John 6:63

  • Thread starter Thread starter Linkowski
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Linkowski

Guest
First off, please do not tackle me for asking this question…I am simply trying to understand.

Leading up to John 6:63 we have Christ saying:

John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, **He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.**48 I am that bread of life.
49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

Then He says this to try to explain…

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

I know that you are saying that you are eating his flesh and drinking his blood when you take the Eucharist…but, in this verse, He is bascially telling them that the discourse that He is giving them (including words/phrases that say “eating flesh”, “drinking blood”, etc.) needs to be looked at from a spirtual aspect (these words are spirit)…not from a carnal/fleshly aspect (literal). Remember, the object of verse 63 are “His words”.

So, then how does this verse fit in with the CC doctrine on the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist??? This is the main question that I have.

AFTERTHOUGHT

Jeremiah 15:16 Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.

Rev 10:10 And I took the little book out of the angel’s hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter.

Eze 3:1 Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, eat that thou findest; eat this roll, and go speak unto the house of Israel.
2 So I opened my mouth, and he caused me to eat that roll.
3 And he said unto me, Son of man, cause thy belly to eat, and fill thy bowels with this roll that I give thee. Then did I eat it; and it was in my mouth as honey for sweetness.

Christ is called the Word of God…

Re 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Is there a parallel here? I am not sure. This was just an afterthought.

May God Lead Us All…
 
Take a look at the reaction of the crowd. Most of them were disgusted at the idea. Jesus, rather than correct their “misunderstanding” lets them walk away. The question then becomes, “why would Jesus let people walk away from him based upon their misunderstanding of his metaphor?” The answer is fairly simple…they didn’t misunderstand. Jesus intended that he be taken literally, and he was. Jesus’s words were just too much for many of his disciples.

This is a perfect example of why Tradition is so important in forming our doctrinal understandings. You can say, “Jesus was speaking figuratively.” I can say, “Jesus meant to be taken literally.” If all we have to work with is the words of Scripture then our conflict is unresolvable. You have your understanding. I have mine. End of story.

BUT…

The beautiful thing about Tradition is that we don’t have to rely on our own opinions to resolve disputes like these. We can look at how John’s own disciples understood those words. The Apostle, John, who wrote John 6, taught Polycarp. Polycarp in turn taught Irenaeus. Here’s what Irenaeus had to say about the matter.
Irenaeus
Click to expand...
“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).
Click to expand...
“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).
Click to expand...
This understanding was not unique to John’s community. You can read here how the Early Fathers understood the matter.

catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp

Thus, the importance of respecting Tradition when trying to understand doctrine. We can both read the words on the page in John 6. Your opinion as to how those words should be understood is just as good as mine. My opinion is just as good as yours. Thanks be to God that we don’t have to rely on our own opinions. Thanks be to God that we have records from the students of the very author of John 6 who can tell us what their teacher heard when Jesus uttered those words that are on that page.
 
This question comes up a lot by protestants.

First, the bible is to be taken as a whole. In 1st corinthians Paul states that by taking the cup of the Lord unworthily people will bring damnation on themselves. These are very harsh words for a mere symbol. Additionally, Paul states that those who take the cup in sin are guilty of Jesus’ body and blood.

This is very severe language for a symbol. Either Paul was Guilty of idolotry for saying that bread and wine were a method of damnation, or Paul really believed that these were truely the body and blood of Christ.

Second, Nowhere in all the descriptions of the Last supper does Jesus say that the Eucharist is a symbol. He says this “IS” my body and this “IS” my blood.

Thirdly, There are few things in the early Church that are as clearly defined as the true body and blood in the Eucharist. In, Fact Ignatius of Antioch was taught by the Apostles directly. He was a direct disciple of John, (who wrote the Gospel). He states…“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110])
I ask Those who dispute the Eucharist. Who was a better interpreter of the true meaning of the Body and Blood. Those taught directly by the Apostles, or people reading a Bible that is translated from ancient Greek (Translations are not perfect), 2000 years removed from the Apostles, filled with modern misconceptions and bias.

Lastly, The text in John 6 is pretty clear. It takes a preconcieved notion that the Eucharist is a symbol, to come up with the Protestant interpretation. Remember, Protestant rejected the Eucharist first and thus had to make scripture fit their own biases, not the other way around. “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.” Did Jesus just tell his Disciples to eat his flesh, causing many of them to leave and then say that eating his flesh is a of no use. In John 6:63 “flesh profits nothing” refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. Notice ho he is Chiding the disciples for their own human unbelief.

“The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life” are also quoted. This does not say that his words are symbolic. Christ’s body and blood are Spirit and Life. This does not say that he is speaking symbolically.

Lots of disciples left… They were following him already believing that he was the son of man. If Jesus was simply speaking symbolically he would already affirmwhat they already knew. Why would they leave? Well, because he turned them off by telling them to literally EAT his body and blood.
 
John 6:63: “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.”

Jesus here is chiding his disciples

He says the Spirit give life… Yes Catholics would agree

The Flesh is of no avail… Jesus here is chiding his disciples for claiming that the Teacing is hard for people to accept. Jesus is saying that Spirit gives life not their own human understanding. So he is infact telling them that it is difficult to believe that we can eat his body and blood. Spirit will give us this acceptance, NOT human “flesh” understanding"

Jesus’s words were spirit and life… His body and blood do give us life and spirit.

The problem is that Many translate spirit as symbol. NOWHERE in the new testament is spirit compatable with symbol. It is a false comparision

Would this make sense

The Holy Spirit = the Holy Symbol, No the Spirit is real not symbolic. The word Spirit does not = symbol.

Jesus did not breath on his disciple and give them the Holy symbol.

Paul tells people not to quench the Spirit. Would that make sense if it said do not quench the Symbol… How can one quench a symbol?

By that logic, John baptised with water, but Jesus would baptise with the holy symbol.

I know these comparisons seem silly, but that is how modern protestants are taking the word Spirit in John 6.

No one can come to this conclusion unless they are looking for ways to reject the Eucharist because they have already rejected it.

Remember, The disciples said this was a difficult teaching and Jesus instructed them not to think in human terms. Unfortunately, this is exactly what Protestants are doing.

I pray that the hardness of manys hearts will end and the can accept the grace of the Eucharist as taught by Jesus an continued by the Catholic Church for 2,000 years.
 
Legal_Eagle said:
Take a look at the reaction of the crowd. Most of them were disgusted at the idea. Jesus, rather than correct their “misunderstanding” lets them walk away. The question then becomes, “why would Jesus let people walk away from him based upon their misunderstanding of his metaphor?” The answer is fairly simple…they didn’t misunderstand. Jesus intended that he be taken literally, and he was. Jesus’s words were just too much for many of his disciples.

This is a perfect example of why Tradition is so important in forming our doctrinal understandings. You can say, “Jesus was speaking figuratively.” I can say, “Jesus meant to be taken literally.” If all we have to work with is the words of Scripture then our conflict is unresolvable. You have your understanding. I have mine. End of story.

BUT…

The beautiful thing about Tradition is that we don’t have to rely on our own opinions to resolve disputes like these. We can look at how John’s own disciples understood those words. The Apostle, John, who wrote John 6, taught Polycarp. Polycarp in turn taught Irenaeus. Here’s what Irenaeus had to say about the matter.

This understanding was not unique to John’s community. You can read here how the Early Fathers understood the matter.

catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp

Thus, the importance of respecting Tradition when trying to understand doctrine. We can both read the words on the page in John 6. Your opinion as to how those words should be understood is just as good as mine. My opinion is just as good as yours. Thanks be to God that we don’t have to rely on our own opinions. Thanks be to God that we have records from the students of the very author of John 6 who can tell us what their teacher heard when Jesus uttered those words that are on that page.
Click to expand...
Are we to believe Polycarp to be infallible? Are his writings to be placed at the same level as scripture? Are we to assume that just because he was of the early church that he is not capable of leading God’s people astray? We understand very clearly from scripture that there were wolves amongst the sheep from the beginning. A little leaven leavens the whole lump.
 
Linkowski said:
Are we to believe Polycarp to be infallible? Are his writings to be placed at the same level as scripture? Are we to assume that just because he was of the early church that he is not capable of leading God’s people astray? We understand very clearly from scripture that there were wolves amongst the sheep from the beginning. A little leaven leavens the whole lump.
Click to expand...
The Apostle, John, who wrote John 6, taught Polycarp. Polycarp in turn taught Irenaeus. Here’s what Irenaeus had to say about the matter.
Click to expand...
What evidence do you have that Polycarp corrupted or did not convey the teachings of John? What evidence that he let the Church astray.
Of course, the more important evidence is that the people turned away from Jesus because this was to hard a saying. What was to hard? They understood Jesus and they knew he was not speaking figuratively else wise they would not have left him.
 
Linkowski said:
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Click to expand...
Notice, Jesus doesn’t say “My Flesh profiteth nothing”. Jesus is talking about thinking in “the Spirit”, rather than thinking “of this world”. He reiterated this sentiment numerous times in John’s Gospel, such as when he was talking to Nicodemus regarding Baptism.

BTW, if you believe Jesus was talking about His Flesh profiteth nothing, why do you believe the Sacrifice of His Flesh on the Cross bought our Redemption?
 
Infallible - NO, a Martyr, YES. I ask you, would a man, taught the Truth by St. John willingly, first – Give up that Truth, and second - Die for it? Die for a lie??
Polycarp - A Martyr for Truth
Polycarp’s greatest contribution to Christianity may be his martyred death. His martyrdom stands as one of the most well documented events of antiquity. The emperors of Rome had unleashed bitter attacks against the Christians during this period, and members of the early church recorded many of the persecutions and deaths. Polycarp was arrested on the charge of being a Christian – a member of a politically dangerous cult whose rapid growth needed to be stopped. Amidst an angry mob, the Roman proconsul took pity on such a gentle old man and urged Polycarp to proclaim, “Caesar is Lord”. If only Polycarp would make this declaration and offer a small pinch of incense to Caesar’s statue he would escape torture and death. To this Polycarp responded, “Eighty-six years I have served Christ, and He never did me any wrong. How can I blaspheme my King who saved me?” Steadfast in his stand for Christ, Polycarp refused to compromise his beliefs, and thus, was burned alive at the stake.
Click to expand...
Found Here:
polycarp.net/

Believe what you like - but don’t smear the name of a man who died to preserve the Truth.

Peace

John
 
Linkowski said:
Are we to believe Polycarp to be infallible? Are his writings to be placed at the same level as scripture? Are we to assume that just because he was of the early church that he is not capable of leading God’s people astray? We understand very clearly from scripture that there were wolves amongst the sheep from the beginning. A little leaven leavens the whole lump.
Click to expand...
Of course there were heretics in the early church. It was against those heretics that Irenaeus was writing. It was against those heretics that St. Ignatius of Antioch was writing. The heretical position was that wine remains wine and bread remains bread. The orthodox position was (and remains) transubstantiation.

The central point of my first post is this…You and I can argue for days about what Jesus meant when he gave his Bread of Life discourse. If all we use to make our points is the words on the page in John 6, we will just go round and round. Your opinion is as good as mine, and vice versa. That’s all well and good if all we want to do is argue.

But if we want to look for the truth, why not look to see how those closest to Jesus understood his words? John heard Jesus speak those words. He was there. He could ask Jesus what he meant. John taught Polycarp directly. Polycarp taught Irenaeus. The entire Christian world accepted the testimony of the early fathers, including Irenaeus, on this point until the Reformation. Is Irenaeus not in a better position to discern what Jesus meant that we are 2000 years and half a world removed?

If your honest with yourself I think you will have to agree. If not, all you have is your own opinion. If all we have are our own opinions, yours is as good as mine, mine is as good as yours and around we go.
 
You have some seemingly good points. Problem is this. If we are to take the words figuratively, they already had(and have) a meaning that makes nonsense out of Christ’s words.
Christ in the Eucharist from CA Library
They say that in John 6 Jesus was not talking about physical food and drink, but about spiritual food and drink. They quote John 6:35: “Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.’” They claim that coming to him is bread, having faith in him is drink. Thus, eating his flesh and blood merely means believing in Christ.

But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, "The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense" (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.
Click to expand...
So it is not possible to believe that Christ meant that if one slanders and hates me, one will have eternal life. That is what one would need to believe to not believe the literal words of Christ.

God Bless,
Maria
 
NotWorthy said:
Notice, Jesus doesn’t say “My Flesh profiteth nothing”. Jesus is talking about thinking in “the Spirit”, rather than thinking “of this world”. He reiterated this sentiment numerous times in John’s Gospel, such as when he was talking to Nicodemus regarding Baptism.

BTW, if you believe Jesus was talking about His Flesh profiteth nothing, why do you believe the Sacrifice of His Flesh on the Cross bought our Redemption?
Click to expand...
I looked at some of the other thread. I am not sure that you can assume that eat is being used here to actually EAT flesh (gnaw, etc.). This word does not necessarily mean that. I am certain that you could not apply it this way here in Rev 10:10

Re 10:10 And I took the little book out of the angel’s hand , and ate it up ; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey : and as soon as I had eaten it , my belly was bitter .

This is the only word that could possibly be used in John 6…it can be either literal or figurative.

phago - a primary verb (used as an alternate of 2068 in certain tenses); to eat (literally or figuratively):–eat, meat.

John 6:63 KJV 63 It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Flesh has many meanings here - Gr.** sarx**…

4561 σάρξ [sarx /sarx/] n f. Probably from the base of 4563; TDNT 7:98; TDNTA 1000; GK 4922; 151 occurrences; AV translates as “flesh” 147 times, “carnal” twice, **“carnally minded + 5427” **once, and “fleshly” once. 1 flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beasts. 2 the body. 2a the body of a man. 2b used of natural or physical origin, generation or relationship. 2b1 born of natural generation. 2c the sensuous nature of man, “the animal nature”. 2c1 without any suggestion of depravity. 2c2 the animal nature with cravings which incite to sin. 2c3 the physical nature of man as subject to suffering. 3 a living creature (because possessed of a body of flesh) whether man or beast. 4 the flesh, denotes **mere human nature, the earthly nature **of man apart from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God.

It is used in this way here…

Ro 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death ; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace .

To think of this in literal terms is not proper - Jesus was trying to correct that very attitude in John 6:63 from what can see.
 
Linkowski said:
Are we to believe Polycarp to be infallible? Are his writings to be placed at the same level as scripture? Are we to assume that just because he was of the early church that he is not capable of leading God’s people astray? We understand very clearly from scripture that there were wolves amongst the sheep from the beginning. A little leaven leavens the whole lump.
Click to expand...
I promise you this, Link. I would place Polycarp’s interpretation of what John meant over yours simply because:
a) Polycarp was a disciple of John’s.
b) Polycarp spoke the same language in the same “day and age” as John.
c) Polycarp was willing, even happy, to die for his faith in Jesus Christ.

He’s not at the same level as Scripture, but the actions of such people like Polycarp and others gives us a good clue as to how the Words of God, spread by the Apostles, was received in the early Church.

I really can’t say the same for you, Link. Sorry.
 
PraRFLEsEkHm said:
Infallible - NO, a Martyr, YES. I ask you, would a man, taught the Truth by St. John willingly, first – Give up that Truth, and second - Die for it? Die for a lie??

Found Here:
polycarp.net/

Believe what you like - but don’t smear the name of a man who died to preserve the Truth.

Peace

John
Click to expand...
So, then you agree…he is not infallible.
 
Linkowski said:
I looked at some of the other thread. I am not sure that you can assume that eat is being used here to actually EAT flesh (gnaw, etc.). This word does not necessarily mean that. I am certain that you could not apply it this way here in Rev 10:10
Click to expand...
I finally figured out you were addressing someone else’s post, while linking to mine. No problem, these threads can run fast, my friend.

But in regards to this post, look at MariaG’s post #12. I think it addresses the “symbolic” usage of the word “Trago”.
 
NotWorthy said:
I promise you this, Link. I would place Polycarp’s interpretation of what John meant over yours simply because:
a) Polycarp was a disciple of John’s.
b) Polycarp spoke the same language in the same “day and age” as John.
c) Polycarp was willing, even happy, to die for his faith in Jesus Christ.

He’s not at the same level as Scripture, but the actions of such people like Polycarp and others gives us a good clue as to how the Words of God, spread by the Apostles, was received in the early Church.

I really can’t say the same for you, Link. Sorry.
Click to expand...
Again, this does not mean anything. He was not infallible…he was capable of teaching things that are not proper. Please do not treat the early church fathers as infallible.
 
Linkowski said:
Again, this does not mean anything. He was not infallible…he was capable of teaching things that are not proper. Please do not treat the early church fathers as infallible.
Click to expand...
I’m trying to best to convey to you that they are not infallible.

But if I was a betting man, the chances of you knowing what Jesus meant in John 6:63 (1900 years and at least one interpreation later) over someone who spent decades at the feet of the author of John 6:63, and died willingly defending those words are Slim and None.
.he was capable of teaching things that are not proper
Click to expand...
I’d be more inclined to believe that you are capable of teaching things that are not proper.

Not willingly, mind you, but ouf of a blind-spot in your reasoning created by the belief that Jesus is present in the Eucharist just as the Catholic Church has taught for almost 2000 years!!!
 
Linkowski said:
I looked at some of the other thread. I am not sure that you can assume that eat is being used here to actually EAT flesh (gnaw, etc.). This word does not necessarily mean that. I am certain that you could not apply it this way here in Rev 10:10

Re 10:10 And I took the little book out of the angel’s hand , and ate it up ; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey : and as soon as I had eaten it , my belly was bitter .

This is the only word that could possibly be used in John 6…it can be either literal or figurative.

phago - a primary verb (used as an alternate of 2068 in certain tenses); to eat (literally or figuratively):–eat, meat.

John 6:63 KJV 63 It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Flesh has many meanings here - Gr.** sarx**…

4561 σάρξ [sarx /sarx/] n f. Probably from the base of 4563; TDNT 7:98; TDNTA 1000; GK 4922; 151 occurrences; AV translates as “flesh” 147 times, “carnal” twice, **“carnally minded + 5427” **once, and “fleshly” once. 1 flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beasts. 2 the body. 2a the body of a man. 2b used of natural or physical origin, generation or relationship. 2b1 born of natural generation. 2c the sensuous nature of man, “the animal nature”. 2c1 without any suggestion of depravity. 2c2 the animal nature with cravings which incite to sin. 2c3 the physical nature of man as subject to suffering. 3 a living creature (because possessed of a body of flesh) whether man or beast. 4 the flesh, denotes **mere human nature, the earthly nature **of man apart from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God.

It is used in this way here…

Ro 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death ; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace .

To think of this in literal terms is not proper - Jesus was trying to correct that very attitude in John 6:63 from what can see.
Click to expand...
Can someone believe on Christ with all their heart - following Him as a disciple and giving themselves to sharing the gospel and reading His word…BUT…not eat that wafer - is that one damned because they did not partake?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top