Don’t see John 6 as referring to Eucharist

[1Lord1Faith]

Jesus said that the flesh is of no avail, not His flesh.

Yeah, I’ve heard that one before. It doesn’t make sense to take it in that way given it’s context.

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

I’ve never heard that before. I didn’t think any of the Apostles knew what was about to happen, even Judas.

 

[chessnerd321]

Especially the part about disciples walking away, which popular apologists are often using as a justification for a literal “Eucharistic” reading of the Discourse.

Why do you think they walked away? I agree with Catholic apologists that this is a powerful point. I really don’t think that if it was just Jesus’ veiled attempted to tell them he was the Christ that he would’ve let them walk.

Some of them clearly left because of his, in your opinion, metaphor. “How can He give us his flesh to eat?” That would be a perfect time to say “no no wait I’m just trying to say I’m God.” But he did not. What Jesus did not say in John 6 speaks almost as loudly as what he did.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Some of them clearly left because of his, in your opinion, metaphor.

I’m not saying it was a metaphor. I’m saying that Jews understood what Jesus was hinting at, and they thought that it was difficult to accept. Jesus was hinting at his divinity, and that is why they walked away.

The disciples he was speaking to would have no understanding at all of the Eucharist. I don’t think Jesus would have tried to explain it to them. There is only a veiled mention of sacrifice, no mention of a covenant, and no mention of ritual.

Rather, I think Jn 6 is a first step into understanding who Jesus is. Jesus is the word of God made flesh. The words are spirit and life. The literal flesh is not.

 

[chessnerd321]

I believe I addressed your point in my last paragraph:

You say they left because Jesus said he was divine. They said they left because “how can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Which one do you expect me to believe?

If they left because Jesus was telling them to eat Him, but Jesus was only saying He is divine, then Jesus let them walk for no reason. Is our savior a fool? I say no.

 

[John_Martin]

Rather, I think Jn 6 is a first step into understanding who Jesus is.

The 12 did not understand who Jesus was; in fact he asked them, “will you leave also?”
The requirement to eat Jesus flesh and drink his blood was a hard saying and they did not understand, no one, not even these 12.

“Will you leave also?”
“To whom shall we go; you have the words of eternal life; we have no clue what you are talking about: eating your flesh, etc. However, we know that if we stay with you we will find out; then we will eat and drink what you give us and we will know what we are eating because we have believed your words which are Spirit and Truth. So in answer to your question, no we will not go away; we will stay with you, Jesus, because you have the words of eternal life when you tell us about the bread from heaven being your flesh.”

 

[1Lord1Faith]

You say they left because Jesus said he was divine. They said they left because “how can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Which one do you expect me to believe?

Disciple(s) started out asking for a sign, one like manna in the exodus. Jesus tells them that he is the bread of life (manna). The Jews listening to him would have understood what he meant when he said that he was the bread of life and they needed to eat him. What they are asking is - how can he do this, isn’t he the son of Joseph, a mere mortal man. How can we eat a mortal man’s flesh. They didn’t believe that he was divine, hence, they left.

 

[Vico]

…

Haydock Commentary on John 6:

Concluding reflexions on this chapter. … If we believe the water was changed into wine at the marriage feast of Cana; if we believe that the bread in the hands of Christ and his apostles was not diminished, by being broken and divided among five thousand, why cannot we believe the miracle of the Eucharist on the authority of Christ’s word, “the bread that I will give you, is my flesh? This is my body,” &c. Not one of all the ancient Fathers has ever denied the real presence; not one of them all has ever said, that the body of Jesus Christ is received in figure only.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

The 12 did not understand who Jesus was

Peter understands at this moment. It seems to be a version of Peter’s confession.

“But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.” As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.67Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”68Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.69We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.” Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you…”

When Jesus says “Did I not choose you,…” he is reiterating what he said just before in vs 44:

Jesus answered and said to them, “Stop murmuring. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him,…”

 

[John_Martin]

Peter understands at this moment. It seems to be a version of Peter’s confession.

I am afraid not. Peter did not understand; he wanted to be with Jesus, believing Jesus spoke only the truth even about eating his flesh, but he did not understand, and that is why he denied him 3 times. He did not understand at the Last Supper even though he ate what was given to him. The Father drew him to want to be with Jesus, but he did not yet understand. Don’t you remember all the conversations at the Last Supper when Jesus was asked, “Show us the Father,” Etc.? And how Jesus wondered at the lack of understanding of all the disciples.
It was only after the resurrection when Peter and John ran to the tomb and looked inside that they finally understood.
Remaining with Jesus is the first import. After that, understanding will finally come.

John Martin

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I am afraid not. Peter did not understand;

I think the scripture says it plainly in Jn 6 as well as Mt 16:

When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”15He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”17Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 18And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church…/ …Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah.

 

[Todd_Easton]

The connection between the Eucharist and the Bread of Life Discourse might be a little more apparent if you were reading John 6 in the original Greek. In the original Greek, related forms of the word “Eucharist” (Greek: εὐχαριστία) appear in verses 11 and 23, which lead right into his Bread of Life discourse:

11 Jesus then took the loaves, and when he had given thanks (Greek: εὐχαριστήσας), he distributed them to those who were seated;

23 However, boats from Tiberias came near the place where they ate the bread after the Lord had given thanks (Greek: εὐχαριστήσαντος).

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Jesus was saying the blessing over the unleavened bread because the event happened during the feast of unleavened bread which lasted for seven days after Passover.

This all has a connection to the Eucharist in a “fulfillment” type of way, but the unleavened bread had a place in the life of Jesus before the Eucharist was instituted.

 

[po18guy]

It is not what Jesus taught. It is not what the Apostles believed. It is not what the Apostles practiced. It is contrary to Luther. It is contrary to Calvin.

Epic fail.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Epic fail

And on that note… goodnight.

 

[John_Martin]

I think the scripture says it plainly in Jn 6 as well as Mt 16:

If that is what you were saying that Peter understood: "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” then according to your logic you are. also saying that Peter knew that Jesus could give his flesh to eat, whereas the others who went away and John 6 did not believe that Jesus could give his flesh to eat, because they believed he did not come from heaven, but Peter knew he was from heaven, so Peter according to your logic knew he could eat Jesus flesh and drink his blood.
That is your logic - people went away because Jesus was not from heaven and could not give them bread from heaven.

But, in fact, while Peter believed in Jesus, he did not know what Jesus was talking about until after the resurrection.

“Do you still not understand?” How often Jesus asks that question of the 12!
He asked that question in Matthew 16 which you quoted and then shortly after Peter made his good confession Peter shows that he did not understand again even though he said Jesus was the Christ.
Jesus told them that the crucifixion must happen to the Christ that Peter confessed him to be.
'Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. “Far be it from You, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to You!”
But Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me. For you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.” ’

Peter believed in Jesus but he did not understand at all. And he got back behind Jesus and followed rather than trying to lead, and when the time came he took what Jesus handed to him and ate it and took the Chalice Jesus handed to him and drank from it, and after the resurrection understood what he had eaten and drunk.

John Martin

 

[Chris4]

Jesus handed to him and ate it and took the Chalice Jesus handed to him and drank from it, and after the resurrection understood what he had eaten and drunk.

Yes, Martin, you have put it simply and well. Again, symbolically, Cleophas and companion were “walking away” from Jerusalem to Emmaus because they had yet to fully understand the Eucharist. Jesus had to give them this reality of the Eucharist in connection with His eternally divine presence in it.

 

[chessnerd321]

Your theory is not sufficient. What I’ve been trying to say is that at best your explanation can only explain up to verse 51. Verses 52-54 are pretty clear. The objection is no longer “Jesus is human” but “Jesus wants us to eat him”. But Jesus doubles down.

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

If that is what you were saying that Peter understood: "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” then according to your logic you are. also saying that Peter knew that Jesus could give his flesh to eat

I’m saying that Peter understood that Jesus is divine. That’s all Peter understood at that point. Some of the other disciples did not buy it, and they walked away.

I agree that Peter did not understand the Eucharist at that time. How could he? It would have been impossible.

To understand the Eucharist, one must understand Jesus’ divinity first. That is what I think Jn 6 is primarily about. The fact that there are similarities between Jesus’ explaining his divinity through a “bread of life” discourse, and the realities of the Eucharist, does not necessarily make them inclusive to each other. They share an element, but I don’t see Jn 6 as being primarily about the Eucharist.

 

[nightshade]

Great explanation!!!

 

[1Lord1Faith]

The objection is no longer “Jesus is human” but “Jesus wants us to eat him”. But Jesus doubles down.

What would Jesus’ disciples have understood Jesus to mean when he said “eat” and “flesh”. They would not have thought that Jesus wanted them to literally eat him. That should be obvious. The disciples would have understood Jesus to be say something about His nature.