John 6:25-59 The Bread of Life

[Miguel_Sastre]

Yes, but Catholics throughout the centuries have repeatedly pointed back to Jesus’ words in John, chapter 6.

Centuries of pedigree, however, doesn’t mean “right.” For centuries Catholics thought “repent” meant “do penance,” and for centuries, they were wrong. An error is an error no matter how long its held.

They believe it is something Jesus Himself taught–that we must literally eat His flesh (in the form of the Eucharistic bread) in order to receive eternal life.

But you’re not “literally” eating his flesh. Again, no one takes John 6 literally except the Jews in Capernaum who MISUNDERSTOOD him. It’s the same misunderstanding that the Samaritan woman had when she took him literally about “drinking” the living water. If you really were taking Jesus literally, then you would conclude, as the Jews did, that Jesus was advocating cannibalism as a means to eternal life.

So I suppose I should ask a similar question to the one I asked in the last post: There are millions of Catholics who believe Jesus said they cannot make it to Heaven if they don’t eat His flesh. If they are misunderstanding Him, then doesn’t He know this :

Your church doesn’t teach salvation by eating flesh and drinking blood. My goodness, a good Buddhist can go to heaven as far as your church is concerned. If you had a consistent interpretation of John 6, you’d have to conclude that anyone who rejects “real presence” is damned. But in your religion you don’t even have to believe in Jesus to be saved, much less that he’s truly present in the Eucharist. So it seems to me that you either ought to believe less than you do about John 6 or a lot more. For if Jesus was making the belief in/and consumption of the Eucharist a requirement for salvation, and if only those with valid orders can consecrate, then it would seem that one cannot be saved without the Eucharist. And since the verbs are present tense “eats” and “drinks,” then this implies regular reception of the Eucharist as a requirement for salvation. This raises the question of just how frequent it needs to be. Is a Catholic who hasn’t been to communion in years still saved? How many times/how often do we need to go to communion to be saved?

If you want to read John 6:51-58 as teaching real presence, then do be consistent all the way through and conclude that the Eucharist is also necessary for salvation. But your church doesn’t teach that. But why not?

So far you haven’t given a single reason for taking Jesus “literally” in John 6 that is actually based on a contextual reading of John 6. All I’m hearing is that lot’s of people a long time ago believed Jesus was speaking literally. How do we know they were right?

 

[steve_b]

I’d say this. I think there is a tendency among Catholics to exaggerate the continuity between the fathers and later church teachings. I’m not saying there’s no continuity; rather I’m saying there is often discontinuity. I fact there were multiple understandings of “this is my body” in the early church. The mere fact of multiple understandings doesn’t bother me, nor does it constitute proof that “the Church fell away from the Apostolic teaching.”

This would be a good time to quote some sources.
ms:

Let me give you an analogy. According to your church, there are several acceptable solutions to predestination issue. A Catholic can accept unconditional election (e.g.,Aquinas) or conditional election (e.g., Molina) This is fascinating to me since both positions are mutually exclusive. Nevertheless, would you say that your church has “fallen away from the Apostolic teaching” simply because there is more than one acceptable view within the pale of Roman Catholic orthodoxy?

Catholics have an easy way to find out what the Church teaches. Otherwise it’s too easy to get wrapped up in false opinions

• Catholic encyclopedia
• Catechism of the Catholic Church.

elect http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05374a.htm

election ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=election&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

elect CCC http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=elect&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

predestination http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm

predestined CCC http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=predestined&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

 

[spockrates]

Centuries of pedigree, however, doesn’t mean “right.” For centuries Catholics thought “repent” meant “do penance,” and for centuries, they were wrong. An error is an error no matter how long its held.

True. That’s why it’s important for me and you to figure out whether they are in error.

But you’re not “literally” eating his flesh. Again, no one takes John 6 literally except the Jews in Capernaum who MISUNDERSTOOD him. It’s the same misunderstanding that the Samaritan woman had when she took him literally about “drinking” the living water. If you really were taking Jesus literally, then you would conclude, as the Jews did, that Jesus was advocating cannibalism as a means to eternal life.

You mean, “But *they *are not literally,” don’t you? I have not become Catholic, at least not yet! I’m currently investigating the truth.

I’m not sure I understand you. If the bread is literally Jesus’ flesh, then how are Catholics not literally eating His flesh?

Your church doesn’t teach salvation by eating flesh and drinking blood. My goodness, a good Buddhist can go to heaven as far as your church is concerned. If you had a consistent interpretation of John 6, you’d have to conclude that anyone who rejects “real presence” is damned.

Damned to a temporary Purgatory, perhaps, but not necessarily to a permanent Hell.

But in your religion you don’t even have to believe in Jesus to be saved, much less that he’s truly present in the Eucharist. So it seems to me that you either ought to believe less than you do about John 6 or a lot more.

Yes, I’d say a lot more.

For if Jesus was making the belief in/and consumption of the Eucharist a requirement for salvation, and if only those with valid orders can consecrate, then it would seem that one cannot be saved without the Eucharist. And since the verbs are present tense “eats” and “drinks,” then this implies regular reception of the Eucharist as a requirement for salvation. This raises the question of just how frequent it needs to be. Is a Catholic who hasn’t been to communion in years still saved? How many times/how often do we need to go to communion to be saved?

But in Catholic theology, there is a difference from being saved from Hell and being able to enter Heaven. One can be saved from Hell, they say, yet still end up in Purgatory. You see, they don’t see a separation of salvation and sanctification–they see them as inseparable, like different sides of the same coin.

If you want to read John 6:51-58 as teaching real presence, then do be consistent all the way through and conclude that the Eucharist is also necessary for salvation. But your church doesn’t teach that. But why not?

I believe it does–if by salvation you mean getting into Heaven. I agree that it does not, if by salvation you mean a get out of Hell free card.

So far you haven’t given a single reason for taking Jesus “literally” in John 6 that is actually based on a contextual reading of John 6. All I’m hearing is that lot’s of people a long time ago believed Jesus was speaking literally. How do we know they were right?

True, but you misunderstand my motives. I’m not trying to prove you wrong, or prove them right. I’m just asking questions and trying to figure out the truth for myself. With that as my goal, please let me ask you again what I’m wondering: Do you think Jesus knew His words would mislead His own disciples then, and millions of Catholics later?

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Yes, in this case, literally is the most reasonable way to go! So they thought Jesus was speaking of eating His flesh. If He was not speaking literally, then they misunderstood Him.

They did misunderstand him just like people do throughout John’s gospel. What you need to show is why there’s an exception here. That is, why aren’t they misunderstanding Jesus here?

If fact, I think what you could do to salvage your position is posit a case of irony (which is also all over John’s gospel). In this case, Jesus is speaking literally (about the Eucharist, but not advocating cannibalism). Thus they misunderstand Jesus (at one level) even though, IRONICALLY, they’ve got it right (without knowing why they’re right).

That’s a possible interpretation, and so perhaps at the end of the day, the Eucharist is in view after all. The only problem, is that there’s no Eucharist in John! No where does Jesus institute the meal. So if the Eucharist is in mind at all, it’s definitely in the background of church history, but NOT the foreground of the gospel text itself.

Jesus frequently alludes to future fulfillments in John’s gospel. So, for example, when he talks about destroying the temple and raising it again, the Jews misunderstand him to be speaking about the literal temple. (Again, they take him literally, when he when he was speaking metaphorically.) But the metaphor of temple does correspond to a literal reality–his risen body. Question: Do we have a fulfillment of this in John’s gospel? Yes–for he is going to record the Resurrection as an actual event. So the “temple” (Jesus’ body) is going to be raised on the third day. It’s prophesied in John. It’s fulfilled in John.

The same is true when Jesus tells Nicodemus he must be “lifted up” in John 3:14, so that all who “believe in him” may have eternal life. (There’s that belief in him thing again). This too is a prophecy in John. Is it fulfilled in John? Yes! For John records a the crucifixion.

Now you’re arguing that “unless you eat my flesh” etc. is the Eucharist. It could be. But if this is a prophecy of the Eucharist, we don’t find it fulfilled in John. Your argument needs to plausibly account for its absence. Since John doesn’t mention the Lord’s Supper in connection with “eating flesh” and “drinking blood,” we have prima facie evidence for at least CONSIDERING the POSSIBILITY that there MAY BE another referent for those terms.

We don’t need to look later on in John’s gospel nor later on in church history nor to another book of the New Testament. John himself explains what those terms mean in the very chapter we’re reading. They’re the functional equivalents of “coming to” and “believing in” Jesus, since both are connected to having eternal life. I think the graphicness of the terms alludes to God’s wrath and therefore the most likely referent here is the cross itself. Just as Jesus is “lifted up,” and we believe in him for eternal life, so too “eating flesh” and “drinking blood,” probably allude to belief in the crucified Christ who bore our sin and whom the wrath of God was poured out.

That these ideas come together in the Eucharist is definitely biblical, in my view. “Whenever you eat…you proclaim the death of the Lord” etc. But if John has the Eucharistic meal in view here, it’s strange that he doesn’t connect the dots. But there is a crucifixion, with all kinds of hints that Jesus is the lamb of God upon whom our sin was laid in John’s portrayal of the crucifixion.

So–instead of reading in later concepts of “real presence,” why not just listen to John/Jesus himself? Why switch the focus to belief in a miracle (transubstantiation), and not belief in HIM? John has seven signs in his gospel. Not one of them is the Eucharist. So why add an eighth sign here unnecessarily?

But don’t Catholics take Him literally?

Not unless you’re redefining the word “literally.”

 

[steve_b]

Centuries of pedigree, however, doesn’t mean “right.” For centuries Catholics thought “repent” meant “do penance,” and for centuries, they were wrong. An error is an error no matter how long its held.

You’re getting off topic. So I don’t expect a response. But for your education on this, I would just submit the following

Look at penance and how it works with repentance in the following explanation
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm

Where is the error?

If you want to persue this topic maybe you’ll start a new thread.

 

[spockrates]

… Not unless you’re redefining the word “literally.”

Yes, perhaps I am literally using a different meaning for the word *literally *than you literally are!



Let me put it this way, and then please let me know if I have given and adequate explanation of the Catholic conception (which, I repeat, is not yet my own belief, but that I’m considering making my own): When Jesus said that if they destroyed His temple He would raise it again in three days, He was speaking literally. It was literal in that the temple they would destroy was a real temple (that being His body) and not a figurative and imaginative one. In the same way Catholics believe that when Jesus said we cannot have eternal life without first eating His flesh, He was speaking literally. It was literal in that the flesh we must eat is real bread (that being His body) and not figurative or imaginative flesh.

Just as the physical body Jesus resurrected was a literal body, so too the flesh Jesus said we need to eat is bread that is literally His flesh. The temple was His real and actual body. The bread is His real and actual flesh.

Now, I know you do not believe that is the truth, and I still have some doubts, but does that at least explain how Catholics believe they are eating the literal flesh of Jesus?

 

[spockrates]

They did misunderstand him just like people do throughout John’s gospel. What you need to show is why there’s an exception here. That is, why aren’t they misunderstanding Jesus here?

If fact, I think what you could do to salvage your position is posit a case of irony (which is also all over John’s gospel). In this case, Jesus is speaking literally (about the Eucharist, but not advocating cannibalism). Thus they misunderstand Jesus (at one level) even though, IRONICALLY, they’ve got it right (without knowing why they’re right). …

Yes, I believe that is the Catholic position: Jesus’ audience* got it*, in that they believed Him to be saying they must actually eat His flesh. They missed it if they believed Him to be speaking of cannibalism and not of the Eucharist. The disciples who did not leave Him in John, chapter 6 likely did not yet get it. At that point in time, He left His meaning unclear. At the Last Supper, He made it clear what He meant.

That brings me back to the same question, again: Do you think Jesus intentionally tried to mislead His disciples? I’d very much like to hear your opinion.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

That brings me back to the same question, again: Do you think Jesus intentionally tried to mislead His disciples? I’d very much like to hear your opinion.

No.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

When Jesus said that if they destroyed His temple He would raise it again in three days, He was speaking literally.

The word “temple,” however, is a metaphor that has a “literal” referent. So depending upon how you look at it, he may have been speaking literally or metaphorically or both.

Those who heard him took him literally as referring to the Temple in Jerusalem. But that’s not what Jesus meant by “temple.” They misunderstood him because they didn’t catch his metaphor.

 

[spockrates]

No.

I agree. How could He? After all, the writer of Hebrews tells us:

… it is impossible for Got to lie.

(Hebrews 6:18)



Would you say, then, that when Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you,” (John 6:53) He could not possibly have been speaking of eating His *real *flesh, but only of eating His *symbolic *flesh?

 

[spockrates]

The word “temple,” however, is a metaphor that has a “literal” referent. So depending upon how you look at it, he may have been speaking literally or metaphorically or both.

Those who heard him took him literally as referring to the Temple in Jerusalem. But that’s not what Jesus meant by “temple.” They misunderstood him because they didn’t catch his metaphor.

Agreed. Christ’s words were ambiguous. There were two possible meanings of *temple *–the building that was the Temple of the Arc of the Covanent, or the body that was the Temple of the Spirit of the Son of God. The author John explained that the former meaning applied.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

I Would you say, then, that when Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you,” (John 6:53) He could not possibly have been speaking of eating His *real *flesh, but only of eating His *symbolic *flesh?

We both agree that Jesus isn’t lying here. The question is what he means by “eating flesh” and “drinking blood.”

If you take these terms “literally,” then you’re “literally” committing cannibalism. I don’t see any way around that.

If you’re like me, and take those terms metaphorically, then you’re “metaphorically” committing cannibalism. I don’t see any way around that either.

That’s why I’m a proud, card-carrying, metaphorical cannibal.

 

[spockrates]

We both agree that Jesus isn’t lying here. The question is what he means by “eating flesh” and “drinking blood.”

If you take these terms “literally,” then you’re “literally” committing cannibalism. I don’t see any way around that.

If you’re like me, and take those terms metaphorically, then you’re “metaphorically” committing cannibalism. I don’t see any way around that either.

That’s why I’m a proud, card-carrying, metaphorical cannibal.

Yes, but for me, personally, the important question is whether Jesus was speaking of His real flesh, or His symbolic flesh. What do you think?

 

[ncgolf]

We both agree that Jesus isn’t lying here. The question is what he means by “eating flesh” and “drinking blood.”

Good … because he isn’t. Jesus’s words are effacious, they do what they say. What you cannot say is that it is not possible for Jesus to do what he says.

How is your question different than verse 52, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat.” The same doubts of those 2000 years ago is the same doubt you post today. The question is no different. They left because they took him literally, you stay but don’t believe his words.

If you take these terms “literally,” then you’re “literally” committing cannibalism. I don’t see any way around that.

The act of cannibilism requires the one to be eaten to be dead. Jesus is not dead, he refers to himself as “living bread” and “the bread that I give is my flesh.” Jesus is telling us he is very much alive so you cannot use the term cannibilism, you can use another term but not that one. Cannibilism is the absolute incorrect term for what is happening … so pick another word.

If you’re like me, and take those terms metaphorically, then you’re “metaphorically” committing cannibalism.

The context of John 6 … is in light of the Passover. To survive the night of the first Passover … you had to eat the sacrificed lamb. You had to consume the sacrifice to survive, there were no metaphorical eatings. Jesus is telling us that he indeed is the Passover sacrifice but unlike those other sacrifices whoever consumes it will live forever. Why do you think John sets the stage so early in verse 4 “The Jewish time of Passover is near”

 

[Nita]

Something I’ve wondered about – and this is for the non Catholics:

Do you ever ask Jesus to come and dwell in you? Ask Him to come into your heart?
When you do, do you sort of mean, " Come Jesus, but only your divinity; – please leave your glorified humanity behind (your soul and life filled flesh). Somehow or another, please separate yourself from it, because I don’t want that part of you within me. ?? I only want the Second Person of the Triune God - not You 'Jesus", God Incarnate."

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Good … because he isn’t. Jesus’s words are effacious, they do what they say. What you cannot say is that it is not possible for Jesus to do what he says.

You’ve lost me. Where did I ever say otherwise?

How is your question different than verse 52, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat.” The same doubts of those 2000 years ago is the same doubt you post today. The question is no different. They left because they took him literally, you stay but don’t believe his words.

They in deed took him literally. But that was precisely the problem. They misunderstood him because he was speaking metaphorically, not literally. Besides, it’s not clear that the reason they left him was because they took him literally. John 6:66 says they left him. But read the previous verse (no really, read it). Here Jesus tells them that no one can come to him unless the Father ordains it. That’s what we call unconditional election coupled with efficacious grace. A lot of people have trouble with that doctrine. So when we see–in the next verse–some of his disciples walking away, what is the nearest antecedent? (Answer: the previous verse).

So as you can see, you’re begging a huge question, because you’re assuming at the outset that Jesus/John have the Eucharist in mind here. That has to be argued from the text, not assumed. But as I see it, there is no clear connection between eating flesh/drinking blood and the Lord’s Supper in John.

The act of cannibilism requires the one to be eaten to be dead.

This is called “special pleading.” You’re narrowly defining your terms so as to exclude any possible objections. I’m using the generally accepted idea that cannibalism refers to eating the flesh of your own species, whether dead or alive.

Cannibilism is the absolute incorrect term for what is happening … so pick another word.

You may find the term “distasteful,” (pun intended), but it’s exactly the right term for describing the Jews’ misunderstanding of Jesus’ words–if they were taking him literally.

The context of John 6 … is in light of the Passover. To survive the night of the first Passover … you had to eat the sacrificed lamb.

And yet there is no reference to Jesus as the sacrificial “lamb” in John 6. We do know from 1:29, for example, that he is the “lamb of God.” But we’re never told to “eat” the lamb, nor is there any place in John where people “eat” the lamb. What we are told is to “follow” the lamb. If you’re going to use the Passover to control the entire interpretation of John 6 (which is highly dubious) how do you explain the command to “drink” blood? I can see the eating of lamb. But what about the drinking of blood? Was part of the Passover does this refer to?

Why do you think John sets the stage so early in verse 4 “The Jewish time of Passover is near”

I’m not sure. Perhaps he’s just telling us when the bread of life discourse took place. Or maybe we are intended to understand the whole discourse in terms of the Passover. But what aspect of the Passover are we supposed to detect here? After all, there’s no mention of “lamb” in the bread of life discourse. But there is mention of “manna.” This alludes to the Exodus. There certainly are a lot of allusions to Old Testament motifs in John 6. But there doesn’t seem to be any allusion to the Eucharist.

 

[Murphs10]

They in deed took him literally. But that was precisely the problem. They misunderstood him because he was speaking metaphorically, not literally. Besides, it’s not clear that the reason they left him was because they took him literally. .

It does not say the problem was a misunderstanding. Jesus makes clear what the problem is:

John 6
64: But there are some of you that do not believe." For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

It does not say the problem was a misunderstanding. Jesus makes clear what the problem is:

John 6
64: But there are some of you that do not believe." For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.

First, there is misunderstanding. That is evident from the Jews’ question, “how can he give us his flesh to eat?”

Second, Jesus isn’t requiring belief THAT bread and wine become his body and blood (again, there is no Eucharist in John). He is requiring belief IN him.

The problem is that the Jews didn’t understand that they had to believe in HIM to have eternal life. John 6 couldn’t be any clearer about this.

 

[Nita]

… He is requiring belief IN him.

The problem is that the Jews didn’t understand that they had to believe in HIM to have eternal life. John 6 couldn’t be any clearer about this.

In concrete terms, what do you say is required by a person in order to fulfill the requirement to “believe IN him”?
“How” does one believe IN Him?
In what way were the Jews failing to believe in Him?

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Summary of the debate so far…

It seems to me that the few of us continuing this thread have pretty much “fleshed out” (yes, that was bad, sorry) the major interpretative issues in John 6. Here’s my take of the Catholic perspective:

The Catholic argument as I understand it:

1. Keep the big picture in mind: Passover. Passover sheds light on what it means to “eat flesh,” since in order to escape God’s wrath, one had to “eat” the Passover lamb. Thus the “flesh” we eat is actually the flesh of the “lamb.”
2. The multiplication of the loaves is a “type” of the Eucharist.
3. Jesus is the bread of life, which is identified as his flesh, which we literally eat. So when we “eat of this bread,” we’re actually eating Jesus.
   4a. When the Jews objected and asked, “how can he give us his flesh to eat,” Jesus does not correct their misunderstanding because they didn’t misunderstand.
   4b. If they had misunderstand, then Jesus would have corrected them. But since he did not, we can be sure that they in fact understood him correctly.
4. Jesus was speaking literally and they took him literally. The problem is that they didn’t believe him. They didn’t believe that he was requiring his followers to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to have eternal life.
5. Catholics claim to be taking Jesus at his word (i.e., literally). But they categorically reject the notion that this entails cannibalism.
6. So even though eating flesh/drinking blood isn’t cannibalism, they nevertheless insist that they are literally eating his flesh and drinking his blood in the Eucharist.
7. Catholics believe that the only legitimate interpretation of “eating flesh” and “drinking blood” requires a belief in the real presence (and specifically, the theory of transubstantiation) of Jesus in the Eucharist.
8. The “unbelief” of those in John 6 lies in their rejection of the doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
9. Those who decided not to follow Jesus any longer did so because they didn’t believe in Jesus’ theology of the Eucharist.

Am I leaving anything out?