John 6:25-71. Help me understand something

[Yakuda]

Can someone explain how these passages can be so grossly misinterpreted that some people miss the clear message of Jesus that in order to have eternal life you must eat his flesh and drink his blood. I have had this conversation innumerable times with non catholic Christians and it seems they tie themselves in knots to get away from what seems to be a clear message.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Actually, I don’t think the message is clear. I also don’t think it was meant to be clear.

The apostles who were there during the Bread of Life Discourse didn’t seem to understand what Jesus was saying. How would they have understood when there was no Eucharist yet. I think it was really at the last supper and the resurrection that helped the apostles put it together. Still, it took a long time to develop the teachings that surround the Eucharist.

 

[ColoradoCatholic]

The thing is, people are interpreting this passage 1500-2000 years AFTER the beginning of the church. The most “irrefutable proof” that you will find is simply reading the church fathers. They ALL agreed that Jesus meant is literal Body and Blood. Unfortunately this information is simply not well known or even opposed because its hard to change your own views, or to believe something so radical.

Many walked away from him, but Jesus didn’t come back and say “guys, come on! I was just being spiritual, etc” No. He meant what he said, and sometimes accepting what Jesus says without understanding the mechanics about it is necessary to follow the Lord. We can’t conceive of Hell, but people choose that path all the time without understanding the mechanics of eternal damnation.

here is a great source on the church fathers for our non-Catholic friends: https://www.churchfathers.org/

Go to sacraments → real presence for what the church fathers thought about the Eucharist*

 

[goout]

Sure…

Jesus says “it is the Spirit who gives life the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life” So, if “the flesh is of no avail,” why would we have to eat Jesus’ flesh in order to have eternal life?

It’s not a literal teaching it’s a spiritual one.

It is a literal teaching. All of the bible is literal. Literal is not the same as rigidly factual.
Discerning the immediate meaning of the words as written becomes a matter of study and a matter of reading with the Church rather than as an individual.

It’s pretty clear that Jesus said what he said, as it is recorded in unambiguous fashion and with emphasis on what it means “to gnaw”.
Out of all the passages of the bible that can be taken in purely spiritual ways, this one might be the most problematic of them all.

For the Protestant tradition that seeks to elevate rigid readings of scripture over the Church’s Tradition, this selective glossing is problematic and more than a little contradictory.

 

[Yakuda]

Well I agree they didnt understand the Eucharist but that’s not what I am talking about. I am talking about the message Jesus presented at that time and that place. Everybody in those passages seems to hear Jesus saying you must eat my body and drink my blood to have eternal life. How that will play out in history obviously Jesus knew but he was laying some groundwork and people have, in my opinion, refused to listen to Jesus for reasons of their own discomfort.

 

[Yakuda]

Jesus says " the" flesh is of no avail not “my” flesh is of no avail.

 

[Yakuda]

I couldn’t agree more. The earliest teachers taught the real presence

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Everybody in those passages seems to hear Jesus saying you must eat my body and drink my blood to have eternal life.

Yes, but it would seem obvious to me that even those people who chose not to follow Him after that didn’t think He was talking about cannibalism. I’m sure just about everyone there thought He was being figurative even though He told them (implicitly) that He wasn’t being figurative. I mean, not even the apostles tried to literally eat Him after that.

I hope you see how this is a difficult teaching even today. Do not scoff at anyone who has difficulty with it.

 

[Yakuda]

First it seems he was quite explicit about what he was saying as he says it 5 times! If the the people who left him thought it was figurative then why leave Jesus? Because even if as you say Jesus was implicit that he meant it literally that’s why they left. It is a difficult teaching and I don’t scoff at people who struggle with it but we are called to obey and if Jesus says we must eat his flesh and drink his blood isn’t it our responsibility to believe that somehow Jesus will guide us to that reality?

 

[Yakuda]

For the same reason the Jews didn’t just put the blood of the lamb on their door posts. Jesus is the final sacrifice saving us from the slavery of sin.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

First it seems he was quite explicit about what he was saying as he says it 5 times!

What I meant is that Jesus does explicitly say that the teaching is not figurative. What He does instead is simply reiterate what He said. That’s what I mean when I say He implicitly told the crowd that He wasn’t being figurative.

If the the people who left him thought it was figurative then why leave Jesus?

I think there are two reasons. One is that some people were following Him from the day before when Jesus fed the crowd with bread, and they wanted Him to fed them again. Jesus does not do this again, but instead tells them about the Bread of Life.

Two, I believe the crowd would have heard veiled references to Jesus referring to Himself as being divine when He said “I am the bread of life”

So Jesus said to them, “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.”

So they said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”

Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.

 

[dscath]

It’s not a literal teaching it’s a spiritual one.

In this case, it is both literal and spiritual.

 

[Yakuda]

The passages are clear verses 53-59. V60, “On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”” Jesus responds with verses 61-65. Then V66, “From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.”

Isn’t it funny that John 6:66 is about people rejecting Jesus?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

The passages are clear verses 53-59. V60, “On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”” Jesus responds with verses 61-65. Then V66, “From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.”

So here are two references to why I think some people quit following Him that day.

6:25-27
And when they found him across the sea they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you get here?” Jesus answered them and said, “Amen, amen, I say to you, you are looking for me not because you saw signs but because you ate the loaves and were filled. Do not work for food that perishes but for the food that endures for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him the Father, God, has set his seal.”

6:41-42
The Jews murmured about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven,” and they said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph? Do we not know his father and mother? Then how can he say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”

 

[Yakuda]

Yeah but there is no mention of anyone leaving until AFTER Jesus quite clearly says 5 times you must eat my flesh and drink my blood.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

There is also this:

6:67-69
Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”

Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.

We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”

Peter answers affirming Jesus’ claim of divinity. And obviously, Peter is not following Jesus for the free meals.

 

[Bithynian]

this conversation innumerable times with non catholic Christians

If you would like to read a scholarly analysis from the perspective of evangelical theology, I would recommend any of the John commentaries by D. A. Carson (who is also the editor-in-chief of the NIV Bible), Leon Morris or Andreas Kostenberger. All three discuss the Bread of Life discourse in very great detail.

 

[Yakuda]

And the reason Jesus even asks that question is because he is talking literally.

 

[Yakuda]

So what’s the upshot? I won’t be getting to them today.

 

[PennyinCanada]

John the Baptist laid the ground work some years before and pointed to Christ saying Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world! and the Jews knew, they slaughter an unblemished lamb and eat it every Passover.

Perhaps understanding how people could walk away might lie in the fact they did not repent of their sins as John prepared the people to receive the Word of God in the flesh. Then today, people who come into a church and trust a pastor of souls are told that whatever the Catholics believe, we know it’s not true. The pastors are in a position of trust and authority and people, busy with their lives and duties, trust this person is telling them the truth.

If flesh is of no avail, as the scripture is quoted, then Jesus did not have to die on the cross. So. More going on here than what we see on the surface. Like a boat on the water, skimming the surface, but lots going on below the surface to explore.