Communion/Eucharist

Jesus was not teaching that he is literally food!

1) Jesus was not saying they would literally eat his body and drink his blood - that case still needs to me made; eating his body and drinking his blood means, as I posted several times before, to believe in Him because he is the manna from heaven

2) They left because Jesus said he was the manna from heaven, but what does this mean? That one must literally eat Jesus to be saved? No!


They did not leave immediately after the statement that the RC church uses to support Transubstantiation. Jesus is teaching he is the manna from heaven, which offended those who did not believe he was from God and thought it was offensive to Moses, and the miracle of bringing manna in the wilderness. Jesus is claiming something that puts him above Moses; he has done this elsewhere and that also offended people ("Before Abraham was, I AM").

They brought this topic of Moses and manna up to Jesus and asked for a sign (although Jesus had just fed the 5,000. They still wanted a sign. Jesus declares that he is the manna from heaven. So if Jesus is truly the manna from heaven, then one must believe in him as who he says he is, and this is what they rejected.

The people did not take Jesus literally that they would have to eat him; if they thought that was what he meant, undoubtedly they would have reacted more extremely as such a notion would be unheard of in that culture. The hard saying was that he was the manna from heaven.

What Jesus means by this he has already said in verse 35:

But they were rejecting this. This is what bothered them.

Let the text speak for itself and this is what it says: That Jesus is from God and is the manna from heaven, and that one must believe in him for eternal life.

 

Marcia my goal was not to enter into this debate but explain the reasoning why some Baptists "defend" RCC teaching. Frankly, I enjoy the catechism in many ways. I would also adhere to much of what it says about the Eucharist. That does not mean all of what it says because I reject transubstatiation (and it was a very controversial doctrine before it received official status as part of the overambitious counterreformation). I also don't agree with the system of venial and grave sins and what not.

However, I love how this is worded: "Since receiving this sacrament strengthens the bonds of charity between the communicant and Christ, it also reinforces the unity of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ." The old Baptist John Gill once lamented at how the act that was to show the unity of Christians had become such a cause of conflict, but he was hopeful of the day in the future where it will once again be an act of Christian unity. Of course he had in mind the "spiritual reign of Christ" and his eschatology was a little eccentric. However, if we have in mind the time that Jesus refers to when he will drink of the vine again with his people in the kingdom, then I say it's a great hope to have.

I think Baptists would do well to rethink how God can communicate grace through the preaching of the Word and observing of the sacraments. It is my suspicion that many Baptists have kept the concept of the sacrament of the Word but have merely dropped the terminology.

Sacramentalism fell on hard times not just among Baptists but among many branches of Christianity in the eighteenth century partially because of changes that are now outdated in metaphysics, science, and philosophy. In a bit of irony, British Baptists became less sacramental in this time to appear more ecumenical and get into less hot water with other denominations and the state. Today you get charged with being ecumenical for having a sacramental view as a Baptist.

Anyhow I'm just rambling now. For more good reading on the Eucharist I also recommend Thomas a Kempis's, Imitation of Christ in which he devotes a chapter to it that has some great and challenging thoughts.

BJ

 

Yet this verse objects to the bold statement

which of course was the hard teaching. I think this verse is pretty self explanitory. Like most of the bible. What do you think he meant when he said this is a spiritual concept? I'm curioius. I'm just reading the verses as they are not extrapolating here.

 

Let me put it this way then:
If the text is saying that we must eat the flesh of Jesus and drink his blood -- literally -- to be saved (to abide in Jesus -that's what it says), then believing on Jesus is not enough.

So if you accept this, then the implication is that you will go to hell unless you convert to the Roman Catholic faith and partake of the flesh of Jesus (Transubstantiation) through the Eucharist.

Either Jesus is saying that believing on him is eternal life, or literally eating his flesh and drinking his blood is eternal life. Which is it for you?

I already know because I was saved through faith in the correct Jesus, not the Eucharist Jesus. I do not have to literally eat the literal flesh Jesus to be saved, nor do I believe that the bread and wine in the Eucharist literally become the flesh and blood of Jesus. If I believed that and believed that I must literally eat the literal flesh of Jesus to abide in Him, I would be Roman Catholic where I could do this and worship the elements in Mass, as they do.

And if we must literally eat the flesh of Jesus to abide in Him, why is this not spoken of or taught elsewhere in John, Matthew, Mark, Luke or the rest of the NT??

 

How do you define "sacrament?"

 

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=44848&highlight=sacrament

 

I'll throw you a bone before you start thinking I'm catholic. The Hillel school or academy (contemporary of Jesus) teaching (now in the Talmud) may be similar to that of Ha Rav Yeshua here when he stated that you must eat Torah. Though my argument against that is there is no evidence that early Christians thought otherwise than that Jesus was present in communion. Transubstantiation? They never thought about it that way though the early church did call it a mystery. However, my questions about this whole issue with scripture how do you choose what to take literally and figuratively. It seems that you have a belief and verses that do not support exactly what you already think you take figuratively. Here Jesus could be speaking figuratively if you take it into context of Hillel but I prefer to let scriptures speak for themselves and let theology build from it. Does Jesus at any point here claim he's speaking figuratively? Possibly with the whole spirit thing and if that is the case then was he speaking figuratively to Nicodemus? But the passage is self explanitory. Do we look at scriptures with theology in mind or do we let scriptures teach us theology? There are obvious places where speach is figurative because it is introduced that way by scripture but this is not obviously one of them. I allow scripture to scandalize me (or how most people put it "challenge me"). I have my beliefs but if scripture proves me wrong then I submit to scripture. Simple.

 

Thinkingstuff said:

I think the context clearly shows it is figurative. This is what I was pointing out in a previous post by quoting verse 35. I think other statements in John 6 support a figurative meaning, as well as the context of the chapter, the book, the other gospels, the whole NT, and the whole Bible.

 

It's not so clear as that. He said you have to believe in me. Then there is grumbling and he expounds into eating his flesh. The exposition of this is what throws me off from the whole figurative meaning thing. So the process here:
Statement -> Grumbling and misunderstanding -> Further explination to get point across. Not further figurative speach. Does he say to his disciples I'm just being figurative here like he does in other passages? No the closest we get is the spiritual thing. So two conclusions either he was being direct or the culture of the day would imply an understanding suggesting figurative speach.

 

If he is not being figurative, then we are not saved by faith and what he said in verses 35 and elsewhere about eternal life is not true.

Jesus says in verse 58:
"This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever."

If he means this literally, then you must literally eat Jesus' flesh "to live forever," that is, to have eternal life.

So either one eats the flesh literally for eternal life, or one believes for eternal life, as said by Jesus elsewhere and all over the NT.

For clarification, we examine other statements of Jesus as well as other passages of scripture to see what is meant. If it means literally eating Jesus, it should be supported by other scripture. One should not build a doctrine on one statement without support elsewhere, but this is exactly what the RCC does.

 

OK, what about being born again, as in John 3? We see that nowhere else but it is a central tenet of Baptist belief. I happen to think it is talking about baptism, which can then be tied into other passages like Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38 and Acts 22:16. However, the Baptist belief is that being born again is to accept Christ as one's personal savior and walk in newness of life. It's a very big deal and seen nowhere but in the early verses of John 3.

 

There are other references:

I Peter 1:23 For you have been born again, not of pershible seed, but of imperishible, through the living and enduring word of God." (NIV)

I John 4:7 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. (NIV)

I John 5:1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God. (NIV)

John 1:12 Yet to all who received him, those those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,

1:13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.


All of these refer to spiritual birth, exactly the same kind of birth Jesus was referring to in John 3:16.

 

Are you talking about being born "from above?" This is spoke of elsewhere, as Tom Butler posted.

 

I hope that you had a good labor day weekend! I did.

You point out the crux of the issue. So your understanding of the verse would include an understanding of eating at the time (I'm talking about second temple period understanding of statements) as more figurative. It's either that or say that the gosple of John is suspect. (which there are scholars who do, I however don't) The other gospels do no go into this detail about the issue to the extent of John. But this is an interesting point The gospels were writen after many churches were established so certain understandings and practices were "common knowledge". I wonder how that concept plays into it? The RCC will say that is Oral Tradition. Like the Jews and their Talmud. We say that tradition was written down in the Gospels and the epistles and the Apocalypse of John and therefore the NT is sufficient in itself to (with the guidance of the Holy Spirit) explain fully the issues of church tradition and teaching of Jesus and the apostles. So the crux is this either Jesus meant that way or he didn't. If he did then we're doing something wrong if He didn't then it is only by faith that we're saved. However, when we get down to it, either way it is only by faith that we're save.

 

Thanks! I had a good one although I worked part of Sunday and a good part of Monday (this is not unusual for my ministry - I don't have regular type working hours or days). However, I was glad to be called on.

I trust the Bible as God's word and trust that this passage of John is figurative, because that is how it reads in context. I am more convinced than ever of this after going over it quite a few times to post on this thread, which was a good experience for me. This is what happens when I go to God's word to respond to extra-biblical or unbiblical teachings -- the more one reads and digs into God's word, the more confirming it is to be truth. Extra-biblical teachings or teachings that misuse scripture always fall flat on their face when the Word is scrutinized.

Well, I think Jesus meant what he said - that to eat his flesh and drink his blood is to believe in Him. This is what the passage says when taken in context. If it means what the RCC teaches, we are not saved by faith alone, but must have the sacrament of the Eucharist and believe on it as they teach. I find this actually a very evil teaching because it is an assault on the teaching of salvation by faith alone, which is what the whole counsel of God's word teaches.

 

Marcia,

It was fun parrying swords with you. I like an engaging debate with good points on either side. Which, in my estimation is what a forum is about. I don't always join my side of the debate (what I really think), just to get beyond the back patting stuff. So, take care and maybe we can cross swords again. (sword: the word of God cutting like a two edge sword)

 

Y'all, :wavey:

I'm kinda entering the conversation late but I don't see this teaching expressed so far so...

The taking of communion speaks of the partaking of the death (wine) and life (bread) of Jesus.

It, therefore, is only for believers.

It parallels Rom 5:10 -- "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son [wine], much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life [bread]. Do you see the meaning of communion better now? It's the picture of being saved once forever and then entering into life-long discipleship with the "bread of life."

skypair

 

Glad you enjoyed it! I was somewhat frustrated at times to tell the truth, but it was a good brain and Bible excercise for me, so I benefitted from it for sure.

Thanks! :wavey: