Does Science Contradict the Bible?

0:00wait ah Hello my friends, Greg Cocal here, a standard reason host. And of course the show is called Standard Reason, pardon my cough. And I am actually giving a talk tonight at a church here in Southern California, Rocky Peak, which is thankfully close to my home. So after the show I'm going to go down there, do the talk and then head home. And I have a list that I keep in the drawer here of the questions that people have asked at different times.

1:00And sometimes they're from Q&A lists that I don't with questions I don't get to during the live Q&A. And here is a question that is what is your response to those who say science contradicts the Bible. And I'm giving a talk on Christianity and science or Christianity and faith I think is the way no. Science and faith, sorry, the title is important. Science and faith are they compatible? Science and faith are they compatible. And so I'm going to be addressing broadly this question from a very with a very particular structural I'll share with you in a moment. But when people say that science contradicts the Bible, I think it's Frank Turck who makes the point that science doesn't say anything. Only scientists say something.

2:01Now I think that's useful because the idea is that what science does as an enterprises give us information from which we draw conclusions about the way the world works and why in some cases why certain things work that way. And especially this is especially helpful for us to harness those things and use them for the good of human flourishing like medicine, for example. We can't do medicine well if we don't understand how the human body works. So before there was knowledge of anatomy and germs, for example, where you couldn't fix bodies properly and if you don't know about germs you don't wash your hands. And if you don't wash your hands you make other people sick. Bad sick and sometimes they die. So science is good for that kind of stuff. Now I'm not sure if I totally buy the claim that science doesn't tell us anything, only

3:04scientists, which emphasizes the need to interpret the information accurately and what science allegedly says, quote unquote, turns out to be what the scientists are saying in light of what about what they think what they discovered means. However, I'm not comfortable with saying that partly because what is discovered oftentimes is very straightforward. So the discoveries of science have let us know that there are things called germs and germs kill people and the best way to keep germs from killing people is to get rid of germs or keep them off of us and this way to do this to wash. So I don't know that that's now scientists might be conveying the information but the legitimacy of the information is in the discovery itself. All right. So now we've got a role of science that tells us true things as a result of a certain methodology

4:08that we're employing to help us to know those true things. Okay, good. I'm fine with that. That disagrees with science. That contradicts the Bible. Really. Where? Now, that's a question that I would ask if I was asked or I was offered this challenge. The science contradicts the Bible. I'd want to know exactly where or what do you have in mind? You think it contradicts how so. So this is a, what do you mean by that question? And maybe it's borderline how would you come to that conclusion? Because they're looking at what they think are the legitimate deliverances of science and what they think the Bible says and they see an inconsistency. So in my case, I'd want to know where they think the inconsistency is. Now what they might say is the legitimate deliverances of the Bible, I'm sorry, of science

5:16justifies Darwinian evolution, neo-Darwinian evolution, you know, to set with modification as a result of genetic modification and natural selection. So there's a little package, a Darwinian package. And that is taken as a fact. And that seems, and some people's wanting to contradict the Bible. Now I guess it would, though I'm not sure what the direct contradiction is. And keep in mind, I'm being very careful here. I'm not. Okay. Okay. If you say it contradicts the Bible, where in the Bible is the contradictory material? And I don't see that. Now if you take the Darwinian picture as a whole, which means that all of the Darwinian processes are non-teleological and undirected. And the Bible indicates that God is directing, and that's pretty safe to conclude.

6:18Well, then you can have, I think you have a contradiction, but in my mind, and in the minds of many, that particular fact of science isn't the fact of science. It is held by many, many people, but it is held not because of the strength of the evidence, but because of a philosophic point of view that's being imported into the process. And that's the philosophy of materialism. And this is a point that I'm going to make tonight. So I, when somebody says science contradicts the Bible, the specifics are important. The specifics about science and the specifics about the Bible, and each of those details, which apparently contradict each other, you've got to look at the details. And so that's the key to that. Keep in mind that lurking in the, you know, off on the sidelines, in the shadows is a philosophical

7:19point of view that is intruding in many cases, certainly when it comes to this question, and that view is called materialism. So some people will say, well, science says that people can't rise from the dead. Well my view, science doesn't say that at all. What science can tell you is when a person is dead and when a person is alive, but whether a dead person can come back to life or not is not a scientific question. It is a philosophical question that is now imposed on the scientific project. It is snuck in and that project, rather than a presupposition, is materialism. And miracles don't happen. Why? Because we live in a materialistic world that's governed by natural law, and natural law does not account for, provide for, the possibility of a resurrection from the dead.

8:22Therefore it doesn't happen. But the therefore it doesn't happen is not based on the science itself, but it's based on the philosophy that's driving science. Now this is a point that I'm going to make tonight. Because confronted with the question, does science and faith compatible? It depends on three things. It depends first on what you mean by faith. And of course this is huge because nowadays the word faith is radically distorted by so many people, especially those who are not of the faith. And they're telling us how we ought to define our own word. But it's not just atheists who will characterize faith as, as Mark Twain put it, believe in what you know ain't so. How they put it is believing in something where you have no good reason to believe it.

9:27And so that would be a blind faith. Faith is blind by definition. And when you say to them, no that's not, that's not a my view of faith. If you have evidence, then where is room for faith? Is what they say? And so do many Christians. If you have evidence that leads to knowledge, where is room for faith. But of course this is not the biblical view of faith. If you want to have an understanding of what faith in Christianity means, you've got to go to the text to see what faith means in the text. Fadau. No, that's not the right word. I'll think of it in a moment. But the pistetto, there it is, pistetto is the word. Or some form of peace is another form of that word. And it means active trust. It's only in the early 19th century that the word faith has come to be understood in any sense as believing what you don't know, having no good reason for it.

10:33But that's taken over. Now if you want to say, okay, faith that has no relationship to reality except for the reality in your own mind, then of course that kind of faith could be in principle at odds with science as a discipline. All right. But Christianity isn't that kind of faith. So when it comes to Christianity, we're not going, we're not facing that kind of conflict. So that's out. And I have talked, you know, many times on the air and in public and written about that the biblical view of faith is not one that's contrary to the evidence, but one that takes the evidence into consideration. And the best single verse that I can think of is the verse in which John himself identifies the reason that he wrote the gospel of John. And you find that at the end of the gospel of John, verse chapter 20, I think verse

11:3521, and he says, many other signs and wonders, miracles, Jesus performed that have not been written in this book. He says later that Jesus performed so many miracles that they couldn't even hold all the books of the world. Now of course that's hyperbolic. That's an exaggeration of the point to make a point. Lots of miracles. But he says, I have included these. These I have included. In other words, the miracles in this book and they're seven of them. These I have included. Why? Why is John recording the miraculous life of Jesus with the details of the miracles? He tells us why. So that you shall believe that is the miracles are the grounds of the belief.

12:37They, it isn't belief apart from any reason. It's in, it's believed in view of the reason. Now belief what? He follows. Keep going. So that you will believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God, the Lord, and that in believing that those two things you will have life in His name. So the gospel of John is a gospel. It's good news and the good news is about salvation, eternal life. And this can be evidenced as being true through the evidence John portrays as an eyewitness himself of these things that took place so that you would believe. So that alone ought to be enough to quell the canard, silence the canard, that faith

13:40is belief without evidence. No good reason. Well, that may be your faith, that may be some Christians faith, but that is on the biblical definition or understanding of faith. Okay. So our science and faith compatible depends on what you mean by faith. If you are working with the Christian biblical understanding of that, then there's no conflict, at least not so far. Well, it also depends on what faith you mean, because there are some faith, one in particular, that does not take the physical world seriously, not seriously in the way that most people take it, scientists take it, for example, and that would be Vedantic Hinduism, because in Vedantic Hinduism, the world is not real. It's an illusion called Maya. And the problem that we have is we think we're real and we think we're separate from the

14:45God who is, and the God who is this into personal God, he is everything, impersonal, and everything else that looks like not God, like all the particulars, pardon me, just don't exist. They are part of the illusion. Well, I think you could see quite readily how a population given to a religious idea that the entire world they experience day to day is an illusion. You can see that they're not going to take much interest in the illusion. Let's figure this out and see how it works and make it work for us. No, it's not going to work. So if your religion is Vedantic Hinduism as an accurate view of reality, well, that's going to be in conflict with the discipline of science, but that's not our view.

15:49We're not separated from the world in that sense. We don't live in a mirage. The world is real. God is real and he made a real world. And he made a real world in a very particular way that operates in a very particular way so that we can understand it and use it. Very generally speaking, be fruitful, multiply and subdue the world. Take over, make it yours. And it turns out that that's the way science started. I know there are people nowadays that say, well, science is a God is a science stopper. Because you're not going to discover anything you just say God did that and God did the other thing and so you don't take an interest. But that isn't the way it happened. It's all of those people who believed in God like Newton and Kepler and all the rest. I got a list in my notes.

16:52I just can't recall them all. Virtually all the rest. Francis Bacon, the scientific method. Who is the guy that did the thing with the figured out the gene thing working with those sweet peas, the monk? These were all Christian people. Or maybe I should be qualified. These are all people who had a deep belief in Christian worldview and the existence of God who made a clockwork universe, who had had laws. Who was the other metaphor? One was the clock, one was laws. There was the third metaphor that they often used to describe the universe. But all of them contributed to the idea, the understanding of the universe, operating it according to principles that could be discovered. And in discovering them, they not only would learn more about the God who made them, which was a great part of their motivation, but they can also learn more about the world he

17:53made to be able to be fruitful, multiple, and so do, make it work on their behalf. So it turns out those science and faith could be at odds with each other, depending on which faith one has in mind. That isn't true of Christianity, because Christianity was the science starter. It was the Christian worldview that made science make sense, and all the enterprises of science make sense. And in many cases, these people were deeply devout people who saw no conflict with the study of the natural realm through empirical means and discovering not just more about the natural realm, but more about the one who made the natural realm. In fact, that was explicit in the writings of many of these people who were founders of modern science. So if science and faith are compatible, that's your question, well, depends what you mean

18:59by faith, and then it depends on which faith you mean. And in both of those cases, there is no inherent conflict between science and Christianity. But now it comes to a final question, what do you mean by science? And that's the kicker right there. Because science can be defined in two ways. And this I got from Darwinism on trial, Philip Johnson, who's no longer with us, but he was arguably the founding father of the intelligent design movement. There were a lot of other people right there at the same time, Stephen Myers, an example. But he was the point of the spear. And he made the distinction. I remember right where I was at when I heard this, I was driving down the 405, it was the 101 freeway in the valley.

20:02And he said there are two definitions of science. Philip Johnson did. There are two definitions of science. One definition is science as a methodology, okay? And by the way, that's the way most of us know it. Well science does a certain thing. It operates by certain principles. There is the so-called science method, scientific method, which turns out not to be any one thing in particular, but a constellation of practices, some of which apply in some disciplines and not another's, etc. But taken as a whole, we know what science is because these are the kinds of things that we use, these methods that help us to understand something true about the physical realm. Okay? So we have this scientific method. That's the first definition of science. But the second definition of science has nothing to do with the method. It has to do with a particular philosophy called metaphysical philosophy.

21:04Metaphysical philosophies are or views are those views that tell you what's real, okay? That tell you the ultimate deep structure of reality. And that view says there is nothing outside the physical realm. That's why it's called materialism. They don't mean that you spend too much time at the mall, you're materialistic. No, they mean that there's nothing but stuff like it that's at the mall. All the material stuff, it's atoms, molecules in motion. That's it. Nothing outside. Okay, now that's a pretty bold stroke, isn't it? Because I think we could very quickly discover, we already know this, but what we will discover is we will discover that we already know that there are lots of things outside of the physical realm that we traffic in every single day and indeed as it turns out, every single moment.

22:04Our thoughts are not physical. Our self-awareness is not physical. The laws of logic are not physical. Morality that impedes our lives and informs us about right and wrong is not physical. But they're real, they're all real. My thoughts are real. They're not just electrical charges in my brain because those electrical charges have physical qualities. My thoughts have propositional qualities. My beliefs do not extend in space. Buh, blah, blah. So it turns out that there's a whole real world out there that falsifies metaphysical naturalism or materialism. However, there's a lot of people who will use the tool of naturalism, which of course you can see right now is hostile to any kind of religion that isn't a merely purely physicalistic religion. You can see how that, there would be a conflict there.

23:06If naturalism is true and you have Christianity or Christian theism in operation, well, there's going to be a conflict, but the conflict is not with the methods of science. The conflict is with the philosophy that is imposed on the methods of science. And here's the trick. When people counteness the idea that the Christianity and science are at odds with each other, what they think is that there's some kind of discovery, legitimate, palpable discovery that science has provided for us that is very well justified, that is a clear and definitive falsifier of the Christian worldview. And that hasn't been done. But that's what people think. When they hear Christianity and science are at odds because science is blah blah blah.

24:09Well, okay, what is it? What is it at odds? And it turns out that what is at odds is not the methodology that makes science so good, but it is the philosophy that's laid over it. The conflict is not with science, but with philosophy. At this time happens time and time and time again. And I have a number of illustrations that I'll use in this talk tonight, but there is one citation that is especially effective and it's been around for a while. And this is a Harvard geneticist, Lewontin, his last name is. And Lewontin writes in the New York Review of Books, a piece called Billions and Billions of Demons as an ode to the just having passed Carl Sagan.

25:10And in that he says, here's the secret. Here's the deal. Here's why we operate the way we operate in science and it's not intuitive. It seems counter to the intuitions. It seems undocumented. It seems against common sense. It is, and it's what people have often called just so stories. Remember Richard Kipling wrote those stories for kids, right? How the leopard got his spots and the tiger got his stripes and they're just fairy tales. But he acknowledges that yeah, a lot of the story and a lot of the characterizations of Darwinism are just invented stories. Well, why are you doing this? He admits that he tells why right there. He says because we cannot allow a divine foot in the door. So Richard Lewontin, Harvard geneticist, one of the highest ranking people in the academic

26:13pecky order on the issue of science and evolution admits to the world that the game is rigged. They have rigged the game so that they would not allow a divine foot in the door. And that's the answer. If that's your definition of science, of course there's going to be a conflict. But that's because you're cheating. You are disqualifying any kind of spiritual religious, if you will, explanation for the universe because you already have a prior commitment as Lewontin states, this is his words, we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. There it is, he admits it. And that's the difficulty. Now, most people are going to see that because they don't understand the shell game that is going on. They just hear, well, a science, well, I believe in science, well, it's against religion.

27:14Well, I guess Christianity is out the door then because the smart guys, the scientists, they say so. They don't realize the shell came game that is going on. So I have a simple solution to this. And the simple solution is, why don't we just follow the evidence where it leads? I promise you, invoking God when appropriate is not going to destroy the day-to-day machinery of science because virtually everything that we learn from science can be explained in terms of the natural, the molecules moving in the universe according to the dictates of what we call natural law. There's a unified program there and let them go. We can figure it out. We're not going to try to explain lightning by saying, well, the gods are bowling because we can do better. But there are some things that are unique.

28:18The beginning of the universe, the beginning of life, the beginning of consciousness, the existence of morality, though that is not actually so much in the scientific realm. It bears on the scientific enterprise, but it's not part of what science examines. The other things are. Those are three different big bangs. What caused those big bangs? Because you can't get to the second from the first. You can't get from nothing to something. You can't get from dead stuff to livee-sa. You can't get from unconscious material to conscious things. There's no pathway there on a materialist view of the world, but that's what you'd have to accept if that were the case. Unless there's an intelligent mind that is behind the cause of all those three things. That makes sense. That makes sense. So anyway, there you got a mini shot at my talk tonight, and I got a mini practice.

29:23That's the answer to the question of what is your response to those who say science and the Bible contradict. There you go. All right, friends, let's take a break and we'll come back with more thoughts. Would you like a standard reason speaker at your event? Greg, Alan, Tim, John, Megan and I trip are available in person or online, just email booking at str.org. Our team speaks on a wide range of topics from issues in bioethics, gender and science, to topics in apologetics, theology and philosophy, and how to respond to other world views all from a biblical perspective. Whether it's a conference, youth event or Sunday service, we're here to give confidence for every Christian, clear thinking for every challenge, courage and grace for every encounter. Friends, if you like this broadcast, I know you'll love hashtag STRAsk. It's our shorter 20-minute podcast where I am paired with the wonderful Amy Hall, and together we answer the questions you send us on Twitter.

30:23hashtag STRAsk is released twice a week, Mondays and Thursdays, and it's only about 20 minutes long, so it's perfect to listen to on your morning jog or while driving around running errands or cleaning your garage or just plain loafing at home. Amy and I tackle your questions on theology and ethics and culture and lots more, offering our insight on the questions you're asking or the challenges you face. You can listen on Apple podcasts or wherever you download your own shows. Just remember, send us your questions on Twitter using the name of the podcast hashtag STRAsk. That's hashtag STRAsk. All righty. I have a question here that there might be some controversy about, but I'll give you my point of view. And actually, I think my point of view is really well justified.

31:28Well, I guess that's true. Anything that I hold tightly to, I hold it tightly because I think I have really good justification. If I don't have really good justification for something, I think it is true. I'm not going to hold so tightly and I'm not going to fight about it so much or be as insistent about it. And that's a good principle, by the way. If you have to be dogmatic and I don't mean a pejorative sense, a negative sense, but if you have to be dogmatic in that you are insistent, you're not going to budge. Make sure that the thing you're dogmatic about is really well justified. You got really good reasons for it. And if you don't have good reasons for it, you don't like lying to it so hard. Maybe you're wrong. And somebody else is correct in this. But in this issue, I think, on the main point, I'm not wrong. And I'll give you my reasons why. So this is Shane.

32:28And he has a question about the nature of communion, which is what the Roman Catholic call it or the Lord's Supper, which is what Protestants call it. And by the way, that's the term of the Bible that is used to describe this particular event. So let's hear from Shane. Shane, what's the new mind? Hi, Greg. This is Shane from Temecula, California. My question is, how can we be sure that our view of communion versus the Catholic view of transubstantiation is the correct one? There seems to be good arguments on both sides, especially when Jesus said you must eat my flesh and drink my blood, causing followers to walk away. Jesus also said that this was his flesh and blood, not represents or symbolizes it. And it also seems that the original Greek, if you happen to know anything about it, would play a significant role in interpreting the true meaning as well.

33:29So I still believe as a Protestant that the Lord's Supper is symbolic, but 1 Corinthians 11, 27 to 29, sternly warns that we do eat and drink judgment upon ourselves if we don't properly recognize the body. So how can we be absolutely sure which view is correct and what would be God's response on either side, whoever gets it wrong? Thanks, Greg. All right. Yeah, Shane, thank you for that. What you asked at the end is how can we be absolutely sure? And that's a luxury that often we don't have. Now what I'm going to offer is there's actually two questions. One is what is the nature of the bread, I guess, or also called communion or the communion wafer in Roman Catholicism, as well as race Catholics. So I'm familiar with this in some measure.

34:31And the second one is what about the judgment that Paul was talking about in 1 Corinthians 11? And so I'll just take them in order. How can we be sure that question for this kind of thing is always answered by going back to the text? What does the text or texts that are relevant to this say? Now I do not think the characterization that is given by Rome regarding the bread of life discourse is sound. And I'm not sure I can kind of spell the details out here. This is something I have to write out to get it kind of all in order and clear. Part of me, you'll understand the point here. Keep in mind a couple of things about John 6. Okay, this is called the bread of life discourse.

35:32And the reason is, is because Jesus says he is the bread of life. So this is the second major discourse that Jesus gave, the first, the sermon and the mount. The third will be the all of it discord course on past discourse on passion week. And the fourth will be the uproar discourse, which is a private talk between him and his disciples. So in this particular discourse, some very important things are happening. Jesus has just fed 5,000 people, actually 5,000 men. They're just counting the guys. They were more than that. And there were a lot of people that were following after Jesus partly and maybe in some cases completely because he was working miracles and he has chastised them for that. You just want to see another miracle. In this particular case, Jesus is chastising this group because they're looking for another

36:34free meal. And in the second half of the chapter, John 6, starting in 26 and following, Jesus addresses this issue. Now, what is important as far as I think to find an answer to the question here about what Jesus is referring to when he says eat my flesh and drink my blood. What's important is to follow the whole line of thought in the passage. Now that's true of any reading of a passage. And I'll just say one thing here, shame that yes, Jesus says, I am the bread of life. And what was the other one where he says the line that you quoted for eat my flesh, he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood, etc.

37:35Well, he doesn't use a metaphor. He uses a simile, actually. And you have to be careful just because he doesn't say I'm like, which would, I think it mixed up. Maybe to say I am like this is one figure of speech, maybe the metaphor. And the other one, the similes say, I am this. If I tell my wife, man, are you a rea sunshine today? Well, I'm not speaking literally, obviously. It's still a metaphor. So the I am language in that pace or whatever, in not I, you know, I'm like the bread of life is not, this is not relevant in your assessment. Jesus said in John 15, I am the vine. So if he says this is this is my body. Instead of saying this is like my body or this is a whatever, a commemoration of my body,

38:37this is this is my body. That isn't going to get you an answer here. Because if we're going to take that directly, this is my body. Then I am a vine. Jesus is bread and a stick. So I'm just saying that's not the way to answer it. Not straining at those words. It is following the train of thought. And so I'm going to spend a little more time in this than I usually do because the details are important. And Jesus says in verse 26, so I'm following you. You came this time, not because you saw signs, but because you ate the loaves and you were filled. Do not work for the food which parishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life. Now he's talking about a food that will bring eternal life. And he says the Son of Man will give it to you.

39:41And they said, hey, what shall we do that we may work the words of God? And Jesus works of God. And Jesus answered and said to them, this is the work of God that you believe in him who he has sent. Okay. Now I want to pause there because I do not want you to miss this. Jesus says, verse 27, do not work for the food which parishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life. What work gets that food? And he says in verse 29, this is the work that you believe in him who he has sent. In other words, eternal life is based on belief in Jesus. And he said, then they say, well, what do you do for a sign so that we can see and believe what work will you perform? And he said, look, our fathers gave man and the wilderness.

40:42Well, that's what they said. And Jesus said, look, it's not Moses who gave you the bread in heaven. It's my father who gave you the bread in heaven, true bread. And the true bread which comes down and gives life to the world is me. They say, give us this bread. And Jesus said, I am the bread. He who comes to me will not hunger, but he who believes in me will never thirst. So now he says, belief in him brings eternal life. That's verse 27 linked with 29. And then he says, believing in him will you will never thirst. Do you see that the metaphors that are all being built here around the concept of believing and bread and eating bread and drinking? You will never thirst. Okay. These are figures of speech all surrounding and explaining and describing and emphasizing

41:47the thing that gives eternal life, which is belief in Jesus. That's what he says explicitly. And he says, here's the problem you do not believe verse 36. And he says that all the father gives me will come to me and the one who comes to me, I will not certainly not cast out. This is God's will that all that he has given me, I lose nothing but raise up on the last day. Okay. He's creating the father giving certain people to him as the ones who are believing in him and have faith in him and he will raise them up on the last day. So now we've got all of this mixed together. The metaphor of bread, the metaphor of drinking, all serving the actuality of belief in Jesus that brings about everlasting eternal life. Are you with me so far? Let's get your Bible sound, take a look.

42:49But this is the flow of thought. Therefore, the Jews are grumbling about him because he said, I am the bread that came out of heaven. What do you mean? He's not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, the father, his father and mother, we know how does he now say I came down out of heaven? And Jesus answered, said, don't grumble. No one can come to me unless the father has sent me and draws them and I will raise them up on the last day. Now he's talking about the resurrection again and the father's involvement and this whole thing. So throughout the entire thing, he is talking about eternal life and believing in him free eternal life. And he is the quote unquote bread that gives life. He is the quote unquote water that satisfies the thirst, although he only mentioned satisfying the thirst and believing in him, satisfying the church, but they don't believe, again, if this is unbelievable.

43:49And then the one who, everyone who beholds the Son and believes in him will have eternal life. Their belief leads to eternal life and ultimate resurrection. I myself will raise them up on the last day. These are all saying the same thing. Then they come back, huh? And Jesus then says, and I'm skipping some lines because they're just saying the same things. Verse 47, blunt, direct to the point. Truly, truly, I say, listen, fellas, listen, he who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. The fathers ate the man in the wilderness and they died. This is the bread, which comes down out of heaven so that one may eat of it and not die.

44:49Do you see that eating the bread is a figure of speech that represents believing in Jesus because it is belief in Jesus that gives them eternal life and ensures the resurrection? These are interchangeable terms. The juice in understand the bread also which I give for the life of the world is my flesh. Now they really are upset. Now do you realize that Jesus flesh and the word flesh can mean two things? It could be fallen human nature or could mean your physical body. Jesus is saying my physical body. How is Jesus give his physical body for the salvation of the world? He gives it for, I should say, by being lifted up and across and dying on a cross, that his body, his flesh is sacrificed for the salvation of the world.

45:50But they didn't get it. Jesus began to argue with one another. How can he give us this flesh to eat? They're missing it entirely. So Jesus, what he does is he takes the metaphor he has been using all along even though he has said explicitly, I say to you that he believes has eternal life. That's first 47. He says that explicitly. No, no metaphors unenamoured. It's just right there. Then he says, he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life. And I will raise him up in the last day. Okay, so what else in the passage is parallel with eats my flesh and drinks my blood. In the sense that the text says, Jesus says it will give somebody eternal life and it will allow them to erase up in the last day. And the answer to that is the one and only believe in him. This is just an extension of his figure of speech or figures of speech that are all

46:56meant to emphasize trust and belief in him, which those listening do not have. He says that you don't believe. Therefore this makes no sense to them. He is not talking about his body in any form, literally, but that is what the communion turns out to be. It is the literal body of Jesus, not the accidental properties. It doesn't look like him, but the essential properties. And that's a distinction that Thomas Aquinas made. Well, I think it's an understandable distinction, but it doesn't argue for it. Not the essence, but not the accidents, but the essence. Okay, but that doesn't mean it's so. You have to look at the text and when Jesus invokes this line, well, he does so after all of this that comes before it, which makes it unequivocally clear that salvation is

48:01based on faith in him alone. Why? Because he is the quote unquote bread of life that you must quote unquote eat. And his body is that, which is given. And unless you quote unquote eat the body, Andy says, drink the blood. Remember, he talked about you'll never thirst. Then you have no part of him. Okay, I am the living bread on and on. Now he goes on with the metaphor, obviously, for my flesh is true food. My blood is true drink. The who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him. How do you get Jesus in you? So you're interconnected. It isn't by taking a piece of bread of any sort. It's about the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, where Jesus is in you in the person of

49:03the Holy Spirit, the divine nature lives in you. It all fits. Also it's against the Jewish law to drink blood, but he wasn't talking about drinking blood. He's not going to violate the law that he established being the Word of God, who gave us the Word of God. And so I don't see any justification. And by the way, the Lord suffered income until like year and a half later. So there is no way if that's if he's talking about communion, he's talking about something that none of these people who he's listening to him has any reason to understand it in any way like he just described. Then going to the Lord's upwards say, this is my body. Well, you're just who is broken and he breaks it for you. Just like he said earlier, I am the vine you are a bit, but the branches you abided me will bear much fruit. Jesus is speaking metaphors. And it strikes me quite obviously.

50:06He's speaking of metaphors. But we know this, in my view, without a doubt in light in John 6, because of the flow of thought that we see there. How do you get saved? How do you get guaranteed eternal life? You get saved. You get guaranteed eternal life by appropriating the sun for yourself that which came down the bread that never parishes the bread that gives life that doesn't end the the provision that quenches your thirst forever. Remember the woman at the well, oh, give me this water. Jesus said, if you knew who you're talking to, you were destined for living water and you would never have to draw again, oh, give me this water. And then a few lines later, she mentions the Messiah.

51:07He says, I, who speak to you, and he, I honestly don't see how given the whole kit text in the flow of thought, how, how somebody comes up with the idea that what we have to do is have a piece of bread every Sunday that we sacrifice. It's called a sacrifice of the mass. I don't know if they call it that anymore, but they used to because Christ is broken. His body is broken. And when it's given to you, it's the body of Christ. That's what they say when they give it to you. Now, I'm not dissing the sacrament. I'm trying to help you to see how their characterization of it does not fit what's being described, what Jesus describes in the flow of thought here. Or even the language that he says you, you must wear it now where he says eternal life is dependent. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life.

52:09And I will raise him up in the last day. The very same consequence, eternal life and resurrection that Jesus said was the result of belief in him. Multiple times before that, how can that not be this? That's verse 54. That's the, that's the verse that's the controversial one. That's the one you point. Look at this, what he says. This is my blood. This is my body, whatever. And yet we see the parallelism, what he's referring to. I don't know how it could be this. Exegetically, it's like obvious there. So that's why I feel very confident that Jesus is not talking here at all about what we has come to be known as the Lord's Supper. And when the Lord's Supper is practiced, it needs to be practiced a certain way. Now incidentally before I move away from John 6, it says, he who eats my flesh and

53:10drinks my blood has eternal life where there's only one, in the Catholic Mass, only one person is drinking the blood. And that is the priest in the chalice. People don't get that. But Jesus, if you want to press the details of what Jesus said, you got to have both. Now in my view, you get both when you get Jesus, when you trusted him as the bread of life, whose body was broken for you, whose blood was shed for you, matched that up with the last Supper. Now in the Corinthians passage, I think there's some misunderstanding too. And I don't have time to really exegiate this. But my understanding of what's going on is the church is getting together for a celebration, going in the fellowship, and also to celebrate to do what Jesus says, celebrate or remember my death until I come. Do this and remember it's of me.

54:10So we, as Paul foots it, I guess, then more detail that we celebrate the Lord's death until he comes. So we're looking backward and forward. Now this is important because this is kind of right there at the core of the Christian message. And the first coming of Christ, and the second coming of Christ, first for salvation, personally, the rest for salvation eternally, in a certain sense, for the salvation of the world, and the fullness and the completion of God's plan for the rescue of everything. Okay. And this is a point of celebration. But there was food that was available there and drink and people were coming and were engorging themselves and getting drunk and just abusing the table. And therefore, abusing the body of Christ, by the way, what is the body of Christ throughout Scripture? Well, the body of Christ is the church.

55:11So there were assaults against the church here in this environment. And I do not think what is being condemned there is people misunderstood exactly what the nature of the host or the bread was, whether it's a symbol or it's trans substantiation or consubstantiation. They didn't get their theology rights to look out. No, what they weren't getting right was the conduct during that event that was inappropriate and, you know, what's the corrupting, in a certain sense, had a corrupting influence on this holy sacrament and that's what is being condemned here. He says, so then my brother and when you come together to eat, wait for one another. If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home so that you will not come together for judgment. And Amy made a note about this drinking and eating is selfishly without regard to the

56:13rest of the body of Christ is the opposite of remembering the Lord and proclaiming His death and the gospel, His sacrifice for others. It makes a mockery of the purpose of the Lord's Supper. I think she hits the nail on the head there. So this is not a doctrinal issue about whether you have the right interpretation of the Lord's Supper. That's being talked about here. But I think when we look at John 6, if you read the flow of thought and focus on the words, eternal life, resurrection and the thing which causes both belief in Jesus, you will see that all the other references that seem to also cause resurrection and eternal life are simply referring metaphorically back to belief in Jesus. It's not eating literally anything. It's not eating, drinking literally anything.

57:16It's having Christ as your own who is the bread of life and we take that into ourselves for eternal life and that guarantees our resurrection. Hope that helps shame, a lot of complexity there. Just read the passage carefully. I think it will all become clear. Great co-cle here for Santa reason. Get them heaven, alright friends. Bye-bye.