Don’t see John 6 as referring to Eucharist

[1Lord1Faith]

I don’t see either a symbolic or real presence Eucharist in John 6’s Bread of Life Discourse. I think the Bread of Life Discourse is a cryptic declaration of Jesus’ divinity (his flesh as bread) and new covenant (blood), with an explanation of the distinction between flesh and spirit.

I don’t mean to argue against the real presence in the Eucharist. It’s in the last supper narrative. But I don’t see John 6 as referring to it as I’ve heard apologists say that it does. For example, apologists say that Jesus doesn’t correct the disciples who walk away after Jesus says “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” and “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life,…”

Before Jesus says that ^, he says:

“Amen, amen, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

He goes on to say that he is like the manna, which was understood by his disciples to be supernatural. He is implying that he is not earthly, but supernatural.

Of course, such a cryptic statement of divinity caused the Jews to murmur. I believe this is what led some disciples to walk away. It was Jesus’ cryptic statement of his divinity, not necessarily a commentary on the establishment of the Eucharist. And, Jesus doesn’t try to correct any misunderstanding…he is in fact divine, and he tries to reiterate that fact at the end of the discourse:

Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?”

How is this wrong?

 

[lagerald24]

I get your point. I think we must remember that Jesus told us in John 6:54 that, “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.” This is a very radical statement. Something I find interesting is the Greek word for ‘eat’ used in verses 54-58. It is ‘phagos’ which is unlike the typical word for human eating which is ‘trogos’. This fact, I believe, heartily affirms the reality of the true flesh and blood of Jesus Christ as given to us in the Holy Eucharist which we are told to eat of. I agree with you in saying that there are stronger proofs for the Eucharist in other parts of the New Testament but I think that John 6 can be quite useful in understanding the reality of the Eucharist.

 

[Wannano]

I don’t see either a symbolic or real presence Eucharist in John 6’s Bread of Life Discourse. I think the Bread of Life Discourse is a cryptic declaration of Jesus’ divinity (his flesh as bread) and new covenant (blood), with an explanation of the distinction between flesh and spirit.

I don’t mean to argue against the real presence in the Eucharist. It’s in the last supper narrative. But I don’t see John 6 as referring to it as I’ve heard apologists say that it does. For example, apologists say that Jesus doesn’t correct the disciples who walk away after Jesus says “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” and “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life,…”

Before Jesus says that ^, he says:

“Amen, amen, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

It isn’t. Until I came here I never had considered John 6 as a reference for the Eucharist.

 

[Thom18]

The Ark of the Old Covenant contained the rod of Aaron the High Priest, an urn filled with the miraculous manna from the desert, and the stone tablets of the Commandments. Mary, as the Ark of the New Covenant, carried within her the true High Priest, the heavenly manna, and the Word of God made flesh.

In His Bread of Life discourse, Jesus saw Himself as fulfilling what the manna in the desert foreshadowed. He identified Himself as the true Bread from Heaven, which one can eat and not die (unlike those in the desert, who could eat the manna and would still die).

It’s important that this speech came after one of the instances when He multiplied loaves of bread. Those present had been seeking more bread, and their only reason for following Jesus was to benefit from His miracles in the earthly sense- to fill their stomachs. The main purpose of the manna in the desert, as far as the Israelites back then were concerned, was to do just that- satisfy their hunger. Jesus challenged them to seek the bread which would give life to the world, which is His flesh, and eat it. Unless we eat His flesh and drink His blood, we have no life in us and won’t be raised up on the last day.

In addition to calling us to closer and true discipleship, He is instructing us to receive Him in the sacrament of the Eucharist, the New Passover, and He said all of this when the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

This doesn’t explain why the apostles might leave too and why St. Peter responded as he did. At this point, the apostles already knew he was the son of God.

Additionally, I think your interpretation would only work if John 6 was taken out of its context of being the day after the loaves were divided.

 

[chessnerd321]

One point I would make is that this took place in Passover season. That’s a pretty clear parallel between the two events.

 

[guanophore]

I think the Bread of Life Discourse is a cryptic declaration of Jesus’ divinity (his flesh as bread) and new covenant (blood), with an explanation of the distinction between flesh and spirit.

This is also true.

What is it like for you to “see” something opposite of what the Church has taught and believed for 2000 years?

But I don’t see John 6 as referring to it (the Real Presence)

Have you tried reading it with some “I do believe it” spectacles? I mean, just as an exercise, when you read the passage from the point of view of one who does believe, are you able to see from the other point of view?

He is implying that he is not earthly, but supernatural.

Yes, it is His resurrected flesh we receive in the Eucharist, not the carnal/earthly flesh. Curiously one of the early Roman objectors to Catholics was that they were “cannibals”.

It was Jesus’ cryptic statement of his divinity, not necessarily a commentary on the establishment of the Eucharist.

I agree. Since this dialogue with the Jews occurred before the Last Supper was instituted, it is not a commentary an event that had not yet occurred.

That being said, one must keep in mind that the gospel of John was written at the end of the first century, and there were 60-70 years of celebrating the Eucharist that are infused into this passage. So it does reflect the spiritual experience of the early Church.

Jesus doesn’t try to correct any misunderstanding…he is in fact divine, and he tries to reiterate that fact at the end of the discourse:

Good point! He does not correct them when they ask “how can He give us His flesh to eat?”. Even His own disciples did not understand yet at that point.

How is this wrong?

It is not wrong, it is just that your understanding of the passage is not all there is.

 

[JerryZ]

If you read the whole chapter He Jesus repeats the statement 7 times.
In the original greek every time the people around him rebuke Him for saying this He goes up a notch in His description of how true the statement is (One must eat His flesh) by changing the word from eating flesh to gnawing on meat. Something that in most translations is lost.
The bolded passage is true because Jesus states that His flesh is bread and He instituted the Eucharist when this actually happened and He came down from Heaven.
Of course John 6 needs to be counterpoised to the Great Institution at the Last Supper in the upper room at pass over.
To a jew of the 1st century telling him that he would need to eat the flesh of what they perceived to be a human being, was indeed a hard saying.
Even the 12 did not understand it. And Jesus knew this when HE asked them: What? Aren’t you going to leave me, too?
No one perceived any “cryptic” message, as they were all engrossed at the prospect of having to eat human flesh.

 

[c1949]

coincidence that I logged in today to raise this very topic. At best, I see the the word for “eat” is phagos. But, my Strong’s concordance says that is the only word used in John 6 for “eat” and that it has that sense of chewing [meat] , IOW, literal eating. I recall Dr Scott Hahn making this point on tv once.

As others have stated, why is John 6 used as some validation of the Real Presence (not that I deny it, but I just want to know, for apologetical reasons).

 

[BartholomewB]

I was taught that this verse in John has its parallels in the Synoptics and Paul, and that all five are reporting, with minor variations, the same saying of Jesus:

• “This is my body that is for you” (1 Cor. 11:24)

• “Take it; this is my body” (Mark 14:22).

• “Take and eat; this is my body” (Matt. 26:26).

• “This is my body, which will be given for you” (Luke 22:19)

• “The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world” (John 6:51)

These are all from the Nabre translation. The difficulty is explaining how this saying appears where it does in the Fourth Gospel, in Chapter 6 instead of at the Last Supper, in Chapter 13 or 14. I don’t know the answer to that question, but it still makes sense to me that Jesus’ meaning here is the same as in the other four books.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Jesus challenged them to seek the bread which would give life to the world, which is His flesh, and eat it. Unless we eat His flesh and drink His blood,

But nobody tried to gnaw on him. Not even Peter. Also, Jesus explains that:

It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life

So the disciples must have known that Jesus wasn’t referring to literally eating his flesh. Because they never actually tried to eat him. Even after the resurrection, Jesus’ flesh was still real, although glorified, the disciples did not attempt to eat Jesus.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Have you tried reading it with some “I do believe it” spectacles? I mean, just as an exercise, when you read the passage from the point of view of one who does believe, are you able to see from the other point of view?

Yes I believed it at first. Then, the more often I read it, and the more I learned about Jewish idioms and customs, the less I thought it referred to the Eucharist. Now, I don’t see much relevance at all to the Eucharist in Jn 6. Especially the part about disciples walking away, which popular apologists are often using as a justification for a literal “Eucharistic” reading of the Discourse.

 

[guanophore]

Yes I believed it at first. Then, the more often I read it, and the more I learned about Jewish idioms and customs, the less I thought it referred to the Eucharist.

Since you say this does not influence your appreciation of the Real Presence, I wonder why you are bringing this issue? Are you not satisfied with understanding it as you do?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Are you not satisfied with understanding it as you do?

I’m bringing it up because I don’t think Jn 6 refers to the Eucharist.

Whenever I’ve heard an apologist on TV or radio or internet justify the real presence of the Eucharist by using the verses in Jn 6 that say many disciples walked away after the Discourse, I have always thought that argument was too simplistic on its surface. And as I’ve read the chapter more often, I’m convinced that that particular apologetic argument is false. It doesn’t make any sense. But there are alternative arguments to why disciples walked away, and those make sense.

 

[Beryllos]

I don’t mean to argue against the real presence in the Eucharist.

It looks like Jesus said the same thing in the Bread of Life Discourse and the Last Supper Discourse. Why would he mean it figuratively on one occasion but literally on the other?

 

[guanophore]

I’m bringing it up because I don’t think Jn 6 refers to the Eucharist.

Yes, you said that, but why did you create a thread on CAF about it?

the more I learned about Jewish idioms and customs, the less I thought it referred to the Eucharist.

I am curious what you learned. For me it was just the opposite!

I have always thought that argument was too simplistic on its surface.

I guess I am wondering, since you seem to be satisfied with your own interpretation, what else do you need?

I’m convinced that that particular apologetic argument is false.

So? You say it does not change your faith any…

It doesn’t make any sense.

Well, I guess you lost me there.

But there are alternative arguments to why disciples walked away, and those make sense.

I don’t think so, but I am not invested enough in the ones that are inconsistent with what the Church believes and teaches to make a thread about it. You are. I just don’t understand why.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

It looks like Jesus said the same thing in the Bread of Life Discourse and the Last Supper Discourse. Why would he mean it figuratively on one occasion but literally on the other?

I guess I’m not sure he was talking about the same thing.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I guess I am wondering, since you seem to be satisfied with your own interpretation, what else do you need?

Can’t say I’m satisfied with my opinion. But I’m wanting to talk about it, so I started a thread. I don’t know what the Magesterium teaches about the parts of Jn 6 that are relevant to this thread. I’ve only heard apologists talk about it.

 

[John_Martin]

It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life

“What words are spirit and life, Jesus?”
“Why of course the words unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you for my flesh is bread indeed and my blood is drink indeed - those are the words that if you believe me you will do what I have told you and you will have life because you have eaten my flesh and because you have drunk my blood. Then when I am within you you, since you have consumed me, the Holy Spirit, which will raise me from the dead, will also be life in you because you have my body within you just as the Spirit raises my body from the tomb.”

We have 1 Lord - the church tells us his name is Jesus
We have 1 faith - we believe the faithful witness of the church that we have life in our Lord
We have 1 baptism - the church gave us salvation by joining us to Christ in baptism and giving us the Holy Spirit as commanded by our Lord
And this Holy Catholic Church taught us that John 6 refers to the Eucharist

We must eat what Jesus gives us to eat, but moreso, we must believe the words where he tells us what we have eaten, for then we are eating with faith.

John Martin

 

[Thom18]

1. Jesus said that the flesh is of no avail, not His flesh. He’d just spent an entire speech telling His disciples that the bread from Heaven (which He calls His flesh) gives life to the world. That’s a far cry from availing nothing. Aside from that, Spirit and Life don’t translate to, “I was being metaphorical”. The phrase points to an ultimate truth.
2. Just as with anything else, the apostles waited when they heard this. They talked amongst themselves on several occasions concerning His words and the things He taught, trying to decipher His message. When the apostles finally realized that Jesus was speaking plainly about His execution, Peter acted first and rebuked Him. Once he (and the others) accepted it, however, they didn’t immediately hand Him over to the chief priests and scribes to get it over with. They spent the Passover with Him and allowed His earthly ministry to end naturally. They were then able to receive Him in the Eucharist on the night He was betrayed and could fully understand what He had said to them the year before during that Passover (John 6).