The "Real Presence" in the Lord's supper.

Chinchilla

Well-Known Member
May 31, 2018
2,839
1,045
29
Warsaw
✟30,919.00
Country
Poland
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The gospel stories do not appear to teach that Judas partook of the bread & wine that Jesus blessed. He seems to have left before that.
1 Corinthians 11:27-29 King James Version (KJV)
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

John 13:21-27 King James Version (KJV)
21 When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.

22 Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom he spake.

23 Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.

24 Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake.

25 He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?

26 Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.

27 And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.
 
Upvote 0

GingerBeer

Cool and refreshing with a kick!
Mar 26, 2017
3,511
1,348
Australia
✟119,825.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I'm not denying the abstract use but rather saying using the abstract so close to the immediate context of flesh doesn't fit if we are to demand 'flesh' is an absolute concrete reference. You yourself understand that what Jesus said to the crowds was often in parable so why is this any different?
In John 6:26-71 Jesus first tells the crowd which includes disciples and others then later in the last part he takes the apostles aside and explains what he meant. What he said to the crowds was not a parable but it was confronting to them so many of the disciples left saying “This is harsh doctrine! Who can bear to listen to it?”
All this Jesus said in a synagogue, when he was teaching in Capernaum. On hearing it, many of his disciples said: “This is harsh doctrine! Who can bear to listen to it?”
(John 6:59-60)​
The he confronted those disciples who rejected what he said:
“Is this a hindrance to you? What, then, if you should see the Son of Man ascending where he was before? It is the Spirit that gives life; human strength achieves nothing. In the teaching that I have been giving you there is Spirit and there is life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe in me.”For Jesus knew from the first who they were that did not believe in him, and who it was that would betray him; and he added: “This is why I told you that no one can come to me, unless enabled by the Father.” After this many of his disciples drew back, and did not go about with him any longer.
(John 6:62-66)​
And finally Jesus speaks to the apostles about his teaching:
So Jesus said to the Twelve: “Do you also wish to leave me?” But Simon Peter answered: “Master, to whom would we go? Eternal life is in your teaching; and we have learned to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.” (John 6:67-69)​
The translators handled the passage well I think. I admit that I am giving my opinion about it and you may disagree but they seem to have done well with the passage and avoided the confusion that some people experience when he says "the flesh profiteth nothing (KJV)".
 
Upvote 0

GingerBeer

Cool and refreshing with a kick!
Mar 26, 2017
3,511
1,348
Australia
✟119,825.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
1 Corinthians 11:27-29 King James Version (KJV)
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

John 13:21-27 King James Version (KJV)
21 When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.

22 Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom he spake.

23 Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.

24 Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake.

25 He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?

26 Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.

27 And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.
John's gospel does not record the last supper blessing of the bread and the wine so Judas' taking "the sop" isn't set in the context of the blessed bread & wine.
 
Upvote 0

dqhall

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 21, 2015
7,547
4,171
Florida
Visit site
✟766,603.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
In John 6:26-71 Jesus first tells the crowd which includes disciples and others then later in the last part he takes the apostles aside and explains what he meant. What he said to the crowds was not a parable but it was confronting to them so many of the disciples left saying “This is harsh doctrine! Who can bear to listen to it?”
All this Jesus said in a synagogue, when he was teaching in Capernaum. On hearing it, many of his disciples said: “This is harsh doctrine! Who can bear to listen to it?”
(John 6:59-60)​
The he confronted those disciples who rejected what he said:
“Is this a hindrance to you? What, then, if you should see the Son of Man ascending where he was before? It is the Spirit that gives life; human strength achieves nothing. In the teaching that I have been giving you there is Spirit and there is life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe in me.”For Jesus knew from the first who they were that did not believe in him, and who it was that would betray him; and he added: “This is why I told you that no one can come to me, unless enabled by the Father.” After this many of his disciples drew back, and did not go about with him any longer.
(John 6:62-66)​
And finally Jesus speaks to the apostles about his teaching:
So Jesus said to the Twelve: “Do you also wish to leave me?” But Simon Peter answered: “Master, to whom would we go? Eternal life is in your teaching; and we have learned to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.” (John 6:67-69)​
The translators handled the passage well I think. I admit that I am giving my opinion about it and you may disagree but they seem to have done well with the passage and avoided the confusion that some people experience when he says "the flesh profiteth nothing (KJV)".
This last supper must have been more spiritual than the physical presence of food and drink alone. All good things are from the Father, yet those who live their lives in a worthy manner may receive greater instruction:

John 4:34 (WEB) Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work."
 
Upvote 0

GingerBeer

Cool and refreshing with a kick!
Mar 26, 2017
3,511
1,348
Australia
✟119,825.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
This last supper must have been more spiritual than the physical presence of food and drink alone. All good things are from the Father, yet those who live their lives in a worthy manner may receive greater instruction:

John 4:34 (WEB) Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work."
I agree, the last supper is more than a meal with bread & wine. It is both a meal and something more.
 
Upvote 0

Chinchilla

Well-Known Member
May 31, 2018
2,839
1,045
29
Warsaw
✟30,919.00
Country
Poland
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I agree, the last supper is more than a meal with bread & wine. It is both a meal and something more.

Paul told us to eat before comming to service tho , so it's not the same as Last Supper , IMO Last Supper was Last , they ate Jesus like they would eat passover but once for all because he was sacrificed once , then we just keep in memory what he did and eat it as reminder of what happen and as tradition to keep faith untill Christ comes again .
 
Upvote 0

Loren T.

Well-Known Member
Jun 26, 2018
1,003
396
56
Hadley
✟24,186.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Yet some historically Protestant church traditions have made a big deal about the word "is" supposedly being unclear, in the phrase "this is my body".
Not believing in literal transubstantiation is not the same as believing Christ is not present.
 
Upvote 0

GingerBeer

Cool and refreshing with a kick!
Mar 26, 2017
3,511
1,348
Australia
✟119,825.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Paul told us to eat before comming to service tho , so it's not the same as Last Supper , IMO Last Supper was Last , they ate Jesus like they would eat passover but once for all because he was sacrificed once , then we just keep in memory what he did and eat it as reminder of what happen and as tradition to keep faith untill Christ comes again .
It looks like you're saying that it is a memorial supper only. Just about remembering and traditions.
 
Upvote 0

Chinchilla

Well-Known Member
May 31, 2018
2,839
1,045
29
Warsaw
✟30,919.00
Country
Poland
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It looks like you're saying that it is a memorial supper only. Just about remembering and traditions.

Yea , like passover which was observed untill Jesus fulfilled it , then we are told by Paul that we can observe feasts but they are things to come and we don't have to .
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Site Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
In John 6:26-71 Jesus first tells the crowd which includes disciples and others then later in the last part he takes the apostles aside and explains what he meant. What he said to the crowds was not a parable but it was confronting to them so many of the disciples left saying “This is harsh doctrine! Who can bear to listen to it?”
All this Jesus said in a synagogue, when he was teaching in Capernaum. On hearing it, many of his disciples said: “This is harsh doctrine! Who can bear to listen to it?”
(John 6:59-60)​
The he confronted those disciples who rejected what he said:
“Is this a hindrance to you? What, then, if you should see the Son of Man ascending where he was before? It is the Spirit that gives life; human strength achieves nothing. In the teaching that I have been giving you there is Spirit and there is life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe in me.”For Jesus knew from the first who they were that did not believe in him, and who it was that would betray him; and he added: “This is why I told you that no one can come to me, unless enabled by the Father.” After this many of his disciples drew back, and did not go about with him any longer.
(John 6:62-66)​
And finally Jesus speaks to the apostles about his teaching:
So Jesus said to the Twelve: “Do you also wish to leave me?” But Simon Peter answered: “Master, to whom would we go? Eternal life is in your teaching; and we have learned to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.” (John 6:67-69)​
The translators handled the passage well I think. I admit that I am giving my opinion about it and you may disagree but they seem to have done well with the passage and avoided the confusion that some people experience when he says "the flesh profiteth nothing (KJV)".
The passage opens addressing the crowd that he feed earlier. Jesus uses this and starts to speak of bread, then living bread, then calling himself this bread progressing to a point where he calls people to eat his flesh.

The bread and the flesh are the same thing so the point Jesus makes about the bread is the point he makes about the flesh. With regard to the bread v35 says "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst" again in v40 "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

this can be paralleled with the flesh and blood images such as v53-54 "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

So what do you need to have eternal life? Do you need to come to Jesus and believe in him or do we need to eat his flesh and drink his blood? Which is it? If they mean the same thing then there is only 1 meaning and it's not both. Flesh and blood means the bread (and implicitly the wine) and the bread is a metaphor that he is the way to eternal life and to seek and follow him only.

The fact that Jesus upsets the crowds with cryptic language letting misunderstanding to fester is not out of character. He is clear at the start in v26 saying to seek him because you are filled but not him because of his miracles. The hearts of the crowds were fixed on the miracles and he was trying to weed them out and scatter them.

The entire passage can be paralleled with the woman at the well. Jesus uses a circumstance like hunger and thirst to point to fulfillment through him calling himself living water (at the well) or in this passage living bread. The woman at the well is a more intimate response and one that Jesus pursues but the crowds in this passage are pursuing him. It's the same message but he seems to press to try and deliberately upset the crowds and causes them to turn away.

I do not partake of the real presence in the Lord's supper so if we are to look at the flesh and blood passages in a vacuum it means I cannot partake of eternal life or the resurrection. Implicit in these threads are rejecting salvation upon those who reject the real presence and this is not something I can agree with and find it counter-gospel. That's just the line I draw and I look at the passage as a whole not as highlighted portion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Llleopard
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I do not partake of the real presence in the Lord's supper so if we are to look at the flesh and blood passages in a vacuum it means I cannot partake of eternal life or the resurrection. Implicit in these threads are rejecting salvation upon those who reject the real presence and this is not something I can agree with and find it counter-gospel.
There are a variety of other things that the Bible connects with obtaining eternal life, so I would not narrow the meaning there tooooo much.
 
Upvote 0

GingerBeer

Cool and refreshing with a kick!
Mar 26, 2017
3,511
1,348
Australia
✟119,825.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I do not partake of the real presence in the Lord's supper so if we are to look at the flesh and blood passages in a vacuum it means I cannot partake of eternal life or the resurrection. Implicit in these threads are rejecting salvation upon those who reject the real presence and this is not something I can agree with and find it counter-gospel. That's just the line I draw and I look at the passage as a whole not as highlighted portion.
Albion is right, your interpretation does appear to exclude many other passages that speak of eternal life. The thief on the cross near Jesus received eternal life but did not partake of the last supper.
 
Upvote 0

Barney2.0

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Dec 1, 2017
6,003
2,336
Los Angeles
✟451,221.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
A number of Church Fathers, theologians (both Eastern and Western), and councils throughout Church history have declared the real presence of Christ to be in the Eucharist:

Ignatius of Antioch:

"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).



Justin Martyr:

"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).



Irenaeus:

"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2).



Clement of Alexandria:

"’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).



Tertullian:

"[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God" (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).



Hippolytus:

"‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e.,
the Last Supper]" (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).



Origen:

"Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]" (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).



Cyprian of Carthage:

"He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord" (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).



Council of Nicaea I:

"It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]" (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).



Aphraahat the Persian Sage:

"After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink" (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).



Cyril of Jerusalem:

"The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ" (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

"Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul" (ibid., 22:6, 9).



Ambrose of Milan:

"Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ" (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).



Theodore of Mopsuestia:

"When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).



Augustine:

"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

...

"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).



Council of Ephesus:

"We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving" (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).
 
Upvote 0

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I'm going to be honest and say this issue was always one of the sticking points on why I couldn't go Protestant when I converted to Christianity. It has always been pretty blatant to me that Jesus meant this literally. On that note, I do kind of wonder how Protestants interpreted it to come to the conclusion that it's another parable. Perhaps it's a good question to ask in another thread.

Please, not all Protestants. We Lutherans believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Sacramental Union).
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Site Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Albion is right, your interpretation does appear to exclude many other passages that speak of eternal life. The thief on the cross near Jesus received eternal life but did not partake of the last supper.
this is why it's irresponsible to look at v51-58 in a vacuum disregarding the rest of the passage. The vacuum tells me if I do not eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood (if interpreted as the real presence) I have no part in Christ. Yet the exact same context tells us otherwise (v35, v40, v47) the flesh is the bread and the bread is a metaphor for life in Christ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Llleopard
Upvote 0

Afra

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Mar 14, 2018
864
219
Virginia
✟60,139.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Augustine sweeps it under a rug and defaults back to what he knows. I would be more impressed if he found something original or counter-cultural, this certainly doesn't make it wrong but it makes it a bais. I would expect nothing more out of him.
Nah.
 
Upvote 0

GingerBeer

Cool and refreshing with a kick!
Mar 26, 2017
3,511
1,348
Australia
✟119,825.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
this is why it's irresponsible to look at v51-58 in a vacuum disregarding the rest of the passage. The vacuum tells me if I do not eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood (if interpreted as the real presence) I have no part in Christ. Yet the exact same context tells us otherwise (v35, v40, v47) the flesh is the bread and the bread is a metaphor for life in Christ.
Perhaps in John 6: 26-71 the refusal to eat Christ and drink his blood is similar to a steadfast refusal to be baptised; if Christ is refused in communion and refused in baptism then what right is there to the name Christian? Maybe that is the way to read the passage when it speaks of "have no life in you" because to refuse Christ is to refuse eternal life.
 
Upvote 0

GingerBeer

Cool and refreshing with a kick!
Mar 26, 2017
3,511
1,348
Australia
✟119,825.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Augustine sweeps it under a rug and defaults back to what he knows. I would be more impressed if he found something original or counter-cultural, this certainly doesn't make it wrong but it makes it a bais. I would expect nothing more out of him.
Augustine says:
5. What is it, then, that He adds? It is the Spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing. Let us say to Him (for He permits us, not contradicting Him, but desiring to know), O Lord, good Master, in what way does the flesh profit nothing, while You have said, Except a man eat my flesh, and drink my blood, he shall not have life in him? Or does life profit nothing? And why are we what we are, but that we may have eternal life, which Thou dost promise by Your flesh? Then what means the flesh profits nothing? It profits nothing, but only in the manner in which they understood it. They indeed understood the flesh, just as when cut to pieces in a carcass, or sold in the shambles; not as when it is quickened by the Spirit. Wherefore it is said that the flesh profits nothing, in the same manner as it is said that knowledge puffs up. Then, ought we at once to hate knowledge? Far from it! And what means Knowledge puffs up? Knowledge alone, without charity. Therefore he added, but charity edifies. 1 Corinthians 8:1 Therefore add to knowledge charity, and knowledge will be profitable, not by itself, but through charity. So also here, the flesh profits nothing, only when alone. Let the Spirit be added to the flesh, as charity is added to knowledge, and it profits very much. For if the flesh profited nothing, the Word would not be made flesh to dwell among us. If through the flesh Christ has greatly profited us, does the flesh profit nothing? But it is by the flesh that the Spirit has done somewhat for our salvation. Flesh was a vessel; consider what it held, not what it was. The apostles were sent forth; did their flesh profit us nothing? If the apostles' flesh profited us, could it be that the Lord's flesh should have profited us nothing? For how should the sound of the Word come to us except by the voice of the flesh? Whence should writing come to us? All these are operations of the flesh, but only when the spirit moves it, as if it were its organ. Therefore it is the Spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing, as they understood the flesh, but not so do I give my flesh to be eaten.

6. Hence the words, says He, which I have spoken to you are Spirit and life. For we have said, brethren, that this is what the Lord had taught us by the eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood, that we should abide in Him and He in us. But we abide in Him when we are His members, and He abides in us when we are His temple. But that we may be His members, unity joins us together. And what but love can effect that unity should join us together? And the love of God, whence is it? Ask the apostle: The love of God, says he, is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit which is given to us. Romans 5:5 Therefore it is the Spirit that quickens, for it is the Spirit that makes living members. Nor does the Spirit make any members to be living except such as it finds in the body, which also the Spirit itself quickens. For the Spirit which is in you, O man, by which it consists that you are a man, does it quicken a member which it finds separated from your flesh? I call your soul your spirit. Your soul quickens only the members which are in your flesh; if you take one away, it is no longer quickened by your soul, because it is not joined to the unity of your body. These things are said to make us love unity and fear separation. For there is nothing that a Christian ought to dread so much as to be separated from Christ's body. For if he is separated from Christ's body, he is not a member of Christ; if he is not a member of Christ, he is not quickened by the Spirit of Christ. But if any man, says the apostle, have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His. Romans 8:9 It is the Spirit, then, that quickens; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. What means are spirit and life? They are to be understood spiritually. Have you understood spiritually? They are spirit and life. Have you understood carnally? So also are they spirit and life, but are not so to you.​
Augustine makes a good case for his argument that the flesh does profit when join and quickened by the Spirit and that Christ's words that "the flesh profits nothing" apply to the flesh taken apart from the Spirit. While the words "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you" apply to the flesh quickened by the Spirit.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,182
1,808
✟800,884.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I think you've made a good point. Jesus explained his use of parables and he also said that he would speak in straight forward words to the disciples:
Matthew 13:10-17 [10] Afterwards his disciples came to him, and said: “Why do you speak to them in parables?”

[11] “To you,” answered Jesus, “the knowledge of the hidden truths of the kingdom of heaven has been imparted, but not to those. [12] For, to all who have, more will be given, and they will have abundance; but, from all who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away. [13] That is why I speak to them in parables, because, though they have eyes, they do not see, and though they have ears, they do not hear or understand. [14] In them is being fulfilled that prophecy of Isaiah which says — ‘You will hear with your ears without ever understanding,
and, though you have eyes, you will see without ever perceiving,
[15] for the mind of this nation has grown dense,
and their ears are dull of hearing,
their eyes also have they closed;
Otherwise some day they might perceive with their eyes,
and with their ears they might hear,
and in their mind they might understand,
and might turn —
and I might heal them.’

[16] But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear; [17] for I tell you that many prophets and good people have longed for the sight of the things which you are seeing, yet never saw them, and to hear the things which you are hearing, yet never heard them.​
But did Jesus not also speak sometimes in Parables to the twelve and maybe explain later especially if they asked?
 
Upvote 0