John 6 & the Eucharist: Help my unbelief

  • Thread starter Thread starter LuciusMaximus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
60-72: The effect of the discourse. This illustrates the crisis in faith which terminated the Galilean ministry as narrated in the Synoptics. Its value to John’s thesis is patent.

60-67: The doctrine alienates many followers. 60. Cf. 18, 20; Matt. 4, 13; 11, 23. This supposes that we know the circumstances of the Galilean ministry. What follows probably did not occur in the synagogue. 61. The crisis is the graver as chiefly involving disciples (in the general sense of the term); probably the people had already displayed coldness. Cf. Matt. 11, 20-24; Luke 10, 13-15. Said: they only thought this, or spoke of it quietly among themselves. A hard saying: from the Greek term “severe,” or as the Septuagint Version uses it, “forbidding.” Who can listen to it: i.e., believe it. This was the crisis; they could not accept our Lord’s words for what seemed difficult to them. 62-65. He encourages them to believe by promising stronger evidence of His knowledge of things now hidden from them. Knowing in himself: by His supernatural knowledge. Scandalize: a word implying both surprise and consequent loss of confidence. 63. Cf. 1, 50; 3, 12. Jesus promises an equally marvelous confirmation of the literal meaning of His words. His ascension will reveal His divine nature, though He remains the Son of Man. 64. Flesh in John’s usage generally denotes human nature unaided by grace; if that is its signification here, the meaning is that they cannot understand the revelation without the help of the Spirit. Another explanation: it is not the flesh as such, but the flesh united to the Divinity, that becomes a food of supernatural efficacy. His revelation, if accepted, will lead them to this spiritual life. 65. From the beginning of their association with Him. Who should betray him points to Judas as the chief example of unbelief. 66. This is why: i.e., lack of faith; implying that many must have followed our Lord for temporal reasons. 67. Turned back from His society, and perhaps also returned to their former occupations; the word has both moral and physical import.
Click to expand...
 
ColoradoCatholic said:
Whats more is that depending on the interpretation, exodus talks about the “Shewbread” which is a horrible interpretation in English (and probably not without its bias) because in HEBREW it actually means the “bread of the presence” of the “bread of the face [of God]” which obviously is not the Eucharist because that was old testament, but it is yet another foreshadow of what is to come.
Click to expand...
I am Catholic and do 100% believe in the real presence. This “shewbread” is fascinating, a great point, but how is this what Jesus was referring to?

In John 6:58, Jesus says - “This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate, and died.”

The bread that “came down from heaven” in the Old Testament was called “manna” (The Hebrew word “manna” – which means portion, dose or ration.)

The “shewbread” was man-made (baked by the people) and they put loaves of bread on a specially dedicated table in the Temple in Jerusalem as an offering to God. It was also eaten by the priests.

Am I wrong in thinking that “shewbread” is different than the “bread that came down from heaven” (manna) that Jesus was referring to? Thank you for your time!
 
68-72: The Twelve are put to the same test: a final confirmation of the literal meaning of our Lord’s words on the Eucharist. 69. Simon Peter, speaking for them all, replies in the terms of 64. He acknowledges that Christ has no superior in their interests, and that they accept this doctrine on His word. This is true faith. 70. We have come to believe: from witnessing His miracles and from their general experience with Him. The sense is, we now believe that thou art the Messias. Son of God: or, “the Holy One of God.” Cf. 10, 36; Mark 1, 24. This is the better reading. Peter regards Christ as the one uniquely set apart and consecrated for the work of God. This is not a full confession of His divinity; which was revealed to Peter later: cf. Matt. 16, 13-16; Mark 8, 27-30; Luke 9, 18-20. 71. Cf. 13, 18; 15, 16. A devil: cf. 13, 2.27. Here the term is comparative: like unto the devil. Jesus shows that Peter’s words of faith do not express the sentiments of all the Apostles, puts them on guard against the scandal of Judas’ betrayal, points to the need of guarding their faith. V.72 expresses John’s own wonder at the betrayal.
Click to expand...
 
right, I wasn’t sure if he had a protestant version, which as you can guess probably says shewbread (no ulterior motives there cough*)
 
Last edited:
no, I think you misread, I was saying the Shewbread points to Jesus not the other way around.
 
Ok I see, it is but another foreshadowing of Jesus. Great point, will use when explaining to Protestants :crazy_face:
 
The reason that a tough argument is because you are (or rather he) is presupposing that personal interpretation is fine in all matters. Go back to the Early Church Fathers and see what they believe (long story short: they believed real presence unanimously). John 6 has been interpreted by the Catholic Church as pertaining to the real presence and you can’t as a Catholic argue against that.

TLDR: This is an argument of the authority to interpret scripture, rather than theology. Because you’ll never get anywhere just shooting personal interpretations at each other.
 
Just a quick comment. The Gospel of John was written around 90 AD, an early estimate. We know from early Christian writings (including Paul’s epistles and Acts) that Christians gathered every Sunday for the breaking of the bread. They’d been doing this for about 60 years before John ever wrote his Gospel. So, the context of John even writing this Gospel is Christian’s coming together every Sunday for 60 years and reciting the words (as recorded by St. Paul) “This is my body” as they prepare to break the bread and all eat it. Preceding that they would read scriptures and probably popular letters such as Paul’s epistles or copies of the gospels, etc…

So, the writer of the John’s Gospel writes all of John 6 knowing that Christians do this every Sunday and will probably read from his work on some of those Sundays, and he writes a long section on Jesus being the new manna, the new bread from Heaven, repeatedly iterating this Jesus’ flesh is true food and that this flesh must be eaten, and then ends with people finding this to be a hard teaching.

Given all of the context of Christian worship, it would seem John, who has the most theological/interpretive Gospel, would have been careless or ignorant to write a section in which Jesus repeatedly insists his flesh is true food, manna, and must be eaten if he wasn’t doing a sort of midrash on communion.
 
Last edited:
ColoradoCatholic said:
The reason that a tough argument is because you are (or rather he) is presupposing that personal interpretation is fine in all matters.
Click to expand...
Me and you are in agreeance on this, I was just talking with him on his level and doing so really bore good fruit, after this conversation he didn’t argue about what the gospel has to say, after I presented it to him the Catholic perspective, and furthermore although he is still on his journey and hasn’t yet converted, he now readily professes a belief in the Eucharist that conforms to the Church’s teaching.
ColoradoCatholic said:
Go back to the Early Church Fathers and see what they believe (long story short: they believed real presence unanimously).
Click to expand...
I’m well aware what the early church fathers believe in reference to the real presence, in this again me and you are in agreeance, but to a non-Catholic, arguing from a Catholic perspective can be very offputting, so I try to use biblical quotes to prove my point, versus shoving what the early church fathers believed down peoples throats.
ColoradoCatholic said:
John 6 has been interpreted by the Catholic Church as pertaining to the real presence and you can’t as a Catholic argue against that.
Click to expand...
Nor am I, you must’ve missread my previous post.
 
Praise God,

I wasn’t implying you were, I just write the response so others can see your question/response and use it in their apologetic arguments too.
 
All that you state is correct as far as it goes. You stop however with verse 51
verse 52
52

The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?” "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.
Click to expand...
They understood Jesus to mean a literal eating of His Body and Blood.
At this point Jesus would have been obliged to correct their misunderstanding if there was one but what does He do? He doubles down on His statement
"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.

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
Click to expand...
Jesus doesn’t correct their understanding that He means it literally, He reaffirms that it is meant literally

Jesus does give His life at Calvary but you can’t ignore that He says
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
Click to expand...
Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you,

for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins…
Click to expand...
They aren’t separate. Calvary and the Last Supper are one.
 
I reread John 6 starting from your point of view.

And I hit this:

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

So the people there at the time did NOT interpret what Jesus was saying in your way. And Jesus doubled down. Jesus does not tell them they had missed the point.

John 6 starts with the Eucharist. The feeding of the people with bread. Jesus is showing us here his power to make the Eucharist. He can multiply his body and give it as bread. He JUST did that. Now he is describing what it meant.

I think it is very hard to read the beginning of John 6 and miss the Eucharist as Jesus multiplies loaves of bread and hands them out to people, while instructing his disciples how to do it themselves, and then telling them what it means.
 
Words - reason and logic, fail. What ultimately convicts the heart is the action of the Holy Spirit. Normally, I would urge the OP to attend adoration - but that is not possible until the pandemic abates. But, once the ‘stay home’ orders are rescinded…
 
Last edited:
Why is it so hard to believe? Are there any other miracles of Jesus that you have doubts about?

It seems to me that you are isolating John chapter 6 from the rest of Scripture, both Old and New Testament. Then you are also isolating it away from history, the very first Christians, the ones who recieved firsthand teachings.

A couple quick question for you. Do you think God was pretending in His instructions for the original Passover? Or did He actually require the eating of a physical element (the lamb) in order to free and save the lives of His chosen people? What do you believe was the fate of those who decided to skip the meal and other instructions God had given?

You can not isolate John 6 from the Passover since Jesus Himself linked the sermon to it when He mentioned the manna in the desert. You then can not isolate it away from the Gospel accounts of the Last Super. Then further more you can not isolate it away from St. Paul’s explanation & life threatening warnings in 1 Corinthians 11. And you can not isolate it from the eye opening experience for those two disciples on the road to Emmaus. It all happened and it all ties together. Not one of the events was symbolic or just pretending.

If John 6 was the ONLY event that mentioned eating the Flesh & Blood of Christ, then sure, you can interpret it many different ways. But it’s not, it came true and was demonstrated by Christ Himself, the same Christ that was in no mood to pretend knowing He was about to suffer and die. Its not like He was having some pretend symbolic meal and then only began to be under duress and sweat blood hours later. Take the most terrifying hour of your life and tell me if you would pretend and speak symbolic.

I think the real pretending is pretending all the other Scriptures and historical evidence do not pertain to John 6. If you REALLY want help in your unbelief, there is nothing any of us Catholics can say that hasn’t already been said in Scripture and witnessed by history. You can’t put the puzzle together leaving out pieces.

May God be with you and may the Holy Spirit open your heart and your eyes on your journey. Blessings.
 
LuciusMaximus said:
When Jesus presented the cup at the Last Supper, he said “this cup ” is the new covenant “in my blood”. He didn’t actually say “this is my blood” in the same way he said “This is my body”. Can that indicate that he was speaking metaphorically?
Click to expand...
The words of Jesus in Matthew and Mark regarding the cup are less ambiguous:
And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins…" (Matthew 26:27-28)

And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many…"
(Mark 14:23-24)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Wow, I have a lot of great info to sort through. I just wanted to thank everyone for the responses. I will prayerfully go through this content and ask to be led to the truth, as always.
 
LuciusMaximus said:
Doesn’t it all tie together that Jesus is the new, superior (its consumers will not die) manna that came down from Heaven, He will raise up at the last day those who the Father gives him; the Father gives him those who look to the Son and believe in Him , and the Father’s will is that he won’t lose any of them? His flesh is “true food” and his blood is “true drink” because it’s what we should really aspire to “eat” and “drink”, since it’s food that endures to eternal life, not food that spoils like in verse 27.
Click to expand...
Yes, all that is true, and (as I see it) it ties in with the institution of the Eucharist as reported by the Synoptics and Paul. “This is my body, this is my blood.” It’s not a case of either/or, it’s both/and.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top