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.
2)The Passover lamb goes back to Exodus where God freed the Israelites from Egypt's slavery. The Passover lamb was sacrificed, unblemished lamb they were commanded to eat the flesh of this unblemished lamb, as well seven days of unleavened bread (Exodus 12:5, 8, 13-15). It was a memorial of God's deliverance of Israel from slavery, when blood was placed on the door of the householders, a memorial sacrifice. Next, we see that God instituted a covenant with Moses via a sacrifice of bulls. Exodus 24:8' And Moses took the blood and threw it upon the people, and said, 'Behold the blood of the covenant which the LORD has made with you'---So the covenant was instituted with blood. 24:11'they beheld God, and ate and drank' A covenantal meal established.
3)Jesus is identified as a Passover lamb, whose blood was sacrificed so that they could leave slavery. As lamb of God, Jesus came to set his followers free from the bondage of sin, John 8:31-36. Moses points to Jesus as one who will be a prophet like him: 'I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him (Deuteronomy 18:18).'
4)Moses was God's means of liberating people from slavery. In John 6, Jesus and his opponents both refer to manna. This was miraculous: LORD said to Moses, Exodus 16:4'Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a day's portion every day.' Identified as 'bread from heaven.' The Jews were expecting a Messiah who would rain down a new manna, 2 Baruch 29:3-8, 'And it shall come to pass at that self-same time that the treasury of manna shall again descend from on high, and they will eat of it in those years, because these are they who have come to the consummation of time.' Even if not Scripture, it gives a hint of what the Jews were expecting, a new manna given daily.
5)That brings us to John 6. Before we get to Jesus' discourse on John 6:48-71, there are two background events. First, John gives us Jesus doing the multiplication of loaves and fishes, during the Passover (V. 4,) the time of the liturgical feast, Moses had manna and fish (Numbers 11:22). It points forward to his own institutional narrative. He gives thanks (Eucharisteo, v. 11). It is in the hills, as in the wilderness, representing Moses. Jesus is acting as a new Moses. He is the prophet exclaimed by the people (v. 14). Following that, Jesus says 'it is I'(6:20), or 'I am' and rescues the disciples. They were out 3-4 miles, but Jesus immediately brings them to dry land. Like the miraculous Moses leading them across the water to dry land. He is God, 'I am', who can do anything. John gives a miraculous setting for the following discourse.
6)Jesus next says the importance of believing him, (35-47). He has stressed believing in him all throughout the gospel, this is nothing new, (John 3:15-36, 4, 5:24-29, many occasions after this discourse). Belief in him only pointed to the future, as his whole purpose is to die, and rise from the dead, just as the Eucharist points to. He does refer to himself as the bread of life in v. 35, as of that point indeed he points to this bread figuratively. One must believe in him to have eternal life, just as he proclaimed in John 3-5. No disciple left him when he said that previously. Now, in John 6 he again proclaims the necessity of believing in him, noting that he came from heaven. One must believe in him that he is the bread of life. In this part, no mention of eating this bread though. Up to here, (6:35-47) metaphorical.
7)In verse 48, Jesus transitions when again he says 'I am the Bread of Life', away from metaphorical. The first sign is that Jesus goes into the fact of the manna in the wilderness, verse 49. Jesus indeed recalls that the Jews indeed ate the real manna, in the wilderness, however, they died. Here is the first time he actually uses the word 'eat'. Manna was real food from heaven, not metaphorical. Jesus then says a new bread will come down from heaven, that when that bread is eaten, one will not die, verse 50. He is talking about a new non-metaphorical bread that if one eats of that, provides a means to eternal life. Verse 51, he goes on to say that 'the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.' Jesus is the Word Made Flesh (John 1:14). He did not metaphorically come down. Just as the manna was not metaphor, the incarnation wasn't either. That Jesus actually came in the flesh, excludes a metaphorical interpretation. He came, what was bread, is now flesh.
8)The Jews oppose him by saying 'how can he give us his flesh to eat.' They understand him literally. In verse 53 Jesus kicks it up a notch. He says that 'truly, truly', making an oath, solemnizing it. He categorizes that one must eat, he uses the term 'Son of Man' which speaks of Daniel's reference for him. Daniel 7:13-14 speaks of the Son of Man, who will come in the clouds of heaven, and who has an everlasting dominion. Now one must eat of this flesh or one will be excluded from eternal life. But it is a messianic and glorified flesh and blood, not in Jesus' human form then before them.
9)Jesus then goes on to use the term translated 'eat' the flesh, 4 times between John 6:54-58, 'trogo', meaning termed 'gnaw' 'chew as a crunching sound', 5176, Strongs Concordance. It is a term whose usage excludes metaphor. In John 13:18 it is used to tell us that Judas ate a meal with the others. In Matthew 24:38, it speaks of how before Noah's flood, the people were 'eating' and drinking, giving in marriage. Judas and the people of Noah's time ate literally, not figuratively. So, when Jesus says one must eat the flesh of the Son of Man, he is saying that the bread he gives is his literal, but gloried messianic Flesh that they must really eat. In that era, there was no figurative usage of trogo, even outside the Bible.
10)In verse 55 via the KJV, Jesus says 'For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.' It really is his flesh, literally. He doesn't say, 'belief' indeed. If one eats his flesh one abides in him (verse 56). This is a grace that helps us abide in him, that provides communion with Jesus, lifegiving indeed. We have no power on our own, but in his flesh and blood we get a manifold grace. This food is such a grace that our relationship with him through this sacrament is equivalent to him living because of the Father (v. 58). Then in v. 59 he again compares it to the real, not metaphorical manna given to the Israelites. The manna they ate as they wandered for 40 years. That did not have a spiritual effect of eternal life, and those who ate the manna, heavenly bread though it may be, ended up dying. This new manna, again, real but a messianic son of man bread, true flesh indeed, will give eternal life to those who partake.
11)Next we get disciples objecting. It is not hard to understand what Jesus is saying. He is giving his flesh and blood in the form of bread, the disciples say 'it is hard, who can accept it.' Not that they don't understand the literalness, but reject this teaching. How does Jesus respond to those who are about to leave? Despite all the literalness that he has been speaking of in verses 48-59, if he wanted to correct the misunderstanding of his flesh and blood being literal, and instead he was only talking about belief, he would make the correction right then and there. However, on the verge of them leaving, he goes even further by saying what kind of flesh and blood he is speaking of. He says v. 64'what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before' referring again to Daniel 7:13, the messianic one, who will ascend into heaven. This flesh and blood that he will provide, is a resurrected and ascended into heaven, glorious Jesus, given in the sacrament, not a bound to earth Jesus. He says 'the flesh is of no avail' (verse 63). He doesn't say MY flesh is of no avail. After all he just noted you must eat his flesh, as that provides eternal life (verses 51-58). Looking at it unspiritually, you will not understand this teaching. As Paul writes, the unspiritual man doesn't receive the gifts of God, 1 Cor. 2:14. Only through the Spirit will one accept this teaching. Spirit never means 'ignore what I said earlier', as the 'he is speaking metaphor' crowd ends up pushing. Only through the Spirit, will bread become the Body and Blood of Jesus, which he emphatically just proclaimed. His words are Spirit and Life, means that his words are lifechanging, and lifegiving. Spirit in Scripture never means symbolic. In John 6:20, just before this discourse, he proclaimed 'I AM'. That is the basis for that power that he just enunciated.
12)When Jesus sees that disciples are leaving because of this teaching, he lets them go. You do not believe. Only those who the Father grants the Spirit and the faith to believe in that Jesus will give the new manna from heaven which he identifies as his own true flesh and blood. Peter doesn't understand everything but he answers what every believer should know, v. 68, 'To whom shall we go you have the words of eternal life.' He was not a theologian, he couldn't understand everything that Jesus taught, but he had the faith that believes everything Jesus taught, including that he will give his Flesh and Blood and grace that enables one to attain eternal life. John specifically identifies Judas as this is the point he disbelieves (verse 71), specifically at the time of this teaching on Jesus giving his Flesh and Blood.
13)Now, Jesus always explained to his disciples when they misunderstood him. When they misunderstood him in John 4:32-34, they thought Jesus was talking about literal food, he corrects their literal misunderstanding. His food is to do the will of the Father. In John 11 when Jesus said Lazarus was sleeping, when they thought he was sleeping, Jesus explained that Lazarus was dead, John 11:14. Mark describes Jesus as 'privately to his own disciples he explained everything', Mark 4:34.
14)Besides all the background and context showing that he must be understood literally, the alternative theory that Jesus is speaking metaphorically doesn't work. The it's a metaphor theory is an antibiblical theory that disregards the way 'eat flesh' is used metaphorically, never used positively:
Micah 3:2-4'who eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them…4:Then they will cry to the LORD, but he will not answer them; he will hide his face from them at that time, because they have made their deeds evil.'
If one eats the flesh metaphorically, the Lord will not answer them, because eating flesh is an evil deed. Eating flesh metaphorically is doing evil, the exact opposite of belief. Other passages 'eat flesh', Psalm 27:2, Isaiah 9:18-20, refers to opposing, reviling, slandering. We even see this used by the apostle John himself in Revelation, where eating flesh is dealing with those who are damned. Revelation 17:16'And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.' The beast is opposing and turning on the harlot. It is in opposition, not a positive thing. So, the metaphorical proposition is impossible on its face.
15)So, in summary, before this discourse, John puts the setting where Jesus provides two miracles. Jesus is the New Moses, a fulfillment of the Deuteronomic prophecy. Jesus came to set us free from sin, Moses was God's messenger who God used to set the Israelites free from slavery. Based on that prophecy, he also was expected to provide a new manna, which consisted of a sacrifice and real food. The setting is Passover, a reminder of the Passover meal. Jesus provides bread and fish, as God did through Moses. He was called a prophet by the people themselves. He provides safety through the water to the disciples, just as Moses did, Jesus identified himself as the I AM. With that setting he told people of the necessity of believing in him, but also identified himself as giving a new manna, and the new manna is something to be provided daily, and that is his flesh and blood. Believing in him means believing that it is his true flesh and true blood. His talk on the giving of his flesh and blood is surrounded by references to the real manna that the people of Israel got. He compared the manna he gives, as far surpassing the miraculous bread from heaven that was provided through Moses. It requires this manna to be miraculous and requires it to be the true flesh and blood of Jesus. The metaphorical take on this is impossible.
16)Paul reflects this understanding of this new manna in the New Covenant. He warns against taking for granted one's salvation. Now he does acknowledge the gifts of water and manna in 1 Cor 10:1-4, using the term Baptism, and supernatural drink, as precursors of the New Covenantal gifts of baptism and eucharist. He notes the manna given was supernatural, but even then, they fell away, into idolatry. The same thing can happen to believers in the new covenant (1 Cor. 10:1-11). The New Covenantal gift, far surpasses it, exactly as proclaimed by Jesus in John 6:48-59. Paul speaks about the Eucharistic sacrifice (1 Cor. 10:14-22), but since this debate is on Christ being truly present, I will focus on this:
1 Cor. 10:16'The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?'
Paul writes that one participates in the Body and Blood of Christ, NOT a symbol of it. So, when one partakes of the elements, one is having his Body and Blood, exactly as proclaimed by Jesus.
17)Next we see the true presence even more in 1 Cor. 11:23-29, 23'For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 25In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. 27Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.'
18)Jesus declares transubstantiation when he says 'This is My Body'. As Theodore of Mopuesta declares 'He did not say, 'This is the symbol of My Body, and this, of My Blood,' but, what is set before us, but that it is transformed by means of the Eucharistic action into Flesh and Blood. [Commentary on Matthew 26:26 (c. 428 AD)]' When he says 'remembrance' that is the word 'anamnesis', which in four times in the Old Testament is used, each time it refers to an offering that is a sacrifice' (Lev. 24:7-11, Numbers 10:9-10, Psalm 38 & 70 introduction.) In the New Testament, anamnesis used in Hebrews 10:3, refers to the old covenant sacrifice. Amnanesis in the new covenant is making present the once and for all sacrifice of Jesus, not just remembering a past event. Protestant writer Max Thurian wrote, 'This memorial is not a simple subjective act of recollection, it is a liturgical action. . . which makes the Lord present. . . which recalls as a memorial before the Father the unique sacrifice of the Son, and this makes Him present in His memorial', quoted by Ray, Crossing the Tiber, p. 210. Exodus talks about celebrating the Passover sacrifice people are told: Exodus 13:8: 'And you shall tell your son on that day, 'It is because of what the LORD did for me when I came out of Egypt.' Did for 'me'. Scripture doesn't mean just remember in the past.
19)Earlier we saw this is a clear reference of the covenant being established by the blood of the covenant in Exodus 24, through Moses, again another fulfillment of Jesus as a new Moses. Moses offered real blood, poured it out. Moses established a covenant through blood, Jesus offers a much better covenant, through a meal which is Jesus' true flesh and blood. The new covenantal meal, new manna is true blood, though in the form of wine. When one eats of this sacrificial meal, you proclaim the Lord's death, writes Paul.
20)One other thing that Paul's proclamation shows that it fulfills not only that of being the new manna, but the Catholic teaching of transubstantiation. Paul writes that when one eats the Body OR drinks the blood, one partakes of the Body AND Blood of Christ. That is why just having it in either form, one takes what is originally bread or wine, becomes both the Body AND blood of Christ. Paul shows the absolute falsity of the 'it is a symbol' position. If one takes the Eucharist in a state of unworthiness, one profanes the body and blood of Christ. If one is taking a symbol, it would under no pretense have the capability of profaning the Body and Blood of Christ. It is guilty of murder if one takes it unworthily, which it can't be, if only a symbol. One must discern this is actually the body of Jesus himself or you bring judgment upon yourself. Something meant for good ends of making you guilty of murder. The it is a symbol theory makes Paul's words nonsensical.
21)What about the fact that Jesus says elsewhere, 'I am a door, I am a Shepherd, I am a gate, I am a Vine.' When he says 'This is my Body' he is only talking figuratively, supposedly. Theodore of Mopuesta rightly noted that he doesn't say 'This symbolizes my Body.' In John 6, the Jewish objectors said, as well as the disciples who left him thought, 'how can he give us his flesh to eat?’ John 6:52. Jesus amplified as already mentioned, driving it home that it is a real flesh and real blood. He further drove home the point confirming that it was literal, they and ultimately the disciples left him because of its literalness. However, elsewhere, not only to the unbelieving Jews, but even the disciples understood that he was talking figuratively as a 'door,' 'shepherd, ' 'gate'. No one challenged Jesus with 'How can you be a door, vine, gate, shepherd'. Huge difference. People understood that, be it those who disbelieved from the start, or the disciples, there he was using figurative language, absolutely not in John 6.
22)One figurative term Jesus used, actually points to the Eucharist. Jesus says in John 15:5-6'5I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. 6If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned.' Christians have no power in and of ourselves. Jesus is the source of all that is good within us. Without him, we are helpless. All understand it is a figure of speech. However, this figure of speech points to something larger. What does a vine produce? Grapes, and out of that comes wine. That becomes his flesh and blood. Notice the term 'abide in me'. Jesus in John 6:56 relates 'He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me.' The best way to abide in him is to partake of him in the Eucharist. You don't partake of it, you are condemned, John 6:53. Of course the disciples who hear 'abide' in John 15:5-7, in the context of the Last Supper, would have taken it back to John 6:48-59.
23)Now, there are three gospel renditions of the Eucharist. What are points in a couple of them. All of them say 'This is the covenant of my blood', or 'New covenant in my Blood' Jesus exactly points to the sacrificial blood shown in Exodus 24:8, not symbolic but real blood. Matthew 26:27-28'Drink of it, all of you; 28for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins,' This blood that they partake of forgives sins. Thus, it is a grace. A grace with real blood, in the form of bread and wine.
24)Next I want to look at the Book of Hebrews. Hebrews shows the superiority of Christ's sacrifice as compared to the Levitical sacrifices. The once for all sacrifice of Christ far surpasses the Levitical sacrifices where animals were sacrificed time after time. Although the debate is not on sacrifice, Hebrews actually shows that Christ is an eternal priest, and he offers a sacrifice in the form of bread and wine, which happens to be the real Body and Blood of Christ. The first thing to note is that in Hebrews there is a possibility of losing salvation, the importance of staying in the gospel and not going back to the ineffective Levitical sacrifices. Going back to the Levitical sacrifices, you cut yourself off from Christ. Hebrews gives the eternal warnings/consequences of neglecting/abandoning Christ, 2:1-3, 3:1-14, 3:16-19;11:29, 4:1-3, 4:11-14, 6:4-6, 9-12, 10:22-29, 35-38, 12:5-17, 25-26, separation from God. Hebrews notes that Jesus is a priest who via his blood, redeems believers, but is a forever priest based on the order of Melchizedek. Let's go to Genesis 14 to see Melchizedek:
18: And Mel-chiz'edek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High. 19:And he blessed him and said, 'Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker of heaven and earth';
25)Melchizedek is by the inspired author termed a priest, so this is a sacrificial offering, he is not a chef as mentioned by some Protestants. This sacrificial offering of bread and wine predated the Levitical priesthood, referred to throughout the Hebrews Epistle, as ineffective in dealing with sin. Now Hebrews of course does say that the superiority of Christ's sacrifice is that he only died once and for all time, not repeatedly as the Levitical sacrifices did. Hebrews quotes Psalm 110 multiple times proclaiming Jesus as an eternal priest. For example here, Hebrews 5:6: 'Thou art a priest forever, after the order of Melchiz'edek' He is termed such a priest also in 5:10, 6:20-7:28. The main thing though is that he offered bread and wine in sacrifice. Now, Jesus is a superior high priest, but before noting that he is a priest, Hebrews notes what a priest does, 5:1'For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins.'
26) Hebrews 8:1-31'we have such a high priest..2a minister in the sanctuary and the true tent which is set up not by man but by the Lord. 3For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; hence it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer.' Jesus, as the Melchizedeken high priest must offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. Jesus, even if seated, he ministers (leitourgos, liturgy) in the sanctuary, who offers gifts and sacrifices. Jesus died only once, but he perpetually lives to intercede, through these sacrifices. However, doesn't Hebrews write that one can't offer multiple sacrifices, 7:28? Hebrews says that there are better rites and sacrifices in the new covenant, 9:23, based only on the once and for all sacrifice. But what is it? We know it is in the form of bread and wine, Hebrews 10:25-29:
25not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. 26For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. 28A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?
27)The blood of the covenant is that term used by Jesus himself when he established the covenantal meal. Christians were falling back to the Jewish sacrifices, and were absenting themselves from the Eucharistic meal. That is why Hebrews says they were 'neglecting to meet together.' When it says deliberately sin, it refers to the neglecting to participate in the New Covenant worship. They cut themselves from God's grace when they do so. If they do so, the Eucharistic sacrifice is no longer available for them, but that sacrifice. is available when they do come worship. The blood of the covenant Jesus identified as his Body and Blood.
28)We see Hebrews tweaking the Exodus passage to make it Eucharistic. Exodus 24:8 says 'Behold the blood of the covenant', but Hebrews 9:20 quotes Exodus 'saying, 'This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you.' Hebrews explicitly draws the parallel of Old Covenant Blood, to Jesus' institution of the Eucharist. Not symbolic, but real, salvific blood. See also in Hebrews 12:
22'But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, 23and to the assembly of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to a judge who is God of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks more graciously than the blood of Abel.'
The new covenantal meal reaches up to heaven, Jesus is the mediator of a new covenant, which he calls his blood of the new covenant. True blood, in the form of bread and wine.
29)We see this worship is central to the Christian life. In Acts 2:42: 'And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and THE PRAYERS'. Set prayers, reflecting liturgy, celebrated daily, as noted in 2:46, but especially on Sunday, Acts 20:7. 1 Cor. 5:7-8, '7For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: 8Therefore let us keep the feast'. Paul shows the necessity of keeping the feast which he writes of in 1 Cor. 10-11, central to worship.
30)Transubstantiation says what is bread and wine, becomes the Body and Blood of Christ, though only in the form of bread and wine. Here I have shown: Jesus is the New Moses, predicted and fulfilling a new exodus, superior to the Old Covenant. God miraculously provided a manna, bread from heaven but in John 6, a new manna, in the form of bread and wine, is real 'meat' (v. 55), is true flesh and blood, salvific (v.53, 54). The new covenantal meal is the covenant in his Blood (Mt. 26, Mk. 14, 1 Cor. 10-11). This food becomes the Body and Blood of Christ, no longer bread and wine, even if its appearance says so, exactly as Theodore of Mopuesta (and many others) said. Jesus is an eternal priest according to the order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 5-8), and offers his once and for all sacrifice as he ministers in the Church providing through his Ministers, the Body and Blood, impossible to profane (1 Cor. 11:28, Heb 10:26), if just a symbol. The New Covenantal miraculous meal far surpasses the manna of the Old Covenant. This new covenantal meal provides grace (Hebrews 13:10, Mt. 26:28), that if one partakes of in a worthy fashion, is a preeminent way to abide in him (John 6:56-58, 15:1-4). Everyone has a choice, do you want to believe as Peter says 'To whom shall I go, you have the words of eternal life' and believe Jesus meant what he said, or as the murmuring, unbelieving Jews and disciples, who left him.
Word Total - 5000 words