Protestant Explanation of John 6

[kaycee]

If John 6:51-58 were talking about faith, then there would be no controversy because he just talked about faith in v.v. 29 -35. And as I have shown in two other posts, the established pattern in Jesus’s method of teaching/preaching is one of progressive revelation. He moves from ambiguity to greater clarity, not from clarity to greater ambiguity. So he would not start with the literal meaning first (i.e. faith) and then use the figure, as occurs in John 6.

I think the sermon on the mount does not fit in this structure, the transfiguration, the questioning by pilate, etc…
Frankly I just don’t see it as valid at all. Many things were still hidden until after the resurrection. It appears to be an artificial rule that is meaningless.

 

[kaycee]

Kaycee, read the text of John 6 again–they were disciples–those who broke away and would not remain with Jesus, who asked them if this shook their faith.

From Jesus’ own lips–they had faith and it was being shaken. they were disciples.

They were hungry “disciples” at best!

John 6:26 Jesus answered them and said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, **you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled **

John 6:36 "But I said to you that **you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. **37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.

John 6:64 “But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 65 And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.” 66 As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.

Faith isn’t what saves–grace does (well, and baptism, according to Peter…) In any case, I don’t think you’ll be able to convince anyone that at the Last Supper Jesus took a “metaphor” into his hands and blessed it and broke it.

probably not the choir here. “I shall not drink of the Fruit of the Vine…”

Real bread, real wine, real water in the Samaritan woman’s well, real healings of ill people as a “metaphor” of their spiritual healing. But REAL. Incarnational.

That was the whole point of the Incarnation…

To give us the Euharist??

 

[mikeledes]

I think the sermon on the mount does not fit in this structure, the transfiguration, the questioning by pilate, etc…
Frankly I just don’t see it as valid at all. Many things were still hidden until after the resurrection. It appears to be an artificial rule that is meaningless.

Was he speaking in metaphors in the Sermon on the Mount, metaphors that were difficult to understand? Was He using figurative language in the transfiguration? Or how about in the questioning by Pilate?

Many things were hidden and many things were not. John 6 is not one of them. According to you John 6:53-58 is about faith, based on previous passages. Now you seem to imply that it was hidden?

I have supported this “artificial rule” with overwhelming evidence from Scripture. Nothing happens by chance, especially in the Bible. It’s meaningless to you because your mind is already made up on this issue.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[DJim]

They were hungry “disciples” at best!

Ummm, try this:

Jn 6:24: “Once the crowd saw that neither Jesus nor his disciples were there, they too embarked in the boats and went to Capernaum looking for Jesus.”

John is actually careful to distinguish the unbelieving crowd from the believing disciples.

And later it’s the “Jews”, not the disciples. Keep in mind he’s saying all this in a synagogue instruction at Capernaum. (v. 59)

But at the end, (v. 60+), even some of his disciples doubt…they’re the ones who break away in v. 66…

probably not the choir here. “I shall not drink of the Fruit of the Vine…”

Not sure of your point here…

To give us the Euharist??

Actually, primarily, yes…“know that I am with you always, even unto the end of the age.”

How? Through the Eucharist…

DJim

 

[mikeledes]

“I shall not drink of the Fruit of the Vine…”:

And Luke explains when Jesus precisely says that:

**17And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, “Take this and share it among yourselves;
18for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes.”
19And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
20And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood. **

The “fruit of the vine” refers to a different cup.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[DJim]

And Luke explains when Jesus precisely says that:

17And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, "Take this and share it among yourselves;
18for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes."
19And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
20And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.

The “fruit of the vine” refers to a different cup.

God Bless,
Michael

Michael–BRILLIANT observation!! I totally missed that in Luke, forgetting he mentions two of the Passover cups! Intriguing…

Though it begs the question as to why Mt and Mk connect it to the Eucharistic cup…a bit puzzling!

DJim

 

[mikeledes]

When Jesus is speaking figuratively, either Jesus Himself or the Gospel writer explains what He means. He often uses progressive revelation as a teaching method, going from ambiguity to greater clarity. There are numerous examples of this in the 4 Gospels. Here are some more:

John 4:10-14

**10Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.”
11She said to Him, “Sir, You have nothing to draw with and the well is deep; where then do You get that living water?
12"You are not greater than our father Jacob, are You, who gave us the well, and drank of it himself and his sons and his cattle?”
13Jesus answered and said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again;
14but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.” **

John 8:56-58

**56"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad."
57So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” 58Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” **

John 10:1-10

**1"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is a thief and a robber.
2"But he who enters by the door is a shepherd of the sheep.
3"To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.
4"When he puts forth all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice.
5"A stranger they simply will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers."
6This figure of speech Jesus spoke to them, but they did not understand what those things were which He had been saying to them.
7So Jesus said to them again, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.
8"All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them.
9"I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.
10"The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. **

John 7:38-39

38"He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.’"
39But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive

John 12:32-33

**32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.” 33 This He said, signifying by what death He would die. **

John 21:18-19

**18 Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish.” 19 This He spoke, signifying by what death he would glorify God. **

Matthew 16:6-12

6 Then Jesus said to them, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.” 7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, “It is because we have taken no bread.”
8 But Jesus, being aware of it, said to them, “O you of little faith, why do you reason among yourselves because you have brought no bread?[a] 9 Do you not yet understand, or remember the five loaves of the five thousand and how many baskets you took up? 10 Nor the seven loaves of the four thousand and how many large baskets you took up? 11 How is it you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread?—but to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

This does not happen in John 6.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Church Militant:

Now if I make a symbol of Karl Keating like this symbol here: and then I decide to do bad things to that symbol symbol…like say this: http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/blowup1.gif I may indeed be guilty of abusing that symbol of the goodman Karl Keating, but am I guilty of his body and blood?

Sheesh, that was beautiful in its simplicity, clarity, and right-onitude!

:yup: :extrahappy: Luvit totally!

 

[Ani_Ibi]

And obviously, some disciples leave because they can’t handle the literal truth about eating His Flesh.

They leave because they want the social gospel without the Real Presence.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I would never call you a liar, though I would say you’ve tended to follow faith and reason, instead of spirit and truth.

Faith can never conflict with reason; truth cannot contradict truth.

 

[SyCarl]

With respect to the “rule” that Jesus or John explains when there is confusion, this is not always true. Examples have been given of this “rule” in the discourses to Nicodemus in John 3 and the Samaritan woman in John 4. However in neither place does Jesus actually seem to clarify. To Nicodemus He says:

Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of (H)water and the Spirit he cannot enter into (I)the kingdom of God. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. "Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ “The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit**.” Nicodemus said to Him, “How can these things be?” **
John 3:5-9 (NASB)

It appears that the clarification did not help Nicodemus.

To the Samaritan women He says:

Jesus answered and said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again; but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him (R)shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.” The woman said to Him, “Sir,give me this water, so I will not be thirsty nor come all the way here to draw.”
John 4:13-15 (NASB)

Again it appears that the clarification did not help the woman.

But in fact, Jesus does give a clarification in John 6. He says:

But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, "Does this cause you to stumble? "What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
John 6:61-63 (NASB)

It is the words He spoke that give life, not the flesh He spoke of and this is how Peter understands it since he says:

Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. “We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”
John 6:68-69 (NASB)

Here Peter seems to be associating the explanation with the earlier statement made by Jesus when He said:

“For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”
John 6:40 (NASB)

Peter stresses the belief and words. He did not say "You are the bread of eternal life, or something similar.

It should also be remembered that Jesus says:

Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.
John 6:35 (NASB)

Jesus had already indicated what would result in people never thirsting. He told the Samaritan woman:

Jesus answered and said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again; but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.”
John 4:13-14 (NASB)

Here He says that He will give water so that people would not thirst again, so it would appear that water would represent His blood, not the wine of the Eucharist.

Later in John, Jesus tells the Apostles that up to that time He had spoken to them in figurative language, indicating that figurative language was the usual, not the exception.

"These things I have spoken to you in figurative language; an hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but will tell you plainly of the Father.
John 16:25 (NASB)

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I believe the pattern itself is meaningless. There are many patterns of conversation from Jesus that do not fit. The content of the conversation is the only means to find out the meaning.

This sounds like an affective fallacy, the meaning attributed to the content by an individual according to his/her own context is the truth. In fact there are many approaches one can bring to critique of a work. Formalism. Historical analysis. Jungianism. Marxism. Linguistics. Authorial intent. And so on.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I know! I know! The metaphor is:The first entity is Jesus, Our Lord Himself. The second entity, into which the reality of Jesus is transferred is…wait for it…bread

(sounds exactly like the Eucharist to me…)

So beautifully simple, isn’t it? :extrahappy:

 

[mikeledes]

With respect to the “rule” that Jesus or John explains when there is confusion, this is not always true. Examples have been given of this “rule” in the discourses to Nicodemus in John 3 and the Samaritan woman in John 4. However in neither place does Jesus actually seem to clarify. To Nicodemus He says:

It appears that the clarification did not help Nicodemus.

To the Samaritan women He says:

Again it appears that the clarification did not help the woman.

But in fact, Jesus does give a clarification in John 6. He says:

It is the words He spoke that give life, not the flesh He spoke of and this is how Peter understands it since he says:

Here Peter seems to be associating the explanation with the earlier statement made by Jesus when He said:

Peter stresses the belief and words. He did not say "You are the bread of eternal life, or something similar.

It should also be remembered that Jesus says:

Jesus had already indicated what would result in people never thirsting. He told the Samaritan woman:

Here He says that He will give water so that people would not thirst again, so it would appear that water would represent His blood, not the wine of the Eucharist.

Later in John, Jesus tells the Apostles that up to that time He had spoken to them in figurative language, indicating that figurative language was the usual, not the exception.

The clarification is that “born again” means spritual rebirth, not a physical rebirth. The clarification is that He wasn’t speaking literally. When He speaks metaphorically, He gives an immediate indication that He is doing so.

John 6:63 is a statement of fact, not an explanation of what He said. This verse does not mean that Jesus was speaking figuratively. The word “Spirit” is used to refer to those things that pertain to God and the word “flesh” refers to those things that pertain to sin. We constantly see the Spirit vs. flesh construct thorughout the Bible:

Galatians 5:16

16 I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. 17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish.

Romans 8:5-6

5 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, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace

So what Jesus meant in John 6:63 was not that he was speaking figuratively. Rather, that His words originate from God (i.e. Spirit) and they are life giving (i.e. life). He said this in response to the rejection of His teaching. Those who were “carnally minded” rejected His teaching, while those who were “spiritually minded” accepted it. If one is in the flesh, one cannot accept His words because the flesh wars against the Spirit, effectively cutting off the person from the source of life. Consequently, the flesh profits nothing because its end is death. Those who are in the Spirit receive life (Romans 8:6). To be “carnally minded” does not mean to be literally minded. It means to have a mind that is in rebellion against God and thus does not accept the teachings and/or commands of God. Another literal truth that his “carnally minded” audience did not accept was that He came from heaven

John 6:41-42

41Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, “I am the bread thatcame down out of heaven.”
42They were saying, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, ‘I have come down out of heaven’?"

Other literal truths that the “carnally minded” reject are the virgin birth, the resurreaction, etc. To be carnal does not mean to be literal. It means to have a mind closed off to the truths of God.
Those who were in such a state did not accept Jesus’s words.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Ani_Ibi]

That is certainly NOT the way Jesus taught. Jesus hid many things from non believers! It was His practice!

But the disciples were not non-believers!

 

[mikeledes]

Later in John, Jesus tells the Apostles that up to that time He had spoken to them in figurative language, indicating that figurative language was the usual, not the exception.

You must read this in context! What is He talking about? What are “these things”?

**16"A little while, and you will no longer see Me; and again a little while, and you will see Me."
17Some of His disciples then said to one another, “What is this thing He is telling us, ‘A little while, and you will not see Me; and again a little while, and you will see Me’; and, ‘because I go to the Father’?”
18So they were saying, “What is this that He says, ‘A little while’? We do not know what He is talking about.”
19Jesus knew that they wished to question Him, and He said to them, “Are you deliberating together about this, that I said, ‘A little while, and you will not see Me, and again a little while, and you will see me’?
20"Truly, truly, I say to you, that you will weep and lament, but the world will rejoice; you will grieve, but your grief will be turned into joy.
21"Whenever a woman is in labor she has pain, because her hour has come; but when she gives birth to the child, she no longer remembers the anguish because of the joy that a child has been born into the world.
22"Therefore you too have grief now; but will see you again, and your heart will rejoice, and no one will take your joy away from you.
23"In that day you will not question Me about anything Truly, truly, I say to you, if you ask the Father for anything in My name, He will give it to you.
24"Until now you have asked for nothing in My name; ask and you will receive, so that your joy may be made full.
25"These things I have spoken to you in figurative language;an hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but will tell you plainly of the Father. **
** 27for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me and have believed that I came forth from the Father.
28"I came forth from the Father and have come into the world; I am leaving the world again and going to the Father.”
29His disciples said, "Lo, now You are speaking plainly and are not using a figure of speech. **

In the Last Supper discourse, He used figurative language (i.e. woman in labor, etc.). Secondly, when He has used figurative language before, He has explained what He meant and thus indicated that He was speaking figuratively. As this passage inidcates, Jesus explicitly reveals when He does speak using a figure of speech.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[DJim]

Here He says that He will give water so that people would not thirst again, so it would appear that water would represent His blood, not the wine of the Eucharist.

SyCarl–

A gentle reminder–everyone agrees that Jesus speaks figuratively a lot, and especially in John 6.

John 6 is not the equivalent of the institution of the Eucharist. For that you must go to the Last Supper narratives.

You are implicitly assuming that the Catholic view of the Eucharist is based upon a mistaken notion of what’s real and what’s “figurative”. It’s not. The Last Supper was real. John 6 is figuratively describing what is real…

DJim

 

[Ani_Ibi]

40 "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and
I Myself will raise him up on the last day

54 "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and
I will raise him up on the last day.

Believing is the reality and eating flesh and drinking blood is the clear metaphor.
The End Result is identicle.

Oh kayceeeeee? Kaycee - eeee?

This was the question:
Ani Ibi:

…what is the metaphor in John 6? What is the first entity and what is the second entity into which the first entity is transferred?

:doh2: :doh2: :doh2: :doh2: :doh2:

For it to be a clear metaphor, you have to show that the first entity or reality is transferred into the second entity or reality. Have you done that, kaycee?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

John 6 is figuratively describing what is real…DJim

Metaphor as used in John 6 is not a figure of speech. It is not some kind of cousin to a symbol. It is one reality being transferred into another reality.

John 6 describes in clear unfigurative terms what is real.

Remember that the disciples are not looking for symbols. So would Jesus give them symbols? Did he want to trick them by giving them symbols? Did he want them to abandon Him?

The disciples were looking for more fish and loaves. To them that was real. When in doubt with Scripture, the first thing to look for is parallelism. Jesus knew that the disciples were looking for something that was real. So he offered them the Real Presence.

They knew what He was offering them because of the Real Presence.

They knew that he was offering them the Real Presence because of the Real Presence.

They simply placed no value on the Real Presence. They made their choice. Their walking away was not a comment on the Real Presence. It was a comment on the them.

 

[mikeledes]

Here is a link on the Church Fathers and the Eucharist:

therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/fathers.htm

God Bless,
Michael