John 6 Does Not Teach Real Presence

[reformissionary]

As a Protestant pastor I’ve been told time and again that John 6 is IT. If you read John 6, you can’t deny the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. I don’t see it. A couple of reasons why…

1. John 6:35 - It’s “coming” to Jesus, “believing” in Jesus that makes us not hunger/thirst. Not actual eating/drinking. Same idea in v40.
2. John 6:40-41 - The concern of the Jews was not that you had to “eat” or “drink” Jesus, but that they knew his parents. They didn’t believe he was from heaven because he was born and people could point to his family as his origin. Not heaven.
3. John 6:47-51 - The bread he gives is his sacrifice. It is spiritual hunger this bread satisfies.
4. John 6:55 - Calling his flesh “true food” and blood “true drink” is to say that the food and drink we take now is not like the spiritual food/drink which isn’t digested through the stomach. Jesus often speaks of physical things to teach spiritual realities, and is often misunderstood. Destroy this temple and I will lift it up, another example.
5. The eat/drink in John 6 are parallels to “come” and “believe” in v35. It is belief that actually satisfies spiritual hunger, not bread/wine.
6. There are several other places in John where Jesus speaks of himself in a symbolic way, or through metaphor. I Am: True Vine (ch 15), Good Shepherd, Door (ch 10), Light (ch 8). To take him literally in Jn 6 you must take him literally in each passage, which is absurd.
7. Catholics keep telling me to take John 6 “literally.” But the best literal reading of anything is to understand things as the author intends. If I say that after her mom died my wife was a rock, to say she was literally a “rock” is absurd and gets the meaning wrong. The accurate reading is that she was stable and supportive and strong and didn’t crumble under the stress and sadness of loss.

Well, that’s a start. Thoughts?

Steve

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Steve, welcome aboard…

Our Lord teaches this and many of His disciples left Him. So, either

1. Jesus didn’t care about correcting their “misinterpretation” —a simple enough thing.

“Hey, why you leaving? This is what I meant. I was speaking symbolically”. Problem solved.

Way out of character for a loving Savior not to make a very simple correction.

or

1. He meant what He said, and they knew that He meant it, couldn’t swallow it, and left.

 

[reformissionary]

Luigi, you have the same issue for Real Presence. Jesus could have said, Wait, I’m just saying eat consecrated wafer and wine. It won’t even look or taste different!

 

[Saintlucy]

Luigi, you have the same issue for Real Presence. Jesus could have said, Wait, I’m just saying eat consecrated wafer and wine. It won’t even look or taste different!

Jesus showed exactly what He meant and how His Body and Blood were to be administered to the faithful at the Last Supper.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

So how do you explain that while all other heresies and misconceptions were jumped on, debated, and ‘known of’ in a New York Minute (Arians, Pelagians, Albigensians etc.), the ‘literal’ understanding of the Eucharist was practiced by all Christians from apostolic times and is still practiced not only by Catholics, but by Orthodox, and even by the very first ‘reformers’ (Lutherans and high Anglicans)?

If John 6 did not teach the Real Presence, one would have expected to see the ‘figurative’ teaching as far back as the apostles, in ‘opposition’ to the so called ‘error’ of literal teaching. But one doesn’t see that. The ‘figurative’ teaching is only 500 years old at best. IT–not the “Real Presence” is truly a ‘man-made’ doctrine.

 

[Mumbles140]

“51
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”
52
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
53
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54
Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.”

Now Jesus often spoke in parables, but He always made it clear when He was speaking in a parable. There is no indication of that here, even when they ask how He can give them flesh to eat. That all sounds pretty straight forward to me

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Consider also that at the same time as the ‘reformers’ were coming up with the ‘figurative’ man-made doctrine, what that **meant **in terms of clergy.

if there is only a ‘figurative’ Eucharist, then there is no ‘need’ for a clergy to confect a Eucharist.

The doctrine of ‘figurative’ Eucharist is rooted in anti-clericalism.

 

[curlycool89]

Well, that’s a start. Thoughts?

The idea of the Eucharist being “symbolic” doesn’t make any sense in the context of the entire Bible and salvation history itself, especially in light of a passage like 1 Corinthians 11:27-29.

 

[sambos671]

Luigi, you have the same issue for Real Presence. Jesus could have said, Wait, I’m just saying eat consecrated wafer and wine. It won’t even look or taste different!

It’s not quite the same. You base your argument on these two verses at the begining of the passage

28Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

29Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

However, you see a marked change by these verse in where the passage goes.

41At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”

He’s making an obvious comparison with himself and manna. Look at the general response to saying I’ve come down from heaven like manna. Then he states

51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"53Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.”

So is the manna in the desert belief? No its real food. It doesn’t diminish faith or believe but also it is no less real food and whats more it perishes where as Christ himself does not. Which is why for the disciples they say

60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

Note it is the Spirit that makes things true and just as applicable materially as it is spiritually.

The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[e] and they are life

Lewis believed that the material world was a poor reflection of the spiritual world in which case a Spiritual truth is a material truth indeed. Why else would the word in the passage “eat” be better translatted “chewed”? But if this passage were in isolation, which it is not, you may be taken however all the way back to the old testiment. We see the “bread of the presences” Or the 70 elders eating in the presence of the Lord God on the mountain. Also note in 1 Cor.

19No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. 20When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat,… Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?

Its not he Lords supper why? Why would it matter if it were just food unless its more than symbolic. and so you must then ask why this verse

27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

? Also with his other titles we forget in a real sense (very real sense) Jesus is the vine and we must stay connected to him. Jesus is a Lamb who made sacrifice for us. Jesus is the Door by which is the only entrance into heaven. Just because he doesn’t look like a door doesn’t mean he’s any less of one.

 

[Murphs10]

As a Protestant pastor I’ve been told time and again that John 6 is IT. If you read John 6, you can’t deny the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. I don’t see it. A couple of reasons why…

1. John 6:35 - It’s “coming” to Jesus, “believing” in Jesus that makes us not hunger/thirst. Not actual eating/drinking. Same idea in v40.
2. John 6:40-41 - The concern of the Jews was not that you had to “eat” or “drink” Jesus, but that they knew his parents. They didn’t believe he was from heaven because he was born and people could point to his family as his origin. Not heaven.
3. John 6:47-51 - The bread he gives is his sacrifice. It is spiritual hunger this bread satisfies.
4. John 6:55 - Calling his flesh “true food” and blood “true drink” is to say that the food and drink we take now is not like the spiritual food/drink which isn’t digested through the stomach. Jesus often speaks of physical things to teach spiritual realities, and is often misunderstood. Destroy this temple and I will lift it up, another example.
5. The eat/drink in John 6 are parallels to “come” and “believe” in v35. It is belief that actually satisfies spiritual hunger, not bread/wine.
6. There are several other places in John where Jesus speaks of himself in a symbolic way, or through metaphor. I Am: True Vine (ch 15), Good Shepherd, Door (ch 10), Light (ch 8). To take him literally in Jn 6 you must take him literally in each passage, which is absurd.
7. Catholics keep telling me to take John 6 “literally.” But the best literal reading of anything is to understand things as the author intends. If I say that after her mom died my wife was a rock, to say she was literally a “rock” is absurd and gets the meaning wrong. The accurate reading is that she was stable and supportive and strong and didn’t crumble under the stress and sadness of loss.

Well, that’s a start. Thoughts?

Steve

You do realize that the real presence in the Eucharist was the center of Christian worship from the time of the Apostles, right? And, this isn’t guess-work. The historical evidence is quite clear on this and for your interpretation to be correct, the earliest Chirstians, including some were taught directly by the Apostles directly, would have had to have been mistaken.

 

[Kassandra]

I am Catholic and when I receive communion it is the body and blood of Christ. It’s not symbolic to me. Those are my thoughts.

 

[poetryforjesus]

Is Jesus the literal “lamb of God,” or a symbolic one?
If He is the real Lamb of God not just a symbolic one, why shouldn’t we celebrate communion as the Jews celebrate the old Passover, where the sacrificial lamb is offered and consumed by sinners?

 

[VociMike]

Thoughts? My first thought is, how did the entire Church, both East and West, get this wrong for 1500 years? I’m not interested in arguing interpretations of John 6, I’m interested in how it is that pope, no council, no bishop, no patriarch, no doctor of the Church, taught your interpretation for those 1500 years (or the 500 after that, but that’s another issue). Historical no-hitters are pretty convincing, wouldn’t you think?

 

[Victorious]

I am Catholic and when I receive communion it is the body and blood of Christ. It’s not symbolic to me. Those are my thoughts.

Watch out for this type of relativistic thinking. The Eucharist is not symbolic to anybody. It is what It is, whether we believe it or not. And we disbelieve at our peril. Truth is independent of belief.

And it’s funny how Protestants believe what Jesus says, except when He says, “Amen, amen, I say to you…”, as He does in John 6.

 

[Victorious]

Whenever somebody announces that, whereas the 2,000-year-old Church founded by Jesus Christ has had it wrong all this time, they have actually grasped the real truth, I cannot help thinking of the following, which is a better and more succinct response than most:

Now, Nephew, as I told you the other day, I will not dispute these matters with those upstarts. But surely, for my own part, I cannot very well go along with them, because as far as my poor mind can see, God’s holy Scripture is very plainly against them. And the whole body of Christendom in all Christian regions, including the ones in which they themselves live, has always, down to their own day, clearly believed against them. And all the ancient, holy doctors of the Church have consistently taught against them, and all the ancient, holy interpreters have construed Scripture against them. So if these new people have just now, at this late date, discovered that Scripture has been misunderstood for all this time, and that of all those holy doctors of old, not one could understand it correctly, then I at this age am too old to begin to study it now. And trust in these people’s knowledge, Nephew? That I would in no way dare to do. For I see no reason to think that these people might not now, in their understanding of Scripture, be as deceived as they tell us everyone else has been for all this time.

St. Thomas More, from Dialogue of Comfort Against Tribulation, which he wrote while awaiting execution in the Tower of London.

 

[Kassandra]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kassandra
I am Catholic and when I receive communion it is the body and blood of Christ. It’s not symbolic to me. Those are my thoughts.

Watch out for this type of relativistic thinking. The Eucharist is not symbolic to anybody. It is what It is, whether we believe it or not. And we disbelieve at our peril. Truth is independent of belief.

And it’s funny how Protestants believe what Jesus says, except when He says, “Amen, amen, I say to you…”, as He does in John 6.

O.K. Sorry…if I post again I will certainly watch what I say. Didn’t know what I posted wasn’t correct.

 

[distracted]

Is Jesus the literal “lamb of God,” or a symbolic one?
If He is the real Lamb of God not just a symbolic one, why shouldn’t we celebrate communion as the Jews celebrate the old Passover, where the sacrificial lamb is offered and consumed by sinners?

good point, something i never considered myself, even though i’ve been Catholic all my life… catechized for the last 13 or so yrs…

OP would not have posted this if s/he had ever spent any significant time in the Real Presence… alone… for more than 1/2 hour… doing "nothing"

 

[raaucoin]

If being close to the Lord is more important than being “right” and only you know that, then pray to the Holy Spirit and ask that the* real *right answer- whatever that may be- will be revealed to your heart, mind and soul.

 

[distracted]

If being close to the Lord is more important than being “right” and only you know that, then pray to the Holy Spirit and ask that the* real *right answer- whatever that may be- will be revealed to your heart, mind and soul.

 

[reformissionary]

Wow. I actually expected that you all would deal with John 6. I’ll briefly respond to a few things you all said. But please tell me how a plain reading of John 6, including the context of other symbolic statements by Jesus in John, can be read as REAL presence. Please interact with my points. Thanks.

History/1500 years/etc - People are fallible. The Scriptures are not because they are inspired by the Holy Spirit. On this we agree in theory. But then you all try to defend doctrine with little care for Scripture and great concern over things beyond Scripture. Notice how quickly you all ran to arguments other than Scripture. If the Scriptures are true, you should be able to show from John 6 how this is the actual body/blood. Right?

Let me add another John passage to the argument. John 4:32-34. Jesus said his food is to do the will/work of the One who sent Him. That’s his food. Is he literally eating? The disciples at the time, just as Catholics today, hear “food” and think food when Jesus is pointing to a greater spiritual reality through physical examples.