35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me; and him who comes to me I will not cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me; 39 and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." 41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, "I am the bread which came down from heaven." 42 They said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, 'I have come down from heaven'?" 43 Jesus answered 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.' Every one who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me. 46 Not that any one has seen the Father except him who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" 53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, 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 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever." 59 This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper'na-um.
60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you that do not believe." For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. 65 And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." 66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. 67 Jesus said to the twelve, "Do you also wish to go away?" 68 Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God." 70 Jesus answered them, "Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?" 71 He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was to betray him.
1)Before I go over his opening I want you to compare what Malakye wrote in actually dissecting the passages, and compare it to mine. You will not see much examination of actual passages within John 6, but a bringing a lot of ideas, suppositions, totally alien to what John 6 actually says, in comparison to me going through almost every verse from 6:48-71, giving context. It is apparent that the metaphorical suppositions he must import from outside because John 6 itself does not lend itself to those suppositions. It is like well, because metaphor is used in these other places, it must be used here.
TRULY WRONG
2)I will pass over the quotation of Spurgeon. In his opening statement Malakye congratulates himself on bringing down the Vatican with what he thinks are indisputable proofs of Trent's errors (paragraph 3). I will show what he accuses Trent of doing, Trent doesn't, and Malakye does himself. Let's unpack his most serious charge first. Trent supposedly lies, adds to what Jesus says. Actually, in most of Trent, there are not direct quotations but there are footnotes that tell you what Trent is referring to. I have Tan Publishing, Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. This quotation is from chapter 4 on 13th session, p. 75. Here is the quote:
"And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly John 6:48ff. His own body. (Luke 22:19, 1 Cor. 11:24-29)"
3)Supposedly Trent is lying because he said He didn't say 'truly' my body; Well, a quick solution is to see what Trent is referring to: Luke 22:19, 1 Cor. 11:24-29, John 6:48ff. In Luke and Corinthians is where Jesus offers what seems bread, as His Body. That is where the promise is fulfilled, however, the promise is made beforehand, that is what the end of the quote is referenced.
53So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you"---55For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
4)According to Trent's own notation, the reason why it is truly his body, is because Jesus proclaimed this in John 6:53, the word 'truly' is used. So, all the huffing and puffing about adding to God's word, is false. Jesus says 'My Body', Luke 22:19. Jesus said truly in John 6:53, and it was real food, verse 55. The Scriptural footnote exists. Next, see Malakye's notation on John 6, putting words into Jesus mouth. He continues, paragraph 16 "unless you eat", i.e., "now", present tense." Jesus did not say 'now' anywhere in John 6. Malakye is indeed guilty of adding to the text. "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee and thou be found a liar", (Proverbs 30:6). The Baptist confession of faith in 1689 chapter 30 refers to 1 Cor. 11:24-29, as figurative (though clearly not), spends time explaining away the literal words of Jesus' words, without putting quotes. That confession doesn't quote directly, and changes the meaning, far worse than Trent actually putting two/three texts together and summarizing it briefly in a condensed fashion. If one reads Scripture on its face, in John 6:48-59, and 1 Corinthians 11:23-29, Luke 22:19, by a neutral observer, the Trent interpretation in one sentence is far closer to the meaning than the contortions of Baptist interpretation. The Baptist Confession of Faith and Malakye, basically contend 'don't believe what Jesus and Paul say, let us interpret it for you, let us give long explanations that deprive Jesus and Paul's words of their plain meaning.' I will get to the gist of the paragraph 16 argument about Jesus saying 'now', later. So, all this declaring Trent wrong, is wrong. Trent's reference is John 6:53 where Jesus indeed says truly.
5)Apparently, Jesus didn't offer anything. Malakye declares: (paragraph 3) 'Jesus did not " SAY" that he was "OFFERING" anything, let alone that the bread was"TRULY" his body.' What does Jesus say in Trent's reference to Luke 22:19? 'And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." Jesus says He is offering his Body, right then and there, explicitly. What part of 'This Is My Body' is so hard to understand? This Trent passage is a summary of the promise made in John 6. If he is giving his Body and Blood, he is offering it right then and there, a covenantal meal. We are not eating toenails (paragraph 3), we are eating flesh and blood, in the form of bread and wine.
6)The third supposed error Malakye notes is Jesus can't offer himself in sacrifice before his death, it is impossible. Jesus was called the Lamb of God by John the Baptist well before He was put to death, John 1:29. That is by definition who He is, and his mission. Jesus is the Lamb of God. As documented in my opening statement, (paragraphs 24-27) Jesus is an eternal Priest/Lamb (Psalm 110:4, Hebrews 5-13). He transcends time. Here He points forward to his sacrifice on the cross. His offering before his crucifixion is the same as after it. We see this on the incident of the Road to Emmaus. Just as on Thursday he offered the supper that pointed forward to it, he offered the same on Easter Sunday, Luke 24:30-31:
30When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them. 31And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight.
Jesus himself did the exact same thing he had done just a few days before. Blessed it broke it and gave it to them (Luke 22:19-20). They did not recognize him before, Luke 24:16. He broke bread, which as He himself declared a few days before, is his Body. The disciples relate that they knew him only when Jesus broke bread, a mini liturgy: He broke open the Scriptures, then explained to them (homily/sermon), still not recognizing Him, and then partook of his Body and Blood. The exact order of the Mass. Jesus is an eternal, glorious lamb who Catholics are privileged to partake of.
7)Jesus is recognized by them only when Jesus broke that bread, Luke 24:31, 35. An important way that after his death and resurrection that Jesus participates with his church is through the Eucharist. But what about Luke saying that it is only breaking bread? Paul relates this same language of Luke when he says that the meaning of Jesus breaking bread, as I noted in my opening statement, 'The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?', 1 Cor. 10:16.
8)One other thing that must be noted, about the body. Jesus is the Passover lamb. The Old Testament precedent points towards it. Exodus 12:8:
"They shall eat the flesh that night, roasted; with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it." Another relevant passage is Numbers 9:13: "But the man who is clean and is not on a journey, yet refrains from keeping the passover, that person shall be cut off from his people, because he did not offer the LORD's offering at its appointed time; that man shall bear his sin."
9)Notice that this unleavened bread is associated with eating the flesh of the Lamb. What about the importance of eating this lamb? We see that keeping this feast is so important, that if one does not eat of this sacrificial meal, one is cut off. This exactly matches Jesus words in John 6:54 where He says only those who eat this meal will inherit eternal life. If one does not eat of the flesh of the Son of Man, the glorified risen Messiah, one cuts themselves off from eternal life.
10)In sum the first part of Malakye's essay which consisted of supposedly exposing three Trent errors, is exposed as wrong. 1)The preeminent supposed error which destroys infallibility is because Jesus didn't say 'truly' my body. As noted, it was a summary in one sentence of the three passages Trent referred to. Jesus did say 'Truly, Truly' in John 6:53, and this is my Body he said (Luke 22:19, 1 Cor. 11:24). It is truly His body. 2)Jesus did offer (give) His Body, not 'nothing.' 3)I've already shown that the meal is sacrificial, and as Eternal Priest, Jesus could offer his Flesh and Blood both before and after his crucifixion. That was shown both in the institution of the sacrament, and on the road to Emmaus, where it was only through the Eucharist that the disciples recognized Jesus.
MEANING OF EATING HIS FLESH
11)Paragraphs 7-9, Malakye argues eating flesh and blood means belief only. I showed in my opening statement, the context in John 6 was overwhelmingly literal. Manna referred to in John 6:48, 58, literal. Jesus will come in the flesh, literal 50. The term 'eat' trogo, four times, only used literally. 'True' flesh and blood (v. 55). He said 'Truly' (v. 53) twice to speak literalness. That is all ignored, put aside, because Malakye is forced to render Jesus' words as metaphor. Then he gives a cascade of passages that do not relate to eating flesh and blood, but are metaphorical. Malakye says Catholics don't recognize metaphor. Catholics will agree that there is metaphorical language throughout the Bible. No dispute of passages where tasting and seeing in passages do not speak of the Eucharist. No doubt many of the passages speak of metaphor, not physical manifestations of God. God is not a Rock, or Eagle wings but symbolize to believers a characteristic, or ways which believers can understand/approach God. It is known by all that the context of these passage is metaphorical. However, John 6:48-59, gone through verse by verse has no metaphorical context. In the Old Covenantal institution of a Passover meal, it was true lambs that were sacrificed (Exodus 12-13), and followers had to eat a physical meal. Manna that came down from heaven (Exodus 16:4) that fed the people was real manna. Jesus promised a manna based on what happens to be true flesh and blood. In Exodus 24, there was an institution of a covenant, with real blood, poured out on the people, with unleavened bread. Jesus is the New Moses who gives a new meal specifically using the language 'Blood of the Covenant', which was real. Sure, he says 'take and eat' (paragraph 9), but not metaphorically, he says 'This is my Body', and 'Blood'. Really eat His Body and Blood. None of this is metaphorical and to try to squeeze this context into metaphor is a desperate rationalization for denying Jesus' words both in John 6, and in the institution of the New Covenantal meal. Jehovah Witnesses give similar rationalizations for denying the reality of the Bodily Resurrection (the four gospels and 1 Corinthians) and will also point to Scriptures which they say deny that Christ bodily rose, 1 Cor. 15:50, 1 Pet. 3:18. John 6 and the four institutional narratives are similarly mis mashed by Protestants to say that Jesus spoke metaphorically, is similar to a Jehovah Witness argument to make a metaphor of Jesus' bodily resurrection.
12)In paragraph 7, Malakye starts and beats a false presumption. He says 'to presume that the Savior will 'consume his physique'. Yes, we eat his flesh and blood, but it is in the 'form' of bread and wine. No dispute that metaphors include eating, tasting, can be positive, however with a sleight of hand, Malakye slips in the eating of flesh as just like these positive metaphors. However, he even acknowledges in quoting the Psalm and Malachi that eating flesh is metaphorically negative but by Malakye's decree, it suddenly becomes good. No, it does not. Quoting Scriptures, even Sirach, having nothing to do with eating flesh metaphorically in a positive way does not help his cause. Jesus didn't say 'unless you eat this scroll', or unless you 'eat and drink wisdom' (paragraph 9), He says 'Unless you Eat my Flesh.' Sure, taste and see that the Lord is good, is a powerful metaphor, and the passage originally in the Psalms, is not talking about the Eucharist. That does not replace the fact that eating flesh and drinking blood metaphorically always and everywhere is bad. Malakye does quote where wisdom was purely metaphorical that talks about bread and wine symbolically, however it was talking about a figurative model, Wisdom. In the Last Supper, Jesus is an actual person with bread and wine turned into real flesh and blood. Wisdom is metaphorical in Proverbs. Jesus is not a metaphor, neither was the actual bread and wine. He quotes Fathers here without even giving any citation on the source, impossible to check. None of these fathers here say that the Eucharist is not the flesh and blood of Christ, even if uncited.
13)Notice a metaphor Malakye does not use, which is central to this whole debate. Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world John 1:29, as every Catholic proclaims every week. In order to remain in covenant, one had to eat the flesh of the lamb. Or one was cut off. That is the same in the new covenant. Jesus was not a one-time lamb who died, but is even now seen as a lamb, presently as his once and for all sacrifice can be made present now, as documented by me in Hebrews 5-13, (opening statement, paragraphs 24-27). Revelation 5:6-8 gives us a picture of the worship of the Lamb:
6And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders, I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth; 7and he went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who was seated on the throne. 8And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints;
14)There is a throne, singing, elders (presbuteroe) going down on their knees to worship the lamb, there is a scroll that is opened up, hosannas sung to the lamb (verses 9-13), after the scroll is opened up. Hmm, that is the Catholic Mass. This is the victorious and risen lamb, but he still is a lamb. The Church sings his praise with the saints in heaven, exactly as proclaimed by Jesus himself in John 6:60-63, as spelled out in Hebrews 12:22-24. This falling down on our knees worships Jesus as the risen and victorious lamb, is heavenly worship. This metaphor Malakye misses.
BAPTIST, IGNATIUS, AUGUSTINE?
15)Even though he cites the Fathers, (paragraph 6) without the actual citations, since he brought them up, I'll show wherever those quotes are, they don't mean to deny the validity of Christ giving us in the Eucharist his true Body and Blood. Malakye says he quotes them (without sourcing) because the Protestant position has a pedigree before the 16th century. I'll respond when he gives me where these quotes are from, when I can check the context. I'm not doing his job. Of course, many Fathers would appreciate and use figurative language, never to deny the reality of the Eucharist. One of them hilarious, because Ignatius says the 'Word became flesh and 'tabernacled' among us' that means the Eucharist is not real? The tabernacle actually held the bread of presence (Exodus 25:30, Leviticus 24:7-9). The term 'sarx' is used in John 6:51. the very term used in John 1:14. We know that Ignatius was fighting against Docetists/Gnostics who denied Jesus came in the flesh. Ignatius combatted this by pointing exactly to the Eucharist. In fighting the Gnostics, Ignatius says 'Let us stand aloof from such heretics' because:
"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death." (Letter to Smyrna 7:1, Schaff, Anti-Nicene-Fathers, vol. 1, p. 89.
The Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior. Those who reject it are heretics, incur death. John's own disciple proclaims so. The Eucharist shows how Jesus came in the flesh, that is how he tabernacles among us now.
16) St. Augustine does not deny the reality of Christ in the Eucharist:
"You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in the chalice, sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ. Through that bread and wine(accidents) the Lord Christ willed to commend His Body and the Blood which He poured out for us unto the forgiveness of sins." St. Augustine, Sermons 227, Jurgens, Faith of the Early Fathers, 1519, Volume 3, p. 30.
This passage shows belief in transformation of bread and wine to the Body and Blood of Christ, (fits transubstantiation), a sacrifice that forgives sins, not very Baptist/Spurgeon like.
"How carried in his own hands? Because when He commended His own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said 'This is my body' [Matt. 26:26]."(On the Psalms 33:1) [A.D. 405]). Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers1, vol. 8, p. 73.
17)I will address Tertullian down below where Malakye actually gives a citation. Augustine and Ignatius give absolutely no hint, no Protestant pedigree. Whatever they mean elsewhere, does not mean they don't believe in the reality of Christ's presence. Augustine even says one sins by not 'adoring' the Eucharist On Psalms, 98:9, NPNP1, vol. 8, p. 485. Augustine and the Church figured out that Jesus can hold his own Body, despite mocking Protestants calling it impossible.
GIVE US THIS DAY OUR SUPERSUBSTANTIAL BREAD
18)One other relevant passage I did not bring up in my opening, I want to bring up here, shows a Father not only confirming that John 6 speaks of the Eucharist and His true Body and Blood, but the bread that Jesus speaks of in in The Lord's Prayer 'Give us this day our 'daily' bread', (Matthew 6:11) is the Eucharist. 'Epiousious' St. Jerome the Biblical scholar translates the daily bread as 'supersubstantial'. The word is not of common usage, but the common translation of 'daily' ignores the surrounding context. Jesus himself just a few verses later says not to worry about what one eats and drinks, and only focus on seeking the Kingdom of God (Mt. 6:31-33). This points to the Eucharist. This very clearly fits the New Exodus motif I shared in my opening statement. We know the Exodus passage about the manna, Exodus 16:4:
"Then the LORD said to Moses, "Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a day's portion every day, that I may prove them---"
19)We know the prayer, 'thy kingdom come' points to the future, his Kingdom in effect came through his death and resurrection, and we know in the new kingdom, the new manna is superior to the old one. The daily manna is included in the Apostles breaking of bread (Acts 2:46), defined as communion with the Body and Blood of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16).
20)Cyprian of Carthage:
"And according as we say, "Our Father," because He is the Father of those who understand and believe; so also we call it "our bread," because Christ is the bread of those who are in union with His body. And we ask that this bread should be given to us daily, that we who are in Christ, and daily receive the Eucharist for the food of salvation, may not, by the interposition of some heinous sin, by being prevented, as withheld and not communicating, from partaking of the heavenly bread, be separated from Christ's body, as He Himself predicts, and warns, "I am the bread of life which came down from heaven. If any man eat of my bread, he shall live forever: and the bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world." John 6:50 When, therefore, He says, that whoever shall eat of His bread shall live forever; as it is manifest that those who partake of His body and receive the Eucharist by the right of communion are living, so, on the other hand, we must fear and pray lest anyone who, being withheld from communion, is separate from Christ's body should remain at a distance from salvation; as He Himself threatens, and says, "Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye shall have no life in you"John 6:54. And therefore we ask that our bread-that is, Christ-may be given to us daily, that we who abide and live in Christ may not depart from His sanctification and body." The Treatises of Cyprian 4, ANF, volume 5, p. 453.
Cyprian clearly sees the Eucharist as the food of salvation, noting this passage in a Catholic way, pointing to both the Lord's Prayer and John 6 as the Eucharist as supernatural food, and vital to salvation.
21)Cyril of Jerusalem speaks of this "Give us this day our substantial bread. This common bread is not substantial bread, but this Holy Bread is substantial, that is, appointed for the substance of the soul." On the Mysteries. V, 23:15, NPNF2, vol. 7, p. 155. After declaring in effect transubstantiation in section 7.
The early Fathers saw how Melchizedek bread and wine prefigured Christ's true Body and Blood, Cyprian notes:
"In the priest Melchizedeck we see the sacrament of the sacrifice of the Lord prefigured, as the Divine Scriptures testify, since it says 'Melchizedeck, the king of Salem brought bread and wine for he was a priest of the Most High God, and he blessed Abraham.' Who is greater than our Lord Jesus Christ to become a priest of the Most High God? He offered bread and wine, that is, his body and blood, to God the Father after the order of Melchizedek." Letter 62,4, ANF2, vol. 5, p. 359.
DOOR, GATE, ROCK=BODY, BLOOD?
22)Malakye's statement ignored/downgraded such Scriptural connections that the Fathers saw and instead compared it to the metaphors Jesus used, so let's see if the comparison is valid. Eucharist background includes the following:
Genesis 14:18, Hebrews 5-13. Melchizedek offering of bread and wine, Jesus offering of those elements becoming his blood.
Exodus 24:5-8, Luke 22:19, Hebrews 9:20, etc. Moses offers blood of the covenant of animals, Jesus calls it covenant in My Blood.
Exodus 16, bread, or manna, literal, John 6, promise of heavenly bread coming in flesh and blood, John 6:48-58.
Exodus 12, Numbers 9:13, Requirement to eat flesh of real lamb, or else cut off, eat real flesh and blood of Jesus, or cut off from eternal life (John 6:54).
23)This is just a few of the things prefigured and fulfilled in the Eucharistic Jesus. Nothing like that about a door or gate, which are both mentioned once in passing and all the disciples understood as metaphorical. Rock is mentioned multiple times in Scripture but in these references, not understood by readers/hearers literally. Jesus' institution is mentioned four times, Hebrews refers to it as Blood. Nobody understood that Jesus was teaching that he was a literal door, gate. All understood him speaking literally in John 6:48-58. He made an oath (verse 53) that He was 'true flesh and true blood' John 6:55. He used a word 'trogo' four times, John 6:51-58 which only has a meaning of literal. Disciples left over the literalness and Jesus let them go. Unlike times when they misunderstood him over smaller matters, where Scripture tells us Jesus explained to disciples what he meant (Mark 4:34).
Malakye uses Tertullian and gives a reference on how he speaks metaphorically on 'digesting' him by faith. He quotes him in 'On the Resurrection of the Flesh' and uses that against the Catholic view of the Eucharist. Malakye quotes him and says it is either believe or believe in the Eucharist as True flesh and blood. Sure, Tertullian can generally speak metaphorically and about the Eucharist he sometimes uses metaphorical language. However, even with him it is not either/or it is indeed both/and.
Earlier in this same book he writes: "the flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may fatten on its God." Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 8, ANF, vol. 3, p. 551. Tertullian here and in other places, speaks of the true body and blood of Christ.
JOHN 6 THE BREAD I SHALL GIVE
24)Malakye mentions (paragraph 12) there is no Last Supper account in John, which is false, more time is spent on the last supper in John than anywhere else, with a clear reference to it in 5 chapters, 13-17. John 15 He says one must abide in him, a clear reference to the John 6 narrative. Now, the fact that the actual institution narrative is not noted, doesn't matter. The term eating flesh and blood absolutely refers to the Eucharist. Malakye then reads minds by telling us that people would have no idea what he was talking about it so it must mean belief only. On the contrary, Jesus emphasized its literalness time after time in John 6:48-58. Jesus just fed them bread and fish, exactly as a prophet like Moses (Deut. 18). The precursor to the Eucharistic discourse was feeding them, just as God through Moses did. He gave Eucharisteo, v. 11. The people were expecting a prophet like Moses to provide a new manna (Deut. 18, 2 Bar 29). Jesus reminds them of the real Old Covenant manna and promised a better manna, absent from the symbolic only view. One must eat real flesh exactly as in Exodus 12:14-15 this feast would be forever, impossible if only a symbol, which included unleavened bread. People would know this, and Jesus proclaims the new, real manna this way:
John 6:51"I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh
25) Scripture and documented expectations prove Malakye's mindreading capability not so good. Malakye also says Jesus' followers must believe now (paragraph 16). In fact, if they believe in Jesus now at that time, they only would believe in a miracle maker, not a redeemer. He had to be 'put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification', Romans 4:25. That argument fails. Notice Jesus words before he says one must eat his flesh and drink his blood. Verse 51, Jesus says the bread I shall give is my flesh. Malakye's argument that Jesus means 'now', is wrong. He hasn't given it yet, before he dies, he shall give it. That is the whole basis on how he says you must eat his flesh and drink his blood is what he shall do, pointing to the future. He is the new prophet like Moses. This superior manna provides eternal life. It is both/and. Believe in Jesus? Believe that he will give his flesh and blood. Belief only is not sufficient, Jesus says one must do good (5:29), be born of water and spirit (3:5) and keep the commandments (15:10). You don't abide, you get cast out (15:6). John 20:31 says nothing even about his death and resurrection, is that not necessary? If you believe in John 20:31, you must believe all that He taught, including the above, including giving his true flesh and blood.
Besides that, there is an actual match, KJV:
John 6:51"the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
Luke 22:19"This is my body which is given for you."
The sentence structure, the same. He will give his flesh predicted in John, He gives his Body in Luke. The same on giving for you, and the world, Luke, John. John is its own institutional narrative ahead of time.
26)Lastly, the charge that Jesus' Eucharistic presence is so limited it does no good anyway. Sure, the sacramental presence technically is temporary. However, it is a grace (Hebrews 13:10). It forgives sins (Matthew 26:28). We worship Jesus and are with saints in heaven (Rev. 5:6-8, Hebrews 12:22-24). Cyril of Jerusalem says "We come to bear Christ in us because His Body and Blood are diffused through our members; thus it is that, according to the Blessed Peter 'We become the partakers of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4)." On the Mysteries 22:4, NPNF2, vol. 7, p. 151. Partaker of the divine nature.
Ignatius said the Eucharist is 'the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ.' Epistle to the Ephesians 8, ANF, p. 58. Even if the sacramental presence is temporary, the grace lasts. Who am I to believe, the one who studied under the apostle John, or a person, 18 centuries removed? Spurgeon Ignatius identifies as a heretic who incurs death, exactly because he rejected that the Eucharist was Christ's flesh. The idea that John 6 and the rest of Scripture does not confirm the true presence of Christ is unscriptural, ahistorical, a slap in the face of those who went to their death believing in the truth of Jesus giving his followers his true Body and Blood.
Word total: 5,000.