A Tale of Two Eucharists

[wisdom_3_5]

If the Manna in the desert(a prefigure of the Eucharist), that feed the Israelites, on their journey to the promised land was indeed real food, which the Scriptures tell us is true, doesn’t it seem that we would be fed with “real food” that sustains us on our journey to the promised land(read heaven here!)

I’d also like to add the sacrifice at Passover. The Israelites didn’t just put the blood of the lamb on the door, they had to roast it whole and consume its flesh.

Jesus is the lamb of God, the Paschal sacrifice.

He was born in Bethlehem, which translates “house of bread” and He was placed in a manger - a feeding trough (yes, for animals, but man does need to nourish himself daily).

 

[NotWorthy]

I’d also like to add the sacrifice at Passover. The Israelites didn’t just put the blood of the lamb on the door, they had to roast it whole and consume its flesh.

And what happened to the oldest son if he didn’t eat of the flesh???

 

[Didi]

There were several things that helped me in my journey to discover the truth about the Holy Eucharist.

Some have already been mentioned – the followers turning away after Jesus says we must eat His flesh (in John 6), the passage in Cor. 11:28 about examining your conscience before eating the bread and drinking the cup, etc.

One thing that really helped me understand the Eucharist is the study of the covenants. Scott Hahn has some material about the Fourth Cup, the Lamb’s Supper, etc. that really helped me understand the New Covenant.

In the Old Covenant, when Passover was celebrated, the unblemished male lamb with no bones broken was sacrificed, roasted and eaten. In the New Covenant, the Lamb of God, who is unblemished and had no bones broken, is sacrificed, but to complete the covenant, the Lamb must be eaten. Hahn goes into much greater detail, but this point really made me think.

Also, when someone in the occult wishes to desecrate God, they don’t go to any protestant church to get their wafers or bread, they go to a Catholic Church because they recognize the True Presence of God there. In the gospels many times the demons recognize Jesus as God before anyone else does.

The other passage that has helped me is Luke 24: 30-31. When the disciples are walking the road to Emmaus and Jesus joins them after His resurrection (though they do not recognize Him). He explains many things to them, but it isn’t until they celebrate the Mass, in the breaking of the bread, that their eyes were opend and they recognized Him. The recognized Him in the Bread!

Another concept that has helped me comes from the Old Testament, when we realize that God’s word doesn’t just say something, it DOES something. When God said “Let there be light,” there is light. In Isaiah 54:11 it says: “…so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shalln ot return to me empty, but is shall accomplish that which I purpose.”

So when Jesus says “This is My Body” the bread becomes His body; when He says “This is My Blood” the wine becomes His blood.

Otherwise he would have said “This represents my body” or “This is like my body” or “This is a symbol of my body.”

 

[mikeledes]

I’d also like to add the sacrifice at Passover. The Israelites didn’t just put the blood of the lamb on the door, they had to roast it whole and consume its flesh.

Jesus is the lamb of God, the Paschal sacrifice.

He was born in Bethlehem, which translates “house of bread” and He was placed in a manger - a feeding trough (yes, for animals, but man does meed to nourish himself daily).

And what was the occasion that helps give context to what Jesus said in John 6?

John 6:4

4Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was near.

Jesus is the Lamb of God. Just as the paschal lamb was consumed exclusively by those who were were circumcised:

Exodus 12:48

48"But if a stranger sojourns with you, and celebrates the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near to celebrate it; and he shall be like a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person may eat of it.

Only those who have come to the Lamb of God in faith may eat of His flesh and blood and thus abide in Him.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[JustaServant]

There were several things that helped me in my journey to discover the truth about the Holy Eucharist.

Some have already been mentioned – the followers turning away after Jesus says we must eat His flesh (in John 6), the passage in Cor. 11:28 about examining your conscience before eating the bread and drinking the cup, etc.

One thing that really helped me understand the Eucharist is the study of the covenants. Scott Hahn has some material about the Fourth Cup, the Lamb’s Supper, etc. that really helped me understand the New Covenant.

In the Old Covenant, when Passover was celebrated, the unblemished male lamb with no bones broken was sacrificed, roasted and eaten. In the New Covenant, the Lamb of God, who is unblemished and had no bones broken, is sacrificed, but to complete the covenant, the Lamb must be eaten. Hahn goes into much greater detail, but this point really made me think.

Also, when someone in the occult wishes to desecrate God, they don’t go to any protestant church to get their wafers or bread, they go to a Catholic Church because they recognize the True Presence of God there. In the gospels many times the demons recognize Jesus as God before anyone else does.

The other passage that has helped me is Luke 24: 30-31. When the disciples are walking the road to Emmaus and Jesus joins them after His resurrection (though they do not recognize Him). He explains many things to them, but it isn’t until they celebrate the Mass, in the breaking of the bread, that their eyes were opend and they recognized Him. The recognized Him in the Bread!

Another concept that has helped me comes from the Old Testament, when we realize that God’s word doesn’t just say something, it DOES something. When God said “Let there be light,” there is light. In Isaiah 54:11 it says: “…so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shalln ot return to me empty, but is shall accomplish that which I purpose.”

So when Jesus says “This is My Body” the bread becomes His body; when He says “This is My Blood” the wine becomes His blood.

Otherwise he would have said “This represents my body” or “This is like my body” or “This is a symbol of my body.”

Excellant points. When my eyes began to open to the Covenant, the path back to Rome was started for me. Dispensationalists reject or downplay the Covenants, so its no great surprise that they do not understand the Covenant Meal.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

People find it offensive.

1. Some people find one offensive because it shows an allegiance to a secular government, and oaths should only be made to God.
2. Some people find this offensive because they are trampling on everything the country stands for, the people that fight and died for the country and what-not.
   …

Yes, i agree. And do you, NW, believe that God finds it offensive when a person partakes of the Eucharist at Mass, but fully intends to live like the devil come Monday?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

The vine and branches would have been a vivid analogy to the agrarian Jews. Israel had often been called a vine or a vineyard by the prophets, so this wasn’t knew territory for the prophet Jesus to discuss. They knew that all the nutrients and water flowed through the vine - all the necessities of life. If they were not a part of the vine, if they rejected His teachings, then they would not “live”.

The gate for the sheep is another easy one for the Jews. Many of the ancient prophets called the Israelites sheep. The leaders of Israel were the shepherds. The sheep had been scattered during the Diaspora. God had promised to send a new Shepherd (himself) to restore the sheep to the flock. When sheep were put into a pen they had to pass through the gate to enter the pen. The only entrance to the pen was through the gate (at least for the sheep, this was the only means of entrance). Jesus, the gatekeeper would only allow His sheep to enter the pen. One must be a disciple of Christ to enter the flock, so to speak.

Again, this is why the “Bread of Life” discussion would have been so hard on the Jews. They knew how sacriligious it was to eat of another’s flesh and drink any animals blood, and yet, here is this great prophet, this wonderful miracle maker, telling them that this is exactly what they must do. Either that or hate and revile Him as I discussed in my previous post.

This “I am” statement is a hard teaching, and hence, many that were implacable, walked away.

Peter certainly didn’t understand what Jesus meant, but this was one of his “Faith Moments”. “Lord, to whom else should we turn. For you alone have the words of Eternal Life” (paraphrasing).

Sometimes, I think Peter was bi-polar and this was one of his lucid moments.

I understand.

Would you agree, then, that when Jesus said He was the gate for the sheep, He never meant that He had wooden veneerer instead of skin and a door knob in place of a navel?

Would you also say that when Jesus said He was the vine, He never meant that He had leaves for hair and grew grapes from His finger tips?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

John 6:51-58 is to be interpreted literally and is one of the strongest passages that testify to the Real Presence in the Eucharist. In the Gospel of John, there is a certain pattern that helps to shed light on John 6. Whenever Jesus makes an ambiguous statement, it is usually followed by a misunderstanding/question, and this, in turn, is followed by a clarification either by Jesus or the Evangelist. So, this is the basic outline of this pattern:

1. **Ambiguous Statement by Jesus **
2. Misunderstanding/ Question
3. Clarification

Now here are some examples from the Gospel of John:

John 2:19-21

Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and you will raise it up in three days? But He was speaking of the temple of His body."

John 3:3-5

**Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?**Jesus answered, “Truly Truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

John 4:32-34

**“But He said to them, “I have food to eat that you do not know about.” So the disciples were saying to one another, 'no one brought Him anything to eat, did he? **Jesus said to them, " My Food is to do the will of Him who sent me and to accomplish His work.”

John 8:31-34

So Jesus was saying to those Jews who believed in Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” They answered Him, "We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, “You will become free.” Jesus answered them, "Truly, Truly I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.

Now let’s look at John 6:51-53 and see if it fits the Ambiguous Statement/Question/Clarification pattern:

"I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh." Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat? So Jesus said to them, Truly, Truly, I say to you unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you have no life in yourselves.

So, following the established pattern, verse 53 is a clarification of verses 51-52. If he were merely speaking figuratively, then we would have expected the literal meaning of the “figurative” langauge he used, as it happens in the verses I gave above and in many other places in the Bible. Instead, what we see in verse 53 is a reaffirmation of what the Jews understood Jesus to mean. So the clarification is that Jesus was speaking literally, not figuratively. If he were speaking figuratively, He would have indicated that in verse 53.

God Bless,
Michael

Hey, Michael, good to read you again! Thanks for giving me something to think about. I’ll check the passages out in context.



After a prayerful consideration of what Jesus said, i find that it is true what you said:

Whenever Jesus makes an ambiguous statement, it is usually followed by a misunderstanding/question, and this, in turn, is followed by a clarification either by Jesus or the Evangelist. So, this is the basic outline of this pattern …

This is certainly true in the case of Jesus’ words in John 6:

Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.” Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”
(John 6:26-28)

Please tell me, Michael, what was Jesus’ explanation in verse 29?

 

[Pax]

“Our Savior was speaking merely metaphorically.”
My question to them is always two-fold:

1. Logically, when Jesus spoke of Himself as ‘the Door’, and ‘the Vine’, those descriptions make metaphorical sense. However, in what metaphorical sense could Jesus logically refer to Himself as ‘Bread’? The two simply do not go together (as a metaphor).
2. Did Jesus tell us to consume the Door and the Vine?

I have yet to have any non-Catholic give me a satisfactory answer to these two questions.

How does one identify a *metaphor?*ISTM that you’re saying that one of the identifying “marks,” of a metaphor, if you will, is that one is not told to eat something?

How does one identify a metaphor?

Identification of a metaphor is best done by the message and context.

Let’s look at John 10:1-14 which says:

“TRULY, TRULY, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber; but he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the** sheep**. To him the** gatekeeper opens; the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers." …So Jesus again said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All who came before me are thieves and robbers; but the sheep did not heed them. I am the door; if any one enters by me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd** lays down his life for the sheep. He who is a hireling and not a shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the **wolf **snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hireling and cares nothing for the sheep. I am the good shepherd;”

So what makes this a metaphor or figure of speech? It is is the language and message.

Clearly Jesus is not a literal sheep herder, Christians are not literal sheep, Satan is not a literal wolf, Jesus is not a literal door, we do not enter the kingdom of heaven by way of a literal door, and we do not literally go out in a pasture.

Jesus uses the aforementioned terms in this passage numerous times and it is clearly metaphorical. I deliberately left out verse 6 where John deliberately states that the passage is metaphorical. I did so for the express purpose of showing that we could see that this was a metaphor by way of context and message without the help of verse six.

Verse six states the following:

“This figure “parable” per KJV] Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them.”

Now please notice that in John’s gospel the apostles did not understand this relatively simple metaphor/parable. Jesus repeats the parable beginning with verse seven and adds a little more to it. He then goes on in the rest of the chapter and makes it clear that he is the messiah and one with the Father. At that point he is accused of blasphemy and the Jews were going to stone him.

Jesus risked his life to make the meaning of a relatively easy parable clear to his listeners because they did not understand him. In John 6 the Jews did understand his hard saying which was not a parable and they walked away from Him. Jesus risked losing His disciples by telling them the truth of the Eucharist that He would give them. He even risked alienating the twelve. If they did not understand what he was talking about they would not have walked away. He spoke literally and they understood Him literally. He did not explain His statements as metaphorical and He never changed the meaning by way of some other explanation.

Likewise, John 6 does not contain the tell tale verbal identifiers found in metaphors. The language of a metaphor simply isn’t there. Jesus compares the miracle of the Eucharist to the miracle of the manna and to the miracle of his ascension. It is clear from the context that His promise of giving His flesh to eat and His blood to drink is a greater miracle than that of the manna. All OT prefigurings are but mere shadows of the good things to come. The Eucharist is a real supernatural food that is greater than the real food that was the manna of the OT. It is not metaphorical or symbolic.

Leading up to the discourse on the bread of life, John tells us of the following miracles:

–Jesus turns water into wine at the marriage feast of Cana.
–Jesus multiplies the loaves and fishes and feeds the multitude.
–Jesus walks on water.

In the first two miracles Jesus shows what he can do with food by way of miracles. In the last miracle Jesus shows what he can do with his body by walking on water. These miracles are the setup for the discourse on the bread of life. Jesus is preparing the disciples for the promised miracle of the Eucharist. So what immediately follows on the heals of the discourse?

In John 7:2 we are told that “Now the Jews’ feast of Tabernacles was at hand.” John doesn’t describe what happened at this time but the other gospels do. They tell us that Jesus went up the mountain and was Transfigured before Peter, James, and John. Once again, Jesus shows a miracle of his body. The discourse on the bread of life is bracketed by miracles. These miracles reinforce the miracle Jesus will perform in giving us His literal flesh and blood as true food and true drink. The discourse is not bracketed by metaphors and it is not intended to be taken metaphorically.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

The point of the above post is that when Jesus is speaking figuratively, either Jesus Himself or the Gospel writer explains what He means. He often uses progressive revelation as a teaching method, going from ambiguity to greater clarity. There are numerous examples of this in the 4 Gospels. Here are some more:

John 4:10-14

**10Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.” **
**11She said to Him, "Sir, You have nothing to draw with and the well is deep; where then do You get that living water? **
12"You are not greater than our father Jacob, are You, who gave us the well, and drank of it himself and his sons and his cattle?"
**13Jesus answered and said to her, "Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again; **
14but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life."
…

Wonderful quotes, Michael! I see you share my same love of John’s recollection of Jesus. This passage was also my late grandmother’s favorite. I once asked her why she had a print of the woman at the well with Jesus on her wall, and she said it was because the woman reminded her of herself.



Tell me, please, what is the “water springing up to eternal life” of which Jesus speaks?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

…

Matthew 15:11, 15-20

**11"It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man." **
**15Peter said to Him, “Explain the parable to us.” **
**16Jesus said, "Are you still lacking in understanding also? **
**17"Do you not understand that everything that goes into the mouth passes into the stomach, and is eliminated? **
**18"But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. **
**19"For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. **
20"These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man."

Regarding Matthew 18:8-9, there were no objections raised that leads to clarification, no questions asked that needed answers. And we automatically know - as your reaction illustrates - that Jesus could not be speaking literally.

…

Do you agree with Jesus, Michael, that no food that one eats can defile a person?

http://fastfood.freedomblogging.com/files/2007/12/waxwhopper_web.jpg

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

There were several things that helped me in my journey to discover the truth about the Holy Eucharist.

Some have already been mentioned – the followers turning away after Jesus says we must eat His flesh (in John 6), the passage in Cor. 11:28 about examining your conscience before eating the bread and drinking the cup, etc.

One thing that really helped me understand the Eucharist is the study of the covenants. Scott Hahn has some material about the Fourth Cup, the Lamb’s Supper, etc. that really helped me understand the New Covenant.

In the Old Covenant, when Passover was celebrated, the unblemished male lamb with no bones broken was sacrificed, roasted and eaten. In the New Covenant, the Lamb of God, who is unblemished and had no bones broken, is sacrificed, but to complete the covenant, the Lamb must be eaten. Hahn goes into much greater detail, but this point really made me think.

Also, when someone in the occult wishes to desecrate God, they don’t go to any protestant church to get their wafers or bread, they go to a Catholic Church because they recognize the True Presence of God there. In the gospels many times the demons recognize Jesus as God before anyone else does.

The other passage that has helped me is Luke 24: 30-31. When the disciples are walking the road to Emmaus and Jesus joins them after His resurrection (though they do not recognize Him). He explains many things to them, but it isn’t until they celebrate the Mass, in the breaking of the bread, that their eyes were opend and they recognized Him. The recognized Him in the Bread!

Another concept that has helped me comes from the Old Testament, when we realize that God’s word doesn’t just say something, it DOES something. When God said “Let there be light,” there is light. In Isaiah 54:11 it says: “…so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shalln ot return to me empty, but is shall accomplish that which I purpose.”

So when Jesus says “This is My Body” the bread becomes His body; when He says “This is My Blood” the wine becomes His blood.

Otherwise he would have said “This represents my body” or “This is like my body” or “This is a symbol of my body.”

Hi, Didi. Good to see you so soon! I’m not sure if your insights were meant for me or for all or both, but they are truly pregnant with many hours of thoughtful discussion. I’m not sure which child to spank first to see if it is alive with truth or stillborn.

I suppose i should start with the one you find most alive: Jesus’ meal after His trek with two of His followers:

30 When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. 32 They asked each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?” 33 They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together 34 and saying, “It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.” 35 Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread.

(Luke 24)

Does verse 35 say they recognized Jesus in the bread or that they recognized Jesus because He broke the bread?

http://www.southmsemmaus.net/images/Breaking Bread.bmp

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Identification of a metaphor is best done by the message and context.

… Likewise, John 6 does not contain the tell tale verbal identifiers found in metaphors. The language of a metaphor simply isn’t there. Jesus compares the miracle of the Eucharist to the miracle of the manna and to the miracle of his ascension. It is clear from the context that His promise of giving His flesh to eat and His blood to drink is a greater miracle than that of the manna. All OT prefigurings are but mere shadows of the good things to come. The Eucharist is a real supernatural food that is greater than the real food that was the manna of the OT. It is not metaphorical or symbolic.

…

Hey, how is it going, Pax?



You say, Pax, that it was not Jesus’ intention to drive the people away from Him. His intention was to teach them the truth about the Eucharist, the fault was not His that they could not handle the truth. Am i understanding you correctly?

http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/583/gm0709107c1f2d5ke2.jpg

 

[Pax]

Greetings S4J,

Thanks for the warm reception. I always enjoy your posts and inquiries. I am doing just fine and hope all is well with you and everyone else on the thread.

I would say that your estimation of my position is correct. The Jewish listeners understood Jesus. If he used the language of eating his flesh and drinking his blood metaphorically it would have had a distinct meaning to the Jews. He would have essentially been telling them to overun him and kill him as they would an enemy. There are some OT usages that demonstrate this point. Neeless to say, Jesus did not mean his statements to be taken in what would have been the metaphorical sense typically understood by the Jews. That being the case it must be literal, and the literal meaning put them off.

 

[ALotLessThumb]

Aaron:

I’m not sure why you believe Jesus used that Hebrew word. The New Testament was originally written in a form of Greek, and the passage to which you referred is translated to English this way:

And he took bread, and gave thanks, and broke it, and gave it unto them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. This do in remembrance of me.”*(Luke 22:19)*The English word remembrance in this verse is translated from the Greek word *anamnesis, *which means a commemoration or a memorial. My lexicon has this to say of anamnesis:

… as applied to the Lord’s Supper. In remembrance of Me means that the participant may remember Christ and the expiatory sacrifice of His death. The memory of the greatness of the sacrifice should cause the believer to abstain from sin.

Socrates4Jesus,

For my own two cents, you seem to be overlooking the impact of the Judaic environment Jesus and the apostles were born and raised. Now for the sake of the argument, let’s say they didn’t speak Hebrew at all, so they couldn’t have used the word he brought up.

It would be of no consequence to his argument because Hebrew thought and Greek thought (and I am thinking particularly of time) are extremely different. There is a book that Borders carries, with a simple title, something like Greek and Jewish Philosophical Thought that devotes chapters to how the Jewish conception of time is incompatible to the Greek conception. Even if they did not speak the ancient tongue of their forefathers and spoke only in Aramaic and Greek- Jesus and his followers being “mainstream Jewish men” of their era would still have the outlook of their cultural philosophy. The problem only occurs because the thought in the two systems are so different that they are hard to translate properly into each others’ languages.

With that in mind, the word he proposes is most likely the one meant even if the documentation we have of the event comes from sources in a language ill suited to convey the meaning.

As for that book, I’ll try to find the title, because I believe you would enjoy it.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Greetings S4J,

Thanks for the warm reception. I always enjoy your posts and inquiries. I am doing just fine and hope all is well with you and everyone else on the thread.

I would say that your estimation of my position is correct. The Jewish listeners understood Jesus. If he used the language of eating his flesh and drinking his blood metaphorically it would have had a distinct meaning to the Jews. He would have essentially been telling them to overun him and kill him as they would an enemy. There are some OT usages that demonstrate this point. Neeless to say, Jesus did not mean his statements to be taken in what would have been the metaphorical sense typically understood by the Jews. That being the case it must be literal, and the literal meaning put them off.

UR Welcome!

Yes, you might be correct, that they could not handle the truth, but are you correct that Jesus did not intend to drive them away?

I’m reminded of the scene in Jesus Christ Super Star
where the mob is dancing madly around Him, wanting to make Him king, and start a war with the Romans.

I think the musical was not far from the truth, for John writes:

12 When they had all had enough to eat, he said to his disciples, “Gather the pieces that are left over. Let nothing be wasted.” 13 So they gathered them and filled twelve baskets with the pieces of the five barley loaves left over by those who had eaten. 14 After the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus did, they began to say, “Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world.” 15 Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself.
(John 6)
Tell me please, Pax, what was the intention of the mob that followed Jesus before He told them He was the bread of life?

 

[Mintaka]

Jesus, Truth Himself, always came to tell us the truth. But He also came so that “the thoughts of many hearts would be revealed”. He came not to bring peace but a sword – because when Truth is heard, some people embrace it and some people can’t stand it.

A little too close to the truth, people say.

God is always giving us choices. We can trust Him and follow Him, or we can run from hard sayings. Either way, the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. We can’t hide from the Truth.

“What is truth?” asked jesting Pilate, and would not stay to hear the answer.

 

[Pax]

UR Welcome!

Yes, you might be correct, that they could not handle the truth, but are you correct that Jesus did not intend to drive them away?
…
…
12 When they had all had enough to eat, he said to his disciples, “Gather the pieces that are left over. Let nothing be wasted.” 13 So they gathered them and filled twelve baskets with the pieces of the five barley loaves left over by those who had eaten. 14 After the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus did, they began to say, “Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world.” 15 Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself.
(John 6)
Tell me please, Pax, what was the intention of the mob that followed Jesus before He told them He was the bread of life?

It would seem that the multitude, as pointed out in verse 15 quoted in your post, wanted to make Jesus king. They, like most Jews of the time, believed that the messiah would be an earthly king that would free them from the Romans. Likewise in John 6:26 Jesus says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves.” Needless to say, the multitude liked the plentiful food provided by the miracle more than the miracle itself or the one that provided the miracle. More earthly food without charge was their objective, rather than getting to know the giver as the son of God. They were thinking of material goods and a material kingdom with material goals. The sign performed by Jesus was twisted in their minds to fit in with their personal wants and the preconceived idea of an earthly kingdom.

Jesus corrects their thinking about material goals in verse 27 when he says:

“Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal.”

Jesus will give them his precious body and blood as true food and true drink. This food, which is greater than the manna and greater than the miracle of the loaves and fishes, is the food that endures to eternal life.

Jesus knew that many would leave and no longer walk with him. Jesus did not shrink from that consequence by watering down the message. The consequence is an example of how God makes straight the crooked lines of man. No longer walking with Jesus was not a good thing, but it tells every Christian something of what he/she needs to know about the discourse on the bread of life. This is part of God’s plan for making it clear that the words are not figurative. Those that left were put off by the literal meaning of the Lord’s words and even declared them to be a “hard saying.” This has significance for all who come to know Jesus as members of the New Covenant.

I’m not sure that the foreknowledge of the consequence and allowing it to happen is the same thing as Jesus having the direct and immediate intention of driving the crowds away. Either way it’s not a problem for me.

 

[NotWorthy]

Yes, i agree. And do you, NW, believe that God finds it offensive when a person partakes of the Eucharist at Mass, but fully intends to live like the devil come Monday?

Absolutely.

 

[NotWorthy]

I understand.

Would you agree, then, that when Jesus said He was the gate for the sheep, He never meant that He had wooden veneerer instead of skin and a door knob in place of a navel?

Would you also say that when Jesus said He was the vine, He never meant that He had leaves for hair and grew grapes from His finger tips?

http://a767.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/2/s_8915ede5ce1db26df3f1bfaad995329e.jpg

Yes, I do. And do you agree that these analogies were readily understandable to the Jews? The Bread of Life doesn’t exactly fit this mole.