Catholic Apologists and the Greek Word Trogo (“Eat my flesh” John 6)

[Marcos100]

I agree with you that Jesus was trying to correct them from a crass naturalistic understanding of his words here. (And that’s the key distinction here we need to make. It’s not just that the Jews understood him literally, but naturalistically. Catholics take Jesus literally, but not naturalistically.) They thought that he meant they were going to eat a dead body, he’s telling them that his body is going to be glorified and he’s not going to be dead. The way they will eat him will be in a much more glorified miraculous way than they are imagining.

But, it still doesn’t follow that all he’s talking about is believing. I still don’t think the context supports that reading. He made it abundantly clear that we do have to eat his flesh and drink his blood. But just because we aren’t supposed to do that in a cannibalistic way, does that mean we don’t actually have to eat him at all? I don’t think so, and here’s why. The Last Supper.

It’s really a bad idea to try and read John 6 in isolation from the Last Supper accounts. Because both are connected to each other and both shed light on the other. I know that that article you linked us to tries to say that the two have nothing to do with each other, but I find that odd personally. Both take place on Passover, both have Jesus commanding his disciples to eat his body and drink his blood. There’s a reason that Christians throughout the ages have always seen a connection between the two.

Anyways, at the Last Supper, Jesus shows us exactly how we are supposed to eat his body and drink his blood. Not in a cannibalistic form, but under the form of bread and wine.

I think this changes everything. Because if John 6 were it, and Jesus never went on to do what he did at the Last Supper, then we would be forced to interpret Jesus’ words symbolically. There’d be no way we can eat his flesh now. But because of what he did at the Last Supper, that sheds a whole new light on his words. We do really have to eat him, but it’s in a miraculous way no one could have imagined.

Now I know you disagree and don’t believe Jesus was speaking literally at the Last Supper, and we’ll get to that but for now do you see what I’m saying? That by saying what he did at the Last Supper, he was revealing exactly HOW we were supposed to eat his flesh and drink his blood. That means he was talking about more than just believing in John 6. We really do have to physically eat and drink.

In verse 41 we are in the midst of the continuing discourse of Christ in which He presents Himself as the bread of life. In the gospel of John, Christ says over and over again, “I am the bread of life, I am the water, I am the resurrection and the life, I am the good shepherd, I am the door.” There are many “I ams” in the gospel of John. One such I am is this one, “I am the bread of life.” And in this claim, Christ is saying that He is the satisfier of the soul. That He is the One who completely satisfies human need from a spiritual standpoint. As food satisfies the body, so does Jesus Christ ultimately, finally, and everlastingly satisfy the soul. That claim is in the words “I am the bread of life.”
Notice the reaction to Jesus’ words in verses 41 and 42. They really react to Jesus Christ. Verse 41, “The Jews then murmured at Him because He said, ‘I am the bread that came down from heaven.’” There are the two things they didn’t like. They didn’t like the fact that He said “I am the bread,” and they didn’t like the fact that He said He came down from heaven. When He said, “I am the bread,” that I’ve been talking about, He shattered all of their misconceptions. He just destroyed their hopes for physical food. And then when He said He came down from heaven, they thought He was some kind of a lunatic, or a liar and to begin to mock Him.

 

[Robyn_p]

Jesus says in verse 27 “Labor not for the food that perishes, but for that food which endureth unto everlasting life.” He says you’re looking for the wrong stuff, folks, you’re working for a perishing food. What you ought to be doing is looking for that food which endures unto everlasting life. And they were thinking, “What kind of bread is that? I wonder how you bake that?” They were still hung up on the physical. They never do get off it in this whole passage. He says, “This bread…verse 27, or this food the Son of Man shall give you for Him hath God the Father sealed or approved.” In other words, He says the Son of Man can give you this food because He has been approved by God as the dispenser. He can give it out.

Jesus replies to their demand to give them this bread. And they were still talking physical. And this must have shocked them. It doesn’t say what their expressions were but they must have really been scratching their heads when He answered them in verse 35. His second reply was this, “Jesus said unto them, ‘I am the bread of life.’” Can’t you just see them? Huh? He’s the bread of life? What is He talking about? He says, “I am the bread of life. I’m not talking about some kind of physical loaves, I’m not talking about anything physical, I’m the bread of life. And I’m not talking about physical life, I’m talking about spiritual life.”
I love this verse, “I am the bread of life.” Now watch this, “He that cometh to Me shall never hunger and he that believeth on Me shall never thirst.” Now you know He’s not talking about physical things, I get thirsty, I even get hungry, so do you. That’s normal. He’s not talking about physical hunger. He’s talking about the soul. He is saying, “I satisfy the soul.” The soul stops thirsting and the soul stops hungering. Oh, when you meet Jesus Christ, isn’t there satisfaction there? There’s no more hunger in the soul when you’ve met Jesus Christ. He becomes food and nourishment. He is the soul food that gives satisfaction.

Amen. Jesus is the only food that can satisfy our souls. He absolutely is the food that endures to eternal life. But notice at the Last Supper, he takes physical bread and physical wine and calls them his Body and Blood. Doesn’t that kind of contradict your idea that he’s not talking about physical food when he tells us to eat his flesh and drink his blood?

I mentioned this before, but I think the problem we are having is that you see the spiritual and the physical as somehow in opposition to each other, when really, that’s not the case. That’s what the Incarnation fixed. Spirit and matter were never meant to be in conflict with each other. God can and does work through the physical world.

The Jewish listeners problem wasn’t so much that they thought Jesus was talking about physical food, but natural food. Food that can only feed our stomachs. But that’s not what the Eucharist is at all. In fact, in the Mass the priest says these words:

‘‘Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation, for in your goodness you have given us this bread and wine we offer you. Fruit of the earth and work of human hands, they will become for us the Bread of life and our spiritual drink.’’

The Eucharist IS spiritual food, it is the food which endures to eternal life, because it is Jesus Christ. It’s not natural food meant to only feed our bodies. It’s the Bread of Life that feeds both our bodies AND our souls. We don’t have to make this separation between what our souls receive and what our bodies receive. They are meant to be united.

 

[Robyn_p]

Robin,

He adds this most glorious truth. “Verily, verily I say unto you, he that believeth on Me hath everlasting life.” I’m the One, I’m the representation of God here, just believe on Me. Notice the present tense, “hath.” When do you get everlasting life? In the future? I’ve got it right now, do you know that? I’ve got everlasting life right now. I’m going to live forever, so are you if you know Christ, present tense, “hath,” present tense.

Robin,

Did Peter has LIFE at the moment?

How did he get it?

By believing, and then later by receiving Christ’s Body and Blood in the Eucharist. These two aren’t in conflict with each other. It doesn’t have to be either/or. We have to nourish our faith. Believing isn’t a one time act.

I believe in Jesus, and because of that faith, I receive the Eucharist because I want to be completely united to him, physically and spiritually. And when I receive the Eucharist, my faith is strengthened. The two complement each other.

 

[Marcos100]

Amen. Jesus is the only food that can satisfy our souls. He absolutely is the food that endures to eternal life. But notice at the Last Supper, he takes physical bread and physical wine and calls them his Body and Blood. Doesn’t that kind of contradict your idea that he’s not talking about physical food when he tells us to eat his flesh and drink his blood?

I mentioned this before, but I think the problem we are having is that you see the spiritual and the physical as somehow in opposition to each other, when really, that’s not the case. That’s what the Incarnation fixed. Spirit and matter were never meant to be in conflict with each other. God can and does work through the physical world.

The Jewish listeners problem wasn’t so much that they thought Jesus was talking about physical food, but natural food. Food that can only feed our stomachs. But that’s not what the Eucharist is at all. In fact, in the Mass the priest says these words:

‘‘Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation, for in your goodness you have given us this bread and wine we offer you. Fruit of the earth and work of human hands, they will become for us the Bread of life and our spiritual drink.’’

The Eucharist IS spiritual food, it is the food which endures to eternal life, because it is Jesus Christ. It’s not natural food meant to only feed our bodies. It’s the Bread of Life that feeds both our bodies AND our souls. We don’t have to make this separation between what our souls receive and what our bodies receive. They are meant to be united.

You are right it doesnt have to be “It doesn’t have to be either/or” necesarily. But remenber, the key to understading the scripture is to read it in context. We know from the context when to interpret scripture literally , and when the context demands a figurative or symbolic intepretation.

Now , back to the issue,

He had just the day before completely satisfied them physically and He uses that as an illustration to set the stage for His speaking of Himself in terms of spiritual satisfaction.
They had followed Him to get more food. You remember, we talked about the reason they followed Christ. It wasn’t even to see His miracles, they said, it was purely on the basis of free food. They got in the morning situation and nobody had any breakfast and so they figured, “Well let’s go over to Jesus, He’ll give us free food.” I told you last time also that they were completely enamored of the idea of making Jesus Messiah so He could open a welfare state with free meals for everybody. In fact, they even challenged Him by saying, “You think You’re something great, You fed fifteen thousand people on one day, Moses fed hundreds of thousands in the wilderness for forty years. Now if You’re going to be equal to Moses in our eyes, You better get with it.” So their attitude was…we would like a welfare state with continual food. They even say to Him in verse 34, “Evermore, keep on giving us this bread.” They thought He was talking about physical bread, and they wanted it from now to the end. They had designs on Christ of political power, throwing off Rome, and of the idea of providing food for them so they could do nothing to earn it and exhibit their depravity, I suppose, in their wasted moments. And so they followed Him in order to get more food.
And He stops them and says, “I’m not interested in giving you physical food, you don’t need physical food, you need spiritual food. You need something that satisfies the soul, something that fills the hunger of the heart. That’s what you need.”

And so as we see in this text, they are still bewildered and as we come to verse 41, we’re going to see them murmuring and griping and sort of an undercurrent of solemn whispers against Christ because they just don’t believe that they need anything spiritual. And when He stopped them in their tracks by saying, “I am that bread,” He really irritated them. All along they were thinking they were going to get physical food, and then all of a sudden He steps in and says, “Hold it, I just want to inform you of one other thing, I am that bread that I’ve been talking about.” And I can just hear them say, “Ohhh…you know, what a deal! You’re the bread? We’ve been standing here waiting for food, it’s breakfast time, you’ve been telling us You’ve got food that’s going to make us live forever. We say give me it, give us that food and You say You’re that food?” And they really got irritated. They not only got irritated because He said He was that bread, they also got irritated because He said He came down from heaven. Both those things irritated Him.

 

[Marcos100]

It’s really a bad idea to try and read John 6 in isolation from the Last Supper accounts. Because both are connected to each other and both shed light on the other. I know that that article you linked us to tries to say that the two have nothing to do with each other, but I find that odd personally. Both take place on Passover, both have Jesus commanding his disciples to eat his body and drink his blood. There’s a reason that Christians throughout the ages have always seen a connection between the two.

Anyways, at the Last Supper, Jesus shows us exactly how we are supposed to eat his body and drink his blood. Not in a cannibalistic form, but under the form of bread and wine.

I think this changes everything. Because if John 6 were it, and Jesus never went on to do what he did at the Last Supper, then we would be forced to interpret Jesus’ words symbolically. There’d be no way we can eat his flesh now. But because of what he did at the Last Supper, that sheds a whole new light on his words. We do really have to eat him, but it’s in a miraculous way no one could have imagined.

“Bread of heaven” for the world vs. Eucharist for the believer (these is different things)

However, if you “eat” the Bread of Life, you will live forever:

I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." (John 6:51)

To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

Jesus declares that this spiritual bread is His body, which He gives for the life of the world. This is not a vague reference to the Eucharist, but a reference to the sacrifice of His body and blood, which He gave at the cross of Calvary. The Eucharist is not given for the world, but is given to the believer. However, Jesus’ body was given as a sacrifice for the sins of the entire world (John 1:29, John 3:16, 2 Corinthians 5:19, 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:14).

The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of** the world.** John 1:29

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.John 3:16,

To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto usthe word of reconciliation.
2 Corinthians 5:19

. 51 “I am the living bread which came from heaven.” He is pointing to himself as the one who is God, that has eternal life to give. Notice He says in the present tense He is the bread. Jesus then predicts, “The bread also which I shall give for the life of the world is My flesh.” The Catholic Church interprets this as a promise of the Eucharist. Yet the context has nothing to do with the Last Supper or physical bread. He is going to give His flesh for the life of the world. WHEN? At the cross. HOW MANY TIMES? Once.

I want to re-emphasize that John, chapter 6 does not deal directly with the Last Supper, or with the doctrine of the Eucharist. It has NOTHING to do with the Last Supper. Jesus had neither bread nor wine present during these verses, and never even mentions wine. Nowhere in these verse does Jesus give his disciples any instruction on how to practice communion. John does not deal with the Last Supper until Chapter 13. It does not teach in chapter 6 or anywhere in the Bible that the disciples must institute a priesthood, consecrate bread and turn it into His flesh, or worship his flesh under the appearance of bread.

This isnt communion, folks, that doesnt come till later. This is the analogy of receiving Christ.

 

[slh3016]

You are right it doesnt have to be “It doesn’t have to be either/or” necesarily. But remenber, the key to understading the scripture is to read it in context. We know from the context when to interpret scripture literally , and when the context demands a figurative or symbolic intepretation.

Now , back to the issue,

He had just the day before completely satisfied them physically and He uses that as an illustration to set the stage for His speaking of Himself in terms of spiritual satisfaction.
They had followed Him to get more food.

I’m looking at my NIV version of John because my Catholic Bible hasn’t arrived yet, and I don’t see this explicitly stated in there. Can you point me to the verse that says they followed Him on this day to get more food because my version doesn’t say that. Maybe I’m overlooking it, though

You remember, we talked about the reason they followed Christ. It wasn’t even to see His miracles, they said, it was purely on the basis of free food. They got in the morning situation and nobody had any breakfast and so they figured, “Well let’s go over to Jesus, He’ll give us free food.”

Again, my version doesn’t say that in any verse. Which verse says they didn’t have any breakfast that morning? I’m confused

And He stops them and says, “I’m not interested in giving you physical food, you don’t need physical food, you need spiritual food. You need something that satisfies the soul, something that fills the hunger of the heart. That’s what you need.”

I truly hate to sound redundant but I can’t find anywhere where Jesus said He wasn’t interested in giving them physical food, only spiritual food. Can you kindly point me to that verse?

All along they were thinking they were going to get physical food, and then all of a sudden He steps in and says,“Hold it, I just want to inform you of one other thing, I am that bread that I’ve been talking about.” And I can just hear them say, “Ohhh…you know, what a deal! You’re the bread? We’ve been standing here waiting for food, it’s breakfast time, you’ve been telling us You’ve got food that’s going to make us live forever. We say give me it, give us that food and You say You’re that food?” And they really got irritated. They not only got irritated because He said He was that bread, they also got irritated because He said He came down from heaven. Both those things irritated Him.

More precisely, they wanted “natural” food as Robyn has noted previously.

As for the red part, that is purely conjecture on your part. I can conjecture things as well but they may or may not be true in this situation.

So, if we disagree in our conjecturing, who gets to decide who is right, if either? Who is the final authority on the passage?

 

[Marcos100]

I’m looking at my NIV version of John because my Catholic Bible hasn’t arrived yet, and I don’t see this explicitly stated in there. Can you point me to the verse that says they followed Him on this day to get more food because my version doesn’t say that. Maybe I’m overlooking it, though

Again, my version doesn’t say that in any verse. Which verse says they didn’t have any breakfast that morning? I’m confused

I truly hate to sound redundant but I can’t find anywhere where Jesus said He wasn’t interested in giving them physical food, only spiritual food. Can you kindly point me to that verse?

More precisely, they wanted “natural” food as Robyn has noted previously.

As for the red part, that is purely conjecture on your part. I can conjecture things as well but they may or may not be true in this situation.

So, if we disagree in our conjecturing, who gets to decide who is right, if either? Who is the final authority on the passage?

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.

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.

 

[Marcos100]

I have been asked 100th (so he says)

What should we do when two people disagree with each other???

This is my answer , what is lacking is ** READING COMPREHENSION**

PD. God is not a bad writer.

 

[slh3016]

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.

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.

Ok, I see He meant that they ate the loaves the day before but where does it say they hadn’t eaten that morning or that they ONLY sought after Him for their breakfast? That’s the part I cannot find in the text.

 

[Marcos100]

You know why there are so many protestant denominations???

Because READING COMPREHENSION is needed.

 

[Robyn_p]

Now , back to the issue,

He had just the day before completely satisfied them physically and He uses that as an illustration to set the stage for His speaking of Himself in terms of spiritual satisfaction.
They had followed Him to get more food. You remember, we talked about the reason they followed Christ. It wasn’t even to see His miracles, they said, it was purely on the basis of free food. They got in the morning situation and nobody had any breakfast and so they figured, “Well let’s go over to Jesus, He’ll give us free food.” I told you last time also that they were completely enamored of the idea of making Jesus Messiah so He could open a welfare state with free meals for everybody. In fact, they even challenged Him by saying, “You think You’re something great, You fed fifteen thousand people on one day, Moses fed hundreds of thousands in the wilderness for forty years. Now if You’re going to be equal to Moses in our eyes, You better get with it.” So their attitude was…we would like a welfare state with continual food. They even say to Him in verse 34, “Evermore, keep on giving us this bread.” They thought He was talking about physical bread, and they wanted it from now to the end. They had designs on Christ of political power, throwing off Rome, and of the idea of providing food for them so they could do nothing to earn it and exhibit their depravity, I suppose, in their wasted moments. And so they followed Him in order to get more food.
And He stops them and says, “I’m not interested in giving you physical food, you don’t need physical food, you need spiritual food. You need something that satisfies the soul, something that fills the hunger of the heart. That’s what you need.”

And so as we see in this text, they are still bewildered and as we come to verse 41, we’re going to see them murmuring and griping and sort of an undercurrent of solemn whispers against Christ because they just don’t believe that they need anything spiritual. And when He stopped them in their tracks by saying, “I am that bread,” He really irritated them. All along they were thinking they were going to get physical food, and then all of a sudden He steps in and says, “Hold it, I just want to inform you of one other thing, I am that bread that I’ve been talking about.” And I can just hear them say, “Ohhh…you know, what a deal! You’re the bread? We’ve been standing here waiting for food, it’s breakfast time, you’ve been telling us You’ve got food that’s going to make us live forever. We say give me it, give us that food and You say You’re that food?” And they really got irritated. They not only got irritated because He said He was that bread, they also got irritated because He said He came down from heaven. Both those things irritated Him.

But Marcos, why then does he take physical bread and call it his physical body and tell us to physically eat it, if he’s not talking about a physical reality? Again, you are confusing the NATURAL with the PHYSICAL, but the two are not synonymous.

See, you are absolutely correct that Jesus here is not talking about natural bread and natural hunger. But because you see the physical and spiritual as opposed to each other, you reason incorrectly that Jesus could not possibly have been talking about anything physical. But the physical is no longer purely natural, it has been transformed. God doesn’t want to just redeem our souls, he wants to redeem our bodies as well. As St. Paul himself said:

*We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; 23 and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.
*(Romans 8:22-23)

The idea that the physical and spiritual are utterly exclusive of each other is an unbiblical idea Marcos. Jesus can and does come to us physically. Just because something is not natural doesn’t mean it’s not physical. Catholics don’t try and separate the spiritual from the physical.

What’s awesome about the Eucharist is that it perfectly unites the spiritual with the physical. There’s no divide. It’s literally our participation in the Mystery of the Incarnation. Our bodies and souls are completely united to God.

Don’t limit God to just a mental concept. Let him come completely into you. That’s what Jesus is telling his listeners in John 6 and that’s exactly what he does in the Eucharist.

 

[Marcos100]

But Marcos, why then does he take physical bread and call it his physical body and tell us to physically eat it, if he’s not talking about a physical reality? Again, you are confusing the NATURAL with the PHYSICAL, but the two are not synonymous.

See, you are absolutely correct that Jesus here is not talking about natural bread and natural hunger. But because you see the physical and spiritual as opposed to each other, you reason incorrectly that Jesus could not possibly have been talking about anything physical. But the physical is no longer purely natural, it has been transformed. God doesn’t want to just redeem our souls, he wants to redeem our bodies as well. As St. Paul himself said:

We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; 23 and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.
(Romans 8:22-23)

The idea that the physical and spiritual are utterly exclusive of each other is an unbiblical idea Marcos. Jesus can and does come to us physically. Just because something is not natural doesn’t mean it’s not physical. Catholics don’t try and separate the spiritual from the physical.

What’s awesome about the Eucharist is that it perfectly unites the spiritual with the physical. There’s no divide. It’s literally our participation in the Mystery of the Incarnation. Our bodies and souls are completely united to God.

Don’t limit God to just a mental concept. Let him come completely into you. That’s what Jesus is telling his listeners in John 6 and that’s exactly what he does in the Eucharist.

You are absolutely correct in a few points, (which dont contradict what I am trying to show you) for example Jesus"s body is literal and spiritual and the same time, but one deadly interpretational error is equate two different things,I have never denied that, but you are implying I deny those portion of scripture, I do not. But now we are focusing in John 6. You are connecting the last Supper, with John 6, but they are different, I showed you that before, but you insist, the Supper is exclusively for beleivers,but you are using unrelated scriptures. in John 6 Jesus is saying “Come and eat of me, dinner is served!”. He is talking in present tense and there is no wine nor bread present, so one can easily get it. Then he says he is going to give his body for** the whole world.**

In John 6, they didnt beleive Jesus came from heaven, consecuently they didnt believe he was the son of God, but from a earthly father. He couldnt be the Mesiah the Christ for them. But Jesus insist they have to beleive in Him as he introduced Himself, the Son of God. He repeated that time after time at no avail.That was what Jesus was trying to show them.
Only a few disciples unsertood it.

"We believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God!!!" What did Peter believed? It is right there. THAT was needed after the discuorse. Peter response implies the other disciples didnt believe, the ones who were following Jesus only for the physical food.In other words, faith is the birth of the true disciple. And Jesus is saying it’s not my physical body that needs to be in you, it’s My spirit. He doesnt want to enter our digestive system. Get it right like Peter.

 

[10gr8kids]

You are absolutely correct in a few points, (which dont contradict what I am trying to show you) for example Jesus"s body is literal and spiritual and the same time, but one deadly interpretational error is equate two different things,I have never denied that, but you are implying I deny those portion of scripture, I do not. But now we are focusing in John 6. You are connecting the last Supper, with John 6, but they are different, I showed you that before, but you insist, the Supper is exclusively for beleivers,but you are using unrelated scriptures. in John 6 Jesus is saying “Come and eat of me, dinner is served!”. He is talking in present tense and there is no wine nor bread present, so one can easily get it. Then he says he is going to give his body for** the whole world.**

John 6:51

I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

Reading comprehension 101

I will give-future tense not present

Yes, He gives His life, and His flesh, for the whole world,; not everybody accepts it.

 

[Robyn_p]

I meant to reply to this post when I replied earlier but had to go to Mass. Anyways

“Bread of heaven” for the world vs. Eucharist for the believer (these is different things
However, if you “eat” the Bread of Life, you will live forever:

Jesus declares that this spiritual bread is His body, which He gives for the life of the world. This is not a vague reference to the Eucharist, but a reference to the sacrifice of His body and blood, which He gave at the cross of Calvary. The Eucharist is not given for the world, but is given to the believer. However, Jesus’ body was given as a sacrifice for the sins of the entire world (John 1:29, John 3:16, 2 Corinthians 5:19, 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:14).

First, the sacrifice on Calvary and the Eucharist are one reality. As I will explain below. But second, I don’t understand the distinction you are making between the Bread of heaven for the world and Eucharist for the believer. Doesn’t Jesus also tell his listeners in John 6 that they have to believe in order to receive the Bread from heaven? Sure it’s for the life of whole world, but that doesn’t mean the world automatically receives that life. We have to believe first. I don’t see how that’s any different from the Eucharist, especially if the Eucharist is, as Catholics believe, our participation in the once for all sacrifice of Calvary.

Seems to me like John 6 and the Last Supper are still talking about the same thing. Both are about receiving the Bread from heaven which is his flesh that he gives for the life of the world.

. 51 “I am the living bread which came from heaven.” He is pointing to himself as the one who is God, that has eternal life to give. Notice He says in the present tense He is the bread. Jesus then predicts, “The bread also which I shall give for the life of the world is My flesh.” The Catholic Church interprets this as a promise of the Eucharist. Yet the context has nothing to do with the Last Supper or physical bread. He is going to give His flesh for the life of the world. WHEN? At the cross. HOW MANY TIMES? Once.

And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 20 And likewise the cup after supper, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.(Luke 22:19-20)

*26 Now as they were eating,[d] Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you; 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. *(Matt 26:26-28)

22 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.” 23 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. 24 And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.(Mk 14:22-24)

In all of these texts, Jesus connects the Eucharist to his Passion and death. Just like he does in John 6. Can you really say there’s no connection?

Interestingly, the Greek word Jesus uses for remembrance here ‘‘anamnesis’’ is a technical word that has a very specific meaning. In fact, it’s only used one other time in the New Testament, and twice in the Old, and each time the remembrance is carried out through a sacrifice. (Heb 10:3, Lev 24:7, Num 10:10) So what this word ‘‘remembrance’’ means is not so much ‘‘call to mind something that happened long ago’’ but ‘‘remember something by participating in a sacrifice.’’

The word is literally soaked in sacrificial overtones. If Jesus didn’t intend for the Eucharist to be seen as a sacrifice, specifically, the sacrifice he was about to make on the cross, he would not have used that word. This just further confirms the connection between John 6 and the Last Supper. You said one is about his sacrifice for the world and one is for believers, but as we can see, they are both talking about the same thing.

I want to re-emphasize that John, chapter 6 does not deal directly with the Last Supper, or with the doctrine of the Eucharist. It has NOTHING to do with the Last Supper. Jesus had neither bread nor wine present during these verses, and never even mentions wine. Nowhere in these verse does Jesus give his disciples any instruction on how to practice communion. John does not deal with the Last Supper until Chapter 13. It does not teach in chapter 6 or anywhere in the Bible that the disciples must institute a priesthood, consecrate bread and turn it into His flesh, or worship his flesh under the appearance of bread.

This isnt communion, folks, that doesnt come till later. This is the analogy of receiving Christ.

I never said John 6 deals with the Last Supper, I said they are connected and shed light on each other.

In John 6, Jesus tells us that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood. He says his flesh is real food and his blood real drink. He tells us the bread we will eat is his flesh that he shall give for the world. Then, exactly a year later, he uses the exact same language of eating flesh and drinking blood again. And even connects the Eucharist to the sacrifice he’s about to make on the cross. Just like he does in John 6.

You keep saying the two aren’t connected, but all the biblical evidence points otherwise.

 

[Robyn_p]

"We believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God!!!" What did Peter believed? It is right there. THAT was needed after the discuorse. Peter response implies the other disciples didnt believe, the ones who were following Jesus only for the physical food.In other words, faith is the birth of the true disciple.** And Jesus is saying it’s not my physical body that needs to be in you**, it’s My spirit. He doesnt want to enter our digestive system. Get it right like Peter.

But that’s not what he said Marcos. He tells us the bread we must eat IS the flesh he gave for the life of the world. His physical flesh. And then he tells us again to eat his body and drink his blood at the Last Supper. I can’t just ignore that.

Of course faith is important. It’s crucial. But we are not disembodied spirits. Our bodies affect our souls and vice versa. You say ‘‘he doesn’t want to enter our digestive system.’’ but why not? Are our bodies repulsive or something that He wouldn’t want to enter us physically? Why wouldn’t he want to be completely united to us in both body and soul?

God doesn’t want us to deny or distance ourselves from our physicality. He wants to elevate and perfect it.

 

[10gr8kids]

Here is the KJV of John 6:51, this makes it even clearer that Jesus isn’t talking about the present, but the future when He will give us this bread that is His flesh.

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.

Once again, notice it is bread that He will give, (future tense) not ‘come right now’ and eat me, as Robyn has already pointed out.

 

[Marcos100]

I have been asked several times the rules for interpreting the Bible, well it is about time to share with you. I read the rules forum and they allow to put webpage adreeses so I am going to exercise that right at the end of the post

INTRODUCTION TO
INDUCTIVE BIBLE STUDY
WHAT IS IT?

(Click to skip the intro and go directly to OBSERVATION

**Do you long for a relationship with God, but feel lost when you open your Bible, not even knowing where to begin?

Or perhaps you begin each year with a resolution to read through the Bible, only to give up in frustration, wandering about somewhere in the “wilderness” of the book of Numbers?

Or do you read passages of Scripture and find that only moments later you can’t even remember what you just read?

Are you frustrated that there are so many different opinions about what the Bible says on a given subject and you wonder which one is true?

Or do you doubt whether it’s even possible for you to understand God’s Word, since you’re not a pastor, an elder or a degreed theologian?**

If any or all of these questions describe you, then take heart, beloved, for you are about to embark on a journey called “Inductive Bible Study” (IBS), one that has the potential to radically transform your life as you study God’s Word in a way you heretofore never thought possible. Inductive Bible Study will expose you to an approach that can be applied to any Scripture, any time, any place, by any one. All that is required is the Holy Book, the Holy Spirit and a humble, teachable heart.

As you begin this journey, remember that the Bible will be your primary resource "for no (spoken) word from God (is) void of power (a more literal rendering of Luke 1:37ASV then other translations) and “His divine power has granted to useverything pertaining to life and godliness (read that phrase again - do you believe this is true?), through the true knowledge of Him (found in His Word) Who called us by His own glory and excellence. For by these (His “glory and excellence”) He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, in order that by them (we) might become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.” (2Pe 1:3,4-notes)

Beloved, if you are not convinced on the sufficiency and power of the Bible as your guidebook for abundant, supernatural life, you might consider performing a simple study on the inherent Power of God’s Word. You must understand and believe that the Word of God not only is sufficient for every need but that it is a “love letter” from God, because it is! “God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.” (John 3:16) Your objective is to learn to read the Bible as if God were personally speaking to you. Why? Because He is! B. B. Warfield was absolutely correct when he said “The Bible is the Word of God in such a way that when the Bible speaks, God speaks.”

After observing the schematic, you still may not appreciate the basic premise ofInductive Bible Study so let’s illustrate two different approaches to Bible study using the life of a frog as our subject of study.

If you wanted to learn about frogs, you could go to the library and check out a book entitled “The Life of Frogs” (or in today’s web savvy world you might “Google” the term “frog’s life”). But how would you know that the so-called frog expert had really given you an accurate interpretation of a frog’s life? You wouldn’t if you relied solely upon that one source. On the other hand you could go to a nearby pond, sit by the water’s edge and begin to observe and write down what you observed about the local frogs - how they gathered food, what they liked to eat and not eat, where they liked to sit, how they mated, where, when and how they laid their eggs, what transpired when the eggs hatched, and how long it took tadpoles to grow into adult frogs. Then you could take one of the slimy green creatures back home (not to your kitchen though), dissect him and observe how he was constructed in great detail, even observing the interrelationships of the innermost parts under a dissecting microscope. (cf. interrogation of the Bible with the 5W/H questions)

Now, let’s be honest. Reading a reference by a “frog expert” is easier and more aesthetically pleasing than sitting by a pond and (heaven forbid) even touching one of the little green critters. And besides, you could glean the salient frog facts in a fraction of the time it would take you to perform your own observations of the frog’s life cycle. So what’s the point? In the first method, you might remember what you read for a few days, but with the second method you would likely be able to recall your observations months, even years later. And which method provides the potential for the joy of self discovery? Which method “costs” the most (in time and effort)? I’m sure you can see the clear distinctions between these two methods.

A. B. Simpson famed Canadian preacher and theologian put it this way - " God has hidden every precious thing in such a way that it is a reward to the diligent, a prize to the earnest, but a disappointment to the slothful soul. All nature is arrayed against the lounger and the idler. The nut is hidden in its thorny case; the pearl is buried beneath the ocean waves; the gold is imprisoned in the rocky bosom of the mountains; the gem is found only after you crush the rock which encloses it; the very soil gives its harvest as a reward to the laboring farmer. So truth and God must be earnestly sought.

preceptaustin.org/inductive_bible_study.htm
."

 

[oldburkes]

This is a good one,

eternal-productions.org/PDFS/The%20Eucharist%20Biblical%20Review.pdf
I dont agree in all the point thoguh, but I would give it an 8

Marcos, these examples of figurative statements that Eternal Productions give are missing something.

John 6:35 I am the bread of life (this is the question at hand)

John 8:12 I am the light of the world
John 10:9 I am the door
John 10:11 I am the good shepherd
John 11:25 I am the resurrection and the life
John 14:6 I am the way, the truth, and the life
John 15:5 I am the vine.

What’s missing?

I am the light of the world - *

I am the door - [undo the latch and walk through me.]

I am the good shepard - [anyone who follows me will be sheared of their wool once a year.]

John 11:25 and 14:6 need not even be considered in a figurative sense.

I am the vine - [pluck a few grapes off me as I walk by.]

What’s not missing here -

Eat my flesh and drink my blood - " Let me solemnly assure you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you, For my flesh is real food and my blood real drink.’*

 

[Marcos100]

I read in the rules forum that i can put websites adreeses so I am going to exercise my right and the end of the webpage

**INTERPRETATION
Introductory Comments
**
We’ve all heard the following response when we have tried to share a truth from Scripture - “Well, that’s just your interpretation!” This retort begs the question of whether there are in fact many valid interpretations or whether there is only one interpretation intended by the author (and the Author). While there is no doubt that genuine believers will differ in their interpretations on a number of difficult passages, the truth is that every passage has only one valid, correct interpretation. God did not stutter nor did He speak in ambiguities. He said what He said and meant what He said, regardless of whether we as finite creatures can agree on what He said. Biblical truth is the ultimate objective truth (Ps 119:160-note, Pr 30:5) for it is God’s inerrant, plenary (complete in every aspect) inspired Word (2Ti 3:16-note). It therefore behooves all sincere believers to be very careful in our approach to handling and interpreting His precious truth (cp 2Ti 2:15-note, Paul in Acts 20:27, 2Co 4:2, He 5:14-note; Pr 30:6, Re 22:18-note, Re 22:19-note; Dt 4:2, 12:32 Jas 3:1). The apostle Peter issued a stern warning to those who play “fast and loose” with the Scriptures, noting that Paul’s epistles contain
some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. (2Pe 3:16-note; cp Paul’s parting warning to the Ephesian elders - Acts 20:29, 30 where “perverse” = twisted, distorted, perverted)
Webster defines interpretation as explaining or telling the meaning of something and presenting it in understandable terms. In Biblical interpretation you are seeking to place yourself in the writer’s “sandals”, setting aside any preconceived ideas, with the ultimate goal being to understand the writer’s original intent, and God’s intent which sometimes goes beyond even the understanding of the human writer (as pointed out by Peter – 1Pe 1:10, 11, 12-notes).
A synonym for interpretation is hermeneutics which is derived from the name of the pagan god Hermes who brought messages from the pagan gods to mortals, “translating” them as it were. The related Greek verb hermeneuo (click Greek word study) means to bring someone to an understanding of what is conveyed in another language, making it clear and intelligible and thus in a sense “translating” it.Hermeneutics is the science (and art) of interpretation, in this case the interpretation of the Bible.
Listen to the wise warning from Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones…
There is nothing so dangerous as to come to the Bible with a theory, with preconceived ideas, with some pet idea of our own, because the moment we do so, we shall be tempted to over-emphasize one aspect and under-emphasize another. (from chapter 1 of “Studies in the Sermon on the Mount”, a modern day classic)

Dr. Howard Hendricks reminds us that…

“Meaning” (of the Scriptural passage) is not our subjective thoughts read into the text but God’s objective truth read out of the text. As someone has well said, the task of Bible study is to “think God’s thoughts after Him.” The miracle is that He used human authors to do so. Working through their personalities, their circumstances, and their concerns, the Holy Spirit superintended the crafting of a document. And each of the human authors—God’s coauthors, we might call them—had a specific message in mind as he recorded his portion of the text. That’s why I like to refer to the step of Interpretation as the recreation process. We’re attempting to stand in the author’s shoes and re-create his experience—to think as he thought, to feel as he felt, and to decide as he decided. We’re asking, What did this mean to him? before we ever ask, What does it mean to us?" (Under “Step 2” - The Value of Interpretation - Living By the Book - Wordsearch) (Living By the Book The Art and Science of Reading the Bible - Logos)

The proper interpretation of Scripture has long been a source of debate because many people consider the process too subjective. We’ve all heard remarks like “Doesn’t everyone have their own view?” or “Aren’t there many ways to interpret that passage?” The answer in fact is “no” there are not many ways to interpret the Bible. The Bible is not some abstract Picasso painting where everyone weighs in on their opinion as to what message the artist might have meant to convey. In contrast to the relativity so common in our world, it is comforting to know that God offers absolute truth and it follows that every passage of Scripture has only one intended meaningand only one correct interpretation.
On the other hand, the passage may have many applications, but it always has only one intended meaning. Therefore the next time you hear the objection, “There are so many interpretations of the Bible I don’t think we can be sure of what it means. So why study it?”, ask the objector to interpret a verse like John 3:16. You and (they) will usually find that they can understand the passage and that God’s one intended message is very clear. Perhaps the obvious meaning of verses like John 3:16 is what lead the well known agnostic Mark Twain to quip…
It ain’t those parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand!

preceptaustin.org/inductive_bible_study.htm

 

[Marcos100]

**love shares.

God bless you all!**