John 6

[JJ59]

(It’s long, but please read the whole thing)

Hi

The subject I want to discuss is a touchy one, so be warned.

I came across an article the other day (godandscience.org/doctrine/eucharist.html) on the Eucharist, focusing especially on John 6.

As any good Catholic or some Protestants know, John 6 is considered some of the best proof for the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

I’ll cut right to the chase here:

Instead of being some wacky, illogical rant from fundamentalists, (i.e. STOP WORSHIPPING BREAD YOU’RE GOING TO HELL!!!) it made a lot of sense. The verse that hit me the hardest was John 6:35 (“I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.”) It seemed to say quite clearly that Jesus meant a metaphor…

Now, let me just be clear here that I agree with the doctrine of the Real Presence, with all my heart. (Heck, an excerpt from John 6 is in my signature!) But I can’t seem to believe in John 6 as a proof-text for it, and that has major implications considering much Eucharistic theology seems o have derived from it.

---

So, can anyone tell me any of the following:

i) How the Catholic interpretation of John 6 is viable, specifically, how we are to interpret a verse like John 6:35

ii) How the Catholic interpretation of John 6 is even better than the interpretation used specifically in that article

iii) Some links to websites where they tackle those specific arguments.

Thanks and God bless,

 

[po18guy]

CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT. First, go back to John 1:29. John the Baptist said, “Behold the lamb of God”. This is at the start because it sets the theme for the following revelation. Now look at John 6:4: “The Jewish Passover was near”. This begins the 6th chapter as it leads directly into the amazing events that follow. Now, after multiplying the bread in John 6:11, after teaching about His Body and Blood in John 6:35 and following, what came next? The Passover. We have to take this off the page and put in on the calendar to understand the timing. And, what was sacrificed during during the Passover? Lamb, which was a young male and without blemish (Exodus 12:5-11). Remember that. The purpose of slaughtering the lamb was atonement for sins. But, what was the requirement regarding the lamb? It had to be eaten. When Jesus taught about eating His Body and Blood, he used a verb, which in the Greek, is to gnaw or chew. That is not symbolic. He taught that He was “real food” and “real drink”. Where is the symbolism? It’s not there. It was so literal that he allowed many to leave Him over His Body. To see what Jesus did to fulfill what he began in John, go to Matthew 26. The Lord’s supper. He did the same blessing as he did with the multiplication of loaves. Then He handed what appeared to be bread to His disciples and told them that it was no longer bread, but now was His Body. He then gave them what appeared to be wine and told them that it was now His Blood of the Covenant. He then commanded them to eat and drink, and they did.

The Apostles practiced this as taught. Paul, who received it by Divine revelation, taught the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians 11:23-34. He taught that you can eat and drink damnation unto yourself for not discerning the Body and Blood of the Lord. In fact, if you partake unworthily, you are guilty of the body and blood of Jesus. That is heaven or hell! How can you be eternally condemned over symbolism?

This is the consistent practice in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches since day 1. The spiritual chaos in America has forgotten this practice, and has twisted scripture tortuously to mean something - anything else!

Remember: those who doubt the Eucharist are not encouraged to study the early Church as to its beliefs and practices. Why? They look too Catholic. Protestants who have delved deep into the early Church often end up converting to the Catholic Church. Witness John Henry Cardinal Newman, Fr. Richard John Newhouse, Scott Hahn, and numerous others.

Christ’s peace.

 

[ejb21]

If Jesus was simply using a metaphor, why did He restate the command four times in John 6?

If Jesus was simply using a metaphor, why did the disciples walk away from Jesus?

If Jesus was simply using a metaphor, why did He not say to the disciples, “hey gang, I’m using a metaphor here”.

One of the reasons it “was a hard saying” for the disciples was they were aware of the Old Covenant command not to consume blood. Those who did were separated. But Jesus was instituting the New Covenant to separate those from the Old Covenant. Also, take a look at Jesus’ words at the Last Supper. Did Jesus say “he who believes in me and follows me”, or, “this is my body…this is my blood”.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

It appears to me that Jesus began to use “Bread of life” as a metaphor is John 6. He just wants us to believe in Him. But in verse 36, He knows we won’t believe.

So, what does He do?

Instead of letting us miss out on the metaphorical “Bread of life”, He really gives us His body as real food… Nobody understood Him at that time… and it’s not until the Last Supper that we learn He uses bread.

:twocents:

 

[Church_Militant]

John 6 is not good as a stand alone apologetic source because there is much more that applies and needs to be factored in and understood.

Hopefully that is what I did in my blog article The Eucharist IS Scriptural.
I hope that helps you.
Pax Domini sits semper vobiscum.

 

[Randy_Carson]

(It’s long, but please read the whole thing)

Mine, too.

In the sixth chapter of John, Jesus makes the following statement: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If a man eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” Jn 6:51 (all scripture quotations from the NIV)

Just exactly what did Jesus mean when he said, “this bread is my flesh”? Ironically, Protestants who claim that the bible is literally true from Genesis to Revelation refuse to accept the literal meaning of this passage because it conflicts with what they want to believe. However, the true meaning of Jesus’ words can be illustrated from the reaction of the crowd who heard his teaching with their own ears, from the infallible word of God contained in the New Testament, and from the writings and teachings of the early Church.

Reaction of the Eyewitnesses

Speaking before a crowd assembled at a synagogue in Capernaum, Jesus delivered a teaching that has divided the Catholic and Protestant churches since the time of the Reformation. 1500 years earlier, his words had a similarly divisive effect on the audience who heard it for the very first time.

In John 6:52 we read: “Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’” Why were they arguing? If they understood Jesus to be speaking metaphorically, then there would have been hardly an eyebrow raised. For example, on other occasions, Jesus said, “I am the gate for the sheep” (Jn 10:7) and “I am the true vine” (Jn 15:1) but the listeners easily discerned that Jesus was using metaphors in these examples. By contrast, an argument did break out when Jesus said, “this bread is my flesh,” indicating that those in the crowd held different opinions about what he meant. Some said, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat? He’s crazy!” while others may have responded, “Of course he can’t do that…his words must have a symbolic meaning!” The one group rejected Jesus’ ability to give us his body and blood as real food and drink while the other missed his true meaning altogether. Either way, the crowd was divided.

Of course, Jesus knew what they were saying amongst themselves, and if it was merely his intent to draw a symbolic parallel between his flesh and the bread of heaven, he could have put an end to their misunderstanding immediately. Instead, Jesus further clarified and emphasized the true meaning of his words by declaring,

“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. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just 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. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Our forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever. He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.” (Jn 6:53-58)

Rather than quieting the crowd which had broken out into arguments about what he had just told them, Jesus pressed his point home even more emphatically: “my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.” In fact, whereas he had initially said positively, ”If a man eats of this bread, he will live forever,” now he has just stated the negative result of failing to do so: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” Thus, Jesus has clarified his meaning by stating what happens if we do – and do not – eat his flesh and drink his blood.

The next verse is particularly revealing: “On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” (Jn 6:60) Notice that it was not Jesus’ typical enemies, the Pharisees and Sadducees, who rejected his teaching on this occasion but his disciples – those believers who followed him from place to place and hailed him as the Messiah. They had seen Jesus perform many miracles and heard him teach wondrous things. But this was too much even for them.

“Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said this to them, “Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” Jn 6:61-64

Not only does Jesus continue to uphold the literal meaning of his teaching, but also he presses even further by asking that if this bothers them, what will they do when they see him ascend to heaven? Protestants do not deny the ascension of the resurrected Jesus, yet here Jesus places two key truths side by side. He is saying, in effect, “If eating my flesh causes you theological problems, just wait until you see what else I have planned…you ain’t seen nothing yet!”

The gospel continues: “From this time, many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve. Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.” Jn 6:66-69

There is a lot going on in these three verses; let’s look at them closely. After hearing Jesus declare that his flesh is real food and his blood is real drink, his disciples, his followers, could not accept his words and no longer followed him. Of course, if they had understood that his body and blood were being used as symbols, they would have had no complaint. It was precisely because they understood exactly what Jesus meant that they refused to follow him any longer. Therefore, there can be no doubt as to what the eyewitnesses understood Jesus to be saying.

Now, imagine the scene: Jesus has been teaching a crowd, and many of them have gotten up to leave because they could not or would not accept his words. In rejecting his teaching, they rejected the one who gave it and turned their backs on the savior of the world. Thus, their souls were at risk of eternal separation from God. Jesus came to seek and save what was lost; therefore, if these disciples had a simple misunderstanding of the metaphorical language he had used that might cause them to spend eternity in Hell, Jesus would have corrected their error. But we do not see him chasing them down the road saying, “Wait, everyone. I think there’s been a misunderstanding … let me explain what I meant.” **Jesus could not correct a misunderstanding because there had been none. **

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Instead, he watched sadly as they departed and then turned to the Twelve, the closest of his disciples, and put the question directly to them: “What about you? Are you leaving too?” In doing so, Jesus was risking everything he had been working for since he had first called Simon and Andrew to follow him by the shore of the Sea of Galilee. If the Twelve had abandoned him at this crucial moment, Jesus would have had to begin again with a new group of Apostles to whom he would entrust his teachings and upon whom he would build his church. By God’s grace, Simon Peter, the first among the Apostles, responded in faith acknowledging that Jesus is the Holy One of God and accepting this difficult teaching.

Grasping at Straws: John 6:63

“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken are spirit and they are life.”(John 6:63)

These words were spoken by Jesus shortly after delivering his teaching on the Eucharist, and some people claim that they indicate that Jesus was speaking figuratively when he commanded us to eat his body and drink his blood. However, this would be a misunderstanding of what Jesus meant when he said,“the flesh counts for nothing.”

First, notice that whenever Jesus referred to his own body and blood, he said"my flesh"or"the flesh of the Son of Man". Here are the examples:

“This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” (John 6:51)

"Jesus 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. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.” (John 6:53-56)

At this point, the narrative explains that the disciples were on the verge of revolt over this teaching. Jesus tells them that they cannot understand this teaching with their natural minds. Here is the verse in context: “On hearing it, many of his disciples said, ‘This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?’ Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, ‘Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.’” (John 6:60-63)

In John 6:63, Jesus uses the phrase “the flesh” instead of “my flesh” or “the flesh of the Son of Man” because he is not talking about his own body; he is referring to man’s natural, unenlightened rational intellect.

Jesus tells the grumbling Jews (who can’t understand how he would give them his flesh to eat) that they cannot grasp it with their natural minds because it is a mystery beyond the ability of “the flesh” to understand. This is the same manner of speaking used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 2 & 3 when he is distinguishing between fleshly or carnal Christians and those who are discern the things of God with their spirits.

Second, it might be worth noting the obvious fact that Jesus cannot be saying that HIS own flesh “counts for nothing”; otherwise, his death upon the cross would be meaningless. Instead, we know that his own body, his flesh, was broken and pierced for our sake; no Christian would deny that. Therefore, since HIS flesh does count for something, he must have been referring to “flesh” other than his own in v. 63.

Thus, the one verse that many Protestants cling to as an argument against the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist does not mean what they falsely claim it means. Ironically, their “proof text” points out precisely why they cannot understand the Eucharist: they are using their flesh instead of their spirits to discern the things of God. Unfortunately, their flesh “counts for nothing”.

The Problem of John

We have already looked extensively at the Gospel of John’s teaching on the body and blood of Jesus. However, there is one other powerful observation that we can make concerning this book. The author, commonly considered to be John, the beloved disciple of Jesus, was the last of the original Twelve to die and the only one who did not suffer martyrdom. At the time of this writing, John had known the martyrdoms of the first four leaders of the Church: Peter, Linus, Cletus and Clement. John died around the year 100 A.D. while Evaristus, the fifth bishop of Rome, was leading the Church.

Given his longevity and his special relationship to Jesus, it would be understandable if the early believers gave a special place of honor to the Apostle John; no one alive would have had more authority to speak about the life and teaching of Jesus than he. Therefore, if John had felt that the Church had strayed from the true teaching of Jesus (or in its election of Church leaders), his objections would have been heard and heeded. Instead, his gospel account of Jesus’ teaching regarding his body and blood reinforced the plain meaning of our Lord’s words, “this is my body, this is my blood.” The fact that John, after more than half a century of reflection upon all that Jesus said and did, steadfastly held to the teaching of the early Church regarding the literal meaning of Jesus’ words, “this is my body; this is my blood” creates a problem for Protestants that cannot be explained away.

 

[Jolly_Joe]

JJ59,

John chapter 6 is clearly using figurative language. It’s not even directly speaking of the Lord’s Supper which was instituted much later. And note they did not at that point stop and eat and drink but rather Peter confessed where are we to go, you have the words of eternal life. It was difficult to understand for the Jews because they wanted to interprete them literally. It certainly wasn’t teaching them any sort of real presence because there was no bread and wine involved.

Using it as the primary text is a mistake in technique of using the obscure to interprete the clear. This is my body and this is my blood are quite clear. In Corinthians two rhetorical questions are used is this not the communion of the body of Christ, is this not the communion of the blood of Christ? In both questions it assumes a yes answer.

Running to John 6 confuses the issue. When shown that, many Protestants think well that’s clearly figurative; therefore, every time we read of Christ’s body and blood it too must be figurative.

Does the Catholic Church teach that one must take Communion in order to be saved? If not, then it too takes it as figurative language doesn’t it? The insistance on it being the passage to teach the real presence is a bit strange since the Catholic Church does really take the rest of the teaching there as literal, though it’s been common to do so in the past.

 

[Nita]

… The verse that hit me the hardest was John 6:35 (“I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.”) It seemed to say quite clearly that Jesus meant a metaphor…

---

,

The first thing I noticed about the verse is that it doesn’t say anything about eating or drinking Him – or about eternal life in us! Is it possible this particular verse is not about the Eucharist (as subsequent ones are), but is preparatory for it! First we must “come” and “believe” that He is the Bread of Life, before we can consume Him in the Eucharist.

 

[Nita]

Have been sitting here thinking more about your question since my previous post. And it’s amazing. Thoughts just started tripping over each other .
That first part of the Bread of Life discourse makes it seem even more obvious to me that the second part is about the Eucharist. (Jesus calls Himself the Bread of Life in both sections).

1. John 6:35-47 First Section: This section is definitely about coming to Jesus; accepting Him and His teaching. The word “eat” is not used here – but “hunger” and “thirst” are. Easy to understand for a Jew; easy to accept for a disciple.
2. John 6: 48-65 Second Section: Definite command to eat His flesh and drink His blood.
   This section is the Eucharistic discourse.

Since the first part was clearly a reference to His teaching – with nothing offensive about it, or difficult to understand – why would Jesus proceed to supposedly say the same thing, repeatedly stating it in a way that He knew would give offense, be misunderstood, and cause many of his followers to leave.

Went to the Haydock to check things out a little. The following footnote was a reassurance that my thoughts weren’t off in left field somewhere:
vs. 61 If Christ had wished to say nothing else than that his disciples should be filled with His doctrine, that being His flesh and blood, it would not have been a hard saying; neither would it have shocked the Jews. He had already said as much in the former part of His discourse: …

 

[JJ59]

Have been sitting here thinking more about your question since my previous post. And it’s amazing. Thoughts just started tripping over each other .
That first part of the Bread of Life discourse makes it seem even more obvious to me that the second part is about the Eucharist. (Jesus calls Himself the Bread of Life in both sections).

1. John 6:35-47 First Section: This section is definitely about coming to Jesus; accepting Him and His teaching. The word “eat” is not used here – but “hunger” and “thirst” are. Easy to understand for a Jew; easy to accept for a disciple.
2. John 6: 48-65 Second Section: Definite command to eat His flesh and drink His blood.
   This section is the Eucharistic discourse.

**Since the first part was clearly a reference to His teaching – with nothing offensive about it, or difficult to understand – why would Jesus proceed to supposedly say the same **thing, repeatedly stating it in a way that He knew would give offense, be misunderstood, and cause many of his followers to leave.

Went to the Haydock to check things out a little. The following footnote was a reassurance that my thoughts weren’t off in left field somewhere:
vs. 61 If Christ had wished to say nothing else than that his disciples should be filled with His doctrine, that being His flesh and blood, it would not have been a hard saying; neither would it have shocked the Jews. He had already said as much in the former part of His discourse: …

Thanks for your response, Nita, and thanks everyone, sorry I can’t respond to everyone’s post.

I was writing a whole response to your post. but then I realized: Are you suggesting that when Jesus says “believe” in the “first section”, it means believe in Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist? (I was thinking of “believing” as, how Protestants put it, ‘accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior’.)

If so, I’m seeing the passage like never before. It makes a lot of sense!

God bless,

 

[CalCatholic]

JJ59,

John chapter 6 is clearly using figurative language. It’s not even directly speaking of the Lord’s Supper which was instituted much later. And note they did not at that point stop and eat and drink but rather Peter confessed where are we to go, you have the words of eternal life. It was difficult to understand for the Jews because they wanted to interprete them literally. It certainly wasn’t teaching them any sort of real presence because there was no bread and wine involved.

Using it as the primary text is a mistake in technique of using the obscure to interprete the clear. This is my body and this is my blood are quite clear. In Corinthians two rhetorical questions are used is this not the communion of the body of Christ, is this not the communion of the blood of Christ? In both questions it assumes a yes answer.

Running to John 6 confuses the issue. When shown that, many Protestants think well that’s clearly figurative; therefore, every time we read of Christ’s body and blood it too must be figurative.

Does the Catholic Church teach that one must take Communion in order to be saved? If not, then it too takes it as figurative language doesn’t it? The insistance on it being the passage to teach the real presence is a bit strange since the Catholic Church does really take the rest of the teaching there as literal, though it’s been common to do so in the past.

This notion that the Eucharist is not literally the Body and Blood of Christ started in the 16th century after the reformation, it wasn’t a problem with the early Church, except for some of the heretics.

St. Ignatius of Antioch (107 A.D.) wrote; “[The Docetics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised fron the dead. And so denying the gift of God, these men will parish in their disputatiousness. It would be better for them to love and so to rise again. (It is well for you to keep away from such persons and not even to speak of them in private or in public).”

St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Ambrose and St. Augustine (just to name a few) all believed that the bread and the wine of the Eucharist became the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

So the early Church Fathers believed the ‘real presence’ in the Eucharist and this continued on until the reformation, when some (not all) Protestants denied it.

That is why Catholics rely on the Magisterium of the Church to interpet the Scriptures for doctrine. The Catholic Church relies on its 2000 years of interpeting the Scriptures and Sacred Traditions handed down from the Apostles and their successors (incl. the early Church Fathers), to faithfully profess that the bread and wine in the Eucharist does indeed become the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Kalos]

JJ59, I just thought I’d look up some history relevant to the subject. This is about the 9th C. French monk Radbertus who could be pointed to as person who had the most influence in making the real presence an official Church teaching. This is from Wikipedia:

[edit] Writings

[edit] De Corpore et Sanguine Domini
The most well-known and influential work of St. Paschasius, De Corpore et Sanguine Domini (written between 831 and 833), is an exposition on the nature of the Eucharist. It was originally written as an instructional manual for the monks under his care at Corbie, and is the first lengthy treatise on the sacrament of the Eucharist in the Western world. [5]In it, Paschasius agrees with Ambrose in affirming that the Eucharist contains the true, historical body of Jesus Christ. According to Paschasius, God is truth itself, and therefore, his words and actions must be true. Christ’s proclamation at the Last Supper that the bread and wine were his body and blood must be taken literally, since God is truth. [6] He believes that the transubstantiation of the bread and wine to be used at the Eucharist occurs literally. Only if the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ can a Christian know it is salvific. [7] Paschasius believed that the presence of the historical blood and body of Christ allows the partaker a real union with Jesus in a direct, personal, and physical union by joining a person’s flesh with Christ’s and Christ’s flesh with his.[8] To Paschasius, the Eucharist’s tranformation into the flesh and blood of Christ is possible because of the principle that God is truth; God is able to manipulate nature, as he created it.[9] The book was given to Charles the Bald, the Frankish king, as a present in 844, with the inclusion of a special introduction. The view Paschasius expressed in this work was met with some hostility; Ratramnus, who preceded Paschasius as Abbot of Corbie, wrote a rebuttal by the same name, by order of Charles the Bald, who did not agree with some of the views Paschasius held. Ratramnus believed that the Eucharist was strictly metaphorical; he focused more on the relationship between faith and the newly emerging science, while Paschasius believed in the miraculous. Shortly thereafter, a third monk joined the debate, Rabanus Maurus, which initiated the Carolingian Eucharist Controversy.[10] Ultimately, however, the king accepted Paschasius’ assertion, and the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist became the dominant belief in the Roman Catholic faith. [11]

After this time the “Real presence theory” eventually became the accepted view of Rome.

 

[Nita]

Thanks for your response, Nita, and thanks everyone, sorry I can’t respond to everyone’s post.

I was writing a whole response to your post. but then I realized: Are you suggesting that when Jesus says “believe” in the “first section”, it means believe in Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist? (I was thinking of “believing” as, how Protestants put it, ‘accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior’.)

If so, I’m seeing the passage like never before. It makes a lot of sense!

God bless,

Believing in Jesus – across the board!! In everything. But primarily in what He preaches. At the point that He asks them to “come” and “believe”, He has not yet given any Eucharistic teaching so it wouldn’t be limited to belief in the Eucharistic presence. It’s believing in the sense the Protestants mean. (Unfortunately, they do not believe the words Jesus then goes on to preach in the second section. We do.) One MUST believe that Jesus speaks only the truth before it would ever be possible to accept His teaching concerning the Eucharist. One must also believe that He is God – or at least that God is the source of His words and will uphold and carry out what Jesus says. (Very few at this point had come to realize that Jesus was God in the flesh.) If any ordinary human came and said the words Jesus spoke in the second section – there is no way it could be possible. Only God could accomplish such a thing. So first one must come to a belief in Jesus. It is

That is how I now understand the words of the “first section”.

 

[PJM]

=JJ59-(It’s long, but please read the whole thing)

Hi, The subject I want to discuss is a touchy one, so be warned.

As any good Catholic or some Protestants know, John 6 is considered some of the best proof for the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

Instead of being some wacky, illogical rant from fundamentalists, (i.e. STOP WORSHIPPING BREAD YOU’RE GOING TO HELL!!!) it made a lot of sense. The verse that hit me the hardest was John 6:35 (“I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.”) It seemed to say quite clearly that Jesus meant a metaphor…

Now, let me just be clear here that I agree with the doctrine of the Real Presence, with all my heart. (Heck, an excerpt from John 6 is in my signature!) But I can’t seem to believe in John 6 as a proof-text for it, and that has major implications considering much Eucharistic theology seems o have derived from it.

i) How the Catholic interpretation of John 6 is viable, specifically, how we are to interpret a verse like John 6:35

This verse means that Christ is everything anyone needs to get to heaven. In that Christ is ours to consume in the forms of Bread and Wine, Catholic Eucharist becomes the “Bread of Life” and humanities prime souce for the grace needed for sustaining our relationship with Him, leading us to heaven. One canot receive Christ worthily while in Mortal sin. [See 1 Cor. 11:27-29 and 1 John 5:16-17]

How the Catholic interpretation of John 6 is even better than the interpretation used specifically in that article

**CCC *2837 “Daily” (epiousios) occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. Taken in a temporal sense, this word is a pedagogical repetition of “this day,” to confirm us in trust “without reservation.” Taken in the qualitative sense, it signifies what is necessary for life, and more broadly every good thing sufficient for subsistence. Taken literally (epi-ousios: “super-essential”), it refers directly to the Bread of Life, the Body of Christ, the “medicine of immortality,” without which we have no life within us. Finally in this connection, its heavenly meaning is evident: “this day” is the Day of the Lord, the day of the feast of the kingdom, anticipated in the Eucharist that is already the foretaste of the kingdom to come. For this reason it is fitting for the Eucharistic liturgy to be celebrated each day.

The Eucharist is our daily bread. The power belonging to this divine food makes it a bond of union. Its effect is then understood as unity, so that, gathered into his Body and made members of him, we may become what we receive. . . . This also is our daily bread: the readings you hear each day in church and the hymns you hear and sing. All these are necessities for our pilgrimage. "***

Google the Catholic Catechism.

 

[Nita]

Believing in Jesus – across the board!! In everything. But primarily in what He preaches. At the point that He asks them to “come” and “believe”, He has not yet given any Eucharistic teaching so it wouldn’t be limited to belief in the Eucharistic presence. It’s believing in the sense the Protestants mean. (Unfortunately, they do not believe the words Jesus then goes on to preach in the second section. We do.) One MUST believe that Jesus speaks only the truth before it would ever be possible to accept His teaching concerning the Eucharist. One must also believe that He is God – or at least that God is the source of His words and will uphold and carry out what Jesus says. (Very few at this point had come to realize that Jesus was God in the flesh.) If any ordinary human came and said the words Jesus spoke in the second section – there is no way it could be possible. Only God could accomplish such a thing. So first one must come to a belief in Jesus. It is

That is how I now understand the words of the “first section”.

I had to leave very quickly in order to make it to First Sat. Mass (got too absorbed in the thread and forgot to watch the time). No time to preview, so apologize for the “It is” hanging out there all by itself at the end of the first paragraph. It should have been deleted. Just wanted to add the following commentary on John 6 from the Navarre Bible.
Vs 28-35 … In this dialogue and in the first part of the discourse (vv.35-47), the main thing Jesus is trying to do is bring them to make an act of faith in him, so that he can then openly reveal to them the mystery of the Blessed Eucharist–that he is the bread…
…To accept the mystery of the Eucharist, faith is required,…

Vs 35 Going to Jesus means believing in him, for it is through faith that we approach our Lord. …

…

Vs. 48 With this solemn declaration, which he repeats because of his audience’s doubts, (cf Jn 6:35,41,48), Jesus begins the second part of his discourse, in which he explicitly reveals the great mystery of the Blessed Eucharist. …)

 

[MarysGirls]

This is a wonderful thread!! Thank you OP for starting this! I’ve never looked at John 6 like this before!

 

[pia]

I agree with you marysgirl especially nita’s answer to it, it has made me understand it more and hopefully i can explain it to my sister this way one day soon as she left the Church 21 yrs ago:sad_yes: to join her husbands evangelical. God bless

 

[dpgreen]

JJ59,

John chapter 6 is clearly using figurative language. It’s not even directly speaking of the Lord’s Supper which was instituted much later. And note they did not at that point stop and eat and drink but rather Peter confessed where are we to go, you have the words of eternal life. It was difficult to understand for the Jews because they wanted to interprete them literally. It certainly wasn’t teaching them any sort of real presence because there was no bread and wine involved.

Using it as the primary text is a mistake in technique of using the obscure to interprete the clear. This is my body and this is my blood are quite clear. In Corinthians two rhetorical questions are used is this not the communion of the body of Christ, is this not the communion of the blood of Christ? In both questions it assumes a yes answer.

Running to John 6 confuses the issue. When shown that, many Protestants think well that’s clearly figurative; therefore, every time we read of Christ’s body and blood it too must be figurative.

Does the Catholic Church teach that one must take Communion in order to be saved? If not, then it too takes it as figurative language doesn’t it? The insistance on it being the passage to teach the real presence is a bit strange since the Catholic Church does really take the rest of the teaching there as literal, though it’s been common to do so in the past.

For a Jew to eat someone’s flesh and blood in the spiritual sense would be to bring damnation upon yourself. I do not think Jesus would be asking the disciples to damn Him. Jesus meant what he said. The Eucharist is what it symbolizes.

To Kalos
I always am reticent in recommending anything from a Wiki site. They are not reliable sources.

I much prefer, when referring to Church history, to read what the early church fathers have to say about a certain doctrine. Apparently Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, who were around at the time of John, spoke very clearly about what the Eucharist really is. Try and google their writings, but please do not use wiki.

 

[erikd]

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.

John 6: 35

Did Jesus mean this in a literal sense or a symbolic sense?

41 The Jews then complained about Him, because He said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.”

John 6: 41

The Jews took him seriously, and literally.

48 "I am the bread of life.
49 "Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50 "This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die.
51 “I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”

John 6: 48-51

Jesus is again stressing a very important point. Also, consider verse 51 as it is very important. If this is to be interpreted as symbolic, then why does Jesus equate His flesh (food) with His death on the cross? Jesus knew He was to die “for the life of the world” and there’s nothing symbolic about that. Yet, here Jesus speaks of His flesh, as well as His giving of His flesh for the “life of the world” as if it was one and the same. How can one be symbolic and the other real? If the Bread of Life is to be equated with the crucifixion, then one must surmise that either both are real or both are symbolic. Nothing in the text shows any differentiation between the two.

52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?”

John 6: 52

The Jews took Jesus’ words in a literal sense once again.

53 Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.
54 "Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 "For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.
56 "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.
57 "As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me.
58 “This is the bread which came down from heaven-not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”

John 6: 53-58

Jesus, very emphatically answers the non-believing Jews. One would think that if Jesus meant this to be symbolic, He would not have stressed this same point over and over again. It is precisely because the Jews did not believe Him (as many Protestants today don’t) that Jesus is forced to continually put the exclamation point to His words. One should also consider the Greek forms of the original language. In verses 23 – 53, “phago” which is a generic Greek word for eat or consume is said nine times. However, in verses 54 – 58, after the disbelief of the Jews, the Greek word used is “trogo” which literally means to “gnaw” or “chew.” If the Greek manuscript is correct, then Jesus switched His words to indicate the true meaning of what He was saying. Or rather, He switched His words to emphasize that much more strongly what He meant.

60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, "This is a hard saying; who can understand it?”

John 6: 60

Now, Jesus’ disciples took Him seriously.

61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, "Does this offend you?
62 "What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before?
63 "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

John 6: 61-63

Verse 63 is often referred to by non-Catholics as the explanation for this entire chapter of the Gospel of John to be understood as symbolic. But I ask you this: By saying that Jesus’ spirit gives us life, how does that negate the total real presence of Christ? Isn’t Christ the Lamb of God? Didn’t Christ equate the Body as food and the Body as a sacrifice in the same sentence? Was He not referring to the same real Body? This entire chapter says that Jesus emphasized time and time again that He meant what He said. Many did not believe, and Jesus re-emphasized the same point over and over again. Does the existence of the Spirit of Jesus negate the totality of the presence? It is much more plausible, when this verse is taken within the context of the entire chapter, to understand that Jesus tells us that we need spiritual wisdom and grace to understand His words?

64 “But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him.
65 And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”
66 From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.
67 Then Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also want to go away?”

John 6: 64-67

Jesus realizes that even the Apostles are taking Him seriously. Surely, if the Apostles were to mistake a serious statement from an allegorical or symbolic one, would Jesus not correct them? Jesus commissioned the Apostles to go out and teach the world. If the Apostles got this one wrong, would Jesus not see the magnitude of this kind of mistake? Or maybe, the Apostles got it right. Maybe the Jews got it right. Maybe the disciples got it right. Maybe, Jesus meant what He said. The scripture seems to portray this possibility over all others. Consider that this is the only place in the New Testament, where followers of Christ actually abandoned Him for theological reasons. This does not happen anywhere in the Gospels. If this action, being so severe, were through a misunderstanding, would Jesus not have corrected the issue?

Continued on next post.