Please explain John 6:53

  • Thread starter Thread starter timeandeternity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

timeandeternity

Guest
I just had the most intense and deep discussion of John 6 with a Protestant. It lasted for about 4 hours, and I have many questions and doubts that need to be resolved.
I read the following article: vintage.aomin.org/johnchapter6.html It is the most logical Protestant explanation of John 6 that I have ever read. At the same time, I do think that his take on John 6 is not necessarily opposed to the Catholic interpretation.
However, John 6:53 is what is really causing problems, and if you only reply to one part of this post, please reply to this question. If John 6:53 is truly literal, does that mean that we don’t have life within us, even after baptism and true faith in Christ and his teachings? If the concept of the obtaining of eternal life by faith and baptism is not to contradict the concept of obtaining eternal life by the Eucharist, there needs to be an explanation for this verse that does not do violence to the rest of Scripture that talks about faith, baptism, and salvation.
In addition, I am extremely unclear on St. Augustine’s stance on the Eucharist. I have read nearly all his statements on the Eucharist, and while some of them can be interpreted as meaning that the Eucharist is really Christ’s physical Body and Blood, there are two quotes in particular that seem very clearly to state that he thinks John should not be interpreted literally. One is from “On Christian Doctrine,” Bk. 3 Ch. 16, following a quote of Jn. 6:54: “This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.” The other is from his Expositions on the Psalms, again following a quote of Jn 6:54: “Some received this foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them;…but He instructed them, and said unto them, ‘It is the Spirit that quickens, but the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.’ Understand spiritually what I have said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken you. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood.”
Please answer my questions directly. I already know every single common Catholic argument for the Eucharist and for a literal interpretation of John 6, so please do your best not to provide me with what I already know.
 
timeandeternity said:
If John 6:53 is truly literal, does that mean that we don’t have life within us, even after baptism and true faith in Christ and his teachings? If the concept of the obtaining of eternal life by faith and baptism is not to contradict the concept of obtaining eternal life by the Eucharist, there needs to be an explanation for this verse that does not do violence to the rest of Scripture that talks about faith, baptism, and salvation.
Click to expand...
This was Thomas Aquinas’ view, although he held that if a person died after baptism but before receiving the Eucharist then he could still be saved due to his desire for the Eucharist, on the same principle as that by which we have baptism of desire for catechumens who die before their sacramental baptism. You can read Thomas’ discussion of this topic here (scroll down to Article 3).

As to St. Augustine and “you are not to eat this body which you see,” etc., St. Thomas writes (here, Article I) on that as well:
From this authority the aforesaid heretics have taken occasion to err from evilly understanding Augustine’s words. For when Augustine says: “You are not to eat this body which you see,” he means not to exclude the truth of Christ’s body, but that it was not to be eaten in this species in which it was seen by them. And by the words: “It is a mystery that I put before you; in its spiritual sense it will quicken you,” he intends not that the body of Christ is in this sacrament merely according to mystical signification, but “spiritually,” that is, invisibly, and by the power of the spirit. Hence (Tract. xxvii), expounding John 6:64: “the flesh profiteth nothing,” he says: “Yea, but as they understood it, for they understood that the flesh was to be eaten as it is divided piecemeal in a dead body, or as sold in the shambles *, not as it is quickened by the spirit . . . Let the spirit draw nigh to the flesh . . . then the flesh profiteth very much: for if the flesh profiteth nothing, the Word had not been made flesh, that It might dwell among us.” *
 
Have you, by chance, read The Jerome Biblical Commentary? A portion of the article entitled The Gospel According to John may be able to help you. That portion is 63:97.
 
In the Roman rite, the sacrament of Baptism is typically received in infancy, first Eucharist in childhood and Confirmation in young adulthood. The temporal separation of these sacraments by so many years might obscure the unity of these three sacraments of Christian initation. The unity of these three sacraments of Christian initiation is better seen in the Christian initiation of adults, or of infants in Eastern rites, where there is a single celebration of the three sacraments.

Thus, when Jesus Christ speaks of the necessity of being born of water and Spirit (Baptism and Confirmation) in John 3 and eating his flesh and drinking his blood (the Eucharist) in John 6, he is referring to different aspects of the process of Christian initiation.
The holy Eucharist completes Christian initiation. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1322)

Today in all the rites, Latin and Eastern, the Christian initiation of adults begins with their entry into the catechumenate and reaches its culmination in a single celebration of the three sacraments of initiation: Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist. In the Eastern rites the Christian initiation of infants also begins with Baptism followed immediately by Confirmation and the Eucharist, which in the Roman rite it is followed by years of catechesis before being completed later by Confirmation and the Eucharist, the summit of their Christian initiation. (CCC, 1233)
The practice of the Eastern Churches gives greater emphasis to the unity of Christian initiation. (CCC, 1292)
 
I think the bottom line is that faith, baptism, the eucharist, repentance, and reconciliation are ALL parts of what is required to lead a Christian life and gain salvation. You can find these all at varying parts of the gospels. I think the idea was/is, you need all these things to follow Christ. And it’s all part of the church that Jesus left us. All these things work together for salvation. I believe what Jesus intended to teach us was it’s not simply a matter of belief, or baptism, or the eucharist, but a combination of them all. And that is found in the church.
 
Thanks. Your replies have helped.
I’m still not seeing a good explanation for the first Augustine quote. Does anyone know what that one is about?
Also, I did say something to this friend about faith, baptism, and the Eucharist all being parts of salvation, being combined in our salvation. However, he does not understand why, if this is the case, the Eucharist is never mentioned after the Gospels in connection with salvation, and baptism is rarely mentioned as connected with salvation–yet throughout the NT, faith is emphasized overwhelmingly as a means for salvation. I can find good Bible passages and early father quotes to support the belief that baptism saves, but I’m stuck on the Eucharist.
 
timeandeternity said:
Thanks. Your replies have helped.
I’m still not seeing a good explanation for the first Augustine quote. Does anyone know what that one is about?
Also, I did say something to this friend about faith, baptism, and the Eucharist all being parts of salvation, being combined in our salvation. However, he does not understand why, if this is the case, the Eucharist is never mentioned after the Gospels in connection with salvation, and baptism is rarely mentioned as connected with salvation–yet throughout the NT, faith is emphasized overwhelmingly as a means for salvation. I can find good Bible passages and early father quotes to support the belief that baptism saves, but I’m stuck on the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
As a matter of fact the Eucharist is mentioned after the Gospels. 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, 21 ~ “The cup of benediction that we bless, is it not a communion in the Blood of Christ? And the bread that we break, is it not a participation in the Body of the Lord? Through the one bread, we, though many, are one body: all of us who are partakers of the one bread.”

1 Corinthians 11:23-29 ~ “For I have received from the Lord what I have also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus, on the same night that he was handed over, took bread, and giving thanks, he broke it, and said: Take and eat. This is my body, which shall be given up for you. Do this in remembrance of me. Similarly also, the cup, after he had eaten supper, saying: This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me. For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord, until he returns. And so, whoever eats this bread, or drinks from the cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be liable of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and, in this way, let him eat from that bread, and drink from that cup. For whoever eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks a sentence against himself, not discerning it to be the body of the Lord.”

Just two examples that came to mind. More to follow on Augustine!
 
The bread which I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world.[2] In most Greek copies we read, is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world. Christ here promised what he afterwards instituted, and gave at his last supper. He promiseth to give his body and blood to be eaten; the same body (though the manner be different) which he would give on the cross for the redemption of the world. The Jews of Capharnaum were presently scandalized. How (said they) can this man give us his flesh to eat? But notwithstanding their murmuring, and the offence which his words had given, even to many of his disciples, he was so far from revoking, or expounding what he had said of any figurative or metaphorical sense, that he confirmed the same truth in the clearest and strongest terms. Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat, &c. And again, (ver. 56.) For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. I cannot omit taking notice of what St. Chrysostom and St. Cyril, in their commentaries on this place, have left us on these words, How can this man do this? These words which call in question the almighty and incomprehensible power of God, which hinder them, says St. Chrysostom, from believing all other mysteries and miracles: they might as well have said: How could he with five loaves feed five thousand men? This question, How can he do this? Is a question of infidels and unbelievers. St. Cyril says that How, or, How can he do this? cannot, without folly, be applied to God. 2ndly, he calls it a question of blasphemy. 3rdly, a Jewish word, for which these Capharnaites deserved the severest punishments. 4thly, He confutes them by the saying of the prophet Isaias, (lv. 9.) that God’s thoughts and ways are as much above those of men, as the heavens are above the earth. But if these Capharnaites, who knew not who Jesus was, were justly blamed for their incredulous, foolish, blasphemous, Jewish saying, how can he give us his flesh to eat? much more blameable are those Christians, who, against the words of the Scripture, against the unanimous consent and authority of all Christian Churches in all parts of the world, refuse to believe his real presence, and have nothing to say, but with the obstinate Capharnaites, how can this be done? Their answers are the same, or no better, when they tell us that the real presence contradicts their senses, their reason, that they know it to be false. We may also observe, with divers interpreters, that if Christians are not to believe that Jesus Christ is one and the same God with the eternal Father, and that he is truly and really present in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, it will be hard to deny but that Christ himself led men into these errors, which is blasphemy. For it is evident, and past all dispute, that the Jews murmured, complained, and understood that Christ several times made himself God, and equal to the Father of all. 2ndly, When in this chapter, he told them he would give them his flesh to eat, &c. they were shocked to the highest degree: they cried out, this could not be, that these words and this speech was hard and harsh, and on this very account many that had been his disciples till that time, withdrew themselves from him, and left him and his doctrine. Was it not then at least high time to set his complaining hearers right, to prevent the blasphemous and idolatrous opinions of the following ages, nay even of all Christian Churches, by telling his disciples at least, that he was only a nominal God, in a metaphorical and improper sense; that he spoke only of his body being present in a figurative and metaphorical sense in the holy Eucharist? If we are deceived, who was it that deceived us but Christ himself, who so often repeated the same points of our belief? His apostles must be esteemed no less guilty in affirming the very same, both as to Christ’s divinity, and his real presence in the holy sacrament, as hereafter will appear. (Witham) — Compare the words here spoken with those he delivered at his last supper, and you will see that what he promises here was then fulfilled: “this is my body given for you.” Hence, the holy Fathers have always explained this chapter of St. John, as spoken of the blessed sacrament. See the concluding reflexions, below.
 
timeandeternity said:
Thanks. Your replies have helped.
I’m still not seeing a good explanation for the first Augustine quote. Does anyone know what that one is about?
Also, I did say something to this friend about faith, baptism, and the Eucharist all being parts of salvation, being combined in our salvation. However, he does not understand why, if this is the case, the Eucharist is never mentioned after the Gospels in connection with salvation, and baptism is rarely mentioned as connected with salvation–yet throughout the NT, faith is emphasized overwhelmingly as a means for salvation. I can find good Bible passages and early father quotes to support the belief that baptism saves, but I’m stuck on the Eucharist.
Click to expand...

(St. Augustian’s writting)
One is from “On Christian Doctrine,” Bk. 3 Ch. 16, following a quote of Jn. 6:54:
“This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we
should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet
and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.”​

Crime or vice, yes if John Doe’s body parts were eaten as is.

Figure, because He didn’t mean the body standing before them with body parts,
but his body under a different appearance.

Have a share in the sufferings, as Jesus said, “which will be given up for you”.
The Paschal Lamb which is sacrificed(given up) in which we participate in by His will.

And a sweet memory, of his sufferings for us, as Jesus said, “do this in memory of Me.”
The Mass is that memory in a real presentation of THE sacrifice of Calvary
to those who offer and receive with faith.​

Why is Communion(real presence) so important for salvation?

Baptism gives birth(life). Communion feeds that life.
In the natural order, the infant will die if not fed. All must eat to live.
Further, anyone that does not eat will die.
In the divine order, we must eat to live,but supernatural food is required for the soul.
Further, anyone that does not eat will die.

We are given birth thru Baptism thru the church, the body of Christ on earth,
of which we are living members.
The Church, the mother of us all, feeds her children on the supernatural food
to strengthen, nourish, and that we might grow in the love and image of Jesus.
All of us are her children whom she cares for in a tender and loving way.​

Why did Jesus wait until the end of his career to reveal this?
  1. So that by seeing his miracles for three years, people would be prepared to accept this.
  2. Shortly before He introduced this revelation, he multiplied food and fed thousands twice.
  3. He waited only a few days after this to explain and give His Body to the apostles
    at the Last Supper.
  4. He then ordained them, “do this”, so that all would continue to be sustained in their
    newly acquired baptismal life when He left this earth.
 
Reading what St. Thomas Aquinas wrote about the Eucharist, in the first link posted by MarkThompson, got me thinking… St Thomas refers to Baptism as the sacrament of faith and the Eucharist as the sacrament of love and, since Sacred Scripture repeatedly speaks of the necessity of having both faith and love, perhaps an argument can be made for the ordinary necessity of receiving both the sacrament of faith (Baptism) and the sacrament of love (the Eucharist).

Scott Hahn, in The Fourth Cup, expresses a similar notion:
Baptism is the sacrament of faith in which we unite ourselves and receive the Holy Spirit. Confirmation is the sacrament of hope in which we gain the extra power to overcome the sin which we begin to consciously commit, because in confirmation we have solid reason for hoping that God’s grace will overcome our sin. But faith, hope are nothing, are profitless, without love. And the Eucharist is the sacrament of love. It’s an oath that God has sworn: “I love you. You don’t believe me? I swear to God.” (source)
 
I understand John 6:53 in the light of John 4:24 and John 4:34. God is spirit. Doing God’s will is our food. Our spiritual food. The food that brings us to eternal life.

The question of whether or not to take John 6:53 “literally” versus “symbolically” seems to often be a source of contention between Catholics and Protestants. I submit that the distinction is better phrased as taking the words “spiritually” rather than “physically” which seems like what St Augustine was saying.

I am a practicing Catholic who looks forward to the chance to receive Holy Communion every Sunday. More often if possible. It is a source of strength in the ongoing struggle to seek God’s kingdom. But the physical ingestion of the host and wine is not the sole grantor of salvation. Rather salvation is obtained by walking humbly with God every day in all aspects of our life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top