and the Spirit.

Therefore, insisting on literal chewing because trōgō elsewhere denotes mastication is a category error.

Greek verbs in John 6 operate within the covenantal, sacramental, and spiritual reality of Christ’s body and blood. The scandal, the abiding, the Spirit-given life all demand participation by faith, not teeth.

Literal cannibalism is ruled out both by context and by the explicit interpretive commentary of Jesus Himself. The early Church Fathers affirmed the reality of Christ’s flesh in the Eucharist, but consistently in the sacramental and mystical sense, never as a literal dietary instruction.

The decisive truth is that John 6 calls for coming, believing, and abiding, with τρώγων and πίνων metaphorically depicting spiritual participation in Christ’s life-giving sacrifice. Any argument relying on the classical or Hellenistic range of trōgō ignores John’s Spirit-driven interpretive frame and the ethical impossibility of literal flesh consumption.

Shalom

J.

25

Incorrect as it is, the text itself stands in the perfect tense, not in the theological articulations of Aquinas or the so-called “apostolic fathers.”

This is a classic example of departing from Scripture, filling your posts with Eastern Orthodoxy and patristic commentary rather than engaging with what is plainly written, @Samuel_23.

This is “data dumping” and you are not really engaging with me or the Scriptures.

J.

26

Oh, I almost forgot brother—there’s still this set of questions on the table, which remain unanswered. I’ll repost them here for clarity:

27

Sorry Johann Brotherr…I will list my sources for greek as well, is that ok brother..
Trōgō
Trōgō is an onomatopoeic verb, mimicking the cruching or gnashing of teeth (Liddel-Scott-Jones, s.v τρώγω, linked to tragōdia for animalistic devouring). In Classical Greek, it denotes raw, physcial mastication:
Homer (Odyssey 9.373, Cyclops gnawing human flesh)
Aristophanes (Peace 1302, chewing figs)
Xenophon (Anabasis 4.5.14, eating raw meat)
In Hellenstic texts, it retains this literal force (LXX Job 40:15, beats chewing cud; Philo, De Vita Mosis 1.118, coarse food consumption).
In the NT, trōgō appears only five times: John 6:54, 56-58 (Eucharistic context), John 13:18 (idiomatic betrayal), and Matt 24:38 (literal pre-flood eating). Unlike phagō (φάγω, generic “to eat,” John 6:51-53, flexible for metaphor, e.g., John 6:23, eating manna) trōgō’s rarity and visceral connotation signal intentional shock. John’s shift from phagō (vv. 51-53) to trōgō (vv. 54-58) escalates the discourse, evoking cannibalistic horror (v. 52: pōs dynatai houtos dounai hēmin tēn sarka autou phagein?—“How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”).
You claim ho trōgōn (“the one chewing,” present participle) aligns with ho erchomenos (“the one coming”) and ho pisteuōn (“the one believing,” v. 35) to denote spiritual abiding. This collapses under scrutiny brother @Johann
Johannine present participles indicate durative, iterative action (Blass-Debrunner-Funk §337; cf. ho menōn, “the one abiding,” John 15:4-5).
Trōgōn thus points to repeated, sacramental participation in the Eucharist, not abstract faith (v. 56: ho trōgōn mou tēn sarka… menei en emoi, “abides in me”). The aorist imperative phagēte (v. 53, “eat!”) commands a definitive act but trōgōn’s ongoing tense aligns with the Mass’ perpertual offering.
If trōgō meant belief, why switch from phagō, which sufficed in v. 51?
The escalation to trōgō mirros the scandal that drove disciples away (v. 66 over a skandalizei hymas “hard saying,” v. 60). Unlike metaphroical clarifications as in John 3:4-6 and John 4:13-15, Jesus amplifies the offense ( over a skandalizei hymas “hard saying,” v. 60). Unlike metaphorical clarifications (John 3:4-6, Nicodemus; John 4:13-15, Samaritan woman), Jesus amplifies the offense (v. 62: “What if you see the Son of Man ascending?”) demanding faith in sacramental mystery.
Origen (248 AD, Contra Celsum 8.66) confirms
“The eating of flesh was given to scandalize, separating those without faith”
You cite John 13:18 (ho trōgōn mou ton arton, Ps 41:9 LXX, “eating my bread” as betrayal) to argue context makes trōgō metaphorical.
The Psalm’s idiom assumes literal bread-eating in a covenantal meal, where betrayal violates real fellowship. In John 6 trōgō elevates this to sacramental realism:
chewing Christ’s flesh for covenantal union.
Your claim that trōgō intensifies “spiritual abiding” contradicts v. 55: hē sarx mou alēthēs estin brōsis (“My flesh is true food”).
Alēthēs denotes ontological reality, not metaphor (cf. John 1:9, “true light”; 17:3, “true God”; pace your misreading of John 20:31, which uses pisteuō for faith, not alēthēs).
If metaphorical, why the apostasy in v.66? Your own logic, that context dictates meaning, demands literality as no poetic idiom exists in John 6.
St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107Af, Smyrnaeans 7.1) answers you: “They abstain from Eucharist…because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ”…so your metaphorical trōgō echoes Docetist heresy.

You claim literal eating violates Levitical Law (Lev 17:10-14, prohibiting blood consumption)…Correct me @Johann if im wrong
Jesus fulfills the Law (Matt 5:17; Heb 8:13), instituiting a new covenant where his blood purifies (Heb 9:12-14). The Eucharist is sacramental, not profane, consumption, as Chrysostom (c. 400 AD, Homilies on John 46) affirms: “This blood is the salvation of our souls, not a violation.”
Estin
Estin is the copula of identification, not similitude ( BDF §144; cf. John 1:1, ho logos ēn theos, “the Word was God”). Without qualifiers (hōs, “as”; eikōn, “image”) it asserts substantial equivalence, as in Plato (Republic 596a, “this is that”). In the Passover seder context (Exod 12:11, zeh pesah, “this is the Passover” LXX0, estin declares covenantal reality:
the bread and wine become Christ’s Body and Blood (Luke 22:19-20, touto to potērion hē kainē diathēkē en tō haimati mou, “this cup is the new covenant in my blood”)
Your “fruit of the vine” objection doesnt work with transubstantiation (Aquinas ST III, q. 75, a.1; Trent, Sess 13, Can. 1):
The substance converts to Christ’s body/blood, while accidents (taste, appearance) remain vinous.
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 350 AD, Catechetical Lectures 22.6) states: “Under the type of bread is given the body; under the type of wine, the blood.” Your claim that estin is “spiritual but not literal” ignores this metaphysical precision and the Passover’s literal lamb (Exod 12:8-11)

28

So now, you admit anamnēsis (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24-25) is participatory, not mere recollection, but deny ontological change. This is incoherent. Anamnēsis mirrors zikkaron (Exod 12:14), where Passover actualizes salvation through eating the lamb (Mishnah Pesachim 10:5: “Each generation is redeemed”). Jesus, the True Lamb (John 1:29, 19:36) fulfills this in the Eucharist, where estin effects real presence. Covenants require tangible signs (Gen 17:11, circumcision; Exod 24:8, blood).
Ambrose (c. 390 AD, De Sacramentis 4.5.23) declares: “Before consecration, it is bread; after Christ’s words, it is the true flesh of Christ.”
Your “spiritual reality” without substance severs the Incarnation (John 1:14, sarx egeneto) from its sacramental extension.
You concede estin’s identity and anamnēsis’s participation, but deny literal presence. This is self-contradictory:
Participation demands a real object- Christ’s Body and Blood.
Your “fruit of the vine” supports transubstantiation:
the accidents veil the substance, testing faith (Heb 11:1)
By reducing estin to metaphor, you fall into the “carnal misunderstanding” (sarx, John 6:63) you misapply, unable to grasp the miracle.
Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD, First Apology 66) refutes you: "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these, but the flesh and blood of that Jesus.
Alēthēs
You claim alēthēs in John 6:55 (hē sarx mou alēthēs estin brōsis, “My flesh is true food”) is “spiritual truth,” not literal. Alēthēs denotes ontological reality, distinguishing the genuine from the apparent (refer John 1:9’s “true light”, Plato, Phaedo 80b, “true being”). Your appeal to John 20:31 (pisteuō, faith for life) is irrelevant:
alēthēs in John 6:55 asserts Christ’s flesh as really food, not figuratively.
The Early Church confirms this:
Irenaeus (c. 180 AD, Against Heresies 4.18.5) states, “The bread is the body of Christ, no longer common bread.”
If alēthēs is ontological but non-literal, you render v. 55 incoherent—how is “true food” not food?
You equate trōgō with phagō to argue metaphorical continuity with “coming and believing”. This ignroes John’s deliberative shift. Phagō (vv. 51-53) is broad, allowing metaphorical use (e.g., John 6:23, eating manna). Trōgō (vv. 54-58) is specific, evoking physical chewing to underscore sacramental realism.
So why did John change from Phagō to Trōgō?

Peace
Sam

And about this line:

Brother Johann, calling this “data dumping” misses the point. Every source and argument directly engages John 6 itself—its Greek, context, participles, and covenantal typology. I provided references for careful reading, not to be skimmed past, so that the text and its nuances are fully considered. Ignoring these details reduces Scripture to abstract metaphor, bypassing the scandal and ontological claims John carefully constructs.

29

@Samuel_23

When Jesus says in Matthew 5:29–30, “εἰ ἡ δεξιὰ σου χείρ σε σκανδαλίζει, ἀπόκοψον αὐτήν· καὶ εἰ ὁ ὀφθαλμός σου σε σκανδαλίζει, ἔξελε αὐτόν,” do you seriously maintain that He intends literal physical amputation, or does the hyperbolic imperative (ἀπόκοψον, ἔξελε) communicate the radical seriousness of sin and the necessity of spiritual vigilance?

In Mark 9:43–47, Jesus repeats this pattern with verbs like ἀπόκοψον (cut off) and βάλε (throw away), describing hands, feet, and eyes that cause sin. How can a literalist reading reconcile these imperatives with ethical coherence and the broader biblical moral law, which forbids self-mutilation? What grammatical or hermeneutical principle allows you to treat John 6 differently, ignoring the same rhetorical and hyperbolic devices?

Turning to John 6:53–58, Jesus uses the present participles τρώγων (eating) and πίνων (drinking), describing ongoing, habitual action. If His shocking corporeal language elsewhere is hyperbolic, why insist that here it is literal cannibalism, rather than sacramental participation in His flesh and blood, mediated by the Spirit? How does the use of continuous present participles in John 6 inform the sacramental, covenantal, and spiritual reality, rather than a purely carnal interpretation?

If literal readings of hyperbolic imperatives produce absurd or impossible consequences in passages like Matthew 5:29–30 and Mark 9:43–47, on what basis do you claim that John 6 is exempt from the same contextual and rhetorical analysis? How do you distinguish between hyperbole, metaphor, and sacrament, and why is John 6 immune from the consistent patterns in Jesus’ teaching?

Finally, considering that Jesus consistently employs scandalous, corporeal, and provocative imagery to shock and provoke His audience toward spiritual truth, how does a literalist interpretation avoid logical and theological absurdity? If the hyperbolic imperatives are not literal, why should the Johannine discourse on eating His flesh and drinking His blood be treated as the one exceptional case requiring physical literalism?

Your answer?

J.

1 Like
30

Ok I will answer @Johann Brother..
Let us establish the lens of theologia prima- the worshipful, liturgical and sacramental context in wich the Church interprets Scripture. The Real Presence is not a standalone doctrine ut the outworking of the Incarnation, where the Logos assumes human flesh, rendering matter a vehicle of divine grace. The Eucharist, as the extension of the hypostatic union, is the mysterium fidei wherein Christ’s Body and Blood are truly present under the species of bread and wine.
1. On Matt 5:29-30
In Matt 5:29-30, Jesus commands:
“If your right hand causes you to sin; cut it off…”
Johann, ur observation that Matt 5:29-30 employs hyperbole is correct but misapplied to John 6. The verbs ἀπόκοψον (“cut off”) and ἔξελε (“pluck out”) are aorist imperative, denoting urgent, decisive action. In the context of the Sermon of the Mount, a discourse steeped in ethical exhortation, these commands are hyperbolic, as literal self-mutilation violates the biblical affirmation of the body as God’s image (Gen 1:27) and temple (1 Cor 6:19-20). The telos of the passage is spiritual vigilance and not physical destruction.
Matthew 5 addresses moral anthropology within a sapeintial framework, whereas John 6 is a Eucharistic discourse rooted in the Passover and fulfilled in the Last Supper. The Greek verbs in Matt 5 serves rhetorical purpose, amplified by the absurdity of literalism (e.g a maimed body does not guarantee holiness).
In contrast to John 6’s language, its covenantal, tied to anamnesis of Christ’s sacrifice.
The early Church, from Ignatius (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 7:1) to Cyril of Alexandria (Commentary on John 4.2), unanimously read John 6 as Eucharistic, not hyperbolic.

2. On Mark 9:43-47
Mark 9:43-47 like Matthew 5 employs hyperbolic imperatives to underscore the eschatological stakes of sin. Verbs like ἀπόκοψον (“cut off”) and βάλε (“cast out”) are aorist imperatives, emphasizing decisive rejection of sin to avoid “Gehenna, where the fire is not quenched”. Literal self-mutilation is ethically incoherent, as it contradicts the sanctity of the body (Ps 139:13–14) and the Mosaic prohibition on self-harm (Deut 14:1). Patristic exegesis, such as Gregory of Nazianzus (Oration 40.23), interprets this as a call to mortify sinful desires, not to destroy the body.
Then why treat John 6 differently…
The answer lies in the distinct literary and theological contexts. Mark 5 is a moral exhortation within a pericope of discipleship, using vivid imagery to provoke repentance. John 6, however, is a sustained discourse following the feeding of 5000, a miracle that prefigures the Eucharist and recalls the manna. The Greek verb τρώγων in John 6:54-59 means to chew or gnaw is deliberately graphic, escalating from φαγεῖν (“to eat”) in earlier verses. I have already explained this, and have provided sources in my prev posts…
This shift signals a move from general sustenance to sacramental specificity, as noted by Origen.
Moreover, Jesus’ refusal to clarify His words as metaphorical in John 6:60-66, despite His audience’s scandalized reaction, contrasts His clarification of other metaphors like in John 4:32-34, “I have food you do not know”. The Real Presence is further grounded in the institution narratives (Matt 26:26-28, 1 Cor 11:23-25), where Jesus declares “This is my Body”. The Apostolic Faith, as articulated by Justin Martyr in First Apology 66 affirms the Eucharist as Christ’s true Body and Blood, not a symbol.
If you attempt to equate Mark 9’s hyperbole to John 6’s sacramental realism, then you ignore these distinctions, and whats the result…one collapses the diversity of Jesus’ pedagogical methods.

3. Good Question on John 6:53-58
Johann its good that you talk about the present participles, but this supports my arguments…why? I discussed it before, but no problemos…
The present tense of τρώγων and πίνων denotes continous, habitual action, aligning with the Eucharistic anamnesis, the ongoing liturgical participation in Christ’s ONCE-FOR-ALL sacrifice (Heb 10:10). The Apostolic Faith understand the Eucharist as a perpetual communion in Christ’s Body and Blood, as commanded in the dominical words, “Do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19). The participles thus reflect the enduring necessity of Eucharistic participation of eternal life. (John 6:54)

The charge of “literal cannibalism” is not good and wrong…Why?
The Real Presence is not crude materialism but a sacramental ontology wherein the bread and wine become Christ’s True Body and Blood through the divine power (CCC 1374; Orthodox Liturgy of St. Basil). The verb τρώγων, with its visceral connotation of “chewing” intensifies the realism of the act, distinguishing it from symbolic eating (φαγεῖν, used in John 6:31 for the manna). This linguistic shift mirrors the escalation in Jesus’ discourse:
When His hearers objects, He does not retract but affirms, “My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink" (John 6:55).
The adjective ἀληθής in ἀληθής βρῶσις (true food) and ἀληθής πόσις (true blood) shows ontological reality.
The sacramental realism in John 6 is rooted in its Passover context, where the feeding miracle prefigures the Eucharistic sacrifice, just as the Passover lamb prefigured Christ.
The early Church Fathers, such as Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures 22:1–3), affirm that the Eucharist is “not common bread nor common drink” but Christ’s Body and Blood, received in a spiritual yet substantial manner

31

4. Distinguish between Hyperbole, Metaphor and Sacrament
Your question presupposes a false trichotomy: hyperbole, metaphor or literalism.
The Real Presence is neither hyperbolic, metaphorical, nor crudely literal but sacramental, a divine mystery where created elements mediate uncreated grace. The hermeneutical key is the analogia fidei, interpreting Scriptures within the Church’s living Tradition…
Hyperbole: In Matthew 5:29-30, and Mark 9:43-47, the imperatives are hyperbolic (ἀπόκοψον, ἔξελε, βάλε) because literalism leads to absurdity (self-mutilation contradicts biblical anthropology) and the CONTEXT is moral exhortation. Patristic Consensus, such as St. Augustine, confirms this as a call to spiritual discipline.
Metaphor: Jesus’ metaphors like “I am the vine” are clarified by context (e.g. John 15:1-8 describes spiritual union). In John 6, however, Jesus’ language escalates despite objections (John 6:60-66), and He offers no metaphorical clarification, unlike other instances. (e.g. John 10:6-7)

Sacrament: John 6:53-58 is sacramental, pointing to the Eucharistic reality instituted at the Last Supper (Matt 26:26-28). The Greek phrase τοῦτο ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου (“This is my Body”) uses εἰμί in a substantive sense, affirming ontological identity, not symbolic representation.

@Johann, the problem of absurdity arises from ignoring this sacramental category. The Real Presence is not “physical literalism” but a theandric mystery, analogous to the Incarnation, where Christ’s divine and human natures coexist (Chalcedon, 451)..Teary eyes…
5. Theological Absurdity?
Your last question, however, mischaracterizes the issue and is therefore the weakest..why?
Because it mischaracterizes the Real Presence as “physical literalism” and ignores the eschatological and incarnation logic of John 6..brother Johann, you got the Real Presence in the wrong sense…
Jesus’ provocative imagery indeed serves to awaken spiritual truth, but the Eucharist is the telos of this pedagogy, not an exception to it. The Scandal of John 6:53-48 mirrors the scandal of the Incarnation:
God’s presence in material form deifies human reason yet fulfils divine economy
The Uniqueness of John 6 lies in its covenantal and liturgical context:
A. Passover Framework
John 6:4 situates the discourse during Passover, linking the feeding miracle (John 6:1-14) to the manna (Exod 16) and the Eucharistic sacrifice (1 Cor 5:7). The verb τρώγων (“chewing”) evokes the Passover lamb’s consumption, a concrete act with spiritual efficacy.
B. Escalation of Language
Unlike metaphorical teachings, Jesus intensifies His realism in John 6:55 prompting disciples to leave. This scandal parallels the rejection of Christ’s incarnate deity (John 1:11)
C. Liturgical Fulfillment
The institution narratives (Matt 26:26–28; 1 Cor 11:23–25) and Paul’s warning against unworthy reception confirm the Eucharist as the fulfilment of John 6. The Fathers, such as Ambrose (On the Mysteries 9.50), describe the Eucharist as a transformative mystery, not a symbol.

Peace
Sam

Edit:
Imp Info for readers
Aorist Imperatives denote single, decisive, once-for-all action
Present Participles: means continuous, ongoing and habitual action.

1 Like
32

Brother, your appeal to “theandric mystery” and “Chalcedon logic” smuggles in philosophical categories that John never used and Scripture never requires. The Incarnation is a unique, once-for-all act of God (John 1:14, “the Word became flesh” in perfect tense, egeneto, showing an accomplished fact), not a recurring sacramental extension. To equate the hypostatic union with bread and wine is to conflate Christ’s unique person with ritual elements, something no apostle ever taught.

You claim John 6 parallels the scandal of the Incarnation, but look carefully. When Jesus says in John 6:35 “I am the bread of life, he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst,” He explicitly interprets the metaphor in categories of coming (erchomenos) and believing (pisteuōn).

That is the hermeneutical anchor, not a shift into ontology of bread. Notice, the verbs are present participles, continuous action, aligning faith with ongoing nourishment. The scandal in John 6:60–66 was not about transubstantiation but about the offense of His claim that eternal life is only found in Him.

Compare John 8:51–53, where the Jews again are scandalized when He says “if anyone keeps my word he shall never see death.” Their stumbling is always over His authority, not Eucharistic realism.

The Passover framework proves too much. Yes, the lamb had to be eaten (Exod 12:8–11), but Paul clarifies the fulfillment in 1 Corinthians 5:7–8 “Christ our Passover has been sacrificed, therefore let us keep the feast, not with the old leaven, but with sincerity and truth.”
He applies the type not to literal chewing of flesh but to a life purged from sin.

If John 6 requires gnawing Christ’s body as Passover realism, then Paul should have affirmed this in 1 Corinthians 5. Instead, he spiritualizes the fulfillment into holiness of life.

You mention escalation of language in John 6, but escalation is not equal to literalism.

Jesus also escalates metaphors elsewhere. In Matthew 18:8–9 He intensifies the hyperbole of cutting off hands and gouging eyes to stress holiness, not to institute amputation rites. The scandal arises from uncompromising demands, not literal commands. Likewise, John 6 escalates the metaphor to confront shallow seekers with the depth of faith required. That is why He says in John 6:63, “The flesh profits nothing, it is the Spirit who gives life. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” He Himself tells us the interpretive key.

As for Paul’s warnings in 1 Corinthians 11, notice his concern. The unworthy reception is because some were “eating and drinking in an unworthy manner” (v. 27), despising the body (sōma) of believers (v. 29), and shaming the poor (v. 22). The sickness and death were covenant judgments like those in 1 Corinthians 10:6–11, where Israel’s sins brought temporal judgment**. Paul never says the elements themselves transform ontologically.** Rather, he grounds his warning in covenant accountability and discernment of Christ’s body, which in Paul’s theology consistently refers to the church (1 Cor 10:17, 12:27).

Finally, your appeal to Ambrose or others centuries later cannot overturn what Christ and His apostles plainly teach. The early church Fathers are not our canon. Scripture stands above tradition.
The Word became flesh once (John 1:14), died once (Heb 9:28), and offered Himself once for all (Heb 10:10–14).
The Eucharist is a proclamation (katangellō, 1 Cor 11:26), a visible word of the gospel, but never described as a re-incarnation or re-sacrifice.

To import Chalcedonian categories into bread and wine is to confuse Christ Himself with the signs He gave.

Much more, but the character limit will not allow me address the topic and last time I’ve checked the Holy Spirit and the rebirth is a “transformative mystery”

Shalom

J.

33

1.On the Incarnation and Sacramental Extension
Johann, u say that Incarnation, is a unique, once-for-all act, no a recurring sacramental extension..
Johann, your assertion misrepresents the Real Presence and misunderstands the Incarnation’s Soteriological Scope. The perfect tense egeneto in John 1:14 indeed denotes the completed act of the Word’s assumption of human nature but this act inaugurates an enduring reality. Christ remains incarnate, uniting human and divine natures eternally. The Eucharist does not “re-incarnate” Christ but participates in His once-for-all sacrifice, making it present sacramentally (anamnesis, Luke 22:19). Eucharist is not a new sacrifice but the re-presentation of Christ’s unique oblation.
No apostle taught?
In 1 Cor 10:16, Paul declares:
The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation (koinonia) in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
The Greek koinonia denotes real communion, not symbolic remembrance. In 1 Cor 11:27-29, Paul warns that unworthy reception profanes Christ’s body and blood, implying a substantial presence, as profaning a mere symbol would not incur “judgment”.
The Fathers, such as Ignatius (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 7:1), confirm this: “The Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ.”

2.On John 6:35
Your appeal to John 6:35 as the “hermeneutical anchor” is a selective misreading that ignores the discourse’s progression. The present participles erchomenos and pisteuōn indeed denote ongoing faith but they introduce, not exhaust, the theme of nourishment. Jesus transitions from metaphorical language (“I am the bread of life”) to sacramental realism in John 6:51-58, where He says, “The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world” (v.51) The shift to sarx (flesh) and the verb trogon (“chewing”) marks a deliberate escalation, as noted by Chrysostom in Homilies on John 47.2

Now, you said the scandal concerns about Christ’s authority…man..
The Jews’ objection:
“How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (John 6:52), directly engages the corporeal language, not merely His claim to grant eternal life. Jesus intensifies the realism:
“Unless you eat (phagete) the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (John 6:53)
The verb trogon connotes physical chewing, distinguishing it from phagein (general eating, John 6:31). This linguistic shift, with Jesus’ refusal to clarify the language as metaphorical (unlike John 4:32–34), points to sacramental reality, fulfilled in the Last Supper (Matt 26:26–28).
3. On the Passover Framework
Johann, your reading of 1 Cor 5:7-8 is a classic cause of proof-texting, that ignores Paul’s broader Eucharistic theology. In 1 Cor 5:7-8, Paul indeed calls Christ “our Passover” and urges believers to “keep the feast” with “sincerity and truth”. However, this ethical application does not negate the Eucharistic fulfilment of the Passover. In 1 Cor 10:16-17, Paul explicitly ties the Eucharist to real participation in Christ’ Body and Blood and in 1 Cor 11:23-25, he recounts the institution narrative, where Jesus declares, “This is my Body” (touto estin to soma mou). The Greek estin denotes ontological reality and not symbolic representation.
The Passover lamb required both sacrifice and consumption, prefiguring Christ’s sacrifice and its sacramental reception in the Eucharist. John 6:4 situates the discourse during Passover and the feeding miracle, recalls the manna, a type fulfilled in the true bread. Paul’s silence on “chewing” in 1 Cor 5 is irrelevant, as his focus there is ethical and not liturgical. In 1 Cor 11:27-29, however, he warns of profaning Christ’s Body and Blood, implying a real presence, as note by St. Augustine in Sermon 227.
4. On 1 Cor 11 and Patristic Authority
Your interpretation of 1 Cor 11:27-29 is exegetically and theologically deficient. Paul warns:
“Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” (v. 27)
The phrase “guilty of the Body and Blood” (enochos tou somatos kai tou haimatos) implies a real offense against Christ’s presence, as profaning a symbol would not incur such grave judgement. The verb diakrinon (“Discern”) in v.29 calls for recognizing the reality of Christ’s Body, not merely the Church. While soma can refer to the Church, in 1 Cor 11:24-25, it explicitly denotes the Eucharistic Body, as Jesus says “This is my Body” (touto mou estin to soma).
Lemme say, the dismissal of patrisitc authority betrays a flawed ecclesiology.
The Church is the “pillar and foundation of Truth” (1 Tim 3:15), and the Holy Spirit preserves its paradosis (2 Thess 2:15). The Fathers—Ignatius, Justin, Irenaeus, Ambrose—reflect the Apostolic Faith, not later accretion.
Sola Scriptura approach severs Scripture from its living context, contradicting the Spirit’s guidance of the Church (John 16:13)
5. On Escalation and John 6:63
Johann, your appeal to John 6:63 is ig a hermeneutical misstep, that divorces the verse from its context.
In John 6:63, Jesus says, “The flesh (sarx) profits nothing; it is the Spirit who gives life. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”
The term sarx can refer to human understanding unaided by divine grace, not Christ’s Eucharistic flesh.
This is clear from the contrast with pneuma (Spirit), which vivifies the sacramental act.
The comparision to Matt 18:8-9 is inapt. The hyperbolic imperatives there serve a moral purpose, whereas John 6:51-58 is a sacramental discourse tied to the Passover and Last Supper. The escalation in John 6, from phagein to trogon is not metaphorical but ontological as Jesus affirms:
“My flesh is true food (alethēs brosis), and my blood is true drink (alethēs posis)” (John 6:55).
The adjective alethēs underscores reality, not symbolism.
Peace
Sam

34

BTW, Johann, your turn, please explain me these:

I’m still waiting for you answer @Johann. I have answered your questions, now please help me with these…

35

1.On the “I Am” Statements
Not all “I am” proclamations function identically in ontological reference; the interpretations demand a rigorous application of the analogia Scripturae et fidei
For “I am the resurrection and the life”, the statement is ontological and eschatological, rooted in Christ’s hypostatic union as the divine Logos who conquers death, evidenced by the miracle of Lazarus and prefiguring the general resurrection. It deamnds faith but effects real transformation. Conversely, “I am the door” is metaphorical, embedded in Pastoral imagery, where Jesus explicated Spiritual ingress to salvation, not literal materiality—the context shifts to explanation, softening potential misunderstanding.
In the Institution narratives “This is my Body” (τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου, Matt 26:26; Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24) exploys the copula estin in a substantive, identificatory sense, akin to the Aramaic hu in Semitic idioms, signifying ontological equivalence rather than representation (as in Gen 41:26, Joseph’s dream interpretation). Memorialists arbitrarily deem this symbolic, ignoring the genre of covenantal meal and the Passover zikkaron, a Hebrew ritual of dynamic re-actualisation where the Exodus is made present, not merely recalled. John 6:4 explicitly locates the discourse during Passover, linking the manna typology (John 6:31–32; Exod 16) to the Eucharistic fulfillment, where Christ’s flesh is given “for the life of the world” (John 6:51).
The Jewish Audience’s literal understanding, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” and subsequent scandal, leading to mass desertation is inexplicable under Memorialism. If Jesus meant mere “belief” as in John 6:35 (erchomenos and pisteuōn, ongoing faith), the escalation to erchomenos and pisteuōn, ongoing faith), a crude physical verb unused in metaphorical contexts, would be superfluous and unprovocative. Jesus refuses metaphorical clarification, instead intesifying realism with alēthēs brōsis (“true food,” John 6:55) demanding sacramental participation.
Memorialism’s selective symbolism leads to heresy; it is similar to Ebionite reductionism, diminshing Christ’s divine authority to effect what He declares, and severs the New Covenant’s material continuity from the Old, akin to Marcionite dualism.

2.On St. Ignatius of Antioch and the Apostolic Succession Against Docetism
Memorialism’s assertion that Real Presence is a “medieval invetion” (as was said in prev posts) is historically untenable, as it dismisses the sub-apostolic witness of Ignatius of Antioch (35-107AD), a direct disciple of John the Evangelist. In Letter to the Smyrnaeans 7:1, St. Ignatius delcares “They [Docetists] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh (sarx) of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again.” This is no symbolic rhetoirc; St. Ignatius employs the Eucharist as the definitive litmus test for orthodoxy, countering Docetists who denied Christ’s true Incarnation and Passion.
As St. John’s Pupil, Ignatius reflects the Johannine community’s oral paradosis, where John 6:53-58’s realism is lived in liturgy. To claim Ignatius “corrupted” the Gospel implies rupture in apostolic sucession mere decades after Pentecost, a heretical proposition that undermines the Church’s indefectibility (Matt 16:18, Eph 4:11-13). Memorialism thus aligns with Modern rationalism, 16th century Reformers like Zwingli who dismissed early Fathers as fallible yet selectively appeals to Scripture while ignoring its ecclesial matrix.
There is no isolated voiceJustin Martyr (First Apology 66, c. 150 AD) calls the Eucharist “the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh”; Irenaeus (Against Heresies 5.2.3, c. 180 AD) describes it as “the new oblation of the New Covenant,” where bread becomes Christ’s Body through the Word’s invocation,
Memorialism’s rejection leads to heresy: by denying the Real Presence, it tacitly endorses Docetism, implying Christ’s flesh is not truly communicable, thys devaluing the Incarnation’s soteriological depth (Heb 2:14-18). The Real Presence safeguards apostolic purity, as the Eucharist combats phatom Christologies by affirming matter’s deification (Athanasius, On the Incarnation 5.4)
3. On 1 Cor 11:27-29, Causation of Judgement and Covenant Sanctity (Discussed in Prev posts)
The Memorialist interpretation, that the bread and wine remain unchanged, mere symbols of remembrance, due to “lack of charity toward the poor” or factionalism, utterly fails to furnish a coherent metaphysical or theological mechanism for the dire consequence Paul describes. This reductionism posits that ordinary, unconsecrated food, consumed amid social discord, SOMEHOW triggers supernatural physical affliations, a notion that devolves into arbitrary causality, reminiscent of pagan animistic curses or Hellenistic mystery cults where ritual impurity incurs vague divine wrath without subtantive grounding (e.g Eleusinian Mysteries’ emphasis on Moral Purity without ontological transformation)
Memorialism’s causal vacuum impoverishes the sacrament, reducing it to a didactic emblem and echoing Pelagian anthropocentrism, where human charity alone suffices for grace, bypassing the need for divine substantiality (contra Eph 2:8-9). This veers into semi-Donatist heresy, where Sacrament’s efficacy hinges on participants’ moral state without inherent holiness or worse, a Gnostic dualism that despiritualizes matter as inert. The Real Presence, conversely, upholds covenantal sanctity. Ambrose elucidates, the elements’ transformation through consecration renders them vehicles of divine judgment and blessing, akin to the Incarnation’s theandric operation. Profanation incurs holy judgement because it assaults the hypostatic union of Christ, ensuring the Eucharist as the “medicine of immortality” or, when abused, a catalyst for discipline

36

One of the topics that interests me is whether the Eucharist is symbolic or real. Personally, I lean toward the Real Presence. I’ve always had this question in mind, and your posts have clarified it quite well.
As I skimmed through your explanations—at least the parts I could follow, since my Greek isn’t strong—I found them very insightful. I now see more clearly why the doctrine of the Real Presence carries greater weight than purely memorialist frameworks.

Post29

and

Post30

(Also, I should mention that I’m quite interested in theology.) That said, Johann also raised some considerable counterpoints…

Very interesting discussion—I’ll need to take some time to reflect on this.:thinking:

37

Then, shall we discuss 4 and 5 (Im talking about the 5 questions which are meant to show the flaws with memorialist framework)
On John 6:63, “The Flesh Profits Nothing”, and Docetic Implications
In John 6:63, “The flesh profits nothing; it is the Spirit who gives life. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life”. Remember Flesh=sarx term. Christ unequivocally refers to (b) human, fallen, carnal understanding devoid of divine illumination (c.f John 3:6, 8:15, Rom 7:5-6, 8:5-13), not (a) His own Eucharistic flesh, which He has just commanded to be consumed for eternal life (John 6:53-58). Interpreting as (a) engenders a grotesque self-contradiction: Christ would be instituting a sacrament only to immediately nullify its efficacy..whaaatttt…
The term sarx in Johannine usuage is multivalent: In John 1:14 it denotes Christ’s assumed human nature, redeptive and substantive; here in 6:63 it shifts to anthropological connotation, signifying the unregenerate human mindset scandalized by divine revelation (John 6:60-61), as paralleled in Pauline antithesis between sarx (fleshly weakness) and pneuma (Spirit’s Empowerment in Rom 8:1-11). Jesus corrects a crude, cannibalisitic misapprehension by affirming a spiritual mode of reception and thats sacramental, mediated by the Holy Spirit’s vivifying power, not carnal literalism devoid of faith. This aligns with the discoruse’s progression from metaphorical “bread of life” to ontological realism (alēthēs brōsis, “true food,” v. 55), where Spirit enables participation without reducing it to symbols.
The verse is no negation but an affirmation of sacramental ontology: the Spirit acutalizes the words’ performative power (John 6:63), transforming reception into mystical union (John 6:56). Memorialism’s misreading, eqauting sarc with Christ’s flesh, necessitates the heretical conclusion that the Incarnate Word’s humanity “profits nothing” eroding hypostatic union where divine and human natures coexist without confusion. This drifts into Docetism, the very heresy John combats (1 John 4:2-3, 2 John 7) by implying Christ’s flesh is illusory or non-salvific, or Monophysitism, absorbing humanity into an abstract spirituality. Furthermore, it impoverishes pneumatology: *without substantial presence, the Spirit’s role devolves to subjective inspiration, isn’t that Montanist enthusiasm without ecclesial sacramentality?
5.On the Incarnation, Life-Giving Flesh and Scandal of John 6
The Incarnation wherein “the Word became flesh” is not a static event but the inaugrating act of divine economy, culminating in Christ’s Crucifixion, resurrection and ascension, transforing Him into “a life-giving spirit” whose glorified humanity imparts deification (2 Peter 1:4). To bestow this life-giving reality upon the disciples, Christ proffers the most profound, intimate and corporeal mode conceivable:
“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (John 6:53)
A command whose literal-sacramental force generates unparalleled scandal…
If not substantial, what conceivable meaning could Christ’s words bear that would provoke such visceral offence? Symbolic “belief” or remembrance lacks the abhorrence of apparent cannibalism or blood ingestion, taboos evoking ritual uncleanness and covenant breach. The escalation to Trogon, a base, animalistic verb in Greek literature as in Aristophanes’ satirical usage, intensifies corporeal realism, mirroring the Passover lamb’s mandatory consumption, yet transcending it in the New Covenant. Jesus’ refusal to mitigate and the disciples’ desertion underscore the stakes:
This is not abstract faith but participatory union in Christ’s deified humanity
The scandal parallels the Incarnation’s own offence, where God’s enfleshment deifies human categories; Memorialism dilutes this to palatable symbolism, rendering the Jews’ reaction disproportionate and Jesus’ discourse redundant (why not halt at John 6:35?). Deeper still, it undermines soteriology: without real communion in Christ’s flesh, salvation becomes gnostic knowledge rather than ontological transformation, echoing Apollinarianism (denying Christ’s full humanity as salvific) or Eutychianism (blurring natures, reducing flesh to ethereal symbol). Eschatologically, Memorialism’s shortfalls: Eucharist prefigures the heavenly banquet, where symbolic meals cannot nourish the resurrected body; instead, it must be the foretaste of glorified matter.
( I have talked about 1, 2 and 3 in the above post)

Peace
Sam

38

Something that caught my interest was:

Can we discuss some more about this brother…

39

Yes ofc brother…
Paul’s admonition employs forensic and cultic language:
“Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” (v. 27).
Now guilty=enochos
body=sōmatos
blood=haimatos
The verb enochos connotes legal culpability for a capital offense (refer to Exod 22:2-3 in LXX), implying a direct profanation of a holy entity, not abstract moral failing. The imperative to “examine oneself” and “discern the body” draws from cultic discernment in the OT (Hag 2:11-13, distinguishing holy from profane), where sōma polysemously refers to the Eucharistic Body (explicit in v. 24, “This is my Body”) as the ontological ground, with the ecclesial Body as its mystical extension.
The Real Presence provides an unassailable causal chain, mirroring OT precedents where mishandling sacred objects invokes immediate divine retribution. Leviticus 22:3–9 decrees excommunication or death for priests profaning consecrated offerings (e.g., “They shall die if they profane it”), emphasizing the substantial holiness of the elements; 2 Samuel 6:6–7 recounts Uzzah’s instantaneous death for touching the Ark of the Covenant, a type of Christ’s incarnate presence (Heb 9:4–5), where unauthorized contact assaults God’s glory.
In the New Covenant, the Eucharist fulfills these types as the antitype, where unworthy reception profanes the substantial Body and Blood, incurring judgement as covenantal discipline (Heb 12:5-11), not capricious curse. This ontology aligns with Paul’s broader theology:
in 1 Cor 10:16, the Eucharist is koinonia (real participation) in Christ’s Blood and Body, a metaphysical union that, when violated, disrupts the divine-human communion manifesting in somatic judgement as a sign of eschatological warning (refer to Acts 5:1–11, Ananias and Sapphira’s deception leading to death).
Also Brother @ILOVECHRIST , Lemme add some more to points 4 and 5:
About 4, Cyril of Alexandria (Commentary on John 4.2) expounds: the Spirit deifies the fleshly reception, preventing carnal misinterpretation while upholding realism; Basil the Great (On the Holy Spirit 15.35–36) links this to the epiclesis, where the Spirit consecrates the elements into Christ’s Body.
memorialist’s interpretation verges on Gnostic heresy (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.6.2–3, condemning flesh-disdaining spiritualizers) devaluing matter’s redemption. The Real Presence resolves with profound depth:
Christ’s flesh profits infinitely, when Spirit-infused, as a theandric mystery where sacramental grace perfects nature (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae III, q. 75, a. 1) defending against Docetism by affirming the Incarnation’s tangible extension.
And about 5, Maximus the Confessor (Ambigua 7, 41) profoundly articulates: the Eucharist is the “synthesis” of divine and created realms, shocking because it demands faith in matter’s permeation by uncreated energies (Gregory Palamas, Triads 3.1.27). Memorialist’s denial leads to heretical soteriological deficit, detaching believers from Christ’s life-giving flesh and fostering a disembodied piety akin to Origenist allegorism gone awry (condemned at Constantinople II, 553AD). The Real Presence fulfills with eschatological profundity:
as extension of the hypostatic union, it unites us to Christ’s theandric reality, more intimate than any metaphor, offending precisely because it realizes God’s radical condescension (Phil 2:6-8).

Peace
Sam

1 Like
40

Glad you have joined the discussion @ILOVECHRIST

For Catholics, just remember @Samuel_23 is Oriental Orthodox– the Holy Eucharist / Catholic Mass is considered the most important and highest form of prayer. In fact, attending Mass is an obligation, under penalty of mortal sin, each Sunday and on certain other Holy Days of Obligation. The Mass is divided into two sections, the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The Liturgy of the Word consists of two readings (one from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament), the Responsorial Psalm, the Gospel reading, the homily (or sermon), and general intercessions (also called petitions).

The center of the Mass is its second part, the Liturgy of the Holy Eucharist. During this time, Catholics share in the body and blood of Jesus in the form of the bread and wine passed out to the congregation. According to the Bible, this is done in remembrance of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:23-25; cf. Luke 22:18-20 and Matthew 26:26-28). However, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1366, “The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit.” The catechism continues in paragraph 1367:

The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same:–remember brother, Jesus was never a “vitctim”– the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” “And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner . . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.”

In the book of Malachi, the prophet predicts elimination of the old sacrificial system and the institution of a new sacrifice: “I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord of hosts, and I will not accept an offering from your hand. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to my name, and a pure offering. For my name will be great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts” (Malachi 1:10-11). This means that God will one day be glorified among the Gentiles, who will make pure offerings to Him in all places. The Catholics see this as the Eucharist. However, the apostle Paul seems to have a different slant on it: “I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship” (Romans 12:1). The Eucharist can only be offered in select places: churches consecrated and blessed according to Catholic canon law. The idea of offering our bodies as living sacrifices fits better with the language of the prediction, which says that the sacrifices will be offered “in every place.”

The Roman Catholic Church believes that the bread and wine of the Holy Eucharist become the actual body and blood of Jesus. They attempt to support their system of thought with passages such as John 6:32-58; Matthew 26:26; Luke 22:17-23; and 1 Corinthians 11:24-25.

In A.D. 1551, the Counsel of Trent officially stated, “By the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation” (Session XIII, chapter IV; cf. canon II). By sharing in the Eucharistic meal, the Church teaches that Catholics are fulfilling John 6:53: “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.”

What does that really mean? Jesus goes on to say that “it is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life” (John 6:63-64). So, if “the flesh is of no avail,” why would we have to eat Jesus’ flesh in order to have eternal life? It does not make sense, until Jesus tells us that the words He speaks are “spirit.” Jesus is saying that this is not a literal teaching, but a spiritual one.

In Jewish thought, bread was equated with the Torah, and “eating of it” was reading and understanding the covenant of God (cf. Deuteronomy 8:3).

For example, the apocryphal book of Sirach states, “‘He who eats of me will hunger still, he who drinks of me will thirst for more; he who obeys me will not be put to shame, he who serves me will never fail.’ All this is true of the book of Most High’s covenant, the law which Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the community of Jacob” (Sirach 24:20-22). Quoting from Sirach here is not endorsing it as Scripture; it only serves to illustrate how the Jewish people thought of Mosaic Law. It is important to understand the equating of bread with the Torah to appreciate Jesus’ real point.

In John 6, Jesus is actually telling the crowd that He is superior to the Torah (cf. John 6:49-51) and the entire Mosaic system of Law. The passage from Sirach states that those who eat of the Law will “hunger still” and “thirst for more”; this language is mirrored by Jesus when He says, “He who comes to Me will never be hungry, he who believes in Me will never be thirsty” (John 6:35). Jesus is not commanding people to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood.

J.

41

The healing, requires you first acknowledge that you’re sick.

IMO, communion= Revival

In the OT several kings called for Passover after years of neglect (Josiah, Hezekiah, etc.) which requires repentance.

1 Corinthians 5:6-8 shows that Christ is our Passover, in the new covenant