3/29/2004 09:22:00 PM|||Andrew|||John 6:48 I am the bread of life.74 6:49 Your ancestors75 ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 6:50 This76 is the bread that has come down from heaven, so that a person77 may eat from it and not die. 6:51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats from this bread he will live forever. The bread78 that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

6:52 Then the Jews who were hostile to Jesus79 began to argue with one another,80 “How can this man81 give us his flesh to eat?” 6:53 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth,82 unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood,83 you have no life84 in yourselves. 6:54 The one who eats85 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.86 6:55 For my flesh is true87 food, and my blood is true88 drink. 6:56 The one who eats89 my flesh and drinks my blood resides in me, and I in him.90 6:57 Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so the one who consumes91 me will live because of me. 6:58 This92 is the bread that came down from heaven; it is not like the bread your ancestors93 ate, but then later died.94 The one who eats95 this bread will live forever.”

Ignore the random numbers (not the chapter:verse numbers, silly) sparkled through the text...they're just note markers, and I'm too lazy to go through and get rid of them all.

I'm going to write tonight about the above passage...it's something that, quite frankly, has always troubled me. First, let me make clear that I am not a Roman Catholic--I've never believed, was never taught the doctrine of transubstantiation, which says that in the Eucharist (communion) the bread and wine are literally changed into the body and blood of Christ. As in, the bread (or wafer, in Catholic tradition) actually changes in its nature into Christ's flesh. There are a number of other views, not all of which I know the titles of. There is the idea that blood and body are intermingled with the wine and bread, there is the idea that the bread and wine are both themselves and the body and blood at the same time (akin the diety and humanity of Christ, perhaps?), and lastly, there is the idea that the whole thing is purely symbolic.

I don't remember ever being taught anything about this whole idea specifically, but somewhere along the line I'm pretty sure that the view of Eucharist as symbolism got implanted into my head. And it seems a natural enough idea, it's nice and warm, it doesn't bother anyone; it's friendly. That's exactly why it scares me. Most of the doctrines of Christianity are not designed to be appealing to the natural man. The natural man hates God and all his work, and consequently naturally rebels against his truth. Natural man rebels against the idea that he must obey God's commands, rebels against the idea that God has chosen certain ones unto salvation, rebels against the idea that all he must do unto salvation is call Christ's blood upon himself. But doesn't it seem natural, normal to say that Christians eat bread and drink wine (or grape juice) as a symbolic remembrance of Christ's death? Exactly.

Read the above passage again. Jesus says this before the institution of the Eucharist, but it's pretty clearly setting the whole thing up. First of all, more than other places, Jesus seems pretty clear that his flesh and blood are to be consumed, as such. But even if you cleverly do away with that by whisking it off to symbol land, here's what Really troubles me. The overwhelming emphasis of the passage is on what a difficult teaching, acknowledgely so by Jesus, this is. Listen to the follow up, which makes this even clearer:

6:59 Jesus96 said these things while he was teaching in the synagogue97 in Capernaum.98 6:60 Then many of his disciples, when they heard these things,99 said, “This is a difficult100 saying!101 Who can understand it?”102 6:61 When Jesus was aware103 that his disciples were complaining104 about this, he said to them, “Does this cause you to be offended?105 6:62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascending where he was before?106 6:63 The Spirit is the one who gives life; human nature is of no help!107 The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.108 6:64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus had already known from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.)109 6:65 So Jesus added,110 “Because of this I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has allowed him to come.”111

6:66 After this many of his disciples quit following him112 and did not accompany him113 any longer.

If Jesus means to be understood as talking symbolically, why are people so upset with him? Why are some of his closest followers abandoning him? It seems obvious that Jesus purposefully upset a lot of people when he said these things. Why? Because the teaching of Christ is hard, sacrificial teaching. He speaks the words of spirit and life, and by doing so necessarily offends those who do not believe. And so there is a great struggle between what I have been taught and this mysterious passage. Christ's message here is offensive! It is not tame and easy to understand. It is difficult teaching. And to boil it down to mere symbolism seems to rob Christ's message of these things. A symbolic message does not contain the possibility of offense, it is not difficult.

So I find myself interacting with Christ as he was and is; he speaks these words and spirit and of life and he offends me. He causes me to think, to question. And so it is right. I must not, cannot turn away from him, but must struggle through these things to the truth, for as Peter says a few verses later, "6:68b Lord, to whom would we go? You have the words of eternal life. 6:69 We115 have come to believe and to know116 that you are the Holy One of God!”117

He has the words of eternal life, to whom else shall I go?|||108062413276574372|||