Question John 2 v. John 6 and Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter CollegeKid
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CollegeKid

Guest
From John 2:

19
Jesus answered and said to them, 15 “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.”
20
The Jews said, “This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, 16 and you will raise it up in three days?”
21
But he was speaking about the temple of his body.

I was thinking about this part from John 2, and it got me wondering about the bread of life discourse in John 6 and how we’ve always maintained that since Jesus did not correct the Jews who realized He **was really talking about eating his body **and left him, this is good evidence that He was not speaking figuratively. I still think its the proper interpretation of John 6, that Jesus must have literally meant that we must eat and drink His body and blood, but why in John 2 did He not make it clear to the Jews that He was speaking figuratively? (about His body as the temple, not the temple building)
 
I can’t completley answer that, but take mind of this:

In John 2, as quoted above, St. John points out that what Jesus said was meant to be taken symbolically - “He was talking about the temple of His Body,” whereas in John 6, we have no such correction by the Evangelist, which means that in John 2 Christ “corrects” Himself, and tells the disciples that he is speaking figuratively, because He is, but in John 6 we have no such correction, because He is not speaking figuratively. Perhaps Christ never corrected the Jews because He knew that they had “hard hearts” and would never learn anyway?

Thats all I got :).
 
A number of things come to mind here. In the first place, it is clear that we don’t have the entire discourse here. We have Christ’s reply and then it ends. I doubt that there were not further words exchanged; at least further comment on His answer by the Jews.

But we don’t have anybody leaving Him over this answer. And we do have the writer of scripture explaining that Christ was speaking, not figuratively as you say, but of another temple. For Christ’s body was every bit as much a temple (infinitely more so, actually) as the temple of which the Jews were thinking. In summary:
  1. No disciples left Christ in John 2, so there was no need for Him to explain His words further. Unlike in John 6.
  2. The writer of scripture explained Christ’s true meaning. He does not offer such an explanation in John 6.
  3. Christ was not speaking figuratively in John 2. He was speaking quite literally, but those listening did not understand His meaning until later. This is an exact parallel with John 6.
If anything, John 2 reinforces our understanding of John 6, rather than challenging it.
 
Note also Matthew 16:6-12
When the disciples reached the other side, they had forgotten to bring any bread.
Click to expand...
6] Jesus said to them, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sad’ducees.”
7] And they discussed it among themselves, saying, “We brought no bread.”
8] But Jesus, aware of this, said, “O men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves the fact that you have no bread?
9] Do you not yet perceive? Do you not remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets you gathered?
10] Or the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets you gathered?
11] How is it that you fail to perceive that I did not speak about bread? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sad’ducees.”
12] Then they understood that he did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sad’ducees.
Click to expand...
Where He was speaking of bread figuratively, and did correct their failure to understand.
 
Thank you, the responses have helped clarify this. Merry Christmas!
 
One last thing. Consider that Jesus was speaking figuratively when he said you must “eat My flesh”.

IF this was to be taking symbolically, then in ancient Israel, Jesus was telling the Jews to revile him in order to gain eternal life.

To “eat’s one flesh” meant to hate and revile when taking symbolically.

Now that would make Jesus’ words REALLY confusing!!!
 
Is it salvation by faith or salvation by communion? Both statements from the LORD result in being raised on the last day (see bold). IS one figurative??? Is belief in the Son figurative for eating the body and blood???

John 6:40 “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.”

John 6:54 "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
 
CollegeKid said:
From John 2:

19
Jesus answered and said to them, 15 “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.”
20
The Jews said, “This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, 16 and you will raise it up in three days?”
21
But he was speaking about the temple of his body.

I was thinking about this part from John 2, and it got me wondering about the bread of life discourse in John 6 and how we’ve always maintained that since Jesus did not correct the Jews who realized He **was really talking about eating his body **and left him, this is good evidence that He was not speaking figuratively. I still think its the proper interpretation of John 6, that Jesus must have literally meant that we must eat and drink His body and blood, but why in John 2 did He not make it clear to the Jews that He was speaking figuratively? (about His body as the temple, not the temple building)
Click to expand...
You inspired me to write the following:

UNDERSTANDING THE EUCHARIST
A comparison of language found in John 2 & John 6

Protestants often reject the literal meaning of the Bread of Life Discourse preferring a metaphorical or symbolic understanding of Jesus’ command to “eat his flesh” and “drink his blood”. A comparison of His teachings in John 2 and John 6 reveals that this interpretation is incorrect. In John 2, we read:
When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father’s house into a market!” His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.” Then the Jews demanded of him, “What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?” Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” The Jews replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” But the temple he had spoken of was his body. (John 2: )
In this passage Jesus says, “Destroy this temple,” but the Jews misunderstood him to be referring to the Temple in which they were standing. Actually, Jesus was using the Temple as a metaphor for his body, but the Jews did not know this; they understood Him literally and thought He was referring to the Temple of Solomon which had taken forty-six years to construct, and they challenged Him as to how it would be possible to re-build the stone Temple in only three days. Of course, Jesus realized that they did not understand his language, but He was not ready to reveal His death at that time. He remained silent and allowed the Jews to remain in confusion. The Apostle John, however, tells us, his readers, that “the temple he had spoken of was his body.” All things are explained for us, and the misunderstanding was clarified by John’s parenthetical aside.

This misunderstanding continued throughout His trial before the Sanhedrin and His crucifixion.
The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death. But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward. Finally two came forward and declared, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’” Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” But Jesus remained silent. (Matthew 26:59-63)

Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, “You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!” (Matthew 27:39-40)
Jesus never “corrected” their misunderstanding, because He meant what He said about His body being raised in three days very literally.

(continued)
 
Later, in the Bread of Life Discourse found in John 6, we see a remarkably similar situation:
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. But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 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.” At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?” “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. I am the bread of life. Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 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. 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. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. 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. He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.” From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. “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.” (John 6:35-69)

Jesus said, “my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.” Here, Jesus was speaking literally about His flesh, and this time, the Jews understood Him at once. Again they questioned how this could be possible – just as they had done when he spoke about destroying “this temple.” In fact, many of them ultimately abandoned Him over this teaching. Once again, Jesus did not offer any explanation.

Today, Protestants often argue that Jesus was speaking metaphorically about His body and blood and simply remained silent (again) regarding the true meaning of His words just as He had done earlier in John 2. However, on this occasion, John provides NO alternate explanation or interpretation for the reader other than the plain words that Jesus spoke. This is because John, writing several decades after the events recorded in his gospel, knew the literal interpretation of Jesus’ words is the only accurate understanding of them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top