The Bread of Life Discourse

  • Thread starter Thread starter Yelmajj
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

Yelmajj

Guest
Hi,

I’d like to start a respectful discussion on the interpretation of the Bread of Life discourse found in John 6. My interpretation differs from the traditional Catholic interpretation but I’m open-minded and would be happy to be persuaded.

My main problem is verse 35: “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.”

It seems that the eating and drinking he is referring to later are metaphors for coming to and believing in Jesus, as opposed to reveiving him in the Eucharist.

How do Catholics interpret this?

God bless
 
Yelmajj said:
Hi,

I’d like to start a respectful discussion on the interpretation of the Bread of Life discourse found in John 6. My interpretation differs from the traditional Catholic interpretation but I’m open-minded and would be happy to be persuaded.

My main problem is verse 35: “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.”

It seems that the eating and drinking he is referring to later are metaphors for coming to and believing in Jesus, as opposed to reveiving him in the Eucharist.

How do Catholics interpret this?

God bless
Click to expand...
I think the Catholic bibles reads"I am the Bread of Life come down from Heaven,who so ever eats My Body and drinks My Blood shall never hunger or thirst."Catholics mean this to be that whoever recieves the Eucharist shall not hunger or thirst for things of this world.The world is never satisfied.No matter how much they have or what they have they always want something more.There are some very holy Catholics who i believe have taken this verse literally.One such person by the name of Theresa Newman lived on only the Host for many years.
 
Yelmajj said:
Hi,

I’d like to start a respectful discussion on the interpretation of the Bread of Life discourse found in John 6. My interpretation differs from the traditional Catholic interpretation but I’m open-minded and would be happy to be persuaded.

My main problem is verse 35: “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.”

It seems that the eating and drinking he is referring to later are metaphors for coming to and believing in Jesus, as opposed to reveiving him in the Eucharist.

How do Catholics interpret this?

God bless
Click to expand...
For one thing, since the Eucharist is in the form of bread and wine, it does take a good amount of faith to acknowledge that it is not bread and wine but the body and blood of Christ.
 
 
I think the Catholic bibles reads"I am the Bread of Life come down from Heaven,who so ever eats My Body and drinks My Blood shall never hunger or thirst."
Click to expand...
You may be mistaken, friend. * For John 6:35 the Douay-Rheims has “And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.”*
For one thing, since the Eucharist is in the form of bread and wine, it does take a good amount of faith to acknowledge that it is not bread and wine but the body and blood of Christ.
Click to expand...
Hmm, I actually really like this interpretation. “Coming to me” could refer to coming to the Eucharistic Christ to receive him and “believing in me” could refer to belief in Transubstantiation.

I’ll have to look at other passages in John where Jesus talks about salvation, to see if the vocabulary matches up with my initial intepretation.
  1. Christ’s Church does have the authority to administer rituals that change the standing of people before God.
  2. Coming to and believing in Jesus (standing alone, apart from grace) are not the means of gaining eternal life. These are actually responses to grace (life). Thus Jesus cannot have been speaking figuratively of having faith because faith is a response to having been given life, not a means of gaining life.
  3. The Eucharist is literal food and is literally the Body of Christ
  4. Life can only be had through grace, and because the Eucharist is a means of obtaining grace, Jesus was speaking literally
Click to expand...
(These are individual links)
Click to expand...
Thank you for the links 🙂 I was hoping for something that talked specifically about the Catholic interpretation of John 6:35, and with a quick glance your links don’t seem to offer that. I could be wrong though.

God bless 🙂
 
Yelmajj said:
Thank you for the links 🙂 I was hoping for something that talked specifically about the Catholic interpretation of John 6:35, and with a quick glance your links don’t seem to offer that. I could be wrong though.

God bless 🙂
Click to expand...
Interpretation of a particular verse is a means to an end, the end being understanding of God. In order to even get the idea in your head that the verse is symbolic you would have to start with both the (heresies of) salvation by faith alone and that all of the sacraments are symbolic. That is why I refuted both of those before moving on to what the Eucharist really is.

God bless you too.
 
Yelmajj said:
Hi,

I’d like to start a respectful discussion on the interpretation of the Bread of Life discourse found in John 6. My interpretation differs from the traditional Catholic interpretation but I’m open-minded and would be happy to be persuaded.

My main problem is verse 35: “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.”

It seems that the eating and drinking he is referring to later are metaphors for coming to and believing in Jesus, as opposed to reveiving him in the Eucharist.

How do Catholics interpret this?

God bless
Click to expand...
You make the sola scripturist mistake of taking a verse out of its context. Verse 35 follows the miracle of the muliplication of the loaves and fishes. The people seek out Jesus who tells them in verse 27

“27 Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal.”

The people then say to Jesus:

“'Then what sign do you do, that we may see, and believe you? What work do you perform? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”

So as incredible as it may seem coming just after the multiplication of the loaves and fishes the people are still asking for a sign and refer to their forefathers who ate manna in the dessert. That story was well known to every Jew. Jesus seizes on the opportunity and in verse e2 says to them:

"…“Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.”
 
Let me try this again. I inadvertantly hit the wrong button before I was done with my post.
Yelmajj said:
Hi,

I’d like to start a respectful discussion on the interpretation of the Bread of Life discourse found in John 6. My interpretation differs from the traditional Catholic interpretation but I’m open-minded and would be happy to be persuaded.

My main problem is verse 35: “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.”

It seems that the eating and drinking he is referring to later are metaphors for coming to and believing in Jesus, as opposed to reveiving him in the Eucharist.

How do Catholics interpret this?

God bless
Click to expand...
You make the sola scripturist mistake of taking a verse out of its context. Verse 35 follows the miracle of the muliplication of the loaves and fishes. The people seek out Jesus who tells them in verse 27

“27 Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal.”

The people then say to Jesus:

“'Then what sign do you do, that we may see, and believe you? What work do you perform? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”

So as incredible as it may seem coming just after the multiplication of the loaves and fishes the people are still asking for a sign and refer to their forefathers who ate manna in the dessert. That story was well known to every Jew. Jesus seizes on the opportunity and in verse e2 says to them:

"…“Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.”

The people then ask for this bread in verse 34:

"34 They said to him, “Lord, give us this bread always.”

That then brings us to verse 35 that you cited where Jesus claims to be the bread of life that the people ask for. This is sort of upsetting to the people as verse 41 and 42 indicate. Jesus then rebukes them and then makes the statement in verse 51 that He is the bread come down from heaven and the bread that he speaks of is his flesh. This causes more consternation among the people who are understanding Jesus to be speaking literally and materially [physically] just as the OT manna was literal and material [physical] food. But Jesus doesn’t stop. He literally pours it on in verses 53-58:

“53 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 you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.’”

Jesus knows they are thinking of food as literal and material [physical] food just as the OT manna was literal and material [physical] food. Verse 60 tells us that even some of Jesus’ disciples had a hard time with what He said. Obviously they understood Him like the people did. So Jesus explains it to them. He says His words are spirit and the flesh availeth nothing. Notice He does not say His words were not literal, only that they were spirit. Jesus is speaking of a literal spiritual bread. The manna was an OT prefigurement of the NT Eucharist. The Eucharist is the perfection of what was only hinted at in the OT with the manna. Notice that even some of His disciples still walked away. They still didn’t get it. But Peter does. When asked by Jesus if the apostles want to walk away too Peter responds that Jesus has the words of eternal life. At this point Peter probably does not understand it all but he, at least, has faith enough to go along with it. Then at the Last Supper Jesus takes the bread and says the blessing and announces that this bread is His flesh. I don’t know if Peter fully understood it all then. I tend to doubt it as Peter will go on to deny Christ three times. But there is no doubt that by Pentecost Peter and the others fortified by the Holy Spirit are celebrating the Eucharist as Acts 2:42 tells us. But even before this occurs we have the story of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus where Jesus joins them and explains the scriptures to them yet they do not recognize Him. It is only when Jesus says the blessing and breaks the bread that they know Him. But Jesus disappears and all they have before them is the Eucharist.
 
In order to even get the idea in your head that the verse is symbolic you would have to start with both the (heresies of) salvation by faith alone and that all of the sacraments are symbolic.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. I’ll have you know I don’t believe in salvation by faith alone. Assuming I believe in salvation by faith alone based on my initial interpretation of the Bread of Life discourse would be like assuming that you believe in salvation through the Eucharist alone based on your interpretation. We’re both agreed that having faith or receiving the Eucharist are simply parts of salvation.

Also, my interpretation doesn’t have to spring from my acceptance of certain doctrines like you say. I question all doctrines, Catholic and Protestant, so my reading of the verse was one made without conscious bias, open to being persuaded in either direction.

There is no need for anyone to get defensive and assume I’m forcing sola fide or sola scriptura upon anyone. As my original post states, I’m curious as to the Catholic interpretation of John 6:35. I am completely aware of how they interpret the rest of the chapter, and it seems like a wonderfully sound interpreation, but I don’t undersand how verse 35 fits in.

God bless,
 
That then brings us to verse 35 that you cited where Jesus claims to be the bread of life that the people ask for. This is sort of upsetting to the people as verse 41 and 42 indicate. Jesus then rebukes them and then makes the statement in verse 51 that He is the bread come down from heaven and the bread that he speaks of is his flesh. This causes more consternation among the people who are understanding Jesus to be speaking literally and materially [physically] just as the OT manna was literal and material [physical] food. But Jesus doesn’t stop. He literally pours it on in verses 53-58:
Click to expand...
Thank you for the detailled interpretation, and you talked about Jesus’ words in verse 45 “I am the bread of life”, but my question is moreso about the rest of the verse: “whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.” and how that part fits into your interpretation.

God bless,
 
Jesus taught us;“I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” (JN 6:51)

This is not symbolic, His bread, the Holy flesh, was given for us on the Cross!

From the beginning, the One, Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church has always believed in the Real presence!

Even Luther, the failed priest confirmed, writing; "of all the fathers, as many as you can name, not one has ever spoken about the sacrament as these fanatics do. None of them uses such an expression as, ’ It is simply bread & wine,’ or’ Christ body & blood are not present’ (Luther’s Works (St Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing, 1961) Volume 37, 54.

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus!

mark
 
From the Caetina Auria, is this what you’re looking for?
  1. And Jesus said to them, I am the bread of life: he that comes to me shall never hunger; and he that believes in me shall never thirst.
  2. But I said to you, That you also have seen, and believe not.
  3. All that the Father gives me shall come to me; and him that comes to me I will in no wise cast out.
  4. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
  5. And this is the Father’s will which has sent me, that of all which he has given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
  6. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which sees the Son, and believes in him may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
CHRYS. Our Lord now proceeds to set forth mysteries; and first speaks of His Divinity: And Jesus said to them, I am the bread of life. He does not say this of His body, for He speaks of that at the end; The bread that I will give you is My flesh. Here He is speaking of His Divinity. The flesh is bread, by virtue of the Word; this bread is heavenly bread, on account of the Spirit which dwells in it.

THEOPHYL. He does not say, I am the bread of nourishment, but of life, for, whereas all things brought death, Christ has quickened us by Himself. But the life here, is not our common life, but that which is not cut short by death: He that comes to Me shall never hunger; and, He that believes in Me shall never thirst.

AUG. He that comes to Me, i.e. that believes in Me, shall never hunger, has the same meaning as shall never thirst; both signifying that eternal society, where there is no want.

THEOPHYL. Or, shall never hunger or thirst, i.e. shall never be wearied of hearing the word of God, and shall never thirst as to the understanding: as though He had not the water of baptism, and the sanctification of the Spirit.

AUG. You desire bread from heaven: but, though you have it before you, you eat it not. This is what I told you: But I said to you, that you also have seen Me, and believe not.

ALCUIN. As if He said, I did not say what I did to you about the bread, because I thought you would eat it, but rather to convict you of unbelief. I say, that you see Me, and believe not.

CHRYS. Or, I said to you, refers to the testimony of the Scriptures, of which He said above, They are they which testify of Me; and again, I am come in My Father’s name, and you receive Me not. That you have seen Me, is a silent allusion to His miracles.

AUG. But, because you have seen Me, and believed not, I have not therefore lost the people of God: All that the Father gives Me, shall come to Me; and him that comes to Me, I will in no wise cast out.

BEDE. All, He said, absolutely, to show the fullness of the number who should believe. These are they which the Father gives the Son, when, by His secret inspiration, He makes them believe in the Son.
 
ALCUIN. Whomsoever therefore the Father draws to belief in Me, he, by faith, shall come to Me, that he may be joined to Me. And those, who in the steps of faith and good works, shall come to Me, I will in no wise cast out; i.e. in the secret habitation of a pure conscience, he shall dwell with Me, and at the last I will receive him to everlasting felicity.

AUG. That inner place, whence there is no casting out, is a great sanctuary, a secret chamber, where is neither weariness, or the bitterness of evil thoughts, or the cross of pain and temptation: of which it is said, Enter you into the joy of your Lord.

CHRYS. The expression, that the Father gives Me, shows that it is no accident whether a man believes or not, and that belief is not the work of human cogitation, but requires a revelation from on high, and a mind devout enough to receive the revelation. Not that they are free from blame, whom the Father does not give, for they are deficient even in that which lies in their own power, the will to believe. This is a virtual rebuke to their unbelief, as it shows that whoever does not believe in Him, transgresses the Father’s will. Paul, however, says, that He gives them up to the Father: When He shall have given up the kingdom to God, even the Father. But as the Father, in giving, does not take from Himself, so neither does the Son when He gives up. The Son is said to give up to the Father, because we are brought to the Father by Him. And of the Father at the same time we read, By Whom you were called to the fellowship of His Son. Whoever then, our Lord says, comes to Me, shall be saved, for to save such I took up flesh: For I came down from heaven not to do Mine own will, but the will of Him that sent Me. But what? Have you one will, He another? No, certainly. Mark what He says afterwards; And this is the will of Him that sent Me, that every one which sees the Son, and believes in Him, should have everlasting life. And this is the Son’s will too; For the Son quickens whom He will. He says then, I came to do nothing but what the Father wills, for I have no will distinct from My Father’s: all things that the Father has are Mine. But this not now: He reserves these higher truths for the end of His ministry.

AUG. This is the reason why He does not cast out those who come to Him. For I came down from, heaven not to do Mine own will, but the will of Him that sent Me. The soul departed from God, because it was proud. Pride casts us out, humility restores us. When a physician in the treatment of a disease, cures certain outward symptoms, but not the cause which produces them, his cure is only temporary. So long as the cause remains, the disease may return. That the cause then of all diseases, i.e. pride, might be eradicated, the Son of God humbled Himself. Why are you proud, O man? The Son of God humbled Himself for you. It might shame you, perhaps, to imitate a humble man; but imitate at least a humble God. And this is the proof of His humility: I came not to do Mine own will, but the will of Him that sent Me. Pride does its own will; humility the will of God.

HILARY. Not that He does what He does not wish. He fulfills obediently His Father’s will, wishing also Himself to fulfill that will.
 
AUG. For this very reason therefore, I will not cast out Him that comes to Me; because I came not to do Mine own will. I came to teach humility, by being humble Myself. He that comes to Me, is made a member of Me, and necessarily humble, because He will not do His own will, but the will of God; and therefore is not cast out. He was cast out, as proud; he returns to Me humble, he is not sent away, except for pride again; he who keeps his humility, fails not from the truth. And further, that He does not cast out such, because He came not to do His will, He shows when He says, And this is the Father’s will which has sent Me, that of all which He has given Me, I should lose nothing. Every one of an humble mind is given to Him: It is not the will of your Fatter, that one of these little ones should perish. The swelling ones may perish; of the little ones none can; for except you be as a little child, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

AUG. They therefore who by God s unerring providence are foreknown, and predestined, called, justified, glorified, even before their new birth, or before they are born at all, are already the sons of God, and cannot possibly perish; these are they who truly come to Christ. By Him there is given also perseverance in good to the end; which is given only to those who will not perish. Those who do not persevere will perish.

CHRYS. I should lose nothing; He lets them know, he does not desire his own honor, but their salvation. After these declarations, I will in no wise cast out, and I should lose nothing, He adds, But should raise it up at the last day. In the general resurrection the wicked will be cast out, according to Matthew, Take him, and cast him into outer darkness. And, Who is able to cast both soul and body into hell. He often brings in mention of the resurrection for this purpose: viz. to warn men not to judge of God’s providence from present events, but to carry on their ideas to another world.

AUG. See how the twofold resurrection is expressed here. He who comes to Me, shall forthwith rise again; by becoming humble, and a member of Me. But then He proceeds; But I will raise him up at the last day. To explain the words, All that the Father has given Me, and, I should lose nothing, He adds; And this is the will of Him that has’ sent Me, that every one which sees the Son, and believes in Him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up on the last day. Above He said, Whoso hears My word, and believes in Him that sent Me: now it is, Every one which sees the Son, and believes in Him. He does not say, believe in the Father, because it is the same thing to believe in the Father, and in the Son; for us the Father has life in Himself, even so has He given to the Son to have life in Himself, and again, That whoso sees the Son and believes on Him, should hare everlasting life; i.e. by believing, by passing over to life, as at the first resurrection. But this is only the first resurrection, He alludes to the second when He says, And I will raise him up at the last day.
 
Allow me to reiterate what I’ve said in previous posts,
My main problem is verse 35: “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.”
Click to expand...
As my original post states, I’m curious as to the Catholic interpretation of John 6:35. I am completely aware of how they interpret the rest of the chapter, and it seems like a wonderfully sound interpreation, but I don’t undersand how verse 35 fits in.
Click to expand...
my question is moreso about the rest of the verse: “whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.” and how that part fits into your interpretation.
Click to expand...
God bless,
 
Yelmajj said:
Thank you for the detailled interpretation, and you talked about Jesus’ words in verse 45 “I am the bread of life”, but my question is moreso about the rest of the verse: “whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.” and how that part fits into your interpretation.

God bless,
Click to expand...
Again verse 35 of John 6 is only an introductory verse to the discourse on the bread of life. Jesus goes on to explain it more fully culminating in verses 53-58 where He becomes quite emphatic to the point of some disciples actually walking away. But again, Jesus is speaking spiritually, about spiritual hunger and spiritual thirst. If you come to Jesus He provides you with the sacrament of the Eucharist [His body and blood] to satisfy that hunger and thirst. This is why He says His flesh is real food and His blood real drink. It is real food and drink and gives nourishment to the soul so that one will not experience spiritual hunger nor spiritual thirst anymore.
 
Yelmajj said:
Hi,

I’d like to start a respectful discussion on the interpretation of the Bread of Life discourse found in John 6. My interpretation differs from the traditional Catholic interpretation but I’m open-minded and would be happy to be persuaded.

My main problem is verse 35: “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.”

It seems that the eating and drinking he is referring to later are metaphors for coming to and believing in Jesus, as opposed to reveiving him in the Eucharist.

How do Catholics interpret this?

God bless
Click to expand...
John 6:35-47 is an invitation to faith (eating is believing). John 6:48-58 is an invitation to the Eucharist (believing leads to eating).
 
=Yelmajj;8128916]Hi,
Click to expand...
I’d like to start a respectful discussion on the interpretation of the Bread of Life discourse found in John 6. My interpretation differs from the traditional Catholic interpretation but I’m open-minded and would be happy to be persuaded.
Click to expand...
My main problem is verse 35: “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.”
Click to expand...
It seems that the eating and drinking he is referring to later are metaphors for coming to and believing in Jesus, as opposed to reveiving him in the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
How do Catholics interpret this?
Click to expand...
God bless
Click to expand...
***Hi, and WELCOME TO THE FORUM:)

Your position can only be understood in this precise manner if taken out of the context of the complete discourse. … Not exceeding prudent if actually seeking the true meaning. One does not read the title of a CHAPTER and from it alone surmise the entire message of the authors labors.

Truth is most often discovered by seeking it truthfully, fully, completely and with an open mind and heart.[Prayer helpos too]😃

Logically it seems impossible that one can read Jn. 6: verses 40 to 55 and conclude any metaphorical intent on behalf of Jesus our Lord and Perfect God.

When seeking the truth; IMO, one ought not set the groundrules to suit themselves.

Going from memory here; but does not that verse get introduced or followed by the statement that “I AM the bread of Life that came from heaven.” That is a statement of fact; not a fable, not metaphorical.

God Bless you. I’d be delighted to discusss this verse by verse if you’d care too?

God Bless you, and again WELCOME!***

Pat
 
I sense that the question originally posed centers around the world “Believes” in verse 35 and that Yelmajj’s position is that the Bread of Life discourse is about belief only and not the literal eating of Jesus flesh or transubstatiation.

So let’s look at belief, and what the Jews of that time actually believed.

The widespread belief in Jesus’ time was that the messiah would be the new Moses and that he would initiate a new exodus to a “Heavenly Jerusalem”. The exodus was to be not just a physical movement of people from one place to another but a transformative event in which creation would actually be changed, renewed. Hence the phraseology “Heavenly Jerusalem” and “I saw a new heaven and a new earth” and similar throughout scripture and extrabiblical Jewish writing.

While he was praying his face changed in appearance and his clothing became dazzling white. And behold, two men were conversing with him, Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory and spoke of his exodus that he was going to accomplish in Jerusalem. (Luke 9:29-31)

Part of that transformative exodus which Jesus was to acomplish was a restoration of the manna which the Israelites at in the desert during the first exodus. Manna was believed to be supernatural food stored in heaven from the time when the world was perfect, from the time of Adam and Eve, from the time before sin entered the world.

***Then the LORD said to Moses, "I will now rain down bread from heaven *for you. Each day the people are to go out and gather their daily portion; (Exodus 16:4)

This bread is not metaphorical. It is not symbolic. It is not spiritual. It is physical. It was stored in a jar and put inside the Ark of the Covenant. It was REAL. Jesus echo’s God’s words to Moses in Exodus 16 when he tells us to pray saying “Give us today our daily bread” (Matthew 6:11). Then Jesus tells us…

Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." (John 6:49-51)

Again, this bread is real. It is not symbolic. It is not a metaphor for belief or the Gospel. It is real bread to be eaten. That is what the Jews believed about the messiah, that he was the new Moses who would restore the manna from heaven which they would all eat in the Heavenly Jerusalem. Jesus’ instruction to the Jews to pray “Give us this day our daily bread” would have been immediately recognized by those present as a request to God for supernatural manna from heaven.

The whole history of Jewish ritual around the “Bread of the Face of God” (showbread) which was placed weekly in the holy place in the temple speaks of supernatural bread. Christians don’t realize that men used to go up to the Jerusalem Temple three times each year at the major feasts and the priests would actually bring out the bread from the Holy Place, show them the bread and say, “Behold God’s love for you!” What is more amazing then that is that the priests would eat only a morsel of it and be satisfied. That’s what makes the feeding of the five thousand so magnificent to the Jews. They understood that the priests were satisfied with just a morsel and Jesus’s feeding them bread which satisified them in the same way indicates that Jesus bread is just like that which is placed in God’s very presence in the temple.

Anyone who questions John 6:35 in the context of Catholic interpretation and the word “Believe” must grapple with verses 47 and 48.

Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. (John 6:47-48)

And these references to belief must be placed in the context of the facts about what the Jews at the time actually believed because that is the only way Jesus’ words can be correctly understood. The Jews knew he was talking about manna, and his statment that his he himself was the new manna was shocking - and crystal clear.

-Tim-
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top