“He who grounds his faith on Scripture only has no faith”

Hello ScubieNuc,

It’s been a busy week and has taken me awhile to get back to you. I may not be able to respond again for awhile, and want to be thorough in speaking to your concerns, so this will be a long post. Obviously, this is a conversation that would be better had over dinner or a good cup of coffee rather than long posts like this one, but in the absence of that, we do what we can by the internet.

In response to your earlier post, the literal reading of Scripture is that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus directly says this on four occasions in Scripture (Matthew 26:26-28, Mark. 22-24, Luke 22 17-20, and 1 Cor 11:25.) Additionally, in the Gospel of John, He further says that His flesh is true food, and His Blood is True drink, and tells us that we must eat His Flesh and Drink His blood. The question then is not whether or not Scripture says that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Scripture clearly says that it is. The question is whether or not the literal words of Scripture are to be understood literally, or interpreted metaphorically in a sense that excludes the literal reading.

That the Body and Blood of our Lord are truly present in the Eucharist is the appropriate reading of Scripture. That follows directly from the words of Scripture, and I will demonstrate this to you from Scripture.

Before beginning, however, I would like to address two issues. The first is that I notice a tendency in your writings to see that if Scripture makes one statement regarding a topic, then all additional statements related to that topic must be false. I think we have to clear that up before beginning this discussion. Christ is completely present in the Lord’s supper. The Eucharist is the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It is also a sign of the New Covenant, a foreshadowing of the Heavenly Banquet, and a memorial of Christ’s Passover. None of these terms are exclusive of each other. For instance, pointing to the Lord’s Supper as a memorial does not exclude the real Presence of His Body and Blood in the Eucharist. Scripture points to both. By way of analogy, I might say that Scubienuc is a committed, Bible-believing Christian who likes to challenge assumptions and have his views questioned. Saying that Scubienuc is a committed, Bible-believing Christian does not exclude the fact that Scubienuc likes to have his views challenged. The two go together, although it is a combination that someone who stereotypes religious people might have thought were mutually exclusive until they get to know you or other committed Christians better. Likewise, saying that Christ is Spiritually present in the Eucharist does not exclude His physical presence. He is present both Physically and Spiritually, just as he was on the Cross. That is, He is entirely present. He has both commanded us to celebrate the Eucharist in remembrance of Him, and He has also told us that it is His Body and Blood. Therefore, we celebrate the Eucharist in remembrance of Christ, and His Body and Blood are also Truly present. There is no logical contradiction between the two.

The second issue that I want to address before beginning is the objection to the Real presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist that claims that his Words in John chapter 6 were merely symbolic or allegorical. The Scripture literally says that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Our Lord on at least 4 occasions. I have, in the past, seen numerous attempts to disregard the Scriptures on this point, and I find the objections to be disorganized, relying on traditions invented by men who knew neither Christ nor His Holy Apostles. These objections are also frequently self-contradictory. I will deal with the standard objections to the literal reading of the Scripture at the end of the post. I’m going to get one out of the way right off the bat, however, because it is a man-made invention that many take refuge in while attempting to disregard the actual words of Inspired Scriptures.

You mentioned that John and Matthew cannot contradict. Indeed you are correct, Sir, and they say the exact same thing:

Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body. " And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. (Matt 26; 26-28)

“For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.” (John 6: 55,56)

“I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh. " (John 6:53)

In the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, Christ directly tells us that the Eucharist is His Body and Blood, and commands us to eat. John 6:32-71 forcefully re-enforces this, as does 1 Corinthians. I understand these verses literally—Christ tells us to eat His Body and Drink His blood, and He tells us that His Blood is true drink and His Body is True Food. Obviously, I see no inconsistency between John and Matthew (and on this matter, Mark, and Luke and Paul,)—the Scriptures are Inspired by the same Holy Spirit and say the same thing. It is a reasonable reading of the above verses from the Gospels of John and Matthew to say that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist. As you can see, there is no contradiction between the above verses from John and Matthew.

Those who reject the literal meaning of these Scriptures often stake their entire claim to nullifying these Scriptures based upon a single verse from Scripture:

"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." (John 6: 63.)

Now this Scripture speaks of the words that Jesus speaks—that we must eat His Body and Blood—and tells us that they are Spirit and Truth. His saying that his flesh is true food and His Blood is true Drink and we must eat and drink of His flesh and Blood has just scandalized many of His disciples who are now abandoning Him. “This is a hard saying,” they tell us, “who can accept it?” He is saying that the Words He has just spoken in the Bread of Life discourse are Spirit and Truth, the words—You must eat my flesh and drink my blood—are Spirit and Truth. The context of this passage explicitly supports this reading, and I will return to that shortly. However, some will deny the literal meaning of Jesus’ words by saying that John 6:63 is actually speaking of the flesh which Christ has just mentioned—His own flesh which He says we must eat. In effect, they would have us believe that what Jesus is saying is, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh. And the flesh profits nothing. (?!?)

Clearly this supposed metaphor then devolves into meaninglessness. Those who insist on this forced and non-sensical interpretation would explain away Matthew 26:26-28, Mark. 22-24, Luke 22 17-20, and 1 Cor 11:25, and the thirty verses immediately preceding John 6:63 based on what is clearly a flawed interpretation. What Jesus is saying it that it is HIS words which are Spirit and Truth, not that his Body is merely Spirit.

This verse is often used to assert that Jesus is only speaking figuratively, that his words do not speak to a physical reality. This is absurd: It degenerates into the following position: “My flesh is true food, and the flesh profits nothing.” “I give my flesh for the life of the world, and the flesh does nothing.” “He who eats my flesh abided in me -- and my flesh profits nothing.” I can go on, inserting this forced interpretation into the rest of John 6, or for that matter, into Paul and the other Gospels. “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you. Take and eat, this is my Body. And it does nothing.” “Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord, since the body profits nothing. Such a person eats and drinks damnation upon himself.” I think you get the point. It is ridiculous position that denies the meaning of Christ’s words. To do so is not to live by Faith, but to live according to one’s own desires. “These words that I speak to you are Spirit and Truth. The flesh avails nothing.” To impose this doctrine on the Scriptures would force an interpretation in which Jesus says, “You must eat my flesh, but in following my command, you are wasting your time.” This is not an interpretation that follows from the Scripture. It is an interpretation forced upon the Scriptures by those who hold the doctrine that the Eucharist is merely and only symbolic, that it is Spiritual and not in any sense physical.

When Christ says, It is the Spirit that quickens, the flesh profits nothing, the words that I speak to you are spirit and truth, He is saying that His disciples must believe Him, must have faith in what He is telling them, even if their carnal way of thinking objects to the belief that He is really and truly present in the Eucharist. What He is telling us is that God’s judgment is always true, but man’s natural judgment may be flawed. Looking at the context of the Gospel of John:

"You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me." (John 8: 15,16)

Natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true. What Christ is saying is that His saying can only be understood by faith.

“….The Words that I have spoken to you are Spirit .and Truth.” (John 6:63)

Another attempt to explain away Matthew 26:26-28, Mark. 22-24, Luke 22 17-20, 1 Cor 11:25 and John 6 is to argue that “the words I have spoken to you are merely symbolic.” I can’t think of any Scripture that would render the word Spirit as meaning merely symbolic. Can you? Again, I think it’s nonsensical to attempt to explain away the Scriptures by forcing this non-sequitir upon them. Jesus’ saying that something (His words) are Spirit and Truth does not equate with them being “merely” symbolic. It’s a twisting of the Word of God to assert that Spirit and Truth means “merely symbolic.” There is No Scripture which says that Communion is merely symbolic. Not one. That is something that is unbiblical.

Likewise, those who insist that Jesus’ saying that the Eucharist is His Body and Blood is merely a metaphor have nowhere to point with the presumed metaphor. In other metaphors, Christ clearly explains their meaning, and it is clear that they are metaphors.

For example, He says that He is the good shepherd, and then He explains what this means: He lays down his life to save His followers. He says He is a door, and then He explains what He means: He is the way to the Father and salvation. He says that He is the vine, and we are the branches. He then explains what he means. If we do not bear fruit (do good actions,) we will be cut off from Christ. (John 10: 1-19).

The Eucharistic context of the last supper is clear and unambiguous. Christ offers us His Body and Blood, and commands to eat. This is the literal meaning of the text, and He does not explain it as a metaphor, nor does He offer any indication that would lead us to believe they are metaphors. He says the words of institution, then He gives His Apostles a final counsel, and then He goes out to be crucified. John 6 forcefully underscores His meaning, as does Paul’s writing on the Lord’s supper.

I will return to John Ch 6 at length later.

Alright, Scubienuc, now on to the meat of this post, which is the Scripture that tells us of the Eucharist.

“I just posted because the material you used to support your position wasn't scripture, but others views, and I found that enlightening.”

I have been posting Scripture, and am not sure where you are coming from with that. No one has posted Scripture that says the Eucharist is merely symbolic. Lest I be accused of not referencing Bible, I’ll review some of the Scriptures related to the Eucharist. Briefly, the Eucharist is prefigured in the Old Testament, and definitively Instituted in the New Testament.

• The Eucharist is foreshadowed in the Old Testament.

“Then Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine; he was a priest to God Most High.” (Genesis 14: 18)

This is the first time in Scripture that the word priest is used. The priest Melchizidek offers a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine to God, and Abram pays him a tithe. This Sacrifice prefigures the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Melchizedik is a priest and the King of Salem—that is, of Jerusalem, where Christ will later also present bread and wine and make His Sacrifice. Melchizedek is then a pre-figurement of Christ, In the New Testament, Christ is described as a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek. We will return to the significance of this Melchizedek’s offering in the New Testament when it is discussed again in the letter to the Hebrews.

“The LORD says to my lord: "Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool." The LORD sends forth from Zion your mighty scepter. Rule in the midst of your foes! Your people will offer themselves freely on the day you lead your host upon the holy mountains. From the womb of the morning like dew your youth will come to you. The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind, "You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek." The Lord is at your right hand; he will shatter kings on the day of his wrath. He will execute judgment among the nations, filling them with corpses; he will shatter chiefs over the wide earth. He will drink from the brook by the way; therefore he will lift up his head. (Psalm 110)

Here in Psalm 110, we see that Melchizedek prefigures Christ. Christ Himself indicates that this psalm was speaking of the Messiah, (Matt 22: 41-45, Mark 12: 35-36, Luke 20; 41-44) a teaching which was offered as a question, and which Scripture tells us delighted the crowd. (Mark 12: 37)

“For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him; and to him Abraham apportioned a tenth part of everything. He is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace. 3 He is without father or mother or genealogy, and has neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest for ever. (Hebrews 7: 1-3)

So Melchesedek prefigures Christ as a priest who offers a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine to God.

The Sacrifice of Christ is again prefigured in Genesis 22, where Abraham is prepared to offer His beloved Son, Issac as a Sacrifice to God.

“After these things God tested Abraham, and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here am I." He said, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering upon one of the mountains of which I shall tell you." (Gen 22: 1, 2)

Here God tests Abraham’s faith. Abraham has already believed God, but now he is called to be obedient to the Will of God.

“ So Abraham rose early in the morning, saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and his son Isaac; and he cut the wood for the burnt offering, and arose and went to the place of which God had told him. On the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place afar off. Then Abraham said to his young men, "Stay here with the ass; I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you." And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it on Isaac his son; and he took in his hand the fire and the knife. So they went both of them together. And Isaac said to his father Abraham, "My father!" And he said, "Here am I, my son." He said, "Behold, the fire and the wood; but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?" Abraham said, "God will provide himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son." So they went both of them together. When they came to the place of which God had told him, Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar, upon the wood. Then Abraham put forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. Gen (22: 3-10)

Abraham had faith that God could do whatever he promised. This has a direct parallel to the Words that Christ speaks in the New Testament with regards to His Body and Blood being present in the Eucharist. In the case or Abraham, Scripture tells us that Abraham had faith that God could raise his son from the dead. The Scripture says, “God Himself, the lamb will provide.” The context clearly shows that God will provide the Ram for the Holocaust on this day, however, we Christians also recognize in these Scriptures a prefigurement of Christ, the beloved Son of God who will be offered as a Sacrifice by the Father, and whom the Father will raise from the dead. Christ Himself is identified as the Lamb of God, and this Scripture looks forward to the time when “God Himself, the lamb will provide, or if you will, God, Himself the lamb, will provide.

But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven, and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, "Here am I." He said, "Do not lay your hand on the lad or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me." And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him was a ram, caught in a thicket by his horns; and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son. So Abraham called the name of that place The LORD will provide; as it is said to this day, "On the mount of the LORD it shall be provided." And the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven, and said, "By myself I have sworn, says the LORD, because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore. And your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies, and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice." (Gen 22: 11-18)

We see that the Sacrifice of Christ, the son of God is foreshadowed in Abraham’s offering of Issac. We also see that Abraham is blessed by God because He obeyed God, believing that God can do whatever He promises, even if it seems impossible to Humans. It is through obedience of faith, the same obedience to which Paul calls us, that Abraham is Justified.

“ By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was ready to offer up his only son, of whom it was said, "Through Isaac shall your descendants be named." He considered that God was able to raise men even from the dead; hence, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back. (Hebrews 11:17-19)

(Someone above asserted that Abraham knew that Issac would not be sacrificed, because he knew they would both return. The Scripture clearly points out that Abrahams faith was not based on the foreknowledge that God would stop him, rather, it was based on faith that God could do and would do whatever he promised, and Abraham therefore believed that God could raise Issac from the dead. Hence, Abraham believed that God was capable of doing what He said, and he believed that God would do what He said. We Catholics approach the Eucharist in the same way. Christ said that the Eucharist is literally His Body and Blood, and we believe that He can indeed make Himself present in the Eucharist, as Body and Blood, just as He said He did, and we believe that He in fact does so, Just as He said He would. It is Faith in His Word that guides our belief.)

The Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross is again prefigured in the Passover:

“ Tell all the congregation of Israel that on the tenth day of this month they shall take every man a lamb according to their fathers' houses, a lamb for a household; and if the household is too small for a lamb, then a man and his neighbor next to his house shall take according to the number of persons; according to what each can eat you shall make your count for the lamb. Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male a year old; you shall take it from the sheep or from the goats; and you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month, when the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill their lambs in the evening. Then they shall take some of the blood, and put it on the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses in which they eat them. They shall eat the flesh that night, roasted; with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it. Do not eat any of it raw or boiled with water, but roasted, its head with its legs and its inner parts. And you shall let none of it remain until the morning, anything that remains until the morning you shall burn. In this manner you shall eat it: your loins girded, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and you shall eat it in haste. It is the LORD's Passover. For I will pass through the land of Egypt that night, and I will smite all the first-born in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am the LORD. The blood shall be a sign for you, upon the houses where you are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and no plague shall fall upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt. "This day shall be for you a memorial day, and you shall keep it as a feast to the LORD; throughout your generations you shall observe it as an ordinance for ever. ” (Exodus 12 3-14)

Here we see the institution of the Passover custom. The Passover lamb prefigures Christ, who is Himself the Lamb of God. The Last Supper, in which the Lord tells his disciples, “Take and eat, this is my body,” and again, “take and drink, this is my blood,” is in fact the Passover, which Christ tells His disciples immediately before he goes to the Garden of Gethsemane and sweats blood, that, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you.” Note that this is a real lamb, which is really supposed to be unblemished. (Remember that in the passage from Micah quoted above, God threatens the Israelites because they are bringing Sacrifices which are blemished.

“Cursed be the cheat who has a male in his flock, and vows it, and yet sacrifices to the Lord what is blemished; for I am a great King, says the LORD of hosts, and my name is feared among the nations.” (Micah 1:14)

The literal words have meaning and consequence. Please note also that the Israelites must literally eat of the lamb. So too, we must literally eat of the Lamb of God. We see a further foreshadowing of the Eucharist in Exodus Chapter 16 when God gives the Israelites manna:

“This is the bread which the Lord has given you to eat” (Exodus 16:15)

Later, in the Gospel of John, after multiplying the loaves to feed an enormous crowd and walking on water, Jesus will be challenged to perform a sign by those who say their ancestors ate manna in the desert. Jesus will then identify Himself as the Bread which comes down from Heaven, and will tell the crowd that they must eat His Body, for His Flesh is True food, and His Blood is true drink. The teaching will shock the onlookers, and many of his disciples will abandon him in disbelief. (John 6) In the case of the manna, God gives it to the Israelites to sustain them on their journey to the Holy Land, and thereby keep them from perishing. In the case of the Eucharist, Christ himself is literally the bread come down from Heaven, and we must eat what He gives us to sustain us on our journey to Heaven, so that we do not perish.

“For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts. 12 But you profane it when you say that the LORD's table is polluted, and the food for it may be despised. 13 'What a weariness this is,' you say, and you sniff at me, says the LORD of hosts. You bring what has been taken by violence or is lame or sick, and this you bring as your offering! Shall I accept that from your hand? says the LORD. 14 Cursed be the cheat who has a male in his flock, and vows it, and yet sacrifices to the Lord what is blemished; for I am a great King, says the LORD of hosts, and my name is feared among the nations.” (Malachi 1: 11-14)

The book of Malachi is an oracle, and here it looks prophetically to the future and speaks of a time when the Lord’s name is feared among the nations, and a pure offering is made to His Name in every nation from “the rising of the sun to the setting.” The speaks to a perpetual Sacrificing to the Lord, that is, a perpetual re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Christ made present in the Liturgy of divine worship. If this prophecy is not fulfilled, then Malachi is a false prophet.

There are many other references in the Old Testament which relate to the Eucharist, particularly those which discuss the Passover, manna in the desert, sacrifice and covenants. I think the verses above, however, lay a sufficient background for the institution of the Eucharist in the New Testament.

• The Eucharist is Instituted in the New Testament.

In the New Testament, Christ establishes a New Covenant in which He himself becomes the Sacrificial lamb. Christ is repeatedly revealed as the Lamb of God in Scripture, notably, in the writings of John.

“Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1: 26)

“…and he looked at Jesus as he walked, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God!" (John 1: 36)

“And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders, I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth;” (Rev 5: 6)

“And the angel said to me, "Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb. " And he said to me, "These are true words of God." (Rev 19:9)

Christ is the lamb of God, and in Rev 19:9, we see a reference to the marriage supper of the Lamb. We as Christians have all been invited to the marriage of the Lamb (Matt 22: 1-14). We Catholics see the Eucharist, in which we partake of the Body and Blood of the Lamb of God, as He has commanded us, as a foreshadowing of the wedding feast of the Lamb in Heaven.

The institution of the Eucharist is prefigured in John’s gospel, when, at the start of His Ministry, Jesus’ first miracle is at the wedding feast at Cana, where Jesus turns water into wine.

“ On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there; Jesus also was invited to the marriage, with his disciples. When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine." And Jesus said to her, "O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come." His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you." Now six stone jars were standing there, for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons. Jesus said to them, "Fill the jars with water." And they filled them up to the brim. He said to them, "Now draw some out, and take it to the steward of the feast." So they took it. When the steward of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the steward of the feast called the bridegroom and said to him, "Every man serves the good wine first; and when men have drunk freely, then the poor wine; but you have kept the good wine until now." This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed in him.” (John 2: 1-11)

This prefigures the Lord’s supper. Here we see Jesus transform water into wine at the wedding feast. At the Lord’s supper, we see Jesus transform wine into His Blood. Note also that when Jesus transforms water into wine, His disciples believe in Him.

“He said, "Go into the city to a certain one, and say to him, 'The Teacher says, My time is at hand; I will keep the Passover at your house with my disciples.'" And the disciples did as Jesus had directed them, and they prepared the Passover.” (Matthew 26: 18-19)

Christ has just told His disciples that He will be handed over to be crucified during the Passover. Here we see that the Last supper takes place in the context of the Passover meal.

“Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body. " And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom." And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives. (Matt 26: 26-30)

Note there is no metaphor here, Scubienuc. Take, eat; this is my body. "Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood….” Now apparently, there seems to be some confusion over the words “is” and the meaning of the words “my blood…which will be shed for many.” Some might argue that Christ means His blood will only be metaphorically be shed for the sins of many, or His Blood will only be symbolically shed for the forgiveness of sins. Others will note that what Jesus says cannot be literally true because He says that He will not drink of the fruit of the vine again until He enters the Kingdom of Heaven. The point that He states that Jesus will not drink of the fruit of the vine again until He drinks it again in the Kingdom of Heaven. They thereby nullify the words of Christ. I will return to this point later and demonstrate that Christ’s statement in fact re-enforces the understanding that Jesus’ words are literally true, that He is Literally speaking of His Blood and Body here. For now, however, I would simply like to point out that these people literally believe that Jesus will be drinking fermented grape juice in Heaven, but do not believe that His words, “Drink of this, this is my blood,” are literally true. As discovering non-existent metaphors in this Scripture, let’s look to the other synoptic Gospels to clarify our understanding. Let’s look at the other accounts of the words of institution of the Eucharist in Mark and Luke.

“And the disciples set out and went to the city, and found it as he had told them; and they prepared the Passover.” (Mark 14:16)

“And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.” ( Mark 14: 22-23)

Still no metaphor. This Scripture still says “this IS my Body, This IS my Blood. Eat it and drink it.” It doesn’t say “this is a symbol of my body, this is a symbol of my blood, this is a metaphor for my blood…..” Let’s look at the Gospel of Luke to see if it says any differently.

“And they went, and found it as he had told them; and they prepared the Passover. And when the hour came, he sat at table, and the apostles with him. And he said to them, "I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I tell you I shall not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God. " And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, "Take this, and divide it among yourselves; for I tell you that from now on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes." And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. (Luke 22: 13-20)

First we note that Luke identifies that Christ is specifically celebrating the Passover with His Apostles. The Words of Institution are given specifically to the Apostles, and it is the Apostles, not for example, the 5000 people who participated in the meal of the multiplication of the loaves and fish, but specifically the Apostles who are entrusted with the Lord’s Supper. Now Christ is about to suffer, and this is the last time He will spend with His disciples before going to the Garden of Gethsemane to be handed over to suffer. This is not a trivial event or a minor sidebar in the Gospel. Before going to suffer, Christ tells his disciples, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.” God Himself has eagerly anticipated this moment. The Passover established in the Old Testament and the many Scriptures which relate to it all point to this moment in History, where Christ establishes this Sacrament. This is a monumental point in Salvation History, it has been anticipated for over two thousand years in Scripture, from the offering of Bread and Wine by the priest Melchisedek, to the offering of bread and wine by Christ. It has been anticipated by over one thousand years in the offering of the Passover Lamb, which now culminates in the final Passover celebrated by Christ, who is Himself the Lamb of God.

Notice, also, ScubieNuc, that although someone above who committed plagerism and then later attributed her own words to St. Augustine to try to undermine these Scriptures claimed that Christ would have had to have eaten His own Body and Blood. Notice that she produced no evidence that Christ in fact ate of it, but rather that he celebrated the Passover with His Disciples. Notice that none of these passages indicate that Christ ate of the Eucharist. Note also that here in Luke, the most detailed description of the Last Supper, He offers them wine, and tells them to drink of it, and says He himself will not drink of the fruit of the vine until He enters the Kingdom of Heaven. Notice also that he says he will not eat of the Passover until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God. Note also that it is actually after this time that He consecrates the wine. He offers wine to His Apostles in verse 17. In verse 20, He commands His Apostles to drink His Blood. Note that it says He did this after supper. Finally, please note that this is not a one time occurrence. Jesus tells His Apostles, “Eat, this is my Body, Drink, this is my Blood.” He then tells them to repeat this again, to do THIS in memory of Him. Some very sloppy exegetes will notice that because Jesus say to do THIS in memory of me, the last supper is a memorial. Since Memorials are usually symbolic, they then argue that it is “merely” a symbolic memorial. They have, of course, made several leaps of (fallacious) logic which has no support in the text of Scripture. Christ says, “This IS my Body, This IS my blood. Do THIS in remembrance of me,” not do a symbol of this as a symbolic re-enactment of the Last Supper. (Although I believe that is all that occurs in your own Church. That is to say, I do not believe that your Church has the Eucharist, but rather a merely symbolic memorial of the Lord’s supper, because your Church is not Apostolic, but rather most likely has it’s origin in 19th century American revivalism, not Apostolic Christianity. So in that sense, when your pastor says that the Lord’s Supper, which you commemorate, is merely a symbol, he is in fact correct.)

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke all state that Jesus gave us His Body and Blood to Eat and Drink at the Last Supper. How was this understood by the early Christians? Let’s look to the Apostle Paul to see how He understood the Eucharist.

“For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when 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 also the cup, 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. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world. So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another-- if any one is hungry, let him eat at home--lest you come together to be condemned. About the other things I will give directions when I come.” (St. Paul’s first Letter to the Corinthians 11:23-34)

Note that this passage underscores the importance of the Lord’s supper. Whereas the previous Scriptures cited from the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are taken from accounts in which Jesus gives the words of Institution to the Apostles who traveled with Him while He lived, St. Paul, who is like one abnormally born, received the teaching directly from the Lord at some later, and notes that He has already taught this to the Corinthians. St. Paul repeatedly says in this passage that the Eucharist IS the Body and Blood of Our Lord. I might ask you at this point, Scubienuc, if you were St. Paul (hypothetically speaking,) and you wanted to convey that the Eucharist was the Body and Blood of Our Lord, how would you possibly make it any clearer than this passage does???? Subienuc, if you were the person writing this passage, what could you possibly say that would make that meaning any clearer??

“the Lord Jesus on the night when 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 also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood.” (2 Cor 11: 25, 26)

So, Scubienuc, the Apostle Paul here says the bread became the Body of Christ, and the Wine became the Blood of Christ. He is absolutely consistent with the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper.

“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.” (2 Cor 11: 27)

Here we see further evidence that Eucharist is the body and blood of the Lord. He who eats or drinks in an unworthy manner profanes the body and blood of the Lord.

There is no indication that this is a mere metaphor or symbol. Scripture here tells us again that the Eucharist IS the body and blood of the Lord.

“For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.” ( 2 Cor 11: 29)

Again, Scubienuc, St. Paul re-emphasizes the point. He who eats and drinks of the Eucharist, without discerning the Body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. This means that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ. No sign of any metaphors, are present in this passage, Scubienuc. St. Paul has, within the space of 11 verses, just told us three separate times that the Eucharist IS the body and Blood of Christ. Notice also, that St. Paul is speaking to the Corinthians about the Liturgy of Divine Worship. Please note that He has personally told them about this before, and please further note that he intends to speak to them in person about the liturgy of divine worship in more detail. For now, I would like point out that this emphasizes the importance of the Church, which was made up of the Apostles and those who ate and slept, lived and worked with the Apostles. The members of the early Church were taught daily by the Apostles, they had their questions clarified by the Men who had spoken directly to Christ. The early Church was united, had a definite leadership with the authority and ability to correct error and teach definitively. It was also made up of those who inherited the Apostolic traditions directly from the Apostles, and who lived those traditions with the Apostles. The Church is a living thing, it is flesh and blood, here and now. The teaching of Christ were written in the hearts of the faithful, the early Church lived and suffered with the Apostles. They passed on, not only the writings of the Apostles and their disciples to us, but also their understanding of the message of Christ. As St. Paul speaks of the early Christians:

"You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on your hearts, to be known and read by all men; and you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. (2 Cor: 3-4)

Regarding St. Paul, the Book of Acts tells us:

“Then he stayed two whole years in his own rented house. And he welcomed all who visited him, proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching the things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ with full boldness and without hindrance. (Acts: 28: 30,31)

Here we see St. Paul teaching all who came to him for two years. As you could imagine, Scubienuc, if you and I had any questions regarding the passages above (which I find to be quite clear,) we could have simply met with St. Paul and asked him. This is the position of those in the early Church, and those individuals passed their understandings on to us. This understanding was present in the Scripture. It is also present in the extra-Scriptural writings handed down from leading Christians of the first and second century (The Epistles of 1 and 2 Clement to the Corinthians, the Didache, the letters of St. Ignatius, disciple of the Apostle John, and Bishop of Antioch, on his way to be martyred in the Roman Coliseum for his faith. These writings are not Scripture, but they underscore the fact that the early Christians understood the teachings from Scripture just as we understand them today. I will return to this later.

Now we have seen that the Lord’s supper was pre-figured in the Old Testament by the offering of bread and wine by Melchesidek, the Passover meal, and the manna in the dessert, among other places. We have also seen that The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke each teach that Christ gave His Body and Blood to His disciples and commanded them to Eat. (Matthew 26:26-28, Mark. 22-24, Luke 22 17-20) Likewise, we have seen St. Paul emphasize this quite clearly in and 1 Cor 11: 23-34, saying that he too received this teaching from the Lord. From this we note that the Christians were celebrating the Lord’s supper years after the Last supper, and that they understood the Eucharist to be the very Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. As I have noticed, it is difficult to conceive of a way in which the teachings of the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist could be any more clear. People who disagree with it are essentially left debating the meaning of the words “is” and “blood.” As it turns out, however, the teachings are emphasized even more dramatically in the last of the Gospels to be written; namely, the Gospel according to St. John.

Note that this teaching is underscored in all three synoptic Gospels. John’s Gospel does not list the words of Consecration at the Last Supper, but instead his Gospel looks to the institution of the Eucharist, and he dramatically emphasizes this teaching.

First of all, as we have noted, the changing of the water into wine at the wedding Feast of Cana prefigures the changing of the wine into His Blood at the Last Supper, which itself pre-figures the ultimate wedding feast of the lamb in Heaven. (John 2: 1-11, Luke 22: 16-18, Matthew 26: 29, Mark 14: 28, Rev 19:9.)

In chapter 6 of John, Christ relates in the most emphatic and shocking terms possible that His disciples must eat His flesh and drink His Blood.

The Jews then disputed among themselves, 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 you; (John 6:52-53.)

Now, John’s Gospel was written after Matthew, Mark and Luke. The teaching that the Lord gave to the Apostles at the Last Supper, and again, to St. Paul by way of Revelation are already known, as St. Paul tells us in 1 Cor 11: 23. The early Christians know already that Christ has said “Take and eat, this is my body, take and drink, this is my blood. Here as he preaches to His disciples at the synagogue of Capernaum, He tells them that he is the living bead that comes down from Heaven. The Jews then dispute this statement, saying, “How can he give us his flesh to eat?” (You’ll note that RnMomof7 has been asking exactly that same question on this thread.) Christ tells them TRULY, TRULY, that they must eat His Flesh and Drink His blood. This very much support the obvious reading of Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul. Now you might say, perhaps this statement

He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is TRUE food, and my blood is TRUE drink. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. (John 6: 54-56)

Here Christ tells us that His Flesh is True Food, and His Blood is True drink. I have to scratch my head at those who read to true food to mean “merely symbolic food,” or true drink to mean “merely symbolic drink.” Can you see, Scubienuc, why it is that we might take those who attempt to explain away this statement and the many other statements in Scripture in which our Lord tells us to eat and drink His Body and Blood really don’t have faith in Scripture or Christ? It’s like those who deny the physical resurrection of Christ or virgin birth or His walking on water. They indeed claim to be Christians, but they do not have faith in Scripture. As Christ Himself says, “Amen, Amen I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes in the One who sent me has eternal life and will not pass to condemnation, but has passed from death to life. (John 5: 24) If we don’t believe what Jesus tells us, we do not believe in the One who sent Him.

Now, as I am well aware that there are those who will dispute John’s emphasis on the real presence of Christ, I will walk through John Ch 6, lest I again be told I am not following Scripture, despite my having quoted at length Scripture which directly supports the Christian doctrine in question here.

To immediately preceding context to the discourse in which Christ tells the Jews that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood is the miraculous healing of the sick man by the pool at Bethesda, (John 5: 1-15) the multiplication of the five Loaves and two fishes to feed over 5,000 people (John 6, 1-15), and Jesus walking on water (John 6: 16-21) (By the way, Scubienuc there are some exegetes who use John 6:21 to argue that Jesus was merely walking on the stones near the water’s edge, and not actually walking on water, but only appeared to do so to the Apostles. There are also those who argue that Jesus didn’t actually multiply the loaves and fish, but merely persuaded people to share the food they already had. This reminds me of those who insist that Jesus’ Body and Blood are not literally present in the Eucharist, as he tells us. I can understand none of their arguments from a Scriptural basis. Clearly they are working from extra-Scriptural suppositions that they superimpose upon the Word of God.)

In John 6:25, the people who have been seeking to make Jesus their king ask him, “Rabbi, when did you get here?” Jesus responds:

“Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal." (John 6: 26-27)

Christ tells them not to labor for food that which perishes (temporal things) but for the food which endures for eternal life. He then promises to give them this food, saying that He WILL give it to them (not that He has given it already. He is speaking of something in the future. This is therefore consistent with Him giving His flesh to eat and His Blood to drink, as He in fact did at the last supper. This is not consistent with this being some sort of bizarre metaphor for belief, as many already believe in Him.)

In John 6:29, Jesus tells the Jews that they must believe in Him. The respond in v30 by asking to be given a sign, that they may believe in Him. They challenge Him by saying that their ancestors ate manna in the wilderness—bread from Heaven. Jesus responds:

"Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world." (John 6: 32,33)

The Jews understand that Christ is speaking metaphorically, and ask Him, “Lord, give us this bread always. Jesus responds:

"I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.” (John 6: 35)

He then re-emphasized the importance of believing in Him. The Jews struggle with what he is saying however.

“The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, "I am the bread which came down from heaven." They said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, 'I have come down from heaven'?" (John 6: 41-42.)

The onlookers are clearly incredulous as to Christ’s claims. From a carnal perspective, they don’t believe He could have come down from Heaven, because they know His mother and father. Jesus tells them:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh. " John 6: 47-51.

Jesus says they must eat his flesh. The Jews understand now that He is speaking literally.

“The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" (John 6:52)

Jesus has caused a scandal among the Jews. We have been told that they want to carry Him away to make Him there King, a temporal ruler. They are willing to “believe” in Jesus in the sense that they would like to understand Him, if He will give them a sign. He tells them that they must eat His flesh, and makes the crowd angry. They ask, how could this man give us his flesh to eat. Clearly they have understood Him literally, which is the correct interpretation of what Christ is saying. Metaphors correspond to events or things that we understand commonly. When we use a metaphor to explain something, we use something than someone can understand, and use that to explain something that they haven’t experienced or don’t understand. In this case, the Jews understand, in an earthly sense, what it means to believe in Jesus—they could simply put their trust in him as a temporal messiah who would rescue them from foreign oppression—toss out the Roman army. They get belief, what they don’t get is the idea of gnawing on a man’s flesh. I can’t think of any metaphor for eating someone, can you? “Scubienuc, let me explain to you how to run this electronic device, it’s really quite simple, just like eating a dude’s flesh.” Clearly the expression is a shocking and disturbing one. I know of no metaphor that speaks of eating someone’s flesh and drinking someone’s blood. It doesn’t even fit the grammatical structure of a metaphor. “Big John, is a mountain.” “Michael Vick is a race horse.” Those make sense but, “Michael Vick is an eating of the flesh and drinking of the blood makes no sense. The closest I can come in Scripture to telling His followers to eat His flesh as a metaphor is Micah chapter 3:

“And I said: Hear, you heads of Jacob and rulers of the house of Israel! Is it not for you to know justice? -- you who hate the good and love the evil, who tear the skin from off my people, and their flesh from off their bones; who eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them, and break their bones in pieces, and chop them up like meat in a kettle, like flesh in a caldron.” (Micah 3: 1-3)

Here we see eating someone’s flesh used in a metaphorical sense, and it means to hate or destroy someone, to cause bodily harm, to damage them or prey upon them viciously—to abuse someone or treat them in a sub-human fashion. We also see God absolutely condemning this behavior in no uncertain terms. Do you think that what Jesus is telling His disciples is, “You must believe in me, and abuse me and rip me off and in general treat me in the way that God has promised to punish people for doing--in order to have eternal life????”

The Jews have understood Jesus literally. This included many of His Followers. They are scandalized by what He’s saying, just as you would be if your boss walked in and said, “Scubienuc, you must eat my flesh and drink my blood.” What does Jesus do? Does he tell them, “No, you’ve misunderstood me completely, I’m speaking in metaphors here.”? No he does not. On other occasions, when people have misunderstood Him, he makes corrections. In Matthew 16: 5-12, for example, He seems to be angry at His disciples for not understanding Him, and rebukes them for their improper interpretation of what He has said. Here, where a misunderstanding will cause disciples to fall away, he makes no such correction. Rather, he speaks even more forcefully, continuously re-enforcing His teaching.

“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 you;” (John 6: 53)

Jesus has told the crowd that they must eat his flesh. They don’t see how this is possible, and question his ability. How can this man give us His flesh to eat? How is that possible. So they can believe in Jesus, as long as He is what they want Him to be, but when He asks them to believe in Himself as He truly is, they are scandalized and demonstrate that they don’t have real faith. Jesus says they must be willing to eat His flesh and Drink His blood. To have life.

“he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” (John 6: 54)

In the Old Testament, there is a prohibition against drinking blood, because it contains “the life”

"Anyone from the house of Israel or from the foreigners who live among them who eats any blood, I will turn against that person who eats blood and cut him off from his people. For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have appointed it to you to make atonement on the altar for your lives, since it is the lifeblood that makes atonement. Therefore I say to the Israelites: None of you and no foreigner who lives among you may eat blood. (Leviticus 17: 10-13)

Here we see that the blood contains life, and it is set aside as something Holy, as something for religious purpose—for sacrifice of atonement. The Blood contains the life, and Christ, who is the Life, says His followers must drink His blood. He continues to emphasize this in John’s gospel:

“For my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. (John 6: 55)

Again, Scubienuc, He says His flesh is true food, and His blood is true drink, not metaphors:

“He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.” (John 6: 56)

This verse seems clear enough. Jesus again tells His followers that they must eat His flesh and Drink His blood. Recall the words of the Last Supper:

And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is my body." And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. (Mark 14: 22-24)

Jesus continues on to re-emphasize His point in the Gospel of John. Remember, the Jews who would make Him King are now scandalized because they understand Him to be literally saying that they must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. He has not clarified,, as He has done elsewhere; rather He is continuing to re-emphasize His message:

“As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.” (John 6: 57)

Those who eat Jesus will live because of Jesus. He concludes his discussion:

“This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever. This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum” (John 6: 58-59)

Now Jesus has just repeated a dozen times that He is the bread of Life come down from Heaven. Four times He has told His listeners that they must eat His body and Drink His blood. Many in the crowd do not believe Him. Many are angry or scandalized. He has not clarified, He has not called anyone back, rather He continues to repeat His point. You must Eat of His Flesh and Drink His blood to Have eternal Life. There were hostile members in the audience, and there were loyal disciples who had previously accepted everything He said. Now even they are scandalized:

Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" (John 6:60)

Again, Jesus does not clarify or re-explain His teachings. What He is dealing with is fundamentally a lack of faith in what He is saying: That His followers must eat his flesh and drink His blood. The disbelievers were offended that they would have to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood.

“But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? (John 6:61-62)

Here Jesus lays it on the line. He is the messiah. He has come down from Heaven. They were skeptical about His claims before because they thought they knew of His earthly origins. The are scandalized by His teachings now. He points out that their earthly and carnal understanding is irrelevant to the situation. They are called to believe in Him by believing what He is saying and being obedient to it. He continues on:

It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you that do not believe." (John 6:63)

Here Jesus tells them that His words (that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood) are true and give life. Their carnal way of thinking will profit them nothing. He recognizes that there are many who do not believe what He is telling us: that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. I know that some will seize upon this single verse to negate the 12 times that Jesus has told them that He is the bread of life come down from Heaven, as well as the four times that He has just repeated that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood. They will also use this verse to negate Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul stating that Christ told His followers to eat His Body and drink His Blood, as well as Paul’s explicit statements that the Lord is present in the Eucharist. As you know, their eisogesis is non-sensical and devolves into meaningless and ridiculousness. Jesus is speaking of the words He has just spoken, and says that they are true. He is emphasizing His teaching that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. The carnal way of thinking, that it is impossible to do this, profits nothing. Those who insist that the flesh in John John 6:63 is referring to Jesus flesh are saying:

“For my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink, and they don’t do any good.”

“He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him, and this flesh profits nothing.”

“Take and eat, this is my body: it isn’t good for anything.”

“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 you; but the flesh does you know good.”

“he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood does no good. He has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

And my favorite:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh, and it doesn’t do any good. It’s just a metaphor that profits nothing."

Clearly, Jesus is emphasizing the teachings that He has just underscored so radically. Clearly no one in the audience Understands Him to be speaking in metaphors, similes and analogies. His own disciples begin to abandon Him because of His teaching, and He does nothing to stop them. It’s not that they have misunderstood Him, it’s that they don’t believe what He is telling them, that they must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood.

“For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. (John 6:65-66)

Jesus sees his disciples falling away because of His teaching. They believed in Him. They had just wanted to make Him king. (John 6: 14-15) Does He call them back to tell them it’s all been one big misunderstanding? Does He say, no, back there were you got upset with me because I said you had to eat me and then I went on 15 more times to say that you had to eat me, I didn’t really mean it. I just meant you had to understand me metaphorically? Nope. He asks the 12 apostles if they will abandon Him as well, Interestingly, it’s at this point, as Jesus’ disciples reject His teaching that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood that we are first told about Judas turning away from Jesus Does Judas, who was one of the chosen 12 rejects Jesus because He does not believe in the real presence?

“Jesus said to the twelve, "Do you also wish to go away?" (John 6:67)

Peter, the leader of the Apostles, speaks to Christ on their behalf:

"Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life;” (John 6:68)

He continues on:

“and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God." (John 6: 69)

Jesus then responds:

"Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?" He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was to betray him.” (John 6: 70)

Again, it is after His disciples reject the teaching that they must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood that we first hear of the prediction of Judas’ betrayal of His Master.

So, to me, ScubieNuc, I believe that Jesus is present in the Eucharist, body and Blood, because Jesus says so. I don’t even question it.

The Scripture are clear and unambiguous on this doctrine. Jesus tells us that four times to take and eat the Eucharist, it is His Body, and He tells us four times in Scripture to take and drink His Blood. He tells us four times that we must eat His flesh and Drink His Blood. Her refers to Himself a dozen times as the Bread which has come down from Heaven, and that this bread is His flesh, which He will give for the life of the world.

The number of times he tells us that communion is a mere symbol: ZERO.
The number of times He tells us that communion is Spiritual and not Physical: ZERO.
The number of times He tells us that His teaching on eating His flesh and drinking His blood is a metaphor: ZERO.
The amount of sense a metaphor using the image of eating a man’s flesh and drinking a man’s blood would make to explain something of which people had no experience: ZERO.

Jesus says it, Paul emphasizes it, and I believe it. I’m running short on time and will have to finish this soon, but will touch upon a few of the standard objections to the Words of Scripture before I comment on justification by faith alone.

“So if the wine actually becomes Jesus' blood and the bread actually becomes Jesus' flesh, then wouldn't that mean that Jesus is actually being sacrificed over and over and over again millions of times since the last supper? ”

Absolutely not. There is no reason to suppose that Christ has to be re-Sacrificed each time the Eucharist is celebrated. He was present in the Eucharist (Body and Blood) before His Sacrifice on the Cross,( (Matthew 26:26-28, Mark. 22-24, Luke 22 17-20, and 1 Cor 11:25) and He is present after the Sacrifice as well. Christ offered one Sacrifice on the Cross, once and for all. (Hebrews 7: 27) He is not somehow exsanguinated in the Liturgy of divine worship as the people so fond of making the odd objection above imply. He is present in the Eucharist miraculously, just as He was before His Sacrifice on the cross at the Last Supper. In the liturgy of divine worship, the Sacrifice of Christ is re-presented. In the Liturgy of Divine Worship, we are united to Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross. All Christians who partake of the Eucharist are united with Christ in the Mystery of the Eucharist.

Therefore let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall. No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and He will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it. Therefore, my beloved, shun the worship of idols. I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar? What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than He? (1 Cor. 10:12–22)

Here St. Paul warns the early Christians not to fall away from their calling in Baptism, and points to the mystery of the Eucharist as a participation in the one Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. One cup, and one Bread, made present eternally in time. Christ is not “re-killed” in the Eucharist or “re-sacrificed.”

“The disciples didn't start chewing on Jesus at the last supper, therefore it means that it is symbolism. That's what I see as word dancing. ”

Well, it’s good that you let me know what you see as word dancing, as it was not clear to me. Scubienuc, the Apostles not only chewed on Christ, they drank His Blood at the Last Supper.

“…And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said to them, "This is my blood…….” ( Mark 14: 23)

So they all drank from the cup, and Christ says: This IS my Blood. Scripture tells us that the Christ gave His Blood to His Apostles to drink. Whether you are shocked by that or not, it’s what Scripture says. This is Historic Christianity. This is the Christianity of the Bible, this is the Christianity of the Church from the time of the last supper to today. The rest is revisionism that attempts to explain away uncomfortable doctrines handed down by Christ to His Apostles.

“Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body." (Matt 26:26)

“Just saying it, doesn't make it so.

It does when Jesus is the one who says it, Scubienuc. That’s the point of faith. Jesus says the Eucharist is His Body and Blood, and He commands us to eat. He clearly states that His Flesh is True food, and His Blood is True drink, and commands us to eat. It’s just like Abraham taking Isaac up onto the mount to sacrifice Him. Abraham doesn’t doubt what God tells Him. He tells the old man that His descendants will be unbelievably numerous, and He also tells Abraham to sacrifice His beloved son. Abraham assumes God will perform a miracle, perhaps by raising Isaac from the dead. Abraham believes the words of God. The Eucharist is like that, it has to be seen with the eyes of Faith.

RnMomof7 used Scripture to clearly show that communion is symbolic. You didn't refute those Scriptures, or show how other Scriptures prove that communion is a physical meal of Jesus' flesh and blood.”

Scubienuc, I have yet to see a single verse which says that the Eucharist is symbolic. That’s because none exist. I had already cited numerous verses stating that the Eucharist is the physical Body and blood of Christ. Since they were apparently missed in my previous posts, I will post them again here so that I will not be accused of not referencing the Scriptural teachings on the Eucharist.

Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body." And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. (Matt 26; 26-28)

“And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is my body." And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.” ( Mark 14: 22-23)

“And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.” (Luke 22: 19-20)

“For my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. (John 6: 55)

“He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.” (John 6: 56)

“the Lord Jesus on the night when 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 also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood.” (2 Cor 11: 25, 26)

“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.” (2 Cor 11: 27)

“For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.” ( 2 Cor 11: 29)

“(Yeah, and the Bible doesn't say that dogs can't baptised as a member of a family either. You learn that be reading other parts and comparing.) and what "St." Ignatius, Justin the Martyr, and Augustine have to say. Then you repeat this...”

It looks like your comment was clipped during posting, so I’m not sure what was intended with this passage. The reason that the Church Fathers have been quoted is that they universally held the understanding that Christ was physically present in the Eucharist. That’s simply the belief of Historical Christianity, although many people may be uncomfortable with it today. Christ recognized that it was a shocking doctrine in His own time, and many of His disciples abandoned Him over it. I feel that Scripture is Crystal clear that Jesus Christ is Physically present in the Eucharist. I don’t feel that there is any other reasonable reading of Scripture, but rather that all other interpretations fundamentally devolve to a lack of faith in what Scripture says. “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”

Alritht Scubienuc, I’m interested in your thoughts on the Eucharist. Another issue that was raised was the theory of Justification by faith alone. With Regards to Justification by faith alone:

• Scripture nowhere says we are justified by faith alone. • Scripture says we are not justified by faith alone.

You feel that justification by faith alone is implied in Scripture, and more power to you. The fact is, however, that it is not stated in Scripture. Opinion doesn’t count, it’s either there or it’s not, and it turns out, justification by faith alone is nowhere stated in Scripture. It’s read into Scripture as a part of a large body of non-Scriptural assumptions that were invented fifteen hundred years after the time of Christ. You may choose to believe that because Scripture says a man is saved through faith, therefore it implies that man is saved by faith and not anything else, such as love.

If it doesn't read something like, "...having been justified by faith and.." it is therefore faith alone.

Justification by faith alone is simply not a Biblical teaching, Scubienuc. It is a way of thinking about Christianity that has existed for almost 500 years, but it is not Biblical. According to your reasoning above, we can be saved without love. Following this logic, because Romans 3:28 doesn’t include love, we are justified by faith and not love. I feel quite strongly that this theory is incorrect. And St. Paul, who wrote the Epistle to the Romans, agrees with me.

“…..If I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing.” (1 Cor: 13: 2)

You have quoted Romans 3:28-30 in defense of the position that we are justified by faith alone:

"For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one." (Rom. 3:28-30)

In this Scripture, St. Paul says, “we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.” The only thing that is excluded here is works of the Law, whatever that may be. Again, Scripture never says we are justified by faith alone, and that theory is, unfortunately, often elevated over and above Scripture and used to trump large portions of Scripture.

Your second point is in reference to James. The response is that saving grace produces works, not the other way around.

Well, Scubienuc, if what you mean is that our faith and our works are both from God, then I agree with you. That point is, however, irrelevant to the point at hand: Scripture says we are not justified by faith alone:

“You see, a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone.” (James 2: 24)

You know, Scubienuc, I see people twist themselves in terrible knots over this and other verses when they are trying to keep the traditions that Martin Luther invented and still believe that they are actually following the Scriptures. Objectively speaking, Scubienuc, Scripture says we are not justified by faith alone. The only point I will ask you to consider is that of dropping the pretext that we Catholics are not the ones following Scripture. I think you can understand that given just James 2: 24 and St. Paul’s writing in 2Cor 13, we have reasons to be concerned about using the slogan, “Justification by faith alone,” as a point of theology. It’s simply not Biblical, and in fact, contradicts Scripture quite directly. While there are many other points of concern regarding sola fide from a Scriptural perspective, we must acknowledge that this slogan is explicitly contradicted by Scripture.

The Bible says we are not justified by faith alone. That’s a plain fact, whether you want to truthfully recognize it or deny the Scriptures. In my opinion, those who do not accept this verse but insist on their own tradition invented by men over and against Scripture demonstrate a lack of faith in God. They do not trust the Revealed Word of God, and seek to disregard it in favor of their own man-made opinions. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, however, it is a fact that Scripture does not say we are justified by faith alone, it says we are not justified by faith alone. That alone would make me question the traditions of men which forced this reading upon Scripture.

In conclusion, Scubienuc, the Passover sacrifice of the lamb was a foreshadowing of the sacrifice of Christ. In the case of the Passover lamb, you have to eat the lamb. In the case of Christ, you have to eat Jesus, just as He tells us to do. The context of John 6 emphatically supports this reading.

As you will note, many of the questions of these doctrine revolve around the ability of Christ to perform this miracle—they are nothing more than doubt of the Power of God. It is like those who deny the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ, and say it is only Spiritual. We believe that Christ did indeed arise in Body and Soul from the tomb, and we also believe that He is present, Body and Soul in the Eucharist. Both of these views belong to the Apostolic Faith, and both have been handed down. Those who deny them and the virgin birth fail to grasp the essential character of Christianity.

The bottom line, Scubienuc, is that you believe you are justified by faith alone. That may be fine for you, but it is not Scriptural, and explicitly contradicts the Word of God. What you really believe is not what Scripture says, but a school of theology that was invented in the 16th century. Nowhere in the Bible does it say we are justified by faith alone. That’s an objective fact. The Bible explicitly says we are not justified by faith alone. That is an objective fact as well. While you may choose to continue to believe that you are justified by faith alone, you cannot accuse the Catholic Church of being the one that has not followed Scripture on this account. Your belief directly contradicts Scripture on its most fundamental point. Our teachings do not contradict the Scripture on this or any other point.

You also believe that the Eucharist is not the Body and Blood of our Lord. You feel it is merely spiritual, or symbolic. Neither of those interpretations are Scripturally based. Rather, Scripture tells us that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, and that we are to eat it. Views to the contrary are 16th century traditions of men who did not believe what Scripture says. To me, one must either put his faith in Christ, or put his faith in the Reformers who constructed their own religions in contradistinction to the Scriptures. The imposition of a “merely” spiritual or symbolic reading is not warranted by the text. The Scripture says, “Take and eat, this is my Body….”. Those are the literal words of Scripture, and that is an objective fact. Scripture nowhere says that these words are merely symbolic, or metaphorical. Christ say, “This is my Body, and this is my Blood,” not “this is a symbol of my body, this is a symbol of my blood.” That too is an objective fact. Those who want to argue for a metaphorical interpretation of the last supper must prove their case that the words used by Our Lord at the Last Supper were metaphorical. No evidence exists in the context of the last supper. Christ simply states the words, and His only Clarification of “take and drink, this is my blood,” is that this Blood is the Blood of the New Covenant, which will be shed for many.” He reinforces that it is the same blood that will be shed for the salvation of many. As we well know, Christ did not shed “merely spiritual” blood for us, neither did he shed symbolic blood or metaphorically die for us. He shed real blood. There is no metaphor here.

The Catholic Church is completely consistent with Scripture. The views you are proposing contradict Scripture directly. If you feel that faith calls you to contradiction of the Revealed Word of God, so be it. Please desist with the polemical approach that attempts to frame the Church as somehow abandoning the Word of God. That is not us, we do not contradict Scripture on any point. Those traditions invented sixteen centuries after Christ contradict Scripture directly on each of their distinctive claims. I think I have demonstrated this in this post for two such points.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.