John 6

[Britta]

I would like to ask a question of Protestants. Basically, how do you interpret the 6th chapter of John, and more specifically John 6:52-59?

 

[Andrew_Larkoski]

I am very much Catholic, but I have discussed this chapter and the accounts of the Last Supper in the other Gospels with Protestants and they say that to consume Jesus’ Body and Blood means to spiritually consume His Word; that is, to fully believe everything He teaches.

I want to know, why do Protestants interpret some verses literally and some verses figuratively (such as John 6:52). Where do Protestants draw the line between literal and figurative, and who gave them the authority to interpret Scripture as such?

 

[Count_Chocula]

The real question is that if this is merely a symbolic meaning or gesture in John 6 then why did so many of his disciples leave him? Why did Christ even bother to ask if his OWN apostles if they would leave too.

If this was a question of symbolism or merely accepting Christs entire teaching then it’s probable that very few people would have left. The Jews would not have questioned, Jn 6:52. Disciples would not have left, Apostles would not have been questioned. End of story, Christ HAD to have been talking about the “absurd” practice of eating his flesh for it to be so hard to swallow (bad pun yes) rather than just some symbolic meaning.

 

[Britta]

I know the Catholic side and appreciate the (name removed by moderator)ut. However, I am questioning because I really want to try to understand how Protestants understand these scripture verses. I have friends and family who are Protestants and it would help to see where they are coming from.

Thanks and God Bless

 

[cazayoux]

Count Chocula:

The real question is that if this is merely a symbolic meaning or gesture in John 6 then why did so many of his disciples leave him? Why did Christ even bother to ask if his OWN apostles if they would leave too.

If this was a question of symbolism or merely accepting Christs entire teaching then it’s probable that very few people would have left. The Jews would not have questioned, Jn 6:52. Disciples would not have left, Apostles would not have been questioned. End of story, Christ HAD to have been talking about the “absurd” practice of eating his flesh for it to be so hard to swallow (bad pun yes) rather than just some symbolic meaning.

CC!

Now THIS is the reason I came to these boards. To learn not only the text, but to get a better understanding of the circumstances involved. Your insight here is much appreciated. Thank you!

Cheers!

Catholic Caz

 

[milimac]

As of yet, no Protestants posting. However, in another unrelated thread, someone made the comment that if Jesus really meant that you must eat his flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life, why didn’t anyone take him up on it? What if someone had?

It’s hard to speculate what would’ve happened if someone HAD said “OK, Jesus. How do I go about doing that?” Perhaps Jesus would’ve instituted the Last Supper meal at that point.

The fact is, though, no one took him up on it. Even his closest disciples weren’t exactly overflowing with belief and understanding (“Will you also leave me?” “Where else would we go? You alone have the words of eternal life”). I think Jesus knew what was going to happen. He was just planting the seeds that would not sprout until later.

 

[Count_Chocula]

cazayoux:

CC!

Now THIS is the reason I came to these boards. To learn not only the text, but to get a better understanding of the circumstances involved. Your insight here is much appreciated. Thank you!

Cheers!

Catholic Caz

YAY I got props!!! Anyways… to take up a possible Protestant side for sake of debate, let’s think of it this way, we know that in the verses before Christ instructs people to eat of his flesh and drink of his blood, they were approaching him for food, presumably for their bodies, you know more barely loaves and fish.

However, Jesus then promptly tells them that the food he is there to give is spiritual food from him himself. It is my understanding that Protestants consider his food to be the “words of spirit” that he has given people (i.e. his teaching and ways of life) and that upon finding out that they would not get anymore free food w/o following God’s son to the t they left, however the Apostles believed the words of God and stuck around to get the “spiritual” food of his message.

I hope this might shed some light on how you can read into Jn 6 and come up with some wildly different views. However, I will take Christ’s word for it and assume that since here he is telling us to eat and drink of his body and then later does Communion for the Apostles that shows pretty plainly that he meant his actual body and not blood.

This is because no doctrine, dogma, practice, wisdom, nor real info was imparted during the last supper by Christ giving the Apostles bread and wine so it is clear that the body and blood he mentions back in Jn 6 MUST mean something other than his teachings and such.

Britta where abouts in FL do you live?

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Actually, as Jesus continues to be questioned regarding this, “how can he give us his flesh to eat?” He becomes more and more emphatic, using another, stronger verb to describe chewing and gnawing, rather than simply “eating.”

He is being very literal, not merely suggesting that to hear His Words is to devour or digest them, but He insists that His Body is real food and His blood is real drink, and that if we eat and drink, He will abide in us and we, in Him, and without such, we cannot attain eternal life.

When many of His followers left, had He only been speaking figuratively, He would have called them back, explaining, “Hey, wait fellas, you misunderstood! I’m just speaking figuratively here~You don’t have to actually *eat *my flesh!”

After all, He is the Good Shepherd. He goes after His lost sheep.

Those who walked away during the Bread of Life discourse were not His Sheep. They did not recognize His voice. And He let them walk. Those who were still willing to be enlightened as to the meaning of His words, remained.

And hey, He celebrated the Last Supper with them and showed them how His Flesh and Blood are real food and drink!

Pax Christi. <><

 

[Kevan]

This has got to be the oldest debate since the advent of Protestantism

The original question asked for info about what Protestants do with Jn 6. The short answer is that they focus on v. 63 “It is the spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life.” I’m not defending it; I’m just answering the question.

But I have a follow-up question for Catholics. Jesus said in v. 53 that if one doesn’t eat his flesh and drink his blood, that one has no life in him. Now, according to you, I don’t eat his flesh and drink his blood. Yet, since I’m a devout separated brother, you would concede that I have life nevertheless. How can both of these things be true?

I presume that this is a very old question with a very old answer, but I’ve not yet come across the answer and I have wondered about it for years.

 

[space_ghost]

Kevan:

This has got to be the oldest debate since the advent of Protestantism

The original question asked for info about what Protestants do with Jn 6. The short answer is that they focus on v. 63 “It is the spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life.” I’m not defending it; I’m just answering the question.

But I have a follow-up question for Catholics. Jesus said in v. 53 that if one doesn’t eat his flesh and drink his blood, that one has no life in him. Now, according to you, I don’t eat his flesh and drink his blood. Yet, since I’m a devout separated brother, you would concede that I have life nevertheless. How can both of these things be true?

I presume that this is a very old question with a very old answer, but I’ve not yet come across the answer and I have wondered about it for years.

because you don’t “supposedly” know any better… Remember, to reject Christ and His Church, you first have to believe in Christ and his church… conversly… if i believe that Christ is who he claims to be, and i believe in his founding the catholic church, and i don’t think Christ was given to idle pratter… if his gospel that i believe to be inspired says for me to have life i must eat of his flesh, and his church says (by the authority given them by Christ) this host of bread (when consecrated) is the body of Christ… well then the rest is easy… but, if i don’t buy Christ and his Church, then I can’t hardly be held accountable… Now you have to look in the mirror and do some serious prayer, and ask yourself… "Why don’t I believe the Rest of the story??? To sin, you first have to know it’s wrong, accept the wrongness, and with free will choose to do it anyway… if your missing one of those criteria… your probably, PROBABLY o k!.. peace…

 

[Peace-bwu]

Kevan:

This has got to be the oldest debate since the advent of Protestantism

The original question asked for info about what Protestants do with Jn 6. The short answer is that they focus on v. 63 “It is the spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life.” I’m not defending it; I’m just answering the question.

But I have a follow-up question for Catholics. Jesus said in v. 53 that if one doesn’t eat his flesh and drink his blood, that one has no life in him. Now, according to you, I don’t eat his flesh and drink his blood. Yet, since I’m a devout separated brother, you would concede that I have life nevertheless. How can both of these things be true?

I presume that this is a very old question with a very old answer, but I’ve not yet come across the answer and I have wondered about it for years.

To follow the direct commandment from Christ to eat his body and blood, and follow His direct example given to us at the last supper or Passover sedar meal, a protestant brother would have to concede that the Catholic Chuch is “doing it right.” I don’t think my own protestant friends are willing to think anything about the Catholic Church is right. They would have to submit to authority and they don’t want to give up the freedom of interpreting Scripture however they want. So… passages like this are glossed over and suddenly not to be taken literaly anymore. Whether it stems from pride, prejudice against the Catholic Church, or fear that everything in their religious life is about to change, many people choose to live their lives without knowing the fullness of Christ’s love and presence in the Eucharist.

As a follower of Christ, that just makes me sad. I want everyone to have the opportunity to experience all the Sacraments Jesus gave to us. I have some protestant friends whom I love dearly. I know they have a strong relationship with Jesus, I want them to live it even more fully. I have shown them where to find the Sacraments in Scripture, hopefully they will really question it one day. Now I just continue our loving friendship and pray.

 

[Kevan]

If I have the salvation of Jesus, how and when did I get it? True, I have undergone trinitarian baptism (Protestant), but what value is there in the Eucharist if you’re not getting anything I myself don’t have?

 

[hlgomez]

Kevan wrote:
If I have the salvation of Jesus, how and when did I get it? True, I have undergone trinitarian baptism (Protestant), but what value is there in the Eucharist if you’re not getting anything I myself don’t have?

Kevan, the real purpose of CHrist’s coming into the world is for us to be saved. To be saved is to have a personal relationship with him (as Protestants always say). To have a personal relationship with Him is not only accepting Him as personal Lord and Saviour in a one way relationship but reciprocal. You accept Christ, BUT Christ is giving Himself to us! Can we say then that, “okay I accept you but I don’t want you to be with me, to partake in your divine nature.”???

When Adam and Eve lost that intimate communion relationship with God after they sinned, Christ restored it. And Christ Himself is giving His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity for the life of each Soul–for the life of the Church. Without the Eucharist, there can be no life. All Christians are called to partake of this divine nature, it’s not only a Catholic dogma or doctrine–it’s Jesus Himself when He said to “eat His Body and drink His Blood.” It’s not a symbol–it’s REAL!

Pio

 

[hlgomez]

Kevan said:

The original question asked for info about what Protestants do with Jn 6. The short answer is that they focus on v. 63 “It is the spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life.” I’m not defending it; I’m just answering the question.

If you read back what Jesus said to eat His Flesh and drink His blood–those are words of the Spirit and not of flesh. Notice what he said in the following sentence after He said that “it is the Spirit who gives life…”–The WORDS that I speak to you ARE SPIRIT, and ARE LIFE. These sentence confirms what he just said “to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood…” It is therefore to be believed because they came from the Spirit not from the flesh–if it comes from the flesh it profits nothing.

Also, when we receive Jesus in the Eucharist–we are not just receiving His flesh but His entirety–Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity!
*Therefore, *the argument that “the flesh profits nothing” cannot be applied to the Eucharist.

Hope this enlightens our separated brothers,

Pio

 

[Britta]

Count Chocula:

Britta where abouts in FL do you live?

South Florida, Palm Beach area to be exact.

 

[Britta]

As for v. 63 referencing the flesh being useless, basically my understanding is that Jesus was not referring to His flesh but ours. He did not say “my flesh is useless,” which would be absurd, but instead He said “the flesh is useless.” This goes into the idea that we must die to our flesh and rise to new life in Christ.

The main reason I am interested in this debate right now is because I heard another interpretation of John 6. Basically, I was told through a protestant friend that this chapter means we must consume the word, i.e., the Bible. That we must eat and drink His word daily to have life within us.

I am interested in any protestants who hold to this interpretation. I would like to understand the thinking.

 

[hlgomez]

I’m not a protestant. My line of understanding is this:

It is not wrong to “consume” him in His Word (Bible). It’s okay, but not to the full. If I compare it to eating, I’m just having my appetizers eaten, but not yet the main dish.
The Eucharist is the fullness of Christ being offered to us.

Pio

 

[bengal_fan]

Kevan:

This has got to be the oldest debate since the advent of Protestantism

actually, the oldest debate is probably the authority of the church since martin luther believed in transubstantiation. anyway…

i think the reason protestants (some) believe that some scripture is literal and some not is the same reason the catholic church says the same thing (there won’t actually be a huge beast coming out of the sea…). i am a protestant who does believe in transubstantiation but am not convinced on some other issues yet . i think one of the reasons they think this might be symbolic is that just 2 chapters earlier Jesus talks about giving us “living water” that will become a spring so that we will never thirst again. this is symbolic (at least i hope so since i and all the catholics i know still get thirsty from time to time). the food and water analogies being so close together makes some think that they are symbolic. again this is not my argument but it is an argument.

 

[Kevan]

hlgomez:

To have a personal relationship with Him is not only accepting Him as personal Lord and Saviour in a one way relationship but reciprocal. You accept Christ, BUT Christ is giving Himself to us! Can we say then that, “okay I accept you but I don’t want you to be with me, to partake in your divine nature.”???

My question is: how can Jn 6 be literal if I, who don’t receive the Catholic Eucharist, still have the life of Jesus within me? It seems to me that one of the two beliefs has to go. If those who don’t partake of the Eucharist have no life in them, I don’t see how you are saying that we DO have life in us.

Without the Eucharist, there can be no life. All Christians are called to partake of this divine nature, it’s not only a Catholic dogma or doctrine–it’s Jesus Himself when He said to “eat His Body and drink His Blood.” It’s not a symbol–it’s REAL!

I hear you saying that you receive Jesus in the Eucharist. But I also hear many saying that I receive Jesus without the Eucharist. See my problem?

I’m trying to understand the REAL Catholic doctrine as opposed to what some might wish it to be. I can understand and respect a desire to be charitable to non-Catholics, but I’m trying to figure out whether charity isn’t driving someone into absurdity or internal inconsistency.

 

[hlgomez]

If those who don’t partake of the Eucharist have no life in them, I don’t see how you are saying that we DO have life in us.

Did I say that you have life in you? It was Jesus who said that if you don’t eat His Flesh and drink His Blood you have no life in you. I can’t contradict with what Jesus said. Therefore, you have no life in you if you don’t partake of the Eucharist.

See my problem?

And you have to do something about it…:yup:

Pio