Protestant Explanation of John 6

[zemi]

mtr01 gave us this link to Scott Hahn’s application of the Passover rituals to the the Last Supper and then to the Crucifixion.

The Fourth Cup

Does anyone else see a link between life and death and bread with Elija and the raven and later the poor woman in 1 Kings 17?

Read that one and read/listen to also to Scott Hahn’s talk about **the Eucharist **(the Fourth Cup lecture is also summarized there)

Here’s the transcript:

zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/ech.html

Here are the mp3s for the talk:

ftp://217.160.246.215/pub/audionet/EWTN_programs/Scott_Hahn/Answering_Common_Questions/answering%20common%20objections%20%2313.mp3

ftp://217.160.246.215/pub/audionet/EWTN_programs/Scott_Hahn/Answering_Common_Questions/answering%20common%20objections%20%2314.mp3

ftp://217.160.246.215/pub/audionet/EWTN_programs/Scott_Hahn/Answering_Common_Questions/answering%20common%20objections%20%2315.mp3

Great talk

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Thanks zemi.

 

[zemi]

Thanks zemi.

No problem.

Any questions welcomed

 

[joe370]

**Jesus had not yet instituted the Lord’s Supper in John 6; therefore, He is talking metaphorically.
**
If the gospel of John was the only book of the bible, you might have a point. But it’s not! Each book of the N.T. supplements the other books. John speaks of things, the other writers do not, and visa versa. When Jesus “instituted the Lord’s Supper” in the Synoptic Gospels, the Apostles, without doubt would have recalled His exposition on the Body (bread) and Blood (wine) of Jesus Christ. Jesus, in His 3 year ministry surely said many things that are not in our bible, and I am certain He expounded on the doctrine that was too tough for some Jews to believe!

Furthermore, why does He have to be speaking metaphorically, just because these words weren’t said at the last supper? He certainly uses literal words. In regard to eating flesh and drinking blood, the word used to eat is trogo, which means to “gnaw, crunch, chew. Nothing symbolical about that! We know that water is a symbol of the H.S. --that the water and blood that came from the side of Jesus is a symbol of the Church –that anointing is a symbol, which signifies the H.S. --that fire is a symbol of the H.S. --etc etc. But the words, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. —clearly are not symbols of something else!

When Jesus did “institute the last supper” in the synoptic gospels, He failed to mention some things found in John’s last supper scenario:

*The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name–he will teach you everything and remind you of all that (I) told you.
*

“If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him.”

And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, so that where I am, there you may be also.

In my Father’s house there are many dwelling places. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?

So, should I disregard those things John spoke of, simply because they are not spoken of in the synoptic gospels, or in Paul’s writings? The N.T. is synergistic: the total effect is greater than the sum of the individual effects. It is a cooperative effort!

It’s an extension of what He told the woman at the well, in John 4, where He said He could give her living water, so that she would never thirst again.

Clearly this is a metaphor. The woman, as all devout Christians, believe that Jesus is the giver of living water, (Holy Spirit) so that we will never thirst again. But, we all still continue to thirst, and we will, until we are with Jesus!

**Just as manna fed the Israelites in the wilderness, so does Jesus’ body and blood “feed” us here below. The gospel message is this “food” that Jesus gives us, through word and sacrament.
**

If the “good news” is the food we must eat (gnaw/chew), why doesn’t Jesus just say the gospel is the food to which He is referring? Instead He does the following:

And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them saying: “This is My Body given for you, do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same way, after the supper He took the cup, saying: “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”

No mention of the “gospel message.”

Jesus is bread. Jesus, the bread, came down from heaven, sent by His Father. Whoever “eats” this bread, that is, believes in Jesus, has eternal life with Him.

Why didn’t Jesus simply say, who ever believes in me, in lieu of, whoever “eats” this bread has eternal life with Him; it sure would have cleared things up vis-a-vis the whole literal/metaphorical issue.

**Furthermore, the Jews had recognized figurative flesh and figurative blood. The OT feasts and sacrifices were shadows; Jesus was the reality. **

Those animal weren’t figuratively sacrificed; they were actually/literally killed and eaten, as nourishment for the carnal body —And, as a sin offering, and yes, Jesus was/is the reality of all those inept sacrifices…

 

[joe370]

…**Jesus was also talking about an personal spiritual unification that takes place between Him and us when we believe in Him and continue to 'feed" on Him (figurative). **

If Jesus was speaking figurative/symbolically/metaphorically, why didn’t he just say so? Instead He let the disbelieving Jews walk away –letting them believe that He was speaking literally when He said “unless you (chew/gnaw) 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 at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.’ After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. Jesus said to the twelve, ‘Will you also go away?’”

Wouldn’t Jesus be remiss if He didn’t clarify? And yes, Unity is key to what Jesus expected of His flock:

"I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me.

With that said, why is the Protestant world so DIVIDED?

**Each Christian needs to see the importance of continuing to nurture faith in Jesus. We do that by the Word, as Jesus shows elsewhere John 8:31.
**
The Word is Jesus Christ, not the bible! John 1

John 8:31 --*Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, (small case) then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. *

The word is the good news and it was to be promulgated by Jesus’ established Apostolic Church:

*Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” *Matthew 28:20

When faith is nourished, the believer remains in Jesus and Jesus in the believer. So, in our faith, we are united with Jesus.

I agree! Faith is the cornerstone of Christianity.

All of the answers for John 6 can be found
in the words of Peter at the end…

ABSOLUTELY…

“Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” 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, that you are the Holy One of God."

Lets analyze John 6…

Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 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. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.” He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

Many Disciples desert Jesus —WHY? Because they believed Jesus was speaking literally! If He was speaking figuratively, as you suggest, why didn’t Jesus stop them and tell them that they misunderstood?

*On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing.
Our flesh counts for nothing, not Jesus’ Flesh!
The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. *

Jesus wants them to understand His words in a spiritual sense, not a carnal sense! After all Jesus ascended into Heaven, proving that cannibalism was not His intent!

*Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him…
*
You appear to be one of those people, that Jesus had known from the beginning that wouldn’t believe?

From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

Are you one of these disciples?..

 

[joe370]

…*“You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve. Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.” *

Simon Peter, speaking for the rest of the Apostles believed Jesus when He said:

“I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 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. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.” He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

These are the the words of eternal life, spoken by the Eternal Word!

Now does Peter talk about the bread? NO!

St. Peter clearly says that he believes Jesus as opposed to the disbelieving Jews, when He said, again:

*“I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” AND unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 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. This is the bread that came down from heaven.
*

**He addresses what the others left over, the divinity of Christ, Peter heard the message that one would be saved by BELIEVING in Christ as He had taught in this discourse.
**
The others left, clearly because they believed Jesus was speaking literally, when He said, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Peter and the rest of Jesus’ disciples did not leave because they believed Jesus when He said, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

**This event opened because the crowd wanted PROOF, a SIGN, and so they asked for food. Jesus made the transition to the manna because of the demand of the crowd for food to prove what he said. This dialogue is on faith without signs, it is on being saved by faith.
**
Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you.”

The “dialogue” has to do with The Eternal Word illustrating that the ONLY FOOD that endures to eternal life is His Flesh and blood, in the form of bread and wine! The Son of Man gives us that food that endures to eternal life via the Holy Eucharist!

Why does Jesus repeatedly say in these verses that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood or we have no life in us? Why does Christ say that His flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed, if His flesh and blood really aren’t food and drink indeed? This teaching of Jesus on the Eucharist is the most profound in all of Scripture, and these verses are very problematic to the Protestant contention that the bread and wine of the Mass are just symbols.

When John 6 is prayerfully read, we see how Jesus gradually teaches the faithful about the life-giving bread from heaven that He will give to the world (through the multiplication of the loaves, the reference to the raining manna given to the Israelites, and finally to the bread that Jesus will give which is His flesh). When the Jews question Jesus about how he could possibly give them His flesh to eat, Jesus becomes even more literal in His explanation. Jesus says several times that we must eat (in Greek, “phago”) His flesh to gain eternal life (which literally means “to chew.”) the Jews further question the strangeness of His teaching, Jesus uses an even more literal verb (in Greek, “trogo”) to describe how we must eat His flesh to have eternal life (which literally means “to gnaw or crunch”). The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (Matt. 24:38; John 13:18) and it is always used literally (physically eating). Protestants are unable to provide a single example of where “trogo” is ever used in a symbolic sense. To drive His point home, Jesus says that His flesh is real food indeed, and His blood is real drink indeed (Jesus says nothing about the bread being a symbol of His body and blood).

What is perhaps most compelling about the foregoing passages is what happens at the end of Jesus’ discourse. We know that the Jews understood Jesus as speaking literally. This is demonstrated by their question, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” They could not conceive of why consuming Jesus’ flesh was life-giving and how they could possibly do such a thing. We also know that Jesus responds to their question by being even more literal about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. But we learn at the end of Jesus’ discourse that many of His followers, because of the difficulty of His teaching, decided to no longer follow Him - and Jesus let them go. Then He turned to Peter and His apostles and asked them, “Will you also go away?”…

 

[joe370]

…Would Jesus, the Incarnate Word of God who became man to save humanity, allow his followers to leave Him if they misunderstood His teaching? Of course not, especially when the teaching regarded how they were to obtain eternal life which was at the heart of Jesus’ mission. Jesus always explained the meaning of His teachings to His disciples. Mark 4:34. Jesus did not say, “Hey, guys, come back here, you got it all wrong.” He didn’t do this because they did not have it all wrong. They understood correctly - we must eat Jesus’ flesh and drink His blood, or we have no life within us. The Protestant who contends that the Catholic offering of bread and wine in the Mass is just a symbol (and does not miraculously become the body and blood of Christ through the actions of the priest acting “in persona Christi”) must address John 6:53-58, 66-67 - why Jesus used the words He did, and why Jesus allowed His followers to leave Him if they understood Him correctly (which is the only time in Scripture where Christ allows His disciples to leave Him based upon a doctrinal teaching).

When we meditate upon this mystery with an open mind and heart, we come to believe and know that the Eucharist is the way the Father gives us His Son in the eternal covenant of love by the power of the Holy Spirit. The Eucharist is an extension of the Incarnation. If we can believe in the Incarnation (that God become a little baby), than believing that God makes Himself substantially present under the appearance of bread and wine is easy. The Church has thus taught for 2,000 years that the Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian faith - the consummation of the sacrificed Paschal lamb, by which we are restored to God and share in His divine life. Thus, Saint Paul says, “our Paschal lamb has been sacrificed; therefore, let us celebrate the feast.” 1 Corinthians 5:7-8.

 

[joe370]

One more thing…

Jesus said He would send the Holy Spirit to His established Church:

Whoever does not love me does not keep my words; yet the word you hear is not mine but that of the Father who sent me. "I have told you this while I am with you. The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name–he will teach you everything and remind you of all that (I) told you. John 14

"When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father,** the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me.** John 15

But when he comes, **the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. **He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. John 16

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor **to be with you forever— the Spirit of truth. **The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. John 14:16-17

If the Holy Spirit --the Spirit of Truth has been teaching/guiding Jesus’ Apostolic Church since Pentecost, through every century until His second coming, as the Holy Bible attests, then how could His Apostolic Church be wrong vis-a-vis any doctrine --including the Holy Eucharist?

To say that His Apostolic Church taught erroneously, regarding the Holy Eucharist, for 1500 years --until the protestant reformation, is to call Jesus a complete failure --is to call the Holy Spirit fallible, since He didn’t “teach”/“guide” Jesus’ One Apostolic Catholic Church into all TRUTH! And I doubt any non-Catholic would be willing to proffer that claim?

Am I wrong???

 

[joe370]

Actually He does do that in John 6, just not the way most people think. Our Lord does use a metaphor in John 6: when He says “I am the Bread of Life”, in verse 35, He is using a metaphor. As usually happens, the crowd didn’t understand the metaphor (vs 41-42). So as Our Lord normally does, he explains the metaphor in verses 51-52:

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

He doesn’t “explain” the “metaphor” of eating His flesh and drinking His blood because that IS the explanation of His metaphor.

Well said!!!

 

[Philthy]

Jesus had not yet instituted the Lord’s Supper in John 6; therefore, He is talking metaphorically.

There is nothing logical about this conclusion. It is neither necessary nor is it implicit. It is literally a rabbit pulled out of a hat.

Jesus is bread. Jesus, the bread, came down from heaven, sent by His Father. Whoever “eats” this bread, that is, believes in Jesus, has eternal life with Him.

Jesus is bread? What is the point of being bread? How does his being bread have anything to do with believing?? How did the topic of believing even get introduced into this discussion?
I dont see any of it.

Furthermore, the Jews had recognized figurative flesh and figurative blood. The OT feasts and sacrifices were shadows; Jesus was the reality. Jesus was also talking about an personal spiritual unification that takes place between Him and us when we believe in Him and continue to 'feed" on Him (figurative).

Perhaps if we actually did become what we ate then this would make some sense. But the fact of the matter is that we dont become more “breadlike” when we eat bread. The claim that when we “feed” on Him that we spiritually unite as we continue to “feed” on him has no bearing on the relationship between a human feeding on bread. I therefore conclude that the claim to a figurative meaning is bogus.

All of the answers for John 6 can be found in the words of Peter at the end…“Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” 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, that you are the Holy One of God."Now does Peter talk about the bread? NO!

This most certainly does not provide “all of the answers for John 6” unless you have decided - in advance - that the answer you wish to get from John 6 is that its a figurative text meant to represent faith in Jesus who is the Christ. Peter doesnt know what to make of John 6 because they were all confused. Peter had heard Christ speak of needing to have faith in him, if we are to take the dialogue as figurative, why the hesistancy in Peter to affirm that he understands Christ is speaking about belief? Why didnt Peter jump in and explain to the Jews? The reason is that Peter didnt understand what Christ was talking about. He knew He wasnt merely speaking about faith - he’d heard Christ speak of that before in much clearer terms. Peter is clearly dumbfounded as to what Christ is talking about in John 6, but he demonstrates a key element of faith in Christ: childlike trust.

He addresses what the others left over, the divinity of Christ, Peter heard the message that one would be saved by BELIEVING in Christ as He had taught in this discourse.

They left because Christ told them in literal terms that they must eat his flesh and they couldnt accept his claim. They had not yet accepted him as the Christ and this discourse did nothing to help. If anything it was a test of faith - not a discourse on it. The Jews didnt stand a chance, but Peter, having had the benefit of travelling with Christ and personally experiencing the miraculous (the multiplication of the loaves and walking on the water opens John 6) definitely stood a chance.

This event opened because the crowd wanted PROOF, a SIGN, and so they asked for food. Jesus made the transition to the manna because of the demand of the crowd for food to prove what he said. This dialogue is on faith without signs, it is on being saved by faith.

There is some truth to this but it is not the whole truth. Perhaps ***if ***there never was a “Last Supper” with the words “this is my body” and if Paul hadnt written what he did in 1Cor - “without recognizing the body” “guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord”.etc, etc and if the ECFs didnt so unanimously attest to the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, then maybe you would have more of a leg to stand on. But given all of the above the claim doesnt stand the test of reasonableness.