The supposed impossibility of Holy Communion

[bound]

Two foundational errors:

1. You have accused those who disagree with you of denying the Lord's Supper. However, we fully affirm the Lord's Supper as given by Christ and Paul.

2. You are wrongly framed the debate as one of ability. It is rather one of revealed theology.

Christ never gave any indication that there was any kind of real presence in the bread and cup. In fact, every indication of Scripture is against it. He called it bread and wine (Matt 26). He clearly used his body metaphorically in images of eating and drinking (John 6). And he called it a remembrance (1 Cor 11). Therefore, we must conclude that the biblical teaching is symbolic. That is the only way to make sense of the passages without doing injustice to the text.

However, I doubt this will be convincing any more than it was the last hundred times it was pointed out.

Hi Pastor,

I really appreciate your point but I see an issue with our emphasis that Christ used his body 'metaphorically'. I'm not saying that the early Church Fathers were right or anything but I see a concern.

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. - John 6:51

If we are saying that the 'bread' is symbolic then isn't the the 'flesh' not then also symbolic... 'that which I will give for the life of the world'?

Am I reading too much into the argument?

Thanks.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

What actually convinced me that my Baptist view of the Eucharist was incorrect was the scene that played out in John 6. Christ is speaking in a very literal sense and it's a shame that Baptist who often are 'literalist' reject Christ's plain teaching. So plain is Christ's teaching here in the synagogue that Christ actually gets somewhat frustrated with them.

After Christ refers to His flesh as food and blood as drink; the Jews ask in John 6:52 How can this Man give us His flesh to eat? The Jews knew Christ was speaking literally and yet did Christ soften His tone or even make an attempt to explain in a different way? I mean Christ, being referred to as a rabbi in verse 25, which means teacher, should have been obligated to re-explained Himself as to not cause any confusion. But as we read on, Christ went on preaching the truth, even if it was a hard saying and even if it meant losing over half His disciples as we see in verse 66.

-

 

[Agnus_Dei]

If we are saying that the 'bread' is symbolic then isn't the the 'flesh' not then also symbolic... 'that which I will give for the life of the world'?

Am I reading too much into the argument?

Thanks.

You're not reading too much into it at all bound...I'm sure the pastor would agree that Christ's literal flesh was nailed upon the cross. Therefore, it's my contention, along with 2,000 years of Church History is that Christ was speaking literal and not symbolic.

-

 

[DHK]

What actually convinced me that my Baptist view of the Eucharist was incorrect was the scene that played out in John 6. Christ is speaking in a very literal sense and it's a shame that Baptist who often are 'literalist' reject Christ's plain teaching. So plain is Christ's teaching here in the synagogue that Christ actually gets somewhat frustrated with them.-

It is such a shame isn't it.
Was he also speaking so literally when just a few verses earlier he said:

John 6:48 I am that bread of life.

Did the Jews pick up Jesus then, and start to gnaw on his body expecting nourishment? Did they all of a sudden become cannibalistic because all along they took his words "literally" as you keep insisting that they did?

What about in chapter 10, when Jesus said:

John 10:7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.

How did they perceive this door? Did Christ look like an iron gate, a wooden entrance, or what? Did they really perceive him as a literal door. But you insist that we take the passage literally. You force his metaphors to be literal in order to teach your false doctrine of transubstantiation (a heresy not taught in the Bible). You cannot teach this false doctrine unless you twist the metaphors of Christ into something that they don't mean.

 

[DeeJay]

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. - John 6:51


Maybe the question should be, how are we saved?

If the bread is symbolic of Jesus. Then this is symbolic, meaning that anyone who trusts Christ will live for ever.

If the bread is not symbolic, but literaly the flesh of Christ. Then anyone who has taken communion will live forever. If that is the case then communion waffers should be passed out on every street corner. I am good because I went to RCC chruch with my grandpa as a child and ate a waffer.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

What about in chapter 10, when Jesus said:

John 10:7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.

How did they perceive this door? Did Christ look like an iron gate, a wooden entrance, or what? Did they really perceive him as a literal door. But you insist that we take the passage literally.

The problem DHK is that these verses as John 10:9 (I am the door) or John 15:1 (I am the true vine) you and others compare, have no connection to John 6:35 (I am the bread of life). I am the door and I am the vine makes perfect sense as a metaphor, simply because Christ is like a door, for we go to heaven through Christ and Christ is also like a vine, since we get our spiritual sap through Christ.

Christ in John 6 takes His teaching way beyond symbolism, by saying as Doubting Thomas points out, For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

Furthermore in John 6:51, Christ makes reference that his flesh as bread will be given for the life of the world, yet you agree that this flesh Christ was speaking of was literally given up on the cross, right? Wasn't Christ flesh literally nailed to the cross?

I have to agree with Simon Peter in John 6:68, 69. I may not understand, but I'll have faith and trust Christ at His word, that if His flesh is food indeed and blood is drink indeed, then so be it...Happy are those who are called to His table...Amen!

You force his metaphors to be literal in order to teach your false doctrine of transubstantiation (a heresy not taught in the Bible). You cannot teach this false doctrine unless you twist the metaphors of Christ into something that they don't mean.

2,000 years of Church History affirms that this was no heresy taught. None of the Apostolic Church Fathers of the first Century taught contrary to this belief. If anything it was heretical to believe otherwise.

-

 

[Matt Black]

I have a related question about this.

What would be the purpose of eating God's human flesh? People in the OT were saved without eating God. [/qb]

Er...the words of Jesus Himself - John 6:53-56. (I know we can argue till we're all blue in the face about how to interpret that but I personally go for the 'plain meaning')

[qb]Do believers in transtibulation (sp?) believe this is the way to salvation?

Transubstantiation. See the passage from John's Gospel above re what participation in the Real Presence does.

 

[DeeJay]

Er...the words of Jesus Himself - John 6:53-56. (I know we can argue till we're all blue in the face about how to interpret that but I personally go for the 'plain meaning')

Transubstantiation. See the passage from John's Gospel above re what participation in the Real Presence does.

That brings me to this question that I posted above.

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. - John 6:51


Maybe the question should be, how are we saved?

If the bread is symbolic of Jesus. Then this is symbolic, meaning that anyone who trusts Christ will live for ever.

If the bread is not symbolic, but literaly the flesh of Christ. Then anyone who has taken communion will live forever. If that is the case then communion waffers should be passed out on every street corner. I am good because I went to RCC chruch with my grandpa as a child and ate a waffer.


Are we saved by eating communion bread? ANY Person who eats communion bread is automaticly saved?

 

[Matt Black]

Why does it have to be either/or? Why not both/and?

 

[Pastor Larry]

I will answer two at once here since they are related.

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. - John 6:51

If we are saying that the 'bread' is symbolic then isn't the the 'flesh' not then also symbolic... 'that which I will give for the life of the world'?

Am I reading too much into the argument?

Yes you are reading too much into it. It is a common rhetorical device to move from a metaphor to a reality. That is the point of a metaphor ... to connect with some overarching reality.

What actually convinced me that my Baptist view of the Eucharist was incorrect was the scene that played out in John 6. Christ is speaking in a very literal sense and it's a shame that Baptist who often are 'literalist' reject Christ's plain teaching. So plain is Christ's teaching here in the synagogue that Christ actually gets somewhat frustrated with them.

John 6 is not a passage about communion. However, it does tell us what is about. In John 6:35 we are told clearly that the proper response to the "Bread of Life" is not eating, but believing and coming. That defines what Christ was talking about.

After Christ refers to His flesh as food and blood as drink; the Jews ask in John 6:52 How can this Man give us His flesh to eat? The Jews knew Christ was speaking literally and yet did Christ soften His tone or even make an attempt to explain in a different way? I mean Christ, being referred to as a rabbi in verse 25, which means teacher, should have been obligated to re-explained Himself as to not cause any confusion. But as we read on, Christ went on preaching the truth, even if it was a hard saying and even if it meant losing over half His disciples as we see in verse 66.

Just as in the case of Nicodemus, spiritual blindness should not cause us to change the text. This has staggering implications for those who hold to a "real presence" kind of theory based on John 6. (Chemnitz says he doesn't use John 6). Christ's point is essentially that if you believe he was talking about his real flesh, you are spiritually blind. Jesus does not even dignify that with a response.

You say he "should have been obligation to re-explain himself." Yet when you read John 6, you see he needed no further explanation. He plainly said that the response to the "Bread of Life" was to come and believe. That is the theme of the passage.

It was a hard saying because it was a call to leave the old religious ways of Judaism and come to Christ. And that is what people were unwilling to do.

 

[BobRyan]

Hi Pastor,

I really appreciate your point but I see an issue with our emphasis that Christ used his body 'metaphorically'. I'm not saying that the early Church Fathers were right or anything but I see a concern.

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. - John 6:51

If we are saying that the 'bread' is symbolic then isn't the the 'flesh' not then also symbolic... 'that which I will give for the life of the world'?

Am I reading too much into the argument?

#1. It is clear to all that "nobody was biting Christ" in John 6.

#2. It is clear to all that in John 6 Christ did not say "some day in the future I will BECOME bread that came down from heaven" rather He claimed he ALREADY was. Christ called them to take action NOW not "wait until later". The ONLY action they COULD take - was accepting His WORD -- no "biting Christ" in John 6.

#3. It is clear to all that the faithLESS disciples in John 6 took Christ TOO literally and thought of this as literal flesh-eating SO CHRIST said "eating literal flesh is WORTHLESS it is my WORDs that have Spirit and LIFE". In Matt 16 Christ condemns the practice of taking the symbol of "bread" too literally.

#4. It is clear to ALL that PETER when pressed on this point in John 6 affirms "You have the WORDS of Life".

#5. It is clear to ALL that in John 6 Christ keeps arguing that you must DO something to get LIFE -- and that SOMETHINg is later said to be related to the WORDS of Christ for they ALONE have "Spirit and LIFE" and simply eating more FLESH to get eternal life "worthless".

#6. It is clear to ALL that John 6 STARTS with the LITERAL scenario of Christ feeding the multitudes and then when more multitudes came seeking more FOOD - more LITERAL food Christ rebukes them!

Christ spends chapter six directing them AWAY from LITERAL food eating an TOWARD the spiritual value of the "bread that ALREADY had come down from heaven".

#7. It is clear to ALL that Christ appeals to the SAME symbol as Deut 8 when He speaks of "bread that came down from heaven". The "lesson of Manna" as Moses stated it is "Man shall NOT LIVE by BREAD alone but by EVERY WORD that proceeds from the mouth of God". that was the lesson being taught by God in the "bread that came down from heaven" in Deut 8 AND in John 6 so Christ refers to it!

"The WORD became FLESH and dwelt among us" is a central theme in the book of John.

Why ignore it??

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The communion service is a "symbol" of the broken body and spilled blood of Christ, Just as in John 10 "I am the DOOR" just as in John 15 "I am the VINE" -- Christ is not a plant nor even a piece of wood.

In Matt 16 Christ warns the disciples NOT to take things too literally when symbols are being used ESPECIALLY when the symbol is BREAD.

6 And Jesus said to them, ""Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.''
7 They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, ""He said that because we did not bring any bread.''
8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, "" You men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves that you have no bread?
9 ""Do you not yet understand or remember the five loaves of the five thousand[/b], and how many baskets full you picked up?
10 ""Or the seven loaves of the four thousand,[/b] and how many large baskets full you picked up?
11 ""How is it that you do not understand that [b]I did not speak to you concerning bread?[/b] But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.''
12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

In John 6 Christ said he WAS the BREAD that came down out of heaven.

Again - these are all symbols.

And in the case of Christ as bread - it is Christ as "The Word" that became flesh and dwelt among us - for as God teaches the lesson of manna is "Man shall not live by bread alone but by every WORD that proceeds from the mouth of God".

 

[BobRyan]

These words[/I] (ie the words He just finished telling them) include His specific identification of the bread He gives with HIS flesh which He literally was about to give for the life of the world, and those words also include that HIS FLESH is "food indeed" and HIS BLOOD is "drink indeed" and that we are to eat and drink His flesh and blood to have His life in us.

Actually when He said that eating literal flesh is pointless it is because the chapter STARTS with the multitudes seeking more LITERAL bread to literally eat! Christ said that the real source of life is His word - BITING Him gets you nothing but more sin and trangression.



The faithLESS disciples leave supposing that Christ intended that they BITE His flesh.

The faithFUL disciples REMAIN and say "you have the WORDS of LIFE".

Christ does not say "SOME DAY IN THE FUTURE" you will need to eat My flesh - in John 6, He says it is ALREADY the case! He WAS the bread that already CAME DOWN from heaven-

The WORD became flesh.

But no "biting Christ" in John 6.

Christ does not argue "some day I will show you this" -- He argued that it was ALREADY the case since it was ALREADY true that some then and there were ACCEPTING the WORD of Christ and some were already rejecting it.

In Christ,

 

[DeeJay]

Why does it have to be either/or? Why not both/and?

Because the verse, if used litteral, does not give a both/and. It says clearly that if any man eat of the bread he shall live forever. If the bread is litteral. Then any man who eats it will live forever. That is a definant statement taken from this verse.

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. - John 6:51

However if this bread is not literaly bread. Then it must be reprisenting something else. In that case the whole verse is reprisentitive and not literal.

 

[Matt Black]

OK. I however take the literal view of this passage; however, to answer your earlier question, you do of course have to put it in the context of other Scriptures on communion, for example I Cor 11: Paul exhorts those who were already converts to examine themselves before receiving communion. Thus, some other precondition is necessary to it being the Bread of Life, and you can't just hand out wafers to all and sundry...

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Actually when He said that eating literal flesh is pointless it is because the chapter STARTS with the multitudes seeking more LITERAL bread to literally eat! Christ said that the real source of life is His word - BITING Him gets you nothing but more sin and trangression.

No, Christ said the bread of Life is Himself, and more specifically He says the bread He was about to give is HIS FLESH. (John 6:51)
So Christ does not answer the multitude's desire for more literal bread by saying: "Hey, the real bread is My 'WORD'." No, he specifically says the real bread is HIMSELF, more specifically HIS FLESH--the same FLESH He was about to give for the life of the world--which He stated they were to eat, and HIS BLOOD which He stated they were to drink, if they were to have eternal life.

Here is the entire verse: "I am the bread of life which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is...."
His 'WORD'? Nope, Christ specifically says:

"...and the bread that I shall give is My flesh which I shall give for the life of the world" (John 6:51)

So the same flesh that Christ was about to literally give for the life of the world was the self-same flesh that He identified with the bread that He was going to give them to eat.

The faithLESS disciples leave supposing that Christ intended that they BITE His flesh.

Indeed. They demonstrated this supposition by asking, "How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?" (v.52). And Christ never corrected this supposition except to imply that this was to be done in a 'spiritual' (not "metaphorical") manner rather than in a carnal ('flesh-ly') manner that they were fixated on (v.63). In other words, the WORDS Chrst had just spoken were to be understood spiritually (not 'metaphorically') rather than carnally (of the flesh).

The faithFUL disciples REMAIN and say "you have the WORDS of LIFE".

And those "words of life" include those particular words which Christ had just uttered to them, that:
"...and the bread that I shall give is My flesh which I shall give for the life of the world."
And that:
"Most assuredly I say unto you that unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me and I in him." (v.53-56)

So although the disciples likewise coudn't yet understand how Christ could give His flesh as food and His blood as drink, they indeed understood Him to be speaking realistically (not metaphorically), and they trusted Him for they knew the He had the "word of life"--even those particular words which they couldn't yet grasp in what manner they could be realistically true.

Christ does not say "SOME DAY IN THE FUTURE" you will need to eat My flesh - in John 6, He says it is ALREADY the case! He WAS the bread that already CAME DOWN from heaven-

But the future tense is used in verse 51 in reference to His flesh that He was going to give for the life of the world (ie on the cross):
"I am the bread of life which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh which I shall give for the life of the world" (John 6:51)
So although Christ is the bread of life who has come down from heaven, He hasn't yet given His flesh as food for He as not yet given it for the life of the world.

Christ does not argue "some day I will show you this" -- He argued that it was ALREADY the case since it was ALREADY true that some then and there were ACCEPTING the WORD of Christ and some were already rejecting it.

In Christ,

I am the bread of life which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is my flesh which I shall give for the life of the world" (John 6:51)

Yes it was already true that Christ was going to give His flesh for the life of the world as He knew this already to be His mission. And it was indeed already true that some at that point rejected Him because of the realism of His message, while others accepted it while not yet fully understanding how those hard things were to be specifically fulfilled.

DT

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Yes you are reading too much into it. It is a common rhetorical device to move from a metaphor to a reality. That is the point of a metaphor ... to connect with some overarching reality.

John 6 is not a passage about communion. However, it does tell us what is about. In John 6:35 we are told clearly that the proper response to the "Bread of Life" is not eating, but believing and coming. That defines what Christ was talking about.

You are correct that Christ was proceeding from metaphor to reality. He indeed starts off generally by saying He is the bread and we must come to Him and believe in Him, but then proceeds to specify the manner more realistically: He specifically identifies the bread with HIS FLESH, and specifically affirms that to come to Him one must EAT HIS FLESH and DRINK HIS BLOOD in order to have eternal life. (He gets even more literal and realistic in verse 54 stating one must "munch, or chew" (Gr."trogo") His flesh)

Just as in the case of Nicodemus, spiritual blindness should not cause us to change the text. This has staggering implications for those who hold to a "real presence" kind of theory based on John 6. (Chemnitz says he doesn't use John 6). Christ's point is essentially that if you believe he was talking about his real flesh, you are spiritually blind. Jesus does not even dignify that with a response.

The ones who want to "gnosticize" Christ's meaning are the ones who are trying to change the text. Christ most definitely was not implying that HIS flesh was profitless, as this was flesh He was about to literally give on the cross "for the life of the world". He meant that to understand His realistic language in a carnal (flesh-ly) manner, rather than in a spiritual manner, was profitless (v63). As He affirmed He was indeed going to physically ascend back to heaven (v.62), it was pointless for them to think He was referring to cannibalism. No, they were truly to partake of His real flesh and blood, but in a 'spiritual' manner, not cannibalistically. It's no coincidence then that the only ones in the early history of the Church who denied the "real presence" of Christ' Body and Blood in the bread and the wine, were the docetic Gnostics who also denied the physicallity of Christ and His crucifixion.

You say he "should have been obligation to re-explain himself." Yet when you read John 6, you see he needed no further explanation. He plainly said that the response to the "Bread of Life" was to come and believe. That is the theme of the passage.

And He clearly proceeded to expound that the "coming and believing" more specifically meant to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood.

It was a hard saying because it was a call to leave the old religious ways of Judaism and come to Christ. And that is what people were unwilling to do.

No, it was hard because they couldn't understand how Christ was to give His flesh to them to eat (v 52), flesh that Christ said He was about to give for the life of the world, and flesh He emphatically affirmed was food indeed and was to be eaten (along with drinking His blood) to have eternal life.

 

[Chemnitz]

I must say that I am impressed the amount of butchering people will go to just to deny the promises of Christ. Not a single person has been able to prove from the context of the Lord's Supper that Jesus did not really mean to say this is my body, etc. In fact, every single communion denier has had to go to other parts of Scripture that have absolutely nothing to do with Communion, i.e. Pr. Larry's appeal to the conversation with Nicodemus, in order to make their point. I have to wonder, why it is they can't make there point with the actual texts that speak to communion? Is it because they can't? DT and MB if I were you I'd hold them to these texts and not let them sidetrack the conversation.

 

[DeeJay]

OK. I however take the literal view of this passage; however, to answer your earlier question, you do of course have to put it in the context of other Scriptures on communion, for example I Cor 11: Paul exhorts those who were already converts to examine themselves before receiving communion. Thus, some other precondition is necessary to it being the Bread of Life, and you can't just hand out wafers to all and sundry...

Then this verse is incorrect.

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. - John 6:51

This is a promise from the scriptures. The verse says that any man who eats the bread SHALL live for ever.

You are telling me that is not true.

 

[DeeJay]

"...and the bread that I shall give is My flesh which I shall give for the life of the world" (John 6:51)

So the same flesh that Christ was about to literally give for the life of the world was the self-same flesh that He identified with the bread that He was going to give them to eat.

DT

Jesus uses food and drink as illistrations and not literaly through out the NT. If you take this litteraly then what about the verses below.

10 Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.”
11 The woman said to Him, “Sir, You have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep. Where then do You get that living water? 12 Are You greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank from it himself, as well as his sons and his livestock?”
13 Jesus answered and said to her, “Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again, 14 but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.”
John 4:10-13

Is there literal living water that you can put in a glass and drink? Or do you take this as a metaphore?