Date: 07 Aug 2000
Time: 19:38:27
Is it the Christ within us that is the Bread of Life? Isn't this the message of communion, that Christ somehow mystically comes alive within us? As we take the bread and the cup into our bodies we are saying, Yes Lord, be born anew in us.
Isn't communion about new life as well as death and about Jesus giving himself for us? Aren't we talking about Christ being incarnated within each of us?
Date: 07 Aug 2000
Time: 19:47:50
Is communion largely about the past and correcting the past or is it even more about a new creation? Is it really about new birth even though that birth springs from the death of Jesus who volentarily layed down his life for us?
Is it about grace or is it the payment of a debt? When Jesus gives us his gift of life, is it that we might go back to a time when we were ok in God's eyes or is it a moving foreword into a totally new creation?
Date: 10 Aug 2000
Time: 13:32:37
I am having a little trouble with "who ever eats me will live". Jesus is saying to eat me is to eat the bread which has come down from heaven but my mind seems lacking in tools or language or paradigms or something from which I can make sense of this. It is a hard saying, I want to understand. I want to affirm this saying of Jesus but as I put myself in the place of Jesus disciples prior to the crusifixion and resurection, I can find no way to comprehend what Jesus is saying. Even If I imagine these words being spoken to Cleopas in Emmaus, they are still beyond my comprehension. Help!!
Date: 14 Aug 2000
Time: 04:49:10
Communion has a past/present/future quality about it.
Called "The Lord's Supper," it is a memorial meal that we do "in remembrance." It solidifies our traditional faith as we envision ourselves back there in that upper room with Jesus.
Called "Communion," it is a present tense gathering of the faithful, acknowledging that "where two or three are gathered," Christ is present. Here we see Him as host who invites us to His table. Yet that table stretches to include the whole world in co-union with all Christians. We see our union with one another (One bread, one body) and with Him (one Lord of all).
Called "Eucharist" (thanksgiving), it is a foretaste of the heavenly banquet. This is the not-yet of the kindom of God for which we hunger and thirst. At the table we receive the earnest of God, the promise of what is to come when all poverty is abolished by plenty, and all selfishness gives way to shared bread and open hearts.
We need to claim, and preach, all three tenses of the Table's grace -- remembrance, real presence, and our hope of glory.
Yell"Arose!"inTx
Date: 14 Aug 2000
Time: 12:25:07
Eating Christ’s flesh and drinking Christ’s blood can be a difficult concept to grasp in any literal sense. It can even be repellant. It sounds like cannibalism and no matter how delicately we couch it, this central sacred moment can be hard for people to deal with (including preachers) except in the most abstract terms. My husband however had an insight, a sudden-flash, gift from God type of insight that makes literal and spiritual sense. He suddenly understood the scientific truth of what Christ said… If Jesus was alive-- God at work in human form on this planet-- then during His lifetime, millions, billions of skin cells were shed on this planet. Air passed in and out of His lungs. Drops of blood He shed on and from the cross became a part of the mass of molecules combining and recombining on this earth. Molecules that did not just touch Christ, but molecules that were literally a part of Christ remained and are part of our earth, allowing them to literally, over time be recombined in a way that can literally make them a part of bread and juice that is consecrated. From this literal sense we understand Christ’s physical presence among us as proof that God is intimately present in ways that literally touch our lives. Jesus reminds us of this with the command to eat His flesh and drink His blood. God is present in all we do and touch. This was always true (the entire created world came from God in the first place) but Jesus made it true in human terms. Communion makes it true in my life and your life. DL in ME
Date: 14 Aug 2000
Time: 14:30:38
WEAVINGS, July/August 2000, article by Kristin Johnson Ingram... " Ruah, God of the Spirit, is not only holy but determined to make you holy too. She is the original nurturing Mother, urging you to eat, yes, just a little of this bread, and here, drink some of this wine, just to wash it doen, just so you'll grow strong, just so you'll be fit for the Kingdom of Heaven. "
This issue of WEAVINGS is entitled Thirst for God and I've found myself wandering back to this week's gospel as I am reading the articles.
Kairos
Date: 14 Aug 2000
Time: 15:50:11
I too am still searching for the right words to express the mystery of the "real presence" in the Eucharist. Yes, I know all the theologically rooted terminology such as " transubstantiation". However, I have not yet found the everyday descriptive kind of words that explain what Jesus meant when he said " eat my flesh ". All insights are appreciated. Seth in Toronto
Date: 14 Aug 2000
Time: 17:45:34
A couple of things I would invite responses to: 1. Weren't early Christians actually accused in some Roman court of cannabalism? 2. Don't some cultures advocate eating the heart of the vanquished enemy in order to obtain their courage? (or is that a star trek thing?) 3. If we are what we eat does communion help make us more like Christ?
I like the idea of "abiding in" becomeing more christlike ourselves.
Pittinger says that one of Paul's centeral concepts is being "in Christ".
Date: 14 Aug 2000
Time: 19:10:49
Just a few ideas: Taken as a metaphor, Jesus is saying to me that I must be fully committed, completely dedicated, - I must “dig in”, tear meat off the bone, live large, and even to ingest, so to speak, the wholeness of Christ’s being. It is in this full involvement that we enjoy our new life in Christ. Another idea: We must respond to what has been offered - Jesus on the cross, broken and bloody, died because of us and for us, and we must take that in fully! “Eating the Bread” is a metaphor for “buying into” the whole program! On a whole different level, Think of the Soccer players in the plane crash in the Andes who survived by eating their dead teammates. (Book and movie of the true story is called “Alive”) Many of them were Catholics and came to understand what they were doing as sacramental - not cannibal. Also, brushing up on my theology, I came across as explanation of the Catholic doctrine that the bread and wine turns into the body and blood of Jesus - a separation is made between the physical composition of the bread and wine and the spiritual composition of the bread and wine. In other words, the change is real and complete - but not in the physical sense, but in something more important - the spiritual sense.
DN in NV
Date: 14 Aug 2000
Time: 21:27:42
8/14/2000
Nothing of God is simple, easy to understand, or now made perfectly clear. But, I believe thqt God means what is said in the word and especially profound are the words of Jesus.
Perhaps we would all better understand about the eating of his flesh and the drinking of his blood if we fasted as he fasted. How profound of a revelation would we receive from God if we denied our flesh and sought after the Holy Spirit? Perhaps we would have a much better understanding of God's word if we practiced a disciplined life, disciplined in the study of God's word rather than the philosophy of men, disciplined by controling ourselves instead of joining in the "feel good-do it" culture, disciplined by daily crucifing our flesh so that we might better understand God's Holy Spirit revelation.
Would denying ourselves the next Big Mac, T-Bone steak, or pizza supreme possibly give us any insight into understanding the Bible?
Dale in KS.
Date: 15 Aug 2000
Time: 02:08:14
"You are what you eat", we have all heard that. In a dietary sense and in a real one, what we consume says a lot about who we are and how we live. There are those who prefer the vegetarian approach and those who prefer a more substantive meal. Without question, however, we rarely find those who do not eat or enjoy the most common food of all - bread.
Just as Jesus came to us as a common man - a carpenter's son, he refers to himself as a coomon food - bread.
What we eat becomes part of us - our energy, our endurance. In the same way, Jesus becomes part of us, part of our energy and endurance - the part that radiates to those surrounding us.
I often see a young child - filled with energy and joy and delight at four in the afternoon, when I am lagging... "I want some of what he had for lunch" I will jokingly offer.
Those of us who partake of the communion elements benefit from it in ways that radiate through our lives - in the way we live and respond to the world around us.
It matters not whether one accepts communion or symbolically or literally - it still becomes an integral part of us as we go about the taks of living and sharing God's love.
Date: 15 Aug 2000
Time: 02:18:28
You are what you eat. Whether you prefer vegetarian food or something more substantial, the food you eat nourishes your body and provides energy and endurance.
It is hardly surprising that bread - the manna from heaven that fed the Isrealites - the most common food of all - found in nearly every country of the world in some fashion or other - would be the food with which Jesus identifies himself. The sympbolism is too obvious to be explained.
What is significant is that the "bread" of communion nourishes the WHOLE person - the body and the spirit.
Whether taken literally or symbolically it does not matter - the WHOLEness we experience in the communion rite stays with us - adding energy and endurance to our lives.
Date: 15 Aug 2000
Time: 14:00:50
I've been thinking about swallowing these words. "Eating my words." Jesus fed the 5,000 people and they started following him in droves and so he said they were just there for a free lunch (v.26) So he tells them they must consume him not just what he does for them/us. Usually when we use the expression "eating it up" we are talking about feasting on every word. In awe of someones monologue. This is not the case. They were offended as well "Does this offend you?" In fact many left - too difficult, too much commitment. I think of the verse in Revelation 10:9 - about eating a book and it was like honey then made him nauseous. It is not always sweet to our taste. The word became flesh and it was not always easy to swallow. I think of Psalm 34:8 "Taste and see that the Lord is good." I think of Jeremiah 15:16 "Your words came and I ate them they were the joy and rejoicing of my heart." Well I realize I am all over the place. But I don't beleive we are talking literal - but the words - Rev.JG
Date: 15 Aug 2000
Time: 14:51:07
Someone mentioned the merit of fasting, but I think this is the opposite of fasting. It is good to be really hungry to come to the table, but the table is about feasting. I have to dwell on the contrasts for this week. Pastor Dana
Date: 15 Aug 2000
Time: 15:03:50
I too often compare this to communion, but this is not happening anywhere near the passover or the last supper. I wonder if Jesus is talking about something other than communion. In bringing the text into today, let us first look at the context. Very few of these entries have been about anything other than communion
Date: 15 Aug 2000
Time: 15:45:23
Perhaps we have forgotten "Give us this day, our daily bread" And that the wanderers in the desert were to gather that bread daily! Is he not saying to them and to us that we need Spiritual Sustinance each and every day, and that we like those who gathered the manna, cannot gather enough for tomorrow? (BTW manna = what is it?) They could not accurately describe or name it, but they knew they needed it to live! Shalom weldiger in WNC
Date: 15 Aug 2000
Time: 15:47:03
Perhaps we have forgotten "Give us this day, our daily bread" And that the wanderers in the desert were to gather that bread daily! Is he not saying to them and to us that we need Spiritual Sustenance each and every day, and that we like those who gathered the manna, cannot gather enough for tomorrow? (BTW manna = what is it?) They could not accurately describe or name it, but they knew they needed it to live! Shalom weldiger in WNC
Date: 15 Aug 2000
Time: 15:48:00
Perhaps we have forgotten "Give us this day, our daily bread" And that the wanderers in the desert were to gather that bread daily! Is he not saying to them and to us that we need Spiritual Sustenance each and every day, and that we like those who gathered the manna, cannot gather enough for tomorrow? (BTW manna = what is it?) They could not accurately describe or name it, but they knew they needed it to live! Shalom weldiger in WNC
Date: 15 Aug 2000
Time: 16:37:16
My state, Mississippi, has a large poultry industry.
On the one-hand.... When I think about the jobs which are brought by the industry, the affordable food provided and the taxes which are paid by the industry I support the industry. I eat chicken in peace and the food becomes part of my fiber which provides the energy for my actions.
On the other hand.... When I am made aware of the number of minimum wage salaries of the workers trying to provide basic necessities for their families and the CRUEL treatment of the animals , I have to question whether this fuel for my actions is commensurate with my faith.
Am I motivated by my faith to be mindful of that which fuels my actions? Is there a connection between what fuels my actions and that which I do? Is there a connection between the physical and the spiritual?
This week's gospel says that there is a connection in the reverse...In the poultry example, there is a connection between that which is physical and that which is spiritual. In the eucharist there is a connection between that which is spiritual and that which is physical. There seems to me to be clear implication that when we take-in the common meal, there is a conversion of that which is spiritual to that which is physical.
The opportunity for feeding our spiritual bodies is provided. The challenge is how I use the energy. It is mysteriously provided, automatically regardless of whether or not I am mindful of the provision.
Therefore... awareness is the critical factor in both the eating of poultry and the eucharist? I have determined that if I eat poultry, I am committing an act which is not commensurate to my faith. My challenge is to be more mindful of how I use the spiritual energy of the Eucharist.
Physical food doesn't automatically energize me in a faithful path. Spiritual food doesn't automatically energize me in a faithful path.
BUT what both foods have in common is my dependence on them for life.
Kairos
Date: 15 Aug 2000
Time: 20:13:00
To be sure, there is a connection to the Lord's Supper here but I think there may be something more here. Perhaps Jesus is addressing a mistaken tendency that his hearers (and I) too often have. That is, to view faith, religion, loving others, God's Word, and even Jesus Himself as some sort of ADD-ON to our lives; that ultimate meaning in life is found in the family I come from, the church I attend, the experiences I have had, the certificates on my wall. Contrast this to the graphic way Jesus says that we "abide in Him"... "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you have NO life in you." Christ is no "add-on". Faith is a life-giving, life-changing embodiment of Christ IN US. I think my message will emphasize the Christian embracing life in Christ through Christ IN us. How? His Gospel promises, Word and Sacrament, and indwelling of His Holy Spirit (Eph 5:18). Still working this one. ARMY CH E, Ft Belvoir, VA
Date: 15 Aug 2000
Time: 21:09:58
I think the Gospel of John is basically an anti-sacramental book. John goes out of it's way to say that Jesus never baptized anyone, and omit's Jesus' baptism by John the baptist.
Regarding the Lord's supper, John wants to suggest (I believe) that the real Lord's Supper isn't found on our communion table, and isn't real bread or wine at all. The real Lord's supper is the spiritual presence of Jesus Christ.
This ties in to John's re-occurring theme (with Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman, etc) that if you take Jesus literally you've missed his point. It's not literally being born a second time, but being born spiritually. It's not literal water in a well that saves us, but Jesus life-giving water. It's not real (literal) bread and wine that constitutes the Eucharist, but the spiritual presence of Christ. John’s big concern is that we become so obsessed with the literal we miss the spiritual.
DR
Date: 16 Aug 2000
Time: 04:58:32
People, this year at Duke one of my professors said that everyone but Jesus in the Gospel of John is an idiot! No one understands anything Jesus says! I have tried to be less an idiot when READING John. As Rev JG and DR said, don't take John literally, look at what Jesus is TELLING US, not saying. I hope you understand what I mean and don't jump me! Kairos, you have it going with the poultry thing! Good Stuff. Toni in WV
Date: 16 Aug 2000
Time: 05:00:05
People, this year at Duke one of my professors said that everyone but Jesus in the Gospel of John is an idiot! No one understands anything Jesus says! I have tried to be less an idiot when READING John. As Rev.JG and DR said, don't take John literally, look at what Jesus is TELLING US, not saying. I hope you understand what I mean and don't jump me! Kairos, you have it going with the poultry thing! Good Stuff. Toni in WV
Date: 16 Aug 2000
Time: 13:25:09
If I had only the book of John as scripture I might agree with some of DR's approach. However, John is not writing in a vacuum. His chief antagonist was the Docetism of emerging Gnosticism (1 Jn 4:2), a spiritualistic Christianity that believes Christ is a divine being who had a heavenly body BUT no Jesus with human flesh and blood. John is compelled to define the incarnation as "becoming flesh" and prompts him to use the terminology of "flesh" (Gk. sarx). Besides, the other Gospels writers and Paul add the body of doctrine of Christ present in the real bread and wine. The Passover used real bread and real wine and still does. Jesus changes the normal, routine liturgy and applies the passover to Himself. John's Gospel doesn't discount or contradict the others, but is correcting errors. Christ doesn't come to us, merely with His words, but touches us through all 5 senses, i.e. real water in baptism, real bread/wine so we hear, see, feel, taste, smell His presence. Just some thoughts...ARMY CH E
Date: 16 Aug 2000
Time: 13:50:21
Good points. John was not written in a vacuum, as you - AMY CH E (along with others)- say. John was written most likely with knowledge of the other Gospels (at least Mark), and John offers us an alternative version of the Gospel.
But we shouldn't be so quick to "harmonize" John that we miss the uniqueness of his message. John wouldn't have been written if the writer thought the other Gospels had said everything that needed to be said.
Let me suggest that John saw the church becomming obscessed with things (like the food served at communion) and wanted to shift the focus. What is the bread of the Eucharist? Jesus himself! What is the wine? Jesus again! I think John would resonate well with the Friends (Quakers) who believe that it's the spiritual meaning of the sacraments that counts, not the actual objects themselves. And this doesn't make John, or the Quakers, gnostics.
Like I said earlier, this is a consistent and reoccuring point in the Gospel of John. I don't think John was primarily an anti-gnostic polemic, but an anti-nonbelieving-Jewish polemic. Even though he did not go so far as to deny the fleshly body of Christ, John was influenced by Gnostic ideas (as was much of the early church). But in John, over and over again, those who take Jesus literally are taking him WRONG. It's the spiritual point of the message that counts.
Looks to me like John is saying the same thing with the Eucharist.
DR
Date: 16 Aug 2000
Time: 13:52:42
A note to Jim from B.C. (whose sermon is found in the 'sermons' section - I don't know how else to make contact, so please excuse, folks!) I note that you mention the Reformed who don't believe communion is very important. That is just not true. The Lord's Supper (along with preaching and the sacrament of Holy Baptism) are the very means of grace for us. For the Reformed who follow Calvin, Christ is truly present - even really present, though (as you say it) not specifically attached to the wine and the bread. Indeed, as you put it in your sermon, your understanding sounds very Reformed indeed! A word of caution, then, friend: please be a bit more careful when casting intentional or unintentional aspersions to others within the Christian family. As an ecumenist I've found it necessary for myself to look deeper into the beliefs of others regarding the Lord's Supper, instead of relying on the handy caricatures that were given to me in seminary. I encourage all to do the same, especially as this passage in John will be difficult for a number of preachers to exegete. Again, folks, sorry if I've clogged the site unnecessarily! PJ in NJ
Date: 16 Aug 2000
Time: 15:26:47
Has anyone heard the story of when Paul Tillich was addressing a distinguished audience of theologians in Chicago (I think). He apparently said something about Jesus not being real. An older gentleman stood up at the end of the talk, and eating a juicy apple, addressed Mr. Tillich. As he spoke, he bit into the apple. When he finished the apple, he asked Tillich if he could tell if the apple was bitter or sweet. Tillich replied, "No, sir, I haven't tasted your apple." The man replied, "And you haven't tasted my Jesus either."
I am searching for the source of the story, and if anyone knows from where it comes, I would appreciate a reply.
In the meantime, "Taste and see that the Lord is good."
Lynn in Houston
Date: 16 Aug 2000
Time: 20:02:13
These words speak not only of the Eucharist but also the Word of God. As the Collect for Proper 28 reads (Episcopal Church): Grant us so to hear them, read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them, that we may embrace and ever hold fast the blessed hope of everlasting life. (verse 6:58)
Only as we participate in Christ and Christ participates in us through his sacramental presence in Word and Sacrament do these verses come alive in us.
tom in ga
Date: 17 Aug 2000
Time: 05:25:04
After wandering aimlessly for days on this passage, something came to me which reminded me a lesson I learned in ExitJesus, oops, I mean exegesis. That lesson is to study what comes before as well as after the pericope. In this case, Adam Clarke's Commentary refers us to the clear explanation of the passage in verse #63, which is unfortunately NOT in the selected text for this Sunday. John 6:63 reads: "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life." This, to me, refutes the common claim the passage is speaking of His blood and body being eaten in Communion, because Jesus states clearly: "the flesh counts for nothing." He explains He is speaking figuratively of bread (as spirit) and blood (as life.) Does this make sense to anyone else besides me? revup (Who is finally back preaching after doing vacation, marrying off a daughter and doing some mission work. Did I hear a couple hurrahs among the boo's?)
Date: 17 Aug 2000
Time: 05:46:38
Revup, welcome back. Makes perfect sense to me - and seems to suggest (at least to me) that the bread and the wine on the altar aren't the important things to the Gospel of John.
DR
Date: 17 Aug 2000
Time: 14:31:05
Good stuff, again. The struggles with the text are a good and valuable thing. A wise professor of mine once said that our problem is not one of perspecuity but perspicacity. In other words, it is not that the scripture is not understandable, it is that we don't grasp/discern them. I can say that Jesus is referring only to the Eucharist or He is referring not at all to it when He speaks of eating and drinking. Too often the preacher narrows God's word and the Spirit's work to their own neat theology. The hermeneutic principle of "scripture interpreting itself" gets set aside. I concur with revup on the whole of textual study to include the other inspired writers. To be sure, the "learned doctors and handmaids" (as Luther calls them)that we preach to Sunday after Sunday need us to clearly articulate what God's word means for daily living. I go back to my first posting, Christ IN us is much more than a phylactery, prayer shawl, cross necklace, WWJD bracelet, etc. Many folks, and I do not exclude this preacher, adopt a bumpersticker, mentality/spirituality. The faith as an add-on to the many other aspects of who I am. Jesus' words convince me that if I am to have any life, I must internalize Him. Baptism, the eucharist, sermons, experiences draw us into deeper relationship with Christ. We drink the living water, eat the living bread by God's working thru the Spirit and these varied means, else how would we take in Christ. There is no divine transfusion. The Holy Spirit does not snag helpless victims and pour Christ into the heart and soul. Nor does that Spirit slap a Christian smiley-face sticker on us and send us out into the world. When Christ comes to us, when we eat and drink, enter the door, abide in the vine, step into His light, come through the narrow gate, enter the sheepfold, believe in Him, whatever the image, we internalize Him and we are forever changed. If we pretend or are content with a superficial faith, there is no real life in us, only the appearance of life.
Date: 17 Aug 2000
Time: 14:32:24
Forgot to sign off on last posting. ARMY CH E, Belvoir
Date: 17 Aug 2000
Time: 15:02:01
Army Ch. E.
Amen and thank you.
Jane in Lenox
Date: 17 Aug 2000
Time: 16:01:12
The van moved slowly down the street which was filled with the traffic of the pleasant Spring night. My nose pressed against the window as I tried to look into the shadows of each building, into the dark recesses of every ally, behind each partially hidden large green dumpster, or down the steep stairs of every cellar entrance. We knew they were here. They were always here, always just out of view. And sometimes, in plain view, like some discarded bit of litter, tossed carelessly aside adding to the filth of grimy sidewalks. The refuse of a society too busy to care.
Yet, it didn't take long to find them. The promise of food and clothes and a sip of hot coffee soon brought many to the open doors of the van. "I need some shoes, man." "Ya got socks? Need sum socks." They did need socks, and shoes, and food. But mostly, they just wanted to talk, to talk with anyone willing to listen, willing to take the time. Mostly, they just needed the assurance that they still existed, still mattered, at least to someone, at least for the moment.
The conversations were wild, wild and strange and sometimes undecipherable. Much like following Rabbit through Wonderland, never knowing when one might meet smiling Cheshire Cat or Mad-Matter or wicked and souless Queen of Hearts. Conversations full of black helicopters and conspiracies and government mind control intermixed with proclamations of faith and hope for the future and love for their faceless brothers and sisters, there with them, there on the streets.
We moved from place to place, from building to building, buildings that during the day were sanctuaries of business and government and power, but now, offered scant protection to those who had no shelter, those with no homes. And at each stop, it would be the same. Hands reaching for food, voices asking for clothing, lives being shared from beyond the haze of mental illness, out of the confusion of life in this concrete labyrinth. But always, always, there was the voice of hope.
Finally, our food almost gone, we reached out last stop. Several men shuffled out from the shadows. They stood clustered together, a monument of societal discard. They were the waste materials of economic Darwinism, these who could not make it. Hot water was poured into the last cup of instant soup, one cup of soup for so many mouths. We watched as ever so slowly, ever so delicately as not to spill a drop, the soup was passed from hand to hand, from mouth to mouth. It was a communion of sorts, the sharing of the body, the drinking of the blood. And as we watched, as we stood in the midst of the noise and the traffic, suddenly I was aware, deeply aware, that it was he who stood with us, feeding us with his broken body, feeding us through the bodies of these who were his blessed, the body of these in whom he dwells. It was he who now fed us his spilled blood through the blood of those that would be forgotten, the gifts of the poor to the wealthy, the gift of grace to those who believed they had the answers.
It was the eating of the bread and the drinking of the wine. It was an act of flesh. It was an act of life - true food and true drink - conversion.
Shalom my friends, Nail-Bender in NC
Date: 17 Aug 2000
Time: 17:47:06
Lynn in Houston, That story was passed around on the internet a couple of years ago. I have a copy of it somewhere and will try to find it.
DM in OK
Date: 17 Aug 2000
Time: 19:42:33
The quest for the balance of paradox was not only sought by Paul Tillich in his theological "method of correlation", Karl Menninger in his psychoanalytic "vital balance", John Dewey in his pragmatic philosophy of "both/and", the "Fiddler On the Roof" as "Tiveya" is constantly praying/conversing with G-D/YHWH in wrestling with the dynamics of "tradition" and change by saying "on the other hand",but this same quest for "correlation/balance/both-and/and on the other hand" is found in the Gospel of St. John. Truth is a paradox! It is not the literalistic, atomistic, isolated, impersonal objectivity, type of truth the modern worldview proposes (whether in science or religion). It is the truth comprising the historicity of God's relational, divine, covenant-making, intervention into human consciousness and into every human's autobiographical journey. John stood between cultures/traditions pulling in opposite directions. Yet he also stood within the context of both. On one hand, the concreteness of personal, historical truth/relationship as disclosed in the beauty of Isreal's covenant historicity is affirmed and unveiled in the Christ, the Incarnate Word of God...(i.e., who became flesh and dwelt among us). On the other hand, to "chew", not simply to eat or taste but to "chew" on this flesh/truth of the Passover, and to "drink" his "blood", (as exemplified in the Sacrament of Holy Communion), is so in violation of the "law" (Leviticus)that the new emerging religion of Christendom becomes unquely seperate from Judaism. Between the polarities of "very God of very God" and "very man of very man", the New Being and/or the New Adam and/or the New Creation emerges. Judaistic oriented disciples fled from the repulsive, irreverent, act of "chewing" flesh and drinking "blood", although they had been attracted to the man Jesus. On the other hand Greek/Roman culture could tolerate the idealistic transcendent Word/God which preceded creation in the beginning, but this Word/God could not "really-in-reality" bleed and die in the concrete flesh-torn human crucifixion of the man Jesus...so the philosopher/theologian/disciples also fled...or waited until the Councils declared the Affirmations of Faith containing the vital balance-and then they fled. Yet, strangely, the struggles with this scripture in concretely "chewing flesh" and "drinking blood" are as repulsive and irreverent to some today as they were in the day of John's Gospel. If we are to BE/BECOME disciples of Jesus such that he comes to live in us, how is this concretely, historical possible in our consciousness and in our autobiographies unless we "chew" on the "flesh", and "drink" the "blood" torn and spilt by the "lamb of God" at Calvary's cross. The irony is the apostles who were not only 'drawn' but 'sent forth' in the chaos of that hour had the stength, courage, faith ,love, and hope...(received by chewing flesh/truth and drinking blood of Christ Jesus, the New Adam, who lived within)...to go forth to their own crucifixions. Discipleship is costly as well as sacramental. Victory over death in the Passover celebration (rememberance) cost the life of the "lamb of God". It also cost contemporary disciples to take up their crosses and follow Jesus..."he who would save his life will lose it etc., etc.!" Chewing the flesh and drinking the blood involves the digestion of the life of Jesus within our life journey, our daily work, our every act of being/becoming. Perhaps the greater vision implicit within the Gospel of John is not the birth of another religion called Christianity but the birth of a transcendent religionless religion where every act of every human on planet earth is the enfleshment of God's covenant-making intentionality for every human to live in open-ness and love for all/other. No other Gospel spells out the "I-AM-NESS" of Jesus so directly as John. I believe "chewing the flesh" and "drinking the blood" has something to do with our own "I-am-ness" unfolding in our life story as Jesus, the New Adam/Creation comes to live within us. This may be spelled out in the drama/paradigm/ritual of Communion but the living out of this truth, the chewing of this flesh/truth, goes beyond the Table within the walls of the sanctuary and engages every relationship in the common concrete market places of life (especially inclusive of those places Nail-Bender so powerfully described). PaideiaSCO in north GA mts.
Date: 17 Aug 2000
Time: 20:58:58
In a recent study of the term "mannah", found in Exodus, I learned that the actual meaning or representation is "what is this?". The biblical answer was "that which is alloted to us and we will accept and be thankful". In comparing that "bread" to the "bread" that Jesus is referring to himself as, I surmise that Jesus is telling Christians and nonchristians alike that He has been alloted to us and He is all that we will ever need. Accept Him and be thankful. But accept Him in full.
revgreer@aol.com
Date: 17 Aug 2000
Time: 21:35:36
These words of Jesus are hard for us to deal with in our "enlightened?" society. But for those in the time of Christ - based on some other Middle Eastern stories - there is a symbolism for us. The spiritual imagery is wonderful. Eating the body, allows us to assimilate the life of Christ - not necessarily a physical nourishment, but a decidedly spiritual one. Christ often spoke in paradoxical ways to the disciples and his chosen apostles, in order to help them grasp deeper meanings. Not only are we connected to the Body of Christ, be we are connected to the body the church universal - connected across the ages with all believers both in heaven and on earth. Since this meal foreshadows the great Marriage Feast of the Lamb, around which we will be with other saints throughout the centuries, it might just behoove us to learn to enjoy the fellowship with the saints we have to deal with every day and every Sunday. Charles Swindoll says it well: "To live above with saints we love will be a taste of glory; to live below with saints we know, now that's a different story." I love this and I think it speaks to all of us in the body of Christ to think upon this, while we are fellowshipping around the Table of the Lord. Shalom! chaped@viagrafix.net
Date: 18 Aug 2000
Time: 02:01:36
If we think we have difficulty understanding this passage, look at the difficulty the disciples had. They took Jesus' saying about "munching," "chewing" on his flesh and drinking his blood very seriously. As a result of this, many of his disciples ceased to follow him (vs.66). Jesus asked the 12 if they also were going to turn away. Jesus' use of "my flesh" in verses 51-58 seems totally different from "the flesh" in vs.63. He would never have said "'my'flesh is useless" when he had just stated how important and necessary his flesh and blood are. Mary in NY
Date: 18 Aug 2000
Time: 02:02:02
If we think we have difficulty understanding this passage, look at the difficulty the disciples had. They took Jesus' saying about "munching," "chewing" on his flesh and drinking his blood very seriously. As a result of this, many of his disciples ceased to follow him (vs.66). Jesus asked the 12 if they also were going to turn away. Jesus' use of "my flesh" in verses 51-58 seems totally different from "the flesh" in vs.63. He would never have said "'my'flesh is useless" when he had just stated how important and necessary his flesh and blood are. Mary in NY
Date: 18 Aug 2000
Time: 02:33:41
Nailbender:
Wow! In two weeks I have to do a meditation and communion before a very delicate,important,life-changing church meeting. You have no idea how much your story has helped me focus! Grace and Peace!
Date: 18 Aug 2000
Time: 02:35:34
Nailbender:
Wow! In two weeks I will do a brief meditation and communion before a very delicate,important,life-changing church meeting. You have no idea how much your story has helped me focus! Grace and Peace!
Date: 18 Aug 2000
Time: 17:34:51
Awe, Nail-bender ain't all that wonderful! We could ALL do the same great writing as him if we all lived, ate and drank Jesus plus loved the down and out as much and as extensively as Nail-bender. In fact, I guess he is a great example of being "filled with and by" Jesus. Seriously, shouldn't we all try to be filled by the Great Carpenter Jesus of Nazareth like the evidently lousy (nail bending) carpenter of NC? revup
Date: 18 Aug 2000
Time: 18:41:51
Lynn in Houston, I don't know the source of the "Tillich" story you cited, however, I have seen it in a form in which "Tillich" was denying the reality of the Resurrection. Where ever this story came from, it shows an ignorance of the belief and writing of Paul Tillich who based his life and teaching on the reality and meaning of Jesus Christ and the Resurrection. I think there may be some confusion because Tillich's Systematic Theology often cites a variety of theological theories current and then critiques them. I would refer anyone who wants to know what Tillich really thought (he died thirty-five years ago) to his Systematic Theology vol. 2, which is devoted to Jesus Christ. While the point of the story is valid, I have grave doubts and questions about Tillich's name being attached to it. One might say, "You don't know my Tillich." Don in Indiana
Date: 18 Aug 2000
Time: 21:31:22
Here in John, Jesus speaks of his body as sarx and not soma, as flesh or meat and not so much as bodily presence. To the Jews of Jesus’ day, that would have been disgusting. Like the ‘bush tucker’ of the Australian aborigines, sarx is disgusting! They eat grubs and worms and other things us modern folk can’t abide, that we are disgusted by, but to the aborigines living in the Outback they are essential. Surely to many with our modern minds it is disgusting, too, for Jesus to ask us to eat his sarx, his meat! Its disgusting that Jesus draws a line like that, daring us to cross and saying we’ve condemned ourselves if we don’t! I’m thinking of simulating this effect of disgust by pouring chocolate over rice crisps and telling people that they are ‘ant’s eggs’ and challenging them to snack on them in the pews. I feel the need to really shake things up here, so I’ll risk a minor backlash…
Steve in Delta, BC
Date: 18 Aug 2000
Time: 23:08:17
Getting in late, but hoping for some feedback:D
As I read the first line of this, and go back to the beginning, when Jesus feeds the 5000, and they come after him looking for more food, I don't see this as suggesting that somehow we must digest from our mouths into our stomachs the flesh of Jesus. Aren't we in danger of following the crowds mistakes, looking for more bread? This doesn't discount that Jesus does in a very physical sense give his flesh to the world to "eat" - in the whipping, the crown of thorns, and the cross. His flesh is given so the world may have life.
Our eat of the flesh and the drinking of the blood would not be to literally eat Jesus's physical body, but to follow the way of God so fully that we share in his life giving work. If we believe in the crucified and risen Lord, if we follow that Lord, and not some good moral teacher or revolutionary who was martyred for his views and then some myths sprung up by hysterical followers, then we are eating of Jesus' flesh. We are abiding in the true Jesus.
Just some thoughts on where I am going with my sermon. Feed back appreciated.
On another note- the Paul Tillich story- I first heard that story a few years ago when the Jesus Seminar was in the news- but instead of the speaker being Paul Tillich, it was one of the members of the Jesus Seminar. So this may be a "legend" that while the facts aren't accurate or real, is true in the sense of Jesus' parable.
peace- Debbie in Bangor, ME
Date: 19 Aug 2000
Time: 05:15:23
I think we need to see the whole context of the chapter in order to make sense out of his hard-saying. Jesus drew people to him with the free food, then drove them away with his offensive saying. He started with the appealing "bread of life" and then got disgusting with "eat my flesh". And this is so typical of the gospel: it is so open, so inviting with "who so ever believe will have eternal life"; yet it is also so narrow-minded with "no one come to the father but through me!"
To follow Jesus, we can not pick and choose what we like, focus only on the blessing and not suffering, or only consider the God of Love and ignore the God of Judgement.
I plan to dividing the sermon into two parts: 1) Why he said "bread of life", and 2) Why he said "eat my flesh"
The effects of the offending "eat my flesh" were clear: people were dropping out. (I believe we are also called to present the Gospel so clearly that it may even hurt people; but at least if they dropped out, they would knew where they are with God, and not fooling themselves, thinking that they belong in heaven when in reality are heading for hell).
What was the different between the Twelve who decided to stay and the other who left? They exclaimed: "Lord, to whom shall we go? (1) You have the words of eternal life. We (2) believe and (3) know that you are the Holy One of God." It was the same word, yet Faith in the Originator made the difference between the one who have conviction and the one who have connotation, between having relationship and having religion, between having Christ and having creed, between the "only way to live" and the "additional benefits to life."
Sorry for my rambling, my fingers weren't keeping up with my thoughts.
CoHo from SA
Date: 19 Aug 2000
Time: 05:56:46
Real life story:
Back in the late 80s, I was leading a small group Bible Study at my church through the book of Mark every Friday night. We had a girl who joined our group when we start chapter 1. I will call her VK after her initials. She accepted the Lord in a refugee camp and found our church as soon as she got to the States. She didn't miss any meeting, she loved to learn, and not shy to participate. If you were a small group leader, people like her are a darling to have, since they breath life into the study.
Then we got to chapter 6: John the Baptist beheaded. VK was shocked to read the story of someone getting kill for what he believe. I still remembered her big brown eyes as she made many inquiries about the cost of being a followers of Christ. And I attempted to give her the truthful answers (perhaps very clumsily also).
Then she told us her story: "In the refugee camp, I was lonely. I attended an evangelistic meeting and invited Jesus into my heart as my friend. I like the peace I had, and the nice friends at church. But if I knew following Jesus could have cost me anything, I wouldn't want to follow him."
I don't remember if I attempted to explain to her about salvation, about the cost that Jesus paid for her or not, (it had been a long time). The only thing I remember is that was the last time she came to our small group bible study, and she also _decided_ to come to church no longer.
Five years later, we saw her for one last time when I invited her to attend my wedding. She was about to graduate from Med school, and had a handsome boyfriend by her side. :-(
Oh God, remember and have mercy on VK, whereever she is now. She might be offended by your "flesh-eating" truth, but please afflict hunger in her for your "bread of life". May your Word will not be sown in vain on her life, and may her judgement will not be because of my incompetency.
CoHo from SA
Date: 19 Aug 2000
Time: 18:05:40
CoHo from SA, I think we all fear that at one point or another we have said or done the wrong thing in our attempts to communicate the Gospel. I often take courage and hope from the words of a campus pastor that brought me into the church. He frequently said that the job of the Christian is to scatter the seeds, and let God give the growth. Pray, but remember that God isn't finished with her yet, and the scandal of the priceless Gospel is not something you added! Tricking people into faith by hiding the cost of the cross may give them the appearance of faith, but is denying them the gift of the true, incarnate, gospel. SS in PA
Date: 20 Aug 2000
Time: 00:04:41
Well, this is of the "better late than never" variety ... it's been quite a week in san pedro so I'm JUST getting to my sermon on Saturday at ... ARGHH! ... 5pm! Thanks for the postings above ... they've been great for focusing my energy here!
My comment comes from a week spent in Vacation Bible School (one of the reasons for being so late at the homiletic task!!) working with kids from four to eleven on "the parables."
One of the first songs we sang was "I Am the Bread of Life" ... since the kids love the "raise them up" part ... so I started on Monday asking them what Jesus meant when he said he was the bread of life ... did that mean we were supposed to use him to make peanut butter and jelly sandwiches?
And little Christopher raised his had ... one of the five year olds ... the ones who always raise their hand whether they have anything to say or not. Well, I called on him anyway, and he said, "No, Chaplain Susan! It's not like SANDWICH bread! It's like God's love that makes our hearts grow like bread makes our bodies grow."
Hard to argue with that!
Date: 20 Aug 2000
Time: 01:49:06
Nail Bender NC
I am very thankful for your powerful words each time you post.
My current churches are only my second appointment as a Methodist Pastor.
Your postings help me to preach the bold word of the Gospel and not to water it down from fear of lost members.
On behalf of all the pastors that you help give direction to I SAY THANK YOU !!!
Downeast Betty
Date: 20 Aug 2000
Time: 04:11:53
Das Mensch ist was er isst = Man is what he eats. 19th century philosopher/theologian Ludwig Feuerbach --Neworchard
Date: 20 Aug 2000
Time: 12:01:01
"Don't just eat the bread I hand you, but bite the hand that bred you". Like the Samaritan woman's "Living water", Jesus also promises "Bread of (for) life".