"I Am the Bread of Life"

Here is an article by Roman Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis trying to explain the Roman Catholic interpretation of John 6 which says that Jesus, in calling Himself the Bread of Life and saying His disciples must eat His flesh, is talking about literally eating a piece of bread that has become the body of Christ.
I want to thank Mr. Sungenis for giving me a better understanding of the Greek words used in the passage which are translated 'to eat.' But his argument that the words are the literal words 'to eat' (phago) and 'to chew slowly' (trogo), the latter which has the connotation of really taking the time to savor the food, does not convince me that Jesus was talking about eating a literal piece of bread. I believe He was using metaphorical language; that He was speaking of Himself as our sacrifice and as the Word that we should ingest and savor daily. Here are some reasons for my belief:
1. A metaphor compares unlike things using literal language.
2. Jesus often spoke in metaphors to convey spiritual truths.
3. Jesus explains the spiritual, metaphorical nature of His language in several places in John 6.
First, a metaphor compares unlike things using literal language. Here is the definition of metaphor from dictionary .com:
–noun 1. a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our God.” Compare mixed metaphor, simile (def. 1).
2. something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol.
And a definition from grammar.about.com:
A figure of speech in which an implied comparison is made between two unlike things that actually have something important in common. A metaphor expresses the unfamiliar (the tenor) in terms of the familiar (the vehicle). When Neil Young sings, "Love is a rose," "rose" is the vehicle for "love," the tenor.

So, in other words, Jesus is using the metaphor of comparing the familiar 'bread' to the unfamiliar, spiritual idea of Himself as the savior and the word of God both of which have something important in common: they give life. In a metaphor the language is literal by definition: for example using the literal words for bread, eat, and chew. What other word would Jesus use when comparing belief in Himself to eating bread, or comparing learning from and enjoying His word daily to savoring bread slowly?

Secondly, Jesus often spoke in metaphors to convey spritual truths. Examples of this include: John 10 where Jesus says “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep." He calls Himself the literal word for shepherd and his people the literal word for sheep. He uses literal words that a shepherd would use, such as 'shepherd, sheep, door, gate, robbers, thieves, flock, fold, wolf.' However we don't know of Jesus ever having a literal flock of sheep while He lived on earth.
In the same passage He also calls Himself the door of the sheep, which is actually another way of calling Himself the shepherd, as the shepherd would sleep across the opening of the sheepfold to protect the sheep at night.
John 15 where Jesus calls Himself the true Vine and His disciples branches. Again He uses literal descriptions that refer to vinedressing.
John 8:12 in which Jesus says “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.”
Jesus also used the metaphors of building upon the rock, entering in by the narrow gate, fishing for men, the living water, the Lamb of God, planting seeds, harvesting crops, etc. He called believers salt, light, sheep, and fishers of men.
Also, all through the Old Testament metaphors are used for God which are fulfilled in Jesus in the New Testament. For example, Isaiah 44:8 says
Do not fear, nor be afraid; Have I not told you from that time, and declared it?You are My witnesses. Is there a God besides Me? Indeed there is no other Rock; I know not one.’”

Finally, Jesus explains the spiritual, metaphorical nature of his language in several places in John 6. First Jesus calls Himself the bread from heaven, comparing Himself to manna and the people ask Him: “Lord, give us this bread always.” And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst." Jesus is comparing belief in Himself with eating bread and drinking wine. We eat the bread (Himself) by coming to Him and believing in Him. Another comparison Jesus makes is in two parallel verses that equate belief with eating His flesh and drinking His blood. See John 6:40 and 54:
40 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
A third comparison Jesus makes is in verses 47-51:
47 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.” Jesus again says faith or belief in Him brings everlasting life Then He stresses that the Israelites ate the manna, but are dead, implying that physical bread cannot give everlasting life and that whoever trusts in it will likewise die; then He immediately contrasts Himself, the bread from heaven, saying He does give everlasting life. He says He will give the bread of His flesh for the life of the world. This is a reference to His upcoming crucifixion in which He gives up His life for our salvation. The New Testament confirms this over and over by stressing that it is Christ's sacrifice that saves us and is central to our faith. It does not stress the eucharist as being central and giving salvation. The eucharist is secondary and is an act of faith and thanksgiving IN Christ's finished work on the cross.
A final explanation Jesus gives in verse 63: "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life."
This is similar to what He said about the manna, that it is spiritual food that gives life, not physical. Jesus says this to His disciples after some had become offended and left at His saying they must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Jesus is saying to those who have remained with Him that His words were referring to a spiritual truth,not a physical eating of His flesh, which we have seen that He has already explained by saying over and over that belief in Him is what gives us eternal life.
Based on these things I have concluded that in John chapter 6 Jesus is calling Himself the bread of life because He Himself is the bread we must devour in the form of faith in Him and also 'devouring' Him in His word; and He is asking us to eat His flesh and drink His blood by faith in the sacrifice He made of His body and blood on the cross. Jesus says He is speaking of spiritual things, not flesh or the physical; though His literal flesh was sacrificed, it is for our spiritual salvation. Which is more consistent with all that Jesus has said in this passage and all that is taught in the Bible: the spiritual interpretation based on Jesus' metaphor which calls for saving faith in Him and feeding daily on His word, or the physical, literal interpretation which calls for eating a piece of bread in order to 'ingest Christ' and so cause Him to dwell in the believer and bring salvation, as the Roman Catholic Church teaches? This latter interpretation takes the glory from Christ and puts in in the act of a believer eating a piece of bread, which is a works salvation. It creates an idol by making something into God which is not God (the bread and wine). It places another veil between the believer and God, when Christ died to remove the veil that separates us so we can come to the Father directly because of what Jesus completed at Calvary. It also seems to be replacing the indwelling of the Holy Spirit upon justification through faith with the indwelling of Christ upon repeatedly celebrating the Mass. Saying all this of course does not deny that Jesus did establish the Lord's Supper, Communion, or Eucharist (which means 'thanksgiving'); but the eucharist is secondary to Christ who established it and to His sacrifice that is sufficient to save us. See the following verses that emphasize the glory and precedence of Jesus Christ and the sufficiency of His once for all sacrifice:

John 1:14 (New King James Version)
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Deuteronomy 8:3 (New King James Version)
3 So He humbled you, allowed you to hunger, and fed you with manna which you did not know nor did your fathers know, that He might make you know that man shall not live by bread alone; but man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the LORD.

Matthew 4:4 (New King James Version)
4 But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’”

John 14:23-24 (New King James Version)
23 Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. 24 He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent Me.

John 14:15-17 (New King James Version)
15 “If you love Me, keep My commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.

Hebrews 7:26-28 (New King James Version)
26 For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; 27 who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever.

Hebrews 9:24-26 (New King James Version)
24 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another— 26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

Hebrews 10:11-18 (New King James Version)
11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
15 But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before,
16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,” 17 then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” 18 Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.

Revelation 1:4-6 (New King James Version)
Grace to you and peace from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth.
To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, 6 and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

The 'Catholic gospel'

I recently read a post on the Catholic blog Historical Christian, owned by Aimee Cooper, a convert to Roman Catholicism. She has developed and is teaching a course on 'Understanding the Catholic Gospel' and on her blog she has posted about her class being made available as a distance learning course.
In her post, she makes a statement comparing the 'protestant gospel' as she understands it, to the 'Catholic gospel' which she says is the 'authentic' gospel.
I was concerned because her description of the 'protestant gospel' was inaccurate and made protestant teaching seem very shallow and powerless. Here is one of her statements:

In part, it is the difference between imputed and infused grace, between sanctifying and fully sacramental grace, between simply believing in Jesus to go to heaven, and truly becoming the dwelling place of God, here and now, during this life, through union with Christ in the sacraments.

After reading this, I wrote a comment and posted it on her blog. She read it and deleted it, making this comment about it:

By the way, there was a long polemical comment on here that I just deleted (I was away for a few hours and hadn't seen it). The person is known to me, and knows they're not welcome here. Not the first time I've encountered this individual - and it's always unpleasant. Sorry about that. I'm very happy to discuss Catholicism with people who really want to learn about it - but I don't enjoy arguing with people who's minds are already made up against it.

Here is the comment she deleted, minus my quote of her statement:

I agree with you that the Catholic gospel and the protestant gospel are different, but I don't know where the 'protestant gospel' you are referring to comes from; it doesn't sound like the Biblical gospel, and neither does your description of the Catholic gospel. If in the past you have been taught a false supposed 'protestant gospel' that doesn't mean that the Bible gospel is not true; nor does it mean that the Catholic version IS true.
The Biblical gospel does NOT teach 'simply believing in Jesus to go to heaven' but it does teach believing in Jesus as Savior, trusting in His sacrifice alone for salvation, then being indwelt by the Holy Spirit, sanctified by Him, and living by faith in Him, abiding in His Word and in prayer, fellowshipping with the saints, and so on.
You referred to 'the difference between imputed and infused grace.' The bible doesn't refer to imputed (or infused) grace, but it does refer to imputed righteousness, which is
what happens when we are justified (made right with God) by faith in Christ. See Romans 4:
3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.

5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:
7 “ Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
And whose sins are covered;
8 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin.”
You infer that 'protestant' christians don't teach that believers 'truly become the dwelling place of God here and now, during this life.' Well, becoming the dwelling place of God is the whole message of the gospel as taught in the Scriptures, without any help needed from 'church fathers' or magisterium, or church tradition. If some protestants have failed to teach this, it doesn't mean this isn't the gospel of the Apostles (who were not Roman Catholic) and the Reformers (who were not perfect, but did understand the scriptures very well). You, in proclaiming the need for this course, have admitted that the RCC has largely failed to teach her own people the 'Catholic gospel.' I submit that this is because she doesn't have the gospel at all.
The fact that people are saying 'Catholicism is too big' to share easily, is because it is full of cumbersome manmade traditions and doctrines that obscure the true simple gospel that comes from God's word.
Jennie

Well, looking back at my comment, it IS polemical, as Aimee said, but not the less true. She says I know I'm not welcome, but I have never commented on her blog before (We emailed back and forth a few times several months ago as we discussed some questions and comments I had about the Roman Catholic church; she didn't want to continue the discussion, because she felt I was not 'genuinely' interested in the RCC. I was, but not in converting). I went back and tried to comment again, twice, but it seems my comments are blocked. The last comment I believe was the best, and was not 'polemical' but just straightforwardly explaining, using scripture, what the true gospel was as opposed to her description. Unfortunately I did not save it, but it contained some of what I already quoted, plus some other good scriptures from Romans. I'll try to recreate it here:

Aimee, I hope you will allow this comment because I am concerned that your description of the 'protestant gospel' is inaccurate and should be corrrected. I will try not to be 'polemical' this time:)
In your statement you referred to 'the difference between imputed and infused grace.'
The bible does not mention imputed grace, but it does refer to imputed RIGHTEOUSNESS, which is what occurs when a believer is justified by faith in Christ's sacrifice on the cross. See Romans 4:
3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.

5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:
7 “ Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
And whose sins are covered;
8 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin.”
Secondly, the bible teaches that a believer goes through a process of sanctification which begins when the Holy Spirit comes to dwell in him/her upon coming to faith in Christ. The Spirit draws us into a relationship with Christ and teaches us through God's word. We are freed from sin and made holy as we continue in this relationship. This is in contrast to the Roman Catholic teaching of salvation and indwelling through the sacrament of the eucharist. See Romans 6:
1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. 7 For he who has died has been freed from sin. 8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. 10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11 Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. 13 And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. 14 For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

Finally, you infer that protestants don't believe and teach that believers become the true dwelling place of God here and now; but this is the central teaching of the protestant (biblical) gospel. See Romans 8:
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. 10 And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.
Thank you,
Jennie

That's as close as I could get to the original comment.
For more information on why the Catholic gospel is not the true gospel, see my post on 'Why I will never go home to Roman Catholicism.'

An email response to Internetmonk

For the benefit of readers who come over from SolaMom, Everyday Mommy, or Internetmonk.com after reading comments there, here is my email response to Michael Spenser about his quoting my 'Canon' comment on his blog:

Hello Michael,

On a whim I decided to check out your blog today and I was astonished to see that you had written a post that quoted from a comment I had made to Ragamuffin about the Canon on Jules' blog.

I must admit to some chagrin upon seeing my admittedly way over-simplified explanation used as a springboard in that way. Again, my comment was over-simplified and also did not accurately portray my own understanding of the subject, as I was not trying to prove anything except that everyone doesn't agree that the catholics 'gave us' the Canon, etc. I definitely will try in the future to include enough info. to make my viewpoint clear, since a mis-statement apparently can take on a life of it's own in the blog world.

I am definitely not a scholar on the subject, by any means, but neither am I totally ignorant or without curiosity about how the canon was established. I have been reading various sources from the protestant and catholic viewpoints on the historical church for many months, being extremely curious and driven to try to reconcile the different claims and the contrary historical accounts; I can't claim to have solved a controversy that has raged for centuries, but I have begun to understand a little, and have concluded, from what I have learned so far, that the RCC is not the original church as it claims, that it has claimed sole authority without regard to all other valid groups, that it has over the centuries added error upon error even though its core catechisms contain the seeds of truth, that it claims men as RC that were not, that the early centuries that the RC claims as her own are more 'catholic' or transitional than 'Roman' catholic (since practices and doctrines that are specifically RC came in later and gradually).

Here is one of several sources I have read in the past months about the Canon: http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_canon_nicole.html. I think this man makes alot of sense.

To clarify, I am not Landmark, and am not familiar with them; since my childhood I have attended, roughly in this order: Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, Southern Baptist, various Baptist and nondenominational churches, Methodist, Southern Baptist. Nor am I KJV only, though we are careful about which versions we use; I use the NKJV mainly.

I don't think I have all the answers, and I think we'll all be surprised someday about what we 'know' is right, but I also know that in my limited understanding, I must cling to God's word to correct and guide me. I hope to grow in love and understanding, while holding to the truth of His word.

In Christ,

Jennie (pilgrimsdaughter)

Christ, Our Passover Lamb

"During the Passover time, a sign hung on each lamb's neck, bearing the name of the owner of the lamb. Jesus was crucified with a sign hung over His head with the name of His Father. Studies have shown the Tetragrammaton probably appeared over Jesus when He hung on the cross. During Bible times, messages were commonly written with the first letter of each word. An example in English: UPS, stands for United Parcel Service. The phrase 'Jesus of Nazareth and King of the Jews' was written in three languages on a sign above Jesus as He hung on the cross (John 19:19). The Hebrew initials for 'Jesus of Nazareth and King of the Jews' was YHWH. That is why the priest asked Pilate to change the writing. Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews. Pilate answered, What I have written I have written (John 19: 21-22)."
(From http://www.biblicalholidays.com/Passover/messiah_in_passover.htm)


John 19

1 So then Pilate took Jesus and scourged Him. 2 And the soldiers twisted a crown of thorns and put it on His head, and they put on Him a purple robe. 3 Then they said, “Hail, King of the Jews!” And they struck Him with their hands.
4 Pilate then went out again, and said to them, “Behold, I am bringing Him out to you, that you may know that I find no fault in Him.”

5 Then Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. And Pilate said to them, “Behold the Man!”
6 Therefore, when the chief priests and officers saw Him, they cried out, saying, “Crucify Him, crucify Him!”
Pilate said to them, “You take Him and crucify Him, for I find no fault in Him.”
7 The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God.”
8 Therefore, when Pilate heard that saying, he was the more afraid, 9 and went again into the Praetorium, and said to Jesus, “Where are You from?” But Jesus gave him no answer.
10 Then Pilate said to Him, “Are You not speaking to me? Do You not know that I have power to crucify You, and power to release You?”
11 Jesus answered, “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.”
12 From then on Pilate sought to release Him, but the Jews cried out, saying, “If you let this Man go, you are not Caesar’s friend. Whoever makes himself a king speaks against Caesar.”
13 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus out and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called The Pavement, but in Hebrew, Gabbatha. 14 Now it was the Preparation Day of the Passover, and about the sixth hour. And he said to the Jews, “Behold your King!”
15 But they cried out, “Away with Him, away with Him! Crucify Him!”
Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your King?”
The chief priests answered, “We have no king but Caesar!”
16 Then he delivered Him to them to be crucified. Then they took Jesus and led Him away.

17 And He, bearing His cross, went out to a place called the Place of a Skull, which is called in Hebrew, Golgotha, 18 where they crucified Him, and two others with Him, one on either side, and Jesus in the center. 19 Now Pilate wrote a title and put it on the cross. And the writing was:

JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS.

20 Then many of the Jews read this title, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.
21 Therefore the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, “Do not write, ‘The King of the Jews,’ but, ‘He said, “I am the King of the Jews.”’”
22 Pilate answered, “What I have written, I have written.”
23 Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took His garments and made four parts, to each soldier a part, and also the tunic. Now the tunic was without seam, woven from the top in one piece. 24 They said therefore among themselves, “Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be,” that the Scripture might be fulfilled which says:


“ They divided My garments among them,
And for My clothing they cast lots.”


Therefore the soldiers did these things.

25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.

28 After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, “I thirst!” 29 Now a vessel full of sour wine was sitting there; and they filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on hyssop, and put it to His mouth. 30 So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.

31 Therefore, because it was the Preparation Day, that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. 32 Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who was crucified with Him. 33 But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs. 34 But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. 35 And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you may believe. 36 For these things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, “Not one of His bones shall be broken.” 37 And again another Scripture says, “They shall look on Him whom they pierced.”

38 After this, Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly, for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus; and Pilate gave him permission. So he came and took the body of Jesus. 39 And Nicodemus, who at first came to Jesus by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds. 40 Then they took the body of Jesus, and bound it in strips of linen with the spices, as the custom of the Jews is to bury. 41 Now in the place where He was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid. 42 So there they laid Jesus, because of the Jews’ Preparation Day, for the tomb was nearby.

Family Photo Session

Today our family had our first photo session with Susan Nason of Oomph Image & Design, a photographer based in Tallapoosa, GA. We had a great time and are looking forward to seeing the results of the morning's work. I'll post some of the photos as soon as I can. Here's a small preview on Susan's blog.