Proof that John 6 and the Last Supper are connected

[Lion_of_Narnia]

At least the crowd in the synagogue was consistent:
“Many of his disciples when they heard it, said "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it? But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending to where he was before?” (6:60-62)
Jesus knows that many of his followers are on the edge. He reminds them of his claim of heavenly origin by now claiming that is where he will return (The Ascension). Jesus is pointing out many of them can only believe if outward evidence is constantly before them–in other words, they lack “faith” in Jesus and what he says.
Here is where the discourse now concentrates on faith. It directly relates to the Real Presence, for just as Jesus expected his followers to believe he literally descended from heaven, regardless of the fact of being born of a woman and looking only like a human man, he declares you must literally eat his flesh and drink his blood if you are to have eternal life. How? Because Jesus said so. Jesus already provided sufficient evidence of his credibility (and he’ll supply much more, like the Resurrection and the Ascension) but you have to have faith, constant loyalty in his word, rather than what you see in the moment.
“It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words I have spoken to you are spirit and life” (6:63)
Here is where deniers of the Real Presence go wrong in a big way. The deniers claim Jesus is now saying the same “flesh” he’s been commanding his followers to eat as the means to eternal life is now useless. Never mind yet the particulars of “flesh”; claiming Jesus is deliberately speaking a self-contradictory sermon is the same as claiming Jesus is wasting everyone’s time and attention.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

To claim Jesus spent this entire time upsetting people by speaking figuratively and they were too dense to “get it” you have to ignore the fact Jesus SIX times reinforced their literal understanding of “eat my flesh and drink my blood”. Clearly, there must be a distinction between Jesus’ “flesh” which gives eternal life and “the flesh” which is useless.
Also, NO WHERE in scripture is “spirit” equated with “symbolic”. God the Father is pure spirit and is real and is not a symbol. God the Holy Spirit is real and not a symbol. The angels and devils are spirits and are quite real. The human soul is spirit and is real. To believe the things of spirit you believe in things that are not discernable with the natural senses–you believe with faith.
So here in the synagogue, Jesus is now contrasting the man who sees things only with “the flesh”, with purely human thoughts and desires, to the man who sees things with “spirit”, with his thoughts and desires elevated by God’s grace. There are several scriptural verses which support this understanding of “the flesh” vs. “spirit”, most especially in 1st Corinthians and Romans:

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

*“The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man judges all things but is himself to be judged by no one. “For who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ. But I, brethren, could not address you as spiritual men, but as men of the flesh, as babes in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food; for you were not ready for it; and even yet you are not ready, for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving like ordinary men? For when one says, “I belong to Paul” and another “I belong to Apollos”, are you not merely men?” (*1 Corinthians 2:14—3:4)
*“For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, indeed it cannot; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh, you are in the Spirit, if the Spirit of God really dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of God does not belong to him.” (*Romans 8:1-13)
Other scripture confirms this consistent understanding of “THE flesh” vs. “Spirit” (Matt 26:41, John 3:6, Gal 3:3,4:29, 5:13-26, Rom 7:5-6,25, 13:14).

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Back to the discourse, Jesus is flat out calling many of the crowd unbelievers. They look at Jesus and all they see is a man. They do not believe he is the “Son of man” descended from heaven and they certainly do not believe Jesus is the “bread from heaven” which they must literally consume by eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Jesus has declared them lacking in faith, lacking in spirit, possessed by purely natural thoughts and desires. He told them clearly and repeatedly what to believe and they just should have done so. Jesus never asked them to “understand”, only to trust his word.
"…the words I have spoken are spirit and life. But there are some among you that do not believe". For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe and who it was that should betray him. And he said", “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted to him by the Father” (6:63-65)
At the conclusion of this incredible “take me or leave me” sermon, the gospel writer links not believing in Jesus as the literal “bread of life” to the betrayal of Jesus by Judas Iscariot.
“After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.” (6:66)

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

They at least were honest, unlike Judas who continued to hang around for reasons other than believing in Jesus. One can imagine the apostles huddled together in the synagogue while the others streamed out, some of those leaving undoubtedly with some rude words of dismissal. Many of those leaving must have been among the 70 “ambassadors” Jesus appointed in Luke 10. They all were leaving Jesus (at least temporarily) over a matter of clearly taught doctrine, a “great apostasy” over Jesus teaching the Real Presence. Jesus himself makes no attempt to stop them, explain himself further, and correct any misconceptions. He spoke literally and was understood literally. As Jews who avoided eating animal blood per Mosaic Law, what Jesus just told them was way too much for their intellect and their stomachs. If Jesus had made any indications all this was a metaphor or a symbol, they could have stayed with him. But the Master was determined to make this an ultimatum.
"Jesus said to the twelve, “Will you also go away?” (6:67)
No post-parable explanation here. Jesus had given everybody a “take-this-or-leave-me” choice and most of them had walked. Now he was explicitly doing the same with the apostles.
"Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life and we have believed and have come to know you are the Holy One of God” (6:68-69)
Perhaps with a quaver in his voice, Peter steps up to the plate, and as at Caesarea Philippi (Matt 16:16), nails a line drive into center field. Peter clearly doesn’t “understand” how he is to “eat the body” and “drink the blood”, only he is to trust Jesus utterly and simply at his word and perhaps some clarification will come later, and perhaps not. You are to trust Jesus as a child trusts his father, not with your intellect or stunted imagination, but with your heart.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Faith in the Real Presence of the Eucharist requires this sort of faith. It is no accident that the “Bread of Life” discourse seamlessly turns into the sermon on faith in Christ’s word–faith above appearances, above “fleshly” desires and preferences.
“Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” He spoke of Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was to betray him.” (6:70-71)
Again, Judas’ betrayal is linked with his lack of faith in Jesus’ word. Jesus had worked so many material “signs” before Judas’ eyes and all these miracles, like they so often do in scripture, fail to convince those who trust themselves above God. Now Jesus is demanding you believe him about incredible claims with NO material signs, and Judas fails the test.
Throughout John’s gospel, the writer constantly stresses the need for believing Christ above one’s desires and one’s preferred “reasoning”. In many ways, the gospel is a polemical response to the first intrusions of Gnosticism into the 1st Century Church. The opening prologue, 1:1-18 seems to be patterned after an early Gnostic “hymn” but uses the form to deliver a point-by-point refutation of Gnostic claims about Christ, creation, and the Incarnation. When John wrote the majority of his gospel circa 69-70 AD, the Church had been celebrating the Eucharist, the “Lord’s Supper”, close to 40 years. Gnostics, largely viewing creation (e.g. physical matter) as “corrupted emanations” found the idea of the Sacraments using physical matter as conduits of Grace (baptismal water, Eucharistic “species”, and anointing oil) repugnant. Since many Gnostics held that Christ on Earth was only some phantasmal presence and not physically incarnated (Docetism), the idea that Christ was also fully and physically present in the Eucharist was an additional horror. John presents the Bread of Life discourse and the subsequent sermon on faith as an ultimate disproval of Gnostic claims by Jesus’ own declaration.

The internal evidence of John as well as the testimony of the Early Church Fathers supports this dating. The claim of “Late Composition” of the Gospels and Epistles (along with other largely unsupported theories, such as “Q”, “Markan priority”, “community composition, and “psuedographic authorship”) is more of an inherited habit of modern (after 1800) New Testament scholarship than a matter of evidence-based findings. The bias to “de-mythologize” the New Testament (e.g., remove supernatural events and claims) was born from the irreligious motives of the Enlightenment-era’s Deist “scholars”, called “scientific”, and passed on as secular orthodoxy. These largely unexamined guiding assumptions penetrated mainstream Protestant seminaries in the later 19th century (provoking in reaction the Fundamentalist movement) and after the “anti-modernism oath” was revoked by the Vatican in the 1950s, it entered into Catholic theology schools as well. Many very orthodox Catholic scholars cite Late Composition dates because that is what they were taught from their professors (many of them either secular or liberal Protestants) and because supporting a more traditional dating and authorship is seen as “uncritical”. However, “uncritical” seems to be the very attitude of modernist scholars towards the theories of “Late Composition” and the rest of their inherited traditions.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Modernist New Testament scholarship commonly claims the Bread of Life discourse is not about the Eucharist because John doesn’t describe the Eucharist in his Last Supper account. This claim in turn rests on the unsupported assertion that the author of the gospel was at least unfamiliar, if not totally unaware, of any of the synoptic gospels. If the gospel’s author didn’t describe the Eucharist, then it wasn’t important to him, hence the 6th chapter cannot be about the Eucharist. This supposition is further based on several other assertions with no evidence, including the gospels were “community creations” of isolated churches, rather than the work of individuals close to the events described, and that these “believing communities” had little or no interest in actual historical events regarding their Savior’s life. Not only do these assertions upon assertions ignore what we actually know about the 1st Century Roman Empire (travel was common and the mail delivery secure) they also actively contradict the testimony of the Early Church Fathers regarding to authorship and dating of the gospels and epistles. From Clement of Alexandria, we learn that John was quite aware of the synoptics, and composed his gospel (assisted by another apostle, Andrew) to produce a more “spiritual” gospel—meaning one with Jesus’ strait forward sermons and theological declarations about the things of spirit; John recounting these, in large part, to refute the Gnostics. The fact John consistently did not cover the same ground as the synoptic gospels is strong evidence he was intimately familiar with them, which would not have been the case if he (or for the utterly suppositional “Johanine Community”) had been composing it only from a common stream of oral testimony.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

The discounting and ignoring of the Early Church Fathers is a signature of Modernist scholarship, largely inherited from Protestant antecedents (be it mainstream, evangelical, or fundamentalist sources). The “elephant in the living room” for Protestant theologians was and is that the Fathers were undeniably Catholic, teaching distinctive Catholic doctrines right alongside doctrines Protestantism agrees with. Too deep a study of Patristics has always been a problematic area for Protestant theologians, as witnessed by many prominent conversions to Catholicism, especially that of John Henry Newman and other patristic scholars in the 19th Century’s “Oxford Movement”. Even Martin Luther, who had a very high regard for the Fathers regarding the issue of the Real Presence, had to work extra hard to claim the Fathers hardly cited John 6 in their universal support of the doctrine.

“The Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If there ever was a safe truth, it is this. And Protestantism has ever felt it so…This is shown in the determination…of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone: men never would have put it [historical Christianity] aside unless they had despaired of it…To be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant.” John Henry Newman, Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Even if explicit attributed citations of John 6 are sparse in patristic defense of the Real Presence, the Fathers use the discourse’s very concrete language (especially “Flesh”, “food”, and "drink”) as much as they quote from the Last Supper accounts in the synoptic gospels or 1st Corinthians.
Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of the very same John the Evangelist, also had to contend with Gnostic infiltrators and their denial of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Ignatius in particular uses John’s vocabulary:
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which have come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God…They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ. Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, circa 107 AD)
“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the Flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his Blood which is love incorruptible.” (Letter to the Romans, circa 107 AD)

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Another very early Father is the Roman lawyer, Justin Martyr, who wrote to Emperor Antonitus Pius in what was essentially a legal brief, trying to correct any false impressions the Emperor might have about the faith. It is notable Justin took pains in describing the Eucharist because a false understanding of the doctrine of the Real Presence as “cannibalism” was being leveled against the Church. If the Eucharist at this early point was understood by the faithful as “symbolic”, Justin could easily have used that explanation to show how ridiculous the slander was. Instead, Justin goes ahead with the much harder task of confessing the Real Presence:
“We call this food Eucharist; and no one is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true…For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the Flesh and Blood of that incarnated Jesus.” (First Apology, circa 150 AD)

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Numerous and unanimous examples from the Fathers could be cited to further prove the early Church understood Jesus as the literal “bread from heaven” provided his very flesh and his very blood to be consumed by believers in the Eucharist, and this “living bread” was the very same flesh and blood offered at Calvary. It truly begs credulity to accept Luther’s tenuous and strained exegesis of John 6 as something apart from the Sacrament. The Jews at Capernaum understood Jesus literally and rejected him because they took him at his repeated word. Jesus not only did nothing to correct any misunderstanding of any intended other message (like *sola fide), *he just reinforced his listener’s literal understanding of “I came down from heaven so you may eat my flesh and drink my blood and you HAVE to believe me on this if you want eternal life.” Yes, John 6 concludes with a sermon on faith, but it’s faith in something as real as a promised kiss or the coming spring’s warming sun.
“Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of faith is to see what you believe.” --St. Augustine of Hippo
[END]

When rabbis, without the interpretive bias of Protestantism, examine the New Testament, they consistently interpret John 6 as overwhelmingly literal and thereby problematic on that basis.

 

[MrSnaith]

**

 

[eazyduzit]

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?

True, and then God himself often authenticated His word with “signs and wonders following”.

 

[Bayou_Catholic]

True, and then God himself often authenticated His word with “signs and wonders following”.

Kind of like Jesus saying “For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink” (Jn 6:55). Then, at the last supper, when holds up the bread saying this is my body and with the chalice saying this is my blood… it really becomes his body and blood under the appearance of bread and wine.

 

[eazyduzit]

*“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.

Dear Lion,
It is dangerous practice to assume the apostles quick face value reactions to Jesus teaching is correct. Remember, the Spirit was not yet given. That’s why their thinking was slow and fleshly. Read through the Gospels one more time and see how often they “got it”.

Here’s my question for you. Recall that Jesus always uses something physical to illustrate a spiritual reality, not the reverse. I need you to compare vv.40and54. Curiously the results of these two promises are the same, but the two things you must do inherit the promise are different. This only makes sense if one is the real and one is the illustration. Please say which you think is the illustration and which the reality?

 

[eazyduzit]

Kind of like Jesus saying “For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink” (Jn 6:55). Then, at the last supper, when holds up the bread saying this is my body and with the chalice saying this is my blood… it really becomes his body and blood under the appearance of bread and wine.

I do not recall Him saying it “becomes his body” kindly show me the verse?

How would that be a sign if you couldn’t SEE it? To me sign is something you see. Guess that makes no sense to the catholic mind. He can see only what his church allows?

 

[Bayou_Catholic]

I do not recall Him saying it “becomes his body” kindly show me the verse?

You are correct. In both accounts he does not say “becomes”, rather He says it is his body and blood.

I don’t know about you, but when my Lord says his flesh is true food and his blood true drink - I believe him. When He holds up the bread & chalice stating it is his flesh and blood, I follow the logical conclusion that Jesus’ words hold power and miraculous things happen. Thus it “becomes” what He says it “is”.

 

[Bayou_Catholic]

How would that be a sign if you couldn’t SEE it? To me sign is something you see. Guess that makes no sense to the catholic mind. He can see only what his church allows?

How a Catholic mind works - "Jesus said to him, “Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.” Jn 20:29

 

[MrSnaith]

Dear Lion,
It is dangerous practice to assume the apostles quick face value reactions to Jesus teaching is correct. Remember, the Spirit was not yet given. That’s why their thinking was slow and fleshly. Read through the Gospels one more time and see how often they “got it”.

Here’s my question for you. Recall that Jesus always uses something physical to illustrate a spiritual reality, not the reverse. I need you to compare vv.40and54. Curiously the results of these two promises are the same, but the two things you must do inherit the promise are different. This only makes sense if one is the real and one is the illustration. Please say which you think is the illustration and which the reality?

I think the pertinent point here is that Jesus doesn’t correct their understanding, when normally He does. Yes, they usually get His teachings wrong, but Jesus normally addresses their error. Here, He merely asks if they, too, will walk away. This difference in reaction to their understanding of His teaching is the strong indicator that they actually understood correctly this time.

 

[eazyduzit]

Numerous and unanimous examples from the Fathers could be cited to further prove the early Church understood Jesus as the literal “bread from heaven” provided his very flesh and his very blood to be consumed by believers in the Eucharist, and this “living bread” was the very same flesh and blood offered at Calvary. It truly begs credulity to accept Luther’s tenuous and strained exegesis of John 6 as something apart from the Sacrament. The Jews at Capernaum understood Jesus literally and rejected him because they took him at his repeated word. Jesus not only did nothing to correct any misunderstanding of any intended other message (like *sola fide), *he just reinforced his listener’s literal understanding of “I came down from heaven so you may eat my flesh and drink my blood and you HAVE to believe me on this if you want eternal life.” Yes, John 6 concludes with a sermon on faith, but it’s faith in something as real as a promised kiss or the coming spring’s warming sun.
“Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of faith is to see what you believe.” --St. Augustine of Hippo
[END]

When rabbis, without the interpretive bias of Protestantism, examine the New Testament, they consistently interpret John 6 as overwhelmingly literal and thereby problematic on that basis.

Remember Jesus also said “Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God”.

Please also compare vv.40 and 54 in Jn 6

Thankyou