Posted on 03/29/2015 6:09:23 PM PDT by Faith Presses On
The following is a study of John 6, with a particular focus on the Jewish aspects of it. John 6 is often cited by Roman Catholic apologists in support of their church's teachings on the Lord's Supper, but the issue of Jesus as the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament is typically ignored, which drastically affects the understanding of events.
One claim frequently made by Catholic apologists is that their church is merely taking literally what Jesus says about His body and blood in John 6, while Protestants who take the Bible literally choose not to do so when it comes to that passage in order to defy Catholic teaching.
Catholic apologists also commonly say that in a dialogue with a group of Jews, Jesus left no doubt that He literally meant eating His flesh and drinking His blood, and once the people got what He meant, they were offended at the thought and many stopped following Him. Their reaction is said to prove what Jesus meant, which is in effect both cannibalism and the drinking of any blood, which was forbidden under Jewish law.
But these can't be proper interpretations as is because Jesus never followed through with the very literal acts that Catholic apologists say offended the people in John 6 and drove many of them away from Him. He never gave to His apostles for them to eat from His actual body and blood, although He was there physically, both at the Last Supper, and after His resurrection. Certainly Jesus knew how these people would take His words and intentionally gave them the idea of cannibalism and blood drinking, but what they envisioned, which He knowingly and intentionally prompted by His words, didn't actually happen, and a closer look at John 6 shows that Jesus had different reasons for saying what He did, other than what Catholic apologists say.
Catholic apologists also tend to focus on a few passages of John 6 and ignore their context and what's happening in the chapter on the whole. Because the context is omitted, the heart of the matter in John 6 is almost completely lost in Catholic interpretation, and a vastly different meaning is given to the snippets of the dialogue the Catholic apologists emphasize.
What Catholic apologists typically leave out is that a major part of what John 6 is about is Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. Specifically, that even after being prepared for the prophesied Messiah, and then actually witnessing His miracles, many of the Messiah's own people, the Jews, didn't believe on Him. Any interpretation of John 6 that ignores this matter, as Catholic interpretations so often do, is not holding to what's actually there.
As Christians we know that the Old Covenant was a preparation for the New, and a shadow of the Heavenly. It all points to Christ, who fulfilled the Old Testament. The Jews of the time of the Incarnation were awaiting the promised Messiah, and this is not only a primary concern in John 6, but a primary concern throughout all of John, all of the Gospels, and the entire New Testament as well. Any study of them clearly shows that. While it was God's plan that later the Gospel would be take to the Gentiles, Jesus while on earth went to the Jews, since He was and is their Messiah. John 6 and the entire Gospel for that matter is about that.
Looking at some of the Gospel of John outside of chapter 6, the Messiah issue is continually there.
John 1:11 says, "He came unto his own, and his own received him not." And later in John 1, several of the men who would become Jesus' disciples rejoice that they have found the Messiah.
In John 2, the miracle of Jesus turning the water into wine causes His disciples to believe on Him (miracles being said in the New Testament to be done to demonstrate He was the Messiah), and after He cleanses the temple, some Jews are already asking Him for a sign.
John 3 is about the need to believe in Jesus as the Messiah and to be born again.
In John 4, Jesus reveals Himself as the Messiah to the Samaritan woman at the well and a multitude of other Samaritans that she tells about Him (the Samaritans, with a partial Jewish ancestry, also know of the prophesied Messiah).
In John 5, the Jewish authorities begin to persecute Jesus after He heals a man on the Sabbath.
In John 7, when Jesus appears and preaches in Jerusalem during the Feast of the Tabernacles, there is a great debate among the people on whether or not He is the Messiah. In John 8, after some Jews had brought an adulterous woman to Jesus to see if he would say to stone her, but he had instead convicted them of their own sin, Jesus then argues with some Pharisees, who accuse Him of bearing witness of Himself and of having a devil. Jesus tells them that He's the one that He's told them all along that He is - the Messiah - and that unless they believe that He is, they will die in their sins.
In John 9, after Jesus heals a blind man, it's revealed that the Pharisees have decreed that anyone confessing that Jesus is the Messiah will be put out of the synagogue.
In John 10, the people again debate if Jesus is the Messiah or not, and some Jews again question Jesus about it.
It's also very important to the proper understanding of John 6 to recognize that the miracles Jesus did were chiefly done to reveal who He was and is, the Messiah. Those with faith would believe and have their faith strengthened by the miracles, while those who didn't would either be impressed into repentance towards God, or else become hardened in their sin and separated as the chaff from the wheat.
"24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. 25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. 26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you."
In John 5:36, Jesus tells the Jewish authorities, "But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me."
And in John 14:11, Jesus also tells the Twelve, "Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake."
John, and the other three Gospels as well, also refer to a prophecy of Isaiah concerning the Jews:
"37 But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: 38 That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? 39 Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, 40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. 41 These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him." (John 12)
In Matthew 13:13-14, Mark 4:12, and Luke 8:10, Jesus Himself mentions the Isaiah prophecy about hearing in order to explain to His disciples why He speaks to the multitudes only in parables that they don't understand, saying it hasn't been given to them to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven.
Altogether, what the New Testament teaches us on Jesus as the prophesied Messiah of the Jews is that it was revealed to the Apostles, Jews themselves, that the Jews overall did not receive their Messiah when He came to them, and this rejection was a part of God's plan to take the Gospel of salvation through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, to the rest of the world.
How, then, does this relate to what happens in John 6?
John 6 begins with a great multitude following Jesus because "they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased." Jesus then decides to feed them and asks the disciples how it can be done, but they don't know. This was to test them, John says, since He Himself "knew what he would do."
He then multiplies the loaves and fishes of a boy in the crowd and feeds them all. At that point, some of the crowd declare Him to be the prophesied Prophet and are about to forcefully seize Him and make Him king, but knowing their thoughts, He escapes from them. The disciples end up going off in a boat for Capernaum themselves, but Jesus goes up a mountain, and later in the night He walks on the sea to join them in their boat.
The following the day, the multitude is puzzled to see that apparently Jesus went to Capernaum without a boat, and go there in search of Him. Upon finding Him, they ask Him when He had gotten there, apparently to try to figure out how He had. He ignores their question, though, and instead says to them:
"Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled." (6:26)
Right here we see that Jesus, knowing everything about everyone, including what was in their hearts, knew they weren't seeking Him out of love for God, but out of "the cares of this world" which they had.
And note how He put this, saying that they hadn't sought Him because they "saw the miracles," implying that they should have. Again, these people knew that miracles were to be a sign of the Messiah, and they had even seen some, yet they had not believed to the point of putting aside worldly concerns, and instead acknowledging they were in the Messiah's presence and responding in their hearts with repentance towards God. They just expected to be miraculously fed as the Israelites were fed by God with manna in the wilderness (something they even bring up to Jesus, though in their telling, it was Moses, not God, whom they give the credit to). That's all they wanted.
But despite their unbelief, Jesus speaks to correct them, telling them to be concerned with the spiritual before the worldly. He is met only with more unbelief, though.
"27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. 28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent."
So, again, the actual context here is the question of the Jews believing in their prophesied Messiah or not, and Jesus had already done many miracles (including miraculously feeding the very ones asking Him for a sign at this point) and revealed Himself to be the Messiah. Yet here (and even later on, as mentioned above), many of the Jews kept responding to Him with unbelief, despite the evidence of His words of divine authority and His miracles. The Pharisees will even accept that He has done miracles, but fearing that the public uproar over Him will cause the Romans to take away their positions as leaders, they will still be determined to kill Him all the same.
In 6:30-58, Jesus continues to tell the Jews that salvation is through believing on Him, but their unbelief persists, and eventually in the course of the dialogue He tells them that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life. To Jesus' response that the work of God that they should do is to believe on Him, they ask Him to do a sign, despite all they knew that He'd already done.
30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?
31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
Note, too, that it is the unbelieving people, not Jesus, who bring up the subject of bread again.
32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
So again, the Jews here reply out of the unbelief in their hearts. Having been given all the evidence they need to acknowledge that Jesus is indeed the Messiah, instead they say that because they know that Jesus was born into a certain human family, He couldn't have come down from Heaven.
43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48 I am that bread of life.
49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
Then Jesus speaks of His death on the Cross, which He will die to make atonement for man's sins, so that those who believe on Him can have eternal life.
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.
Jesus' words about eating His flesh and drinking His blood have the effect of turning away those in the multitude who tried to make Him king and have followed Him to Capernaum, but have refused to accept Him as their Messiah despite His words of authority and miracles. This was what Jesus intended by what He said - to offend them so that they would turn away, as the just reward for their continual unbelief. His words also offend many of His disciples for the same reason.
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.
Again, it was not truly believing in Jesus that is the issue here, and Jesus' words on eating His flesh and drinking His blood reveal what He has already known, that the following multitude and many of His disciples didn't truly believe, and they cause many to forsake Him. Their unbelief causes them to be offended, as it leads them to think that Jesus is suggesting sin.
Then after seeing many of His disciples leave Him, Jesus asks the Twelve if they will do the same.
67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.
So, answering for the twelve disciples, Peter says they will not leave Jesus because He has the words of eternal life, and they believe and know that He is the Messiah. And again, Jesus, knowing everything, knows that one of the twelve, Judas, also truly doesn't believe in Him and so will betray Him. Here, too, the matter is belief in Jesus as the Messiah versus unbelief in Him, not the matter of what He means by the words eating His flesh and drinking His blood.
What Jesus was certainly referring to by saying that He would give His flesh for the life of the world was His sacrificial death to atone for man's sin, and this also has to do with the Jews' rejection of Him as their Messiah. The Jews had begun to divide the Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah into two kinds, with one kind being about the "Triumphant King," the Messiah, Son of David, and the other being about the "Suffering Servant," the Messiah, Son of Joseph. Some thought there might even be two Messiahs. Since so many Jews wanted to be delivered from Roman rule and re-establish their own nation ruled by themselves, they rejected the "Suffering Servant" prophecies and didn't think that Jesus fulfilled the ones about the "Triumphant King," since His kingdom wasn't of this world. And they did not accept that the Messiah would die for the sins of others, despite what is said in Psalm 53. Paul wrote that the message of the Cross was rejected by the Jews.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. (1 Corinthians)
In summary, then, the Jews of the time of the Incarnation for the most part denied the revealed truth that Jesus was and is the Savior of the world. They rejected the prophecies of the Suffering Servant Messiah who would die in their place to make peace with God for them, in favor of seeking a political savior who would expel the Romans and give them a life of plenty. And John 6 is about this, their hearts being in the wrong place, so that they don't receive and believe on the Messiah, the true Bread of Life, despite the miracles He does.
And I also want to add that I believe that just as, somehow, in ways beyond our present comprehension, Jesus is literally the Word of God, I also believe that there is some literal meaning to Jesus saying the bread and wine are His body and blood. The Catholic doctrine on it, though, I don't accept, as it conflicts with Scripture.If you want the truth, go to the source. Start attending a weekday (only 30 minute) Mass [where the "on-fire" Catholics can be found]. After a period of time, you will see the Living Bread in action on the faces [and in the hearts] of the hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, of people who come to Mass every day. I wouldn't know the number worldwide, but our town together with the neighboring two towns have 500-some parishioners daily and this number has been coming for the last thirty years. People would not gather like this for a piece of symbolic-only bread.
The bread is symbolic, just like the “living water” given the woman at the well...if they are coming it is because the Spirit of God is feeding them thru the good preaching of the word and their faith in it. Have you not heard that Christ is the “Word made flesh”(see John 1)? He is in flesh that very word that proceeds out of the mouth of the Father! He is that living water given for us to drink that causes everlasting life to well up in us as it says in John 4.
Ask anyone who repeatedly comes to daily Mass why they are there and they will tell you. :)
There are people by the millions who gather for the false god of Islam for crying out loud. Yes, there are people who gather in large numbers for all kinds of false teachings.
I'm sure they would. Ask any Muslim Jihadist and they are equally convinced they are right. Just because someone believes something and even will die for it doesn't make it true.
But none of the believe in transubstantiation
One question ...did the apostles and Jesus eat the actual flesh and drink the real actual blood of Christ while He lived and was using it??
Catholics keep sacrificing Christ over and over daily ...then they eat him hoping that it will somehow make them holy
So sad.. what delusion
Life is short; pray hard.
Your question: “One question ...did the apostles and Jesus eat the actual flesh and drink the real actual blood of Christ while He lived and was using it??”
Yes Jesus and the Apostles ate the bread and wine at the Last Supper after Jesus transformed the bread and wine into His Body and Blood.
And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. Truly, I say to you, I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God” (Mk. 14:22-25, emphasis added).
Yes, it is a shame that you seem not to accept this miracle from our Lord that provides graces to His followers.
I can understand someone’s non belief, but I do not accept ridicule of Catholic beliefs.
Pax vobiscum.
So you are the expert on the religious beliefs of everyone and can verify the truth or non truth of what they believe?
The only one that knows the whole Truth is God.
I take everything I believe from scripture. Catholics don't nor can they.
With your own interpretation.
Catholics receive the Truth from Jesus and the Holy Spirit as they were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write the Holy Bible.
Romans 3:2 ...First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.
Notice that? NOT Catholics.
Thank you. God bless you, too.
What I wrote is sufficient for the readership here. In fact, much of what I wrote was originally in reply to a Catholic thread on the topic. The main point concerns what the dialogue Jesus had in John 6 was about, and that Catholic apologetics typically ignores that. Other churches close to Roman Catholicism also take the same position, including yes Lutheranism, which is still close in many respects to Catholicism. I was raised Lutheran and left it. It was ritualistic.
I would also like to ask you, then, how would you do a summary of the entire chapter of John 6? Starting from the beginning, as I have, and quoting some passages in it as well as any others from other chapters or books that you believe might aid in interpretation, what would your summary be like?
There are also these claims to consider, too:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3266838/posts
I do believe that in some way Jesus’ words were literal. As I said, that’s in the same way that He is literally the Word of God. If you actually believe the Genesis account of Creation, as I do, then it’s a most amazing thought to consider that God creates through His word. The “hows” of that, though, we know and understand almost nothing about. We know very little about God’s nature. As Paul wrote, now we see through a glass darkly. We also know so very little about the nature of Creation and ourselves, and the eternal. We know, though, that God created the things of this world with spiritual purposes in His mind, so that He didn’t look around nature and decide that a shepherd with sheep would be a good metaphor for Jesus tending to us human sinners who believe on Him for salvation, but sheep were created for the very purpose of demonstrating that model for us. God did not also decide that a dove would be a proper metaphor or emblem for the Holy Spirit, but doves were created to demonstrate something of the Holy Spirit to us. And, too, the same with bread, and eating. God created them to demonstrate something eternal to us. The eternal is spiritual, and though we will have bodies, they’ll be redeemed. There will be eating and drinking, but they will not be of the same nature as they are here. Jesus also spoke of living water, including here:
37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (John 7)
I believe that is literally true in some way also, although no earthly water flows out of the bellies of believers. It is certainly no lie. It absolute truth, but it is water of the higher world, of which the water here in that sense is but for our instruction, and that’s also how I believe He means that we eat His body and drink His blood.
I mean it in the same way that I believe that Jesus is literally, somehow, the Word of God. Understanding so little of God’s nature, including how He is a trinity, it’s hard to understand how Jesus could be God’s Word and what exactly that means. Yet, I believe it’s true. I also believe this is literally true in a similar way:
37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (John 7)
” You may not believe in the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into Christ’s Body and Blood, but how can you make a factual statement that Jesus did not (nor does not to this day)make it happen?”
I was responding to the specific claim that’s often made about the reaction of those whom Jesus told this to. The argument goes that those people “got it” (what Jesus meant) and that offended them so that they turned away. The argument also goes that if Jesus only meant to speak metaphorically, they wouldn’t have reacted as they did. So, it’s the audience reaction argument. Now, those people, knowing nothing of Christianity as it was only coming into being and neither the Last Supper nor Christ’s death and resurrection had happened yet, heard Him say that they were to eat His flesh and drink His blood. Further, the audience reaction argument says they got what He meant right, taking it literally. So at that point in time, what would taking it literally mean? If someone says that, eat my flesh and drink my blood, what exactly, linguistically, if it’s meant literally, does that involve? Actually eating one’s flesh and drinking one’s blood. And, Jesus not only could have done that (He had a human body present on earth), but THAT would have been what would have matched what was in the minds of those He said this to - Him actually doing so.
I’m a former Lutheran and Protestants don’t take what Christian leaders have said or say to be infallible. There’s plenty to be very cautious about with Luther. And as I’ve written, I do believe in a literal interpretation of what Jesus said, but I believe its literal meaning is meant in a similar sense to what He said here:
37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (John 7)
That's a total misreading of John 6 and what I wrote about it. This is what I wrote to someone else on it:
>>> I was responding to the specific claim that's often made about the reaction of those whom Jesus told this to. The argument goes that those people "got it" (what Jesus meant) and that offended them so that they turned away. The argument also goes that if Jesus only meant to speak metaphorically, they wouldn't have reacted as they did. So, it's the audience reaction argument. Now, those people, knowing nothing of Christianity as it was only coming into being and neither the Last Supper nor Christ's death and resurrection had happened yet, heard Him say that they were to eat His flesh and drink His blood. Further, the audience reaction argument says they got what He meant right, taking it literally. So at that point in time, what would taking it literally mean? If someone says that, eat my flesh and drink my blood, what exactly, linguistically, if it's meant literally, does that involve? Actually eating one's flesh and drinking one's blood. And, Jesus not only could have done that (He had a human body present on earth), but THAT would have been what would have matched what was in the minds of those He said this to - Him actually doing so.<<<
And, Jesus knew full well what ideas he was giving them to envision, and He did not ever do that. Even interpreting along the lines of Catholic belief, He gave them the impression of them having to eat bread in the appearance of flesh, rather than flesh in the appearance of bread. Without a doubt, as Jesus did with others who remained unbelieving, and said He was doing so, He did not level with them or correct their mistaken impressions.
"Many deserted Christ because they could not accept His teaching about His Body and Blood. And when they began to leave, Christ didn't amend or clarify His words - instead He confirmed that He did indeed mean them to eat His Body and drink His Blood."
I've written here a study that's a line by line commentary on John 6. What if you were to do the same, along the same lines that I did, which is standard practice - that is, you can use passages from John 6 as well as any other Bible passages that seem relevant to you. What then would your commentary be, putting John 6 into your own words? So far what you've written isolates just a portion of John 6. You jump into the middle to end of it at John 51:
>>>Christ commands us to eat His Body and Blood. His words are unmistakeable.
"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..." <<<
Here's from a recently posted Catholic tract on John 6. I began this study in reply to it.
>>> Protestant attacks on the Catholic Church often focus on the Eucharist. This demonstrates that opponents of the Church—mainly Evangelicals and Fundamentalists—recognize one of Catholicism’s core doctrines. What’s more, the attacks show that Fundamentalists are not always literalists. This is seen in their interpretation of the key biblical passage, chapter six of John’s Gospel, in which Christ speaks about the sacrament that will be instituted at the Last Supper. This tract examines the last half of that chapter.
John 6:30 begins a colloquy that took place in the synagogue at Capernaum. The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that "our ancestors ate manna in the desert." Could Jesus top that? He told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. "Give us this bread always," they said. Jesus replied, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst." At this point the Jews understood him to be speaking metaphorically.<<<
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3265512/posts
Again, verses are pulled out the context of John 6, which is never addressed, and apparently so that it doesn't have to be. The author says Protestants get John 6 wrong, but that he'll only look at half of it, and he doesn't even begin at the beginning of the colloquy, as he refers to it, even though he says "John 6:30 begins a colloquy...." That is factually untrue, as a simple check of John 6 shows. So what is the difficulty with looking at the whole dialogue, and all of John 6?
" In verse 54, John begins to use trogo instead of phago. Trogo is a decidedly more graphic term, meaning 'to chew on' or to 'gnaw on'—as when an animal is ripping apart its prey. The text is closer to:
Whoever gnaws on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day."
Another common argument, but the intensity of the word has nothing to do with whether or not it should be taken literally. This is Isaiah 3:15:
What mean ye that ye beat my people to pieces, and grind the faces of the poor? saith the Lord God of hosts.
Certainly those are intense metaphors, and they speak of something truly happening, but in the most literal sense, that is from a natural, physical perspective, it isn't happening. In the spiritual, moral sense, though, in which we're accountable to God, it is, and the physical helps us to better comprehend the spiritual, what their injustices look like to God. Intensity does mean something, but that has to do with what's being spoken about. It would be clearer what the intensity is for with a proper interpretation of the whole dialogue and its context. Along with that, the intensity doesn't even fit the Lord's Supper, as people don't gnaw on the bread.
As I've written to others, I believe it is true in some literal sense, just as Jesus is somehow, in some way we can't get our minds around here, God's Word, and that God is a trinity, and that this is somehow literally true too:
37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (John 7)
I basically agree. I was just summarizing the Catholic view.
Jesus is the truth and the ultimate source. I grew up Lutheran but it was very ritualistic and religious. I had a love for Jesus and a desire to follow Him, though, and that kept my faith alive. If I would have decided that to have a relationship with Jesus it must be found in the Lutheran churches that I was a part of, because that’s Christianity, then I would not have remained a Christian.
I also grew up in an 80% Catholic area. Virtually every child I was friends with or acquainted with was Catholic, and that was the same into my adulthood. Being a Christian but not having a church, and for many years not even having much understanding of the differences between them, I was certainly open to the Catholic Church. I went to masses for a time in my twenties, but again I didn’t find what I’d hoped to, to be brought closer to Jesus in a church. Then in my early thirties I read the whole Bible. I’d already read the Gospels hundreds of times, but the whole Bible seemed so much to read. Then on a Christian forum I happened to notice people using phrases like “the fruit of the Spirit” and “the whole armor of God,” and one day I realized that they were quoting the Bible, and that while I believed in Jesus, too, I didn’t know what they did.
After reading the Bible, then, I went back to the Catholic Church, among others. I even went for a time to the mid-week masses. I also watched EWTN regularly for awhile, and then listened to Catholic radio including masses and rosaries for years, while my mother, a Catholic convert, and I lived together. I’ve continued to, at times, to listen to Catholic radio. Early on, I recognized that some Catholic beliefs did not agree with the faith life I had, but I was still positive in many ways about the Catholic Church. Over time, though, with the more I’ve grown in my faith while also understanding a lot more and listening to Catholic teachers along the way, too, the less and less positive I’ve felt I can be.
I also don’t agree on weekday services. Services can be a ritual, and going every day like racking up points. Protestant churches also hold other meetings people come to.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.