"the flesh is of no avail" (John 6:63): Is John 6 really about the Eucharist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter KarlAdam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

KarlAdam

Guest
At the end of the Bread of Life Sermon Jesus states: “It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail.” Some see this as proof that Jesus is not speaking about the Eucharist. However Jesus says, “the flesh is of no avail”, not “my flesh is of no avail.”

Prof. Barber does an excellent job in this short video of dealing with this argument against the Eucharistic interpretation of John 6.
 
It is certainly not proof against the Eucharist. “The flesh” is a term in the time of Jesus that mean human wants/feelings/desires that are not elevated by God’s grace. There are many clear examples showing the true meaning, and showing the Jesus is NOT refering to His own flesh.
 
John 6 isn’t concerning the Eucharist. 🙂
To say that, you must obviously be unaware of all the other biblical and historical evidence supporting the Eucharist. Not even counting the repeated and crystal clear words of Jesus Himself! As the guy in the aforementioned video puts it, what more does He need to say? “The bread is really really my flesh?”

**Jesus’ words are far too explicit and strong to be concerning a mere symbol. **
 
John 6 isn’t concerning the Eucharist. 🙂
TristanCross, I was under the understanding that, while you discerned Catholicism and did not convert, that you remained a Lutheran. If this is so (please correct me if I am mistaken), you do realize that the Lutheran Church teaches the Real Physical Presence of Christ in their Eucharist?

God bless you
 
I never said Jesus wasn’t present in the Eucharist. Don’t jump the gun. I simply said that John 6 isn’t speaking of the Eucharist.

First, the Eucharist wasn’t even instituted yet. Second, if people started eating Jesus alive at that moment, would He be able to blame them?
 
John 6 isn’t concerning the Eucharist. 🙂
Rubbish.

THIS IS MY BODY, THIS IS MY BLOOD
A Catholic Understanding of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

by Randy Carson

In the sixth chapter of John, Jesus makes the following statement: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If a man eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” Jn 6:51 (all scripture quotations from the NIV)

Just exactly what did Jesus mean when he said, “this bread is my flesh”? Ironically, Protestants who claim that the bible is literally true from Genesis to Revelation refuse to accept the literal meaning of this passage because it conflicts with what they want to believe. However, the true meaning of Jesus’ words can be illustrated from the reaction of the crowd who heard his teaching with their own ears, from the infallible word of God contained in the New Testament, and from the writings and teachings of the early Church.

Reaction of the Eyewitnesses

Speaking before a crowd assembled at a synagogue in Capernaum, Jesus delivered a teaching that has divided the Catholic and Protestant churches since the time of the Reformation. 1500 years earlier, his words had a similarly divisive effect on the audience who heard it for the very first time.

In John 6:52 we read: “Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’” Why were they arguing? If they understood Jesus to be speaking metaphorically, then there would have been hardly an eyebrow raised. For example, on other occasions, Jesus said, “I am the gate for the sheep” (Jn 10:7) and “I am the true vine” (Jn 15:1) but the listeners easily discerned that Jesus was using metaphors in these examples. By contrast, an argument did break out when Jesus said, “this bread is my flesh,” indicating that those in the crowd held different opinions about what he meant. Some said, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat? He’s crazy!” while others may have responded, “Of course he can’t do that…his words must have a symbolic meaning!” The one group rejected Jesus’ ability to give us his body and blood as real food and drink while the other missed his true meaning altogether. Either way, the crowd was divided.

Of course, Jesus knew what they were saying amongst themselves, and if it was merely his intent to draw a symbolic parallel between his flesh and the bread of heaven, he could have put an end to their misunderstanding immediately. Instead, Jesus further clarified and emphasized the true meaning of his words by declaring,

“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. Our 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.” (Jn 6:53-58)

Rather than quieting the crowd which had broken out into arguments about what he had just told them, Jesus pressed his point home even more emphatically: “my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.” In fact, whereas he had initially said positively, ”If a man eats of this bread, he will live forever,” now he has just stated the negative result of failing to do so: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” Thus, Jesus has clarified his meaning by stating what happens if we do – and do not – eat his flesh and drink his blood.

The next verse is particularly revealing: “On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” (Jn 6:60) Notice that it was not Jesus’ typical enemies, the Pharisees and Sadducees, who rejected his teaching on this occasion but his disciples – those believers who followed him from place to place and hailed him as the Messiah. They had seen Jesus perform many miracles and heard him teach wondrous things. But this was too much even for them.

“Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said this 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.” Jn 6:61-64

Not only does Jesus continue to uphold the literal meaning of his teaching, but also he presses even further by asking that if this bothers them, what will they do when they see him ascend to heaven? Protestants do not deny the ascension of the resurrected Jesus, yet here Jesus places two key truths side by side. He is saying, in effect, “If eating my flesh causes you theological problems, just wait until you see what else I have planned…you ain’t seen nothing yet!”

(cont.)
 
The gospel continues: “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.” Jn 6:66-69

There is a lot going on in these three verses; let’s look at them closely. After hearing Jesus declare that his flesh is real food and his blood is real drink, his disciples, his followers, could not accept his words and no longer followed him. Of course, if they had understood that his body and blood were being used as symbols, they would have had no complaint. It was precisely because they understood exactly what Jesus meant that they refused to follow him any longer. Therefore, there can be no doubt as to what the eyewitnesses understood Jesus to be saying.

Now, imagine the scene: Jesus has been teaching a crowd, and many of them have gotten up to leave because they could not or would not accept his words. In rejecting his teaching, they rejected the one who gave it and turned their backs on the savior of the world. Thus, their souls were at risk of eternal separation from God. Jesus came to seek and save what was lost; therefore, if these disciples had a simple misunderstanding of the metaphorical language he had used that might cause them to spend eternity in Hell, Jesus would have corrected their error. But we do not see him following them out the door and down the street saying, “Wait, everyone. I think there’s been a misunderstanding … let me explain what I meant.” **Jesus could not correct a misunderstanding because there had been none. **

Instead, he watched sadly as they departed and then turned to the Twelve, the closest of his disciples, and put the question directly to them: “What about you? Are you leaving too?” In doing so, Jesus was risking everything he had been working for since he had first called Simon and Andrew to follow him by the shore of the Sea of Galilee. If the Twelve had abandoned him at this crucial moment, Jesus would have had to begin again with a new group of Apostles to whom he would entrust his teachings and upon whom he would build his church. By God’s grace, Simon Peter, the first among the Apostles, responded in faith acknowledging that Jesus is the Holy One of God and accepting this difficult teaching.

Grasping at Straws: John 6:63

“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken are spirit and they are life.”(John 6:63)

These words were spoken by Jesus shortly after delivering his teaching on the Eucharist, and some people claim that they indicate that Jesus was speaking figuratively when he commanded us to eat his body and drink his blood. However, this would be a misunderstanding of what Jesus meant when he said,“the flesh counts for nothing.”

First, notice that whenever Jesus referred to his own body and blood, he said"my flesh"or"the flesh of the Son of Man". Here are the examples:

“This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” (John 6:51)

"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.” (John 6:53-56)

At this point, the narrative explains that the disciples were on the verge of revolt over this teaching. Jesus tells them that they cannot understand this teaching with their natural minds. Here is the verse in context: “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.’” (John 6:60-63)

In John 6:63, Jesus uses the phrase “the flesh” instead of “my flesh” or “the flesh of the Son of Man” because he is not talking about his own body; he is referring to natural man. Man is a tripartite being composed of Spirit, Soul (or mind) and Body/Flesh. Our flesh is that created, corruptible part of us; the spirit is that which is capable of relating to God and receiving his revelation, and the mind/soul is the union of spirit and body. Here are some scriptures that illustrate this:

“Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit, soul and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Thessalonians 5:23)

“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being nephesh – soul].” (Genesis 2:7) (dust is the body, breath of life - pneuma - is the spirit, living being is the soul).

Jesus tells the grumbling Jews (who can’t understand how he would give them his flesh to eat) that they cannot grasp it with their natural minds because it is a mystery beyond the ability of “the flesh” to understand. This is the same manner of speaking used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 2 & 3 when he is distinguishing between fleshly or carnal Christians and those who are discern the things of God with their spirits.

Second, it might be worth noting the obvious fact that Jesus cannot be saying that HIS own flesh “counts for nothing” otherwise his death upon the cross would be meaningless. Instead, we know that his own body, his flesh, was broken and pierced for our sake; no Christian would deny that. Therefore, since HIS flesh does count for something, he must have been referring to “flesh” other than his own in v. 63.

Thus, the one verse that many Protestants cling to as an argument against the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist does not mean what they falsely claim it means.
 
Isn’t the NIV Bible a “heretic” Bible?

How can the Eucharist be a sacrifice if the final sacrifice was Jesus? And why should I worship the Eucharist?
 
A. Yes, the NIV is a heretical Bible.

B. The Eucharist is not a new sacrifice, but rather, a way of going back in time to Jesus’ one, single, eternal sacrifice.

C. I do not worship the wafer itself, but I worship Jesus, which it becomes.
 
Isn’t the NIV Bible a “heretic” Bible?
It is a Protestant translation that suffers from some rather significant theological bias.
How can the Eucharist be a sacrifice if the final sacrifice was Jesus?
Because the Eucharist IS Jesus, and the sacrifice of the mass is not a NEW sacrifice but the actual sacrifice of Christ made present.
And why should I worship the Eucharist?
You worship Jesus.
The Eucharist is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus.
Therefore, you should worship the Eucharist.
 
I never said Jesus wasn’t present in the Eucharist. Don’t jump the gun.
I didn’t mean to jump the gun. I was simply looking for clarification. It is interesting though, for someone to affirm Christs presence in the Eucharist and not believe that John 6 concerns that belief. Even a little.

God bless you
 
In addition to Randy Carson’s excellent case, here are some more scriptural examples showing what “the flesh” really means:

( 1 Corinthians 2:14-3:4) The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. “For who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ. But I, brethren, could not address you as spiritual men, but as men of the flesh, as babes of Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food; for you were not ready for it; and even yet you are not ready, for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh, and behaving like ordinary men? For when one says, “I belong to Paul,” and another, “I belong to Apollos,” are you not merely men?

(Romans 8:1-13) 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 set their minds on the things of the Spirit. To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, indeed it cannot; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh, you are in the Spirit, if the Spirit of God really dwells in you. Any one who does not have the spirit of Christ does not belong to him.
 
I never said Jesus wasn’t present in the Eucharist. Don’t jump the gun. I simply said that John 6 isn’t speaking of the Eucharist.

First, the Eucharist wasn’t even instituted yet. Second, if people started eating Jesus alive at that moment, would He be able to blame them?
Have you watched the video? Your concern is addressed in that video. You are thinking exactly like the disbelieving Jews, when Jesus said the “flesh is of no avail.” Jesus was NOT talking about eating him alive at that moment, that is why he said the “flesh is of no avail.” He did NOT fully reveal the mystery of the Eucharist at this point in time, but when he did reveal it in full (at the Last Supper) all of his doctrine that preceded it (when so many of his disciples, lacking in Faith, left him,) was finally made clear to the Apostles. 😉
 
It is very hard to believe how many people still do not believe in the wonderful mystery that is the Eucharist.
 
At the end of the Bread of Life Sermon Jesus states: “It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail.” Some see this as proof that Jesus is not speaking about the Eucharist. However Jesus says, “the flesh is of no avail”, not “my flesh is of no avail.”

Prof. Barber does an excellent job in this short video of dealing with this argument against the Eucharistic interpretation of John 6.
I think it’s possible to say that this verse is not part of the Bread of Life discourse due to verse 59:

59 This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caperna-um.”

Here it seems like the discourse has ended and they are moving on to a different subject. The new subject I would say they are discussing is faith. The subject made evident by verse 64, “But there are some of you that do not believe.” This is just a suggestion though, what do you guys think? I know that they start talking about His teaching in verse 60, but wouldn’t it be ok to believe that verse 63 is suggesting that it is impossible for the flesh alone to have faith to accept a teaching like this? So what do you guys think?
 
Isn’t the NIV Bible a “heretic” Bible?

How can the Eucharist be a sacrifice if the final sacrifice was Jesus? And why should I worship the Eucharist?
Yes it is, but He uses it because it is accepted by most, if not all Protestant denominations. People find it easier to believe something in Scripture if it comes from a translation they trust. If he used a Catholic translation, Protestants would shrug it off and think “meh, that’s just what the Catholic Bible says.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top