I've been a longtime lurker on this board, very rarely popping my head up to post, so let me start off by apologizing for such a lengthy post. The TLDR version is two paragraphs down.
Now moving on... I have noticed that a discussion of the Eucharist has made its way into several threads over the last couple of months. Though I was casually familiar with the subject, I had no special interest in the doctrine of transubstantiation, but posts by K2, Swimmer, and several of the Catholics have piqued my interest and caused me to look at the matter more closely. John 6 has come up multiple times in those discussions, so I would like to focus on that section of Scripture and look at it in more detail.
First, to establish the context within which the rest of my post will fit, I will state my conclusion. I do not believe that John 6 teaches that the bread and fruit of the vine become His literal physical body and blood. I believe that Jesus is using the physical to teach a lesson about the spiritual.
In the first fourteen verses of the chapter, Jesus feeds the multitude following Him from five loaves of bread and two fish obtained from a child. Of note, vs. 2 states the multitude was following Him because they saw Him heal the sick. The context of this miracle and the crowd's reason for following Him form the starting point of His discussion with them the next day.
The following day, the people again find Jesus, and the interaction resumes in vs. 25. In vs. 26 Jesus tells the people that they sought after Him because they ate of the loaves and were filled, but He instructs them to work not for food that perishes but, rather, work for the food that endures to eternal life. He is contrasting the temporal bread (i.e. the bread they ate the previous day) with eternal bread that He will give them. The people are incredulous and request a sign, stating that their fathers had received bread from heaven in the form of manna. Jesus then states that the Father gives you the true bread from heaven, and it is He who comes down and gives life unto the world. He has now made a second contrast, this time between manna and this eternal bread.
The people, intrigued by the prospect of this new heavenly bread ask Christ to give it to them always. He then drops the bombshell that He is the bread of life, and that those who come to Him will never hunger and those that believe will never thirst. Here is a third, albeit an implied, contrast. He is contrasting the temporary relief from hunger provided by physical bread with the eternal relief provided by the bread of life.
In vss. 36-40, he explains that His purpose in coming was to do the will of the Father and that it included giving everlasting life to those who believe in Him. Beginning in vs. 41, the people begin complaining that Jesus, a man whose origins are known to them, is claiming to have come down from Heaven. Jesus then states that no one can come to Him unless the Father draws that person and that He is the source of everlasting life.
He then picks back up the bread comparison in vs. 48 by stating, "I am the bread of life." He states that their fathers who ate the manna are dead, but that this bread which has come down from heaven will result in the one who eats of it not dying. He is now more forceful and detailed regarding the above mentioned third contrast. If you eat manna, which produces only temporary benefits, you will die. If you eat this new bread from heaven, which produces eternal benefits, you will not die.
It is with this contrast that we can clearly see now the physical vs. spiritual nature of His argument. With the prior two contrasts, one could argue that perhaps Christ was talking about a special type of physical bread that allowed you to live forever. Certainly, this was not the only time he made a similar contrast that resulted in such a thought. The Samaritan woman at the well mistakenly understood Him in physical terms when she wanted to know about the water that cured your thirst forever. However, with Jesus elaborating on this third contrast, it becomes obvious that the eternal life is not physical. Obviously Christians have continued to die physically over the last two millennia, so the contrast between dying and not dying must be one of physical death vs spiritual life.
The analogy then, is this: physical bread:physical death::heavenly bread:spiritual life. If we have a contrast between physical and spiritual on the right side of the analogy, it is natural to conclude that we have a contrast between physical and spiritual on the left side. The heavenly bread is not physical, for physical bread does not grant eternal life; it is spiritual in nature.
According to those who believe in transubstantiation, it is the next few verses that pose the biggest problem to my position. In vss. 53 and 54, Jesus states that one must eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life. Vs. 55 then states that His flesh is true food and his blood true drink. Much is made regarding this word for "true," the Greek word alethos. According to Thayer the word means "truly, of a truth, in reality, most certainly." In other words, Jesus is saying that His flesh really is food and blood really is drink. What He doesn't say is that they are really physical food and physical drink. One may reasonably state that words should be taken literally unless the context indicates otherwise. I have already shown how the context is clearly a contrast between the physical and the spiritual, thus the context provides much more support for interpreting this as spiritual food rather than physical food. In other words, His flesh really is spiritual food and His blood really is spiritual drink.
I know that those to whom I am primarily speaking put much greater weight in how ancient Christians interpreted scripture, so I have included a commentary on this passage by Tertullian (emphasis mine).
Edit: I know no one likes when someone makes a long post and then never responds to replies. I may not have the opportunity to post as often as some, but I will make an effort to see this discussion to its conclusion.
Now moving on... I have noticed that a discussion of the Eucharist has made its way into several threads over the last couple of months. Though I was casually familiar with the subject, I had no special interest in the doctrine of transubstantiation, but posts by K2, Swimmer, and several of the Catholics have piqued my interest and caused me to look at the matter more closely. John 6 has come up multiple times in those discussions, so I would like to focus on that section of Scripture and look at it in more detail.
First, to establish the context within which the rest of my post will fit, I will state my conclusion. I do not believe that John 6 teaches that the bread and fruit of the vine become His literal physical body and blood. I believe that Jesus is using the physical to teach a lesson about the spiritual.
In the first fourteen verses of the chapter, Jesus feeds the multitude following Him from five loaves of bread and two fish obtained from a child. Of note, vs. 2 states the multitude was following Him because they saw Him heal the sick. The context of this miracle and the crowd's reason for following Him form the starting point of His discussion with them the next day.
The following day, the people again find Jesus, and the interaction resumes in vs. 25. In vs. 26 Jesus tells the people that they sought after Him because they ate of the loaves and were filled, but He instructs them to work not for food that perishes but, rather, work for the food that endures to eternal life. He is contrasting the temporal bread (i.e. the bread they ate the previous day) with eternal bread that He will give them. The people are incredulous and request a sign, stating that their fathers had received bread from heaven in the form of manna. Jesus then states that the Father gives you the true bread from heaven, and it is He who comes down and gives life unto the world. He has now made a second contrast, this time between manna and this eternal bread.
The people, intrigued by the prospect of this new heavenly bread ask Christ to give it to them always. He then drops the bombshell that He is the bread of life, and that those who come to Him will never hunger and those that believe will never thirst. Here is a third, albeit an implied, contrast. He is contrasting the temporary relief from hunger provided by physical bread with the eternal relief provided by the bread of life.
In vss. 36-40, he explains that His purpose in coming was to do the will of the Father and that it included giving everlasting life to those who believe in Him. Beginning in vs. 41, the people begin complaining that Jesus, a man whose origins are known to them, is claiming to have come down from Heaven. Jesus then states that no one can come to Him unless the Father draws that person and that He is the source of everlasting life.
He then picks back up the bread comparison in vs. 48 by stating, "I am the bread of life." He states that their fathers who ate the manna are dead, but that this bread which has come down from heaven will result in the one who eats of it not dying. He is now more forceful and detailed regarding the above mentioned third contrast. If you eat manna, which produces only temporary benefits, you will die. If you eat this new bread from heaven, which produces eternal benefits, you will not die.
It is with this contrast that we can clearly see now the physical vs. spiritual nature of His argument. With the prior two contrasts, one could argue that perhaps Christ was talking about a special type of physical bread that allowed you to live forever. Certainly, this was not the only time he made a similar contrast that resulted in such a thought. The Samaritan woman at the well mistakenly understood Him in physical terms when she wanted to know about the water that cured your thirst forever. However, with Jesus elaborating on this third contrast, it becomes obvious that the eternal life is not physical. Obviously Christians have continued to die physically over the last two millennia, so the contrast between dying and not dying must be one of physical death vs spiritual life.
The analogy then, is this: physical bread:physical death::heavenly bread:spiritual life. If we have a contrast between physical and spiritual on the right side of the analogy, it is natural to conclude that we have a contrast between physical and spiritual on the left side. The heavenly bread is not physical, for physical bread does not grant eternal life; it is spiritual in nature.
According to those who believe in transubstantiation, it is the next few verses that pose the biggest problem to my position. In vss. 53 and 54, Jesus states that one must eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life. Vs. 55 then states that His flesh is true food and his blood true drink. Much is made regarding this word for "true," the Greek word alethos. According to Thayer the word means "truly, of a truth, in reality, most certainly." In other words, Jesus is saying that His flesh really is food and blood really is drink. What He doesn't say is that they are really physical food and physical drink. One may reasonably state that words should be taken literally unless the context indicates otherwise. I have already shown how the context is clearly a contrast between the physical and the spiritual, thus the context provides much more support for interpreting this as spiritual food rather than physical food. In other words, His flesh really is spiritual food and His blood really is spiritual drink.
I know that those to whom I am primarily speaking put much greater weight in how ancient Christians interpreted scripture, so I have included a commentary on this passage by Tertullian (emphasis mine).
Quote:
They thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, It is the spirit that quickens; and then added, The flesh profits nothing meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. In a like sense He had previously said: He that hears my words, and believes in Him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life. Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, We ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. (On the Resurrection of the Flesh 37)
Edit: I know no one likes when someone makes a long post and then never responds to replies. I may not have the opportunity to post as often as some, but I will make an effort to see this discussion to its conclusion.
