John 6:25-59 The Bread of Life

[spockrates]

That seems be reversing the polarity. The rest of the text I quoted says “to believe in him is to eat the living bread.” I don’t have a copy of PL handy, but if this is a good translation, then the object of “believe” is “him.” Your argument above seems to substitute “that the bread is Christ’s real body” for Augustine’s “him.” That doesn’t seem like a justifiable substitution.

In other words, Augustine is making the object of our belief the person of Christ (i.e., “him”) and NOT the belief THAT the bread has been changed, still less that it has ceased to be bread.

In yet other words, Augustine seems to saying that when we believe in Jesus (i.e., put our faith in Him), then by this act we “eat the bread.” This seems to imply that Augustine understood “eating” to be metaphorical language for belief.

Does that mean Augustine denies the “real presence” of Christ in the Eucharist? I don’t think so in light of so many other things he says about the Eucharist, which is why earlier I said that he is widely believed to have held to the “realism” of his contemporaries (cf. Early Christian Doctrines, J.N.D. Kelly, p. 447)
…

Then do you think Saint Augustine was contradicting himself when he wrote this about Jesus’ Last Supper?

“For Christ was carried in His own hands when, referring to His own body, He said:‘This is my body.’ For He carried that body in His hands.”

–Saint Augustine (commentary on Psalms 33:10)

If not, please explain why not.

 

[spockrates]

That seems be reversing the polarity. The rest of the text I quoted says “to believe in him is to eat the living bread.” I don’t have a copy of PL handy, but if this is a good translation, then the object of “believe” is “him.” Your argument above seems to substitute “that the bread is Christ’s real body” for Augustine’s “him.” That doesn’t seem like a justifiable substitution. …

Perhaps you are correct, and (if you are) then I believe Augustine must be contradicting himself! Still, I’m not sure. Doesn’t believing in (or trusting) someone necessarily include believing in (or trusting) what that person says? Jesus asks you and I:

“Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?”

(Luke 6:46)

Doesn’t believing in Him require us to believe what He says about Himself (in this case, what He says about the His body and blood) and acting according to that belief?

 

[RBK]

The question I want to stay focused on, however, is the interpretation of John 6

John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat?

John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass.

John 6:23-53 - A symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word “phago” nine times. “Phago” literally means “to eat” or “physically consume.” Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus’ literal usage of “eat.” So Jesus does what?

John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as “trogo,” which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, “trogo” is never used metaphorically in Greek.** So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where “trogo” is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus’ words**. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).

John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says “For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed.” This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus’ flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as “sarx.” “Sarx” means flesh (not “soma” which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where “sarx” means flesh. It is always literal.

John 6:55 - further, the phrases “real” food and “real” drink use the word “alethes.” “Alethes” means “really” or “truly,” and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus’ flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.

John 6:60 - as are many anti-Catholics today, Jesus’ disciples are scandalized by these words. They even ask, “Who can ‘listen’ to it (much less understand it)?” To the unillumined mind, it seems grotesque.

John 6:61-63 - Jesus acknowledges their disgust. Jesus’ use of the phrase “the spirit gives life” means the disciples need supernatural faith, not logic, to understand His words.

Read further: scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html#eucharist-IIa

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Didn’t you (or someone else) just post these very arguments (verbatim) a day or two ago? I think I’ve pretty much rebutted all of them, yet no one has engaged those rebuttals. Let me try again.

John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat?

Yes, I think most of us agree that they Jews took him literally. (Although this isn’t certain. They might have been taking “eating flesh” in the metaphorical way the Old Testament uses such terms, in which case they would have been very confused, since those terms usually had to do with the execution of God’s wrath.) But for the sake of argument, let’s agree for now that they took him “literally.” If so, wouldn’t you agree that they would have heard Jesus as requiring an act of cannibalism? (From their perspective?) Yes/No?

John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation.

Also agreed. But what can we infer from the fact that Jesus does not correct them? Does this mean they had it right? Are you supposing here that Jesus would have corrected them? If so, why? Where else does Jesus correct the misunderstanding of unbelievers in John’s gospel? Was he in the habit of correcting misunderstanding? (Yes/No?) If yes, please cite examples from John’s gospel to establish some plausibility for your assumption.

Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh.

Two questions: 1. How does saying “truly, truly” entail an oath? (Especially when it is Jesus who tells us NOT to take oaths, (see Matthew 5:33-36, no really, read it.) 2. How does saying “truly, truly” (whether an oath or not) rule out metaphorical interpretations? Please explain. Would you agree, on your assumption, that if Jesus says “truly, truly” then he MUST be speaking literally? Yes/No? I ask because if “truly, truly” proves that Jesus was speaking literally, then what are we to make of this statement by Jesus?

“Truly, truly I am the door of the sheep” (John 10:7).

So, you can special plead to say one is literal and the other metaphorical, or you can be consistent and say either both are literal or both are metaphorical. Which choice are you going to make?

In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass.

I’m not sure there’s an argument here. If there is, then it would seem you are saying that Jesus was speaking literally because he repeated himself four times. So you seem to be saying, IF Jesus says X 4 times, then we know he was speaking literally. Is that your argument?

John 6:23-53 - A symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word “phago” nine times. “Phago” literally means “to eat” or “physically consume.” Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus’ literal usage of “eat.” So Jesus does what? John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as “trogo,” which means to gnaw or chew or crunch.

Now I am positive I did address this already. You’re making all kinds of mistakes here. First, there is probably no intended difference in meaning between “trago” and “phago,” since by the time of John’s gospel, the two terms had become synonyms. “Trago” once had the precise meaning of “chew,” but it is impossible to know if Jesus/John is invoking the older meaning of the term. Please do NOT take my word for this. Do a word study on the two terms (TDNT has a good treatment of both terms) or check out a commentary on John. Some have noticed that “trago” is what John uses when he’s using the present tense and “phago” when he’s using the aorist. Or he might be varying his terms for stylistic reasons as he does in several other places (e.g., “feed vs. tend” or “agapeo vs phileo” in John 21). So there is no way to establish that trago means something diffent than phago. There might be a different meaning, but there probably isn’t one.

You also claim that “trago” is “more literal.” How so exactly? Let’s suppose that you’re right and that “chew” is mind here. How exactly is this “more literal” than “eat”? I’d grant you that it is more graphic. But how is it more “literal?” How do you know that John/Jesus has not simply chosen a more graphic metaphor? I’d live to hear your views.

In the interest of time, I’m going to stop here. Perhaps you could address these points. If you do, then I’d be happy to address the rest of your argument (again). But for now, I think we have enough on our plate.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Then do you think Saint Augustine was contradicting himself when he wrote this about Jesus’ Last Supper?

“For Christ was carried in His own hands when, referring to His own body, He said:‘This is my body.’ For He carried that body in His hands.”

–Saint Augustine (commentary on Psalms 33:10)

If not, please explain why not.

I’d give Augustine the benefit of the doubt there and presume that he is NOT contradicting himself. (That doesn’t mean he’s incapable of doing so or that he never changed his theological mind. See his retractions to see that he had.)

Logically, however, there is no reason to suppose that a metaphorical reading of “eat” in John 6 entails a denial of the real presence. The text you cite that seems to support some kind of doctrine of real presence. (I’m betting a Lutheran and a Calvinist could agree with Augustine’s statement above since both understand Jesus to be “present” in the Eucharist. Neither of these, however, believed that the substance of the bread miraculously turns into the substance of Jesus with the accidents of bread miraculously continuing in existence apart from a substance. That’s the Catholic view. But it is dubious in deed to suppose it was Augustine’s view.)

Again, as I said before, unless Rome has dogmatically interpreted John 6, then a Catholic is free to come to any number of interpretations, including a metaphorical one. The question is, has Rome defined John 6’s “eating flesh” and “drinking blood” or not? I think only if you answer “yes,” would there be a problem reconciling Augustine to what later developed, and even then, it wouldn’t be fair to “grandfather” him in since, presumably, Augustine was not bound by any dogmatic interpretation which as of yet Rome had not given.

To give an analogy, it’s a matter of fact that both Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventure denied the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. But since the doctrine was still up for discussion, as it was all the way up to 1854, they (and any Catholic before then) were free to disagree. Likewise, I don’t see a problem with admitting that Augustine’s views on the Eucharist may not have squared with transubstantiation, which had not been defined yet (or even thought up yet). That doesn’t mean his views do not support a “real presence” of some kind.

 

[spockrates]

I’d give Augustine the benefit of the doubt there and presume that he is NOT contradicting himself. (That doesn’t mean he’s incapable of doing so or that he never changed his theological mind. See his retractions to see that he had.)

Logically, however, there is no reason to suppose that a metaphorical reading of “eat” in John 6 entails a denial of the real presence. The text you cite that seems to support some kind of doctrine of real presence. (I’m betting a Lutheran and a Calvinist could agree with Augustine’s statement above since both understand Jesus to be “present” in the Eucharist. Neither of these, however, believed that the substance of the bread miraculously turns into the substance of Jesus with the accidents of bread miraculously continuing in existence apart from a substance. That’s the Catholic view. But it is dubious in deed to suppose it was Augustine’s view.) …

If it’s not Saint Augustine’s view that the bread is the actual body of Christ, then what else could these words of Augustine mean?

For Christ was carried in His own hands when, referring to His own body, He said:‘This is my body.’ For He carried that body in His hands.

Please tell me, what does Augustine say Jesus was holding in His hands at the Last Supper?

 

[spockrates]

… Again, as I said before, unless Rome has dogmatically interpreted John 6, then a Catholic is free to come to any number of interpretations, including a metaphorical one. The question is, has Rome defined John 6’s “eating flesh” and “drinking blood” or not? I think only if you answer “yes,” would there be a problem reconciling Augustine to what later developed, and even then, it wouldn’t be fair to “grandfather” him in since, presumably, Augustine was not bound by any dogmatic interpretation which as of yet Rome had not given.

To give an analogy, it’s a matter of fact that both Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventure denied the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. But since the doctrine was still up for discussion, as it was all the way up to 1854, they (and any Catholic before then) were free to disagree. Likewise, I don’t see a problem with admitting that Augustine’s views on the Eucharist may not have squared with transubstantiation, which had not been defined yet (or even thought up yet). That doesn’t mean his views do not support a “real presence” of some kind.

Sounds reasonable to me. As Socrates himself said:

In any case, the question we’ve got to consider is not who said it, but whether or not the statement is true!

(Charmides, 161)

Do you agree, then, that it does not matter what Augustine, Aquinas, or Bonaventure says (as wise as these venerated Saints are) if what they say about a particular subject is not true? When it comes to discovering the truth about Christ and what He taught about His body and blood, we should first carefully consider what He says. Don’t you agree?

 

[nuntym]

+AJPM+

I am curious, Miguel Sastre. You have no answer to my question a few posts back. Why is that?

[Y]ou are saying what the disciples of Jesus said back then: “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” (John 6:60)

And thus I answer you with Jesus’ words: “Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?” (John 6:61-62)

Now this is interesting. Jesus verified what He just said about His Flesh being eaten and His Blood bring drunk by comparing it to His Ascension into Heaven. Is Jesus’ Ascension to Heaven “figurative” or “literal”?

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Hi,

[Y]ou are saying what the disciples of Jesus said back then: “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” (John 6:60)

And thus I answer you with Jesus’ words: “Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?” (John 6:61-62)

Now this is interesting. Jesus verified what He just said about His Flesh being eaten and His Blood bring drunk by comparing it to His Ascension into Heaven. Is Jesus’ Ascension to Heaven “figurative” or “literal”?

I’m not positive this is referring to the Ascension as we usually think about it in Luke/Acts. For John, Jesus’ ascending is equivalent to being “lifted up,” which is a reference to the cross. In John, the way back to where Jesus came from, “where he was before,” is the cross. So in context Jesus seems to be saying, “if you’re having trouble with eating flesh and drinking blood, wait until I’m crucified!” That, anyway, seems to be the sense.

By the way, one of the best commentaries on John’s gospel is the one by Raymond E. Brown in the Anchor Bible series (highly regarded by many Evangelicals). He also agrees with this interpretation (see. p. 296 in John I-XII) Of course, Fr. Brown (may he rest peace), was a Catholic. I know he’s often dismissed as a “liberal,” but even Steven Ray cites his commentary favorably in Crossing the Tiber (pp. 199; 204).

So to answer your question, I think Jesus is still speaking figuratively. Here “ascending” seems to be figurative for a literal crucifixion.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Sounds reasonable to me. As Socrates himself said:

In any case, the question we’ve got to consider is not who said it, but whether or not the statement is true!

(Charmides, 161)

Do you agree, then, that it does not matter what Augustine, Aquinas, or Bonaventure says (as wise as these venerated Saints are) if what they say about a particular subject is not true? When it comes to discovering the truth about Christ and what He taught about His body and blood, we should first carefully consider what He says. Don’t you agree?

Yes.

 

[spockrates]

Yes.

I agree. So let me show you what words of Christ changed me, and please let me know what you think. After the crowds leave in disbelief, Jesus turns to His disciples and says (among other things) this:

For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

(John 6:55)

These 12 words are complete, and completely blew my mind! You see, I originally thought (like you think) that eating was a metaphor–although I had a different metaphor in mind. But here Christ calls His body *real *(not symbolic) food. Despite my lack of desire to become Catholic and my desire to remain Evangelical, I personally could think of no way Jesus was advocating anything other than eating His actual flesh.

If you can find a different explanation of His words, then I’d really like to know what you know. Otherwise I have no choice but to go where the Truth leads me.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. (John 6:55)

These 12 words are complete, and completely blew my mind! You see, I originally thought (like you think) that eating was a metaphor–although I had a different metaphor in mind. But here Christ calls His body *real *

 

[nuntym]

+AJPM+

Hi,

I’m not positive this is referring to the Ascension as we usually think about it in Luke/Acts. For John, Jesus’ ascending is equivalent to being “lifted up,” which is a reference to the cross. In John, the way back to where Jesus came from, “where he was before,” is the cross. So in context Jesus seems to be saying, “if you’re having trouble with eating flesh and drinking blood, wait until I’m crucified!” That, anyway, seems to be the sense.

Wait a minute…

“Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?”

So are you telling me that His crucifixion at Golgotha was His second time?

By the way, one of the best commentaries on John’s gospel is the one by Raymond E. Brown in the Anchor Bible series (highly regarded by many Evangelicals). He also agrees with this interpretation (see. p. 296 in John I-XII) Of course, Fr. Brown (may he rest peace), was a Catholic. I know he’s often dismissed as a “liberal,” but even Steven Ray cites his commentary favorably in Crossing the Tiber (pp. 199; 204).

We would all like to know this interpretation of John chapter 6, Miguel. Can you please post it for us here for those who do not have access to that book like me?

So to answer your question, I think Jesus is still speaking figuratively. Here “ascending” seems to be figurative for a literal crucifixion.

That does not make sense, Miguel Sastre…unless you can show us proof that Christ’s crucifixion is His second time of being “lifted up” to a place He was previously before.

If not, then Jesus could have only been talking about His Ascension to heaven. And if so, can you please answer us:

Jesus verified what He just said about His Flesh being eaten and His Blood bring drunk by comparing it to His Ascension into Heaven. Is Jesus’ Ascension to Heaven “figurative” or “literal”?

 

[nuntym]

+AJPM+

Hi,

I’m not positive this is referring to the Ascension as we usually think about it in Luke/Acts. For John, Jesus’ ascending is equivalent to being “lifted up,” which is a reference to the cross. In John, the way back to where Jesus came from, “where he was before,” is the cross. So in context Jesus seems to be saying, “if you’re having trouble with eating flesh and drinking blood, wait until I’m crucified!” That, anyway, seems to be the sense.

Your argument is good…until we try to verify all of that in the original Greek used in St. John’s Gospel account.

Let us read what Jesus said to Mary Magdalene on the day of His resurrection:

Jesus said to her, “Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” John 20:17

And yes, the original Greek word used for “ascended” and “ascending” in John 20:17 is the same as that used in John 6:62. Besides, I do not think there is any proof that John used the Greek word for “ascend” to talk about Jesus’ crucifixion, but there is for John using it usually to designate Jesus’ Ascencion. Here is the link to the proof.

In contrast, it is the term “lifted up” that is used in John’s Gospel at least once to talk about Jesus crucifixion:

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up… John 3:14

Here are other uses.

By the way, one of the best commentaries on John’s gospel is the one by Raymond E. Brown in the Anchor Bible series (highly regarded by many Evangelicals). He also agrees with this interpretation (see. p. 296 in John I-XII) Of course, Fr. Brown (may he rest peace), was a Catholic. I know he’s often dismissed as a “liberal,” but even Steven Ray cites his commentary favorably in Crossing the Tiber (pp. 199; 204).

And that is why we usually dismiss “Catholic liberals”: they usually make bad theology just to push their own agendas. I hope Fr. Brown’s salvation has not been affected too much by his liberalism.

So to answer your question, I think Jesus is still speaking figuratively. Here “ascending” seems to be figurative for a literal crucifixion.

I hope you see that your reasoning is a bit lacking, Miguel.

So again, I ask ask you:

Jesus verified what He just said about His Flesh being eaten and His Blood bring drunk by comparing it to His Ascension into Heaven. Is Jesus’ Ascension to Heaven “figurative” or “literal”?

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Jesus verified what He just said about His Flesh being eaten and His Blood bring drunk by comparing it to His Ascension into Heaven. Is Jesus’ Ascension to Heaven “figurative” or “literal”?

If you’re correct that the Ascension is in view (and you might be, as you make a good case) then I’d say “literal.” Does that require us to see “eating flesh” as literal? If so, do explain. And if so, how would this not be “cannibalism?” If your argument is:

1. Jesus literally ascends to heaven (John 6:62).
   (2. Hidden premise: If Jesus is speaking literally in one place, he must be speaking literally in the other.)
   Therefore we must literally “eat flesh” and “drink blood.”

But once again, this raises the problem of cannibalism, because then it means to “literally” eat flesh and drink blood.

I think you can defend premise 1 above, though I still think the context makes it more likely that Jesus is speaking of his crucifixion. It seems difficult to understand why a literal ascension to heaven would be scandalous. But a crucifixion of their Messiah and King. Yes, that would be scandalous. But I’ll grant you that you have good reasons for connecting this to Jesus’ physical ascension to heaven. Let me think about this more.

Premise 2 is the problem. I think you’d have to make the case that if Jesus is speaking about a literal ascension in one place, he must be speaking about a literal eating of flesh in the other. How does that follow, exactly?

Finally, your conclusion raises more problems than it solves. For now you have to show how a “literal” eating of flesh isn’t cannibalism. In the Old Testament, “eating flesh” is often associated with cities under siege, with the result that people would result to cannibalism in order to survive.

Is it possible that Jesus is using the terms “eating flesh” and “drinking blood,” in a non-literal way?

I’ll ask this again. Are Catholics required by dogma to take these words “literally?”

 

[spockrates]

spockrates;6784852:

For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. (John 6:55)

There is some question as to whether the term is the adjective, ἀληθής (true) or the adverb, ἀληθῶς (truly). If you want to translate ἀληθής as “real,” (a possibility), then I wonder if you’d be willing to translate that same term elsewhere in John as “real.” For example, is Jesus “real” light (John 1:9). (If so, does Jesus behave more like a wave or a particle?) Is Jesus a “real” vine (John 15:1)? (If so, can we pick the grapes off him once they ripen?)

I suppose that if the Eucharist truly is the body of Christ, then His body must have properties more in common with a wave than with a particle! In that sense, His flesh might be a form of something akin to light. It would be like the flesh of those in the Star Trek science fiction motion pictures who are in the process of being moved from the surface of a planet to a starship via a transporter. Their flesh has more the property of waves than of a particles. If Gene Roddenberry can imagine it, I suppose God can accomplish it.

It seems to me that you are defining “real” and “symbolic” as opposites. But why is that? Remember what you’re translating as “real,” is really the Greek word for “true.” I simply don’t see the terms “true” and “symbolic” (or “metaphorical”) as mutually exclusive. Doesn’t the Bible often use symbols and metaphors to convey truth? And is this truth made less because it’s expressed in symbol or metaphor? (I think you may be assuming this implicitly.)

One reason why is that the word true, or truly can mean real or actual. Please consider my opening sentence in this post.

When Jesus says “my flesh is true (or real) food,” this does not mean he is claiming to be edible any more than he’s claiming to be a stream of photons (1:9) or a climbing plant (15:1). The word “real” or “true” does not mean “literal,” necessarily (or even probably), given the context.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Question. Had Jesus’ “hour” come in John 6? Or was his “hour” coming later? (13:1). If not, then could “these things” that Jesus said to his disciples possibly include the Bread of LIfe discourse? And if so, might that mean the Bread of Life discourse was primarily spoken in “figures of speech”? What’s your opinion?

Well, I agree that Jesus uses figures of speech, whether they be metaphors, or idioms, or other. But I want to avoid the logical error of employing the informal fallacy of making a hasty generalization. Even if Jesus has a habit of using a figure of speech in conjunction with the words I am, it is fallacious and not justified to say that He uses a figure of speech every time in conjunction with the words I am.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Well, I agree that Jesus uses figures of speech, whether they be metaphors, or idioms, or other. But I want to avoid the logical error of employing the informal fallacy of making a hasty generalization. Even if Jesus has a habit of using a figure of speech in conjunction with the words I am, it is fallacious and not justified to say that He uses a figure of speech every time in conjunction with the words I am.

I quite agree. It would be illogical to require Jesus to speak metaphorically every single time. Yet the text I quoted suggests, at the very minimum, that he more often spoke in figures of speech prior to his “hour.” Since his “hour” had not yet come when he gave the Bread of Life discourse, we would justified in claiming that, pending evidence to the contrary, Jesus was more likely to have spoken in figures of speech than literally. So while it is illogical to say he necessarily spoke in figures of speech, it isn’t illogical to say that he probably did. In other words, I think I’ve given a good argument for assuming that Jesus’ words about “eating flesh” and “drinking blood,” are *probably *metaphorical.

 

[spockrates]

I quite agree. It would be illogical to require Jesus to speak metaphorically every single time. Yet the text I quoted suggests, at the very minimum, that he more often spoke in figures of speech prior to his “hour.” Since his “hour” had not yet come when he gave the Bread of Life discourse, we would justified in claiming that, pending evidence to the contrary, Jesus was more likely to have spoken in figures of speech than literally. So while it is illogical to say he necessarily spoke in figures of speech, it isn’t illogical to say that he probably did. In other words, I think I’ve given a good argument for assuming that Jesus’ words about “eating flesh” and “drinking blood,” are *probably *metaphorical.

Yes, but since it is illogical to require Him to speak figuratively every time, then is it not likewise illogical to make the unwarranted assumption that He spoke figuratively in John, chapter 6? An employer of mine once wisely advised me:

Do not assume, or you will make an ARSE out of U and ME!

 

[spockrates]

In the interest of not making donkeys out of ourselves, I think the best way to proceed is to not assume anything. I should not make the unwarranted assumption that Jesus is speaking literally in John 6, and you should not assume that He is speaking figuratively in that chapter.

After all, Jesus says that eating His flesh is a (although certainly not the only) requirement for receiving eternal life. For either of us to make the wrong assumption about His words might have damning and eternal consequences. We should only come to the conclusion that He is speaking figuratively if the evidence demonstrates such. Likewise, we should not conclude that He is speaking literally unless we find good reason to believe so. Don’t you agree?

 

[Nita]

There are 7 “I AM” statements. Three of them can be understood literally with little or no qualifications:
I AM the good shepherd. (having called us “sheep”, his relationship is literally that of a shepherd as He goes on to define it)
I AM the resurrection and the life.
I AM the way, the truth and the life.

That leaves 4:
I AM the bread of life.
I AM the light of the world.
I AM the door/gate.
I AM the true vine.

There is one MAJOR difference between these 4 – between the first one and the remaining three. Only with the “bread of life” exposition does Jesus later take literal/real bread, pray over it, and pronounce “This is My Body”; “Take and eat”

For eg.,
He never takes a source of physical light (torch/lamp/sun), prays and says “That is Me/my light; take it to light your way.” “Do this as a memorial”
He never takes a real door/gate, prays over it, and declares “This is Me; take it; and enter by it in order to be saved”. “Do this…”
He never takes a real vine, prays over it, and declares “This is Me; abide in it as a branch abides in the vine - graft yourself to it/Me so you can bear fruit”, (or perhaps, “eat it”). “Do this…”

If Jesus had ever taken a real torch, a real gate, a real vine, and said the above words, then we would have to conclude that they were more than metaphors.

And, IF JESUS HAD NEVER TAKEN REAL BREAD AND SAID THOSE WORDS at some point, we would conclude that He meant the Bread of Life discourse metaphorically. There would be no sacrament of the Eucharist.