Never Thirst-Taking Jesus" Literally" can be Fatal

Thoughts of Francis Turretine ^ | July 17, 2014 | TurretinFan

[RnMomof7]

Never Thirst - Taking Jesus "Literally" can be Fatal

Roman Catholics like to try to claim that they are just taking Jesus "literally" when they interpret "this is my body" to mean that what was in Jesus' hands was not bread but his physical body [FN1]. Three passages in John help to illustrate the problem with that approach: John 4, John 6, and John 7.  In the first, Jesus refers metaphorically to living water, in the second Jesus refers to himself as food and drink, and in the third Jesus offers drink to those who thirst.

In John 4, Jesus interacts with the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well.  He asks her for water, she objects because he's Jewish, and he responds that she should be asking him for water, because the water he offers is better than the water from Jacob's well. She misunderstands him as speaking physically, even after some further explanation.  She wants to stop the labor of drawing water and misunderstands Jesus' comments about "never thirst."

John 4:6-15
Now Jacob's well was there. Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus on the well: and it was about the sixth hour. There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink. (For his disciples were gone away unto the city to buy meat.) Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans. Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water? Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle? Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.

In John 6, Jesus interacts with a number of "disciples" who want Jesus to repeat the miracle of the loaves that's reported at the beginning of the chapter.  Jesus explains that the person who believes on him will never thirst and whoever comes to him will never hunger, calling himself the "bread of life" that "came down from heaven." Jesus insists that the bread he offers is better than the manna that the people ate in the wilderness.  Jesus talks about them eating his flesh and drinking his blood, but they take him physically and go away in disgust.  Jesus explains that the words he speaks are spirit and life.  Jesus asks the twelve if they will go away too, but Peter (speaking for the group) says that they will stay with him because they believe and know that his words are the words of eternal life.

John 6:26-71
Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work? Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 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.
But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 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. Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. 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.
Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve. 

In John 7, Jesus interacts with those at the temple for the feast.  Jesus offers the thirsty people water.  John explains to us that Jesus is speaking about the Spirit as the "rivers of flowing water."

John 7:37-39 
In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

These passages illustrate Jesus' fondness for using food as a metaphor for trust in him.  We approach the Lord's table by faith, coming to Him as represented by the bread and cup.  We gain a benefit from this if we do so by faith, but not if we do so any other way.  It is not the physical elements that provide the benefit we receive, it is the Spirit.

Remember what Jesus said about clean/unclean foods:

Matthew 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?

Unfortunately, it seems our Roman Catholic friends and relatives fail to understand this.  Christ is our spiritual food and drink, not our physical nourishment.

Isaiah 44:3 For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring:
Psalm 105:41 He opened the rock, and the waters gushed out; they ran in the dry places like a river.
Isaiah 48:21 And they thirsted not when he led them through the deserts: he caused the waters to flow out of the rock for them: he clave the rock also, and the waters gushed out.
Psalm 78:20 Behold, he smote the rock, that the waters gushed out, and the streams overflowed; can he give bread also? can he provide flesh for his people?
1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

The blessings we receive in Christ are primarily spiritual blessings.  We drink the spiritual drink from the spiritual Rock, and that Rock is Christ.  He is our Rock, we trust in Him.

To the glory of his grace!

TurretinFan

Footnote 1: I should add that the Roman Catholic position is particularly absurd in that it takes "this is my body" as implying that the bread ceases to be bread and becomes the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus.  Likewise, it is claimed that "this is ... my blood" implies exactly the same thing about the contents of the cup.  That's quite far from taking the words literally, in which the bread would just be the body, and the contents of the cup would just be the blood.

[BlatherNaut]

That is simply argument by assertion of pure propaganda, and which propaganda you insist on reading into Scripture in order to support your master Rome. And which hardly warrants further attempts to reason with you, and which exchange already serves as a prime example of what RCs can be compelled to do, not matter what expense to credibility.

LOL! Please provide chapter and verse in support of the above paranoid ramblings. Meanwhile, we "RCs" will continue to take the Lord at His Word rather than work up an unnecessary sweat rebelliously twisting and distorting His teachings.

[daniel1212]

LOL! Please provide chapter and verse in support of the above paranoid ramblings. Meanwhile, we "RCs" will continue to take the Lord at His Word rather than work up an unnecessary sweat rebelliously twisting and distorting His teachings.

What?! Please provide chapter and verse in support of the above? The numerous . refutations do just that time and time and and time again !

This my last post as I am about to get personal with the bullheaded blind denials by a fringe RC whose devotion to Rome evidently drives him to deny what is obvious to any one with open eyes. Even an atheist could see the subject is how prophecy of Scripture came to be written, and thus is the more sure word, not the claimed veracity of the Roman magisterium.

Bye

[mitch5501]

"This thread still going???"

Some folks take a little longer to utterly embarrass themselves than others.

[boatbums]

Snippet hunting is a sorry way to build a doctrine.

Particularly when used to utterly dismiss the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Divine Prophet, from the picture.

So why do you do it? It seems you are trying to force Scripture to fit your interpretation by using only a partial passage. Had you let Peter finish the thought he was making, it is clear Daniel1212's explanation is the correct one and yours', or your church's, is incorrect. Peter is NOT even talking about the "interpreting" of Scripture BY a magesterium vs. an individual, but that the prophets spoke as they were led by the Holy spirit and NOT by their OWN interpretation of His revelation. In other words, what is termed "verbal plenary inspiration" explains this point.

[boatbums]

That is yet absurd, as again that is not what Peter is referring to, but to what was written! For having referred to what they did hear on the mount then Peter says "We have also a more sure word of prophecy" the reason being that "prophecy of the scripture" "came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:20,21)

I think it is crystal clear that Peter is specifically talking about Scripture being the "more sure word of prophecy" compared to oral teachings and the remembrances of men. It is because the Holy Spirit carried along the prophets in the very words they were to write and that trumps the passing on of truth through word of mouth.

For example, Moses writes about all the things God did going back to the creation story that he wasn't even alive for. Yet, everything he wrote - because he was writing as the Holy Spirit moved him - was the truth. We can trust what the book of Genesis says about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob because Moses wasn't writing his own interpretation of the events or even what may have been passed down to him orally through his Jewish tradition. Now, more than likely there WERE written records of ancient history composed by scribes and learned men. But they haven't the same author (the Holy Spirit) which means they are not Divinely-inspired and authoritative. That's the issue many have with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books being added to the same canon as the inspired, sacred writings from God through His prophets. These books do not have the same pedigree, the Holy Spirit as author, the assurance of Divine-inspiration or the authority intrinsic to the writings we accept as from God.

Inspired Scripture commands obedience because it is God's word to mankind. Nothing of mere human origin has that same authority and is precisely why the Scriptures remain the standard for our faith and practices.

[Elsie]

That’s why I jump in early so I can be among the first.

[BlatherNaut]

Had you let Peter finish the thought he was making, it is clear Daniel1212's explanation is the correct one and yours', or your church's, is incorrect. Peter is NOT even talking about the "interpreting" of Scripture BY a magesterium vs. an individual, but that the prophets spoke as they were led by the Holy spirit and NOT by their OWN interpretation of His revelation.

The above interpretation necessitates ignoring the context established in the preceding verses. BTW, the Magisterium (the teaching office of the Church) was established by Jesus Christ.

"And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." (Matt 28: 16-20)

In 2 Peter 1, St. Peter reiterates the virtues (joined with faith) which are necessary for salvation, and reminds us that the Apostolic teachings are not derived from fables but have been received directly from Jesus Christ. In that context, it is obvious that the "firm prophetical word" (2 Peter 1:19) he is referring to is that which he has received from our Lord Himself. Verses 20-21 are a continuation on that theme. Verse 21 is a reminder that the Holy Ghost is the source of Divine Inspiration. The authority of the Church's Magisterium to officially interpret Sacred Scripture proceeds from Christ Himself:

"He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost." John 20: 21-22

[BlatherNaut]

I think it is crystal clear that Peter is specifically talking about Scripture being the "more sure word of prophecy" compared to oral teachings and the remembrances of men.

The erroneousness of that interpretation is affirmed by the existence of a plethora of conflicting private interpretations of Sacred Scripture posited by those who reject the Deposit of Faith (the teachings Christ entrusted to His Church). "By their fruits you shall know them." (Matt 7:16)

[boatbums]

The above interpretation necessitates ignoring the context established in the preceding verses. BTW, the Magisterium (the teaching office of the Church) was established by Jesus Christ.

On the contrary, it is the ONLY way in can be interpreted without ignoring the whole context. The "teaching magesterium" is every bit as under subjection to sacred Scripture as individual believers are. Why did God go to all the trouble of ensuring His revelation was written down and preserved all these thousands of years if He didn't intend for us to have an unchangeable and assured resource for testing truth claims? The "more sure word of prophecy" is held in contrast to humanly speaking and traditions of men. Jesus' example was to discredit traditions when they nullified God's word.

Though your religion claims it is the one, true church Jesus established, it must STILL be in submission to the sacred word of God. When they presumed to make Scripture in submission to them, they ceased being a valid representation of Christ's body. Christ's church is a spiritual house of which all believers are as living stones forming its structure. When two or more believers gather in His name, He is there among them and it matters little what name they give their ecclesia. Christ knows His own and we know Him. Every believer is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and He is who illuminates the truth of Scripture to those who diligently seek to know it. There IS no blanket authority passed down like a crown from one person to the next. Genuine authority comes when leaders remain true to God's word. It departs from them when they pervert the truth and teach an accursed Gospel.

[BlatherNaut]

“On the contrary, it is the ONLY way in can be interpreted without ignoring the whole context. The "teaching magisterium" is every bit as under subjection to sacred Scripture as individual believers are. Why did God go to all the trouble of ensuring His revelation was written down and preserved all these thousands of years if He didn't intend for us to have an unchangeable and assured resource for testing truth claims? The "more sure word of prophecy" is held in contrast to humanly speaking and traditions of men. Jesus' example was to discredit traditions when they nullified God's word.”

It’s clearly not God's intention that individual believers privately determine the “more sure interpretation of scripture”. "Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20) plainly declares that individuals do not possess such authority. And for good reason. Individual interpretation rather than interpretation by an authoritative body produces chaos, not unity. It was individual interpretation which produced the myriad of discordant voices composing Christianity today. The Methodists traditionally interpreted the Scriptures to mean that God objected to drinking and cards. The Christadelphians interpreted the Scriptures to mean that the Trinity didn’t exist, and the human soul was not immortal. The Quakers interpreted the Scriptures to mean that God wants us to be pacifists. Individuals who reject the guiding authority established by Our Lord draw themselves and others into heresy. This is why St. Paul exhorted his bishops to take heed to themselves and to the flock and to rule the church of God:

"Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. And of your own selves shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them". (Acts 28-30)

Christ established His Magisterium to ensure that our understanding of Sacred Scripture would remain “unchangeable and assured”.

“Though your religion claims it is the one, true church Jesus established, it must STILL be in submission to the sacred word of God. When they presumed to make Scripture in submission to them, they ceased being a valid representation of Christ's body. Christ's church is a spiritual house of which all believers are as living stones forming its structure. When two or more believers gather in His name, He is there among them and it matters little what name they give their ecclesia. Christ knows His own and we know Him. Every believer is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and He is who illuminates the truth of Scripture to those who diligently seek to know it. There IS no blanket authority passed down like a crown from one person to the next. Genuine authority comes when leaders remain true to God's word. It departs from them when they pervert the truth and teach an accursed Gospel.”

This argument exhibits a profound lack of understanding of both the Divine Origin and the function of the Magisterium. The Magisterium (the teaching authority established by Jesus Christ) interprets Sacred Scripture; it does not write it. Its role is to prevent the brand of individualistic nonsense that causes a Christian to wake up one day and decide that the Bible actually means that the Trinity doesn’t exist, or, like the Arians, that Our Lord was only a creature. The Magisterium preserves and safeguards Sacred Scripture from individual misinterpretation. What was true in Paul’s day is true in our own: without an overseeing body with the authority to interpret Sacred Scripture, individuals can and will contrive the most absurd heresies.

Therefore, it logically follows that Magisterial authority is passed on from one person to another. The precedent was established by Christ with the eleven disciples (Matt 28: 16-20 ) and carried on by Paul with the church leaders in Acts 20. Those who reject Magisterial authority sow division among the members of the Body of Christ.

[metmom]

On the contrary, it is the ONLY way in can be interpreted without ignoring the whole context. The "teaching magesterium" is every bit as under subjection to sacred Scripture as individual believers are. Why did God go to all the trouble of ensuring His revelation was written down and preserved all these thousands of years if He didn't intend for us to have an unchangeable and assured resource for testing truth claims? The "more sure word of prophecy" is held in contrast to humanly speaking and traditions of men. Jesus' example was to discredit traditions when they nullified God's word.

Though your religion claims it is the one, true church Jesus established, it must STILL be in submission to the sacred word of God. When they presumed to make Scripture in submission to them, they ceased being a valid representation of Christ's body. Christ's church is a spiritual house of which all believers are as living stones forming its structure. When two or more believers gather in His name, He is there among them and it matters little what name they give their ecclesia. Christ knows His own and we know Him. Every believer is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and He is who illuminates the truth of Scripture to those who diligently seek to know it. There IS no blanket authority passed down like a crown from one person to the next. Genuine authority comes when leaders remain true to God's word. It departs from them when they pervert the truth and teach an accursed Gospel.

Bears repeating......

[daniel1212]

I think it is crystal clear that Peter is specifically talking about Scripture being the "more sure word of prophecy" compared to oral teachings and the remembrances of men.

And what is most clear is that Peter was referring to how the "prophecy of Scripture" was given - by Divine inspiration- thus it is the "more sure word," and was not referring to understanding it.

And as said, to be consistent, then if it was referring to the latter, then it would require that understanding and teaching of Scripture be under Divine inspiration, which Rome herself does not claim.

But it does not matter what is clear in Scripture: if Rome says something then certain devout RCs will defend it no matter how absurd it is and makes them look.

[Elsie]

"By their fruits you shall know them." (Matt 7:16)

You got something agin' false prophets?

---

Matthew 7:15-20

¹⁵ Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

¹⁶ By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

¹⁷ Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

¹⁸ A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit.

¹⁹ Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire.

²⁰ Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.

 

 

 

[Elsie]

Therefore, it logically follows that Magisterial authority is passed on from one person to another.

I see...

Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.^[1]

Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.

Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who "sold" the Papacy

Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), who is lampooned in Dante's Divine Comedy

Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.^[2]

Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.^[3]

Pope Leo X (1513–1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony^[4]

Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bad_Popes

[Resettozero]

And what is most clear is that Peter was referring to how the "prophecy of Scripture" was given - by Divine inspiration- thus it is the "more sure word," and was not referring to understanding it.

And as said, to be consistent, then if it was referring to the latter, then it would require that understanding and teaching of Scripture be under Divine inspiration, which Rome herself does not claim.

But it does not matter what is clear in Scripture: if Rome says something then certain devout RCs will defend it no matter how absurd it is and makes them look.

Matthew 24:
24 "For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect.
25 "Behold, I have told you in advance."

Operative word: false.

[Elsie]

bump