Refutation of Mike Gendron's "Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood"
Mike's words are in blue; mine are in black.
Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you" (John 6:53). Are these words of Jesus from John 6:53 to be taken literally or figuratively? The Roman Catholic Church teaches the context of John chapter six is to be interpreted in a literal sense and thus believes Jesus is giving absolute and unconditional requirements for eternal life.
First of all, not all of John chapter 6 is literal. Verses 25-47 are about belief; the references to the bread of life are figurative. However, in verses 48-58, the context changes; Jesus starts to talk about flesh, blood, eating, and drinking. The bread of life in verse 48 is literal because Jesus said that this bread is His flesh (as opposed to just being Him in general, as in the previous section).
Secondly, Jesus is NOT giving an absolute and unconditional requirement for salvation; rather, He is using a hyperbole as He often did (Matthew 5:22, 30, 21:21-22; Luke 14:26, for example). His point was that the Eucharist helps us in our spiritual journey to attain salvation.
The partaking of the Eucharist is essential to their salvation and a doctrine they must believe and accept to become and remain a Catholic.
The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenent are necessary for salvation. [The Catechism of the Catholic Church, (San Francisco, CA, Ignatius Press, 1994) para. 1129]
Exactly. The sacraments are necessary for Catholics, but if, through no fault of your own, you are not Catholic, you can still be saved (Catechism paragraphs 847-848).
There are at least seven convincing biblical reasons why this passage [John 6:48-58] is to be taken figuratively.
Counterfeit Miracle
No where in the Bible do we ever see a miracle performed where the evidence indicated no miracle had taken place. Yet, after the priest performs his super natural act of transubstantiation, the wafer and wine look, taste, smell and feel the same. It has the appearance of a counterfeit miracle because no noticeable change has occurred. When Jesus changed water into wine, all the elements of water changed into the actual elements of wine.
1) What empirical evidence do we have that the Incarnation took place? So that was also a counterfeit miracle?
2) Who cares? The Eucharist is supposed to be a different kind of miracle anyway, one that could only be understood through the eyes of faith (John 6:63). Plus,
this is a non-issue. Who says that just because all other biblical miracles were empirically verifiable (although I don't think that's true), the Eucharist must be so
also?
Drinking Blood Forbidden
The Law of Moses strictly forbade Jews from drinking blood. A literal interpretation would have Jesus teaching the Jews to disobey the Mosaic Law. This would have been sufficient cause to persecute Jesus.
Any Israelite or any alien living among them who eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people. For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life. [Leviticus 17:10-11]
Leviticus 17 prohibits eating blood because it is the life of every creature; however, that's PRECICELY why we receive the Eucharist. By receiving the Eucharist, we are united more fully with Jesus and we abide in Him. The difference between drinking regular blood and Jesus' blood is that God doesn't want us to eat the life of another creature, but He wants us to share in His life.
Biblical Disharmony
When John 6:53 is interpreted literally it is in disharmony with the rest of the Bible. "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you," gives no hope of eternal life to any Christian who has not consumed the literal body and blood of Christ. It opposes hundreds of Scriptures that declare justification and salvation are by grace through faith in Christ.
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-not by works, so that no one can boast. [Ephesians 2:8-9]
I agree, interpreting John 6:53 literally WOULD produce disharmony with the rest of the bible, but there's no doubt that Jesus is speaking literally of His flesh and blood (as I will show shortly). So, what could Jesus have meant? He was simply using a hyperbole (as He often did) to indicate that the Eucharist helps us in our spiritual journey to attain salvation.
It Produces A Dilemma
It is stated that the "eating and drinking" in verse 6:54 and the "believing" in verse 6:40 produce the same result - eternal life. If both are literal we have a dilemma. What if a person "believes" but does not "eat or drink"? Or what if a person "eats and drinks" but does not "believe?" This could occur any time a non-believer walked into a Catholic Church and received the Eucharist. Does this person have eternal life because he met one of the requirements but not the other? The only possible way to harmonize the interpretation of these two verses is to accept one as figurative and one as literal.
I agree completely. One of them has to be non-literal, and it's verse 54. However, it's not non-literal because Jesus was using the supposed metaphor of eating and drinking His flesh and blood; rather, it's non-literal because it's a hyperbole (like verse 53).
It Was Figurative in the Old Testament
The Jews were familiar with "eating and drinking" being used figuratively in the Old Testament to describe the appropriation of divine blessings to one's innermost being. It was God's way of providing spiritual nourishment for the soul (Isaiah 55:1-3; Ezekiel 2:8, 3:1).
When your words came, I ate them; they were my joy and my heart's delight, for I bear your name, O Lord God Almighty. [Jeremiah 15:16]
There's a problem here. While eating and drinking in general may have been figurative for accepting blessings, to eat one's flesh and drink one's blood was figurative for grievously injuring someone (Psalm 27:2, Ecclesiastes 4:5, Isaiah 9:20, 49:26, Micah 3:1-3), so Jesus couldn't have been speaking figuratively.
Jesus Confirmed It To Be Figurative
Jesus informed His disciples there were times when He spoke figuratively and He often used that type of language to describe Himself. The Gospel of John records seven figurative declarations Jesus made of Himself: "the bread of life" (6:48), "the light of the world" (8:12), "the door" (10:9), "the good shepherd" (10:11), "the resurrection and the life" (11:25), "the way, the truth and the life" (14:6), and "the true vine" (15:1). He also referred to His body as the temple (2:19).
"Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father. [John 16:25]
Like I said before, Jesus DID speak figuratively; however, that was in verses 25-47, before He started talking about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. Even though He calls Himself the bread of life in verse 48, he goes on to say that this bread is His flesh (verse51). Symbols are logically connected to what they symbolize, but there's no connection between bread and Jesus' flesh!
Plus, the Greek word used for "eats" in verses 54-58, "trogon" (a form of the verb "trogo"), means literally to chew and was never used figuratively (in Koine Greek, the type of Greek the New Testament was written in). Jesus could've continued to use the more generic word for "eat," "phago" (as he did in verse 51), but He didn't. Given the exclusively literal meaning of trogo, why would Jesus switch words if He was merely speaking symbolically?
His Words Were Spiritual
Jesus ended this teaching by revealing "the words I have spoken to you are spirit" (6:63). As with each of the seven miracles in John's Gospel, Jesus uses the miracle to convey a spiritual truth. Here Jesus has just multiplied the loaves and fish and uses an analogy to teach the necessity of spiritual nourishment. This is consistent with His teaching on how we are to worship God. "God is Spirit and His worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth" (John 4:24). As we worship Christ He is present spiritually, not physically. In fact, Jesus can only be bodily present at one place at one time. His omnipresence refers only to His spirit. It is impossible for Christ to be bodily present in thousands of Catholic Churches around the world. When Jesus is received spiritually, one time in the heart, there is no need to receive him physically, over and over again in the stomach.
"It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." - John 6:63
Why did Mike not quote the whole verse? Because it shows that Jesus was contrasting flesh and spirit, which, in Scripture, never mean symbolic as opposed to literally; they always mean sinful and of man as opposed to pure, holy, and of God (Matthew 26:41, Romans 7:5-6, for example). Jesus was saying that His words were from God and could only be understood through the eyes of faith (which shows that transubstantiation is meant to be a different kind of miracle, NOT empirically verifiable).
Now, how does Mike know that Jesus can't be physically present in two places at once? On what basis can he limit God's omnipotence?
Jesus began the discourse by saying whoever comes to Him and believes in Him will not hunger or thirst. Thus the eating and drinking are symbolic of coming to Him in faith.
Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. [John 6:35]
I agree; the BEGINNING of the discourse was symbolic, but the context changed from symbolic to literal once Jesus started talking about eating His flesh and drinking His blood.
There is another serious problem for Catholics who insist on a literal interpretation. They must realize that after they have consumed the physical body of Christ, it then decomposes during the digestive cycle. This goes against God's promise to never let His Holy Son see decay (Acts 2:27).
"This man, handed over to you according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law. But God raised him up, having freed him from death, because it was impossible for him to be held in its power. For David says concerning him, 'I saw the Lord always before me, for he is at my right hand so that I will not be shaken; therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced; moreover my flesh will live in hope. For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One experience corruption. You have made known to me the ways of life; you will make me full of gladness with your presence.'" - Acts 2:23-28
Mike takes verse 27 totally out of context. Peter is talking about Jesus' death and resurrection, and he quotes from Psalm 16:8-11. The Psalm is referring to how Jesus' body didn't experience corruption IN THE TOMB; rather, He rose from the dead. This has absolutely nothing to do with the Eucharist in one's stomach!
