Did many of Jesus' Disciples really leave over the Eucharist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter denwiles
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

denwiles

Guest
As I sat and read John 6 over and over again I noticed something I thought mayby a few of you would like to comment on. Did those who were following Jesus leave because He said “unless you eat my flesh and blood you have no part of me” or because he said " I came from heaven" I think it was both, but I noticed the people got upset and said “how can He say he came from Heaven. Don’t we know His Mother and Father.” They seem to really be bothered with that. The main focus however is always taught about Jesus saying “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no part of Me.” God Bless
 
The topic of the conversation in John: 48 - 61 is EATING the Bread from Heaven, not the fact that the Bread CAME from heaven. The Jews were grossed out and scandalized at the thought of eating Jesus as “true meat” and drinking his blood as “true drink”. This violated every Jewish dietary law in the book and Jesus’s insistence of it as a means to salvation was just too much for the crowd to take and they left.
 
You correctly identify that it was not the single saying, but a cumulative effect.

The more poignant question might be, why did Jesus continue to ‘egg them on’ when he saw that they were bothered by the initial saying?
 
I think the “come from heaven” was the icing on the cake of “eat my flesh and drink my blood.” For the first, (murmur, murmur, murmur) for the second, WE’RE OUTTA HERE!:eek:
 
denwiles said:
As I sat and read John 6 over and over again I noticed something I thought mayby a few of you would like to comment on. Did those who were following Jesus leave because He said “unless you eat my flesh and blood you have no part of me” or because he said " I came from heaven" I think it was both, but I noticed the people got upset and said “how can He say he came from Heaven. Don’t we know His Mother and Father.” They seem to really be bothered with that. The main focus however is always taught about Jesus saying “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no part of Me.” God Bless
Click to expand...

STM you’re on to something 🙂​

They may also have found the implications of the words “eat my flesh” too much to take; it’s an idiomatic expression for “kill” - Jesus rubs it in. In view of their zeal to make him a king (see v. 15) the day before, He is pretty certainly saying that they (who wanted to make him a king) are in fact going to do him to death. ISTM that the Eucharistic reference is part of the meaning, but is only one part of it; that there are others as well. John is very fond of
  • questions about the origin of Jesus
  • kingship imagery
  • the themes of water, food, & light - which are very relevant to Baptism & Eucharist
  • “knowledge” & “ignorance” (=///= “intellectualism”)
Those texts:
  • Psa 14.4 - compare Psa. 53
  • Isaiah 27:2 When the wicked, [even] mine enemies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh, they stumbled and fell.
  • Eze 36:13 Thus says the Lord GOD: Because men say to you, ‘You devour men, and you bereave your nation of children,’
  • Mic 3:3 Who also eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them; and they break their bones, and chop them in pieces, as for the pot, and as flesh within the caldron.
In the NT we have:
  • John 6:51 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.
Compare with that:
  • Gal. 5.15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
Matthew talks about food all the time, usually in connection with the Messianic Banquet in the Kingdom of God. The Fourth Gospel emphasises the presence of both, as present already; which fits in with its conception of Jesus as the Saviour coming down from heaven (which would help to explain the absence of an Ascension or anything like one.) There is the same Gospel message - & different theologies of it.

The disciples in John 6 are in the position of Peter in Matt. 16 - what differs, is the response.
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:

STM you’re on to something 🙂​

They may also have found the implications of the words “eat my flesh” too much to take; it’s an idiomatic expression for “kill” - Jesus rubs it in. In view of their zeal to make him a king (see v. 15) the day before, He is pretty certainly saying that they (who wanted to make him a king) are in fact going to do him to death. ISTM that the Eucharistic reference is part of the meaning, but is only one part of it; that there are others as well.
Click to expand...
I don’t think Jesus is using the expression “eat my flesh” in it’s idiomatic meaning. It wouldn’t make sense. It would mean that Jesus is saying only those who kill Him will have eternal life.

Read all the verses and substitute the word “kill”/“kills me” whenever “eat my flesh” or “drink my blood” appears.
vs. 50 -…that a man may eat of it and not die. (that a man may “kill me” and not die??)
vs. 51 - … if any one eat of this bread, he will live for ever; (if any one “kills me” he shall live forever??)
vs. 53 - Truly, truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood (unless you “kill me”??), you have no life in you;
etc. etc.

The **act **of eating Our Lord’s flesh is directly related to the reception of life within oneself - it is the act which accomplishes it for the one who does it. Note the difference between Jesus saying, for example, “Unless I die, you will not be able to have life in you” and “Unless you kill me, you will not be able to have life in you”.
 
I think that John chapter 6 has much more to do with the eucharist that most people realize.

Early in John 6 we find that:

“A great multitude followed Him because they saw His signs which He performed on those who were ill.”

The scene is set, Jesus is a miracle worker and many are following Him at this point.

then Jesus multiplies the bread. He feeds all of those hungry people, thousands.

next Jesus walks on water. He shows that not only is He able to perform miracles with matter (multipling bread) but that His own body itself can do the miraculous.

and finally, Jesus claims that it is His Body that is the true food that has come down from Heaven.

I think that the Gospel writer had a very specific purpose in putting these events in this order and it was to point to the Holy Eucharist, come down from Heaven.
 
Look at the context of John 6. Specifically John 6, verse 4: “The Jewish Passover feast was near”. This information was included for a reason. It set the context for the entire sixth chapter. At the Jewish Passover, each family had to procure a lamb. They were also commanded to slaughter it and place its blood on their doorposts and lintel. Once more thing: they had to eat it. The Passover lamb had to be eaten.

In verses 32 and 33, Jesus said that His Father gives the bread of life, and identified the bread of life as someone (Him). In verse 41, the Jews began to “grumble” and Jesus commanded them to stop. Now, look what happens after verse 51, when Jesus tells them that He is the bread of life: they begin to “argue sharlpy” and specifically protested Him telling them that they must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood.

He went on, telling them over and over that they must eat and drink His Flesh and Blood. Now, look at verse 60: "Upon hearing this (eat my flesh and drink my blood), many of His disciples said “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”. They said nothing about His claim to have come down from heaven. That claim produced only grumbling. But, to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood caused them to “argue sharply”. There is a marked contrast between grumbling and arguing sharply. In the original Greek, the verb that Jesus used for “Eat” was actually more like “chew” or “gnaw” - raw, physical words expressing action, not acceptance of a metaphor or symbol.

Remember also that at this time, Jesus had not yet instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper, but was merely preparing them for it. Look earlier in the Gospel of John (John 1:29). There, John the Baptist identifies Jesus as “the lamb of God”. Now, this sounded silly to the Jews, because lambs were used as food, and as sacrifices in atonement for their sins. Sound familiar? Jesus is the Paschal lamb, and must be eaten, just as the sacrificial Passover lamb had to be eaten.

Anyway, the Catholic Church is far from the only Church to believe in the Eucharist. Many Protestant denominations still do, even though their claim to a valid consecration of the bread and wine is seriously challenged. Recall also that the Twelve practiced the Eucharist, as did Paul (see 1 Corinthians 11). It is only today that many Christians do not practice the Eucharist. Something to ponder.

Christ’s peace.
 
Jesus’ whole message was hard for them to accept, however, if you continue the reading, verse by verse, we see they had gone beyond questioning His assertion that He had been sent down from heaven. Afterall, they remained to hear His message, in it’s entirety, after they had questioned His assertion that He had been sent down from heaven.

In John 6:42, they questioned how He could say, He had been sent down from heaven?

In John 6:52, they strove, the Greek word used was machomai, with each other over, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”

G3164
μάχομαι
machomai
makh’-om-ahee
Middle voice of an apparently primary verb; to war, that is, (figuratively) to quarrel, dispute: - fight, strive.

They had gone from questioning to quarreling, disputing, or fighting over the message being given.

In response to the quarreling, Jesus tells them 5 more times, that they must eat.

Joh 6:53 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
Joh 6:54 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
Joh 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him.
Joh 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.
Joh 6:58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.

After His continued assertion was when many of His disciples asked, “This saying is hard; and who can hear it?” (John 6:60)

It was in John 6:61 that Christ responded to their question of “…who can hear it?” He said, “Doth this scandalize you?” This, in context, was a direct response to their question of “…who can hear it”, which was preceded by the question, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”

John 6:66 (irony, 666, anti-Christ?)must have been quite a spectacle, for His disciples to have gotten up and walked out on His message. Imagine what kind of commotion would go on if that happened in a Church today. Questioning, quarreling and getting up and walking out after hearing a message confirmed. What did Jesus do when this happened? He turned to the twelve and asked, “Will you also go away?” (John 6:67)

Yes the message He had been sent down from heaven made them question Him, but they stayed and heard His explanation. The “straw that broke the camel’s back” was the message that they had to eat His flesh and drink His blood. When read in context, it’s common sense that the focus is on His words to eat His flesh and drink His blood, since this was the cause of them to get up and leave Him, to walk with Him no more.
 
denwiles said:
As I sat and read John 6 over and over again I noticed something I thought mayby a few of you would like to comment on. Did those who were following Jesus leave because He said “unless you eat my flesh and blood you have no part of me”
Click to expand...
He explained it three times, becoming more explicit each time. In the end there were only a few left, and He asked them, “will you also leave”. So the question is, will you accept that you mut receive His Body and Blood or “will also leave”?
 
NeuCatholic said:
He explained it three times, becoming more explicit each time. In the end there were only a few left, and He asked them, “will you also leave”. So the question is, will you accept that you mut receive His Body and Blood or “will also leave”?
Click to expand...
I want His Precious Blood living in me!

for earlier in the bible God commands not to partake of blood of animals because “life is in the blood” someone can hopefully find where this exact verse is at.

and ya know what? We are to have the life of Christ living in us.
 
Flame_of_Christ said:
I want His Precious Blood living in me!

for earlier in the bible God commands not to partake of blood of animals because “life is in the blood” someone can hopefully find where this exact verse is at.

and ya know what? We are to have the life of Christ living in us.
Click to expand...
Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life.
 
Father Serpa put it very well in a recent response to a question: We become living Tabernacles once we receive our Lord in the Eucharist. It is Christ living in us. Amen!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top