John 6:53

[AmateurPianist]

There is no such clarification here. So clearly Jesus was actually talking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood.

Then if Jesus was actually talking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, how do you handle John 6:53 specifically in relationship to nonCatholic branches of Christianity.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Then if Jesus was actually talking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, how do you handle John 6:53 specifically in relationship to nonCatholic branches of Christianity.

How do you mean?

If you’re saying whether non-Catholic branches of Christianity also receive Jesus’ body and blood in Communion - then I don’t know. I haven’t really gotten that far. I think that depends on whether you accept or reject the claim the Catholic Church makes for itself (and this could be extended to the Orthodox Church and the Anglicans, too).

If you mean something else, please tell me .

 

[AmateurPianist]

Hi AmateurPianist—

Okay, I’ll briefly chime in, since I’m not a Catholic. I’m glad you started this thread, since I have had similar questions about John 6:53. At least, I think they are similar.

At the same time, in my “real” life, I have recently been deeply affected by a tragedy involving a neighbor’s son which is weighing greatly on the hearts of many people in my real life neighborhood. S I had decided to not get into posting on a forum because my heart and attention aren’t able to focus on any issue going on here.

I’m mostly going to be quiet and check in periodically. To state where I am, briefly, here are a few thoughts:

–First and overall, I don’t have an ounce of qualms regarding believing in the Eucharist as Christ’s body, soul, and divinity. But I do not presently believe that. If I did come to believe that, I’d become a member of a Lutheran church. So my questioning is not related to my concerns about Catholicism.

–Next,I found Filioque’s post about the Passover Seder to be good, and learning and experiencing the meaning of remembrance in a Seder was a very influential turning point for me as a Christian.

However, at this point I don’t see how the reality of bringing remembrance of God’s “mighty hand and outstretched arm” active in our liberation and redemption to this very day, necessarily means He intended us to believe the bread and wine are turned into flesh and blood.

As I said, I’m open, but I don’t think there’s an firm and necessary correlation.

—And finally for now, it seems to me, in humility, honesty and openness to seeing things otherwise, that John 6:53 cannot be a reference to partaking of a Catholic or Orthodox Eucharist…unless Catholics want to say that the VII interpretation of “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” is wrong.

It has to noted that St. Augustine clearly stated he didn’t take the “eat My flesh and drink My blood” spoken of in John 6 as something to be interpreted literally. He used it as an example of how to distinguish times when the words cannot be taken literally.

I lean towards option 4…belief in a Real Presence but also believe that is not what Jesus is talking about in John 6. I also lean towards believing that whatever happens, will happen in all believers who observe communion provided they are (in catholic speak) a state of grace.

When I read John 6 and try to read it the other way I always come up with a disconnect on John 6:53 (as well as 35, 40, 47).

 

[AmateurPianist]

How do you mean?

If you’re saying whether non-Catholic branches of Christianity also receive Jesus’ body and blood in Communion - then I don’t know. I haven’t really gotten that far. I think that depends on whether you accept or reject the claim the Catholic Church makes for itself (and this could be extended to the Orthodox Church and the Anglicans, too).

If you mean something else, please tell me .

Yes that is the issue. If John 6 does refer to communion then you have to deal with two things;

(1) the tension between 6:53 and 635, 40, 47)
(2) who just does not have life in themselves (at a minimum this would be the Quakers and maybe some other groups who do not observe communion at all)

I am not convinced the “Why didn’t Jesus tell them that he was only speaking figuratively” argument" when they were leaving Him is all that weighty for a number of reasons…first and foremost is that the Lord doesn’t have to tell us His reasons when He does something and such a question is ultimately speculative.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Yes that is the issue. If John 6 does refer to communion then you have to deal with two things;

(1) the tension between 6:53 and 635, 40, 47)
(2) who just does not have life in themselves (at a minimum this would be the Quakers and maybe some other groups who do not observe communion at all)

I am not convinced the “Why didn’t Jesus tell them that he was only speaking figuratively” argument" when they were leaving Him is all that weighty for a number of reasons…first and foremost is that the Lord doesn’t have to tell us His reasons when He does something and such a question is ultimately speculative.

I do not see a conflict between any of those verses.
As a matter of fact, the problem comes when you interpret it figuratively, because he says “eat this bread, which is my flesh, which I will give for the world.”

Did Jesus figuratively give us his flesh on the cross (51)?

As for whether other churches have the Eucharist - I’m pretty sure Roman Catholics and Orthodox would tell you this: well that’s why you should join our churches. Communion isn’t just important for these churches, it is the fundamental component of it. Their liturgies center around the Eucharist.

 

[AbideWithMe]

I lean towards option 4…belief in a Real Presence but also believe that is not what Jesus is talking about in John 6. I also lean towards believing that whatever happens, will happen in all believers who observe communion provided they are (in catholic speak) a state of grace.

When I read John 6 and try to read it the other way I always come up with a disconnect on John 6:53 (as well as 35, 40, 47).

Yes. I don’t have difficulty with believing in RP in some way that is beyond comprehension. But it puzzles me when Catholics try to use John 6:53 to prove transubstantiation, and don’t see the incongruity. …unless they want to return to the pre-Vatican II view on “No salvation outside the Church.”

BTW, I think you’ve gone about asking for views in a respectful, open-minded way.

 

[AmateurPianist]

I do not see a conflict between any of those verses.

And that is fine. I see disconnects and you don’t. Maybe I am the stupid one here for all I know.

It is not my job to tell other people how to read Scripture or what the “real meaning” of a given passage is. I wrestle with the Bible as much as the next dude.

The best I can do is share disconnects that I experience as I read the Bible and things that don’t make too much sense to me. But then again maybe I am the stupid one here.

 

[CompSciGuy]

Well strictly speaking Christ said

And you are interpreting this as

The two sentences do not have the same meaning.

I was wondering if you hold the Church Fathers to be valuable? Especially the apostolic Fathers.

Ignatius in his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 110 A.D.:
"Let that Eucharist be held valid which is offered by the bishop or by the one to whom the bishop has committed this charge. Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. "

This was a very convicting text for me as a Protestant.

 

[AmateurPianist]

I was wondering if you hold the Church Fathers to be valuable? Especially the apostolic Fathers.

Ignatius in his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 110 A.D.:
"Let that Eucharist be held valid which is offered by the bishop or by the one to whom the bishop has committed this charge. Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. "

This was a very convicting text for me as a Protestant.

Hi…good question.

I generally subscribe to the Wesley Quadrangle.

That means interpreting Scripture in the light of History, Experience, and Reason.

Particularly when Scripture appears to be ambiguous.

So when I interpret Scripture in the light of history, I find no evidence that the earliest Christians were compelled to interpret the words of Christ symbolically in respect to what is clearly communion (this is my body,this is my blood). So why should I?

But when I interpret Scripture in the light of personal experience and reason I find disconnects in interpreting John 6 as relating to communion. But as I say that is me.

 

[MartinJordan]

I think it’s an amalgamation of 1 and 4.

Pls excuse my layman style explanation:

In John 6 Jesus I think is in a way checking with all those close to him (that moved with him) who will eventually remain with him after telling them something that he knew would upset the usual Jewish teaching about eating and drinking blood. So john 6:53 is the Real Presence and not the Eucharist…yet.

But those that remain therefore will be the chosen ones who will administer the Eucharist, of which was the Last Supper - Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22 and John 18 , after Jesus goes to his Father; in re-memberance of him for all time till he comes again.

Thus John 6:53 is not the Eucharist but extends to the Eucharist…eventually.

MJ

 

[Filioque]

…Now if the crowd was picturing cannibalism when they heard the words of Christ here (which seems believable), didn’t the crowd get it wrong per anybody’s understanding of the Eucharist including the Catholic church.

If have read where some here accuse the Catholics of cannibalism here and of course that is denied, and correctly denied I think. For there is a big difference between eating and drinking what to the 5 senses is bread and wine but somehow is Christ’s flesh and blood and eating and drinking human flesh and blood.

I guess I am observing that given the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist he also could have corrected the crowd who was leaving Him but He did not. But I dunno how big of a point this “Jesus not correcting the crowd” is in this passage either way to be honest…

I think that we have to look at not just a single verse, but revelation as a whole story of our salvation. Jesus offered Himself as a sacrifice or sin offering for us. That sacrifice is offered to as many who would believe, and follow Him. Throughout the Scriptures, (and elsewhere as I don’t want to fall into the error of Sola Scriptura) we read of the various things Jesus taught about the path of salvation. Baptism, the Eucharist, the authority of the Apostles to absolve sins, and their authority to rule the Church, Peter’s primacy. All part of the whole, just as the requirement for belivers to eat the body and drink the blood of Jesus is given here.

For a moment we need to also look at the covenant, or contract that God makes with us through a sacrifice which He commands, explicity or implicitly. In the Torah, we see that for a Sacrifice to be acceptable the victim must be spotless, and be offered to God by one who is authorized to do so. Prior to Moses, and after Abraham it was usually the father of the family, after Moses, when the priesthood of Israel was established it was the priests in the temple for the official cult of the Jews. The animal was offered, and killed, but it does not stop there. A portion was offered to God and a portion was taken by the priests. Sometimes a portion was given to the family or person who supplied the animal for the sacrifice, the completion of the requirements of the sacrifice was not simply in the offering of the animal and it’s slaying, but the consumption by the priests, which completed the sacrifice, and at times the consumption of the victim by the person(s) who contracted the priests to offer the sacrifice.

Now to the Sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. The one truly acceptable Sacrifice, which all animal sacrifices which all anticipated the Cross, and from which they derived their ability to satisfy God. Being God, Jesus had the ability to transform the bread and wine into whatever He wanted, and at the same time to maintain the appearence of bread and wine. (If you don’t agree he could have done it speak up, I’m not yet asking you to believe it, just to tell me if you don’t think He could do it.) Now in connection with the ANMENSIS I spoke of at the Seder, which Jesus chose as the point in time that He used to give us the opportunity that to fulfill the command to eat His body and drink His blood, we are given the faculties to complete His Sacrifice on Calvary by consuming the victim. Unless we are only going to limit the consumption of the victim to those gathered in the Upper Room for the Seder, it only makes sense that Jesus at the same time gave us the ability to participate in the Sacrifice of the Cross, and the consumption of the victim through the action of the Mass/Divine Liturgy. By Jesus command that we do this in Anmensis of Him, and by the fact that it is (According to Catholic teaching) Jesus Himself who is the primary person who acts through the Sacraments He instituted. We do not repeatedly re-sacrifice Jesus each day on the Altar, but rather He continues to make present for us His Sacrifice, in an unbloody manner.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

And that is fine. I see disconnects and you don’t. Maybe I am the stupid one here for all I know.

It is not my job to tell other people how to read Scripture or what the “real meaning” of a given passage is. I wrestle with the Bible as much as the next dude.

The best I can do is share disconnects that I experience as I read the Bible and things that don’t make too much sense to me. But then again maybe I am the stupid one here.

I’d never make the suggestion that you were an idiot. I’d make that suggestion about myself, but not of others (generally).

That being said, I do think that the “Eucharistïc” interpretation of this passage is also confirmed by the fact that it is historically the Church’s position, and backed up by Church Father after Father. I think it provides a rather strong case for a real presence in Communion.

That being said I also understand the Evangelical position, because that’s how I always understood it: I grew up Evangelical. My mind changed after reading the Church Fathers, and then re-reading the passage over and over again, and then (to me) it clicked.

I was personally humbled by St. Irenaeus, who said this:

---

“When we refer them to that tradition which originates from the Apostles, which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the churches, they object to Tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but than even the Apostles.”***

I’m not suggesting that you are ignorant or arrogant, of course, but I’m just explaining my personal experience.

 

[Heuchler]

I agree, but I also see that Jesus instituted the Eucharist at the Passover Seder. One thing that made it easier for me to accept the Eucharist for what and who it is was being raised observing the Seder. We are taught that when we observe those things needed in the Seder each year at Passover that we are not to consider that it was something God did for someone else at some other time and place, but that by participating in the Seder we ourselves are brought out of Egypt, and saved. It was not then, but it is now. In greek and in the narration of the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper in the NT the word normally translated as Rememberance, or Memory is ANMENSIS, like at the Seder our ANMENSIS is not calling to mind what happened long ago, not just remembering a past event, but actually participating in that event. In the Mass it happens like at the Seder, by God’s direct intervention in our lives, and as we mystically stand before the Cross of Christ at each Mass, we make ANMENSIS, God who brought the Jews out of Egypt, and commanded that they celebrate the Seder so each generation could come out of Egypt not simply symbolically, as the Incarnate Word gave us the true means of Salvation in the Eucharist.

Wow. Seeing what the passage actually means really changes everything about it. We are literally participating in what Christ did over 2000 years ago. So, we literally need someone (like one of the Apostles who Christ actually sent the Holy Spirit into) to be in persona Christi to truly participate in this supper. Thank you, this is why I think we should all learn the classical languages so we can truly understand what the Bible is saying.

 

[JonNC]

In another thread it was suggested that I break my silly questions to a new thread. So doing. Note I am doing so with reservations. It has been my experience in starting threads here that I just can’t keep up with all the responses.

The text

In relationship to “Literal or symbolic” I have a matrix of possibilities in relationship to this Scripture. Have I omitted any possibilities? Which one most accurately reflects your belief. Discuss and substantiate.

(1) This Scripture refers to the Eucharist. Only those organizations possessing a valid priesthood via apostolic succession (or some other criteria I suppose) have a valid eucharist. Therefore it is impossible for those in organizations without a valid priesthood to eat His flesh drink His blood and therefore they do not have the life of Christ.

(2) This Scripture refers to the Eucharist. However a valid priesthood based on apostolic succession is not a criteria for a valid eucharist. However one must believe they are literally eating His flesh and drinking His blood for the eucharist to be valid. Therefore it is impossible for those who have the person belief (or whose organizations have a doctrinal belief) the eat His flesh and drink his blood and therefore they do not have the life of Chrsi.

(3) This Scripture refers to the Eucharist. However a valid priesthood or personal/organizational belief in the real presence are not criteria for a valid Eucharist (in other words all who participate in communion (ouside of the issue of personal sin) are in fact eating His flesh and drinking His blood whether they recognize they are doing so or not. So the only ones excluded by this Scripture are those few organizations (Quaker comes to mind) that do not practice communion.

(4) This Scripture does not refer to the Eucharist. However a belief in the Real Presence can be substantiated via other means (other Scriptures presumably).

(5) This Scripture does not refer to the Eucharist. Scripture is either (5a) silent on whether the Real Presence is true or false or (5b) Scripture explicitely teaches that the Real Presence is false and communion is only symbolic.

Did I miss any…

(?) This Scripture is certainly predictive of the Eucharist, the real presence of which is substantiated in Christ’s own words, “This is my body”, etc. However a valid priesthood based on apostolic succession alone is not a criteria for a valid eucharist. Being properly called and ordained is. One need not believe they are literally eating His flesh and drinking His blood for the eucharist to be valid. It is valid and the true body and blood of Christ regardless of the belief of the celebrant or those receiving. Therefore it is dangerous for those who receive it without believing, as Paul tells us. Christ tells us to eat and drink of it often, so failure to do so is contrary to His desire, and could lead to a weakening in the true faith.

Jon

 

[AmateurPianist]

I think that we have to look at not just a single verse, but revelation as a whole story of our salvation. Jesus offered Himself as a sacrifice or sin offering for us. That sacrifice is offered to as many who would believe, and follow Him. Throughout the Scriptures, (and elsewhere as I don’t want to fall into the error of Sola Scriptura) we read of the various things Jesus taught about the path of salvation. Baptism, the Eucharist, the authority of the Apostles to absolve sins, and their authority to rule the Church, Peter’s primacy. All part of the whole, just as the requirement for belivers to eat the body and drink the blood of Jesus is given here.

For a moment we need to also look at the covenant, or contract that God makes with us through a sacrifice which He commands, explicity or implicitly. In the Torah, we see that for a Sacrifice to be acceptable the victim must be spotless, and be offered to God by one who is authorized to do so. Prior to Moses, and after Abraham it was usually the father of the family, after Moses, when the priesthood of Israel was established it was the priests in the temple for the official cult of the Jews. The animal was offered, and killed, but it does not stop there. A portion was offered to God and a portion was taken by the priests. Sometimes a portion was given to the family or person who supplied the animal for the sacrifice, the completion of the requirements of the sacrifice was not simply in the offering of the animal and it’s slaying, but the consumption by the priests, which completed the sacrifice, and at times the consumption of the victim by the person(s) who contracted the priests to offer the sacrifice.

Now to the Sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. The one truly acceptable Sacrifice, which all animal sacrifices which all anticipated the Cross, and from which they derived their ability to satisfy God. Being God, Jesus had the ability to transform the bread and wine into whatever He wanted, and at the same time to maintain the appearence of bread and wine. (If you don’t agree he could have done it speak up, I’m not yet asking you to believe it, just to tell me if you don’t think He could do it.) Now in connection with the ANMENSIS I spoke of at the Seder, which Jesus chose as the point in time that He used to give us the opportunity that to fulfill the command to eat His body and drink His blood, we are given the faculties to complete His Sacrifice on Calvary by consuming the victim. Unless we are only going to limit the consumption of the victim to those gathered in the Upper Room for the Seder, it only makes sense that Jesus at the same time gave us the ability to participate in the Sacrifice of the Cross, and the consumption of the victim through the action of the Mass/Divine Liturgy. By Jesus command that we do this in Anmensis of Him, and by the fact that it is (According to Catholic teaching) Jesus Himself who is the primary person who acts through the Sacraments He instituted. We do not repeatedly re-sacrifice Jesus each day on the Altar, but rather He continues to make present for us His Sacrifice, in an unbloody manner.

I am not sure totally what you are saying. I think you are trying to relate John 6 back to say the passover and/or Levitical sacrifices. Which I find interesting, I might want to go back and read them again. Perhaps I have missed something.

Anyway in thinking about this I thought of another possibility. That would be that the “eat my flesh/drink my blood” in John 6:53 does relate to communion but not exclusively to communion.

That would fit better how God has worked in my life because I know that my journey with Jesus Christ started apart from any communion experience. I know that I received the life of Jesus Christ the day that my journey with Him started, and per John 6:53 in some sense I must have been eating His flesh ande drinking His blood at that point in time (otherwise I would not have had life).

 

[AmateurPianist]

I’d never make the suggestion that you were an idiot. I’d make that suggestion about myself, but not of others (generally).

That being said, I do think that the “Eucharistïc” interpretation of this passage is also confirmed by the fact that it is historically the Church’s position, and backed up by Church Father after Father. I think it provides a rather strong case for a real presence in Communion.

That being said I also understand the Evangelical position, because that’s how I always understood it: I grew up Evangelical. My mind changed after reading the Church Fathers, and then re-reading the passage over and over again, and then (to me) it clicked.

I was personally humbled by St. Irenaeus, who said this:

---

“When we refer them to that tradition which originates from the Apostles, which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the churches, they object to Tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but than even the Apostles.”***

I’m not suggesting that you are ignorant or arrogant, of course, but I’m just explaining my personal experience.

Oh I was not suggesting that you were calling me stupid. It is sort of the way I operate in calling myself stupid…a literary tactic I so.

But what you are writing prompts a question in my mind. Who is the first church father that specifically related John 6 to communion?

That having been said I am considering anew the possibility that in fact there is a link there, but not an exclusive link. That might work.

 

[AmateurPianist]

(?) This Scripture is certainly predictive of the Eucharist, the real presence of which is substantiated in Christ’s own words, “This is my body”, etc. However a valid priesthood based on apostolic succession alone is not a criteria for a valid eucharist. Being properly called and ordained is. One need not believe they are literally eating His flesh and drinking His blood for the eucharist to be valid. It is valid and the true body and blood of Christ regardless of the belief of the celebrant or those receiving. Therefore it is dangerous for those who receive it without believing, as Paul tells us. Christ tells us to eat and drink of it often, so failure to do so is contrary to His desire, and could lead to a weakening in the true faith.

Jon

I have always wondered where this “valid priesthood” comes from myself. It certainly is not anything I have encountered in my reading Scripture. But then again I might have missed something.

Of course where I come from we do not call our clergy “priests”. When I look up priest in the New Testament I see Jesus as a priest. And there is a Scripture (I think in Revelation) where it says we are priests.

On the other hand it seems like straining out gnats to complain about what other organizations call their clergy. So to each their own I guess.

 

[Filioque]

I am not sure totally what you are saying. I think you are trying to relate John 6 back to say the passover and/or Levitical sacrifices. Which I find interesting, I might want to go back and read them again. Perhaps I have missed something.

Anyway in thinking about this I thought of another possibility. That would be that the “eat my flesh/drink my blood” in John 6:53 does relate to communion but not exclusively to communion.

That would fit better how God has worked in my life because I know that my journey with Jesus Christ started apart from any communion experience. I know that I received the life of Jesus Christ the day that my journey with Him started, and per John 6:53 in some sense I must have been eating His flesh ande drinking His blood at that point in time (otherwise I would not have had life).

Unfortunatly the conversation is limited here because we are using modern english, something that does not lend itself well to the concepts or full understanding of the Scriptures. The second problem I see if trying to fit Scripture and the way God works into our lives rather than fitting our lives to God’s. When Jesus told the crowd that they must eat His body and drink His blood, they replied that it was a hard thing to accept and many walked away. Thirdly proof texts don’t prove much, another proof text can appear to contradict what we hold. Looking at the history of salvation, and how God has prepared us for the revelation given by Jesus.

As to the significance of Apostolic Succession… Jesus did something that the Jews of His day would consider very important, after He asserted that He was given all authority by His Father in Heaven, He lays hands on the heads of the Apostles, he breathes on them and He tells them that they now have the Authority that He has just stated He had. Not a something to take lightly. He then speaking to the Apostles tells them that those who hear them, hear Him.

The concept of speaking in someone’s name is not something we comprehend in today’s society. In Jesus’ time if you spoke in someone’s name, you did so because you were given the Authority that person had. You were not just representing them, but your actions were their actions. So the priest is not acting on his own authority, but on the authority of Jesus, who by virtue of Apostolic Succession allows Jesus to do what He promised He would do.

Could Jesus have chosen another way that we did not have to scratch our heads and wondered why His teachings were sometimes hard to hear? Yes, Did He? If we read the scriptures and understand what the Apostles and their Successors guarded and passed on to us even today, we can as far as I can see only come to understand that Jesus has not abandoned the Catholic Church,

 

[CopticChristian]

Then if Jesus was actually talking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, how do you handle John 6:53 specifically in relationship to nonCatholic branches of Christianity.

This question is not specific. First Non-Catholic branches of Christianity as you say emanate from the following Streams…Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed/Presbyterian, and some would say Methodism. Each has their own view of the Eucharist. When you follow that stream for instance Anglican-Methodist-Holiness movement-Pentacostal/AOG…

Anglicans have a varied view of the Eucharist and some adhere to Transubstantiation while others do not. Some believe in a non-defined real presence.

As I understand it Methods believe in the Eucharist as a means of grace and and Holy Mystery.

The Holiness movement I believe moved into ordinances and not Sacraments per se.

AOG as you know see the Eucharist as … The bread and wine are symbolic representations of the body and blood of Jesus, offered in sacrifice for the sins of the world.

It would appear that the further you get from the Source…Catholic, Anglican, Methodist, Holiness, AOG/Pentacostal the more likely you are to see the interpretation of Scripture closer to a symbolic and literal rather than what the Catholic Church holds to be true.

So the question for you is what do you mean as to the non-catholic christians in this regard?

 

[CopticChristian]

this was double posted sorry.