Protestant Explanation of John 6

[Ani_Ibi]

Pope Gelasius of Rome in his work against Eutyches and Nestorius

“The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine-nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries.”

Link?

 

[DJim]

As I understand it, the interesting thing about evidence from St. Ignatius is that it may not have been viewed credibly by the Protestant Reformers, because of the confusing “spurious” letters of Ignatius floating around at the time of the Reformation–they seemed to ditch the good with the bad.

However, later, when ancient copies of the genuine letters were discovered, that really should have changed things–but by that time Protestant “tradition” had taken root…

DJim

 

[mikeledes]

From a Catholic standpoint…you really need to do some fancy footwork. A lot of good dancers in here. I do not pretend at all that you will ever see the light, so-to-speak, because you will not. It does not matter what I say or what anyone else says…you believe what you believe. So, it does not surprise me that I am seeing what I am seeing in this thread.

The same can be said about you.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Sean_Boyle]

the truth!

You’ve been presented with the Truth, here. What else do your require?

 

[mikeledes]

Since this has been “overlooked”, I’ll repost it again and will add more examples:

John 6:51-58 is to be interpreted literally and is one of the strongest passages that testify to the Real Presence in the Eucharist. In the Gospel of John, there is a certain pattern that helps to shed light on John 6. Whenever Jesus makes an ambiguous statement, it is usually followed by a misunderstanding/question, and this, in turn, is followed by a clarification either by Jesus or the Evangelist. So, this is the basic outline of this pattern:

1. **Ambiguous Statement by Jesus **
2. Misunderstanding/ Question
3. Clarification

Now here are some examples from the Gospel of John:

John 2:19-21

Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and you will raise it up in three days? But He was speaking of the temple of His body."

John 3:3-5

Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?Jesus answered, "Truly Truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

John 4:32-34

"But He said to them, “I have food to eat that you do not know about.” So the disciples were saying to one another, 'no one brought Him anything to eat, did he? Jesus said to them, " My Food is to do the will of Him who sent me and to accomplish His work."

John 8:31-34

So Jesus was saying to those Jews who believed in Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” They answered Him, "We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, “You will become free.” Jesus answered them, "Truly, Truly I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.

John 11:11-14

11 These things He said, and after that He said to them, “Our friend Lazarus sleeps, but I go that I may wake him up.”
12 Then His disciples said, “Lord, if he sleeps he will get well.” 13 However, Jesus spoke of his death, but they thought that He was speaking about taking rest in sleep.
14 Then Jesus said to them plainly, “Lazarus is dead.

Now let’s look at John 6:51-53 and see if it fits the Ambiguous Statement/Question/Clarification pattern:

"I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh." Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat? So Jesus said to them, Truly, Truly, I say to you unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you have no life in yourselves.

So, following the established pattern, verse 53 is a clarification of verses 51-52. If he were merely speaking figuratively, then we would have expected the literal meaning of the “figurative” langauge he used, as it happens in the verses I gave above and in many other places in the Bible. Instead, what we see in verse 53 is a reaffirmation of what the Jews understood Jesus to mean. So the clarification is that Jesus was speaking literally, not figuratively. If he were speaking figuratively, He would have indicated that in verse 53.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

The point of the above post is that 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

 

[kaycee]

So, following the established pattern, verse 53 is a clarification of verses 51-52. If he were merely speaking figuratively, then we would have expected the literal meaning of the “figurative” langauge he used, as it happens in the verses I gave above and in many other places in the Bible. Instead, what we see in verse 53 is a reaffirmation of what the Jews understood Jesus to mean. So the clarification is that Jesus was speaking literally, not figuratively. If he were speaking figuratively, He would have indicated that in verse 53.

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.

 

[mikeledes]

The problem Kazige is that you’ve taken John 6:51 out of context (which is no doubt what you have been taught ). If you back up just a couple verses to John 6:47-48, you’ll find the context, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. I am that bread of life." Jesus was speaking about salvation.

To teach that Jesus meant for us to literally digest His body is not only absurd, but is also inconsistent with the rest of the Bible. otherwise he is a door and a gate

John 6:51 has nothing to do with eating Jesus’ flesh and blood, it simply means that we need to believe upon the Lord for salvation.

Matthew 10:38 reads, “And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.”
Does God mean that we should literally carry crosses around over our shoulder?
See how ridiculous this all seems?

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. Also, when He does use figurative language difficult to understand, either He or the evangelist explains what He mean. Secondly, John 6:56 talks about “abiding.”

56"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

Abiding occurs subsequent to incorporation into Christ, after one has believed.

John 15:3-4
**3"You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
4"Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me. **

1 John 2:24,28

24As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.
28Now, little children, abide in Him, so that when He appears, we may have confidence and not shrink away from Him in shame at His coming.

So eating the Body of Christ and drinking His Blood is a means of abiding in Christ. Thus it was most appropraite for Him to start with faith in chapter 6 and then move to abiding in Christ through the Eucharist because coming to faith precedes abiding and one must believe first before partaking of the Eucharist.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

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.

What I said is based on the internal witness found in the Gospel of John. If there is an established pattern or teaching habit, I highly doubt Jesus would suddenly break it, especially when He knows that what He has said has caused much confusion among His own disciples. The content of the conversation is an importan means of finding out the meaning. But when the content involves alleged figurative language, then we must see how Jesus uses figurative language in his teaching ministry in order to help us determine whether He is really using figurative language or not. The overwhelming evidence is that when Jesus uses difficult to understand figurative language, either He or the evangelist explains its meaning. That does not happen in John 6. Of course, this pattern is meaniningless - despite the overwhelming evidence - if one has a staunchly held theological bias.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[kaycee]

John 4:10-14
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.”

Drinking is a metaphor for believing!

John 10:1-10
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.

Another metaphor for beleiving!

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

Belief is explicit and “living water” is the metaphor.

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 … 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.

Hmmm, a clear metaphor in bread…

This does not happen in John 6.

I think it does

John 6:63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. The food is Spiritual, not physical reality.

Joh 6:27 - Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval."
28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” 29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

35 Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. The metaphor here is mixed, coming to Him/Believing = never going hungry or thirsting.

40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." IS Equal to.

54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day

1 Cor 10:3 They all ate the same spiritual food 4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.

Eating and drinking is Spiritual.

John 4:34 “My food,” said Jesus, "is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.

Again a spiritual reference to Food, not real eating.

56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.

Just as Jesus Live because of His spiritual food from the Father so the ones who spiritually feeds from Jesus will also live.

If it is the literal body and blood, do you also see that Jesus is literally eating literal chunks of the Father so He can live?

 

[mikeledes]

Drinking is a metaphor for believing!

Another metaphor for beleiving!

Belief is explicit and “living water” is the metaphor.

Hmmm, a clear metaphor in bread…

Yes, and all of those metaphors are explained by Christ Himself as being metaphors and He gives the meaning. That does not happen in John 6.

B]I think it does

John 6:63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. The food is Spiritual, not physical reality.

That 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

 

[myfavoritmartin]

From Kaycee

Pope Gelasius of Rome in his work against Eutyches and Nestorius

“The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine-nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries.”

Link?

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.x.xxii.html?highlight=assuredly%20the%20image%20and%20the%20similitude#highlight

 

[DJim]

Drinking is a metaphor for believing!

Hmmm. So Jesus was asking the Samaritan woman at the well for a little sip of “metaphor”?

And the folks in John 6 had just been fed the day before with a metaphor?

Eating and drinking is Spiritual.

Like when Jesus proved His bodily resurrection to the Apostles by eating and drinking with them???

If it is the literal body and blood, do you also see that Jesus is literally eating literal chunks of the Father so He can live?

I daresay, though not too harshly, that you might well have missed the entire point of the Incarnation…

Is “eternal life” real or just a metaphor?

You seem to insist on “either/or” when in reality a Catholic gets to have “both/and”.

YES, John 6 is a metaphor–no question. It really is. Jesus is calling Himself “bread” and He’s not bread. Period. We all get that.

But it is a metaphor that is illustrating the REALITY of Jesus Body and Blood present to us in the Eucharist. This reality is both spiritual and “incarnational”–because that’s exactly what Jesus was, too…

You can’t dismiss the reality of the Eucharist any more than you can dismiss the fact that when Jesus spoke to the woman at the well, He really did want a drink of water…

Both/And.

DJim

 

[jpaul]

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

John 3:36 “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey (or believe) the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

35 "I am the bread of life. **He who comes to me **will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. Hunger and thirst are metaphors for spiritual hunger and thirst. Those who receive communion will hunger and thirst again in the physical sense!

40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and** I will raise him up at the last day.**

3 parralel verses the first 2 literal, the third, metaphor. All have the same result,
"I will raise him up at the last day".

kaycee,

peace and all-good!

All the scripture verses you quote are true but not the ***personal ***opinion you added (“Those who receive communion will hunger and thirst again in the physical sense”) which is out of context and is malicious.

Our Lord Jesus Christ is a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek (see Ps 110:4). That is a priest that offers “bread and wine”. (see Gen. 14: 18). The Melchizedekiah priesthood of our Lord Jesus Christ is fulfilled in the Last Supper (Mt. 26: 26-28). This is the unbloody sacrifice that perpetuate the saving effects of calvary.

The book of Malachi 1: 11 states “from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering; For great is my name among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.” This is fulfilled in the Holy Eucharist. There is no other.

The early church gathered everyday for the “breaking of bread” (see Acts 2:46) and esp. on the first day of the week (see Acts 20:7).

According to Saint Paul, "whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily sins against the body and blood of the Lord. (1 Cor. 11: 27).

“He who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks a judgment on himself.” (1 Cor. 11:29).

Our Lord Jesus Christ said, “He who feeds on my flesh
and drinks my blood has life eternal,
and I will raise him up on the last day.” (John 6: 54).

Ave Maria!

jpaul

 

[mikeledes]

Joh 6:27 - Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval."

28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” 29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

Okay… … Jesus uses metpahors. And when He uses them, He explains what He means. The fact that He uses “food”, “eating”, and “drinking” metaphorically does not mean He always uses it metaphorically. There are times when He uses these words literally. When He does use it metpahorically, He or the evangelist lets us know.

Just as Jesus Live because of His spiritual food from the Father so the ones who spiritually feeds from Jesus will also live.

If it is the literal body and blood, do you also see that Jesus is literally eating literal chunks of the Father so He can live?

So does Jesus live because He believes in the Father or does He live because He is God and thus shares the same nature as the Father? The former is the conclusion one draws from your argument.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[myfavoritmartin]

You’ve been presented with the Truth, here. What else do your require?

People don’t reveal truth, the Holy Spirit does.

Eph 1:13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,

I’ve been marked with THAT seal my friend.

 

[mikeledes]

Here is an interesting discussion on Pope Gelasius’s words in another Catholic forum:

catholic-forum.com/forums/printthread.php?t=4994&pp=25

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Ani_Ibi]

What I said is based on the internal witness found in the Gospel of John. If there is an established pattern or teaching habit, I highly doubt Jesus would suddenly break it, especially when He knows that what He has said has caused much confusion among His own disciples. The content of the conversation is an importan means of finding out the meaning. But when the content involves alleged figurative language, then we must see how Jesus uses figurative language in his teaching ministry in order to help us determine whether He is really using figurative language or not. The overwhelming evidence is that when Jesus uses difficult to understand figurative language, either He or the evangelist explains its meaning. That does not happen in John 6. Of course, this pattern is meaniningless - despite the overwhelming evidence - if one has a staunchly held theological bias.

God Bless,
Michael

Michael, I have some other things to do at present so do not have time to examine this thread in any detail yet. However, what I have to say about John 6 can be found here:

Why did He let them walk away?

If the link doesn’t work, then add an ‘s’ after ‘forum’ or just enter the title into the advanced search window with my name.

Of particular note is that I take issue with the persistent yet frequently incorrect usage of the term ‘metaphor’ as meaning something which is related to a ‘symbol.’ ‘Metaphor’ is the transference of reality from one entity to another.

Remember that this scenario is opened by Jesus specifically saying that the disciples are not looking for symbols. So if He knew they were not looking for symbols then why would he offer them a symbol?

When a child asks for bread, does the Father give him a snake or a stone?

So while the Eucharist may, in the correct sense of the word, be metaphoric it is definitely not symbolic.

What Jesus is offering the disciples when he says that they must eat his flesh is

REAL !

 

[mikeledes]

Pope Gelasius of Rome in his work against Eutyches and Nestorius

“The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine-nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries.”

While this may apparently contradict the Catholic teaching of transubstantiation, it in no way affirms a purely symbolic Eucharist or that Jesus was speaking figuratively in John 6. Even if it did contradict transubstantiation, the quote obviously demonstrates that the Pope believed Jesus was substantially present in the Eucharist. At most, it can be used to defend Lutheran consubstatiation, but it no way can it be used as evidence that the early Church did not believe in the Real Presence. Even my not so favorite Martin, Martin Luther, believed in the Real Presence.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Michael, I have some other things to do at present so do not have time to examine this thread in any detail yet. However, what I have to say about John 6 can be found here:

Why did He let them walk away?

If the link doesn’t work, then add an ‘s’ after ‘forum’ or just enter the title into the advanced search window with my name.

Of particular note is that I take issue with the persistent yet frequently incorrect usage of the term ‘metaphor’ as meaning something which is related to a ‘symbol.’ ‘Metaphor’ is the transference of reality from one entity to another.

Remember that this scenario is opened by Jesus specifically saying that the disciples are not looking for symbols. So if He knew they were not looking for symbols then why would he offer them a symbol?

When a child asks for bread, does the Father give him a snake or a stone?

So while the Eucharist may, in the correct sense of the word, be metaphoric it is definitely not symbolic.

What Jesus is offering the disciples when he says that they must eat his flesh is

REAL !

:clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

God Bless,
Michael