The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Irenaeus on Transubstantiation

Hi Kyle, Do you think there is clear biblical evidence that Jn 6:51-59 is merely symbolic and not literal?

I’m not sure you are right about “living water”, but you make a good point about “my food is to do the will of the one who sent me”. According to this mode of interpretation, “the flesh” of verse 63 may be a figure for unbelief.

In fact, Christ’s flesh does avail. Cf. Jn 6:51, Heb 10:20; Heb 9:11. Our bodies also avail as instruments of righteousness. Cf. Rom 6:13, 19; Rom 12:1.

Moreover, the continous history of the Church indicates a bodily interpretation.

Jn 6:51-8 are not fully explicit as to transubstantiation the way Justin and Irenaeus and Cyril are. Even Mark is more explicit than John on this point. Cf. Mark 14:22. However these verses in John are explicit that we must eat and drink Christ’s body and blood.

Scripture says that Christ died once bodily on a Cross to redeem myriad souls and bodies by drawing all things to himself. Cf. Jn 12:42. I don’t know where the Scriptures say Christ’s Body cannot be in more than one place at once.

Hi Kyle, I don't see why you are sure why "the flesh" of verse 63 is not a metaphor for unbelief, as it is elsewhere.

Moreover, we are saved literally by Christ's flesh, as verse 51 says, unless you want to say that both "bread" and "flesh" are metaphors, in which case the sentence is null, as are verses 52-56.

I looked at the Webster article. It is inaccurate. The basic problem is that none of the fathers argued for a purely symbolic view. They saw the symbolic aspect in the offering of the bread and wine, and the appearance of bread and wine, but also the bodily transubstantiation.

Moreover all the fathers he mentions were Catholics who held not only to Jn 6, but to numerous ideas incompatible with protestantism, the easiest to prove being the issue of baptismal regeneration and Apostolic succession. So there is not one of these fathers that could be shown to be a forerunner of modern protestantism.

The Clement of Alexandria chapter which Webster uses as evidence is evidence for Catholic belief: "'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]).

As complex as his mind and method is, he saw “the blood of His flesh” as having redeemed the human bodies from corruption, and he clearly saw the Eucharist as the efficient cause of bodily sanctity.

1 John 4:1 "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world."

I agree that the first section of Clement which you cite supports an allegorical or symbolic view of Jn 6:51-8. I don’t agree that the Instructor supports your purely symbolic view of Jn 6, as Clement refers here in your passage to “the Lord of flesh and blood.”

Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: "Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood;" describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,--of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood.

Cf. also 1:6:43:3

Here is another pertinent passage:

"For the blood of the grape--that is, the Word--desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord's immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both--of the water and of the Word--is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul." Clement of Alexandria,The Instructor,2(ante A.D. 202),in ANF,II:242

In what manner do you think the Lord drank when He became man for our sakes? As shamelessly as we? Was it not with decorum and propriety? Was it not deliberately? For rest assured, He Himself also partook of wine; for He, too, was man. And He blessed the wine, saying, "Take, drink: this is my blood"--the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word "shed for many, for the remission of sins"--the holy stream of gladness. And that he who drinks ought to observe moderation, He clearly showed by what He taught at feasts. For He did not teach affected by wine. And that it was wine which was the thing blessed, He showed again, when He said to His disciples, "I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, till I drink it with you in the kingdom of my Father." But that it was wine which was drunk by the Lord, He tells us again, when He spake concerning Himself, reproaching the Jews for their hardness of heart: "For the Son of man," He says, "came, and they say, Behold a glutton and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans." Let this be held fast by us against those that are called Encratites.

As complex as his mind and method is, he saw “the blood of His flesh” as having redeemed the human bodies from corruption, and he clearly saw the Eucharist as the efficient cause of bodily sanctity.

Moreover, Clement wasn’t formally challenging the name or teaching of “the Catholic Church”, which he regarded in its “Catholic”ity as a reflection of the divine unity as against so many “sects.” Cf. Stromata 7:17. Thus he wasn’t heretically challenging Irenaeus or Justin or Ignatius, a Bishop of Rome, or any Catholic about their Eucharistic views (as quoted above). Nor was he challenging their understanding of Catholic Church hierarchy of Bishop, priest, and deacon, which he also approves. Cf. Stromata 13.

The context of verses 63 and 64 in Jn 6 support the Bodily view, since Christ emphasizes his “metaphor” over and over, even after people take it literally. Cf. verses 51-58. Moreover, this degree of emphasis or repetition—which covers about twenty five verses (33-58)--is used nowhere else in Scripture.

“Flesh” is used in Scripture for the human body, but also for human weakness or infidelity to the Word. Compare 1 Cor 3:3 with Jn 6:63-64. If “flesh” were necessarily expressing futility, it hardly would have been used metaphorically for Jesus’s Gift. Thus, a purely symbolic interpretation cannot be proven from Sola Scriptura, but only suggested.

If “bread” and “flesh” are not referring to Christ’s body, then verse 51 has Jesus metaphorically saying he would give his Spirit for the life of the world. This seems to imply that the Word’s Incarnation into human nature—which by nature includes body and soul--has no intrinsic value. Cf. 2 Jn 1:7.

(By the way, I think human nature is capable of being omnipresent. “With God, all things are possible.”).

Is there is one father between 100 and 1000 A.D. that formally denied the bodily presence or transubstantiation of Christ in communion? If there is no record of a few fathers in this 900 year span which usually, roughly held to the reformation principles and doctrines—as Irenaeus or Cyprian or Basil reflect Catholic teachings--is this not significant as to Biblical exegesis? Is not the Body of Christ a historically visible and true entity? Cf. Mt 5:14, Is 56:7.

We agree with Clement that we are redeemed through “the blood of Christ’s flesh”. This makes an anti-bodily interpretation of Jn 6:63 impossible. I this light, I think a non-literal interpretation of Jn 6:33-58 is also indefensible from Sola Scriptura, especially since this section is so unlike any other "metaphor" used in Scripture.

I think Clement does indicate that we are sanctified through the Eucharistic Feast:...

I read your posts. It sounds like you do agree that there is no formal protestant in regard to Transubstantiation (as articulated for example by Irenaeus and many others) between 100 and 1000 A.D.

Question:


A Catholic friend and I were debating the proper intentions of communion or as they call it the holy Eucharist. I seemed to have an answer for most every argument he proposed except for John 6:53-55, where Christ appears to literally support the Catholics' idea of the Eucharist. What is our Protestant response to such a difficult passage? How can we argue that Christ was not speaking literally? Thank you for any help that you can offer.


Answer:


Excellent question, brings back memories of the four years I lived in college with a Roman Catholic roommate.


"What is our protestant response to such a difficult passage?" Well, our "Protestant" response—à la sola Scriptura—must be that the passage is true and the question is, what does the text mean? We look to the text itself and not to the "sacred tradition" of the Church for our answer. We need to look to the text in its larger context and compare it with other related Scriptures.


To whom is our Lord speaking in John 6:53-55? He is not speaking to his church gathered for worship. He is speaking to a crowd of Jews who have witnessed his miracle of feeding the 5,000 and want more such miracles. But when he tells them that that miracle, like the manna in the wilderness, was a sign pointing to himself as the living bread sent by the Father from heaven to give life to the world (v. 33), they are offended. There is no sacrament of the Lord's Supper before them (that was still future); there is Jesus, the Son of God come down from heaven.


"Bread" here is metaphorical. The Baptist said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." Is Jesus literally a lamb? No, he is the reality fulfilling the types and shadows of Old Testament sacrifices of lambs and bulls. On the cross he will offer himself to God as the final, all-sufficient and truly atoning sacrifice for sin. In John 10 he says that he is "the door to the sheepfold," and "the good shepherd." Again, these are metaphors—pictures of what he came to do. He is not literally a door. He is not walking about the pastures of this world with a crook in his hand, herding literal sheep.


How are people to receive and eat this bread that they might have life? He answers that question repeatedly in the passage. To receive eternal life, they must believe in him (v. 35), come to him (v. 37), behold him and believe in him (v. 40), come to him, drawn by the Father (v. 44), hear and learn from the Father and come to him (v. 45 ), believe (v. 46). It is Christ himself whom they must receive, and they must receive him by faith in him.


When his hearers continue to be offended, our Lord aggravates the offense—as he so often did—by speaking in terms that are more starkly offensive to them. "I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is my flesh" (v. 51). They take him literally and argue, offended over what he could mean. And so he restates it even more baldly: "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves.... my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink..." (vv. 53-55)


The background for this language is clearly the Old Testament language of sacrifice for sin, such as Leviticus 17:11: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life."


Our Lord is not speaking of a sacrament, but of the offering he will make of himself on the cross (and notice how Hebrews emphasizes the once-for-all character of that atoning sacrifice: 7:27, 9:12, 26, 28, 10:10). Eating and drinking means fully appropriating that sacrifice and its saving benefits (again, many of the O.T. sacrifices, after being burnt on the altar and their blood poured out, were eaten by priests and worshipers, signifying their union with the sacrificial animal and their receiving the life-giving benefit of its [ritually and symbolically] atoning death).


How may our Lord's hearers receive and benefit from his atoning sacrifice? He has already answered that question in the earlier verses: believe in him, come to him for who he is, receive him by faith.


If our Lord truly were to mean that sinners must literally eat his flesh and drink his blood, and this were truly a reference to eating bread and wine that have been supernaturally transformed into his actual body and blood in a sacrament of the (future) church, then he would be saying that only those who receive Roman Catholic communion can receive eternal life. "UNLESS you eat the flesh of the Son of Man ... you have NO life in yourselves" (v. 53).


This would be saying that partaking of the sacramental altar is necessary to salvation, but that would be adding to the work of Christ on the cross, received by faith, a further requirement for salvation. That is the Galatian heresy (adding ritual requirements to the work of Christ), of which the apostle Paul says, "If we or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!" (Gal. 1:8).


In fact, there is nothing in the passage of John 6 that refers to communion. It is all about his sacrifice of himself on the cross received by faith in him.


It is true that communion sacramentally points to the same cross. The bread and wine represent our Lord's body, broken in death, and his blood, offered in atoning sacrifice, in that same way that Old Testament sacrifices represented his future sacrifice on the cross. When our Lord first said of the bread, "This is my body," he was standing (or reclining?) with his disciples in the upper room, still in his body, whole and intact; the bread was clearly metaphoric and symbolic.


So, when faithful churches gather for communion and we hear the words, "This is my body," we understand that our Lord is present in our midst as he promised to be, by the Holy Spirit, telling us to consider his body broken on the cross and his blood poured out on the cross, and to renew our faith in his saving work.


The supper does not proclaim eternal life through bread and wine, but through the sacrifice of the Son of God once for all on the cross. When we hear the word (Scripture proclaiming Christ) and see the word (sacrament portraying Christ) and receive the word by faith, trusting in Christ and his atoning work, his salvation is sealed to us, our union with our living Savior is enlivened, our faith is strengthened, and we are sanctified by his Spirit to serve him more faithfully.


There is an interesting parallel between John 6 and John 3 in regard to the sacraments. In John 3 our Lord proclaims the necessity of new birth "by water and the Spirit." Catholics have taken this to be a reference to baptism. But the language is the language of Old Testament promise (Ezek. 36:26f., Isa. 44:1-5, etc.) in which the symbol (cleansing and life-giving water, cf. Isa. 32:13-20, 35:1-10) and the reality (the Spirit's life-giving and cleansing work) are mentioned together.


Our Lord expects Nicodemus, a teacher of Israel, to understand these things (v. 10), so the reference cannot be to Christian baptism which is years in the future, but to the fulfillment of O.T. promises with the coming, presence, and work of Christ—to which baptism does point with the symbol of water.


I have given you what I think is an answer to your question from the Scripture. It is also a "Protestant" answer. If you want to do further reading, I suggest the commentaries on John by William Hendriksen (Baker) and by Leon Morris (Eerdmans)—both are excellent, but especially Morris (whose footnotes also suggest further reading). John Calvin refers to and discusses these verses repeatedly in his treatment of "The Sacred Supper of Christ, and What It Brings to Us" (Institutes, Book IV, Chap. 17, esp. sections 4, 6, 7, 8, 32-34). Calvin's whole treatment of the Lord's Supper is marvelous.


I hope I have given you the help you seek. Please feel free to follow up with further questions, even disagreement (!). I pray the Lord will use you to open your friend's eyes to the truth of the word and embrace