Eucharist - Did Jesus really mean for us to eat His flesh and drink His blood?

Theology
21

Tertullian, Against Marcion Book IV, Chapter 40
“Hoc est corpus meum … id est figura corporis mei”
(“This is My body … that is, the figure of My body.”)
reddit.com
+5

+15
reddit.com
+15

Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John 27.1
“… press the sacrament … carnally and visibly with his teeth … but not eat His flesh [spiritually].”
And elsewhere:
“If the sacrament is to be understood literally, it leads to murder.”

:paperclip: Additional links:
Tertullian’s Latin text (Against Marcion IV, chap. 40):

22

Oh… :frowning:
I think I will have to take some time out to learn abt this, thanks @Johann for bringing this to my attention

23

A post was merged into an existing topic: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: How Do You Understand the Godhead?

24

Yes the references u gave are right…thanks

1 Like
25

I like your humbleness…
We are all learners. :handshake:

1 Like
26

Absolutely @anon3111385

J.

27

Yes @anon3111385 we are all learners

28

I’d like to point out a few interesting facets of scripture that may shed some light on the passage:

“Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. This is the bread which came down from heaven–not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.” These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum." John 6:53-59

  1. This teaching metaphor was taught at synagogue, to devout Jews, who have been waiting for the advent of their savior, and were unwittingly sitting in the same room as He. It follows on the heels of two important contextual clues regarding the current attitude of his very Jewish audience:

“The Jews then complained about Him, because He said, "I am the bread which came down from heaven." John 6:41

And

“The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?" John 6:52

Don’t let this context escape you while you consider the next part.

  1. Jesus had previously taught a Samaritan woman a similar idea using water as the essential source of eternal life:

“Jesus answered and said to her, "Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again, but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life." John 4:13-14

  1. Likewise, at the same event, he taught His disciples this idea about food:

“In the meantime His disciples urged Him, saying, “Rabbi, eat.” But He said to them, “I have food to eat of which you do not know.” Therefore the disciples said to one another, “Has anyone brought Him anything to eat?” Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to finish His work.” John 4:31-34

  1. Lastly, these teachings all occurred prior to (years before) the event we call “the last supper”; the event in which Jesus teaches his inner-circle of devout disciples how to internalize what was about to happen; and how to never allow the significance of the ensuing events to ever leave their memory. Three Gospel writers record it for posterity, John leaves it out of his gospel.

When you put these events within their context you will find that neither the Samaritan hearers in John 4, nor His disciples, nor the Jewish hearers in John 6 could ever have imagined anything like Jesus inaugurating a communion service, or any kind of ritual eating being prescribed. The “last supper” was the “first communion”; the idea of a commemorative eating flesh and blood had, to this point, not been established, not yet even imagined. All of the above teachings are tied together in the idea of internalizing The Living Word of God, (John 1:1), and have no real dietary or ritualistic salvific instruction. We are no more instructed to eat physical flesh or drink physical blood than we are expected to have a physical fountain of water spring out of our belly-button.

Jesus likened (symbolized) Himself as water, bread, and wine partially because of their universal and ubiquitous nature; these simple elements would have been handled every day, by every hearer, and attaching wisdom to them, via a significant memory, is a gift to us that aids us in our anthropological short attention spans, and counters our human proclivity to focus on minor things at the expense of major things. These teachings, and admonitions are gracious expressions of God’s unending love for His dear Children; the bride of His Son.

Imagine, what manner of Love God has bestowed on us; imagine, we can actually be called Sons of God!
(1 Jn 3:1)

Peace and blessings
KP

29

It is passionate I think he was speaking to the pagans and it’s a reminder to eat simple a man should be passionate about what and who he is if it’s right from the Lord and maybe his women should eat like he does I have had that thought we are to follow a man from the Lord and be passionate about these ways of life. Also I think it’s a deeper thought too that it’s ok to only eat meat and bread or crackers and drink some alcohol to get right and forget about everything else just eat drink and wait on his word. And you f you notice the simple truths you will find kids love to eat just a piece of meat on crackers and some fruit drink and their happy and I quite like it to and bread doesn’t do it or vegetables but a fruity drink is good. And 50 years ago everyone had saltines and ritz crackers and ate them I’m not sure about nowadays but I like them more than bread I know they are not unleavened but along time ago their would be no access to leavening agents and many things would be out I’m sure they seen a lot of starvation and Jesus is definitely saying maybe I don’t want to live it’s so bad what I see , a lot of compassion. You know it’s the Lord speaking as one thing says so many things it’s amazing always to me. Of course I say meat but the fish might be possible yet gosh it’s disturbing no food no food no food we will grind up these weeds and make crackers and here take me cause it’s bad, it happens to this day their is no doubt most starved and I really don’t want to know if they were canibals and used canabalism but it seems they were and possibly that’s what people were eating only other people the Lord mentions numerous times people were like animals and hence the fish symbolism as we need meat for them it was easier to acquire fish but cannibalism is not something to ever go back to it’s everything important to civilization to strive to eat fish or animal meat and they go into great detail about animal meat because it’s vital importance that civilizations advance. Again the Lords words speak in many ways that advance life 1000s of times just know that the Lord spoke as it is elevating society and it’s relevant today tomorrow 1000 years from now even if nothing else that is a big big big one and I believe it is also saying nowadays do not sacrifice yourself for others whatever that may mean to you but Jesus did not give his body for them, for us, to eat and today we have animals to eat it could possibly be a important sin that is outright spelled out and visible in church yet we do give ourself to the Lord which is a sacrifice but the duality and mystery it’s a big deal always believe that the Lord is elevating and we learn from the Bible. So my thoughts are not yours but he did not give his body for us and this goes even further but I don’t believe in saying he gave his body for our sins he did not and it’s a sin for me to say it, it’s twisting the truth, people were murdering and eating each other he did not give himself for us for our sins in no way but because he didn’t our civilization advances advanced that’s the main message. Really important subject and the foundation of all. And if you start becoming uncaring towards others it is ancient but you may in fact be sinning and extremely sick and yea people are don’t deny it and no that’s not things you can help with and they may in fact kill someone never underestimate these wackos who suicide brigade people or bomb them with uncaring things make no mistake come out and be separate and their is something extraordinary wrong with them a religious psychosis I don’t know what to call it but the lord is angry at them and don’t make light of how it’s connected the Bible is explicitly clear and be very concerned for a community insisting others not be themselves they are a danger to life itself and it shows in every way life will not advance and be stunted and reverse and the Lord will bring war if it’s not righted and wipe them out the Lord does not play he insists on the fish and the crackers and the foundational no no that is fundamental to his books and you will never hear me say no war as God is the ultimate warrior I don’t take up war but God does and I stay out of Gods way but take heed to his foundations

30

@Jimmbo, all of Jesus’ “I am” claims are metaphors, that is, figurative words that relate everyday things and people to spiritual reality. He said the following to claim that he is God with the Father and the Holy Spirit:

Joh 6:32 Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.
Joh 6:33 For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
Joh 6:34 They said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”
Joh 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.

Jhn_8:12 Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

Jhn_10:9 I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture.
Jhn_10:11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.
Jhn_10:14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me,

Jhn_11:25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live,

Jhn_14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Jhn_15:1 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser.
Jhn_15:5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.

With these “I ams,” Jesus identifies himself with the God of Moses’ burning bush:

Exo 3:14 God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”
Exo 3:15 God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations.

And Jesus’ claim to be the good Shepherd says that he is King David’s divine Shepherd:

Psa 23:1 A Psalm of David. The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.

31

JESUS SAID He had meat to eat…to do His father’s will.

There is physical food, and Spiritual food.

So how does one express the Spiritual unless one first puts senses to the physical.

To eat His body and drink His blood is to live out His teachings.

If nothing happens to you with those around you after taking communion…then?

If communion washes away sins and your sins weren’t washed away during communion then what might that be saying to you?

…ai…

The Eucharist is a primary discipline to sever reliance on the flesh and instead anchor your trust in the sufficiency of God.

Willard

32

A careful, step by step walk-through of John 6 makes it plain what Jesus meant when He said we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. In my experience, this kind of sensible exposition aligns perfectly with the full scope of New Testament teaching. Tragically, the demands of all-pervasive man-made traditions have pulled this passage badly out of shape.

1 Like
33

Love him and Reformed theology.
“The believing ones”

Shalom brother @Stenos.

J.

1 Like
34
35

“Finding Common Ground…We might use different words and have some differences around concepts, but at the end of the day all are viewing this as a participation in the work of Christ. We just mean different things by that” (Mike Leake, What Is Eucharist, and How Is It Different from Communion?).

After reading Mr Leake’s essay, it’s difficult for me personally to understand how he reaches the conclusion above without giving even a paragraph or two over to the wider, weighty implications of the Roman Catholic mass (as still defined by the Council of Trent, 1545 to 1563). Surely by choosing to emphasise the term “Eucharist”, a misleading commonality is created that bypasses the unbiblical character of historic Roman Catholic dogma.

Putting this another way, I’m tempted to think the reasoning here suggests the belief that Roman Catholicism is a genuine church with which we can find “common ground.” Forgive me if I’m reading too much into it. Should I therefore assume that he believes John 6 contains Christ’s teaching on the Eucharist? And is this the position of Salem Media?

It would be very easy here to cut and paste from many reputable Bible-centred resources and official Roman Catholic documents to explain why in some Eucharist contexts common ground is impossible. Nobody wants to use church traditions to legitimise false teaching. But church teaching and Bible teaching can be very different. “Combining Scripture and tradition” can be problematic to say the least.

36

@Jimmbo, when Jesus says that he is the door to the sheepfold, did he mean a literal door, or did he mean to compare that literal door to the fact that he is the only way for us sheep to enter the place of spiritual safety? I think the latter interpretation makes more sense of his metaphor, don’t you think? Notice in those verses that John even describes it as “a figure of speech” (verse 6); that’s what a metaphor is.

Joh 10:1 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber.
Joh 10:2 But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.
Joh 10:3 To him the gatekeeper opens. The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.
Joh 10:4 When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice.
Joh 10:5 A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.”
Joh 10:6 This figure of speech Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them.
Joh 10:7 So Jesus again said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.
Joh 10:8 All who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them.
Joh 10:9 I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture.
Joh 10:10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.

37

Yes, Jesus really meant for us to eat His flesh and drink His blood. In, under, and through the bread and wine of the Holy Eucharist.

38

What did Jesus mean when He said we must eat His flesh and drink His blood?

ANSWER - In John 6:53–57, Jesus says, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” Upon hearing these words, many of Jesus’ followers said, “This is a hard teaching” (verse 60), and many of them actually stopped following Him that day (verse 66).

Jesus’ graphic imagery about eating His flesh and drinking His blood is indeed puzzling at first. Context will help us understand what He is saying. As we consider everything that Jesus said and did in John 6, the meaning of His words becomes clearer.

Earlier in the chapter, Jesus fed the 5,000 (John 6:1–13). The next day, the same multitudes continued to follow Him, seeking another meal. Jesus pointed out their short-sightedness: they were only seeking physical bread, but there was something more important: “Food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you” (verse 27). At this point, Jesus attempts to turn their perspective away from physical sustenance to their true need, which was spiritual.

This contrast between physical food and spiritual food sets the stage for Jesus’ statement that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Jesus explains that it is not physical bread that the world needs, but spiritual bread. Jesus three times identifies Himself as that spiritual bread (John 6:35, 48, 51). And twice He emphasizes faith (a spiritual action) as the key to salvation: “My Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life” (verse 40); and “Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life” (verse 47).

Jesus then compares and contrasts Himself to the manna that Israel had eaten in the time of Moses: “Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die” (John 6:49–50). Like manna, Jesus came down from heaven; and, like manna, Jesus gives life. Unlike manna, the life Jesus gives lasts for eternity (verse 58). In this way, Jesus is greater than Moses (see Hebrews 3:3).

Having established His metaphor (and the fact that He is speaking of faith in Him), Jesus presses the symbolism even further: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will live forever; and this bread, which I will offer so the world may live, is my flesh. . . . I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have eternal life within you. But anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life. . . . My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. . . . Anyone who feeds on me will live because of me” (John 6:51–56, NLT).

To prevent being misconstrued, Jesus specifies that He has been speaking metaphorically: “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life” (John 6:63). Those who misunderstood Jesus and were offended by His talk about eating His flesh and drinking His blood were stuck in a physical mindset, ignoring the things of the Spirit.

They were concerned with getting another physical meal, so Jesus uses the realm of the physical to teach a vital spiritual truth. Those who couldn’t make the jump from the physical to the spiritual turned their backs on Jesus and walked away (verse 66).

At the Last Supper, Jesus gives a similar message and one that complements His words in John 6—when the disciples gather to break bread and drink the cup, they “proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (1 Corinthians 11:26). In fact, Jesus said that the bread broken at the table is His body, and the cup they drink is the new covenant in His blood, shed for the forgiveness of sins (Matthew 26:26–28). Their act of eating and drinking was to be a symbol of their faith in Christ. Just as physical food gives earthly life, Christ’s sacrifice on the cross gives heavenly life.

Some people believe that the bread and wine of communion are somehow transformed into Jesus’ actual flesh and blood, or that Jesus somehow imbues these substances with His real presence. These ideas, called transubstantiation (professed by the Catholic and Orthodox churches) and consubstantiation (held by Lutherans), ignore Jesus’ statement that “the flesh counts for nothing” (John 6:63). The majority of Protestants understand that Jesus was speaking metaphorically about His flesh and blood and hold that the bread and wine are symbolic of the spiritual bond created with Christ through faith.

J.

39

"Rabbi Tanchuma said in the name of Rabbi Nachman ben-Rabbi Shmuʾel ben-Nachman, and Rabbi Menachma said (according to another version Rabbi Yirmiyahu and Rabbi [Y’hudah HaNasi] said in the name of Rabbi Shmuʾel ben-Rabbi Yitzchak): ‘All references to eating and drinking in the book of Qohelet [Ecclesiastes] signify Torah and good works.’ Rabbi Yonah said, 'The clearest proof for this is Ecclesiastes 8:15, “A man has no better thing under the sun than to eat, drink and be merry, and that this should accompany him in his labor.” The word for “his labor” is “ʿamalo,” but it should be read “ʿolamo” (“his world”), that is, in this world. The verse continues, All “the days of his life”; and that alludes to the grave. So are there food and drink in the grave that accompany a person to the grave? Of course not. Therefore “food and drink” must mean Torah and good works.'"

Spurgeon - from TRULY EATING THE FLESH OF JESUS - OUR Lord Jesus did not in this passage allude to the Lord’s supper, as some desiring to maintain their sacramental superstitions have dared to affirm. I will not dwell upon the argument that there was no Lord’s supper at the time to allude to, though there is certainly some force in it; but I will rather remind you that with such an interpretation this passage would not be true. It must be confessed even by the most ardent advocate of the sacramental meaning that the expressions used by our Lord are not universally and without exception true if used in that sense: for it is not true that those who have never eaten the Lord’s supper have no life in them, since it is confessed on all hands that hundreds and thousands of children dying in childhood, are undoubtedly saved, and yet they have never eaten the flesh of Christ nor drank his blood, if the Lord’s supper be here meant. There have been also many others in bygone times who, by their conduct, proved that the life of God was in their souls, and yet they were not able to eat bread at the sacramental table, from sickness, banishment, imprisonment, and other causes. Surely also there are some others, though I would not excuse them, who have neglected to come to that blessed commemorative ordinance, and yet nevertheless for all that they are truly children of God. Would the highest of high churchmen send every Quaker, however holy and devout, down to the bottomless pit? If this should refer to the Lord’s supper, then it is certain that the dying thief could not have entered heaven, for he never sat down at the communion table, but was converted on the cross, and without either baptism or the Lord’s supper, went straight away with his Master into Paradise. It can never be proved; indeed, it is utterly false that no one has eternal life if he has not received the bread and wine of the communion table; and on the other hand, it is certainly equally untrue that whosoever eats Christ’s flesh has eternal life, if by that is meant every one who partakes of the Eucharist, for there are unworthy receivers, not here and there, but to be found by hundreds. Alas, there are apostates who leave the Lord’s table for the table of devils, who profane the holy name they once professed to love: there are also many who have received the sacramental bread and wine, and yet live in sin, who increase their sin by daring to come to the table, and who, alas, we fear, will die in their sins as many others have done. Unregenerate persons are very apt to make much of the sacrament and nothing of Christ. They think a great deal of the bread and wine of the (so-called) altar, but they have never known what it is to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ: these eat and drink unworthily—carnally eating bread, but not spiritually eating the Redeemer’s flesh: to them the ordinance is a curse rather than a blessing. Our Lord did not refer to the feast of his supper, for the language will not bear such an interpretation.

The hard saying cannot be taken literally, says Augustine, since it would seem to be enjoining a crime or a vice: “it is therefore a figure, bidding us communicate in the sufferings of our Lord, and secretly and profitably treasure in our hearts the fact that his flesh was crucified and pierced for us.”1 Elsewhere he sums the matter up in an epigram: Crede et manducasti, “Believe, and thou hast eaten.” (Augustine Homilies on John 26.1)

J.

40

Also, to consider…

Holy communion or the Lord’s Supper (also known in some churches as the Lord’s Table or the Eucharist) is a source of significant disagreement within the church as a whole. What’s agreed upon is found clearly in Scripture: communion was instituted by Jesus during His last supper with His disciples. During that time, He served them bread and “the cup.” He told them that these elements were His body and blood (Matthew 26:26–28; Mark 14:22–24). He also instructed them to repeat the ceremony in remembrance of Him (Luke 22:19).

Disagreements over holy communion stem from many questions: Was Jesus speaking of His body and blood figuratively or literally, or were His words a mystical combination of the figurative and literal? How often is the church to observe communion? Is the Eucharist a means of grace or simply a memorial? What was in the cup—fermented wine or unfermented grape juice?

Because Jesus did not give specific, step-by-step instructions regarding the ritual, naturally, there is some conflict about the hows and wheres and whens, and what exactly the bread and wine represent. There are arguments about whether or not the elements actually become the blood and body of Christ (the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation), whether they somehow contain His Spirit (Luther’s doctrine of consubstantiation), or whether the wine and bread are simply symbols of His body and blood. There are differing opinions about the liturgy that should be spoken and whether or not confession should be part of the ritual. Denominations differ on the frequency of the communion, how it should be performed, and by whom.

There are four biblical accounts of Jesus’ last supper with His disciples, three in the Synoptic Gospels and one in 1 Corinthians 11:23–34. When we look at these accounts in combination, we know the following:

  1. During the Passover meal, Jesus blessed, broke, and offered bread to His disciples, saying, “Take eat, this is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
  2. He also passed around a cup, telling them to divide it among them: “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood, poured out for many, for the forgiveness of sins.” He also instructed all of them to drink it.
  3. It was during this last meal that Jesus mentions that one of His disciples would betray Him.
  4. Jesus says He will not drink of the fruit of the vine again until He drinks it anew with His followers in the Father’s kingdom.

As He instituted the Lord’s Supper, Jesus was focused on the spiritual relationship between Himself and His disciples. He did not provide particulars of how or when or where or by whom the elements should be served, and, therefore, different churches have some freedom to decide those details for themselves. For example, whether a church observes communion once a week or once a month is not really important.

However, other disagreements over communion are theologically significant. For example, if partaking of the Lord’s Table is necessary in order to receive grace, then grace is not really free and must be earned by deeds we perform, in contradiction of Titus 3:5. And, if the bread is actually the body of Christ, then the Lord is being sacrificed again and again, in contradiction of Romans 6:9–10. These matters are significant enough to have divided the church through the years and actually became an issue of contention during the Protestant Reformation.

Understanding that we are saved by grace, through faith, apart from works (Ephesians 2:8–9) and considering Jesus’ words concerning the elements of communion to be figurative, we focus on the beauty of the new covenant (Matthew 26:28) brought into effect by Jesus’ own blood. We remember His sacrifice for us as often as we partake of the Lord’s Table (Luke 22:19). And we look forward to once again sharing the cup with Christ in the kingdom of God (Matthew 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18).

J.