Flesh and Blood

[Metanoia02]

In recent discussion on this board, some have expressed a belief that only the Blood of Christ atoned for our sins. They took the verse from John 6 (paraphrase) "the flesh counts as nothing", to literally mean that Christs flesh counts for nothing, it was only His Blood that had value.

If this is true why is both the Bread (as symbol of His Body) and the wine (a symbol of His Blood) memorialized in the Lord's Supper, if His flesh counted as nothing? Was it not necessary for Christ to die physically and not just shed His blood? Isn't it true that His flesh did indeed count for something?

Note: I am not asking about the Real Presence and is not the point of this question. I would like to see the P/R/E dscuss this. This will be my one and only post.

[Svt4Him]

Shedding of blood means death.

[II Paradox II]

In recent discussion on this board, some have expressed a belief that only the Blood of Christ atoned for our sins. They took the verse from John 6 (paraphrase) "the flesh counts as nothing", to literally mean that Christs flesh counts for nothing, it was only His Blood that had value. IMO - this argument is not particularly good. The statement "the flesh counts as nothing" exists in a context in which Christ explains what he means by his statement.

Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?" 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 yourselves. "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. "For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. "As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. "This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever."

"Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, "This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?" But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, "Does this cause you to stumble? "What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life."But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."

All arguments about the "real presence" aside, I can't see how you could apply "the flesh profits nothing" to a discussion of the atoning efficacy of the blood vs. the body when Jesus isn't talking about that subject at all. IMO - it is a bad hermeneutic which tries to make a general principle out of a statement that is explained in a narrow sense in context...

One more thing - in context the opposition is between flesh/spirit, not flesh/blood. Taken in context, the phrase does not have anything to do with a distinction between the flesh of Christ and the blood of Christ.

ken

[WesleyJohn]

.

[theseed]

the flesh is contrasted with the spirit saying that the spirite gives life. One must realize that John is talking about the "Word become flesh" (Jn 1.14). The only reason flesh has power is because it is bound to the Son, Christ, who offers Spirit filled truth and words (John 6.63). See John 3.4-8 and John 1.13 aslo, where it talks about flesh and spirit, and who one must be born again of the Spirit. So it is the words that Jesus say, for he is the Word become flesh. Now I'm starting to sound Lutheran, and I'm Baptist, but I'm seeing more where the Lutherans are comming from :grin: But I see this as symbolism and here as I will explain:

Now remember this, Jesus also offered life-giving water and here he offers life giving bread. Not bread that perishes (earthly bread) but bread that does not perishes, but for food that brings eternal life (John 6.27)

This does not refute what RC's believe because of what I said about the word combined with the flesh, or the word become flesh. But I don't see it as a seg-way to validate it either.

Much of this seems crystal clear to me now, as I think back about being born of the flesh (water = anmiotic fluid) and of the Spirit--anonthen (greek), being born from above or born again. John uses much symbolism in his Gospel and plays on words, but it is easy to see what the symbols mean and how he plays on words if we do it exegetically and systematically.

[Phoebe]

Were His words in John 6 spoken well before the last supper?

Yes, his body is just as important as the blood. (in my oppinion)

[FreeinChrist]

I did a covenant study a few years ago and found some things that really helped me understand this issue.

Under the Law (given to Moses), on Atonement Day, the blood of the sacrifice was taken into the Holy Place, then behind the veil to the Holy of Holies and offered for the sins of the people. Jesus entered the Holy of Holies in heaven - the very throne of God - with a better sacrifice which is His own blood. It is better because it could remove sin. It was always the blood that made atonement, not the flesh. And it is blood that signifies life:
Lev 17:11 'For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.'

But of course, the flesh has to be shed to get the blood. In some of the sacrifices, the flesh was eaten by the priests - not the fat, entrails and some organs. The bull sacrificed for atonement was totally burned up.

[ej]

It is better because it could remove sin. It was always the blood that made atonement, not the flesh. And it is blood that signifies life:
Lev 17:11 'For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.'
Thanks, that's helpful :)

It rings a bell in my mind, of dualism a la Descartes.
Perhaps the blood represents the soul, and the flesh represents the human form?

Just a fleeting thought...

[BBAS 64]

Were His words in John 6 spoken well before the last supper?

Yes, his body is just as important as the blood. (in my oppinion)
Good day, Phoebe

I do not see any reason to believe that the correct exergesis of the passage in John 6 relates to the Last Supper record in the Gospels. IMO there is no reason from the context nor the structure of the text to rip it out and assign it's relation to the last supper.


Peace to u,

BBAS

[theseed]

Good day, Phoebe

I do not see any reason to believe that the correct exergesis of the passage in John 6 relates to the Last Supper record in the Gospels. IMO there is no reason from the context nor the structure of the text to rip it out and assign it's relation to the last supper.


Peace to u,

BBAS
Yet there are eucharistic images in John, like the water into wine. If one takes the Gospel as a whole, then one can understand whate these images mean, it is clear that John planned out how he wanted to write the Gospel, and uses lots of symbolism and word-play to give double meanings. And since the Last Supper is about the death on th cross, and the bread is also about that, then it is clear that they both John 6 and the Lord's Supper is talking about the sacrifice of Christ, thus validating a comparision of the two.

[BBAS 64]

Yet there are eucharistic images in John, like the water into wine. If one takes the Gospel as a whole, then one can understand whate these images mean, it is clear that John planned out how he wanted to write the Gospel, and uses lots of symbolism and word-play to give double meanings. And since the Last Supper is about the death on th cross, and the bread is also about that, then it is clear that they both John 6 and the Lord's Supper is talking about the sacrifice of Christ, thus validating a comparision of the two.
Good Day, Theseed

I have gone back and rered the whole of John #6 in context along with some commenteries by Augustine and Chrysostom on this chapter in John. In the whole of the chapter the later verses are IMO a vaildation of eariler verses. I am still at a loss as to why you may feel it nessary to not veiw these verses in their context as being complete and understandable. Ripping these out of context to complement an other context "the Last Supper" with out showing a direct relation ship does not make much sence to me. I see the context of the Last Supper not in need of any inferance that John 6 offers. The Last Supper was passover in and of it's didactict in it's own right by means of the Tradition and history it carries with the Jewish nation for some 6000 yrs.

If I have missed something would you/someone please correct me.

Peace to u,

BBAS

[Phoebe]

I used John 6 in reference to the OP. I don't use John 6 when speaking of the body of Christ and it's significance to our salvation.



When looking at the Passover, I recall that the blood of a lamb was used on the doorposts. Now Jesus is the Lamb, and his blood has been used to pass over our former sins. (to wash them away) I still think there is significance to His body. I'll give that more thought later. I'm tired and kind of punchy.

[theseed]

Good Day, Theseed

I have gone back and rered the whole of John #6 in context along with some commenteries by Augustine and Chrysostom on this chapter in John. In the whole of the chapter the later verses are IMO a vaildation of eariler verses. I am still at a loss as to why you may feel it nessary to not veiw these verses in their context as being complete and understandable. Ripping these out of context to complement an other context "the Last Supper" with out showing a direct relation ship does not make much sence to me. I see the context of the Last Supper not in need of any inferance that John 6 offers. The Last Supper was passover in and of it's didactict in it's own right by means of the Tradition and history it carries with the Jewish nation for some 6000 yrs.

If I have missed something would you/someone please correct me.

Peace to u,

BBAS
Showing a direct relationship means there is one. He his the bread from heaven, he died on a cross to save us. The Lord's Supper is symbolic of how his body saves us and how it relates to the New Convenant, now the Lord's Supper came from the Old Covenant of passover which involved bread and wine (blood on the door posts). The relationship is obvious. So, I'm not ripping it out. John is very careful in chosing imagery for symbolism, so he is would most certainly have been aware of the implications of this passage in relating to the Lord's Supper.

I don't know how much simpler this I can make this. Do you not think the images of flesh and blood refer to the cross? And if they do, then they paralell the Lord's Supper.

[Ron S]

I have been to Catholic Mass 3 times.

They sang a very memorable hymn:

'In bread we bring you Lord, our bodies labour
In wine we offer you our spirits peace'

I cant remember any more but does this help?

[BBAS 64]

Good Day, Theseed

Thank you for your insight in this matter I do not think we differ on this issue. The misunderstanding was mine!!
:|

Bill

[BBAS 64]

I have been to Catholic Mass 3 times.

They sang a very memorable hymn:

'In bread we bring you Lord, our bodies labour
In wine we offer you our spirits peace'

I cant remember any more but does this help?
Good Day, Ron

Welcome to CF how do you feel this impacts the op?

Peace to u,

BBAS

[Ron S]

Good Day, Ron

Welcome to CF how do you feel this impacts the op?

Peace to u,

BBAS
Thank you

The words of the hymn seem to imply that:

Bread represents Jesus' body = earthly toil
Wine represents Jesus' blood = spiritual welfare

[Plan 9]

Yet there are eucharistic images in John, like the water into wine. If one takes the Gospel as a whole, then one can understand whate these images mean, it is clear that John planned out how he wanted to write the Gospel, and uses lots of symbolism and word-play to give double meanings. And since the Last Supper is about the death on th cross, and the bread is also about that, then it is clear that they both John 6 and the Lord's Supper is talking about the sacrifice of Christ, thus validating a comparision of the two.

What theseed said. :)