And if the Church is right about that…
I am interested in listening to what you say. I cannot agree to being “open minded” because that usually implies that either I agree or I am being close-minded–but I will listen…Do you think I have been close minded thus far?
Earlier he had written in Why did He let them walk away?
Now Scott Hahn has also dug into history and he comes up with a conclusion diametrically opposed to that of Patton:
Is Patton’s Authorial Intent Hermeneutic of John 6 a gnostic reading disguised in the language of the academy of scholars? Does Patton actually go to step 2 in correctly discerning the eternal message which goes beyond the historical message? Does Hahn?
I concede that there is a lot of reading at the links I have given above. Here is a summary of one aspect of that discussion:
Well exactly. But some folks are big on Calvinist predestination, aren’t that concerned with doing an end run around free will, and so do not see a problem with allowing the disciples to walk away with a lack of understanding.
Only some.
Christ often spoke cryptically to unbelievers and those who were doubting what he was saying. Many times refusing to accept his words and throwing their hands in the air. Is there any reason to believe he did not do this here?Only some.
Once I was able to get agreement that the Jews present there were disgusted over what Christ was saying, The idea that Christ let them walk away under a misunderstanding logically came next. A few conceded that they could not answer, but “knew” there was an explanation somewhere.
Others pointed to Pharaoh in the book of Exodus as an example of God hardening someone’s heart. So this deception was not really so as God had full knowledge and knew these people would leave no matter…etc.
There are some that simply will not see.
Well for those people to be like Pharoah, they would have already had to have made a decision against Jesus. But they were disciples of Jesus, not anti-Christians!Others pointed to Pharaoh in the book of Exodus as an example of God hardening someone’s heart. So this deception was not really so as God had full knowledge and knew these people would leave no matter…etc.
Can you give us some examples please? Thank you.
How can you believe confessionally in the Real Presence and yet believe Jesus is using imagery? Here are a few ideas on metaphor and parallelism which do not negate the Real Presence:
And He was using parallelism: The reason the disciples left is the same reason the apostles stayed. Why do I say that? Parallelism. Jesus sets up the parallelism by noting that some left and some stayed.
Sure. Classically this is demonstrated in the parables he told. All of which, while symbolic, had real actual meaning. He only deciphered this meaning to the twelve in most instances. The mass of listeners he spoke to, however, were often left in the dark, with Christ relying on the work of the Spirit in interpreting His words.
Simply because I do not think the Real Presence is the subject of this passage. It is faith in Him and what He was sent to do. As one other poster pointed out, John doesn’t even make reference to the institution. The main point of John’s gospel is, as he later states, “that you may believe in Christ, and have life in his name.” If the point of the gospel is that very thing, for what purpose would he include a reference to communion in John 6, and then not even bother to include the actual communion narrative?
But did he not always say when he was using non-metaphoric figures of speech and when he was not. In John 6 he reiterates exactly what he means many times.
We don’t know this. You are not taking into account the Real Presence of Jesus and the impact of the Logos on the understanding of those present. Jesus often spoke to the crowds through the questions of the few.
Again you are discounting the Real Presence of Jesus, the impact of the Logos on the understanding of those present. They were being asked to make a choice. For them to choose without knowing exactly what they were choosing would make Jesus a trickster – which he was not.
Um… we are talking about John 6 and the bread and wine of the Eucharist. I believe I have already given a link to Hahn’s The Fourth Cup.
Well, that is one aspect of the passage.
Does he have to? Hahn points out that the readership of that time would have been completely conversant with the concept of the fourth cup and that Jesus takes the fourth cup not at the Institution but at the Cross. If you will notice, Jesus only takes three cups at the Last Supper.
We’ve gone over all this in:
How can’t it be? He is talking about himself, and the work one must do to be given this “bread” in the future which he identifies with himself personally. I’ll admit that Jesus doesn’t give a sign in wine to the disciples while making his points, but the bread is there – and the context of the discussion is the promise of a new bread/meat in the future.
A metaphor – to carry after – is certainly being used. The Eucharist does not share the visible appearance of Jesus’ earthly body, so that this singular difference in appearance would seem to make the statement metaphorical by itself. There is the added complication that at the time Jesus made the statement, his flesh was not yet glorified as it is now.