Yeah it’s quite clear
“For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.” - John 6:55
Discussion
The literal interprtation of this passage calls into question the true humanity of Christ.
He is still using his true human body. And, as a true human body, it is finite.
If he has not a true human body, then we are not saved by him. "What is not assumed, is not healed."
He also said, "I am the door."
...is he, literally, a door? No.
Should we reject Nicea and Chalcedon? (No.)
🤙
The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is a mystery of faith, not a denial of Christ’s finite humanity. His glorified body transcends the limits of finitude in heaven, while remaining truly human (as defined at Chalcedon: one person in two natures, divine and human). The Eucharist isn’t about mutilating Christ’s body, but about his sacramental presence.
When Jesus said “I am the door” or “I am the vine,” he didn’t follow it up with “oil my true hinges” or “water my actual roots.” Rather, in John 6:53 he takes it a step further and says, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you”. When many disciples walked away (John 6:66), he didn’t call them back to clarify it was only a symbol. Instead, he turned to the twelve and asked, “Do you also want to leave?” (John 6:67). John even switches to the Greek word trogo (to chew) emphasizing a more literal sense.
There’s no need to reject Nicea or Chalcedon. The Eucharist doesn’t contradict Christ’s true humanity; it proclaims and makes it present to us in a way only God can accomplish.
Hear J. C. Ryle (1816-1900):
```
(c) Let us now go a step further. There is no real bodily presence of Christ in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, or in the consecrated elements of bread and wine.
This is a point which it is peculiarly painful to discuss, because it has long divided Christians into two parties, and defiled a very solemn subject with sharp controversy. Nevertheless, it is one which cannot possibly be avoided in handling the question we are considering. Moreover, it is a point of vast importance, and demands very plain speaking. Those amiable and well-meaning persons who imagine that it signifies little what opinion people hold about Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper,—that it is a matter of indifference, and that it all comes to the same thing at last, are totally and entirely mistaken. They have yet to learn that an unscriptural view of the subject may land them at length in a very dangerous heresy. Let us search and see.
My reason for saying that there is no bodily presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper or in the consecrated bread and wine, is simply this: there is no such presence taught anywhere in Holy Scripture. It is a presence that can never be honestly and fairly got out of the Bible. Let the three accounts of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, in the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, and the one given by St. Paul to the Corinthians, be weighed and examined impartially, and I have no doubt as to the result. They teach that the Lord Jesus, in the same night that He was betrayed, took bread, and gave it to His disciples, saying, “Take, eat: this is My body; “and also took the cup of wine, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink ye all of this: this is My blood.” But there is nothing in the simple narrative, or in the verses which follow it, which shows that the disciples thought their Master’s body and blood were really present in the bread and wine which they received. There is not a word in the epistles to show that after our Lord’s ascension into heaven the Christians believed that His body and blood were present in an ordinance celebrated on earth, or that the bread in the Lord’s Supper, after consecration, was not truly and literally bread, and the wine truly and literally wine.
Some persons, I am aware, suppose that such texts as “This is My body,” and “This is My blood,” are proofs that Christ’s body and blood, in some mysterious manner, are locally present in the bread and wine at the Lord’s Supper, after their consecration. But a man must be easily satisfied if such texts content him. The quotation of a single isolated phrase is a mode of arguing which would establish Arianism or Socinianism. The context of these famous expressions shows clearly that those who heard the words used, and were accustomed to our Lord’s mode of speaking, understood them to mean “This represents My body,” and “This represents my blood.”
The comparison of other places proves that there is nothing unfair in this interpretation. It is certain that the words “is” and “are” frequently mean represent in Scripture. The disciples, no doubt, remembered their Master saying such things as “The field is the world the good seed are the children of the kingdom “(Matt. xiii. 38). St. Paul, in writing on the Sacrament, confirms this interpretation by expressly calling the consecrated bread, “bread,” and not the body of Christ, no less than three times (1 Cor. xi. 26-28).
Some persons, again, regard the sixth chapter of St. John, where our Lord speaks of “eating His flesh and drinking His blood,” as a proof that there is a literal bodily presence of Christ in the bread and wine at the Lord’s Supper. But there is an utter absence of conclusive proof that this chapter refers to the Lord’s Supper at all! The Lord’s Supper had not been instituted, and did not exist, till at least a year after these words were spoken. Enough to say that the great majority of Protestant commentators altogether deny that the chapter refers to the Lord’s Supper, and that even some Romish commentators on this point agree with them. The eating and drinking here spoken of are the eating and drinking of faith, and not a bodily action.
Some people fancy that St. Paul’s words to the Corinthians, “The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? “(1 Cor. x. 16), are enough to prove a bodily presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. But unfortunately for their argument, St. Paul does not say, “The bread is the body,” but the “ communion of the body.” And the obvious sense of the words is this: “The bread that a worthy communicant eats in the Lord’s Supper is a means whereby his soul holds communion with the body of Christ.” Nor do I believe that more than this can be got out of the words.
Above all, there remains the unanswerable argument that if our Lord was actually holding His own body in His hands, when He said of the bread, “This is My body,” His body must have been a different body to that of ordinary men. Of course if His body was not a body like ours, His real and proper “humanity” is at an end. At this rate the blessed and comfortable doctrine of Christ’s entire sympathy with His people, arising from the fact that He is really and truly man, would be completely overthrown and fall to the ground.
Finally, if the body with which our blessed Lord ascended up into heaven can be in heaven, and on earth, and on ten thousand communion-tables at one and the same time, it cannot be a real human body at all. Yet that He did ascend with a real human body, although a glorified body, is one of the prime articles of the Christian faith, and one that we ought never to let go! Once admit that a body can be present in two places at once, and you cannot prove that it is a body at all. Once admit that Christ’s body can be present at God’s right hand and on the communion-table at the same moment, and it cannot be the body which was born of the Virgin Mary and crucified upon the cross. From such a conclusion we may well draw back with horror and dismay. Well says the Prayer-book of the Church of England: “The sacramental bread and wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored (for that were idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians); and the natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ are in heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ’s natural body to be at one time in more places than one.” This is sound speech that cannot be condemned. Well would it be for the Church of England if all Churchmen would read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest what the Prayer-book teaches about Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper.
If we love our souls and desire their prosperity, let us be very jealous over our doctrine about the Lord’s Supper. Let us stand fast on the simple teaching of Scripture, and let no one drive us from it under the pretence of increased reverence for the ordinance of Christ. Let us take heed, lest under confused and mystical notions of some inexplicable presence of Christ’s body and blood under the form of bread and wine, we find ourselves unawares heretics about Christ’s human nature. Next to the doctrine that Christ is not God, but only man, there is nothing more dangerous than the doctrine that Christ is not man, but only God. If we would not fall into that pit, we must hold firmly that there can be no literal presence of Christ’s body in the Lord’s Supper; because His body is in heaven, and not on earth, though as God He is everywhere.
```
excerpted from J. C. Ryle, "[The Real Presence: What Is It?](https://www.biblebb.com/files/ryle/real_presence_what_is_it.htm)" - which is worth reading in its entirety.
TL;DR: "real" presence != "bodily" presence. His _spiritual_ presence is real.
Thanks for sharing Ryle’s opinion on the subject.
Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist has basis in Scripture, history, and it can be reasoned. Jesus said, “This *is* my body” (Luke 22:19), not “represents.” Like I mentioned in my other post, Jesus doubles down when misunderstood, He doesn’t correct, He lets them walk. Paul warns against profaning the *body and blood* (1 Cor 11), not mere symbols.
Early Christians universally believed in the literal presence, not memorialism. Christ’s glorified body isn’t bound by space, He walked through walls, He can be present sacramentally. To deny this is to limit both Scripture and God’s power.
Yes, I'm quite familiar with the RCC and Lutheran arguments, my friend. I would still highly recommend Ryle's little study--at least to see what "my camp" thinks.
I'm a Protestant Reformed/Presbyterian - on purpose - but that aside, I'm thankful we are in such solid agreement on so many other points of common interest, and very thankful we can share them freely (and fraternally) via NOSTR! 🤙
Do you at least grant that Jesus’ substance (underlying reality), not accidents (appearance, taste, etc.) as Aquinas would put it, can be in the bread and wine after consecration by His divine power if He chose to?
If so, then I see no reason not to take Jesus literally in scripture when he said what I quoted earlier. But I understand you don’t find those arguments compelling enough.
I look forward to checking out more from Ryle and learning more about Church history. Oddly enough the disagreements and debates within Christian denominations is what has sparked my interest in reading the bible, which has strengthened my faith as a result.
Likewise 🤝🏼
Well, no, I would not grant that. His is a true human body and, though glorified, is not ubiquitous (as Luther, I believe, stated it). The bread and the wine take on a different meaning in their consecration, but they do not take on a different substance. Analogously, a golden ring means something different if a vendor hands it to me in the market place, than it does when my wife hands it to me, along with vows, in a marriage ceremony. The context of the ring-giving, and the words of promise accompanying the ring-giving, and the person doing the giving of it, all change the meaning and import of that ring--but it remains a ring of gold.
Yes, Jesus said "this *is* my body," but--to riposte your parry--he also said, "this *is* bread" and "this *is* wine." Here's another perspective on the question, which I appreciate -- I came across this article ~5 years ago, and don't know much about the author or the site, but the article itself is thought-provoking: https://mereorthodoxy.com/real-presence-presence-reality-fresh-look-reformed-sacramentology Ironically, it was sent to me by a dear friend (my best man, in fact) who is *solidly* RCC.
The Westminster Confession is (in very large part) *my* confession - its edges can be rather sharp here and there, but, if you're interested in the historic Presbyterian view on this question - it can be found here: [WCF XXIX - Of the Lord's Supper](https://opc.org/wcf.html#Chapter_29).
🤙
--oh, and let me hasten to add, I applaud your approach! Be like the Bereans: receive the word with openness of heart, but search the Scriptures daily to see whether these things are true. Acts 17:11.
...don't trust--verify!
I guess I don’t see why it has to follow that Jesus body has to be ubiquitous for Him to be present in the sacrament. I don’t see a logical problem with the argument that Christ’s glorified human nature, united with his divine nature, allows localized presence in the Eucharist via God’s power, not ubiquity.
I’m vaguely familiar with the Westminster confession, but I’ll look more into it of for nothing else to understand its point of view. My initial view of the five solas is not great based on debates I have watched, but there is good scholarship in the Presbyterian church.