John 6:66

[plain_me]

I just wanted to add one other person’s thoughts on the passage in question:

CHAP. 16.–RULE FOR INTERPRETING COMMANDS AND PROHIBITIONS.

1. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.”(2) This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.

(NPNF1: Vol. 2, Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3.16.24)

And here’s a link, in case you’d like to read more of the context: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.v.vi.xvi.html?highlight=interpreting,commands,and,prohibitions#highlight

Actually, I recommend reading the whole book. It’s awesome!

 

[Tarek_Chidiac]

But, the chapters and verses are not part of the NT - no more than the commentary.

This is simply a man-made coincidence.

is it a man-made coincidence at Cana in Galilee when the wine was gone? is it at Samaria when Jesus talks with a samaritan Woman? Was HisTriumphal Entry to Jerusalem a man-made coincidence? If not,Why Jhon 6:66 should be?

 

[NotWorthy]

is it a man-made coincidence at Cana in Galilee when the wine was gone? is it at Samaria when Jesus talks with a samaritan Woman? Was HisTriumphal Entry to Jerusalem a man-made coincidence? If not,Why Jhon 6:66 should be?

What are you talking about? None of those has anything to do with that fact that a human man chose the only verse in which Jesus’ disciples leaving him to coincide with the numbers 6:66 when he added them 1200 years later after John’s Gospel was written.

 

[Tarek_Chidiac]

What are you talking about? None of those has anything to do with that fact that a human man chose the only verse in which Jesus’ disciples leaving him to coincide with the numbers 6:66 when he added them 1200 years later after John’s Gospel was written.

It seemed to me that we misunderstood each other. I simply ask if these CHAPTERS, (Cana at Galilee, Samaritan woman, Triumphal entry …) are divided (like there are divided) in a coincidental way.

 

[Tarek_Chidiac]

." Am I misunderstanding you? Are you just asking why people think that they left mainly because of this claim?

Not exactly this …
I just wanted to notice that the 12 apostles didn’t left Him. Disciples did. Are we supposing to think that the disciples didn’t understand His say and the apostles did? they felt offensed to their pride and the apostles did not?
The Divine providence is Here. Apostles remained with their Lord, without understanding, by this “Grace” that the father has enabled them.
In other side, is there any relation between the Lord say about His flesh and blood and the sacrifices in Moses’ laws as been written in Leviticus in the OT?

 

[pprimeau1976]

But, the chapters and verses are not part of the NT - no more than the commentary.

This is simply a man-made coincidence.

Possibly, but there was some method of determining chapter and verse. What if John was written and organized so that a later scripture scholar could divide it in such a way?

 

[NotWorthy]

Possibly, but there was some method of determining chapter and verse. What if John was written and organized so that a later scripture scholar could divide it in such a way?

I would have definitely divided it between verses 21 & 22. I always wondered why it goes into 70 verses when this would be a good place to cut it back.

Hmmmm… maybe its divine providence!

 

[patrick457]

It was a Catholic I believe, though I forget who – but claiming agenda and putting it on Catholics is wrong – It’s God’s agenda.

It was Archbishop Stephen Langton and Cardinal Hugo de Sancto Caro who determined different schemas for systematic division of the Bible between 1227 and 1248. Eventually, it is the system of Archbishop Langton on which the modern chapter divisions are based. Before this, at the time of the Council of Nicaea, the New Testament had been divided into paragraphs, although the divisions were different from the modern Bible.

As for verses, the first person to divide New Testament chapters into verses was Italian Dominican biblical scholar Santi Pagnini (1470–1541); however his system that was never widely adopted. Robert Estienne created an alternate numbering in his 1551 edition of the Greek New Testament. The first English New Testament to use the verse divisions was a 1557 translation by William Whittingham (c. 1524-1579). The first Bible in English to use both chapters and verses was the Geneva Bible published shortly afterwards in 1560. These verse divisions soon gained acceptance as a standard way to notate verses, and have since been used in nearly all English Bibles.

So the chapter-and-verse divisions are actually a joint work between Catholics and Protestants.

 

[plain_me]

Not exactly this …
I just wanted to notice that the 12 apostles didn’t left Him. Disciples did. Are we supposing to think that the disciples didn’t understand His say and the apostles did? they felt offensed to their pride and the apostles did not?

Ummm, yeah, pretty much. Jesus knew what He was doing when He said all those things to them all. It was also no mistake that Peter answered, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life…”

The Divine providence is Here. Apostles remained with their Lord, without understanding, by this “Grace” that the father has enabled them.

Totally in agreement with you here…

In other side, is there any relation between the Lord say about His flesh and blood and the sacrifices in Moses’ laws as been written in Leviticus in the OT?

Well, following the complete context, as I said before, “Jesus’ use of the phrases ‘eat my flesh’ and ‘come to Me’ and ‘believe in Me’ all have the same meaning in the context.” The essential meaning of these phrases is to believe in Him.

Certainly, though, Jesus’ actual sacrifice was directly related to those OT sacrifices because His was the fulfillment of all of them as the shadowy representations (Heb. 10:1).

 

[NotWorthy]

  			Originally Posted by **Tarek Chidiac** 					[forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4699753#post4699753) 				
  		*Not exactly this ...

I just wanted to notice that the 12 apostles didn’t left Him. Disciples did. Are we supposing to think that the disciples didn’t understand His say and the apostles did? they felt offensed to their pride and the apostles did not?*

Ummm, yeah, pretty much. Jesus knew what He was doing when He said all those things to them all. It was also no mistake that Peter answered, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life…”

This is true. The Apostles had no idea what Jesus meant, but they trusted that Jesus knew what He was talking about.

Well, following the complete context, as I said before, “Jesus’ use of the phrases ‘eat my flesh’ and ‘come to Me’ and ‘believe in Me’ all have the same meaning in the context.” The essential meaning of these phrases is to believe in Him.

How do you get this context out of this? There is no precedent for “eat my flesh” to connote '“come to me” and “believe in me”.

No, “eat my flesh” in the context of the Old Testament meant to revile and loathe someone.

This is one of the reasons that the Apostles had no clue to what Jesus meant by these words.

Certainly, though, Jesus’ actual sacrifice was directly related to those OT sacrifices because His was the fulfillment of all of them as the shadowy representations (Heb. 10:1).

Except that these sacrifices meant nothing if you didn’t eat the Sacrifice (except of course for the holocaust offerings, of which the Passover Lamb was not).

 

[cthulhubryan]

I think that the fact that it is chapter 6 verse 66 is probably spirit guided during the installation of verses.

The fact of the happening is definitely divine providence as it shows that Jesus did in fact mean the Eucharist as the Eucharist and not as a symbolic act.

 

[MGLechner]

Okay, first, let us define the word “disciple.” A disciple is, according to the dictionary: 1. a pupil or follower of any teacher or school of religion, learning, art, etc.

The term disciple does not necessarily equal a true believer. Taken in context, Jesus states categorically that: “…there are some of you who do not believe…” [John 6.64]. And then, in verse 65 of the same chapter, Jesus states: “…no one can come to me unless it has been granted by my Father.”

Therefore, according to the context, those who walked away, were never numbered among the true believers. I will leave it to loftier minds than mine to argue whether this should be interpreted in a Calvinistic or Semi-Pelagian hermeneutic.

As far as the versification of John 6.66 is concerned, there were no verses in the scriptures until they were bound in a book. I would not make much of the fact that those who left Jesus after verse 65 was because it would be found in John 6.66! Please keep in mind that, according to the Book of the Apocalypse, the number 666 is the number of a specific individual. Whether it is a reference to Nero or some future “Antichrist” is up to debate. As someone who tends toward preterism when it comes to Eschatology and the exegesis of the Revelation of John, I lean toward the Nero interpretation.

 

[plain_me]

I think that the fact that it is chapter 6 verse 66 is probably spirit guided during the installation of verses.

The fact of the happening is definitely divine providence as it shows that Jesus did in fact mean the Eucharist as the Eucharist and not as a symbolic act.

Well, I guess I know where you stand, but I’m with Augustine: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4696048&postcount=21

And if I can intepret the Bible according to the unanimous consent of the church fathers: ewtn.com/library/councils/trent4.htm (Under the heading: Decree Concerning The Edition And Use Of The Sacred Books, 2nd paragraph)…then Augustine’s view must’ve been the same one held to by everybody in the early church.

Bryan, you may want to consider things like this before you take your swim…

 

[cthulhubryan]

Well, I guess I know where you stand, but I’m with Augustine: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4696048&postcount=21

And if I can intepret the Bible according to the unanimous consent of the church fathers: ewtn.com/library/councils/trent4.htm (Under the heading: Decree Concerning The Edition And Use Of The Sacred Books, 2nd paragraph)…then Augustine’s view must’ve been the same one held to by everybody in the early church.

Bryan, you may want to consider things like this before you take your swim…

I appreciate your position, but if you take the passages from John 6 to be figurative as they are enjoining a crime or vice then what do you make of the Last Supper when Jesus uses the same word (sarx) for eating this meat? Is the last supper asking us to commit a crime?

 

[dcana]

As far as the versification of John 6.66 is concerned, there were no verses in the scriptures until they were bound in a book.

But, the chapters and verses are not part of the NT - no more than the commentary.
This is simply a man-made coincidence.

I think Meximo put it best when she said that “coincidence is God’s way of being anonymous.” Generally speaking, I think the best answer to the question of whether an occurence is a miracle or is a coincidence is that it is a miraculous coincidence, so that coincidence is in the eye of the beholder. What difference does it make that the verses and chapters were not put in by the original writers and that they therefore (necessarily) came later when “men” inserted them, even centuries later? Of course men inserted them later. Would you number your sentences when you write a letter? God also used “men” to write the Bible. Of course these men were under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but nevertheless if He wants in His divine providence to make that particular verse of John’s Gospel (who also wrote Revelation, of course) number “6:66” is it not in His power to do so? The important thing is that it has been inserted into the Protestants’ KJV Bible for centuries, staring at them in the face, who need to see it most. How ironic as they are all about “prophecy,” numbers, identifying the beast, dates, and so on ad nauseum. I should know, I live in Tulsa. If I had a nickel for every “prophecy seminar” I’ve seen advertised… Once they take our Lord’s literal words literally, and there is no way He could have spoken more literally or plainly, like they take the rest of the Bible literally (eg the Genesis creation story, which obviously admits of figurative interpretations), the revolt will be over. God bless.

:doh2: :hug3: :extrahappy: :heaven:

 

[plain_me]

I appreciate your position, but if you take the passages from John 6 to be figurative as they are enjoining a crime or vice then what do you make of the Last Supper when Jesus uses the same word (sarx) for eating this meat? Is the last supper asking us to commit a crime?

It’s interesting that you would say this. Did someone tell you that the word sarx was in one of the accounts of the Last Supper? Maybe I missed it, but I don’t see that in any of those texts. I do see soma (body), but I don’t see sarx.

Anyways, I think you know what my answer will be. I would use a consistent hermeneutic in both passages. The thing that was said by Augustine would apply to both passages. Would it be any less of a crime to eat human flesh whether it was commanded in one passage or the other? Of course not.

If we were consistent on the other end, we would have to say, as those who claim to follow Christ, that we are not actually real people of flesh and blood because Jesus said that we are branches that are connected to Him as the vine. Is Jesus really a vine? Well, yes, in a figurative sense. The same goes for Jesus as the Door, and the Rock, and so on.

And the reason I pointed you to Augustine’s writing on the subject is because if what Trent said was true then what Augustine said was the unanimously agreed upon understanding of all the church fathers. And if they all didn’t have the exact same understanding of the Roman Catholic faith as the modern Roman Catholic Church, well…

 

[plain_me]

How do you get this context out of this? There is no precedent for “eat my flesh” to connote '“come to me” and “believe in me”.

No, “eat my flesh” in the context of the Old Testament meant to revile and loathe someone.

This is one of the reasons that the Apostles had no clue to what Jesus meant by these words.

I am saying that the words Jesus spoke meant what He intended for them to mean. The only real way someone can know what someone else means is according to the context in which those word are spoken. For example, the word head is used many times in the Scriptures, sometimes to speak about someone’s actual head (Ex. 34:8), sometimes to speak of the capital of a country (Is. 7:8), sometimes to refer to the end of the bed that you lay your head (Gen. 47:31), sometimes to refer to a location in a valley (Is. 28:1)–do you see?

If you read beginning at verse 26, paying close attention to what was said in verse 28 and following that thought down through the rest of the passage, you should notice that Jesus uses a couple different similes to say the same thing to the Jews that He said to them in verse 29 in answer to the question they asked in verse 28. If not, please demonstrate according to the context why it should be understood differently besides just saying, “SEE! He said my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink!” Apparently, I and all the other “Protestants” are not the only ones to notice this, as you can see from my quotation from Augustine.

NotWorthy:
Except that these sacrifices meant nothing if you didn’t eat the Sacrifice (except of course for the holocaust offerings, of which the Passover Lamb was not).

What’s funny is that in my Bible reading this year I’m in Leviticus, and the sin offering that Aaron and his sons were to eat was absolutely NOT to be eaten (Lev. 6:30). What was the Mass offered for again?

 

[NotWorthy]

I am saying that the words Jesus spoke meant what He intended for them to mean. The only real way someone can know what someone else means is according to the context in which those word are spoken. For example, the word head is used many times in the Scriptures, sometimes to speak about someone’s actual head (Ex. 34:8), sometimes to speak of the capital of a country (Is. 7:8), sometimes to refer to the end of the bed that you lay your head (Gen. 47:31), sometimes to refer to a location in a valley (Is. 28:1)–do you see?

Yes, yes. I know that context determines meanings when definitions alone can’t narrow it down.

If you read beginning at verse 26, paying close attention to what was said in verse 28 and following that thought down through the rest of the passage, you should notice that Jesus uses a couple different similes to say the same thing to the Jews that He said to them in verse 29 in answer to the question they asked in verse 28. If not, please demonstrate according to the context why it should be understood differently besides just saying, “SEE! He said my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink!” Apparently, I and all the other “Protestants” are not the only ones to notice this, as you can see from my quotation from Augustine.

First, if you’d please indicate Augustine’s quote again. Second, I see that the Jews are trying their damndest to make Jesus’ words mean anything other than what they fear He means. Something that I’ve seen on numerous threads on John 6 . Third, the “symbolic” meaning of “eat my flesh” would only confuse the Jews even more - which is why they are having such a hard time understanding Jesus.

Does Jesus mean:
a) that we must literally eat this Man’s flesh… Oooh!
or
b) that we must revile and loathe Him?

This is why they can’t accept this hard teaching, for neither the symbolic or the literal make a lick of sense to the loyal Jew.

What’s funny is that in my Bible reading this year I’m in Leviticus, and the sin offering that Aaron and his sons were to eat was absolutely NOT to be eaten (Lev. 6:30). What was the Mass offered for again?

That’s correct - it was a holocaust sin offering. What does this prove? I don’t know that its really relevant. I could show you that, in the Passover Meal, which we all agree Pre-figured Jesus (the Lamb of God and all that!). If the Jews did not eat the Lamb - They died!

 

[cthulhubryan]

It’s interesting that you would say this. Did someone tell you that the word sarx was in one of the accounts of the Last Supper? Maybe I missed it, but I don’t see that in any of those texts. I do see soma (body), but I don’t see sarx.

Anyways, I think you know what my answer will be. I would use a consistent hermeneutic in both passages. The thing that was said by Augustine would apply to both passages. Would it be any less of a crime to eat human flesh whether it was commanded in one passage or the other? Of course not.

If we were consistent on the other end, we would have to say, as those who claim to follow Christ, that we are not actually real people of flesh and blood because Jesus said that we are branches that are connected to Him as the vine. Is Jesus really a vine? Well, yes, in a figurative sense. The same goes for Jesus as the Door, and the Rock, and so on.

And the reason I pointed you to Augustine’s writing on the subject is because if what Trent said was true then what Augustine said was the unanimously agreed upon understanding of all the church fathers. And if they all didn’t have the exact same understanding of the Roman Catholic faith as the modern Roman Catholic Church, well…

I pulled out my greek new testament and my keyword greek bible and looked up the word. sarx.

I have always found the word choice to be fairly particular and important. Just as Jesus said “I am” many times, it is recorded as ego ennui. If one looks at the greek septaguint that was used during the time of Christ then God tells Moses to tell the people that it is I AM who sends him. Again, ego ennui.

If instead of being literal with sarx why then did Christ allow many to leave over a misunderstanding? That is hardly charitable.