John 6:53 -- need a REAL answer!

  • Thread starter Thread starter javelin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
First off, consider the audience and the context:

They are his disciples/people and there has been a panoramic build up from parallel scenes in the Exodus:

Red sea baptism/Moses : John the baptist baptizes.
The manna is offered/miracles : The multiplication of loaves.
Grumbling leads to death : Grumbling leads to confrontation.

The reminder of the exodus is even explicit in John 6:31.

To choose to reject the manna was the cause of death in Exodus. Many wanted ‘meat’ instead, and God was displeased with them (especially for their grumbling, which is lack of faith) the result was a plague of disease carrying meat.

Now, the people in John 6, are refusing the gift Jesus is offering them just as their forefathers rejected the manna. So Jesus forces the issue with a threat. Unless you eat … you will have no life in you.

The disciples are left with a choice, humble themselves and be ready to eat even if they do not understand, or receive the same fate as their forefathers who repeatedly did not understand that God could and would fulfill his culinary promises. 🙂

Jesus is not saying that all who do not eat his body have no life in them, he is warning those whose life is in peril from unbelief (expressed by grumbling) to gnaw or die.
Do not reject the Gift.

Am I being clear or confusing?
 
Huiou Theou:
First off, consider the audience and the context:

They are his disciples/people and there has been a panoramic build up from parallel scenes in the Exodus:

Red sea baptism/Moses : John the baptist baptizes.
The manna is offered/miracles : The multiplication of loaves.
Grumbling leads to death : Grumbling leads to confrontation.

The reminder of the exodus is even explicit in John 6:31.

To choose to reject the manna was the cause of death in Exodus. Many wanted ‘meat’ instead, and God was displeased with them (especially for their grumbling, which is lack of faith) the result was a plague of disease carrying meat.

Now, the people in John 6, are refusing the gift Jesus is offering them just as their forefathers rejected the manna. So Jesus forces the issue with a threat. Unless you eat … you will have no life in you.

The disciples are left with a choice, humble themselves and be ready to eat even if they do not understand, or receive the same fate as their forefathers who repeatedly did not understand that God could and would fulfill his culinary promises. 🙂

Jesus is not saying that all who do not eat his body have no life in them, he is warning those whose life is in peril from unbelief (expressed by grumbling) to gnaw or die.
Do not reject the Gift.

Am I being clear or confusing?
Click to expand...
No, you were very clear. I’d never seen it that way before:thumbsup:
 
40.png
RNRobert:
No, you were very clear. I’d never seen it that way before:thumbsup:
Click to expand...
I thought when the people asked for meat God gave them quail. :confused:
 
Here is how I use John 6:63 to refute the idea that Jesus was ony speaking symbolically:

“The Spirit gives life, the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life”

First I ask - what words did he just speak? The answer of course is that we should eat his flesh and drink his blood to have everlasting life.

I then ask - so what does spirit & flesh mean in the first part of the verse? The Jews in the desert were given manna which nourished them physically but they still died. Jesus said he was the bread of life that nourishes our spirit and gives us everlasting life. So manna=food for the body/flesh, while bread of life=food for the spirit. Jesus was saying we should nourish our spirit which gives us everlasting life. Nourishing our flesh counts for nothing because we will still die.
 
40.png
SPOKENWORD:
I thought when the people asked for meat God gave them quail. :confused:
Click to expand...
Yes, that is right, the book of Numbers, however, fills out many details not found fully explained in Exodus. The additional details showing the reason for the plague can be found in these places:

See Numbers 11:7-13, 31-34

There are also reflections on this point in other places if you would like some, I could probably find them.
I dont know the exact reason for the account in Exodus being more pleasant, perhaps there are multiple events being described…

Anyway, hope that helps. 🙂
 
Everyone,

I greatly appreciate everyone’s responses to my original question and your participation in this discussion. I want to apologize for my lack of response while also asking for your help.

My wife Wendy was hospitalized this week with a chemical imbalance, and things have been very chaotic around here. While we trust in God’s providence, the seriousness of her condition is difficult to deal with. Please keep Wendy and our children in your prayers.

Peace
javelin
 
40.png
javelin:
I’m having trouble finding a good answer to this very critical question: How can Jesus in John 6 be talking about His literal flesh and blood in the Eucharist when we don’t take 6:53 literally as well?
Click to expand...
Everyone might not like this answer. It was a critical question for me too (and not the only critical question). Look under Spirituality / “To Protestants becoming/ have became Catholic,Why the Catholic Church?” / #7, #8 and #9.

I disregarded the Bible altogether on this topic because it has been controverted by many minds better than mine and resulted in disagreement. Instead, I looked for Fruit of the Holy Spirit in the Roman Catholic Church.

The scriptural backing for this method of determination is John 7:15-20. The context of John 7:15-20 is set up in John 7:13-14. I’m paraphrasing: The correct way that leads to life is narrow. Those who find it are few. There are so many false prophets. How can I determine the right way if I am lost. If I am a lost sheep, how can I find the Good Shepherd?

“A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit.”

“So by their fruits you will know them.”

The scriptures in John 7:13-20 are clear and not subject to debate. They are plain. So God forgive me if I am wrong. Because I am not a Bible Scholar. I decided the Roman Catholics couldn’t be wrong on this doctrine and also have Saints who have borne much fruit.

The three clear Roman Catholic witnesses in my life have been:
  • Father Damian (I first heard the story from a leper in Kalapapa in 1976)
  • Bishop Fulton Sheen – my favorite Christian author
  • The Linton Hall Road Benedictine Sisters
I think you will need to make your own judgement. Think. Has there been a genuine Roman Catholic witness to your life of Christian faith, hope and love? Several perhaps? If so. Could these people have been idol worhipers? Or so far off base that you think they are heretics?

Don’t include people who have done you wrong or who you think are bad people. They are in every Church denomination and way of life. They don’t count. Focus on the best good Christian influence in your life. And be honest with yourself.

I am planning to start RCIA this year.
 
In deciding whether or not we believe John 6 - 53 “literally” we should do our best to decide what it literally means. That is not always easy to do in John’s writings.

Please consider this from chapter 4 of John’s Gospel

31
Meanwhile, the disciples urged him, “Rabbi, eat.”
32
But he said to them, “I have food to eat of which you do not know.”
33
So the disciples said to one another, “Could someone have brought him something to eat?”
34
Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the will of the one who sent me and to finish his work.

Jesus speaks of the act of doing God’s will as the same (for him) as the act of feeding.

I believe the “literal” meaning of John 6 - 53 is that we should feed on Jesus as He feeds on God. That we should seek His will and strive to carry it out as though our lives depended on it the way our lives depend on food.

This is not a “symbolic interpretation.” Our lives, our very existence, depend on us finding and carrying out the will of God.
And so we should feed on God’s word, tear at it and devour it like a starving wolf at a fresh kill. Because we need it just as desperately.

I see some comments regarding the Eucharist (the host and wine many of us receive during the approximately one hour service we attend) as though that single act is the pinnacle and focus of our entire faith. It is an essential part of our faith just as there are other essential parts of our faith. If anyone thinks that by that act and that act alone they attain God’s kingdom, they would be mistaken. Those who speak with the greatest of reverence for the sacrament of the Eucharist sometimes seem to imply (at least to outsiders) that the Eucharist is all we need. We need God’s presence everywhere.

-Jim
 
I believe the “literal” meaning of John 6 - 53 is that we should feed on Jesus as He feeds on God. That we should seek His will and strive to carry it out as though our lives depended on it the way our lives depend on food.
Click to expand...
This is not a “symbolic interpretation.” Our lives, our very existence, depend on us finding and carrying out the will of God.

And so we should feed on God’s word, tear at it and devour it like a starving wolf at a fresh kill. Because we need it just as desperately.

I see some comments regarding the Eucharist (the host and wine many of us receive during the approximately one hour service we attend) as though that single act is the pinnacle and focus of our entire faith. It is an essential part of our faith just as there are other essential parts of our faith. If anyone thinks that by that act and that act alone they attain God’s kingdom, they would be mistaken. Those who speak with the greatest of reverence for the sacrament of the Eucharist sometimes seem to imply (at least to outsiders) that the Eucharist is all we need. We need God’s presence everywhere.

-Jim

Hi Jim,

I just would like to point ut a few things that perhaps you overlooked in your response. I have heard a number of objections concerning what Catholics believe about this passge in the book of John.One example, some folks might say that Jesus used hyperbolic words in His statements in John 6:53-58. In John 2:19, He said: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." In this passge the people misunderstood Him yet He did not try to correct their misunderstanding. So is it possible Jim, that Jesus also used hyperbolic words when He refers to His Flesh and Blood in John 6?

In John 2:21-22 after His resurrection, Jesus explained clearly what He meant to His disciples and it was recorded in the book of John 2:20 (the temple refers to temple of His Body, he clarifys that).

On the other hand, suppose in John 6 Jesus also had spoken *hyperbolically *and His listeners also misunderstood Him, why is there no further explanation in the bookl of John ( last Gospel to be written)? I think it’s safe to say, Jesus did not use hyperbolic words in John 6:53-58.

Another famous arguement (which you have brought forth) states that to have eternal life is to believe in Him, and therefore to eat Christ’s Flesh and to drink His Blood could also means to believe in Him. If this is true Jim, why did some of His disciples*** (who were already believers)*** decide to leave Him in John 6:66? If they misunderstood Him why Jesus did not try to explain Himself more clearly? It simply does not make sense.
Code: 
               Blessings brother;)
 
I have one more thought on the matter. A commen objection to the catholic understanding of John chapter 6 is in reference to (Leviticus 17:14) where the Jews were forbidden to eat the blood because "it contained the life". the blood was to be reserved for God.

But, maybe this is what Jesus meant when he said "unless you eat my flesh and *DRINK *my blood you have no life in you? His blood is life! Secondly, under the Old Covenent the blood was of animals, here, God is giving His own body and blood so that we might have the life of God in us!
Blessings
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top