DOES JESUS' FLESH PROFIT NOTHING?

The Protestant argument is faulty on the John 6 passage, shown here (all Bible passages in KJV)

John 6
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

Note especially verse 63, because they use this verse to say basically, "Jesus really didn't mean that we actually eat His flesh and blood. He said His flesh doesn't matter and that the spirit is what really counts." They then interpret "spirit" to mean a symbolic presence. One must wonder what kind of implications this has for the Holy Spirit.

This verse is more removed from the place where Jesus was talking about eating His flesh. Also, why would Jesus contradict Himself, or not correct those who left Him (v.66) if they were misunderstanding, and it was really all symbolic? Furthermore, immediately following v.63, Jesus says that some don't believe this message. This is reminiscent of v. 60 in which the disciples said it was a hard teaching, before v.63 even came, when Jesus supposedly altered His message. Thus we can we that His message was indeed the same throughout the whole passage.

Jesus' flesh cannot "profit nothing" or as the NIV says "count for nothing." We can see with the verses below that this is true.

Continued below...

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 20, 2004

Answers

FLESH

Ephesians 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; 16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

Colossians 1:21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled 22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:

BLOOD

1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Colossians 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; 20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

IF NOT JESUS' FLESH, THEN WHOSE?

We can see then that Jesus clearly cannot be talking about Himself when He says "the flesh profiteth nothing," even if He's only referring to His flesh when He would die on the cross. In fact, it would be blasphemous of the Christian salvation message to say Christ's flesh counts for nothing. Since Jesus cannot be calling His own flesh unprofitable, He must be referring to human flesh. This becomes more clear when taking this passage in light of Romans 8.

Romans 8:
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

Let's look again at John 6:63:
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Note especially Rom 8:10, and take John 6:63 in light of it.
And if Christ be in you [if you receive Christ's flesh from v.3], the body is dead because of sin [the flesh profiteth nothing]; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness [the spirit quickeneth].

For confirmation of this view, simply read Rom. 8:11, the next verse. Here we see that the Spirit will "quicken your mortal bodies," the same language used in John when it says "the spirit quickeneth." Thus, we can conclude that indeed we are to receive Christ's true flesh, not a mere symbol.

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 20, 2004.

Excellent write-up Emily.

-- Andy (aszmere@earthlink.net), April 20, 2004.

Keep up the good work Emily!

-- - (David@excite.com), April 21, 2004.

i've always said that those of us who have converted or had otherwise intimate(not romantic, but protracted and close contact with) experience with protestants often make some of the best apologists. Keep up the good work, you will make an excellent catholic

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 21, 2004.

Not ot be too critical, but her argument does possess a fatal flaw.

The Protestant argument againtt he Eucharist is that Jesus was ebign metaphorical, not literal, in his speach. Her article seems to avoid this, and instead emphasises the words that are considered metaphorical.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 21, 2004.

Zarove,

Can you please elaborate on what you are talking about? I am confused by what you said. In this I was merely attempting to debunk the theory that John 6:63 supposedly shows that Jesus was saying it's all symbolic. Please show me what I've missed.

Thanks and God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 21, 2004.

Emily, you're on fire girl!

Daon

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), April 21, 2004.

Ahh, that Dano.

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), April 21, 2004.

Very good job Emily,

The protestants I know tend to jump on the "the flesh profits us nothing" bandwagon without thinking through the logical implications of their argument. If the flesh profits us nothing, then we also profit nothing from the fact that Jesus's flesh died on the cross.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), April 21, 2004.

i CAN'T ELABORATE WELL ON THIS, AS THEIRS LITTLE TO ELABORATE ON.

I am not skipping, however, most protestants I know simpley say that Jesus is beign figurative when he is speaking in the entre passage, not literal. Why isthat posiiton difficult to understand?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 21, 2004.

I think, Zarove, the answer to that is in Verse 51. "the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." Where does he give up his flesh for the life of the world? On the cross. Jesus equaltes very clearly that the bread is as real as his flesh on the cross. Was he only figuratively on the cross? Was it a mere symbol on the cross? Of course, the answer to these questions is no. If the bread is the same flesh that he gives us on the cross then there is no room for a figurative interpretaion.

And just to make sure that his audience understands him he immediately drops all the 'bread' talk until verse 58. He cuts out the barrier to direct implication. This section is straight talk about eating flesh. Now what is real interesting here is the verb he uses for eat. The greek doesn't mean 'consume' or anything so benign. It means to 'gnaw', I've heard some folks (who know far more about greek than I do) say that it would literally translate into 'grind with your teeth'. That doesn't sound figurative.

As if that weren't enough he goes on to say in verse 55, "For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." Kinda like saying, "not figurative" in clear and unambiguos terms.

But, I was under the impression that you were on board with this one?

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), April 21, 2004.

Zarove said: The Protestant argument againtt he Eucharist is that Jesus was ebign metaphorical, not literal, in his speach. Her article seems to avoid this, and instead emphasises the words that are considered metaphorical.

Sorry I wasn't more specific in my question. I guess I am wondering what you mean by the fact that I "emphasize the words that are considered metaphorical." Perhaps I am reading too much into this? But I guess I just didn't understand what you were saying there. Sorry for the confusion. I hope you weren't offended by my question.

Zarove said: most protestants I know simpley say that Jesus is beign figurative when he is speaking in the entre passage, not literal.

Ok, now I see what you are saying, and I have heard this argument before. Personally, I do not see how that view is possible considering the language that Jesus uses and how He repeats over and over that we are to eat his flesh.

Thanks for your input and God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 21, 2004.

Zarove:
You ask, ''that Jesus is being figurative when he is speaking in the entire passage, not literal. --Why is that posiiton difficult to understand?''

It's not. It's easy to understand, but completely false. He was not saying anything ''figurative'' about Himself. Jesus was clearly preparing the Church for his body and blood sacramentally present on the altar. He was to become truly present in the Eucharist, offered up as the victim of Calvary for all time. nothing is impossible with God.

the reason we can say this with certainty is; if he had been speaking in a figurative style--

--That would be what his apostles taught us from the beginning. But it's not. They taught what the Church still teaches and believes. we have the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ always present in our midst. He is Emmanuel, God with us.

When the church speaks, the apostles are speaking. They were given the eternal truth by Christ Himself; and the Holy Spirit to preserve it forever. One Lord, One Church, One Spirit and One TRUTH which never passes away.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 21, 2004.

All I was doing however was explaining the position. Jesus was sen as Literlaly on the Cross, but his speach here is seen as metaphotical.

THus the Protestant argument cannot be refuted by quotign form the BIBLE OR SAYING THAT jESUS'S DEATH WAS lITERAL, AND TO DO SO RATHER MSISES THE POINT.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.CO,), April 21, 2004.

I hope the point I make here is not simply dismissed. The apostles never thought His words were figurative or metaphorical. We know what they were because they taught us the words were LITERAL and TRUE.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 21, 2004.

Zarove, {All I was doing however was explaining the position. Jesus was sen as Literlaly on the Cross, but his speach here is seen as metaphotical.

THus the Protestant argument cannot be refuted by quotign form the BIBLE OR SAYING THAT jESUS'S DEATH WAS lITERAL, AND TO DO SO RATHER MSISES THE POINT. }

I assume this was directed to me? I think you missed my point. Their position CAN be refuted by quoting the bible and saying Jesus' death was literal. In the very passage that they claim is metaphorical Jesus precludes that as an option. He equates the meaning of the passage to the reality of the cross. He says very directly that the reality of his flesh in the bread is the reality of his flesh on the cross. There are very few passages in scripture that clearly indicate whether they are a metaphoric/ figurative/ symbolic or literal. This is one of them. His very word rule out as an option that this is a metaphorical passage. That was the point I was trying to make.

Dano

PS Eugene, you are not missed. I heard ya, and I liked it.

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), April 21, 2004.

Zarove

If one is to think that this specific Scripture was intended as being symbolic, one must re-evalute their faith in terms of it being Gnostic. I think that any faith system that denies Transubstantiation is basically Gnostic in general. They are denying basic doctrine. Why in the world would Jesus make such literal teachings about Salvation because He said exactly what He meant. The Jews walked away and so have some Protestants.

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 21, 2004.

I have some things to add to the defense of the Eucharist as the True Body and Blood of Christ. My Mom pointed these out to me, as she studies a lot about theology and the Bible. I think she read about this somewhere. In fact, she's the one who helped me find some of the original arguments for this thread in the first place. I just expanded it and incorporated the Romans 8 passage. But I thought that the following information might be of use to people in defending the faith.

Hebrews 10:19-20 (KJV)
Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

We see here that Jesus consecrated His flesh and blood.

Now to address Zarove's argument about eating Jesus' flesh as speaking metaphorically.

JEWISH SYMBOLIC MEANING OF EATING MAN'S FLESH

Jesus could not have been speaking metaphorically as Protestants argue when he said "eat my flesh," because the Jews already had another, alternative metaphorical meaning to the phrase. It meant to attack or do something to hurt or malign someone. This can be seen in the passages below (all KJV).

Ps. 27:2
2 When the wicked, even mine enemies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh, they stumbled and fell.
3 Though an host should encamp against me, my heart shall not fear: though war should rise against me, in this will I be confident.

Micah 3:1-3
1 And I said, Hear, I pray you, O heads of Jacob, and ye princes of the house of Israel; Is it not for you to know judgment?
2 Who hate the good, and love the evil; who pluck off their skin from off them, and their flesh from off their bones;
3 Who also eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them; and they break their bones, and chop them in pieces, as for the pot, and as flesh within the caldron.

Is 9:18-21
18 For wickedness burneth as the fire: it shall devour the briers and thorns, and shall kindle in the thickets of the forest, and they shall mount up like the lifting up of smoke.
19 Through the wrath of the LORD of hosts is the land darkened, and the people shall be as the fuel of the fire: no man shall spare his brother.
20 And he shall snatch on the right hand, and be hungry; and he shall eat on the left hand, and they shall not be satisfied: they shall eat every man the flesh of his own arm:
21 Manasseh, Ephraim; and Ephraim, Manasseh: and they together shall be against Judah. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.

Job 19
19 All my inward friends abhorred me: and they whom I loved are turned against me.
20 My bone cleaveth to my skin and to my flesh, and I am escaped with the skin of my teeth.
21 Have pity upon me, have pity upon me, O ye my friends; for the hand of God hath touched me.
22 Why do ye persecute me as God, and are not satisfied with my flesh?

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.

If Jesus were commanding them to eat His flesh metaphorically, they should have taken it to mean in this sense, as it meant culturally to the Jews: attack as an enemy. But this cannot be what Jesus means, since He says that "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:54). One who persists to attack Jesus as an enemy cannot attain eternal life. Besides, the fact that Jesus states it over and over and emphasizes that we must eat His flesh shows that He was trying to dispel any arguments to the contrary.

Below are two other passages in which the word "accused" means "ate the pieces of." I did not include these above because they are less obvious in English. I cannot verify this, as I do not know Hebrew. I think my Mom read this somewhere.

Daniel 3
8 Wherefore at that time certain Chaldeans came near, and accused the Jews.

Daniel 6
24 And the king commanded, and they brought those men which had accused Daniel, and they cast them into the den of lions, them, their children, and their wives; and the lions had the mastery of them, and brake all their bones in pieces or ever they came at the bottom of the den. So Zarove, what do you think about my response. You said that I failed to address the "metaphorical" theory, so here it is. God bless, and I hope you all can use this information in defending the Faith.

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 23, 2004.

oops, I accidentally tacked this on to the Daniel verse, so I reposted in case you missed it.

So Zarove, what do you think about my response. You said that I failed to address the "metaphorical" theory, so here it is. God bless, and I hope you all can use this information in defending the Faith.

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 23, 2004.

I found the site! Here's where it talks about the Jewish metaphorical meaning of "eat my flesh," as I explained in the above post.

Catholic Outlook (Gary Hoge)

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 23, 2004.

Im what you would call a protestant , well im definatly not catholic , I believe the word of God , and Jesus took bread ,gave thanks ,broke it ,and gave it to them saying" take eat,THIS IS MY BODY , so we see Jesus after taking the bread and blessing it or setting it appart it became this bread ,He then took the cup and bless it and said take it each one of you THIS IS MY BLOOD of the new covenant.Then when you look at 1 corinthians you see paul saying ,that if you drink this cup in an UNWORTHY manner , eg/Not discerning the Lords body ,then many become sick many die ,and many are weak ...

I believe that we have lost a great deal of power ,by not descerning the bread to be the body and the blood to be the wine ,, Jesus also said if anyone drinks my blood and eats my flesh ,I tell you be sure he will never die .. ??

Love ya

Simon and Jesus

-- Simon (si_fire@yahoo.com), May 11, 2004.