Could someone who claims to believe John 6:53 is literal...
- Thread starter PaulThomson
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
You don't have to chew on nor swallow anything if tube feeding and iv drips are administered.
It is not to be taken literally and in fact it cannot be done, where is His actual flesh and blood to be consumed?
That should tell you right there that Jesus was not speaking of a physical ingestion of His physical material.
If one does take it literally, one is attributing to Christ Jesus something He did not mean and that is a problem.
Maybe @Eli1 can answer, lol.
There may be some way of taking John 6:53 literally and it not becoming logically nonsensical, but I haven't seen such an interpretation so far, so I'm wondering if someone here can do it.
Agreed. This reminds me of my oldest nephew, now 19. My sister attended a church that allowed children to take communion. Not sure why, but they did. So one Sunday they were standing as families at the front of the church taking communion together. Suddenly my nephew, around 4yrs old at the time, spun round and headed back to sit in the pew. When his father tried to quietly ask what he was doing he said " I ain't drinkin' no blood daddy!!" which cracked up the entire church. I guess he wasn't paying attention until they started talking about the blood. We still tell that story today and he's soooo over it. Poor kid.
Yes. I have listened to a few debates over transubstantiation and consubstantiation and emblematic communion. The arguments I have heard made from all sides have all seemed to me to be uncompelling. My questions posted in the comments section of those discussions have not really been directly addressed. So, I thought I would try to find a John 6:53 literalist here, who can directly address what the meaning of that verse must be, if it is truly taken literally.
I have an opinion. on what John 6:53 means contextually, but am interested hearing the con- and trans- substantiationists give it their best shot before I weigh in.
Psalms 115:11-15
11 I said in my excess: Every man is a liar. 12 What shall I render to the Lord, for all the things he hath rendered unto me? 13 I will take the chalice of salvation; and I will call upon the name of the Lord .14 I will pay my vows to the Lord before all his people: 15 Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints.
11 I said in my excess: Every man is a liar. 12 What shall I render to the Lord, for all the things he hath rendered unto me? 13 I will take the chalice of salvation; and I will call upon the name of the Lord .14 I will pay my vows to the Lord before all his people: 15 Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints.
It cannot be literal for many reasons you won't find anyone able to interpret it literally
If they knew who the 'Son of man' was that Jesus was referring unto then they knew that there is no way of taking it anyway but literally.
If they knew who the Son of man was that Jesus was speaking of then they would have know it was to be taken literally as what Jesus said in Luke 6:46, And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
That does not explain John 6:53 while actually taking every word literally? You have not even used the words of John 6:53.
Western thinking tends to promote agency while royal or kingdom thinking promotes representation. Royal/kingdom thinking is higher-level thinking.
We know, functionally, the bread and the wine are not the flesh and blood of Jesus or any man for that matter.
But Jesus was speaking from a royal position. In such a position, a thing represents what He says it represents.
Now, a certain thing doesn't have to function like the thing it represents (like a lamb can never be a man). So Jesus wasn't talking about the agency of the thing. He was talking about what a certain thing was in representation.
So later we read this from the same Jesus who spoke in John 6:
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”
27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
So it's quite clear that the bread and the wine were not functionally like the body and blood of Jesus YET Jesus said about the bread "this is my body" and about the wine "this is my blood".
Does Jesus have the authority to say that the bread and blood represent something other than bread and blood?
If you believe His words here:
"And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth."
Then you would have to conclude that He can has the authority to say that the bread and wine represent whatever He wishes they represent. This is royal thinking.
The bonus for us is: we are allowed to participate in this higher-level thinking. So, when we eat the bread and drink the wine and agree with Him that they are in fact his flesh and His blood (while not functionally so) we fulfill the requirements of His word spoken in John 6:
"Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you have no life in you."
The benefits of this, like all things of eternal substance, are only obtained by faith. That is another thread.
We know, functionally, the bread and the wine are not the flesh and blood of Jesus or any man for that matter.
But Jesus was speaking from a royal position. In such a position, a thing represents what He says it represents.
Now, a certain thing doesn't have to function like the thing it represents (like a lamb can never be a man). So Jesus wasn't talking about the agency of the thing. He was talking about what a certain thing was in representation.
So later we read this from the same Jesus who spoke in John 6:
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”
27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
So it's quite clear that the bread and the wine were not functionally like the body and blood of Jesus YET Jesus said about the bread "this is my body" and about the wine "this is my blood".
Does Jesus have the authority to say that the bread and blood represent something other than bread and blood?
If you believe His words here:
"And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth."
Then you would have to conclude that He can has the authority to say that the bread and wine represent whatever He wishes they represent. This is royal thinking.
The bonus for us is: we are allowed to participate in this higher-level thinking. So, when we eat the bread and drink the wine and agree with Him that they are in fact his flesh and His blood (while not functionally so) we fulfill the requirements of His word spoken in John 6:
"Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you have no life in you."
The benefits of this, like all things of eternal substance, are only obtained by faith. That is another thread.
If you knew who the Son of man that Jesus was speaking of then it would be self-explanatory. If you think he was the Son of man then considered what he testified in John 5:31, "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true."
Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. Labor not for the meat which perished, but for that meat which endures unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
John 6:26-27
You have equated "eating Jesus' flesh" in this verse with eating the bread of communion, and "drinking Jesus' blood" in this verse with drinking the wine of communion. If that is what Jesus is referring to here in John 6:53, then no one can have life in them, until they have eaten communion bread, and drunk communion wine. So, believing in Jesus, and receiving Him by grace through faith would not happen for anyone, and receiving the Holy Spirit by grace though faith would not happen for anyone anyone, until they ALSO take BOTH communion bread and wine. Hearing and believing in Jesus would not be sufficient to save anyone. They would also need to take BOTH elements of the communion table, if we are to take John 6:53 literally.
"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life— the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us— that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. And these things we write to you that your joy may be full."
Let's not make the mistake of the religiously-minded folks who make the liturgical practice more important than the eternal reality. Our communion with Christ is the reason we eat the bread and drink the wine, we don’t eat and drink to make it so.
Using what I wrote initially, you can, by faith, partake of what the blood and wine mean:
And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.
This is the “communion of the Holy Spirit“ noted here:
“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen.”
By faith we become the Body of the only Begotten. His blood spilled for us makes this possible. This covenant creates sons of God in Christ.
That is good advice.
We see in your quote from 1 John that the spiritual invisible intangible Life was manifest to the disciples in a visible tangible physical form as Jesus of Nazareth. So when we go to John 6, we are seeing Jesus declare Himself to be the Living Bread sent from heaven. Just as the manna was a visible tangible expression of God's presence and provision in the midst of the Israelites in the wilderness, Jesus was a visible tangible expression of God's presence and provision among the Israelites in Israel. But unlike the inanimate physical manna from heaven, Jesus is a living physical person from heaven.
"The flesh of the Son of Man" is a metaphor for whatever is a physically discernible gift from heaven.: Jesus physical body, the scriptures, members of the church, and the physical results of the exercise of spiritual gifts.
"The blood of the Son of Man" is a metaphor for the invisible Life that is a spiritually experienced gift from heaven: the Life that is loving, compassionate, truthful, gfaithful, humble, that expressed Himself through Jesus' body and ministry. (The life is in the blood.)
Jesus lays this framework for these meanings of His flesh and His blood, and of the Bread of Life and the Spirit (of Life), before He talks about eating the same. So, what is it to eat Jesus flesh?
It is to welcome and receive His body and His written word: the physical expressions of God's presence and provision on earth that were gifted to us from heaven.
And what is it to drink His blood? It is to welcome and receive His Holy Spirit gifted to us from heaven.
Unless we BOTH welcome and receive and embrace other Christians and the scriptures, and unless we ALSO receive and embrace the Holy Spirit, both by grace through faith in Christ, we have NO LIFE in us.
There is nothing about communion bread and wine in this passage of John 6.