John 6 Discourse objection regarding the tense used

[NewsTheMan]

I have been in debate with some guys about the Eucharist. In pointing to John 6 basically his response is this:

In John 6 Christ was speaking in the present tense, but yet he had not yet instituted the Eucharist [as he did at the Last Supper] so John 6 cannot be referring to the Eucharist. The audience couldn’t participate in a sacrament that wasn’t there to participate in yet.

Thoughts?

 

[Scoobyshme]

I have been in debate with some guys about the Eucharist. In pointing to John 6 basically his response is this:

In John 6 Christ was speaking in the present tense, but yet he had not yet instituted the Eucharist [as he did at the Last Supper] so John 6 cannot be referring to the Eucharist. The audience couldn’t participate in a sacrament that wasn’t there to participate in yet.

Thoughts?

You might point out to him that NONE of the New Testament was written until long after Jesus had died, rose again from the dead, and ascended into heaven. So, when John 6th was written, everything that was in the New Testament had already happened.

The Bible is also not necessarily written in absolute chronological order.

All that being said, remind him that the Bible wasn’t assembled till the 4th century. And it has only been in the last 100 years or so, that the majority of people could read and write. So, a Bible-reading, self-interpreting Church would have been very exclusionary, had that been Jesus’ intent. No. Instead, He trained 12 Apostles, teaching them orally, and commanding them to pass on ALL that He had taught them. (Matt 28:20) Yet, NOT all He taught them is IN the Bible. (See John 21:25) There was MUCH more that Jesus did and taught that wasn’t written down. But the Church, through the Apostles and their successors, the Bishops, have carried forward the full “deposit of faith” received from Jesus for these almost 2000 years now. So, the Bible is not now, nor has it ever been, a “do-it-yourself kit” of Christianity. It is merely a tool, which can be misused if put in the wrong hands or in untrained hands, with no final authority (which is the Church, not the individual).

 

[HickmanJosh]

interestingopcorn:

but still scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html#eucharist-IIa

 

[JamestheOlder]

I have been in debate with some guys about the Eucharist. In pointing to John 6 basically his response is this:

In John 6 Christ was speaking in the present tense, but yet he had not yet instituted the Eucharist [as he did at the Last Supper] so John 6 cannot be referring to the Eucharist. The audience couldn’t participate in a sacrament that wasn’t there to participate in yet.

Thoughts?

I may not understand this question very well, so I am mystified by the statement about this referring to an event yet to come.

If the verses are read (my version is the USCCB NAB), Jesus very plainly says He is the Bread of Life. He is, at that very moment, the Bread of Life. He does not have to wait until the Pasch to become the Bread of Life, He already IS. Then, in His words, he says ",the bread that I will give… He has not yet GIVEN this bread to His disciples.

What am I missing about this question?

 

[MBS1]

I guess it depends on where in John 6 you are looking. For the importance of the bread being His true body, Jesus states in John 6:51 - “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” The word “shall” or “will give” in some bibles seems to indicate a future action - especially since He has not given His life (flesh) yet for the world, and he says the bread he “shall” give is His flesh. Since giving of His flesh is in the future, it would seem giving the Bread as His flesh also is in the future. I don’t see how it can be taken as present tense in this verse. By the way, since Jesus says the bread He shall give is His flesh, ask your friend what Jesus means by bread in this sentence, and why Jesus says you have to eat it. Hope this helps some.

 

[TimothyH]

Oh brother… The guy’s point in the original post is just silly.

Jesus’ flesh was the bread which came down from Heaven at the time that he said it. The fact that the audience had not eaten it yet did not make it any less so.

Bread sitting on the shelf at the grocery store uneaten is still true food. Wine sitting on the shelf in the liquor store is still true drink. Bread and wine don’t start becoming food and drink only when we eat it, or only when we place it on the table, or only when we buy it. It’s exists as food and drink irrespective of our having consumed it.

To dig deeper, past the silliness of the non-Catholic’s assertion, remind your friend that Jesus is fully God.

***The Father and I are one." *(John 10:30)

While Jesus is God incarnate - God who took on flesh in space and time, God “In the world” - God exists in eternity, which is outside of time.

***Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM.” *(John 8:58)

To God, all time is present… all time is now. We think of the Eucharist in terms of Jesus’ ** physical** presence, but the Eucharist is Jesus’ sacramental presence. Jesus’ was present physically 2000 years ago in Israel. Jesus’ sacramental presence however, transcendes space and time. Jesus can be sacramentally present in multiple places at the same time and multiple times throughout space. Jesus’ sacramental presence is the same in a Church in Italy in the year 800 AD as it is in a Church in Chicago in the year 2011.

So when Jesus says “My flesh is true food”, he could have as easily said, “My flesh is, was and always will be true food.”

-Tim-

 

[MarcoPolo]

John 3:5 Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Jesus said this, present tense, well before He died. So according to your friend’s logic, a person had to presently be born of water and Spirit (before Pentecost) and thus could be saved without Christ having died and risen.

Your friend is creating a false dilemma that if present tense is used in a sentence, one cannot be talking about something in the future. It would be like if I said, unless you teach your child to drive he/she cannot pass a driver’s test. According to your friend, it is apparently not possible that the speaker could be talking to parents of 5-year-olds because “teach” is present tense. But in reality, the speaker is referring to when the audience is in the situation to teach—whenever that may be—he must teach. Your friend’s rules for grammar are fictional.

 

[TimothyH]

John 3:5 Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Jesus said this, present tense, well before He died. So according to your friend’s logic, a person had to presently be born of water and Spirit (before Pentecost) and thus could be saved without Christ having died and risen.

Your friend is creating a false dilemma that if present tense is used in a sentence, one cannot be talking about something in the future. It would be like if I said, unless you teach your child to drive he/she cannot pass a driver’s test. According to your friend, it is apparently not possible that the speaker could be talking to parents of 5-year-olds because “teach” is present tense. But in reality, the speaker is referring to when the audience is in the situation to teach—whenever that may be—he must teach. Your friend’s rules for grammar are fictional.

Doesn’t the ancient Greek have a version of the verb “Is” which is in the future-perfect tense? Unlike our “Is” which means only in the present, they had, if I am not mistaken, a tense which meant not only the present but also encompasing the future.

-Tim-

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I have been in debate with some guys about the Eucharist. In pointing to John 6 basically his response is this:

In John 6 Christ was speaking in the present tense, but yet he had not yet instituted the Eucharist [as he did at the Last Supper] so John 6 cannot be referring to the Eucharist. The audience couldn’t participate in a sacrament that wasn’t there to participate in yet.

Thoughts?

The Gospel of John is often working at two levels: the material AND the spiritual (6:63); so this can get a little confusing at times. Greek Platonists divided the world into two realms, the world of idea forms (perfect, divine, ultimate) and the material world (imperfect, corrupt, deteriorating). The Gospel’s very radical overriding message–against Platonism–is that the divine Word has entered the material world and become real, material flesh. This is a essentially what would be called a sacramental understanding–baptism uses water (something material) but it’s more than water (see John 3 for a parallel—as others have noted above).

So, Jesus is indeed the bread of life in a spiritual sense (something non-sacramental Christians might argue)–people look to Jesus and his teaching for spiritual sustenance, salvation, etc. For example, see 6:35: "Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.’ " Clearly, Jesus is not here talking about physical/material hunger; he’s speaking of something else–something like a spiritual hunger and thirst. A parallel in John would be 4:15–the Samaritan woman misconstrues Jesus’ spiritual teaching with a material understanding–she wants physical living water so she is magically cured of all thirst and never has to come back to well. I would say that up to verse 50 in John 6, Jesus is basically teaching about being the bread of life in this spiritual dimension that could be approximating your friend’s understanding.

It is when the text of John 6 switches to the physical or material dimension of this reality that things get interesting. In verse 51 Jesus reveals that “the bread that I will give (doso, clearly Gk. future tense) is my flesh…” Now we move to the physical/material dimension of what Jesus has been speaking of only spiritually up to this point. The giving of Jesus’ material flesh (in the many ways that can be understood, but primarily in the cross and the Eucharist) has not yet occurred at this point in the narrative, which is why here the writer switches to the future tense verb.

For John, it’s always both/and: spiritual and material. To loose sight of one or the other is to miss the message. The sacraments aren’t magic materials. But neither are they ONLY spiritual realities with no material substance.

 

[praxising]

Oh brother… The guy’s point in the original post is just silly.

Jesus’ flesh was the bread which came down from Heaven at the time that he said it. The fact that the audience had not eaten it yet did not make it any less so.

Bread sitting on the shelf at the grocery store uneaten is still true food. Wine sitting on the shelf in the liquor store is still true drink. Bread and wine don’t start becoming food and drink only when we eat it, or only when we place it on the table, or only when we buy it. It’s exists as food and drink irrespective of our having consumed it. -

++

 

[MarcoPolo]

Doesn’t the ancient Greek have a version of the verb “Is” which is in the future-perfect tense? Unlike our “Is” which means only in the present, they had, if I am not mistaken, a tense which meant not only the present but also encompasing the future.

-Tim-

Dunno, off the top of my head. Would need to peruse my cheat sheet.

 

[praxising]

Dunno, off the top of my head. Would need to peruse my cheat sheet.

Answer from your cheatsheet:

Doesn’t the ancient Greek have a version of the verb “Is” which is in the future-perfect tense? Unlike our “Is” which means only in the present, they had, if I am not mistaken, a tense which meant not only the present but also encompasing the future.

-Tim-

Aorist Tense

The aorist is said to be “simple occurrence” or “summary occurrence”, without regard for the amount of time taken to accomplish the action. This tense is also often referred to as the ‘punctiliar’ tense. ‘Punctiliar’ in this sense means ‘viewed as a single, collective whole,’ a “one-point-in-time” action, although it may actually take place over a period of time. In the indicative mood the aorist tense denotes action that occurred in the past time, often translated like the English simple past tense.