Protestant: There is no such thing as the Real Presence, John 6 is all metaphorical. What's referred to here is spiritual food and drink. Look at 1 Cor 3-4: “And all of them ate from the same spiritual manna and all drank from the same spiritual drink.” This clearly speaks against a literal translation of John 6.
Catholic: A literal translation is necessary , and is evident:
1. From the Greek original. The v.55 Greek refers to “true, real food,” and “true, real drink.”The Greek v.54 means “to gnaw, to chew, to munch.”
2. From the difficulties created by a figurative interpretation. In Biblical language, to eat a person’s flesh and drink his blood in the metaphorical sense is to persecute him in a bloody fashion, to destroy him. See, for instance, Ps 26:2 “When the wicked rush at me to devour my flesh. . .” Is 9:20 “Manasseh devours Ephraim, Ephraim devours Manasseh, and against Judah together they march.” Is 49:26I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh, and be drunk with their own blood as with wine.” Mic 3:3 “Those who eat my people’s flesh . . .”
3. From the reaction of the listeners, they petered away, finding the teaching difficult to accept, and Jesus did not do anything to call them back, which would have been the natural thing for him to do if all that was involved was a misunderstanding. But there was no misunderstanding – the people heard correctly: Christ was telling them to literally eat his flesh, and literally drink his blood. Note, further, how Jesus persisted in doing all these knowing fully well that his own apostles and disciples are already grumbling at the teaching , and would probably desert him (v.60).
4. By the wording. Nothing in the text suggest a figurative interpretation: v.50, v.51, v.53, v.54, v.55, v.56, v.57, v.58, v.64. In verse 55, as if to make sure that he is not misconstrued, Jesus even says: “For my flesh is food INDEED, and my blood is drink INDEED.” In these passages, Christ couldn’t be more emphatic nor clear, especially if we note that there is nothing in the nature of bread and wine, nor by current speech usage of the listeners at that time, to connect bread and wine as symbols of a man’s body and blood. Neither is there inherent contradiction in the literal interpretation, unless, of course, one doubts the divinity of Christ, in which case many things will be impossible for him.
5. By Paul's warning for the faithful to refrain from unworthily taking Holy Communion. If the Holy Eucharist is metaphorical, how on earth can a metaphor bring down heaven's wrath? The only explanation is that St. Paul lies (but how can that be?) when he warns the consequences to one who UNWORTHILY takes the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ 1 Cor 11:27 “Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the bloody and the blood of the Lord.” Or 1 Cor 10:16: “The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of ‘Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?”
6. By the inadequacy of the arguments advanced against it. When “is” in many passages of Scripture means “designates” or “symbolizes,” the figurative sense is immediately apparent from the nature of the matter. For instance, when Jesus says in Mt 13:38 “The field IS the world,” right away we know that he speaks here in the figurative sense. Similarly, when Jesus says “I AM the gate of the sheep” (John 10:7) right away we know that he speaks here figuratively. Or in John 15:1 “I AM the true vine . . .”
Not so with John 6.
No comments:
Post a Comment