Rapture Network
THE RAPTURE FORUMS
The Rapture Report
The Rapture Newsletter
The Rapture Dashboard
The Rapture Alert
Featured Commentary
End Times News Headlines
End Times Charts
The Book of Revelation
The Rapture of the Church
Bible Prophecy Guide
End Times Signs
End Times Timeline
End Times Events
First Coming Prophecies
Second Coming Prophecies
Israel and the Middle East
Bible Prophecy and Reference
Roman Catholicism
Islam & Cultic Religions
Scripture Verses by Topics
Scripture Verse of the Day
Bible Prophecy Charts
Spurgeon's Daily Devotional
Creation vs. Evolution
Praise-N-Pitchforks
Holy Bible Online
Commentary & Reference
Recommended Readings List
Salvation and Eternal Life
Doctrinal Statement & Beliefs
Christian Links
Wallpaper
Link to Us
About Us
Contact Us
Fair Use Notice

Daily Bible Reading Plan

Jesus Is Coming Soon

Left Behind

The Miracles of Jesus Christ

Earth in Bible Prophecy

Who Is Gog/Magog of Ezekiel 38-39?

The Names of Jesus

Ezekiel 38-39 and Armageddon

Roman Catholicism


Stumble It Share to Reddit Share to Delicious

Bread And Wine Or Flesh And Blood?

Bread And Wine Or Flesh And Blood?
By Jack Kelley

I have a question. In your recent article on Revelation 2 & 3, specifically the section on the letter to the church at Thyatira, you have pointed out that Catholics (yes, I am Catholic) believe that the communion bread and wine are the actual and spiritual body and blood of Jesus. Is this not supported by scripture such as John 6:51-59? Especially verse 55?

Q. I have found your writings very insightful and your website a wealth of information. I pray that God will guide you in this good work and in this time.

I have a question. In your recent article on Revelation 2 & 3, specifically the section on the letter to the church at Thyatira, you have pointed out that Catholics (yes, I am Catholic) believe that the communion bread and wine are the actual and spiritual body and blood of Jesus. Is this not supported by scripture such as John 6:51-59? Especially verse 55?

(6-51)I am the living bread which came down from heaven. (6-52) If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world. (6-53) The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? (6-54) Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. (6-55) He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. (6-56) For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. (6-57) He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him. (6-58) As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. (6-59) This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.(6-60) These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.

What are your thoughts on this?

A. In John 6:51-59 Jesus is speaking figuratively. He never intended that they eat His flesh or drink His blood in the literal sense, but that they “partake” of His death in order to gain life. He had made the transition from literal to figurative when He compared Himself to the manna their forefathers had eaten in the desert in verses 48-49. The manna had sustained their forefathers’ temporal lives, but He would sustain their eternal lives. In the literal sense all of His followers died, just as those in the wilderness had, so He had to be speaking figuratively.

There is good reason for those who take the bible literally to read this passage figuratively. First, if Jesus was speaking literally, He would have been counseling His followers to break the Law, something He couldn’t do. Even the ingestion of animal blood was forbidden, how much more so human blood. (Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:12)

Second, there’s simply no evidence at all that the early church read this passage literally, but instead saw it as looking forward to the institution of the Lord’s Supper, where bread symbolizes His body, and wine His blood. The idea of the transubstantiation of bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Christ came into the Catholic Church several hundred years later at the Council of Trent.

Third, the Bible makes clear in many places that belief by faith is the basis for eternal life, not the eating of flesh and the drinking of blood. Two of those places are found earlier in the same chapter of John, in the Lord’s own words and and in the same context as the passage you cited (John 6:29 & 40). No one attains eternal life by merely celebrating communion.

And finally, when He ordained the celebration of communion, He made it clear that the bread and wine of communion symbolize His body and blood. He never said they become it.

So the notion of transubstantiation passes none of the three basic laws of hermeunitics. Jesus didn’t teach it, the Scriptures don’t say it, and the apostles didn’t practice it.

Original Article


Donate to Rapture Forums

Rapture Wallpaper

Rapture Dashboard

Age of the Earth

End Times Timeline

50 Reasons We Are Living in the End Times

101 End Times Prophecy

Messianic Prophecies

Islam 101

America in Bible Prophecy

101 Science Facts from the Bible

Second Coming

100 Facts About Jesus

The Book of Revelation

Cults and Pagan Religions

Is the Antichrist Gog of Magog?

Gog and the Antichrist Revisited

Copyright © 2006-2017 Rapture Forums All Rights Reserved. Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.