Proof that John 6 and the Last Supper are connected

[Randy_Carson]

This is exactly what my husband and I think about the current pastor. He truly is a brilliant man and very intellectual in his approach to Scripture. He went to Dallas Theological Seminary, which, from what I understand, is pretty heavily biased against the Catholic Church. He was also president of Moody Bible Institute for a period of time. I went to him several months ago seeking an alternative prospective to all the Catholic stuff I was learning and, at the time, was hoping for some credible ammunition against what I was reading. I was sorely disappointed in that (a) he didn’t take the time to even talk about his own experience and beliefs and (b) he recommended a book that could easily be picked apart called Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics by Ron Rhodes.

I own that book. Meh. Here is what PhilVaz said about it in another thead in 2008:

I don’t have that newer book [The 10 Most Important Things You Can Say to a Catholic], but I have read his larger book on the topic (read most in the store anyway) Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics

Basically this is a watered-down version of McCarthy’s The Gospel According to Rome with weaker arguments. He treats Catholics like he does Mormons and JWs, that they can be “reasoned with” by appealing to Scripture alone. I think he tries to give a brief defense of sola scriptura in the book, but it is short and weak. Plus his history is very weak, what little he discusses of that.

I also heard Ron Rhodes for a few years when he used to “co-host” with Hank Hanegraaff on the “Bible Answer Man” in the early 90s, before Hank took over himself. Rhodes is basically a dispensationalist (contra Hank who is a preterist and amillennial), and he admitted many times on the air that the Church Fathers are totally against him when it comes to Baptism (he admits they are unanimous on the topic).

In addition, a point of trivia, he has said on the air that he used to play guitar for Johnny Carson’s TV show band (i.e. Doc Severinsen?) in his earlier life, haven’t verified that one. He should have stuck with guitar! His stuff on Mormons and JWs is OK, his stuff on Catholics and evolution (another subject he writes about) is poor.

Reviews of his larger anti-Catholic book at Amazon.com, it gets 2.5 stars average.

EDIT: excerpts from this book online at Amazon.com

“Throughout history, under the leadership of various popes, many of the distinctive Roman Catholic doctrines emerged far after the first century. Here are a few notable dates: …” (Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics, page 12)

He then gives, straight from Boettner’s Roman Catholicism:

A.D. 593 – belief in purgatory
A.D. 600 – prayer to Mary and the saints
A.D. 709 – the practice of kissing the pope’s foot
A.D. 995 – the canonization of dead saints
A.D. 1079 – celibacy of the priesthood
A.D. 1090 – praying the rosary
A.D. 1215 – transubstantiation and confessing sins to a priest
A.D. 1439 – belief in the seven sacraments

So Rhodes is basically relying on the “Boettner List” and hasn’t looked any of this stuff up, historically. Easily answered. Bring up the Trinity, the canon of the New Testament, the development of these doctrines, all the early Fathers and Doctors before these dates, a book like Keating’s Catholicism and Fundamentalism or Dave Armstrong’s A Biblical Defense of Catholicism and you are set.

Phil P

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=260125

 

[teresa_lamb]

This may help…I read it this morning and enjoyed it…

wiki.lighthousecatholicmedia.org/images/f/f6/Jesus_and_the_Jewish_Roots-_updated.pdf

Am viewing video #3…very interesting and educational…

brantpitre.com/

 

[slh3016]

I own that book. Meh. Here is what PhilVaz said about it in another thead in 2008:

I don’t have that newer book [The 10 Most Important Things You Can Say to a Catholic], but I have read his larger book on the topic (read most in the store anyway) Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics

Basically this is a watered-down version of McCarthy’s The Gospel According to Rome with weaker arguments. He treats Catholics like he does Mormons and JWs, that they can be “reasoned with” by appealing to Scripture alone. I think he tries to give a brief defense of sola scriptura in the book, but it is short and weak. Plus his history is very weak, what little he discusses of that.

I also heard Ron Rhodes for a few years when he used to “co-host” with Hank Hanegraaff on the “Bible Answer Man” in the early 90s, before Hank took over himself. Rhodes is basically a dispensationalist (contra Hank who is a preterist and amillennial), and he admitted many times on the air that the Church Fathers are totally against him when it comes to Baptism (he admits they are unanimous on the topic).

In addition, a point of trivia, he has said on the air that he used to play guitar for Johnny Carson’s TV show band (i.e. Doc Severinsen?) in his earlier life, haven’t verified that one. He should have stuck with guitar! His stuff on Mormons and JWs is OK, his stuff on Catholics and evolution (another subject he writes about) is poor.

Reviews of his larger anti-Catholic book at Amazon.com, it gets 2.5 stars average.

EDIT: excerpts from this book online at Amazon.com

“Throughout history, under the leadership of various popes, many of the distinctive Roman Catholic doctrines emerged far after the first century. Here are a few notable dates: …” (Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics, page 12)

He then gives, straight from Boettner’s Roman Catholicism:

A.D. 593 – belief in purgatory
A.D. 600 – prayer to Mary and the saints
A.D. 709 – the practice of kissing the pope’s foot
A.D. 995 – the canonization of dead saints
A.D. 1079 – celibacy of the priesthood
A.D. 1090 – praying the rosary
A.D. 1215 – transubstantiation and confessing sins to a priest
A.D. 1439 – belief in the seven sacraments

So Rhodes is basically relying on the “Boettner List” and hasn’t looked any of this stuff up, historically. Easily answered. Bring up the Trinity, the canon of the New Testament, the development of these doctrines, all the early Fathers and Doctors before these dates, a book like Keating’s Catholicism and Fundamentalism or Dave Armstrong’s A Biblical Defense of Catholicism and you are set.

Phil P

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=260125

:clapping: Exactly! I purchased the Kindle edition and highlighted several comments he made in which he offered absolutely NO source of details for accusations he made. The mere fact that our current pastor offered this book as the most compelling argument against Catholicism fell pretty flat for me. I’ve actually seriously considered sending our pastor a copy of several things that I’ve read/listened to.

Can you define dispensationalist, amillennialist, and preterist for me? I’ve not a clue what those words even mean

 

[Randy_Carson]

:clapping: Exactly! I purchased the Kindle edition and highlighted several comments he made in which he offered absolutely NO source of details for accusations he made. The mere fact that our current pastor offered this book as the most compelling argument against Catholicism fell pretty flat for me. I’ve actually seriously considered sending our pastor a copy of several things that I’ve read/listened to.

Can you define dispensationalist, amillennialist, and preterist for me? I’ve not a clue what those words even mean

Start here:

The Rapture
catholic.com/tracts/the-rapture

 

[eazyduzit]

John 6:4 says that “The Jewish Passover Feast was near.” Immediately following this, Jesus feeds the five thousand, walks on water, and gives the bread of life discourse.

A year later, Jesus becomes the Passover Lamb. If you’re truly interested in learning, I suggest you listen to Scott Hahn’s “The Fourth Cup” which you can listen to on youtube.

Thanks for the reply,and yes Dr. Hahn has a good teaching on Jewish passover traditions,but what we want is to see what connects Jn.6 to the last supper? Could you help me learn how my view missed the point?

 

[eazyduzit]

Referring to the bread and wine which became His body and blood, Jesus said, “This is…”.

It would be 1,500 years before anyone dared to say “This is NOT…”

The word “wine” does not appear at all in Jn. 6 . The word “became” is not used in any verse about the last supper in any gospel. You’re avoiding the issue bro. I realize the priest uses "became " in every mass but where is it in scripture? Is your church trying to add something to my bible?

 

[DavidFilmer]

Scott Hahn believes it is, but is that the official teaching of the Church?

You are correct about Dr. Hahn’s opinion, but have you ever read his book on the subject, The Lamb’s Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth?

This (autographed!) book was given to me by my brother (who happens to be a priest). Eucharistic theology has always been of particular interest to me, so I didn’t really expect to learn much that was new. It’s always a pleasure to read anything by Scott Hahn, but I only expected a few good tidbits,

BOY, WAS I EVER WRONG!!! It is, beyond any shadow of a doubt, the most profound book I have ever read. Every page blew me away. I came to realize that I had really known VERY LITTLE about the Eucharist.

It’s a fairly short book (about a half-inch thick in hardcover) and is very accessible to people without much theological background. He doesn’t expect the reader to know much (and I realized that I did not), but he delivers one bombshell after another. By the time I finished this book, I was practically in shock.

If you THINK you understand Eucharist but have not read this book, you are probably wrong. WAY wrong.

 

[slh3016]

You are correct about Dr. Hahn’s opinion, but have you ever read his book on the subject, The Lamb’s Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth?

This (autographed!) book was given to me by my brother (who happens to be a priest). Eucharistic theology has always been of particular interest to me, so I didn’t really expect to learn much that was new. It’s always a pleasure to read anything by Scott Hahn, but I only expected a few good tidbits,

BOY, WAS I EVER WRONG!!! It is, beyond any shadow of a doubt, the most profound book I have ever read. Every page blew me away. I came to realize that I had really known VERY LITTLE about the Eucharist.

It’s a fairly short book (about a half-inch thick in hardcover) and is very accessible to people without much theological background. He doesn’t expect the reader to know much (and I realized that I did not), but he delivers one bombshell after another. By the time I finished this book, I was practically in shock.

If you THINK you understand Eucharist but have not read this book, you are probably wrong. WAY wrong.

There is even a Youtube presentation of this and yes, it is phenomenal!! I’m not sure if it is the book in its entirety or just the key points, but I plan on buying the book

I’ve found Dr. Brant Pitre as a good resource as well.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The word “wine” does not appear at all in Jn. 6 .

Why is this a problem? Are you a Baptist?

The word “became” is not used in any verse about the last supper in any gospel. You’re avoiding the issue bro. I realize the priest uses "became " in every mass but where is it in scripture? Is your church trying to add something to my bible?

No, I was simply speaking of the Last Supper in the past tense sense it happened long ago.

(Perhaps you could clarify exactly when in the liturgy the Priest says “became”, because a quick search of Eucharistic Prayers 1 & 2 do not contain that word. Thanks.)

The bread and the “cup” (filled with a liquid yet to be agreed upon, apparently) became the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus at the moment he said (past tense) the words , “This is my body” and “This is the cup of my blood”, etc.

Matthew 26:26-29
26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

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

 

[Kay_Cee]

That’s exactly his point. He says it is about something else: faith in Christ

I think that is the standard Protestant answer, though.

So what’s his proof of this? Let’s see his proof.

I’m sure there are many competent apologists here who could deal with his “proof.”

 

[slh3016]

So what’s his proof of this? Let’s see his proof.

I’m sure there are many competent apologists here who could deal with his “proof.”

Yes, that “proof” was what I was asking for. He wants clear, direct, and precise proof that John 6 and the Last Supper/Passover are connected, especially since John does not give the full account of the Last Supper that the other gospels do.

While I have no trouble seeing the clear connections between the two events due to words used in Scripture and phrases used by the ECF’s, he wants something more concrete which may not exist

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes, that “proof” was what I was asking for. He wants clear, direct, and precise proof that John 6 and the Last Supper/Passover are connected, especially since John does not give the full account of the Last Supper that the other gospels do.

While I have no trouble seeing the clear connections between the two events due to words used in Scripture and phrases used by the ECF’s, he wants something more concrete which may not exist

But what source will he accept? Proof has already been provided, but if it’s Catholic or not from scripture alone, he will reject it…

 

[slh3016]

The word “wine” does not appear at all in Jn. 6 . The word “became” is not used in any verse about the last supper in any gospel. You’re avoiding the issue bro. I realize the priest uses "became " in every mass but where is it in scripture? Is your church trying to add something to my bible?

This is what I am going to send to my BIL:

I think the point is the John hammers on the fact that Jesus is the Lamb of God and Jew’s always associated lambs with Passover. What makes John 6 so strikingly important is that this scenario takes place (in many estimates) one year before Jesus is crucified (at Passover).

John is very careful to say at this point, “The Jewish Passover Feast was near.” (verse 4)

My first thought (as a Protestant and knowing what would come next) would be, “So what?” Why is this important because nothing that comes afterwards seems to even relate to the Passover Feast, so why is this detail even in there? If you were reading this for the first time, however, one would likely EXPECT that what came after had to do with this one little fact.

Well, what is associated with the Jewish Passover Feast? Answer: A lamb, bread, and wine

Well, we already know that John recorded John the Baptist calling Jesus “The Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world!” (John 1:29) so we know WHO the lamb is.

Since Jesus always had a deeper spiritual reality to every miracle he performed (btw, they were all physical miracles), what would be the specific reason for including the miracle of feeding the 5,000 and then Jesus going into the Bread of Life discourse. What would you say the spiritual reality of the miracle was?

I would say, now understanding about the Eucharist, that Jesus is demonstrating how He is able to take something finite (i.e., 2 small fish and 5 small loaves of bread) and FEEDING the entire crowd with some left over, which seems to be answering, in advance, any objections to how His physical body could feed the Church.

Then we have the walking on water miracle that directly relates to the previous miracle because Jesus was trying to teach the crowd to “not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life.” (John 6:27)

And finally, the Bread of Life discourse occurs in which Jesus brings up the manna in the desert and how the Father is giving them Bread from heaven." Now, I believe that this Bread has two realities, physical and spiritual. Manna was physical but it came to the Israelites supernaturally; the Israelites depended upon it for sustenance every day. This manna was the foreshadowing the TRUE bread from heaven, which also comes to us supernaturally in the Eucharist. Now, we know WHAT the bread is (Jesus’ body/flesh).

So, now we have the Lamb and the bread for the Passover, but what about the cup (i.e., wine)? John 6:53 answers that question with “…drinks my blood…” It doesn’t take a rocket-scientist to figure out that the blood and the wine had to be related since, as John had so meticulously pointed out in verse 4, “The Jewish Passover Feast was near.”

John does not record in detail the Last Supper as the other gospels do so I believe he uses the Bread of Life discourse to demonstrate the theology behind the Eucharist (new-Passover) Feast to his Jewish readers.

I’m sure Randy and others could probably pick this apart but this is my best “lay person” approach to explaining this.

 

[slh3016]

But what source will he accept? Proof has already been provided, but if it’s Catholic or not from scripture alone, he will reject it…

I think he is looking for words such as “John 6 and the Last Supper are one and the same” or if these words had been spoken at the actual Last Supper, which John does not record (except for the foot washing). It has to be very black and white for him to accept, at this point, with no mental gymnastics or juggling involved :juggle:

I think he’s too stiff for even a forward roll into the church fathers

I just posted what I’m going to send to him and let it go.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Lord’s Supper in the Fourfold Witness of the Gospels
By Jonathan T. Pennington

“Under the first section of this essay we discussed a number of differences between John and the Synoptic tradition. The matter at hand here is how John contributes uniquely to the full-orbed understanding of the witness of the Last Supper in the Gospels. The most obvious difference in John is the greater complexity and length of the surrounding story and the extended dialogue of the Upper Room Discourse. I have already argued that the upper room is indeed the Supper Room, even though the event and words of institution do not explicitly appear. The question is how John complements the well-known Synoptic presentation.

“There are three observations to make about John’s voice in the Last Supper. First, we may note again that it is appropriate that we read John 6 in conjunction with his Last Supper narrative. This is because this same connection between the wilderness feedings and the Last Supper has already been made in the Synoptic tradition and because John 6 itself reflects the same thematic teaching as both the Synoptic Last Supper accounts and John’s Upper Room Discourse. In John 6 Jesus’ sayings about eating His flesh and drinking His blood, enclosed with references to the bread of life, is a call for any to come and draw near to Him without stumbling, to abide with Him (v. 56) and to believe (see especially v. 29). Intertwined with this call is the promise of satisfaction (v. 35) and resurrection into eternal life (vv. 33, 40, 54, 57, 58), along with the corresponding warning that those who do not believe will be condemned (v. 53). The point here is that many of these same themes and emphases appear in the Upper Room Discourse, enabling the reader to see the intended connection once again. It is unique to John that he has separated these events, but John 6 and John’s extended Last Supper account are to be read together.” (“The Lord’s Supper in the Fourfold Witness of the Gospels”, Jonathan T. Pennington, in The Lord’s Supper, ed. by Thomas R. Schreiner and Matthew R. Crawford, p. 64).

About the Author
Jonathan T. Pennington
Associate professor of new testament interpretation (2005); director of research doctoral studies. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY.
Dr. Pennington comes to us from the University of St. Andrews in Scotland where he completed a Ph.D. in New Testament Studies. Along with numerous articles, Dr. Pennington has produced works on both Greek and Hebrew vocabulary, in addition to the book, Heaven and Earth In the Gospel of Matthew. His research interests include the Gospels, the history of interpretation, hermeneutics, and the theological interpretation of Scripture. He is currently writing a book on how to study the Gospels and the Pillar NT Commentary on Matthew.

**Thomas R. Schreiner **is the James Buchanan Harrison professor of New Testament Interpretation and associate dean of Scripture and Interpretation at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.

Matthew R. Crawford is a graduate of Union University (B.A.) and The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Adv. M.Div.) and is pursuing a Ph.D. in patristic exegesis and theology at Durham University in England.

You may review this entire chapter online here:

books.google.com/books?id=OSm5AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=The+Lord%E2%80%99s+Supper+in+the+Fourfold+Witness+of+the+Gospels&source=bl&ots=onAjWqJ-08&sig=yOBv9TJ8ZxJZm5gif_d4Kcju9Eg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=d4GpVKqyLYenNr79g5gI&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=The%20Lord%E2%80%99s%20Supper%20in%20the%20Fourfold%20Witness%20of%20the%20Gospels&f=false

You may review the book online here:

amazon.com/The-Lords-Supper-Remembering-Proclaiming/dp/0805447571

+++

By the way, the first chapter of the book is entitled: “Was the Last Supper a Passover Meal?”

 

[slh3016]

The Lord’s Supper in the Fourfold Witness of the Gospels
By Jonathan T. Pennington

“Under the first section of this essay we discussed a number of differences between John and the Synoptic tradition. The matter at hand here is how John contributes uniquely to the full-orbed understanding of the witness of the Last Supper in the Gospels. The most obvious difference in John is the greater complexity and length of the surrounding story and the extended dialogue of the Upper Room Discourse. I have already argued that the upper room is indeed the Supper Room, even though the event and words of institution do not explicitly appear. The question is how John complements the well-known Synoptic presentation.

“There are three observations to make about John’s voice in the Last Supper. First, we may note again that it is appropriate that we read John 6 in conjunction with his Last Supper narrative. This is because this same connection between the wilderness feedings and the Last Supper has already been made in the Synoptic tradition and because John 6 itself reflects the same thematic teaching as both the Synoptic Last Supper accounts and John’s Upper Room Discourse. In John 6 Jesus’ sayings about eating His flesh and drinking His blood, enclosed with references to the bread of life, is a call for any to come and draw near to Him without stumbling, to abice with Him (v. 56) and to believe (see especially v. 29). Intertwined with this call is the promise of satisfaction (v. 35) and resurrection into eternal life (vv. 33, 40, 54, 57, 58), along with the corresponding warning that those who do not believe will be condemned (v. 53). The point here is that many of these same themes and emphases appear in the Upper Room Discourse, enabling the reader to see the intended connection once again. It is unique to John that he has separated these events, but John 6 and John’s extended Last Supper account are to be read together.” (“The Lord’s Supper in the Fourfold Witness of the Gospels”, Jonathan T. Pennington, in The Lord’s Supper, ed. by Thomas R. Schreiner and Matthew R. Crawford, p. 64).

About the Author
Thomas R. Schreiner is the James Buchanan Harrison professor of New Testament Interpretation and associate dean of Scripture and Interpretation at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.

Matthew R. Crawford is a graduate of Union University (B.A.) and The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Adv. M.Div.) and is pursuing a Ph.D. in patristic exegesis and theology at Durham University in England.

You may review this entire chapter online here:

books.google.com/books?id=OSm5AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=The+Lord%E2%80%99s+Supper+in+the+Fourfold+Witness+of+the+Gospels&source=bl&ots=onAjWqJ-08&sig=yOBv9TJ8ZxJZm5gif_d4Kcju9Eg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=d4GpVKqyLYenNr79g5gI&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=The%20Lord%E2%80%99s%20Supper%20in%20the%20Fourfold%20Witness%20of%20the%20Gospels&f=false

You may review the book online here:

amazon.com/The-Lords-Supper-Remembering-Proclaiming/dp/0805447571

+++

By the way, the first chapter of the book is entitled: “Was the Last Supper a Passover Meal?”

He might just listen to a Southern Baptist

 

[Randy_Carson]

He might just listen to a Southern Baptist

Maybe.

However, remember that these Baptist authors will not come to the same conclusion as Catholics do about what John 6 means, but at least you have the connection from a non-Catholic source.

 

[Kay_Cee]

I think he is looking for words such as “John 6 and the Last Supper are one and the same” or if these words had been spoken at the actual Last Supper, which John does not record (except for the foot washing). It has to be very black and white for him to accept, at this point, with no mental gymnastics or juggling involved :juggle:

Well, if that’s the case, he should submit his own interpretation to the exact same criterion, shouldn’t he?

 

[eazyduzit]

This is what I am going to send to my BIL:

I think the point is the John hammers on the fact that Jesus is the Lamb of God and Jew’s always associated lambs with Passover. What makes John 6 so strikingly important is that this scenario takes place (in many estimates) one year before Jesus is crucified (at Passover).

John is very careful to say at this point, “The Jewish Passover Feast was near.” (verse 4)

My first thought (as a Protestant and knowing what would come next) would be, “So what?” Why is this important because nothing that comes afterwards seems to even relate to the Passover Feast, so why is this detail even in there? If you were reading this for the first time, however, one would likely EXPECT that what came after had to do with this one little fact.

Well, what is associated with the Jewish Passover Feast? Answer: A lamb, bread, and wine

Well, we already know that John recorded John the Baptist calling Jesus “The Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world!” (John 1:29) so we know WHO the lamb is.

Since Jesus always had a deeper spiritual reality to every miracle he performed (btw, they were all physical miracles), what would be the specific reason for including the miracle of feeding the 5,000 and then Jesus going into the Bread of Life discourse. What would you say the spiritual reality of the miracle was?

I would say, now understanding about the Eucharist, that Jesus is demonstrating how He is able to take something finite (i.e., 2 small fish and 5 small loaves of bread) and FEEDING the entire crowd with some left over, which seems to be answering, in advance, any objections to how His physical body could feed the Church.

Then we have the walking on water miracle that directly relates to the previous miracle because Jesus was trying to teach the crowd to “not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life.” (John 6:27)

And finally, the Bread of Life discourse occurs in which Jesus brings up the manna in the desert and how the Father is giving them Bread from heaven." Now, I believe that this Bread has two realities, physical and spiritual. Manna was physical but it came to the Israelites supernaturally; the Israelites depended upon it for sustenance every day. This manna was the foreshadowing the TRUE bread from heaven, which also comes to us supernaturally in the Eucharist. Now, we know WHAT the bread is (Jesus’ body/flesh).

So, now we have the Lamb and the bread for the Passover, but what about the cup (i.e., wine)? John 6:53 answers that question with “…drinks my blood…” It doesn’t take a rocket-scientist to figure out that the blood and the wine had to be related since, as John had so meticulously pointed out in verse 4, “The Jewish Passover Feast was near.”

John does not record in detail the Last Supper as the other gospels do so I believe he uses the Bread of Life discourse to demonstrate the theology behind the Eucharist (new-Passover) Feast to his Jewish readers.

I’m sure Randy and others could probably pick this apart but this is my best “lay person” approach to explaining this.

Allow me to comment. Yes, the passover was near and that brought a lamb, bread, and wine to mind. One might eat all these, but it would mean nothing without the blood on the door post. Passover is not about what we eat.
Now in Jn.6 we should begin by assuming that like all other parables and teachings the physical illustrates a spiritual reality. There are 2 parallel verses here that hold the key. Compare vv. 40 and 54. Note that they have different requirements but the rewards are the same, I.e. eternal life and resurrection. Now I ask you to choose which is the reality and which the illustration.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Allow me to comment. Yes, the passover was near and that brought a lamb, bread, and wine to mind. One might eat all these, but it would mean nothing without the blood on the door post. Passover is not about what we eat.
Now in Jn.6 we should begin by assuming that like all other parables and teachings the physical illustrates a spiritual reality. There are 2 parallel verses here that hold the key. Compare vv. 40 and 54. Note that they have different requirements but the rewards are the same, I.e. eternal life and resurrection. Now I ask you to choose which is the reality and which the illustration.

Did you ever notice that at the very first passover in Egypt, after the Jews had put the blood of the lamb on their doorposts, they weren’t done following all of God’s instructions?

They had to eat the lamb.

God set up the real presence in the Eucharist all the way back in Egypt.

Jesus is the Lamb of God. God sees His blood and passes over those who have been washed in that blood. Amen.

But we also have to eat the Lamb.

John 6 is all about that.