Replies

>>If Christ wanted to invoke symbolism, He would have said “This represents My body” and “This represents My blood.”<<

Not true. What jesus said is the normal structure of direct metaphor, A is B. It is used all the time and in less controversial settings no one is confused by its meaning. If I point to a map of Texas, and say, "This is Texas," you don't think I really mean the paper is actually a state with real people living on it. At least I hope you don't. That's because our brains are wired to spot the comparison of two dissimilar domains for the purpose of getting information by analogy. It is one of the most basic methods by which we learn, we take a known object, and compare it to a less well known object, so we can learn something about that less well known object. It is very ordinary, and I surmise the disciples raised no questions about it because they understood he was extending the metaphor already in use in the passover meal, which depicted, by way of remembrance, the deliverance of Israel from Egypt. By this new meaning, as Christ gave it, we are to remember what He has done to deliver us from our own slavery to sin.

I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
-John, Catholic chapter six, Protestant verses fifty one through fifty nine, as authorized by King James

Jesus told the Jews they had to eat his body and drink his blood to have life, and that his flesh is real food and his blood real drink.
Furthermore many of His disciples stumbled at this teaching, were offended, and left Him. Had this teaching merely been that the Cup of Redemption and the Afikomen (the third cup in the Passover Seder and the matzah hidden as a game for the children, handed down to us today) that was meant to symbolize Him, even if the actual Seder differed, it seems strange to imagine the Jews, including some of his disciples stumbled over obvious symbolism. To the contrary, they interpreted Him literally, as the scriptures indicate, and did not have the faith to believe His words.
Tradition testifies against it. We see about two millennia of holy communion unlike the Passover Seder, and unlike the bread and grape juice shared in Evangelical assemblies. Indeed, it is telling that the founding fathers of the Reformation famously split over whether Messiah was present in the elements or it was only a memorial. Notwithstanding the argument that there should be a common tradition to accompany an unbroken chain of the holy catholic apostolic church, none of the churches, denominations, sects, or faith groups have historically used the Passover Seder as the Lord's Supper. Whilst some can try to recreate or reform the Christian faith yet again, this time in a rabbinic Jewish context, and celebrate the Passover and Lord's Supper at the same time, and only once per year, it does not maintain continuity with almost two millennia of Christianity. It is a restoration attempt, without an Apostle, much less twelve genuine Jewish Apostles who lived, learned, and ate with Jesus. There should be a historic visible tradition of the Lord's Supper over the millennia, and there is.
I understand someone saying that he does not have the faith to literally believe Jesus' teaching, just as so many did not have the faith to believe in the First Century as recorded by John. The proper response at that point is not to argue against the teaching, as some of them did, but to say, "Lord, I believe, help me with my unbelief." Become as a little child with respect to faith, so to speak.

From Matthew Henry's commentary on John 6:

(1.) Let us see how this discourse of Christ was liable to mistake and misconstruction, that men might see, and not perceive. [1.] It was misconstrued by the carnal Jews, to whom it was first delivered (John 6:52): They strove among themselves; they whispered in each other’s ears their dissatisfaction: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Christ spoke (John 6:51) of giving his flesh for us, to suffer and die; but they, without due consideration, understood it of his giving it to us, to be eaten, which gave occasion to Christ to tell them that, however what he said was otherwise intended, yet even that also of eating of his flesh was no such absurd thing (if rightly understood) as prima facie—in the first instance, they took it to be. [2.] It has been wretchedly misconstrued by the church of Rome for the support of their monstrous doctrine of transubstantiation, which gives the lie to our senses, contradicts the nature of a sacrament, and overthrows all convincing evidence. They, like these Jews here, understand it of a corporal and carnal eating of Christ’s body, like Nicodemus, John 3:4. The Lord’s supper was not yet instituted, and therefore it could have no reference to that; it is a spiritual eating and drinking that is here spoken of, not a sacramental. [3.] It is misunderstood by many ignorant carnal people, who hence infer that, if they take the sacrament when they die, they shall certainly go to heaven, which, as it makes many that are weak causelessly uneasy if they want it, so it makes many that are wicked causelessly easy if they have it. Therefore,

(2.) Let us see how this discourse of Christ is to be understood.

[1.] What is meant by the flesh and blood of Christ. It is called (John 6:53), The flesh of the Son of man, and his blood, his as Messiah and Mediator: the flesh and blood which he assumed in his incarnation (Heb. 2:14), and which he gave up in his death and suffering: my flesh which I will give to be crucified and slain. It is said to be given for the life of the world, that is, First, Instead of the life of the world, which was forfeited by sin, Christ gives his own flesh as a ransom or counterprice. Christ was our bail, bound body for body (as we say), and therefore his life must go for ours, that ours may be spared. Here am I, let these go their way. Secondly, In order to the life of the world, to purchase a general offer of eternal life to all the world, and the special assurances of it to all believers. So that the flesh and blood of the Son of man denote the Redeemer incarnate and dying; Christ and him crucified, and the redemption wrought out by him, with all the precious benefits of redemption: pardon of sin, acceptance with God, the adoption of sons, access to the throne of grace, the promises of the covenant, and eternal life; these are called the flesh and blood of Christ, 1. Because they are purchased by his flesh and blood, by the breaking of his body, and shedding of his blood. Well may the purchased privileges be denominated from the price that was paid for them, for it puts a value upon them; write upon them pretium sanguinis—the price of blood. 2. Because they are meat and drink to our souls. Flesh with the blood was prohibited (Gen. 9:4), but the privileges of the gospel are as flesh and blood to us, prepared for the nourishment of our souls. He had before compared himself to bread, which is necessary food; here to flesh, which is delicious. It is a feast of fat things, Isa. 25:6. The soul is satisfied with Christ as with marrow and fatness, Ps. 63:5. It is meat indeed, and drink indeed; truly so, that is spiritually; so Dr. Whitby; as Christ is called the true vine; or truly meat, in opposition to the shows and shadows with which the world shams off those that feed upon it. In Christ and his gospel there is real supply, solid satisfaction; that is meat indeed, and drink indeed, which satiates and replenishes, Jer. 31:25, 26.

[2.] What is meant by eating this flesh and drinking this blood, which is so necessary and beneficial; it is certain that is means neither more nor less than believing in Christ. As we partake of meat and drink by eating and drinking, so we partake of Christ and his benefits by faith: and believing in Christ includes these four things, which eating and drinking do:—First, It implies an appetite to Christ. This spiritual eating and drinking begins with hungering and thirsting (Matt. 5:6), earnest and importunate desires after Christ, not willing to take up with any thing short of an interest in him: “Give me Christ or else I die.” Secondly, An application of Christ to ourselves. Meat looked upon will not nourish us, but meat fed upon, and so made our own, and as it were one with us. We must so accept of Christ as to appropriate him to ourselves: my Lord, and my God, John 20:28. Thirdly, A delight in Christ and his salvation. The doctrine of Christ crucified must be meat and drink to us, most pleasant and delightful. We must feast upon the dainties of the New Testament in the blood of Christ, taking as great a complacency in the methods which Infinite Wisdom has taken to redeem and save us as ever we did in the most needful supplies or grateful delights of nature. Fourthly, A derivation of nourishment

1.Jesus told the Jews they had to eat his body and drink his blood to have life, and that his flesh is real food and his blood real drink.

And what part of that would any Reformed or Southern Baptist or non-denominational store front church member disagree with? God is real, but God is a spirit. Love is real, but you cannot ingest it bodily. We are to live not by bread but every word from God's mouth, but no one I know of is eating pages from their Bible. Real does not have to be corporeal to be really real. Am I being real clear? :)

2.Furthermore many of His disciples stumbled at this teaching, were offended, and left Him. Had this teaching merely been that the Cup of Redemption and the Afikomen (the third cup in the Passover Seder and the matzah hidden as a game for the children, handed down to us today) that was meant to symbolize Him, even if the actual Seder differed, it seems strange to imagine the Jews, including some of his disciples stumbled over obvious symbolism. To the contrary, they interpreted Him literally, as the scriptures indicate, and did not have the faith to believe His words.

There was an argument in the crowd, a dispute among themselves. They didn't know what to make of what he was saying. That doesn't prove He was teaching Eucharistic realism in the sense of Aristotelian substances. It does prove, I would suggest, that they weren't listening very carefully to what he said before He got to the hard part:

Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
(John 6:34-35)

In which coming to him is in parallel with believing in him, and carries the same meaning, a classic Hebraic couplet, the meaning of which clarifies the entire passage, that the way we consume this Bread of Life, the means by which He comes to satisfy our hunger and our thirst, is by us believing on Him. This was a disappointing answer to those whom He had just fed by the miracles of the loaves and the fishes. They were so into their own bellies that they were spiritually deaf to his very straightforward teaching here. Of course His body and blood are real, as they had to be to be given in sacrifice for us. But they become the all-satisfying food of eternal life to us who believe, simply because we believe in Him. Just as He said.

But even after lighting up the field so they could easily avoid the pitfall of raw materialism, what do they do but show their blindness and fall in anyway. They were blind because they did not believe, and they did not believe because the Father had not drawn them.

As to His core disciples, they did believe. Peter makes it clear;

Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
(John 6:67-69)

And what is Peter focused on? Does he say, "Yes, Lord, I'm willing to eat your physical body and blood?" No. He looks right past that, because he has understood: it's about belief in Jesus. He gets it.

3.Tradition testifies against it. We see about two millennia of holy communion unlike the Passover Seder, and unlike the bread and grape juice shared in Evangelical assemblies. Indeed, it is telling that the founding fathers of the Reformation famously split over whether Messiah was present in the elements or it was only a memorial. Notwithstanding the argument that there should be a common tradition to accompany an unbroken chain of the holy catholic apostolic church, none of the churches, denominations, sects, or faith groups have historically used the Passover Seder as the Lord's Supper. Whilst some can try to recreate or reform the Christian faith yet again, this time in a rabbinic Jewish context, and celebrate the Passover and Lord's Supper at the same time, and only once per year, it does not maintain continuity with almost two millennia of Christianity. It is a restoration attempt, without an Apostle, much less twelve genuine Jewish Apostles who lived, learned, and ate with Jesus. There should be a historic visible tradition of the Lord's Supper over the millennia, and there is.

The point of this thread is that there is a body of early tradition that supports a non-Aristotelian understanding of the elements of the Lord's Supper. One could look to a platonic sense of archetype to type to understand how realistic and anti-realistic language could sometimes occur side by side, without resort to Aristotle's view on substances. I would further argue that multiple strands of understanding survived well into the medieval period, as evidenced by the debate between Ratramnus and Radbertus over the nature of the Eucharistic presence. So presenting that there has always been a monolithic Trent-like view of the Eucharist from day one is an ahistorical argument. It has rhetorical pizazz but falters on facts.

However, having said that, divine truth is not determined by majority vote. One of my favorite lines of Scripture is this, let God be true, and every man a liar. It doesn't matter if the number of the faithful is only eight when the ark is boarded. It doesn't matter that when Jesus comes on the scene he finds at first only a few faithful, and almost none among the leadership. It doesn't matter that a major world-wide religion professes to honor Jesus if it denies the truths Jesus taught in the Gospels. I refer of course to Islam. None of that matters to the project Jesus is carrying out, the building of His Ecclesia. As long as there has been at least one person alive somewhere who carried forward the torch of the true Gospel (though I am sure it was never that few), whether within or without man-made institutional boundaries, then the Ecclesia has survived, and has no need to be restored, only to become more well known, which necessarily means error must be refuted.

4.I understand someone saying that he does not have the faith to literally believe Jesus' teaching, just as so many did not have the faith to believe in the First Century as recorded by John. The proper response at that point is not to argue against the teaching, as some of them did, but to say, "Lord, I believe, help me with my unbelief." Become as a little child with respect to faith, so to speak.

But this begs the question. We do believe what Jesus is literally teaching. "Literal" means "according to the letter," and according to the letter of what he taught in the Bread of Life metaphor, we can have eternal life, our deepest spiritual hungers and thirsts met, if we come to Him in faith, if we believe in Him. Converting this passage into artificial support for a much later developed theory of Aristotelian substance swapping is hardly being faithful to the strict "letter" of the text.

Peace,

SR