John 6 Apologetics

  • Thread starter Thread starter v1gilbert
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In brief response, the linked article by Patton appears at first glance to be a textbook case of taking a viewpoint and finding scripture to fit it. Patton’s case boils down to three scriptural citations which he argues demonstrate that Jesus was quite content leaving those around him in confusion. In the first citation, concerning Jesus’s pronouncement about rebuilding the temple, John immediately provides a “voiceover” to direct the reader’s attention to understand the symbolism. In the second, concerning being born again, not only does a literal reading present an absolute utter impossibility (man can’t reenter the womb, so this is clearly symbolic, whereas God can do whatever He darn well pleases), but Jesus goes on to provide at least a little more explanation (one must be born of water and of spirit). The third example, concerning Jesus’s “food that you do not know about,” Jesus corrects the disciples’ misunderstanding in the very next verse.

So it appears that Patton has noted three distinct outcomes, none of which support his opinion: (1) Jesus says something symbolic which the author (here, John) explains, (2) Jesus says something that the Bible elsewhere gives further detail, and (3) Jesus leaves no one in confusion because he immediately corrects the misunderstanding.

Not so in John 6. There Jesus, speaking sort of symbolically, calls himself the Bread of Life. He didn’t mean he was at that moment actually bread, so we can safely say he was speaking symbolically, in a sense. It seems to me that the discussion really changes when He says that the bread that he “will” give for the life of the world is his flesh. At this point it seems to become more literal and less symbolic. Jesus doesn’t then hear the objections and correct a misunderstanding. John doesn’t give us a voiceover explaining what Jesus meant. And the Bible doesn’t otherwise suggest that this was referred to only symbolically. Rather John continues, quoting Jesus, as Jesus for the first time goes further and says that one must eat his flesh and drink his blood to receive eternal life. He then explains that his flesh is real food and his blood is real drink. Then as John continues to echo the refrain about eating flesh and drinking blood, he changes the wording a bit to use a word meaning roughly to “gnaw” or “tear” like we would with meat. Jesus passively sit by and allow those listening to be confused and misunderstand his comments, he bolsters them by indicating that they correctly understood, despite the difficulty of accepting this teaching.

Ok, so this wasn’t actually brief . . .
 
First, the author of the link you provided is incorrect in claiming that Jesus does not correct other misunderstandings in John. His first pont of evidence for this is Jesus’ common practice of failing to explain a parable to those who do not understand, while explaining it to His desciples later. There are three problems with this.


  1. *]Jesus does explain His parables when they are not understood - to His apostles. However, He does not explain His teaching in John chapter 6 to them even after the others have left. The apostles don’t even ask Him to like they do in other cases. Obviously, the apostles did not understand Him to be speaking in a way that needed clarifying, as they were quick to ask for help in understanding when they needed it.
    *]This point concerns parables, not clear teaching. In John chapter 6, Jesus is not using a parable. He is simply giving straight teaching. When people had problems with His parables, it was not because they misunderstood Him - it was because they didn’t understand Him at all. In the case of the Bread of Life discourse in John 6, the people hear Jesus, then come up with an incorrect understanding of what He is trying to tell them, and leave because of it. On the other hand, people simply had no idea where to start with the parables. They never came up with incorrect interpretations - they came up with no interpretations and left. Jesus teaches in Matthew 13 that He speaks in parables as a punishment for people’s rejection of His clear, straight up teaching - such as He is giving in John 6. If they actually wanted to understand, He would have explained it to them - as we see when He answers the apostle’s questions. In other words, when He uses parables, He lets them go because He was planning on them not understanding - that’s why He used parables at all. On the other hand, when He gave clear teaching, He was expecting them to understand it.
    *]All of the cases that pertain to the parables are in the synoptic Gospels, not John. The different writers wrote with each their own style, and to get an understanding of what they mean, it’s important to understand their own particular style. I imagine you understand this, and in fact, it’s clear that the person who wrote this piece understands it, because he appeals to this point when he says we ought to look at other cases in John.

    Now it can be seen in this third point that the article contradicts itself a bit by appealing to the fact that one ought to look within a single gospel to garner information, then making an argument based on other Gospels. This is not the only such questionable argumentation in the article.

    Another such problem lies in the examples that he gives. For example, it quotes John 3:3-4 and says that Jesus gives no explanation of His teaching. However, He does this very thing in verses 5-8:

    Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

    After this, Nicodemus is still confused, asking “How can these things be?” (3:9), and yet Jesus continues to explain in verses 10 and following. He tries to clarify Himself twice before He walks away.

    The article even admits that in its third example, John 4:31 and following, Jesus does clarify Himself, but tries to soften this by saying it is only done “in frustration.”

    The fact is that when the gospel of John is examined, an explanation is given most of the time (if not always; I haven’t the time to read the whole thing through right now to see if there is an exception). In John 11:11 and following, He clarifies Himself when He is misnderstood. In John 7:38 and 2:21 (the first example given by the article), it is John Himself who clarifies the statement in his narration. In other words, we see throughout John’s Gospel that when Jesus is misunderstood, John makes sure that the misunderstanding doesn’t stand in His writing. He either quotes Jesus clarifying His meaning, or clarifies it himself. However, no clarification is given at all in John chapter 6 - by either Jesus or John’s narration.

    His second main point is that John doesn’t include the Last Supper, so that must mean it’s not all that important. That’s one way to look at it, but that’s not the way it’s been understood throughout history. Historically, going back to the earliest centuries, it’s been understood exactly the opposite: John included this discourse because the other Gospels already had the Last Supper in them, but there was no deeper explanation of the Eucharist, and this is what he wanted to give.
 
v1gilbert said:
Please someone give me some advice on refuting this link:

reclaimingthemind.org/blog/index.php/2007/02/24/why-did-he-let-them-walk-away-john-6-and-transubstantiation/
Click to expand...
That dude used to actually post here.

Anyway, he’s dead wrong. He conveniently ignores the fact that Mark 4:34 says, “And without parable he did not speak unto them; but apart, he explained all things to his disciples.”

Now, if there had been anything to explain…based on that verse right there, Our Lord would have done so, yet He did not. In fact he made it a literal make or break test for His apostles didn’t He? When he turned to them and said. “…Will you also go away?” (John 6:68) There was no explanation or discussion, it was simply “Will you also go away?” and that was it. The apostles knew that no matter how hard the saying appeared Our Lord meant what He said and had the power to make it so. Catholics are the same way.

To me that makes it very very plain that the Catholic Church is absolutely right in its Eucharistic teaching…and guys like C Michael Patton are dead wrong.

The thread The Eucharist IS Scriptural covers my other reasons in more depth so I recommend a look there.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
 
Thank you very much for the help I really appreciate it.

At least he referred to Karl Keating as a “top Catholic Apologist”.

I was having a hard time in dealing with all of the ‘corrections’ that were listed in his first point.

But I knew his second point seemed very immature. I believe that John’s gospel was written well after the other Gospels (written to the established Christian Churches) and one of the main thrusts behind them was to detail the Sacramental nature of the Church: Baptism and Eucharist were the big two.

Without Jesus mentioning it was necessary to be born of water and spirit (Jn 3); and eating his flesh and drinking his blood (Jn 6) it would be easier to fall away from what is listed in Matthew, Mark and Luke. It cemented their necessity for me but it still is amazing how confused everyone seems to be on those two Sacraments.

Thanks again.
 
The following is the text of a post from somewhere on here in CAF. I forgot to name the poster, but I give him/her credit all the same.
John 6:51-58 is to be interpreted literally and is one of the strongest passages that testify to the Real Presence in the Eucharist. In the Gospel of John, there is a certain pattern that helps to shed light on John 6. Whenever Jesus makes an ambiguous statement, it is usually followed by a misunderstanding/question, and this, in turn, is followed by a clarification either by Jesus or the Evangelist. So, this is the basic outline of this pattern:
Click to expand...
  1. Ambiguous Statement by Jesus
  2. Misunderstanding/ Question
  3. Clarification
Click to expand...
Now here are some examples from the Gospel of John:
Click to expand...
John 2:19-21
Click to expand...
Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and you will raise it up in three days? But He was speaking of the temple of His body."
Click to expand...
John 3:3-5
Click to expand...
**Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?**Jesus answered, “Truly Truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”
Click to expand...
John 8:31-34
Click to expand...
**So Jesus was saying to those Jews who believed in Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” They answered Him, "We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, “You will become free.” **Jesus answered them, "Truly, Truly I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.
Click to expand...
Now let’s look at John 6:51-53 and see if it fits the Ambiguous Statement/Question/Clarification pattern:
Click to expand...
"I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh." Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat? 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 yourselves.
Click to expand...
So, following the established pattern, verse 53 is a clarification of verses 51-52. If he were merely speaking figuratively, then we would have expected the literal meaning of the “figurative” langauge he used, as it happens in the verses I gave above and in many other places in the Bible. Instead, what we see in verse 53 is a reaffirmation of what the Jews understood Jesus to mean. So the clarification is that Jesus was speaking literally, not figuratively. If he were speaking figuratively, He would have indicated that in verse 53.
Click to expand...
So, here are some instances within the same Gospel of John where Christ taught something ambiguous to which the disciples questioned, and Jesus explained. If John wrote in the same style throughout his Gospel, then I have to believe that he would have written the Gospel to reflect the "alledged’ figurative meaning, but he didn’t and I believe him at his word…about the Word.

Dominus vobsicum
 
Who was the one that said “Did God **really **say you were not to eat from any of the trees in the garden?”

and how does this compare to some that are now saying
“Did Jesus **really **say we were to eat his body and drink his blood?”.
Who is influencing who?

Something to think about
 
TobyLue said:
Who was the one that said “Did God **really **say you were not to eat from any of the trees in the garden?”

and how does this compare to some that are now saying
“Did Jesus **really **say we were to eat his body and drink his blood?”.
Who is influencing who?

Something to think about
Click to expand...
Hmmmmmmmmmm… :hmmm:
 
His tag name is MichaelP. I and many others engaged Michael on the issue of the Eucharist and John Chapter 6. Every point he raised was answered but he remained unconvinced. Every point he raised in the submitted link was answered but he obviously didn’t include the refutations in his article.

All of this is rather unfortunate. I had a number of PM’s and emails with Michael Patton and I do like him. Unfortunately, he is not ready to accept Catholic teaching. He is a sincere Protestant minister and is gifted intellectually. I pray for his conversion regularly. He would be a great addition to the Church.
 
Pax said:
Unfortunately, he is not ready to accept Catholic teaching.
Click to expand...
I think this is what it really comes down to.

The Eucharist is one of the most biblical of any Catholic doctrine. All three synoptic gospels relate the institution of the Eucharist. Paul once more reiterates the institution of the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians, adding a warning that whoever does not recognize it as the body and blood of Christ eats and drinks a judgment on himself. Pretty forcefull stuff.

John relates how Jesus told that he would give his flesh to eat, repeating himself forcefully. Before this, he had fed the 5,000, and walked on water to the boat, almost as if to demonstrate to his disciples that nothing was beyond his power, as a preparation for this doctrine.

After the resurrection, two disciples walk with Jesus to Emmaus and only recognize him “in the breaking of the bread,” a significant indication that this is precisely how he will be recognized in the future.

The Acts relate how the Christians prayed at synagogue or temple, then gathered in a house for the “breaking of the bread,” nothing other than the Eucharist. Within the Church, there is no break in the understanding of the Eucharist from the very beginning.

It seems to me that those who deny the Eucharist must go through a great deal of mental gymnastics to convince themselves that Jesus did not teach what he clearly taught.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top