Protestants and John chapter 6

[cbirtell]

I think it’s just how the Protestant’s see it and have been taught to see it. The John 6 verse seems more like a symbol to them but to us it isn’t because we have the Eucharist. I was a Protestant my whole life until this Easter and when I would read John 6 I read it like he was using a metaphor. It’s very hard to explain this to Protestants, especially those who think they are right, because they won’t hear you out. Just my thoughts!

 

[NuclearReceptor]

None of that contradicts or takes away from Jesus, sharing both His Divinity and Humanity, literally under the appearance of bread and wine.

Jesus was very eager for the Last Supper, the first Eucharistic celebration. If it’s mentioned in the Gospel, it’s for a very good reason. Would Jesus be eager for a symbol?

 

[Theo2]

Given that Protestant beliefs are all over the map, my question is why can’t we explain it better. Paul talks about a serious offence to receive unworthy. Also, when people left Jesus because He said eat my body and drink my blood, He did not say come back I was speaking symbolically!

 

[lanman87]

Jesus was very eager for the Last Supper, the first Eucharistic celebration. If it’s mentioned in the Gospel, it’s for a very good reason. Would Jesus be eager for a symbol?

The Passover feast was a commemoration and celebration of the historical event and spiritual significance of the Passover as recorded in Exodus.

The Eucharist is a commemoration and celebration of the historical event and spiritual significance of the Death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. It is when we give thanks to God for His sacrifice and offering on our behalf, remember His offering and Sacrifice, and proclaim our faith in Christ by participating in the Eucharistic (Thanksgiving) meal.

The Eucharist/Lord’s Supper/Communion is more than a symbol. It is a celebration of Christ and what He has done for us and our faith in Him.

 

[Hodos]

There is not a consensus on this passage and whether it refers to the Lord’s Supper. Personally, I do believe it directly speaks to the Lord’s Supper, especially seeing as there is no account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper in John. This seems to be his way of speaking to it. But that is personal opinion. I do take the words of institution to mean the body and blood of Christ is literally present in the Lord’s Supper. However, I consider the belief on whether Christ is really present or some other explanation as important, but adiaphora. God is the one working in the Lord’s Supper, not me, so whether I think the Lord is mystically present or bodily present is irrelevant, Christ is there.

 

[Todd_Easton]

Some think that when Jesus spoke of eating his flesh and drinking his blood in John 6, He was speaking metaphorically, similar to the way Wisdom once said:

Those who eat me will hunger for more,
and those who drink me will thirst for more. (Sirach 24:21)

Some faith-alone types understand Jesus as speaking metaphorically of believing in Him, as believing in Him is mentioned quite a few times in John 6, such as verses 29, 35, 40, 47, 64. They don’t seem to see a connection between the eating and drinking in John 6 and the eating and drinking at the Last Supper.

 

[7_Sorrows]

None of that contradicts or takes away from Jesus, sharing both His Divinity and Humanity, literally under the appearance of bread and wine.

Jesus was very eager for the Last Supper, the first Eucharistic celebration. If it’s mentioned in the Gospel, it’s for a very good reason. Would Jesus be eager for a symbol?

That is a good point. Since it is mentioned in the Gospel, I think he means it is not a symbol, but true.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Given Protestant beliefs are all over the may, my question is why can’t we explain it better. Paul talks about a serious offence to receive unworthy. Also, when people left Jesus because He said eat my body and drink my blood, He did not say come back I was speaking symbolically!

Another excellent point Theo2. There were many that stopped following him when Jesus said we must eat His Body and drink His Blood. He did not say the bread and wine were only a symbol to win them back.

And you are right, how can we explain it better?

 

[7_Sorrows]

Some think that when Jesus spoke of eating his flesh and drinking his blood in John 6, He was speaking metaphorically, similar to the way Wisdom once said:

Those who eat me will hunger for more,
and those who drink me will thirst for more. (Sirach 24:21)

Maybe you have a point because i know some protestant churches do not celebrate communion even weekly or monthly. My friend who is Baptist says she wishes they would celebrate communion more often. They only do it once or twice a year in her church.

As Catholics, we would be “starving” if we could only receive the Eucharist once or
twice a year.

 

[7_Sorrows]

7_Sorrows:

The next several weeks our homilies will focus on John chapter 6 and the Eucharist and Jesus being the Bread of Life.

I understand Protestants are Sola Scriptura, but what do they believe John chapter 6 is teaching?

I think verse 57 sums things up nicely.

Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.

I see this saying that those who “feed on Christ” or in other words learn of Christ and sincerely attempt to emulate His life will one day receive Eternal Life. I hope this helps…

So you see the word “feed” as not meant
literally as food, but being in a relationship
with?

 

[gazelam]

gazelam:

7_Sorrows:

The next several weeks our homilies will focus on John chapter 6 and the Eucharist and Jesus being the Bread of Life.

I understand Protestants are Sola Scriptura, but what do they believe John chapter 6 is teaching?

I think verse 57 sums things up nicely.

Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.

I see this saying that those who “feed on Christ” or in other words learn of Christ and sincerely attempt to emulate His life will one day receive Eternal Life. I hope this helps…

So you see the word “feed” as not meant
literally as food, but being in a relationship
with?

The words and deeds of Christ. i.e., ponder the words and deeds, incorporate Christ’s teaching into your life, follow His example, etc. I see it as food for the soul.

 

[7_Sorrows]

okay. thanks for the further explanation.

i can see your point.

what about Luke 22:18-20?
“Do this in remembrance of me.”

 

[JonNC]

Perhaps, but the disintegration began when Luther and Zwingli split in Geneva over the Eucharist. All downhill from there.

Zwingli and Luther were never of the same movement. So to say they split is inaccurate.

 

[JonNC]

The next several weeks our homilies will focus on John chapter 6 and the Eucharist and Jesus being the Bread of Life.

I understand Protestants are Sola Scriptura, but what do they believe John chapter 6 is teaching?

As you’ve probably seen me write before, use of the term “protestant” when discussing doctrine and practice, is folly.

On the topic of John 6, I’ve understood it as a precursor, if you will, of the Last Supper. It is defined by Christ’s words at the Last Supper, “this is my body”, “this is my blood”, and therefore we recognize in it not just simply a memorial, but also His real body and blood, given and shed for the forgiveness of sins.

 

[Bon_Croix]

Did or do Jews view their Passover as merely a remembrance or do they associate it with grace? Surely, grace was associated with the First Jewish Passover in Egypt.

If you are a Protestant, why would the Catholic Passover or Eucharist not be associated with grace?

 

[Hodos]

To answer your question, at least from the Conservative side of the Reformation, we consider the Lord’s Supper to be a means of grace. I think the issue here though is our definition of grace seems to differ with the Roman Catholic definition of grace.

 

[Bon_Croix]

To contrast… Roman Catholics must believe that Eucharist is what the church says it is. There is no conservative or liberal Catholic view on the matter.

It is the source of the covenant. It is Eternal Life/Eternal Word.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Instead of protestant would you prefer reformer or not to be identified as either?

How do we identify a group other than non-Catholics?

Actually, this is the first time I have seen you say it is folly.

 

[jtavington]

You know, I don’t think I ever heard a sermon on the passage in 20 years of being a Baptist. I will tell you that The Lord’s Supper was given on an irregular basis so as not to become routine. (It was acknowledged that the early church did it weekly). We were supposed to examine our conscience and not receive it we had committed serious sin and not confessed it to God. It’s an ordinance, which is like a sacrament except that they don’t believe it conveys grace, and my church used crackers and grape juice handed out to congregants in the pews.

 

[JonNC]

Instead of protestant would you prefer reformer or not to be identified as either?

How do we identify a group other than non-Catholics?

Actually, this is the first time I have seen you say it is folly.

I think we need to talk about specific groups. Other than chronology, there is very little connection between Calvin and Luther, either of them and Anabaptists. And Anglicans were not even on the continent.