Evanġeliku: This is My Body ... This is My Blood

Here's a thoughtful blog post by Joseph Mizzi of 'Evangeliku'. My thought is that we should allow for many degrees of understanding ranging from figurative to literal as long as the belief comes from love and faith for our Savior.

Evanġeliku: This is My Body ... This is My Blood: What did our Lord mean when he said, ‘This is my body … this is my blood’? Was he speaking literally or figuratively? It is not my inten...

The oak forest as a picture of the body of Christ

I read the following in a Reader's Digest article while waiting for Lucy to have her fiddle lesson yesterday. It was in the June/July 2011 issue in an article titled 'The Wisdom of the Oak' by Yelizaveta Renfro. She got the information about oak trees from a book by William Bryant Logan called 'Oak: The Frame of Civilization'. Here is the quote from her article:


"In some forests, Logan writes, oak trees of compatible species graft their roots together and "become one flesh". Through their shared root system, the stronger dominant trees may provide the weaker trees with nutrients. In this way, even the roots of stumps can continue to live and contribute to the forest."

When I read that I can't tell you how thrilled I was, immediately seeing it as a picture of the Body of Christ. If a body of believers is together reaching their roots deep into the soil of Christ's word, their root systems will be grafted together so that each can draw from the soil and from the others so that they are 'one flesh'. That's true communion, being one with Christ and with one another. The weak ones will be just as nourished as the strong ones as they share together.

A Conversation Between A Catholic (Leo) and A Protestant (Me)

Leo and I have been having an interesting conversation in the com box of this post. Leo is concerned for me because I am no longer Catholic; I am concerned for him because he doesn't see that I don't need to be Catholic to be a Christian. The church is not what Leo thinks it is, I think.
UPDATE: I would also add that if Leo is trusting in the Catholic Church as his salvation, as might be inferred by the fact that he thinks there is no salvation outside of it, then I am very concerned for his salvation too. We must trust in Christ alone and come to Him by faith, not to the Catholic Church. We don't come to Christ through the Church, but to the church through Christ.

A Conversation About the Eucharist: Paul Pavao

I had an email conversation recently with Paul Pavao (Shammah) about baptism which led to this conversation about the Eucharist:

Jennie,
The Lord's Supper is a lot harder than baptism because there are less Scriptures on it. Not only that, but I'm firmly convinced that the Scriptures that do mention the Lord's Supper/Eucharist/Communion are often at least partially symbolic.

My argument would be that in John 6, when Jesus says to eat his body and drink his blood, he is talking in the present tense, not in the future. They were already supposed to be eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Since that didn't mean biting him, it's obviously symbolic.

In fact, Jesus sort of says so in Jn. 6:35: "I am the Bread of Life; he that comes to me shall never hunger, and he that believes in me will never thirst."

Does this not strongly suggest that coming to him is eating of him and believing in him is drinking of him?

It's just a chapter later when he says, "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. He that believes in me, as the Scripture has said, out of belly rivers of living water will flow" (7:37-38).

Now, keep in mind that I am aware that Ignatius, a man chosen by the apostle John to lead the church in Antioch, says that communion is "the medicine of immortality, the antidote which prevents us from dying, and a cleansing remedy driving away evil so that we should live in God through Jesus Christ."

He adds that the gnostics don't eat the Eucharist because they don't agree that it's the flesh of our Savior, Jesus Christ.

The fact is, none of us like the priestly hocus pocus [hoc est corpus] that goes on in the Catholic Church. I was raised Catholic, and I can tell you that if the Catholic Church were the church of our Lord Jesus Christ and if its Eucharist were the body of our Lord Jesus Christ, then there ought to be a lot of sick and dead Catholics (1 Cor. 11:30). The fact is, though, that the Catholic Church has awful fruit, it is not the church, its communion is not the body of Christ, and its priestly hocus pocus is as false as it seems to be.

But ...

I've never met a free Christian that didn't love the idea that the bread of communion is "the medicine of immortality."

Think about it. If communion can make an unworthy partaker ill or dead, shouldn't it be able to communicate grace to the worthy partaker?

Like baptism, there's no indication that anyone considered the Lord's Supper to be purely symbolic until at least the Reformation. Zwingli did not believe it to be the actual body of Christ, but I don't think he considered it purely symbolic, either.

However, there's so much more to be said on the subject of the Lord's Supper that it makes me tired to think about it.

For example, the word "communion" is a silly word. The Greek word it comes from is koinonia, the word for fellowship. If we want to speak English, then we ought to translate 1 Cor 10:16 should be translated, "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the fellowship of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the fellowship of the body of Christ?"

I don't believe this is referring to physical eating. I believe it is referring to the fellowship of the church. The blood of Christ not only forgives sin and cleanses us from our weaknesses, but it also gives us fellowship with one another (1 Jn. 1:7-9).

Paul also entirely puts the context of the Lord's Supper into the fellowship of the church. We have discern the Lord's body, he says. What was he rebuking them for? He was rebuking them for not taking care of each other. Some went hungry, others were drunk. This is what it means to not discern the Lord's body. That intense self-examination people go through is not what God is after. He wants us to eat and drink as participants in the fellowship of the body of Christ, joined to one another by the body and blood of Christ.

So I don't think the Eucharist is purely symbolic, but I believe the effect of it is spiritual. There's no physical transformation. That's ridiculous, and it could be tested by science, anyway.

I believe all of God's "symbols" are not mere symbols. They convey power.

Baptism does something because it is, as you say, an act of obedience to the Word of God. It is our response to the Gospel, the answer to God from a good conscience or the appeal to God for a good conscience. Either way, it was meant to be our "sinner's prayer" or our initial act of obedience.

The Eucharist, too, is both an act of fellowship for the body and a meal that brings grace from heaven, the product of our faith and worship, not the product of the bread and wine itself. The bread and wine is to remember him, but in remembering him, he responds. God inhabits the praises of his people.

The early churches universally took those things seriously. Speaking for them, it was important to them. It was so important that if a person was sick when the Lord's Supper was served, the deacons brought some to the sick person's home after the meeting.

Of course, back then it was a meal, not a tiny cracker. So it's possible that they delivered it to the sick person as food, a meal they needed, not just as a ceremony.

I've been forced to ramble a bit because that's all I know to do on this subject. It's so wide, and there's areas that seem to me to be free for interpretation. I can say that the early church clearly did not see the meal as symbolic, and I can say the Catholic Church has gone too far and gotten silly and powerless, but where in between we should land? Now that's a question, and I've only thrown out some bits of evidence to help decide.

Shammah


My response (so far):
Paul (Shammah),
Your answer is very helpful, even though you thought it was rambling. I have a thought about the Eucharist being partly symbolic. Could it be that the bread of the Eucharist, like the water of baptism, is symbolic, but that the act of faith of the believer in response to God is the part that brings the benefit? In other words, the believers fellowship together in faith by obeying Jesus' command to 'do this in remembrance of Me' and God in turn is with us and gives us His grace and goodness in a special way in return. But are we missing out on this by not understanding the nature of the Supper? Are we missing out on the benefits of it by thinking it's symbolic, and also by not really being in full fellowship as we are meant to?
Thanks for taking the time to address my question.
In Christ,
Jennie

UPDATE: Paul's response:
I found a neat quote on this just today from the Anabaptists:

"Those who believe receive remission of sins, not by but in baptism. ... They trust in the merits of the blood of Christ. Then they receive the sign of obedience, water baptism, as proof before God and his church that they firmly believe in the remission of sins through Jesus Christ as it was preached and taught to them from the Word of God. When all this takes place, they receive remission of their sins in baptism."

That's from Menno Symons. If I'm translating the Dutch title correctly, it's Explanation of the Christian Baptism.

That's to say, I agree wholeheartedly with your "the bread of the Eucharist, like the water of baptism, is symbolic, but that the act of faith of the believer in response to God is the part that brings the benefit."

In addition, I assure you that you are correct and modern believers are missing out on lots of things because of unbelief. We have grown used to a powerless Christianity. I have been learning to walk in faith for 25 years, but America is bathed in unbelief, and I have a long ways to go to be the kind of faith-filled believer that Stephen and others were in the early church.

Paul/Shammah

A Study on The Lord's Supper by Eric Svendsen

Here is a link to a study on the Lord's Supper by Eric Svendsen. I haven't finished reading it all, but it promises to be very helpful and thought-provoking.

Eating the Word=Believing by Faith

Matthew 4:
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.’”


Jeremiah 15
15 O LORD, You know;
Remember me and visit me,
And take vengeance for me on my persecutors.
In Your enduring patience, do not take me away.
Know that for Your sake I have suffered rebuke.
16 Your words were found, and I ate them,
And Your word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart;
For I am called by Your name,
O LORD God of hosts.
17 I did not sit in the assembly of the mockers,
Nor did I rejoice;
I sat alone because of Your hand,
For You have filled me with indignation.
18 Why is my pain perpetual
And my wound incurable,
Which refuses to be healed?
Will You surely be to me like an unreliable stream,
As waters that fail?

19 Therefore thus says the LORD:


“ If you return,
Then I will bring you back;
You shall stand before Me;
If you take out the precious from the vile,
You shall be as My mouth.
Let them return to you,
But you must not return to them.
20 And I will make you to this people a fortified bronze wall;
And they will fight against you,
But they shall not prevail against you;
For I am with you to save you
And deliver you,” says the LORD.
21 “ I will deliver you from the hand of the wicked,
And I will redeem you from the grip of the terrible.”

John 6:
26 Jesus answered them and said, “Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. 27 Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.”
28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”
30 Therefore they said to Him, “What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”
32 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34 Then they said to Him, “Lord, give us this bread always.”
35 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....
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.”
41 The Jews then complained about Him, because He said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” 42 And they said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He says, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”
43 Jesus therefore answered and said to them, “Do not murmur among yourselves. 44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me. 46 Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father. 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.”
52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?”
53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
68 But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

An Interesting Quote

On James Swan's blog, from a link to an older post in his sidebar about 'Obscure Luther Quotes', I found this quote from Harold O.J. Brown in his book
'Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church':


On page 306, Brown states:

"It was not justification by faith alone that was the innovation and therefore the heresy; transubstantiation was the innovation that made the orthodoxy of the past into the heresy of the present. it made the promise of justification by faith alone appear fraudulent."

1Corinthians 11:27-29: Judgment at the Lord's Supper: How Banquets in the Bible reveal Salvation or Judgment by Bob DeWaay and K. Jentoft

Bob DeWaay and K. Jentoft have an article about the Lord's Supper as related to judgment and reward in Biblical accounts of feasts. Following is an excerpt of the beginning of the article. Please follow the link to read the entire article.

"Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly." (1Corinthians 11:27-29)

If you truly know the Lord Jesus as Savior, you likely have felt too sinful to safely take communion at some point in your Christian life. The irony is that the better we do in regard to sanctification, the more concerned we are about sin in our lives. That being the case, the idea that partaking of the Lord's Supper might put us under judgment can be rather troubling.

The concept of being judged at a banquet found in 1Corinthians 11 is not at all unique but fits a pattern that begins in Genesis and ends in Revelation. The Bible is full of banquets that result in simultaneous blessing or judgment. In this article I will provide a survey of many of these passages to identify the pattern. Having shown a consistent pattern, we will then return to 1Corinthians 11 and see if we can be specific about what Paul was warning against and make application of it.
Mishteh in the Old Testament

The Hebrew word mishteh means a feast or banquet associated with a special occasion, often associated with wine. This is from the Dictionary of Biblical Languages under "mishteh": "meal, feast, banquet i.e., an eating event either as a common meal or usually a special festive dinner, often including much drinking of wine."1 But what has been overlooked by Biblical scholars is the fact that accompanying these events in Scripture are always divisions between people where some are blessed and others are cursed. These incidents are found throughout the Scriptures and are frequent in the Gospels. This concept of simultaneous blessing and judgment at a banquet or feast is a main Biblical theme and we will see how central it is to the message of the gospel. The pattern of mishteh is amazingly consistent throughout the Old Testament.

For example, consider the first use of mishteh in the Bible:

Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening as Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. And he said, "Now behold, my lords, please turn aside into your servant's house, and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way." They said however, "No, but we shall spend the night in the square." Yet he urged them strongly, so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he prepared a feast [mishteh] for them, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. (Genesis 19:1-3)

Here Lot entertained the angels by throwing a mishteh. We know exactly what happened on the occasion of this mishteh: Lot and his family were saved and Sodom was destroyed. These were starkly different outcomes.

The term mishteh is used 46 times in the Old Testament, with 19 of those occurring in the book of Esther. In every case we find the same pattern of salvation and judgment dramatically revealed. The entire book of Esther is about the judgment of wicked Haman and the salvation of Mordecai, Esther, and the Jews. Haman's pride and hatred of Mordecai led to his demise on the occasion of a mishteh. Conversely, Mordecai received the honor that Haman desired for himself. Much more can be said about Esther, but the book contains stark examples of judgment and salvation happening at its various banquets.

Going back to early Genesis we see the second use of the term mishteh in the Bible:

And the child grew and was weaned, and Abraham made a great feast [mishteh] on the day that Isaac was weaned. Now Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, mocking. Therefore she said to Abraham, "Drive out this maid and her son, for the son of this maid shall not be an heir with my son Isaac." (Genesis 21:8)

In that incident Isaac was named the heir of the promise, and Ishmael and Hagar were sent away. There is a division, with the blessing going to one and not the other.

In Genesis 40:16-22 Joseph had interpreted the dreams of Pharaoh's cupbearer and baker while all were in prison. Then Pharaoh threw a dinner party. At Pharaoh's mishteh the cupbearer was restored to his job as Joseph predicted, and the baker was hanged.

1Samuel 25:2-42 contains the narrative of wicked Nabal and his virtuous wife Abigail. Nabal refused to show hospitality to David's men, and David vowed to destroy Nabal and his men. Abigail heard about this and bearing much food came out to greet David and intercede with him on behalf of her wicked husband. David accepted her request and spared her husband. Then in 1Samuel 25:36, Nabal held a mishteh. The next day Abigail told Nabal about David's threat and her intercession. Ten days later the Lord struck Nabal dead, and Abigail became David's wife soon afterward (1Samuel 25:42). Again, on the occasion of a mishteh one person was judged and another blessed.

A similar incident in 2Samuel 3:20-30 describes David's mishteh with Abner, with Abner being killed soon after it (2Samuel 3:30). This event was the culmination of a process by which David's house was established, and Saul's (represented by Abner) was subjugated.

This theme is consistent throughout the Old Testament. Besides non-literal uses of the term in the wisdom literature of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, whenever there is a mishteh, someone (or more) is blessed, saved or exalted, and someone (or more) is cursed, judged, or killed. Sometimes this is more or less obvious, but there are no exceptions. These banquets are occasions where people are separated based on their status entering the banquet—either by their moral character or by their status vis-à-vis God's purposes (such as Ishmael). To be invited to a mishteh always sounds like a good thing because it is a festive feast with lots of food and wine. But it is only good for some.

The New Evangelization and the Coming Eucharistic Reign of Jesus

Roger Oakland has an article called 'The New Evangelization and the Coming Eucharistic Reign of Jesus' on his website understandthetimes.org. I believe his warning is extremely important for the times in which we live. The following scripture passages describe how Jesus will return, and warn of how He will NOT return:

Acts 1:9 Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10 And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, 11 who also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.”

Matthew 24:23 “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There!’ do not believe it. 24 For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you beforehand.
26 “Therefore if they say to you, ‘Look, He is in the desert!’ do not go out; or ‘Look, He is in the inner rooms!’ do not believe it. 27 For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be."

Revelation 19:11 Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. 12 His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. 13 He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses. 15 Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written:

KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

"See, I have told you beforehand"

“Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There!’ do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you beforehand.
“Therefore if they say to you, ‘Look, He is in the desert!’ do not go out; or ‘Look, He is in the inner rooms!’ do not believe it. For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. (Matthew 24:23-27)

Roger Oakland of 'Understand the Times' has an article called 'Last Days Appearances of "Jesus"' which I have linked to here. I include an excerpt also:

It was another one of those headlines that immediately caught my attention: “Non-Catholic visitor sees Jesus in local chapel.” [1] Ever since I became aware of the Roman Catholic New Evangelization program to win the world to the Roman Catholic Eucharistic Christ, I have been expecting a news item of this nature.



The St. Charles Herald Guide reported that a petroleum geologist by the name of Andy Petty experienced a manifestation of “Jesus” at the Adoration Chapel of Our Lady of Perpetual Help. Quoting from the article:

It all started when Petty visited Our Lady of Perpetual Help Adoration Chapel in Rivertown. Little did he know that someone was waiting for him there. Petty, who belonged to the Worldwide Church of God, was only attending Our Lady of Perpetual Help to be with his fiancé, Ina. When Ina said, “let’s go to the chapel” he thought she meant wedding chapel. [2]

For those not familiar with this topic, adoration of the Eucharistic Jesus that takes place in adoration chapels is a major part of the New Evangelization program. In order to understand what this means, some basic terms and concepts need to be defined.

First, a priest performs the act of transubstantiation. This is when it is believed that a host (wafer) actually becomes the presence of Jesus – the Eucharistic Christ. Second, the host is placed in a container called a monstrance. Third, the monstrance is placed in an adoration chapel where the faithful come to worship and adore the Eucharistic Christ.

Now back to the article:

“I had never been to an adoration chapel, never heard of it,” acknowledged Petty. He had seen the Eucharist before in the church when Father Miles was showing it around so he knew what it looked like. The 56-year-old said he was so unfamiliar with the host that he called it a cracker at the time. [3]

Petty’s life was forever changed following the experience he had at the Adoration Chapel of Our Lady of Perpetual Help:

When he looked at the host, he was surprised by the image of a “bearded man” looking at him, clear as the day. Petty didn’t realize he was having a vision considered by the faithful to be a blessing.[4]

Petty was dumfounded, coming from a scientific/geological background. He was not inclined to believe anything that could not be proven. Immediately he began promoting the experience he had encountered by telling others they too could “see Jesus.” Finally, he converted to the Roman Catholic faith.

The Eucharist: Perpetual or Repeated Sacrifice? Or Does it Matter?

Following is an exchange on the 'Visits to Candyland' blog which is likely to be deleted because it's on the wrong thread, and Elena doesn't like comments that aren't on subject. It's between myself and Barbara C. The part in italics is her comment.

To Barbara C.,
You said:
Kelly wrote: I assume that as we're now debating whether or not perpetual sacrifice is Biblical, you concede that the Catholic Church does not teach a "re-sacrifice" of Christ.

Jennie responded: I'm not sure that it really matters; either one is unbiblical.

The thing is that it REALLY does matter that you understand the difference. It’s the difference between having a legitimate grievance with someone instead of one based on a lie. As a matter of respect, all we have asked is that you attempt to understand Church teachings correctly even if you disagree with them and that you not attack based on untruths and misunderstandings and continue to pass on such things to others. In fact that is the whole purpose of this blog.

I responded:
You didn't include my entire statement. I also said something like: the Church may teach that the sacrifice is perpetual, but it also teaches that the eucharist really IS Christ's body and blood, so if it really is His body and blood, and it really is a sacrifice, then it IS a re-sacrifice of Christ, whatever you want to call it. So the Church wants to have it both ways: a real sacrifice of Christ but perpetual, not repeated. It isn't possible. So the lie isn't by those outside the Church who call it a repeated sacrifice; the lie is by the Church that calls it both perpetual AND physical, yet tries to say it isn't a repetition. Biblically the sacrifice is NEITHER perpetual NOR repeated, but IS a physical ONE TIME sacrifice ON THE CROSS. It's over; yet it is effective forever.

'Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood' by Evangelist Mike Gendron

Here is an article by evangelist Mike Gendron about the Roman Catholic interpretation of John 6, which teaches that Jesus was talking about transubstantiation when He said “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." Gendron gives 'seven convincing biblical reasons why this passage is to be taken figuratively.'

Discussion on Apostolic succession at Visits to Candyland blog

There's an interesting discussion going on over at Visits to Candyland.

Why should we not believe in transubstantiation?

Elena asked,
Why cannot it be understood as literally Christ giving his body to eat?

She was referring to this quote she gave from Ambrose:
It is wonderful that God rained manna on our fathers and they were fed with daily food from heaven. And so it is written: Man ate the bread of angels. Yet those who ate that bread all died in the desert. But the food that you receive, that living bread which came down from heaven, supplies the very substance of eternal life, and whoever will eat it will never die, for it is the body of Christ. Ambrose of Milan, treatise On the Mysteries was originally spoken to newly baptized Christians around the year 370 AD.
This quote is apparently referring to John 6. I would like to give a few scriptures to show why Jesus in John 6 is not referring to Christ literally giving us His body and blood to eat, and that the bread is not literally the 'body, soul, and divinity of Christ' or the whole Christ.
Matthew 24:23 “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There!’ do not believe it. 24 For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you beforehand.
26 “Therefore if they say to you, ‘Look, He is in the desert!’ do not go out; or ‘Look, He is in the inner rooms!’ do not believe it. 27 For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.
This passage says that if anyone tells you that Christ is here or there on earth DO NOT BELIEVE IT and DO NOT GO OUT to look for Him, because His coming will be 'as the lightning come from the east and flashes to the west'. Jesus is telling His disciples that He will NOT be present physically on earth until He comes again in the sky, and not to believe anyone who says He is, even though you see signs and wonders to prove that it is He.
John 19:30 He said, “It is finished!” And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.
Hebrews 10:16 “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.
Jesus finished His propitiatory work on the cross and for those who believe in Him, their sins are forgiven and there is no more need for an offering for sin.
Hebrews 9:25 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. 27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.
This passage says that He appeared once to put away sin by His sacrifice of Himself, not often, and that He will appear for those who eagerly await Him a SECOND TIME, APART FROM SIN, for salvation. He will appear a second time when He comes back to earth, 'just as He ascended' the first time. He will appear 'apart from sin' that is, not as a sacrifice for sin. He does not come back as a physical perpetual sacrifice. Every word of Hebrews denies this doctrine. He sat down at the right hand of the Father in victory over sin and death and having finished His suffering, He intercedes for us against our accuser the devil.

UPDATE:
Elena has a post up about this too: http://mdcalexatestblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/hebrews-matthew-and-john-6.html

More discussion on John 6

Elena (of mydomesticchurch.com) and I were having a discussion here
about my 'I am the Bread of Life' (John 6) post. Following are two comments I made at the end of our discussion to clarify why this subject is so important.

The reason I keep stressing that Jesus is talking about His actual sacrifice on the cross, and about believing His word by faith, is that this is how the bible teaches that we are saved: by faith in Christ's sacrifice to take away our sin, which brings repentance and rebirth and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Another thing that concerns me about Catholics besides that many are trusting in outward things for salvation (such as sacraments) is that they don't believe in or have assurance of salvation which comes by faith in Christ after we become a new creature by the indwelling of the Spirit who regenerates us and washes us by Christ's blood.

1 John 5:13
13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, THAT YOU MAY KNOW THAT YOU HAVE ETERNAL LIFE, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.

"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.