John 6 : 62 & 63 What does this mean?

[Duane1966]

Actually he did say he came down from heaven and spoke of ascending to where he was before and would raise them up at the last day.

But He did not mention to them His death, His resurrection, or His second coming.

 

[Duane1966]

Absolutely. Protestants who believe (feed on) that he gave up his flesh for us and who never consume the Eucharist in the physical presence sense of the Catholic Church can have eternal life. If I make it there, I expect to see many.

But, if Jesus is talking literally, and a person does not believe He is, how can that person feed on His flesh? If Jesus is talking literally, how is verse 54 fulfilled for one that believes only metaphorically, and rejects the literal interpretation? And if Jesus is being metaphorical, how is His Flesh true food?

And if Jesus is being metaphorical, but they believed him literally, then He is a poor Teacher for letting them walk away knowing, they misunderstood.

 

[Wesrock]

On John 6: 63: Human reason can only take us so far. Some things might even sound completely repulsive to human reason and logic. It’s a gift of the Spirit to have faith even in the face of great mysteries which defy the senses.

Here are some similar contrasts made by Saint Paul. I think there are more and better ones but I’m not up for hunting tons of verses tonight.

Galatians 5:17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want.

Roman’s 7:5-6 For when we were in the realm of the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

Roman’s 8:5-17. 5 Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. 7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.

9 You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ. 10 But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life[d] because of righteousness. 11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of[e] his Spirit who lives in you.

12 Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. 13 For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.

14 For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. 15 The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship.[f] And by him we cry, “Abba,[g] Father.” 16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. 17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

 

[Wesrock]

It seems absurd even from a historical critical viewpoint that the author of John had Jesus repeat himself so many times in such a literal way and allowed everyone to walk away without giving clarification, nor does he clarify it for his apostles, and did not have the Eucharist celebration in mind (and those who at the time were mystified/turned off by it). He was most likely writing between 90 - 110 and would have been very much familiar with Christian liturgy and theology of the time.

The scriptures were not written apart from Christian life and worship. The scriptures aren’t just a source for our traditions, they themselves were written in the context of Christian worship and life and were informed by it. For example, the difference in words the gospels use for the Last Supper? Likely a reflection on the different liturgical traditions in use over the Eucharistic celebration, where the celebrant recaps Jesus’ words prior to Communion.

 

[Wesrock]

Triple post! Sorry.

To put it another way, the author of John was writing late first century. The Eucharistic meal was a central part of Christian worship, whatever meaning one proposes it has. It would be very, very odd for him to write the bread of life discourse in such a way for the Christian community, knowing that the Eucharist is celebrated every Sunday and the words said over it, if he was not writing on the real presence. What a source of confusion and scandal this book would have been if the early Christians did not believe in the real presence! The liturgy was already there prior to John’s gospel. The communion meal was already there. I fail to see how John could have written this in that culture and not intending the discourse be related to the Communion meal. He’d have been a fool if he didn’t think people would make the association between his new book and their own half century old (at least) way of worshipping.

 

[Wannano]

How is His flesh true food then?

Did His followers leave because they believed He was speaking literally or metaphorically?

Why does St. John change the wording in the discourse when talking about eating His flesh from the word phago, which is usually taken literally, but can be used metaphorically, to trogo, a word that has never been used metaphorically?

I am finally back to look at these responses. Thanks for your responses. I don’t understand your question of how is his flesh true food if eating is a metaphor for believing.

I guess one could ask why John used the word phago at all?

 

[Duane1966]

I am finally back to look at these responses. Thanks for your responses. I don’t understand your question of how is his flesh true food if eating is a metaphor for believing.

Hi Wannano, thanks for your reply.

Why say my flesh is true food, if Jesus is not really saying eat His Flesh?

Who cares if His Flesh is true food, if you will not literally be eating it?

And then isn’t He lying by saying His Flesh is true food, if it really isn’t?

How is His Flesh true food?

I guess one could ask why John used the word phago at all?

I thought the Holy Spirit inspired John to use those words. I would say that John switches the word to the more demonstrative trogo to show that Jesus is leaving no doubt that He is being literal.

How could any early Christian believe that Christ was being metaphorical in John 6 when they see a word, trogo, which they had never before seen used metaphorically, when there were other words for eat that had been used metaphorically?

 

[Wannano]

Hi Wannano, thanks for your reply.

Why say my flesh is true food, if Jesus is not really saying eat His Flesh?

Who cares if His Flesh is true food, if you will not literally be eating it?

And then isn’t He lying by saying His Flesh is true food, if it really isn’t?

How is His Flesh true food?

I thought the Holy Spirit inspired John to use those words. I would say that John switches the word to the more demonstrative trogo to show that Jesus is leaving no doubt that He is being literal.

How could any early Christian believe that Christ was being metaphorical in John 6 when they see a word, trogo, which they had never before seen used metaphorically, when there were other words for eat that had been used metaphorically?

His flesh and blood are the meat of the new Covenant . To eat is to believe he is the Christ and what he presents and does is truth. To eat his words is to learn of him and never go hungry again.

 

[Wannano]

Hi Wannano,

I thought the Holy Spirit inspired John to use those words.

Duane, is it your honest opinion that the Holy Spirit dictated every word to the writers of scripture?

 

[Cathoholic]

Alwayswill. You said:

QUOTE:
“When your words came, I ate them; they were my joy and my heart’s delight, for I bear your name, LORD God Almighty.” Jeremiah 15:16

How sweet are Your words to my taste! Yes, sweeter than honey to my mouth! Psalm 119:103

"Now you, son of man, listen to what I am speaking to you; do not be rebellious like that rebellious house. Open your mouth and eat what I am giving you. Ezekiel 2:8

For . . . .

QUOTE:

. . . . eating is a metaphor for believing

This doesn’t work Alwayswill.

I don’t know if you realize it. But you are doing a bait and switch. This is the fallacy of equivocation.

You say that “eating is a metaphor for believing.” And you appeal to verses that discuss eating “words”.

But Jesus didn’t say to eat His “words”.

Jesus commanded us to eat of His flesh. Not eat His “words”.

That being said . . . .

There is a metaphorical sense for “eating flesh” too.

But metaphorically eating Jesus’ flesh doesn’t fit concerning what Jesus said either.

The Biblical metaphorical sense of eating someone’s flesh is to despise them.

Below is from our local area men’s Catholic Bible study . . . .

The REAL Hebrew metaphor for “Eating flesh” IS in Scripture, and it means “Hate, despise, assail, reject.” It wouldn’t make sense for Jesus to be using the term “eat my flesh” in terms of Hebrew metaphor because the Biblical Hebrew metaphor for “eating flesh” means “hate,” “despise.”

Knowing this, the metaphorical meaning of “eating flesh” as it applies to Jesus in John 6 would be nonsense given the context of Jesus’ words here.

Let’s review the metaphorical usage of “eating flesh” in Sacred Scripture:

King David, in Psalm 27 is lamenting about how his enemies want to do him in.
He is lamenting because his enemies want to “eat up my flesh.”

King David uses this phrase in its real Hebrew metaphorical sense here.

Let’s look:
The King James version, also a Protestant Bible, states the literal translation clearly.

PSALM 27:2 (KJV) 2 When the wicked, even mine enemies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh, they stumbled and fell.

And although the RSV Protestant translation doesn’t literally translate “to eat up my flesh”, to their credit, they DO put the literal translation in the footnote.

PSALM 27:2 (RSV) 2 When evildoers assail me
uttering slanders against me*, (*footnote: Heb. to eat up my flesh)
my adversaries and foes, they shall stumble and fall.

There are other examples of the Hebrew term “eating flesh” used in a metaphorical sense in Scripture.

They are ALL of the same negative quality!

Other metaphorical examples of “eating flesh” include . . . .
. . . . Micah 3:3, Ecclesiastes 4:5, Zechariah 11:9, Isaiah 9:18:20, Isaiah 49:26,
2nd Samuel 23:15:17, and even in the New Testament; Revelation 17:6 and 17:16.

**Remember, the Hebrew metaphorical use of “eat my flesh” is to “hate me and revile me, utter slanders against me, or to treat me as an adversary or enemy.” **

So now let’s “plug in” the REAL Hebrew metaphorical use of the term “Eating flesh” in “ (blank)” . . . .

. . . . and see what kind of nonsense “eating flesh” metaphorically brings upon our Scripture interpretation.

JOHN 6:53 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you (blank) , you have no life in you;

Now let’s plug in “(blank)” with the REAL Biblical metaphor for “eating flesh”.

Remember the REAL Biblical metaphor (blank) = “hate me and revile me, treat me as an adversary or enemy” and ask yourself if it makes any sense.

NOT JOHN ?6:53? (Phantom Verse) 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you “hate me and revile me, and treat me as an adversary or enemy,” you have no life in you;

No! This would not make sense.

The Hebrew “metaphorical sense” would really be non-sense!

It wouldn’t fit the real metaphor, it wouldn’t fit the context, it wouldn’t fit the ancient Christian beliefs, it wouldn’t fit with Jesus’ oath and repeated urging, it wouldn’t fit with Jesus allowing many of His own disciples to draw back and no longer go about with Him thinking Jesus meant it literally (“How can this man give us his flesh to eat?!”).

You get the picture. This “tradition of men” of denial of Scripture is inappropriate.

It does make sense to just believe just what our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ says about belief in this context!

JOHN 6:53 53 So Jesus said to them,
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you
eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood
you have no life in you;

Are we going to take Jesus at His word?

Are we going to believe Jesus, or invent counterfeit traditions of men to help with an “anemic faith” we may have?

This takes incredible grace to believe the words of our Savior Jesus Christ.
We can’t do it on our own.

Despite the fact that we can’t come to this belief on our own, we still need to put in human effort to incorporate this teaching into our hearts (cooperate with God’s grace).

Remember, we need to LABOR after the bread, which leads to eternal life. Jesus says so!​

 

[Cathoholic]

Wannano. You asked . . . .

QUOTE:
Earlier in John 6 Jesus explains He is the Bread of Life which comes down from heaven and in verse 47 explains that anyone who BELIEVES ON him has everlasting life. Is there a difference in believing in Him and believing on Him?

I think I heard the late Bart Brewer try to use this argument once too.

Please explain to me the significance of “believing on” Jesus as opposed to believing Jesus.

biblehub.com/john/6-47.htm

I am not denying it.

I just want to know why some of the anti-Catholics that I have heard in the past emphasize the belief “ON” Jesus (incidentally. I do NOT mean YOU are anti-Catholic Wannano. I do mean I have heard Brewer and other anti-Catholics use this argument before but they never really expounded on it. So I am left thinking “what was THAT supposed to prove here?”).

I want to have a better understanding of your objection that’s all.

Thanks in advance.

You also said:

QUOTE:
Interesting in John 4 his disciples told him to eat something.

Yes it was interesting.

You went on saying:

QUOTE:
In John 4 : 34 Jesus explains " My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work."

That is true.

But He also told the Disciples what THEIR eating should be in John 6.

That’s the tough part for you here.

We are not talking about Jesus’ “meat” here. We are talking about US and how we participate of the Lamb of God.

We are talking about Christ our Passover Lamb.

 

[Duane1966]

His flesh and blood are the meat of the new Covenant .

Agreed. And what had to be done to the lamb in the Old Covenant?

To eat is to believe he is the Christ and what he presents and does is truth.

Catholics can agree to this with the Eucharist.

To eat his words is to learn of him and never go hungry again.

But He never says eat my words. So this is something you are reading into the text to get away from the literal meaning. He says eat My Flesh, and My Flesh is true food. And the words the inspired writer uses are:

One that is usually used literally, but on occasion has been used metaphorically, and when the Jews are not quite sure they understand Jesus correctly, the inspired writer uses a word that has never been used metaphorically, to show that when they walked away, they understood Jesus clearly.

I restate this: If The Jews walked away because they thought He was being literal, but He was being metaphorical as you say, then the Teacher has poorly performed His task.

 

[Duane1966]

Duane, is it your honest opinion that the Holy Spirit dictated every word to the writers of scripture?

I think He inspired the writers, which is different than dictating every word.

But, let’s look at it from the viewpoint you seem to be espousing. Who decides which words are not inspired? If it is you, does that not prove the theory that sola scriptura in reality is always solo scriptura?

 

[Wannano]

Wannano. You asked . . . .

QUOTE:
Earlier in John 6 Jesus explains He is the Bread of Life which comes down from heaven and in verse 47 explains that anyone who BELIEVES ON him has everlasting life. Is there a difference in believing in Him and believing on Him?

I think I heard the late Bart Brewer try to use this argument once too.

Please explain to me the significance of “believing on” Jesus as opposed to believing Jesus.

biblehub.com/john/6-47.htm

I am not denying it.

I just want to know why some of the anti-Catholics that I have heard in the past emphasize the belief “ON” Jesus (incidentally. I do NOT mean YOU are anti-Catholic Wannano. I do mean I have heard Brewer and other anti-Catholics use this argument before but they never really expounded on it. So I am left thinking “what was THAT supposed to prove here?”).

I want to have a better understanding of your objection that’s all.

Thanks in advance.

You also said:

QUOTE:
Interesting in John 4 his disciples told him to eat something.

Yes it was interesting.

You went on saying:

QUOTE:
In John 4 : 34 Jesus explains " My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work."

That is true.

But He also told the Disciples what THEIR eating should be in John 6.

That’s the tough part for you here.

We are not talking about Jesus’ “meat” here. We are talking about US and how we participate of the Lamb of God.

We are talking about Christ our Passover Lamb.

I do not have a personal philosophy over the use of the word “on” over the word “in.” I just happened to note that it is the word on was given, and wondered if there is significance.

I was also bringing forward the passage of Jesus disciples telling him to eat something to point out that Jesus was not literal when he told them that he already has meat that they did not know of. He used figurative language and methodology all the time. I am not meaning to just object to your literal interpretation, I do understand your concept. I also have no problem seeing how Jesus could have just as well been continuing to speak figuratively all through the passage. I am obviously not a lawyer or a theologian but in my mind one can make a case for each interpretation.

I liked the commentary from the link you provided :
"The advantage of the Manna was small, it only referred to this life; the Living Bread is so excellent, that the man who feedeth on it shall never die. This bread is Christ’s human nature, which he took to present to the Father, as a sacrifice for the sins of the world; to purchase all things pertaining to life and godliness, for sinners of every nation, who repent and believe in him.

 

[Wannano]

Agreed. And what had to be done to the lamb in the Old Covenant?Catholics can agree to this with the Eucharist. But He never says eat my words. So this is something you are reading into the text to get away from the literal meaning. He says eat My Flesh, and My Flesh is true food. And the words the inspired writer uses are:

One that is usually used literally, but on occasion has been used metaphorically, and when the Jews are not quite sure they understand Jesus correctly, the inspired writer uses a word that has never been used metaphorically, to show that when they walked away, they understood Jesus clearly.

I restate this: If The Jews walked away because they thought He was being literal, but He was being metaphorical as you say, then the Teacher has poorly performed His task.

I am not willing to pass judgement on the performance of Jesus. He often spoken in a way that not everybody understood. In these passages alone he was not literal when he said he had meat and when he said he would rebuild the temple in three days. I read that the Jews that left him left because they did not believe that he was the Christ and that he knew who they were from the beginning. Was he sifting them all including the twelve? Is it unrealistic to believe that those that did not believe he was Bread come down from heaven would have left irregardless of how they perceived eating him in terms of literal or figurative?

It is hard for each of us to genuinely look at the other viewpoint especially when we have been taught our own viewpoint all our life. To be able to say one has open mindedly tried to understand the opposing viewpoint is a plus in my mind. Of course, your logical response to that is to ask if I really believe I am doiñg that. My answer is yes and I wouldn’t be on caf if I was not. Some will say I should read the Catachesim instead of caf but I can’t afford a lawyer to interpret it . Peace.

 

[Duane1966]

I am not willing to pass judgement on the performance of Jesus. He often spoken in a way that not everybody understood. In these passages alone he was not literal when he said he had meat and when he said he would rebuild the temple in three days. I read that the Jews that left him left because they did not believe that he was the Christ and that he knew who they were from the beginning. Was he sifting them all including the twelve? Is it unrealistic to believe that those that did not believe he was Bread come down from heaven would have left irregardless of how they perceived eating him in terms of literal or figurative?

It is hard for each of us to genuinely look at the other viewpoint especially when we have been taught our own viewpoint all our life. To be able to say one has open mindedly tried to understand the opposing viewpoint is a plus in my mind. Of course, your logical response to that is to ask if I really believe I am doiñg that. My answer is yes and I wouldn’t be on caf if I was not. Some will say I should read the Catachesim instead of caf but I can’t afford a lawyer to interpret it . Peace.

If they did not understand Jesus, then there is nothing wrong with their unbelief, correct? After all it is a teacher’s job to help students comprehend.

What you have said about the Catechism, is what I have heard verbatim from non-Christians.

 

[Wesrock]

I am not willing to pass judgement on the performance of Jesus. He often spoken in a way that not everybody understood. In these passages alone he was not literal when he said he had meat and when he said he would rebuild the temple in three days.

Jesus was 100% literal when he said he would rebuild the Temple in three days, and it was done as he said.

 

[rcwitness]

John 6:62-63(RSVCE)

Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?*It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Hey Wannano,
I see Jesus as revealing the mystery of the Incarnation AND His death and resurrection in one profound Command. I cannot take these two verses out of the context of the whole chapter. But I understand you want to focus on these.

Now, we can only believe (have faith) and know God by the Spirit revealing Himself to us. Unfortunately, due to our nature, in order for God to give us His Spirit unto eternal life, He had to overcome our nature by taking on our nature. He had to be born and live with us in our flesh and blood.

John 1

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.

When Jesus did this, He raised that flesh and blood to that of Spirit and Life.

Leviticus 17

For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life.

Now, flesh and blood do not give understanding and knowledge. The Spirit does this.

Matthew 16

*Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

So we need both the Spirit, and the Flesh and blood of Jesus equally. We need the Spirit to Teach and illuminate us, and we need the Christ, in the flesh to fulfill the Spirit, atone for sins, and keep us in Himself.

In these two verses, Jesus is telling them that they are not accepting the Spirit to know Jesus. He says, to know Him, we must believe and Commune on the Sacrifice He will provide.

 

[Horton]

I am not willing to pass judgement on the performance of Jesus. He often spoken in a way that not everybody understood. In these passages alone he was not literal when he said he had meat and when he said he would rebuild the temple in three days. I read that the Jews that left him left because they did not believe that he was the Christ and that he knew who they were from the beginning. Was he sifting them all including the twelve? Is it unrealistic to believe that those that did not believe he was Bread come down from heaven would have left irregardless of how they perceived eating him in terms of literal or figurative?

It is hard for each of us to genuinely look at the other viewpoint especially when we have been taught our own viewpoint all our life. To be able to say one has open mindedly tried to understand the opposing viewpoint is a plus in my mind. Of course, your logical response to that is to ask if I really believe I am doiñg that. My answer is yes and I wouldn’t be on caf if I was not.** Some will say I should read the Catachesim instead of caf but I can’t afford a lawyer to interpret it . Peace**.

As a convert I struggled at first with the CCC. To me some of it just didn’t make sense, but I was using my protestant belief to try to comprehend it. I did two things, found a decent Catholic dictionary and learned how to understand how to use the references. I had many a note pad with questions, quotes, biblical verses, and then generally my understanding of what the paragraph meant. As I grew in my faith and learned more, I was able to understand it more easily.

 

[rcwitness]

What is interesting, is that if Jesus meant to clear up what He meant by “flesh and blood” really meaning “Spirit and Life”, why did the Jews not say, “oh, ok. We see you meant symbolic only.”

But the disciples left AFTER He said this, in verses 62-63.

66* After this** many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.