- Introduction:
- There Is No Evidence That Christ Intended His Words To Be Understood In A Woodenly Literal Sense:
- After The Institution Of The Lord's Supper, Both The Elements Were Still Called Bread And Wine:
-The Apostle Paul mentions the Lord's Supper and refers to the element of bread as bread and the element of wine as wine (1 Corinthians 11:23-28).
-If Roman Catholic apologists claim that the words "bread and wine" are a synecdoche, then that at least opens the door to more symbolic Protestant interpretations of that meal as being valid. Even the literalist view of communion admits a degree of symbolism.
*The New Covenant was not established until Jesus' blood was shed on the Cross (Luke 22:10; Hebrews 9:15-16). Thus, taking Christ's words literally (especially during the Lord's Supper and Bread of Life Discourse) would make Him an impostor who is guilty of breaking the Law.
- The Mass Violates Old Testament Prohibitions Against Drinking Blood:
*The New Covenant was not established until Jesus' blood was shed on the Cross (Luke 22:10; Hebrews 9:15-16). Thus, taking Christ's words literally (especially during the Lord's Supper and Bread of Life Discourse) would make Him an impostor who is guilty of breaking the Law.
- There Is No Remission Of Sins Without The Shedding Of Blood (Hebrews 9:22):
- Jesus Christ's Body Was Shed On The Cross Once For All:
- The Kingdom Of God Does Not Consist Of Food And Drink, But Godly Living:
-Rome teaches that the eucharist is the means by which Christians maintain spiritual life. It is viewed as the summit of communion with God. The Apostle Paul, however, says that the kingdom of God does not comprise of food and drink (Romans 14:17). The blessings that He provides are a result of His grace. If Paul believed that the repeated consumption of Christ's body as the eucharist was a requirement for salvation, then this would have been a place for him to affirm such rather than categorically rejecting matters of food and drink as relating to the kingdom of God.
- Exegetical Comments On John 6:51-58:
-In the Old Testament, eating bread was considered the equivalent of obedience to God (Deuteronomy 8:3; Matthew 4:4). This kind of reasoning in regard to the Book of the Law is echoed in the Jewish apocrypha (Sirach 24:20-22). Ben Sira also spoke of being fed with the bread of understanding and given the water of wisdom (Sirach 15:3). The Book of Proverbs employs similar imagery in the context of receiving instruction (Proverbs 9:5). The Jewish Philosopher Philo spoke in terms of consuming divine wisdom.
-Just as God had provided manna to the Israelites in the desert as deliverance from starvation, so He had sent Jesus Christ into this world as a sacrificial provision to deliver us from eternal condemnation. That is the meaning of Christ being "bread from heaven."
-Unlike the Torah, Christ can completely satisfy our spiritual huger and thirst (John 6:49-51). "Eating flesh" and "drinking blood" is to be understood as trusting in Christ for salvation. We consume Him by faith and He sustains us spiritually by that same means.
-It is the words of Christ that impart life to those who believe (John 5:24; 6:63). This perspective of eating finds its basis in the Old Testament (Jeremiah 15:16; Ezekiel 2:8-3:3). Eating Christ's flesh and drinking His blood means coming to Him and believing on His name (John 6:35).
-Unlike the Torah, Christ can completely satisfy our spiritual huger and thirst (John 6:49-51). "Eating flesh" and "drinking blood" is to be understood as trusting in Christ for salvation. We consume Him by faith and He sustains us spiritually by that same means.
-It is the words of Christ that impart life to those who believe (John 5:24; 6:63). This perspective of eating finds its basis in the Old Testament (Jeremiah 15:16; Ezekiel 2:8-3:3). Eating Christ's flesh and drinking His blood means coming to Him and believing on His name (John 6:35).
-Just as circumcision was a symbol of the Mosaic Covenant (Genesis 17:10-11), bread and wine are used as symbols for the New Covenant (Luke 22:19-20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-25).
-The Lord's Supper has sacrificial overtones because the elements point to the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross at Calvary as opposed to themselves.
-After the departure of the 5,000, Jesus told the twelve remaining disciples that the words of His lecture were not literal but spiritual (John 6:63). In other words, His speech was not to be understood in a physical or materialistic sense. We must come to Jesus Christ and place our trust in Him for salvation. He is life to us, and we partake of Him by faith.
-Even if the Jews had understood His words literally, that does not prove such an interpretation to be correct. It is clear throughout the four gospel accounts that Jesus Christ did not have a problem with speaking bluntly and offending those who clung to their man-made traditions. He was not afraid to offend Jewish sensibilities. He spoke in a figurative manner, which requires interpretation. Jesus did not always explain His teaching, nor was He obligated to (John 2:19-21). He knew from the very beginning who would have faith and who would not (John 6:64).
-The Lord's Supper has sacrificial overtones because the elements point to the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross at Calvary as opposed to themselves.
- Why Did Many Disciples Leave Jesus During The Bread Of Life Discourse? Was It Because They Had To Literally Eat His Flesh And Drink His Blood?:
-After the departure of the 5,000, Jesus told the twelve remaining disciples that the words of His lecture were not literal but spiritual (John 6:63). In other words, His speech was not to be understood in a physical or materialistic sense. We must come to Jesus Christ and place our trust in Him for salvation. He is life to us, and we partake of Him by faith.
-Even if the Jews had understood His words literally, that does not prove such an interpretation to be correct. It is clear throughout the four gospel accounts that Jesus Christ did not have a problem with speaking bluntly and offending those who clung to their man-made traditions. He was not afraid to offend Jewish sensibilities. He spoke in a figurative manner, which requires interpretation. Jesus did not always explain His teaching, nor was He obligated to (John 2:19-21). He knew from the very beginning who would have faith and who would not (John 6:64).
- Does The Repetitive Nature Of Christ's Words Prove Them To be Literal?:
- Does The Forcefulness Or Vividness Of Christ's Words Prove Them To Be Literal?:
- Does Malachi 1:11 Prove That The Lord's Supper Is A Sacrifice?:
- Does Hebrews 9:23 Support The Repetitive Sacrifices Of The Catholic Mass?:
this is an excellent rebuttal to the catholic understanding of transubstantiation. was looking for a biblical, reasoned take and found it!
ReplyDeleteHello Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI am happy to hear that you found this article to be helpful. May God bless you richly.
Good work, Jesse. I don't know if it can be made any clearer. I've always said that this offering (the Eucharist) CANNOT be a valid one, since the offering at Calvary was to be made only once for all time, and it could only be made by Jesus Himself. No one can re-offer, re-sacrifice, or re-present Calvary in any way.
ReplyDelete