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

[japhy]

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?

First, Jesus was speaking prophetically. He prophesied his passion, death, and resurrection several times, even though he hadn’t suffered, died, and been raised yet.

Second, pointless hypothetical since that didn’t happen. Not even the disciples who remained with him started chewing on him. But they did stick around for the Last Supper, when Jesus showed them how they can eat his flesh and drink his blood.

 

[wgsullivan]

Isn’t the belief of the conservative Lutheran church consubstantiation? The wafer does not actually change but Christ is with, in, and under… The wafer remains bread?

 

[TLM08]

John 6 isn’t concerning the Eucharist.

Biblically speaking you are right. John 6 has nothing to do with the last supper.The Bread of Life discourse Jesus gave in John 6 was the result of a crowd of freeloaders looking for a free meal. They wanted manna like the Israelites had in the desert. Sprinkled in the crowd was some true believers and disciples. Jesus was rebuking those who were focused only on filling their stomachs and not seeking eternal life through belief in him.

Jesus even tries to get their mind off of physical eating of his body by telling them that he was taking his body to heaven with him:

"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!” John 6:61-62

 

[TLM08]

"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us…"John 1:14

Eating his flesh could very easily be tied in with filling ourselves with his words as well.

“But he said to them, “I have food to eat that you know nothing about.”
Then his disciples said to each other, “Could someone have brought him food?”
My food,” said Jesus, "is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work."
John 4:32-34

Here, Jesus refers to his “food” or (as the Douay Rhiems puts it), “meat” is “doing the will of God”.

Eating his flesh means to believe in Him and do the will of God. This has nothing to do with consuming his flesh under the appearance of a wafer.

 

[ryanoneil]

How can the Eucharist be a sacrifice if the final sacrifice was Jesus?

Jesus wasn’t bleeding after the resurrection, yet He entered into heaven taking His own blood (Heb 9:12) This is because He entered into the heavenly sanctuary to mediate the covenant of His body and blood by eternally offering it to the Father. This offering is made present to us in the same manner as Melchizedek’s offering, under the appearance of bread and wine.

The blood of Christ offered in heaven purifies (present tense) our consciences from dead works to serve the living God, because Christ’s offering is ongoing. (Heb. 9:14)

Jesus’ sacrifice, which is presented eternally to the Father in heaven, is described as “sacrifices” (in the plural) in the context of its re-presentation on earth (Heb. 9:23). The author first writes about the earthly sacrifices of animals, and then the earthly offerings of Jesus Christ’s eternal sacrifice.

 

[SanctiDominici]

John 6 isn’t concerning the Eucharist.

That was a very good argument! You convinced me!

Lay Fraternities of St Dominic
St Joseph Province
USA

 

[steve_b]

"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us…"John 1:14

Eating his flesh could very easily be tied in with filling ourselves with his words as well.

*“But he said to them, “I have food to eat that you know nothing about.” *
*Then his disciples said to each other, “Could someone have brought him food?” *
My food," said Jesus, "is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.”
John 4:32-34

Here, Jesus refers to his “food” or (as the Douay Rhiems puts it), “meat” is “doing the will of God”.

That’s HIS food. Next He tells us the food He will give US to eat.
tlm:

Eating his flesh means to believe in Him and do the will of God.

If that was it, then all those followers wouldn’t have left Him. They already believed in Him or they wouldn’t be following Him. The day before they saw the miracle, and they had been fed the loaves and fish. They have no problem being told to do the will of God. What do you think Jesus was teaching them while He fed them verbally AND with bread and fish?
TLM:

This has nothing to do with consuming his flesh

Then:

all those disciples wouldn’t have said to Jesus “that’s a hard statement, who could listen to it”. And they left Him. Jesus ratchetted up His teaching from the day before. He was giving them the height and summit of His gospel message. And they couldn’t accept it.
tlm:

under the appearance of a wafer.

Mt, Mk, and Lk, have the last supper and the consecration and changing bread and wine into His body and blood. John has the bread of life discourse, which gives the explanation of why we eat His body and blood.

Those followers knew exactly what Jesus was talking about. And it offended them and they left Him. John writes, that Jesus knew in advance those who wouldn’t believe. And norice, Jesus let them go. He didn’t go after them and He didn’t clarify Himself further with them. He said all He needed to say. Instead He put the question to His apostles and said, are you going to leave me too?

The bread of life discourse was another way Jesus further seperated the weeds from the wheat.

 

[Deacon2006]

The Flesh = earthly sensation and rationality

His Flesh = the spiritual nourishment of faith, the new manna, the bread of Life ie The Eucharist

Spirit and Life = Heavenly Master Plan of salvation given of the Father in the Sacraments of the Church

To know the history of the Church is to know the Eucharist, to take a story of the Eucharist to deny the Eucharist is to join those who earthly walked away with the devil, Judas, into their spiritual death.

God Bless

 

[NotWorthy]

Eating his flesh means to believe in Him and do the will of God. This has nothing to do with consuming his flesh under the appearance of a wafer.

Hmmmm… The symbolic meaning of “eating one’s flesh” is to revile and loathe that person. This is evidenced in the Psalms and in Galatians.

I think the symbolic meaning would even have confused the Jews even more than the literal. THAT’S why they had so much trouble pickin’ up what Jesus was puttin’ down.

 

[benedictus2]

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?

Here is something I posted on another thread to reconcile John 6 with the institution of the Eucharist.

Think about it, there they were at table then Jesus says: Take and eat this is my Body, …drink this is my blood." Nowhere in the synoptic Gospels does Jesus prepare them for this moment. They would have thought what do you mean this is my Body… this is my blood. And yet after He did this, the apostles just went along with it without question.

But because one year earlier around passover time, He gave them that discourse which they did not understand either (same with those who left ), then during the Last Supper, the penny would have dropped. Something like: So this is what He meant when He said my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed, He was not really talking about cannibalistic ritual.

The institution of the Eucharist will not make sense without the Bread of Life discourse.

Picture the synoptic Gospels by themselves and this section does ot make sense. Take John 6 without the synoptic account and it does not make sense either because John does not have an institution of the Eucharist. Having told the apostles to eat His Body and drink His blood, He fails to give them the wherewithal to do that.

I think God willed it this way so that we will know that we need all four Gospels to truly understand the full import of the Eucharist.

 

[benedictus2]

"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us…"John 1:14

Eating his flesh could very easily be tied in with filling ourselves with his words as well.

*“But he said to them, “I have food to eat that you know nothing about.” *
*Then his disciples said to each other, “Could someone have brought him food?” *
My food," said Jesus, "is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.”
John 4:32-34

Here, Jesus refers to his “food” or (as the Douay Rhiems puts it), “meat” is “doing the will of God”.

Eating his flesh means to believe in Him and do the will of God. This has nothing to do with consuming his flesh under the appearance of a wafer.

Nope. Nowhere in John 6 can “flesh” be read in any other way than flesh.

But to EAT HIS FLESH is indeed doing the WILL OF GOD because this is God’s expressed will, that we eat His flesh

Also take note of the verse that you quote above. Jesus says "I’ have food to eat… HIS food is to do the will of the Father. Our food is Him and in eating Him we do the Will of the Father.

He says if you want to do the will of the Father believe in the one He sent. To believe in the one the Father sent is to believe that Jesus meant exactly what He said, that His Flesh and Blood are true food and true drink.

That is why he insisted we believe in Him first before He went on with the discourse. Only when we believe in Him can we accept what He is saying. If we don’t believe in Him then we will find His saying too hard to swallow (no pun intended) as well and we will walk away the same way the other disciples did.

 

[Randy_Carson]

"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us…"John 1:14

Eating his flesh could very easily be tied in with filling ourselves with his words as well.

*“But he said to them, “I have food to eat that you know nothing about.” *
*Then his disciples said to each other, “Could someone have brought him food?” *
My food," said Jesus, "is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.”
John 4:32-34

Here, Jesus refers to his “food” or (as the Douay Rhiems puts it), “meat” is “doing the will of God”.

Eating his flesh means to believe in Him and do the will of God. This has nothing to do with consuming his flesh under the appearance of a wafer.

Just because Jesus refers to His “food” in one passage as “doing the will of God”, it does not follow that He means the same thing when referring to “real food” elsewhere.

This is a logical fallacy.

Even if we were to accept your premise, all we have learned is that JESUS’ food is to do the will of God and that OUR food is His flesh which He gives for the life of the world.

Jesus did not say, “YOUR food is to do the will of God…”

C’mon…

 

[PJM]

=KarlAdam;5599235]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.

John 6; 40-60, Mt. 26:26-28, Mk.14:22-24, Lk.22:19-21, 1 Cor.11: 23-28 That friend is PROOF Positive that Jesus is really in the Eucharist!

***They could only do by ignoring this and similar verses: ***John 6:51 “51 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.” That seems pretty clear!

***Your point of Christ not saying in this quoted verse is excellent!

Here is the Haydock’s Comentary on v 64: Ver. 64. The flesh profiteth nothing. Dead flesh, separated from the spirit, in the gross manner they supposed they were to eat his flesh, would profit nothing. Neither doth man’s flesh, that is to say, man’s natural and carnal apprehension, (which refuses to be subject to the spirit, and words of Christ) profit any thing. But it would be the height of blasphemy, to say the living flesh of Christ (which we receive in the blessed sacrament, with his spirit, that is, with his soul and divinity) profiteth nothing.* For if Christ’s flesh had profited us nothing, he would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in the flesh for us. — Are spirit and life. By proposing to you a heavenly sacrament, in which you shall receive, in a wonderful manner, spirit, grace and life. These words sufficiently correct the gross and carnal imagination of these Capharnaites, that he meant to give them his body and blood to eat in a visible and bloody manner, as flesh, says St. Augustine, is sold in the market, and in the shambles; but they do not imply a figurative or metaphorical presence only. The manner of Christ’s presence is spiritual and under the outward appearances of bread and wine; but yet he is there truly and really present, by a change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of his body and blood, which truly and really become our spiritual food, and are truly and really received in the holy sacrament.**

Love and prayers

 

[jpk1313]

The statment that john 6 is not about the eucharist becuse jesus had not put it in place yet is foolish considering we are talking about jesus who is god! He has no beging and no end he lives in eternaty so when he was kicking adam and eve out of the garden, talking to abraham, leading the people out of egypt, guiding davids arm against golith, being born by the holy virgin, being nailed to the cross, raising up from the dead and going up to heaven has happened is happening and will happen. in other words all time is reletive to god since he lives in all times and places as far as he is concerned speaking “let there be light” way back at the beginging and wiping away all tears at the end is now happening time is meaningless to the one who is beyond time.

 

[NotWorthy]

The statment that john 6 is not about the eucharist becuse jesus had not put it in place yet is foolish considering we are talking about jesus who is god! He has no beging and no end he lives in eternaty so when he was kicking adam and eve out of the garden, talking to abraham, leading the people out of egypt, guiding davids arm against golith, being born by the holy virgin, being nailed to the cross, raising up from the dead and going up to heaven has happened is happening and will happen. in other words all time is reletive to god since he lives in all times and places as far as he is concerned speaking “let there be light” way back at the beginging and wiping away all tears at the end is now happening time is meaningless to the one who is beyond time.

Correct.

Chapter 6 has two audiences:

1. The actual witnesses to Jesus words. Here, Jesus is foreshadowing. They have no clue what He is talking about, and react to His words in varying ways.
2. The readers of John’s Gospel. These readers should be familiar with the Eucharist already and see the deeper meaning behind Jesus’ Words. Sort of like knowing the ending to a book as you read it!

But to both audiences, Chapter 6 is certainly about the Eucharist!

 

[PJM]

=jpk1313;5635949]The statment that john 6 is not about the eucharist becuse jesus had not put it in place yet is foolish considering we are talking about jesus who is god! He has no beging and no end he lives in eternaty so when he was kicking adam and eve out of the garden, talking to abraham, leading the people out of egypt, guiding davids arm against golith, being born by the holy virgin, being nailed to the cross, raising up from the dead and going up to heaven has happened is happening and will happen. in other words all time is reletive to god since he lives in all times and places as far as he is concerned speaking “let there be light” way back at the beginging and wiping away all tears at the end is now happening time is meaningless to the one who is beyond time.

Did not Jesus Himself aslo say: “Do this in memory of Me.” Furture tense?

One has to be REALLY obstinate not to accept John 6: 40-66, Mt. 26:26-28, Mk.14: 22-24,Lk. 22: 19-21, 1 Cor. 11:23-26 and look also at v. 27-28. Would not, could not not make such a statement if he was speaking of just ordinary bread and wine!

READ Jn. 6:40-66 God can’t lie! *** 2nd. Thess 1: 8 * inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at in all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed"

2 Tim. 3:16 “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” **

Verse 17 is a primary reason John 6 has to be true!

Love and prayers,