02/07/2022 – Gospel of John – Chapter 6 commentary – Re: The Eucharist is “symbolic” ? How did you arrive at that one?
I don’t get it!: How do most protestant denominations, including non-denominational evangelical affirm that His Word is infallible, yet deny that Christ’s instituted Eucharist sacrament is the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ? Hey guys, I submit that you just tore out from your Bible the entire chapter 6 of the Gospel of John? So, this may be the one and only time that that I diverge from all of my otherwise reliable warrior sources: John Gill, William Barclay and Matthew Henry. If this were a courtroom, I would be told: “Counselor , you have a really tough case here to present.” (*a) Let’s get started then:
(*a) – And for those of you who think of me as a true blue “Calvinist”, I just invalidated your premise. haha
Be it transsubstantiation or consubstantiation, the following church denominations agree with me that the bread and wine of the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ, not just a “symbolic” exercise: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran. If y’all know of any others, please add your comment. The Lutherans and I think the Anglicans as well fall under “consubstantiation” postion as opposed to “transsubstantiation”, but do not diverge into full symbolic interpretation. (see link below – a concise explanation) I am not sure about this list so please correct me as needed.
https://www.askdifference.com/transubstantiation-vs-consubstantiation/
Jesus reiterates this multiple times in chapter six but let’s look at verse 55: “For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.” That is after the Jews incredously proclaim : “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” in verse 52. We get that, no? In verse 60: “On hearing it, many of his disciples said: “This is hard teaching, who can accept it?” And in verse 66 we are told: “From this time, many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.” Jesus follows in verse 67 with an inquiry to his twelve disciples: “”You do not want to leave too, do you?” Hooray for Peter here in verse 68: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.”
Now for those of you who agree with my three otherwise stalwart aforementioned warriors, I would say: His Word is infallible, the warrrior commentators are not. So, I ask the following: You would have me believe that Jesus would not have clarified: “Hey guys, come back, it was just symbolism, a metaphor!”, if in fact that were really the case as you maintain. He clarified in on more than one instance with the twelve, with a parable illustration to point out he wasn’t speaking in a “literal” sense, but a “figurative” sense. But there is none of that here. And what did the early church believe and practice, as directed by the Apostles? Answer: “Transsubstantiation ” , this in spite of the documented accusation thrown at the early church: “Hey, these Christians are cannibals!”
What is the issue? We all have a sin tendency to put God in a box, as in: “That is just too hard to understand!” Well, I submit: “Exactly, so let us as “little children” embrace it, for our God is infallible and all-powerful.” I don’t care if you put the elements, after consecration, under a microscope and proclaim: “it’s still bread and wine!” Actually, that doesn’t address consubtantiation believers, for they would rightly reply: “exactly, so your point is?” But even transsubstantiation, I don’t care. God says, so believe and obey! (Peter’s response in verse 68)
Thoughts?
Soli Deo Gloria!