John 6: Many left him - but why? (Faith & Trust vs Understanding)

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Hi Mikeledes~
There’s a lot to respond to there. I’ll give you my first impressions as I read through, then I’ll reconsider what you’ve put here.

In the Gospel of John, there is a certain pattern…

1. **Ambiguous Statement by Jesus **
2. Misunderstanding/ Question
3. Clarification

…
some examples from the Gospel of John:

John 2:19-21

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."

John 3:3-5

**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.” **

Ok, now this example doesn’t seem to work b/c, like with the bread of life discourse, Jesus is talking about something deeper - that something not being spelled out exactly. We must look further into Scripture to understand what Jesus is talking about, otherwise His “born of water and Spirit” is still very mysterious.

John 4:32-34

**“But He said to them, “I have food to eat that you do not know about.” So the disciples were saying to one another, 'no one brought Him anything to eat, did he? **Jesus said to them, " My Food is to do the will of Him who sent me and to accomplish His work.”
…

Ok but again, what is that will that He will accomplish? His words here are still somewhat mysterious - not fully explained.

Now let’s look at John 6:51-53 and see if it fits the Ambiguous Statement/Question/Clarification pattern:…

Why stop at 53?

64It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.

65But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him.
66And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father.
67After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.
68Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away?
69And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 70And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God

That has explanation written all over it.

This verse does not mean that Jesus was speaking figuratively. The word “Spirit” is used to refer to those things that pertain to God and the word “flesh” refers to those things that pertain to sin…

that His words originate from God (i.e. Spirit) and they are life giving (i.e. life). He said this in response to the rejection of His teaching. Those who were “carnally minded” rejected His teaching, while those who were “spiritually minded” accepted it. If one is in the flesh, one cannot accept His words because the flesh wars against the Spirit, effectively cutting off the person from the source of life. Consequently, the flesh profits nothing because its end is death. Those who are in the Spirit receive life (Romans 8:6).

:yup: So far so good…

To be “carnally minded” does not mean to be literally minded.

In this case it does. In fact, in most cases the “carnal minded” did take Jesus literally. You do know this as you’ve already listed some examples.

It means to have a mind that is in rebellion against God. Those who were in such a state did not accept Jesus’s words.

I agree. Just like how many of His other sayings were taken literally and many who listened couldn’t wait to put Him to death b/c of what He said. They missed the deeper meaning OR weren’t willing to stay with Him until the Spirit would reveal that deeper meaning. There were many things that even Jesus’ apostles did not understand fully at the time. The point is that they stayed b/c they had faith and trusted Jesus despite His difficult saying, and those that left left not only b/c they misunderstood him, but b/c they already lacked faith in trust in Him - so why bother sticking around to find out what it meant?

Even from a Catholic perspective, first reading of this does not lead you to understand what it means until you read the Last Supper, His sacrifice, etc… The apostles did not stay b/c they had a literal interpretation or perfect understanding…

Continued…

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

His return to Heaven (ascension) will reaffirm the truths of His origin and of what He said of His flesh and blood. That’s why He responds (John 6:61-62):

HOW will it reaffirm the “truth” of the Catholic interpretation of His flesh and blood? I don’t see a connection here.

His ascension will vindicate His words and thus prove that the words He spoke are spirit and life, that is, that they are of God and are life-giving.

…but it won’t prove that His discourse is on eating the literal flesh and blood (IMO).

If John 6:51-58 were talking about faith, then there would be no controversy because he just talked about faith in v.v. 29 -35.

There would be if the “carnal-minded” mistook it to be literal and no longer about faith…

And as I have shown in two other posts, the established pattern in Jesus’s method of teaching/preaching is one of progressive revelation. He moves from ambiguity to greater clarity, not

from clarity to greater ambiguity…

**1"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is a thief and a robber. ****2"But he who enters by the door is a shepherd of the sheep. ****3"To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. ****4"When he puts forth all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice. ****5"A stranger they simply will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers." 6This figure of speech Jesus spoke to them, but they did not understand what those things were which He had been saying to them7So Jesus said to them again, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. ****8"All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. ****9"I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.**10"The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.

In this example Jesus is still using figurative language right to the very end. He is still calling Himself the door and He says “if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved…”. Can we literally enter through Jesus? I do not see the point you are trying to make. And there were other examples you gave also which don’t seem to support your point, a few of which I’ve already mentioned
Regarding “abiding”:

So eating the Body of Christ and drinking His Blood is a means of abiding in Christ. Thus it was most appropriate for Him to start with faith in chapter 6 and then move to abiding in Christ through the Eucharist because coming to faith precedes abiding and one must believe* first *before partaking of the Eucharist. Only those who abide in Christ will continue to have eternal life and will be raised on the last day…

What you are saying can also be applied to a figurative interpretation. We abide in Christ when we do what He commands, whether it is baptism (after faith), walking in newness of life (after faith), eucharist (after faith - whether literal or symbolic) etc…

John 6:35

**35 And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. **What does Jesus mean? He is basically saying that He is the source of all life giving spiritual nourishment. He is the only one that can satisfy our hunger and thirst for righteousness. Those who wish to partake of this spiritual nourishment must come to Him in faith.

Absolutely!

In this verse, Jesus sets the stage for the greatest form of spiritual nourishment that He will give to those who believe in Him, namely, His own self in the Eucharist. So it makes sense that Jesus would first talk about faith (i.e. coming to Him) before talking about how He will feed the believer. You must go to your grocery or supermarket first before you can purchase the food.

Well, that sounds fitting, but I think it fits just as well with a figurative interpretation.

For example: Peter said “You have the words of everlasting life”.

Words are something to chew on or “eat” too. There are OT examples of eating that are not literal:

Jer 15:16 “When your words came,** I ate them;** they were my joy and my heart’s delight, for I bear your name, O Lord God Almighty” .

God’s abiding Spirit is also nourishment.
Walking with Christ is nourishing…
I can think of many ways in which Jesus nourishes us aside from supposedly, literally ingesting Him.

Now, this is my first impression. You do raise some things I had not previously considered. I will take a deeper look and consider it some more.

Peace

 

[mikeledes]

Hi Mikeledes~
There’s a lot to respond to there. I’ll give you my first impressions as I read through, then I’ll reconsider what you’ve put here.

Ok, now this example doesn’t seem to work b/c, like with the bread of life discourse, Jesus is talking about something deeper - that something not being spelled out exactly. We must look further into Scripture to understand what Jesus is talking about, otherwise His “born of water and Spirit” is still very mysterious…

He said “You must be born again”. Nicodemus thought Jesus was talking about “physical rebirth.” Jesus clarifies that what He’s talking about is not a physical rebith, but a spiritual one (“water and Spirit.”). That is the clarification.

.

Ok but again, what is that will that He will accomplish? His words here are still somewhat mysterious - not fully explained.

Jesus talks about living water. The Samaritan woman thought He was talking about literal water. He clarifies that He is speaking of a “spiritual” water. It does not have to be fully comprehensible to the Samaritan woman. There are many instances in which Jesus spoke of His death and resurrection to the Twelve and the Twelve - at the time - did not understand it. The question I have for you is that when you read this passage, do you understand that Jesus is not talking about the water in the well? Why? That’s what’s important.

Why stop at 53?

64It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.

65But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him.
66And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father.
67After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.
68Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away?
69And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? **thou hast the words **of eternal life. 70And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God

That has explanation written all over it

.

That is not an explanation. That is a statement of fact. The rejection of His teaching regarding His flesh and blood means they chose not to believe in Him. This means they remained in the flesh and the “flesh” means self-interested hostility to God. Peter did not understand what Jesus said, but He had faith in Him. He was guided by the Spirit. Because he believed in Christ, He believes any word that comes out of His mouth. In other words, "I don’t understand you Lord, but I know and believe that you are the Christ. Therefore, anything you say is for my spiritual benefit (i.e. words of eternal life). "

:yup: So far so good…In this case it does. In fact, in most cases the “carnal minded” did take Jesus literally. You do know this as you’ve already listed some examples.I agree. Just like how many of His other sayings were taken literally and many who listened couldn’t wait to put Him to death b/c of what He said. They missed the deeper meaning OR weren’t willing to stay with Him until the Spirit would reveal that deeper meaning.

Rejection does not mean they missed the deeper meaning. Jesus said the following and look at their response:

John 6:41-42

**41 The Jews then complained about Him, because He said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” 42 And they said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He says, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” **

Note that the Jews did not have a problem with the “bread” part, which they apparently understood as an obvious metaphor. They had problems with the “I have come down from heaven” part. Did Jesus literally come down from heaven? There is no “deeper meaning” to this. It means what it says. Yet they rejected this literal truth. Those who are hostile to God will reject any truth, whether figurative or literal.

There were many things that even Jesus’ apostles did not understand fully at the time. The point is that they stayed b/c they had faith and trusted Jesus despite His difficult saying, and those that left left not only b/c they misunderstood him, but b/c they already lacked faith in trust in Him - so why bother sticking around to find out what it meant?

Oh they did not misunderstand him. They took Him literally and Jesus reaffirmed their literal understanding. They rejected that He was from heaven - a literal truth - and they rejected his teaching regarding His body and blood.

Even from a Catholic perspective, first reading of this does not lead you to understand what it means until you read the Last Supper, His sacrifice, etc… The apostles did not stay b/c they had a literal interpretation or perfect understanding…

Continued…

You can say the same thing about his sayings regarding His death and resurrection. Greater clarity does not mean full comprehension.

To be continued…

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

HOW will it reaffirm the “truth” of the Catholic interpretation of His flesh and blood? I don’t see a connection here.

The point was that His ascension will vindicate His words because His ascension will prove His divine origin. If he was really from heaven, then they should not have rejected what He said regarding His body and His blood because they have rejected something that was from God.

…but it won’t prove that His discourse is on eating the literal flesh and blood (IMO). There would be if the “carnal-minded” mistook it to be literal and no longer about faith…

To be carnal minded means to reject any truth from God, literal or figurative. For example, the carnal minded reject the resurrection of Jesus. That is a literal truth. They also rejected that he was from heaven! Do you believe they mistook something figurative for something literal in that case? The point of my argument is that “the flesh availeth nothing” verse does not mean he was speaking figuratively.

In this example Jesus is still using figurative language right to the very end. He is still calling Himself the door and He says “if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved…”. Can we literally enter through Jesus?

You have missed the point. Here’s the passage again.

1 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door, but climbs up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. 2 But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice; and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 And when he brings out his own sheep, he goes before them; and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. 5 Yet they will by no means follow a stranger, but will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.” 6 Jesus used this illustration, but they did not understand the things which He spoke to them.7 Then Jesus said to them again, “Most assuredly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. 8 All who ever came before Me[a] are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. 9 I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture

When he says “I am the door” in verse 7, he is explaining what “the door” stands for in verses 1. He is saying “The door in the parable I just gave you represents Me.”

To be continued…

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Regarding “abiding”: What you are saying can also be applied to a figurative interpretation. We abide in Christ when we do what He commands, whether it is baptism (after faith), walking in newness of life (after faith), eucharist (after faith - whether literal or symbolic) etc…

Yes. That is my point! “Abiding” involves those things done after faith. Therefore, when we read:

John 6:56

56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

Which means that this eating and drinking is done after faith and is an act of faith, but it is not the equivalent of faith. Thus Jesus has to be talking about something more than faith.

To be continued…

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Well, that sounds fitting, but I think it fits just as well with a figurative interpretation.

For example: Peter said “You have the words of everlasting life”.

Words are something to chew on or “eat” too. There are OT examples of eating that are not literal:

Jer 15:16 “When your words came,** I ate them;** they were my joy and my heart’s delight, for I bear your name, O Lord God Almighty” .

God’s abiding Spirit is also nourishment.
Walking with Christ is nourishing…
I can think of many ways in which Jesus nourishes us aside from supposedly, literally ingesting Him.

Now, this is my first impression. You do raise some things I had not previously considered. I will take a deeper look and consider it some more.

Peace

I am not saying that the Bible never uses metaphor. There are many metaphors for different kinds of spiritual nourishment. What I am saying that in this particular case - based on the established pattern of Jesus’s mode of teaching, how He uses and explains metaphors, and how John often explains these metaphors - Jesus is speaking literally.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Ok but again, what is that will that He will accomplish? His words here are still somewhat mysterious - not fully explained.

I’m sorry. I responded to the wrong verse. Jesus talks about food. The apostles think He’s talking about literal food. He explains that the “food” He’s talking about is accomplishing the will of God. In other words, He wasn’t talking about literal food. That’s the clarification.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

They had problems with the “I have come down from heaven” part. Did Jesus literally come down from heaven? There is no “deeper meaning” to this. It means what it says. Yet they rejected this literal truth. Those who are hostile to God will reject any

truth, whether figurative or literal. Yes - I’ve been saying this repeatedly through the thread.

They took Him literally and Jesus reaffirmed their literal understanding.

Jesus does not always reaffirm a literal mis-interpretation though.

They rejected that He was from heaven - a literal truth - and they rejected his teaching regarding His body and blood.

That doesn’t mean the body and blood part, understood literally, was not a misunderstanding.

Ok, I’ll take another look at your first set of posts when I’m refreshed and maybe I’ll see it better.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

I’m sorry. I responded to the wrong verse. Jesus talks about food. The apostles think He’s talking about literal food. He explains that the “food” He’s talking about is accomplishing the will of God. In other words, He wasn’t talking about literal food. That’s the clarification.

God Bless,
Michael

Gotcha

 

[mikeledes]

Yes - I’ve been saying this repeatedly through the thread. .

Okay.

Jesus does not always reaffirm a literal mis-interpretation though. That doesn’t mean the body and blood part, understood literally, was not a misunderstanding.

Jesus never reaffirms a literal misinterpretation because that would be reaffirming falsehood. My point is that when He speaks in metaphor, He cleary indicates that He is speaking in metaphor or the Evangelist explains the metaphor, as all the examples I have given in my previous posts. In John 6, Jesus reaffirms their literal understanding by even being more specific (flesh and blood). They did not misunderstand Him, as most Protestants wold argue. They rejected His teaching. Their unwillingness to accept this teaching exposed their lack of faith in Him. Those who did have faith in Him accepted this teaching (like Peter) even if they found it difficult to accept.

Ok, I’ll take another look at your first set of posts when I’m refreshed and maybe I’ll see it better

Okay and thank you for taking the time to read them!

God Bless,
Michael

 

[tdgesq]

Ok, I’m sorry. I was slow to pick up on exactly what you wanted me to define. I didn’t realize it wasn’t very well put. I’ve kind of alluded to it throughout the thread, but I’ll put it plainly:
33For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
34Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
35And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

40And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Jesus makes a relationship between believing in Him and eating bread.

That’s right. Whoever believes in Him will have everlasting life. Of course, we actually have to believe what he tells us, not the opposite. You claim that these verses somehow support the notion that eating flesh/bread and drinking blood/wine are the same thing as believing in Him. Here is your problem. Jesus makes it quite evident at the Lord’s Supper that he is not just referring to some unidentifiable belief in Him:

26While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

27Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom."Matthew 26.

Yes, we have to consume the bread and the wine, which Jesus says are his body and blood. It isn’t just “belief” in Christ, whatever that means. I mean, when you say you believe in someone there have to be things about that person that you actually believe in. Like the necessity of eating the bread and wine that he claims are His body and blood.

Jesus’ flesh and blood are His sacrifice.

Agreed.

Unless we share in His sacrifice/His death, we cannot have life.

Agreed. And there are a lot of other things we must do in order to have life, like eat his flesh and drink his blood.

Romans 6:3 "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? **
4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death**: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth** we should not serve sin.**
7For he that is dead is freed from sin.
8Now** if we be dead with Christ**, we believe that **we shall also live with him: **
9Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
10For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. 11Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. "

Another thing we must do to have life is be baptized. I agree with all of this. Hopefully you are starting to see that the mantra “believing in Jesus” means actually believing and then doing what he commands. Like being baptized.

See above. It is totally scriptural. Faith & repentance are necessary for baptism, and the rest (self-denial, love, etc.) are the result of walking in newness of life and no longer serving sin.

I thought belief in Jesus was enough. It seems now that we also must be baptized. Or is baptism, like the Eucharist, just another metaphor for “belief in Jesus”? But it’s even worse for you. Jesus requires in John 3:5 that “no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.” Is the water also another metaphor for “belief in Jesus?” Maybe it actually means that every person must be baptized to enter the kingdom of God.

So be it then, b/c if the CC isn’t following Apostolic Tradition (which is in the Bible) then it can condemn me all it wants. I’ve no interest in a church that isn’t true to the original teachings.

I never said that it condemned you. I said that it condemned the belief of multiple baptisms, from the very first post-biblical council of the Church, Nicaea I. And if you have no interest in this Church that you say doesn’t hold to the original teachings, then stop calling yourself a Catholic.

 

[tdgesq]

You assume that b/c someone doesn’t believe it, that they must misunderstand it or never have studied it. I think it sounds possible, but I don’t think it can be proven and I don’t think it is Scriptural. I’ve seen the supposed Scripture support for it but I don’t think it is good. In fact, I think Scripture disproves that succession guarantees faithfulness.

It isn’t a matter of me thinking you misunderstand. You state this about what my Church believes:

You have to believe that IF the Eucharist contains the RP, that it is only available through the CC, or that the benefits of it are only dispensed through the CC.

False. It just is. You have nothing to back this up. You call yourself a Catholic but cause scandal to your brother by saying things like this. Please explain to me the Augustinian theory of apostolic succession and what that means for the validity of sacraments. You do understand the difference between valid and licit sacraments, don’t you? No, you don’t. Neither do you understand that the grace of Eucharistic communion can in certain circumstances be conferred outside of actual reception of the bread and wine, as Aquinas explicates.

Please demonstrate to me that you even have a rudimentary understanding of these things.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

I do have a “rudimentary understanding” of those things.

Also, notice that my signature says I am struggling with the Catholic faith - I can’t help the fact that my user name was made at a time I had more faith.

Forgive me if I’m wrong, but I sense hostility with you. You seem to have misunderstood a great majority of what I’ve said here. Maybe I have not explained myself well - that’s very possible - I’m not always good at articulating things. We are also getting very off-topic, and I truly don’t have the time or the interest to go into other issues right now.

I’ve said this before and not followed through, but this clearly is not the avenue (for me anyway) through which to get my answers. I don’t like offending people which, through this method, is just about impossible. Misunderstanding are all too common. I withdraw. I will find another way to get answers

Thanks to everyone who took part in this thread. No pun intended, but it has given me much food for thought

Happy Lent!
Peace