eahaddix
06-19-2006, 12:47 AM
Is Transubstantiation a Biblical doctrine? Roman Catholic apologists appeal to two Scriptural passages for Scriptural prooftexting.
Therefore, let us re-examine these key passages.
I. Was "the Last Supper" Transubstantiate?
Matthew 26 [NIV (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026:26-29;&version=31;)]
26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."
27 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."
*Note: See also Mark 14:22-25 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2014:22-25;&version=31;) and Luke 22:17-20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2022:17-20;&version=31;).
In interpreting these "Last Supper" passages, Roman Catholic apologists claim that the words "this is," or touto (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5124) estin (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2076), communicate a conversion of the bread and wine, otherwise Christ Jesus would have said "this symbolizes."
However, this is non-sequitur reasoning. The Greek expressions of the phrase "this is," such as . . .
(a) touto (http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/STRGRK51.htm#S5124) + esti (http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/STRGRK20.htm#S2076),
(b) houtos (http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/STRGRK37.htm#S3778) + esti (http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/STRGRK20.htm#S2076), or
(c) ho (http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/STRGRK35.htm#S3588) + esti (http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/STRGRK20.htm#S2076),
. . . can communicate symbolic designations (ref. Matthew 13:37-39 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2013:37-39;&version=31;) [Greek text] (http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=Matthew+13%3A37-39§ion=0&it=kjv&ot=bhs&nt=na&Enter=Perform+Search)) or literal truths (ref. Matthew 3:17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%203:17;&version=31;) [Greek text] (http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=matthew+3%3A17§ion=0&it=kjv&ot=bhs&nt=na), Matthew 14:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=14&verse=2&version=49&context=verse) [Greek text] (http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=matthew+14%3A2§ion=0&it=kjv&oq=matthew%252011%3A10&ot=bhs&nt=na&new=1&nb=mt&ng=11&ncc=11)). If Christ Jesus intended this statement to be unequivocally literal, then he would have said touto (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5124) gignetai (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1096)[* (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=gi%2Fgnetai&bytepos=32627568&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057)], or "this has become," not simply touto (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5124) estin (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2076), or "this is" (cross ref. John 2:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%202:9;&version=31;) [Greek] (http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=John+2%3A9§ion=0&it=kjv&ot=bhs&nt=na)).
A true literal interpretation of the words in question would be paradoxical. Bread is not human flesh, nor is wine human blood, otherwise the basic usage of these words is invalid. Instead, Christ Jesus recognized the presence of the bread and wine, even when making the said statements, as shown by Matthew 26:29 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026:29;&version=31;). As a result, the reader does not see Christ Jesus offering severed body parts or bleedings for consumption, under any context.
Now, in Luke 22:19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2022:19;&version=31;), Christ Jesus classifies "the Last Supper" as an act of "rememberance," or anamnesis (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=364). Based on this, Roman Catholic apologists assert the following:
1Q. In Greek philosophy, anamnesis refers to how abstract ideas move into the physical world. For instance, Plato defined anamnesis as physical reminders of metaphysical forms behind worldly shadows, based on knowlege gained from a previous disembodied existence called metempsychosis (ref. reading (http://maven.english.hawaii.edu/criticalink/plato/guide8.html)). Since Hellenistic culture dominated many local churches, the Apostles could have used this philosophical term to describe Transubstantiate transformations.
1A. While the implicit reference to this basic philosophical concept could be intended, Scripture does not explicitly apply this idea to Transubstantiation. To the contrary, this philosophical idea could describe an edifying or faith-intensive experience, as opposed to Transubstantiation.
2Q. The term anamnesis has "sacrifical overtones," as demonstrated by this term's usage in Hebrews 10:3 (http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=Hebrews+10%3A3§ion=0&it=kjv&ot=bhs&nt=na). The same observation applies to the Hebrew counterpart of anamnesis, zakar (http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/STRHEB21.htm#S2142), as shown by Leviticus 24:7 (http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=Leviticus+24%3A7§ion=0&it=kjv&oq=Hebrews%252010%3A3&ot=bhs&nt=na&new=1&nb=heb&ng=10&ncc=10) and Numbers 10:10 (http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=numbers+10%3A10§ion=0&it=kjv&oq=Leviticus%252024%3A7&ot=bhs&nt=na&new=1&nb=le&ng=24&ncc=24).
2A. While a sacrifice can serve as a memorial, all memorials are not sacrifices. For instance, stones served as memorials for Israelities killed by a river (Joshua 4:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua%204:7;&version=31;)), crowns served as memorials for Jewish exiles from Babylon (Zechariah 6:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zechariah%206:14;&version=31;)), and a scroll served as a memorial to a Hebrew victory over the Amalekites (Exodus 17:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2017:14;&version=31;)). Consequently, nowhere does Scripture indicate that the Last Supper had sacrifical connotations, except through extra-Scriptural generalizations superimposed onto Scripture.
Moreover, Christ Jesus had not died on the cross yet, so these items could not have been offered under a sacrifical context.
II. Was the Transubstantiate Eucharist Christ Jesus's "difficult teaching"?
In interpreting John 6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=6&version=31), Roman Catholic apologists emphasize the literal reading of John 6:54-56 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:54-56;&version=31;). Specifically, these apologists see John 6:55 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:55;&version=31;) as representing the physical Eucharistic elements, while viewing John 6:54, 56 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:54,%2056;&version=31;) as representing the consumption of the physical Eucharistic elements.
However, this is non-sequitur reasoning, for while John 6:55 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:55;&version=31;) mentions real sustenance, John 6:55 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:55;&version=31;) does not mention physical sustenance. To the contrary, in John 6:27 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:27;&version=31;), Jesus instructs the crowd to seek food that does not spoil, as opposed to food that spoils. Likewise, in John 4:13-14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%204:13-14;&version=31;), Christ Jesus instructs the Samaritan woman to seek water that permanently quenches thirst. This is significant, for all physical food spoils after providing temporary nourishment only, thereby indicating that the subject is literal spiritual food, not literal physical food. Christ Jesus verifies this interpretation in John 6:30-33, 49-50, 58 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:30-33,%2049-50,%2058;&version=31;), where he contrasts desert manna with bread from heaven.
With this in mind, notice that Christ Jesus parallels belief in him (John 6:29, 35, 40, 47 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:29,%2035,%2040,%2047;&version=31;)) with eating him as the "bread of life" (John 6:50, 51, 58 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:51;&version=31;)) throughout John 6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=6&version=31). Each item results in obtaining eternal life, in and of itself, thereby indicating that these things are same thing. Otherwise, Christ Jesus would be contradicting himself by advocating different means of obtaining salvation.
This parallel reaches its full logical extension in John 6:53-56 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:53-56;&version=31;). Specifically, Christ Jesus parallels belief in him with eating his body and blood. This dual form of food describes a two-fold form of spiritual nourishment:
(a) The body is what bears the sins (ref. Leviticus 16:21-22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2016:21-22;&version=31;)), which is why Christ Jesus bore our sins in his body (1 Peter 2:24 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%202:24;&version=31;)). Hence, Christ Jesus's body eliminates our spiritual burden of bearing sin (Romans 6:5-7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%206:5-7%20;&version=31;)).
(b) Blood, or lifeblood, is forfeited for the payment of sins (Leviticus 17:11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2017:11;&version=31;), Hebrews 9:22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%209:22;&version=31;)), which is why Christ Jesus spilled his lifeblood for our sins (Matthew 26:28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026:28;&version=31;), 1 Peter 1:18-19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%201:18-19;&version=31;), 1 John 1:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%201:7;&version=31;), etc.). Hence, Christ Jesus's blood eliminates our spiritual burden of sinful guilt (Hebrews 9:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%209:14;&version=31;), Hebrews 10:22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2010:22;&version=31;)).
At this point, remember that Christ Jesus observed Mosaic Law, which prohibited the drinking of blood (Leviticus 17:10-12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2017:10-12;&version=31;)). The Apostles followed this observance by teaching believers to abstain from drinking blood (Acts 15:20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015:20;&version=31;), Acts 15:29 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015:29;&version=31;), Acts 21:25 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2021:25;&version=31;)).
Further, God the Father prevents Christ Jesus from experiencing decay (Acts 2:27 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:27;&version=31;)). However, in consuming transubstantiate communion wafers and wine, one's body digests or "breaks down" the said materials.
This New Testament imagery of consuming Christ Jesus to internalize his saving power (ref. John 6:50-51, 53-54, 57-58 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:50-51,%2053-54,%2057-58;&version=31;)) parallels the Old Testament imagery of consuming God's words to internalize their meaning (ref. Jeremiah 15:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%2015:16;&version=31;), Isaiah 55:1-3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2055:1-3;&version=31;), Ezekiel 2:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%202:8;&version=31;), Ezekiel 3:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%203:1;&version=31;)). Plus, this cross-Testament parallel includes the imagery of Matthew 5:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:6;&version=31;), where one's desire to intake nutrition illustrates one's desire for righteousness.
Therefore, let us re-examine these key passages.
I. Was "the Last Supper" Transubstantiate?
Matthew 26 [NIV (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026:26-29;&version=31;)]
26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."
27 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."
*Note: See also Mark 14:22-25 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2014:22-25;&version=31;) and Luke 22:17-20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2022:17-20;&version=31;).
In interpreting these "Last Supper" passages, Roman Catholic apologists claim that the words "this is," or touto (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5124) estin (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2076), communicate a conversion of the bread and wine, otherwise Christ Jesus would have said "this symbolizes."
However, this is non-sequitur reasoning. The Greek expressions of the phrase "this is," such as . . .
(a) touto (http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/STRGRK51.htm#S5124) + esti (http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/STRGRK20.htm#S2076),
(b) houtos (http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/STRGRK37.htm#S3778) + esti (http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/STRGRK20.htm#S2076), or
(c) ho (http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/STRGRK35.htm#S3588) + esti (http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/STRGRK20.htm#S2076),
. . . can communicate symbolic designations (ref. Matthew 13:37-39 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2013:37-39;&version=31;) [Greek text] (http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=Matthew+13%3A37-39§ion=0&it=kjv&ot=bhs&nt=na&Enter=Perform+Search)) or literal truths (ref. Matthew 3:17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%203:17;&version=31;) [Greek text] (http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=matthew+3%3A17§ion=0&it=kjv&ot=bhs&nt=na), Matthew 14:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=14&verse=2&version=49&context=verse) [Greek text] (http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=matthew+14%3A2§ion=0&it=kjv&oq=matthew%252011%3A10&ot=bhs&nt=na&new=1&nb=mt&ng=11&ncc=11)). If Christ Jesus intended this statement to be unequivocally literal, then he would have said touto (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5124) gignetai (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1096)[* (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=gi%2Fgnetai&bytepos=32627568&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057)], or "this has become," not simply touto (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5124) estin (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2076), or "this is" (cross ref. John 2:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%202:9;&version=31;) [Greek] (http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=John+2%3A9§ion=0&it=kjv&ot=bhs&nt=na)).
A true literal interpretation of the words in question would be paradoxical. Bread is not human flesh, nor is wine human blood, otherwise the basic usage of these words is invalid. Instead, Christ Jesus recognized the presence of the bread and wine, even when making the said statements, as shown by Matthew 26:29 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026:29;&version=31;). As a result, the reader does not see Christ Jesus offering severed body parts or bleedings for consumption, under any context.
Now, in Luke 22:19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2022:19;&version=31;), Christ Jesus classifies "the Last Supper" as an act of "rememberance," or anamnesis (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=364). Based on this, Roman Catholic apologists assert the following:
1Q. In Greek philosophy, anamnesis refers to how abstract ideas move into the physical world. For instance, Plato defined anamnesis as physical reminders of metaphysical forms behind worldly shadows, based on knowlege gained from a previous disembodied existence called metempsychosis (ref. reading (http://maven.english.hawaii.edu/criticalink/plato/guide8.html)). Since Hellenistic culture dominated many local churches, the Apostles could have used this philosophical term to describe Transubstantiate transformations.
1A. While the implicit reference to this basic philosophical concept could be intended, Scripture does not explicitly apply this idea to Transubstantiation. To the contrary, this philosophical idea could describe an edifying or faith-intensive experience, as opposed to Transubstantiation.
2Q. The term anamnesis has "sacrifical overtones," as demonstrated by this term's usage in Hebrews 10:3 (http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=Hebrews+10%3A3§ion=0&it=kjv&ot=bhs&nt=na). The same observation applies to the Hebrew counterpart of anamnesis, zakar (http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/STRHEB21.htm#S2142), as shown by Leviticus 24:7 (http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=Leviticus+24%3A7§ion=0&it=kjv&oq=Hebrews%252010%3A3&ot=bhs&nt=na&new=1&nb=heb&ng=10&ncc=10) and Numbers 10:10 (http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=numbers+10%3A10§ion=0&it=kjv&oq=Leviticus%252024%3A7&ot=bhs&nt=na&new=1&nb=le&ng=24&ncc=24).
2A. While a sacrifice can serve as a memorial, all memorials are not sacrifices. For instance, stones served as memorials for Israelities killed by a river (Joshua 4:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua%204:7;&version=31;)), crowns served as memorials for Jewish exiles from Babylon (Zechariah 6:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zechariah%206:14;&version=31;)), and a scroll served as a memorial to a Hebrew victory over the Amalekites (Exodus 17:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2017:14;&version=31;)). Consequently, nowhere does Scripture indicate that the Last Supper had sacrifical connotations, except through extra-Scriptural generalizations superimposed onto Scripture.
Moreover, Christ Jesus had not died on the cross yet, so these items could not have been offered under a sacrifical context.
II. Was the Transubstantiate Eucharist Christ Jesus's "difficult teaching"?
In interpreting John 6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=6&version=31), Roman Catholic apologists emphasize the literal reading of John 6:54-56 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:54-56;&version=31;). Specifically, these apologists see John 6:55 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:55;&version=31;) as representing the physical Eucharistic elements, while viewing John 6:54, 56 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:54,%2056;&version=31;) as representing the consumption of the physical Eucharistic elements.
However, this is non-sequitur reasoning, for while John 6:55 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:55;&version=31;) mentions real sustenance, John 6:55 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:55;&version=31;) does not mention physical sustenance. To the contrary, in John 6:27 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:27;&version=31;), Jesus instructs the crowd to seek food that does not spoil, as opposed to food that spoils. Likewise, in John 4:13-14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%204:13-14;&version=31;), Christ Jesus instructs the Samaritan woman to seek water that permanently quenches thirst. This is significant, for all physical food spoils after providing temporary nourishment only, thereby indicating that the subject is literal spiritual food, not literal physical food. Christ Jesus verifies this interpretation in John 6:30-33, 49-50, 58 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:30-33,%2049-50,%2058;&version=31;), where he contrasts desert manna with bread from heaven.
With this in mind, notice that Christ Jesus parallels belief in him (John 6:29, 35, 40, 47 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:29,%2035,%2040,%2047;&version=31;)) with eating him as the "bread of life" (John 6:50, 51, 58 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:51;&version=31;)) throughout John 6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=6&version=31). Each item results in obtaining eternal life, in and of itself, thereby indicating that these things are same thing. Otherwise, Christ Jesus would be contradicting himself by advocating different means of obtaining salvation.
This parallel reaches its full logical extension in John 6:53-56 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:53-56;&version=31;). Specifically, Christ Jesus parallels belief in him with eating his body and blood. This dual form of food describes a two-fold form of spiritual nourishment:
(a) The body is what bears the sins (ref. Leviticus 16:21-22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2016:21-22;&version=31;)), which is why Christ Jesus bore our sins in his body (1 Peter 2:24 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%202:24;&version=31;)). Hence, Christ Jesus's body eliminates our spiritual burden of bearing sin (Romans 6:5-7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%206:5-7%20;&version=31;)).
(b) Blood, or lifeblood, is forfeited for the payment of sins (Leviticus 17:11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2017:11;&version=31;), Hebrews 9:22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%209:22;&version=31;)), which is why Christ Jesus spilled his lifeblood for our sins (Matthew 26:28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026:28;&version=31;), 1 Peter 1:18-19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%201:18-19;&version=31;), 1 John 1:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%201:7;&version=31;), etc.). Hence, Christ Jesus's blood eliminates our spiritual burden of sinful guilt (Hebrews 9:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%209:14;&version=31;), Hebrews 10:22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2010:22;&version=31;)).
At this point, remember that Christ Jesus observed Mosaic Law, which prohibited the drinking of blood (Leviticus 17:10-12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2017:10-12;&version=31;)). The Apostles followed this observance by teaching believers to abstain from drinking blood (Acts 15:20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015:20;&version=31;), Acts 15:29 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015:29;&version=31;), Acts 21:25 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2021:25;&version=31;)).
Further, God the Father prevents Christ Jesus from experiencing decay (Acts 2:27 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:27;&version=31;)). However, in consuming transubstantiate communion wafers and wine, one's body digests or "breaks down" the said materials.
This New Testament imagery of consuming Christ Jesus to internalize his saving power (ref. John 6:50-51, 53-54, 57-58 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:50-51,%2053-54,%2057-58;&version=31;)) parallels the Old Testament imagery of consuming God's words to internalize their meaning (ref. Jeremiah 15:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%2015:16;&version=31;), Isaiah 55:1-3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2055:1-3;&version=31;), Ezekiel 2:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%202:8;&version=31;), Ezekiel 3:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%203:1;&version=31;)). Plus, this cross-Testament parallel includes the imagery of Matthew 5:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:6;&version=31;), where one's desire to intake nutrition illustrates one's desire for righteousness.