Proof that John 6 and the Last Supper are connected

[eazyduzit]

When did Jesus say, “It is finished”? While He was still hanging on the cross!!

I would HIGHLY suggest that you listen to Scott Hahn’s “The Fourth Cup” on YouTube because he rightly points out, as many have, that if the work of Christ was finished on the cross, then His resurrection gains us nothing.

Please, I beg you, listen to it. It will all make perfect sense. I won’t spoil it by going into great detail here about the most plausible explanation of Jesus’ words

Sure, will listen tonight.

The saying could also be translated “It is paid”. Are you saying Jesus was wrong? Or deluded? Or you just don’t accept it?

 

[YADA]

I still would like more clarification on this, Randy.

You say that the Mass seems to suggest that the cross was insufficient. Is that actually what YOU believe, or that it was completely sufficient?

Certainly I agree that the priesthood of Christ is forever. Heb.6:20, and thus the power and effect of the blood is also eternal. But I don’t see where scripture demands that the act of offering must also continue for then the Father must also continue the act of accepting. The Resurrection was the proof that it was accepted. Also, note that the high priest must stand and not sit in the holy place to make his offering, but this man, when He had "purged our sins, sat down…"Heb.1:3. The act of sitting indicates, does it not, that He rested from this work?

I understand how much trouble the RC has with the common understanding of the word “once”. Pope JP2 seems to have disliked it so much that when he quoted Heb. 9:12 in his book “Crossing the Threshold of Hope” he changed it to “often”. I assume this fitted his man- made doctrine much better.

For me, my faith stands firmly on the words “It is Finished” That’s all I need to to tell me that all my sins are washed clean and permanently dealt with for all eternity. What about you?

Of course Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient but even St Paul gives testimony that he adds to Christ’s sacrifice … we are the body of Christ - we have a role in Salvation - not because we say so - but because that is the role Christ gave us …

Read John Chapter 6 without a preconceived bias … it is not a parable … Jesus specifically says multiple time that we are to eat - unless you eat … cannibalism and eating blood is abhorrent within Judaism - a strict violation of the Law … yet Jesus multiple times instructs the people that they much eat His Flesh [which he contrasts with the Manna] … when they turn away saying “How can this man give us his flesh to eat” … he does not correct them - he does not tell them he is only speaking in a parable - symbolically [which if He had only said it once might be a valid argument - emphasis on ‘might’] … but He did not correct them … nor did He tell His disciples that he was only speaking metaphorically, symbolically or metaphorically - which occurs in other places … No - and they were trouble by His words … but as Peter said [troubling as His words were] "Teacher, where are we to go? You have the words of eternal life … "

Jesus says in John 6 … Unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man you have **no Life **within you … At the Last Supper - Jesus said "Take this - all of you - and eat it, this is the Bread of the New and Everlasting Covenant … Take this and drink, this is my Blood which is poured out for you …

St Paul tell us that when we eat and drink without discerning the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ – we eat and drink to our peril … how can a mere symbol or something unimportant make is ill even unto death? In another place St Paul tell us that our participation it in the Body and Blood of the Lord is a participation in the Death and Resurrection of Christ? How can this be - in any real sense - if John 6 and the Last Supper are unrelated?

We do not need another witness beyond the Scriptures … read on total - without bias …

 

[slh3016]

Are you saying Jesus was wrong? Or deluded? Or you just don’t accept it?

I could ask you the same thing about John 6

I’ll not answer your other question until you’ve listened to “The Fourth Cup” (and btw, his series on “The Lamb’s Supper” and the Eucharist are phenomenal so you could listen to those as well for it ALL to make sense (John 6, the Last Supper, the Eucharist, Revelation, etc.)

Then come back and give your thoughts.

 

[slh3016]

That was the quick answer so in case it sounds too simple, let me add that one might also need to put in a great deal of study as in 2Tim.2:15.

Consider that the canon of Scripture had not been compiled when this was written. So, how would they have received the “word of truth” to handle?

They would had to have received it from the Apostles, correct?

 

[MrSnaith]

After reading through this thread, I decided to review the Gospel of John myself to see what I could see. These are only my thoughts on the subject, so please take them as such.

The two passages in question are set against the backdrop of the Passover Feast. This is important. Yet, during Jesus’ ministry, three Passovers took place. It should be important, therefore, to examine the first one.

Incidentally, Jesus begins His public ministry only a few days before the first of these three Passovers. As recounted in John’s Gospel, John the Baptist proclaims to imminent coming of the Messiah. When John sees Jesus, he proclaims, “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” (John 1:29), then the following day, upon seeing Jesus again, he proclaims, “Behold the Lamb of God” (John 1:35). Two days later we have the wedding feast at Cana, and then a few days after this was the Feast of the Passover.

It should be considered significant that John is proclaiming Jesus to be the “Lamb” mere days before the Passover Feast, and not the other auspicious date, the Day of Atonement, on which the sins of Israel are placed on a Lamb that is to be slaughtered. In Passover Feast, the lamb is slaughtered and its blood is smeared on the door post, and the lamb is consumed. This acts as a sign of the faithfulness of the Jewish people, and invokes God’s mercy and protection from His wrath. On the Day of Atonement, the sins of Israel are symbolically placed upon the lamb which is slaughtered as a sacrifice, and the blood of the lamb is sprinkled on the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies, and the presence of God washes the blood of the lamb clean, thereby washing Israel of its sins.

That John the Baptist proclaims Jesus to be the Lamb of God so close to the Passover Feast seems to imply that He is the Lamb that is to be consumed. Yet, John also says “…who takes away the sins of the world.” This implies that He is the Lamb of Atonement.

In truth, Jesus is both the Lamb of Passover and the Lamb of Atonement. Let us consider the miracle that accompanies this visit to Jerusalem at Passover: the Wedding Feast at Cana.

Briefly, the wine had run low, Mary brings this to Jesus’ attention, Jesus addresses her as “Woman,” and says His “hour” has not yet come. She tells the stewards to do whatever He tells them. He tells them to fill “six stone water-jars… placed there… after the Jewish manner of purification” with water. As they bring these jars to the chief steward, the water turns to wine. The chief steward says to the bridegroom that normally the good wine is served first, then the lesser wine later, but he had saved the good wine until last.

Now let’s consider this more deeply. First, Jesus addresses Mary as “Woman.” This is the name Adam gives to Eve before the fall. That is, “out of the man.” When Adam names Eve this, he also names himself. Priorly, he had been called Adam, but the name “woman” is “Isha”, of which the name for man is “Ish.” So, in naming Mary “Woman” Jesus was identifying her as the new Eve, and naming Himself the new Adam. This act thereby symbolizes a new beginning for mankind.

Second, Jesus mentions His “hour.” This hour is mentioned throughout the Gospel, and we see its definition is John 13:1 - “…Jesus knowing that his hour was come, that he should pass out of this world to the Father…” This gives the passage an anticipatory tone, looking forward to His Passion and Death.

Third, the jars he fills are there “after the Jewish manner of purification.” These aren’t just any jars. By having them fill these specific jars, Jesus is identifying for us a means of purification. This purification comes by means of “water and wine.” Jesus is “He that came by water and blood” (1 John 5:6). This is our Baptism. “And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one” (1 John 5:8).

But why wine? We see later in this Gospel, at the Last Supper, Jesus says of Himself, “I am the true vine… I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he bears much fruit; for without me you can do nothing… This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love than this no one has, that one lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:1-13).

Wine here and throughout is a sign of blood, of sacrifice. The water and wine are later spoken of by the same John as water and blood. Jesus specifically ties His great command to love one another as He has loved us to this mystery that He is the true vine and we are the branches. The fruit of the vine, the good fruit, is self sacrifice for each other.

 

[MrSnaith]

Yet, again, this sign at Cana comes right before the Feast of Passover, wherein the Lamb of Passover is consumed, and the blood of the lamb is the sign of covenant faithfulness.

Fourth, the wine offered by the “bridegroom” is considered to be the better wine, in this instance, and the previous wine was the lesser. In OT typology, the type is always a lesser sign of the truth to come. In this case, the wine that Christ offers, the sacrifice of His blood, is the better wine.

Moreover, take note, this wedding at Cana takes place on “the third day” (John 2:1). This is an allusion to the day of His resurrection, when His purifying sacrifice would be completed. These allusions are confirmed in the pages to follow.

First, after entering Jerusalem at the time of Passover, Jesus “cleanses the temple” by driving out the money changers and the merchants. He then prophesies His death and resurrection (on the third day) when He says “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19). Note, He identifies the temple with His body. As we are His body, and He has just cleansed the temple, we ought to take this as a sign that it is by His power that we are cleansed.

Second, the following account with Nicodemus affirms the necessity of Baptism “of water and the spirit” (John 3:5). Later, after Jesus travel to Judea, John the Baptist identifies Jesus as the bridegroom (John 3:29).

After this, Jesus travels to Galilee and meets the Samaritan woman at the well. He tells her that whoever drinks of the water “that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him shall become in him a fountain of water, springing up unto life everlasting” (John 4:14). If we understand that the water He offers, this life-giving water, is symbolized to us in the Cana miracle, then we will know that this water is the wine of self-sacrifice, His own blood shed on the Cross.

Skip ahead to Chapter 6, and we arrive at the second Passover Feast of His Ministry. Here, Jesus feeds the five thousand with five loaves and two fishes. When they collect the scraps, there’s no fish left, but there are 12 baskets of bread! (John 6:13). We understand the twelve tribes to be the foundation of the nation of Israel. Likewise, we understand the Twelve to be the foundation of the Church, the new Israel. Here, we may understand the twelve baskets filled with bread to be the abundance of the Lord filling the Church.

Yet, it is not just His abundance, but He, Himself, who fills the Church. For He says, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me shall not hunger, and He who believes in me shall not thirst” (John 6:35, also John 6:48, 51). Note, He references His earlier teaching regarding the water that He gives when he says “shall not thirst.” Obviously, bread does not quench thirst. However, given the language He employs here, “I am the bread of life,” we ought to understand this also in light of His future teaching, “I am the true vine.”

And He gives this teaching a forceful interpretation. He says “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you” (John 6:54). This affirms the correlation between the water and wine. Previously, He said it was the water He would give that gave everlasting life. Now He says it is His blood. So, the water and the wine go hand-in-hand; a clear vision of the water and blood that flow from His side at the crucifixion.

Jesus doesn’t exchange one symbol for the other here. The bread is not one symbol, and His flesh another symbol. He is interpreting the symbol to the reality. The bread is His flesh; the water/wine is His blood. Bread/manna and wine are the types, the images pointing to a future truth. His flesh and blood are the truths.

And again, this teaching comes on the Feast of the Passover, wherein the lamb is slaughtered and consumed. It is a hard saying, indeed.

So, what about the Last Supper? In John 5:11, we see these words: “Jesus then took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, distributed them to those reclining…” This formula of “taking bread”, “giving thanks” and “distributing” is found in all three synoptic Gospels at the Last Supper account (Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19). And, as John’s Gospel is understood to have been the later written, this formula should be understood to recall these Last Supper accounts. Moreover, in John 21:13, after the resurrection, it is by the breaking of bread that the Disciples recognize Him.

The symbolisms of the bread and wine, interpreted by the Lord to be His flesh and blood, are carried throughout the Gospels, and the signs and words of our Lord regarding these things always fall within the context of the Feast of the Passover. The opening context of these verses is announced by John the Baptist: Jesus is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world. Being within the context of the Passover, the sign of our covenant fidelity to Our Lord in His new covenant would consist in two things: first, the sign of His blood in our lives, which is marked by self-sacrifice for our friends. This is how we fulfill His command to love as He loved us. Second, the consumption of Him, who is the Lamb of Passover. This is the second sign of covenantal fidelity.

Yes, He is the Lamb of Atonement, but He is also the Lamb of Passover. The Last Supper is also set in the context of the Passover, and is tied to the John 6 passage by the symbolism of bread and water/wine, tied up throughout the Gospel, as well as His formulaic act of breaking, blessing/giving thanks, and distributing.

At least… those are my thoughts.

 

[slh3016]

At least… those are my thoughts.

Brilliantly explained! Do you mind if I copy this and send it to my BIL?

Thanks!

 

[MrSnaith]

Brilliantly explained! Do you mind if I copy this and send it to my BIL?

Thanks!

I would be honored if you did so.

 

[Randy_Carson]

There’s tens of thousands of denominations, eazyduzit, that claim that they have the HS guiding them.

One pastor claims to have mediated on the Scriptures and concluded that Baptism is an ordinance.

Another states that Baptism is a sacrament.

One claims that after great meditation and guidance by the HS that we must be baptized in a pool of water.

Another claims that his HS told him that baptism must be done by sprinkling.

Another claims that the HS told him it must be done in adulthood.

Another states that the HS told him that it must be done at the age of consent.

Another states that the HS told him it must be done in infancy.

How does that work in your paradigm?

Can the HS be telling all of them different things?

That was the quick answer so in case it sounds too simple, let me add that one might also need to put in a great deal of study as in 2Tim.2:15.

As PRMerger pointed out in the post I have quoted, lots of folks have spent a lot of time studying, and they have still come to contradictory conclusions.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I still would like more clarification on this, Randy.

You say that the Mass seems to suggest that the cross was insufficient. Is that actually what YOU believe, or that it was completely sufficient?

I think you read too quickly because that is the author’s analysis of objections that Protestants might have. Take a look:

The idea that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice is offensive to Protestants for three primary reasons.

• First, it seems to suggest that Christ’s offering on the cross was insufficient to save us from our sins.
• Second, because Christ is the victim in the sacrifice of the Mass, it seems to require Him to die again and again.
• Finally, another difficulty Protestants have is that the Scriptures clearly teach that Christ was sacrificed once for all (Heb 7:25-27, 9:24-26, 10:10-14).

So, those are three common Protestant objections…not my objections or the author’s.

For me, my faith stands firmly on the words “It is Finished” That’s all I need to to tell me that all my sins are washed clean and permanently dealt with for all eternity.

What is finished, and what verse are you quoting?

What about you?

Golly, you mean I’m actually a sinner, and that I have no idea what might happen to me if I died tonight?

eazy, get real. I was probably going to Billy Graham revivals before you were even born. Been there. Done that. Got the Four Spiritual Laws on my t-shirt, okay?

Don’t assume all Catholics are idiots. Thanks.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Exegesis of John 6, “Bread of Life Discourse”
Note: All scriptural chapter and verse citations without a name will be for John’s Gospel. All other scriptural citations will include the book name. All scriptural quotations are from the Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition
After he first after broke with the Catholic Church, Martin Luther still held to the Catholic teaching of John 6. Luther continued to teach that Jesus, in the extended “Bread of Life” discourse, was being utterly literal in equating his own salvific body and blood with the Eucharist later instituted at the Last Supper. Sometime later in his career, Luther changed his mind, and seeing the discourse (especially the later part, verses 61-65) dealt with the necessity of faith, declared the discourse was really about salvific faith in Christ quite apart from any sacramental usage. Luther continued to teach the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Lutheran “co-substantiation”), holding Jesus’ declarations at the Last Supper and Paul’s Eucharistic commentaries more than proved the doctrine.
It is possible Luther’s re-interpretation was motivated from the otherwise scarcity of any of Christ’s words supporting the Lutheran doctrine of “salvation by faith alone” (sola fide). Luther (practically snarling as he did so) admitted he added the word “alone” in his German translation of Romans 3:28 where the Koine Greek did not have it (and really does not imply it). Luther knew his position was also vulnerable in his rejection of several New Testament books as canonical because they contradicted his “gospel of salvation” thesis. Luther’s quite public elimination of contrary evidence was cited by contemporary Catholic apologists challenging Luther’s intellectual and scholarly integrity.
In over-emphasizing one point of John 6 and ignoring the qualifying remainder, Luther was sure Christ was preaching salvation by faith alone. For Luther, if Christ himself preached sola fide, “That was that”.
There is no historical evidence that reformers, such as Calvin and Zwingli, used Luther’s exegesis. But utterly deny the Real Presence Ulrich Zwingli and his followers did, to Luther’s anguish and anger.
When they are not ignoring John 6, contemporary deniers of the Real Presence follow Luther’s lead. This includes Luther’s tactic of rejecting contrary evidence within the discourse itself. Skipping over several verses of John 6 is practically mandatory to support the denial of the Real Presence. A Catholic apologist must intimately learn John 6, to point out all verses an objector ignores, uses out of context, or just misunderstands.

"I would rather drink actual blood with a Papist than drink wine with a Zwinglian”—Martin Luther*

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Let’s begin with two events right before Jesus’ Bread of Life sermon at Capernaum–they both involve faith, or rather the inconsistent faith two of the apostles. In John 6:6, Jesus tests Philip’s faith in the feeding of the 5000–the only public miracle mentioned in all four Gospels. Jesus asks Philip how can they buy enough food for the crowd and Philip, not trusting Jesus, looks at it only from a material viewpoint (the cost) and is at an utter loss. Jesus then multiples the scant amount of fishes and bread they do have to feed the 5000 (with plenty of leftovers). This incident occurs the right before Jesus’ entry into Capernaum and the crowd was still excited over it (6:26).
The second incident is Jesus calming the storm and reprimanding Peter for his lack of faith (Matt 14:31). Peter was almost certainly still feeling guilty from his Master’s rebuke and probably wanting to make up for it.
In both cases the disciples, “in the moment” doubted Jesus actually doing something. Philip and Peter both looked at the situations materially, or “carnally”. In both cases Jesus showed the laws of nature were subject to his will.
Jesus walks into Capernaum, and he chides the crowd for only seeing the obvious physical fact of the multiplied loaves which filled their bellies (6:26). Throughout the discourse, looking at the world “as it is” (materially, carnally) will consistently counter faith in Jesus’ word. This discourse, perhaps even more than the bombshell “I AM” of 8:58, is the turning point of John’s gospel. Jesus masterfully segues from his chiding his followers to present them an “either-or” choice of staggering contrast: “either believe what I say no matter what your material senses or reason (“the flesh”) tell you or have no part in me.”
This stark choice doesn’t come out of nowhere. For nearly two years, Jesus had been building up his credibility and his authority. He backed up his words with deeds. Many of his followers were witnesses to Jesus’ miraculous “signs”. He didn’t just do the healings and exorcisms expected of a holy man, Jesus went way beyond those into transformations of matter (water into wine) commanding nature (calming the storm) and the even raising the dead. He also was such a speaker that people dropped their everyday work lives to listen to him for hours, forgetting even to bring lunch–and another miracle feeds them to abundance. If ever a man was “it”, the awaited King, the Messiah, Jesus was the one. But then…

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

The discourse is marked by Jesus’ repeated “double-amen’s” (“Truly” in the RSV, “Verily” in some others). “Amen” is Hebrew for “so be it”, “so it is”, “this is so”, “it’s a fact”, “this is the way it really is”. When Jesus leads off with a double-amen, he is saying, “this is really, REALLY important”. When his incredulous listeners question what Jesus just said, his double-amen is an emphasized confirmation his listeners heard and understood correctly.
In verse 27, Jesus’s segue continues from the crowd being excited over earthly bread (however miraculously produced) to the necessity of consuming food which gives eternal life, which the “Son of Man”, authorized by God the Father, will give to them.
The crowd, which includes many long-term followers, has no problem with this (6:28). They certainly want to cooperate with God to get eternal life; they just want to know “how”.
6:29 is one of the verses which deniers of the Real Presence use. "Jesus answered them, “This is the word of God, that you believe in him who he has sent”. If this is all Jesus had said regarding “food” which gives eternal life, the Catholic Church would not teach the Real Presence. What follows in the give and take between Jesus and his questioners makes it clear what Jesus means by “believe”.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

The questioners still had the multiplication of fishes and loaves still in mind along with food that provides eternal life. In verses 30-31 they ask Jesus for a sign, akin to the manna that fed the Israelites in the wilderness. They had experienced Jesus’ miracle of multiplication-- a very real, tangible thing. Now Jesus was talking about food from God, through the Son of Man (Jesus). The last time God had preserved the life of Israel by food, it had been the manna of the Exodus–another real, tangible thing. So the “sign” they are asking for must be real and tangible too. Jesus himself used “sign” in a real material sense, as in his referring to the “sign of Jonah” (Matt 12:38-40), referring to his own burial, as well as his Second Coming (Matt 24:30-31).
Verses 32-33 Jesus gives the crowd a “heads up!” with a double-amen.
“Truly, truly it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven…” (Moses interceded for manna to sustain earthly life, the actual “bread from heaven” is the food which gives eternal life which manna could not do*)"…my Father gives you the bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world*"
Jesus is promising something far, far greater than manna. (However manna prefigures the Eucharist in that it was created by God’s action and it did sustain life.)
The crowd is primed, demanding in verse 34…”Lord, give us this bread always".
The discourse begins in earnest with verses 35-40:
“I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger and who believes in me shall not thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe…”
Read that passage again; Jesus not only equates himself with the means to eternal life, “the bread from heaven”, but he also says to the crowd they have seen him and what he has done and they don’t believe (why they don’t believe is right next).

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

“…For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me…for this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day”
Here “it” is, though it will take a few more clarifications from Jesus to rule out any ambiguity, any waffling that his listeners can retreat in comfort to. He’s used the “Son of Man” before as his most common self reference–and for his Jewish audience, that points to the exalted, celestial “Son of Man” found in Isaiah. Now Jesus has outright claimed "I have come down from heaven…" and many in the crowd can’t take it:
"…murmured at him, because he said “I am the bread which came down from heaven”. They said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, “I have come down from heaven?”

Deniers of the Real Presence, both historical and contemporary, tend to gloss over that passage and how it applies to what Jesus says from here on. The listeners can’t ignore what they just heard compared to what they see: they look at Jesus with their “natural” (the “flesh”) senses and reason. All they see is a human man, who they know was born of a human woman, but now this man claims he came down from heaven.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

What his listeners have just heard is the proclamation of the Incarnation. Jesus has just claimed to be a celestial being, the “Son of Man” and co-identified with the “Bread of Life” which is the means God provides for the resurrection from the dead and eternal life. He has not only identified himself repeatedly as the “Son of Man” but also explicitly and particularly as the Son of God, the Father. Even if the listeners have not logically followed these claims to the conclusion of Jesus’ full-divinity, they are upset. To their reason and senses, Jesus is either speaking lies or lunacy. Like Peter and like Philip, they have forgotten all they’ve seen Jesus do. They do not have “faith” in what Jesus is claiming. Jesus’s humanity is all they see and from that they do not believe his Incarnation.
Still, even at this point, if this is all Jesus said about being the “Bread of Life”, the Catholic Church would not teach the doctrine of the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Jesus might be speaking metaphorically, like he did in two “food” metaphors (4:31-34, Matt 16: 5-12)–but what follows repeatedly rules this possibility out.
*"Jesus answered them, “Do not murmur among your selves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day; It is written by the prophets “And they shall be taught by God”…”(*6:43-45)
Jesus again claims he will be the agent of the resurrection and his words are, de facto, God’s. If you believe in Jesus it’s only because the Father brought you to him.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

"…Every one who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me. Not that any one has seen the Father, except him who is from God; he has seen the Father" (6:45-46)
Not only is Jesus again claiming to be from heaven, he is claiming a privilege denied to the Seraphim before heaven’s throne. He also is claiming that any truth humanity knows about God the Father involved Jesus as well. We are not quite to the declaration of 8:58 but we and the listeners at Capernaum are very, very close to it. It does not take much imagination to envision the crowd being very noisy and restless, for these are strict monotheists being told by a local boy that he (Jesus) is not just a prophet above all prophets (Moses and Elijah included), he is even above the highest angels! Just who does Jesus think he is?
"Truly, truly [Amen, amen; “so it is, so it is”, “this is so, this is so”, “it’s a fact, it’s a fact”, “this is the way it really is, this is the way it really is*”] I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life." (6:47-48)
After this point, there are no metaphorical turns of belief allowed; it all gets viscerally literal. It will no longer be a vague “belief” in Jesus, it will be as specific as a punch to the gut–Indeed some of his listeners must have gotten quite queasy. Just as one cannot “just believe” in food and not do anything with it (e.g., refuse to eat it) and survive physically neither can one just “believe” in Jesus.

As one can see, not much has changed in 2000 years.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

*“Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread I give for the life of the world is my flesh” *(6:49-51).
This is Jesus’ FIRST explicit declaration one must literally eat his flesh, the “living bread which came down from heaven” in order to have eternal life. Multiple times Jesus has said, one must eat the “bread of heaven” to have eternal life, and he, Jesus, came down from heaven, and twice now that he, Jesus, IS the "bread of heaven” Perhaps most importantly, in verse 51, Jesus explicitly identifies this heavenly bread, “my flesh”, with the same flesh he will sacrifice at Calvary. Somehow, Jesus wants us to literally eat this very same sacrificial flesh as the means to eternal life.
“The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (6:52)
The outrage and the disgust clearly come across the span of almost 2000 years. You can almost see the listeners looking at each other, asking “did you hear that?–you did?! I heard it too!” Many of in the crowd were disciples, had been with Jesus for almost two years, they knew his turns of phrase, when he was using metaphor and simile. In no way was this presented as a parable, this was a strait out declaration. All of Jesus’ listeners shared the same language and culture with him; they clearly understood what Jesus was saying. Jesus was speaking literally about the necessity of “eating his flesh” and the crowd understood him literally.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

"Truly, truly Amen, amen, so it is, so it is,…] I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed (6:53-55)
THREE declarations that reinforce the literal meaning of “flesh”, “blood”, “eat” and “drink”–further reinforced with a double-amen to confirm the listeners heard and understood Jesus correctly. In the Koine Greek of the Gospel, the writer now switches from “phago”, which means “eat”, to “trogo” which means “to gnaw, to chew”. This was NEVER the language of metaphor or of other symbolism to begin with and switching to “chewing” intensifies the literal meaning.
Jesus is just too good a speaker not to take into account the limitations of his listeners. When his listeners mistook something he said as literal, he corrected their false understanding (John 3:3-5. 11:11-14, 8:21-23, 8:31-36, 6:32-36, Matt 16:5-12, Matt 19:24-26). When his listeners correctly understood something he said as literal, Jesus confirms their understanding and repeats what he said (John 8:56-59, 6:41-51, Matt 9:2-6). Nowhere in this discourse (or privately to the apostles) does Jesus offer any alternative symbolic meaning to “flesh”, “blood”, “eat” and “drink”. Neither does the gospel writer offer any explanation, like he does in 2:21 and 7:38.
Besides, there already was an alternative and figurative meaning to “eat someone’s flesh and drink their blood” in Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke (as well as in Hebrew, Koine Greek, Modern Greek, and Arabic). To apply it to what Jesus said is to make him speak complete nonsense, because it means “to assault, persecute, slander, and destroy”. It is used as such several times in scripture (Ps 27:2, Isa 9: 18-20, Isa 49:26, Mica 3:3, 2 Sam 23: 15-17, and Rev 17:6, 16). So unless you really want to claim Jesus proclaimed “he who attacks me and slanders me shall have eternal life” you, like the crowd at Capernaum, are left with the literal meaning only. If Jesus did not provide an alternative symbolic meaning, then the literal meaning he repeatedly confirmed or the common figurative meaning are the only choices.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Sometime during the discourse, Jesus and his listeners have moved into the synagogue (6:59). It’s still a public address, but the context of the setting is now even more an official pronouncement and teaching–remember Jesus spoke of the Pharisees giving binding commands from the “chair of Moses” (Matt 23:2-3) we should consider this sermon as “ex cathedra” as well.
“He who eats of my flesh and drinks of my blood abides in me and I in him. As the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father so he that eats me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever” (6:56-58)
Here are THREE MORE repetitions, making SIX in a row re-affirming the literalness of the command to eat Jesus’ flesh and drink his blood as a necessity for eternal life. The listeners, disciples and others, already had problems with Jesus’ claim to literally come down from heaven and they have it now with this “eat and drink” command.
Likewise, all a denier of the Real Presence sees is bread or wine, no matter what Jesus claims. Jesus claimed literally to come down from heaven, Jesus then repeatedly claimed eternal life is dependent of literally eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Jesus didn’t soften or qualify his claim of Incarnation and likewise he didn’t qualify “eating” and “drinking”. The claims are not only parallel they are mutually interdependent. If you want to deny the literal demand to “eat” and “drink” you HAVE to deny he literally came down from heaven.

Latin, “from the chair”, derived from 1st century Jewish usage