The meaning of verse 57 of John 6 (Catholics & Protestants)

[WatchfulPilgrim]

I’ve been following this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=564665
for a while and have been studying the text, the Greek, and reading both Catholic and Protestant commentaries on it. What I haven’t really seen addressed yet is John 6:57

As the living Father hath sent me, andI live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

What is the relationship between both parts of this statement? Jesus seems to be drawing a relationship between Him and the Father and one who eats Him and lives by Him.

What do you think is the significance of this passage, and how does it relate to the context of the rest of John 6?

Thanks!

 

[fermat]

I read it as Jesus = God. We eat the Flesh of Jesus to bring him inside of us, literally and figuratively inside of us. In doing so, we bring God inside of us. We become in communion with God.

 

[Jesus_123]

+Taken in context . . . the meaning is much more easily understood . . . below is the full section of Scripture . . . with comments from the Bishop Challoner Douay-Rheims Version of God’s Holy :bible1: Word . . . it’s all pretty self explanatory . . .

. . . :compcoff: . . .
The Holy :bible1: Bible
Douay-Rheims Version (Bishop Challoner Translation)
John 6:31-60

[31] Our fathers did eat manna in the desert, as it is written: He gave them bread from heaven to eat. [32] Then Jesus said to them: *Amen, amen I say to you; Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. [33] For the **bread of God ***is that which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world. [34] They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread. [35] 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.

[36] *But I said unto you, that you also have seen me, and you believe not. [37] All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will not cast out. [38] Because I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me. [39] Now this is the will of the Father who sent me: that of all that he hath given me, I should lose nothing; but should raise it up again in the last day. [40] And this is the will of my Father that sent me: that every one who seeth the Son, and believeth in him, may have life everlasting, and I will raise him up in the last day. *

[41] The Jews therefore murmured at him, because he had said: I am the living bread which came down from heaven. [42] And they said: Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then saith he, I came down from heaven? [43] Jesus therefore answered, and said to them:* Murmur not among yourselves. [44] No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him up in the last day. [45] It is written in the prophets: And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to me. *

***Comment: ***“Draw him”… Not by compulsion, nor by laying the free will under any necessity, but by the strong and sweet motions of his heavenly grace. [46] Not that any man hath seen the Father; but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father. [47] Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. [48] I am the bread of life. [49] Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. [50]

This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die. [51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven. [52] If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. [53] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? [54] Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

***Comment: ***"Eat the flesh of the **Son of man and drink his blood"… To receive the body and blood of Christ, is a divine precept, insinuated in this text; which the faithful fulfil, though they receive but in one kind; because in one kind they receive both body and blood, which cannot be separated from each other. Hence, life eternal is here promised to the worthy receiving, though but in one kind. Ver. 52. **If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world. Ver. 58. He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. Ver. 59. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.

[56] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. [57]** He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him**. [58] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. [59] This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. [60] These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.​

:compcoff: Link: drbo.org/intro.htm

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You Dear Lord+
. . . thank You Gracious Heavenly Father+
. . . thank You Sweet Spirit of our Holy God+
. . . thank you Blessed Virgin Mary+
. . . Mother of God+
​

 

[InternetWoman]

The RSV/CE has a slightly different translation that I find easier to understand:

As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me

God the Father “generates” God the Son, so Jesus lives “because of the Father.” It is a continuous generation by God the Father and a continuous reception by God the Son. The lover and the beloved.

If we consume the body of God the Son he (Jesus) promises we will live because we have his body within us. Setting up a link similar to that between Jesus and His Father. He will generate life in us.

What an incredible promise!
:bowdown:

 

[Muze]

I’ve been following this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=564665
for a while and have been studying the text, the Greek, and reading both Catholic and Protestant commentaries on it. What I haven’t really seen addressed yet is John 6:57

What is the relationship between both parts of this statement? Jesus seems to be drawing a relationship between Him and the Father and one who eats Him and lives by Him.

What do you think is the significance of this passage, and how does it relate to the context of the rest of John 6?

Thanks!

The eating metaphor in John 6 is set up between verses 27 and 34, where the Israelites make reference to eating manna in the desert which Moses gave to them. This is their challenge to Jesus that they have a covenant with God established in the Torah, and Jesus is responding by saying (effectively) that He is the new Moses with a New Covenant. Jesus has already told them (verses 27-29) to work for the bread that leads to eternal life, which Jesus will give to them by believing in Him.

Now, the Jews pretty clearly miss the point, as they think they’re going to be literally eating Jesus’ flesh, but the larger context points directly to Jesus establishing a New Covenant by His death, burial and resurrection.

So, how do we “eat”? We believe in the Messiah for eternal life. (vv27-29, 40, 47, etc.)

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

All good responses, thank you. Good “food” for thought…

I am torn about how to see this verse (as I am the other verses…).

On one hand, I see a lot of emphasis on belief in this chapter:

27Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you.

29Jesus answered, and said to them: This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he hath sent.

35And 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.

40And this is the will of my Father that sent me: that every one who seeth the Son, and believeth in him, may have life everlasting, and I will raise him up in the last day.

47Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life.

70 And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.

Yet I cannot dismiss the very clear emphasis on eating (the change from phago to trogo):

Eat/phago (literally or spiritually eat):

48I am the bread of life.

49Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead.

50This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.

51I am the living bread which came down from heaven.

52If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

Eat/trogo (munch, gnaw, savoring what is eaten…):

54Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.

55He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

56For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.

57He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.

58As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.

59This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.

As well as the emphasis on REAL flesh and REAL blood in vs 56 (Douay-Rheims)

Now I look at vs 58 and I remember vs 38:

38Because I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me.

It seems to me that this could be a help in understanding 58; that Jesus lives by the Father by doing His will, and we live by Jesus by doing His will. This could mean that “eateth me” in 58 means “doing the will of Jesus”.

I also cannot dismiss this passage at the end of the chapter:

69 And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

Here Peter says Jesus’ words are a source of eternal life. And he further states:

70 And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.

…and now Peter is telling us what his faith is in (after all that talk of eating…), and that is, that Jesus is the Christ.

cont…

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

After doing a little concordance study on what is said about eternal life in the NT, I come up with this:

To gain eternal life:

1. Foresake all for Jesus’ and the gospel’s sake.
2. Love God with all thy heart, soul & strength & mind & love thy neighbor as thyself.
3. Believe in Jesus.
4. Eat His flesh and drink His blood.
5. Believe in God’s Words.
6. Know God’s voice and follow Him.
7. Patient continuance in well doing .
8. To know Him that is true, and to be in Him.

blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=eternal+life&t=KJV

These are not only about belief, nor exclusively about eating, so we could conclude that there is more than one thing needed in order to gain eternal life, one of which would be “eating” (whether literal or spiritual). However, I also notice that most of these things stem from faith (belief) and revolve around doing the will of God in our everyday life.

When I consider this, and the context of John 6 about belief and Jesus as the Christ, it becomes very difficult for me to conclude that literal eating is a requirement for eternal life.

But still thinking…

 

[ESMDHokie77]

Jesus has been sent by the Father. Jesus has life because of the Father. For one to have life also, they must eat the Body of Christ.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Jesus has been sent by the Father. Jesus has life because of the Father. For one to have life also, they must eat the Body of Christ.

Yet when I look at the rest of the chapter (about believing), and consider the things that we are told are required to have eternal life, it’s very hard for me to see literal eating making any sense. All of these promises about eternal life are centered around faith and living out that faith (doing the will of God). It seems much more likely that this eating is believing in Jesus and doing His will. It a literal eating/drinking doesn’t really fit the context of the rest of the chapter, nor does it fit with the other requirements for obtaining eternal life.

 

[zz912]

The eating metaphor in John 6 is set up between verses 27 and 34, where the Israelites make reference to eating manna in the desert which Moses gave to them. This is their challenge to Jesus that they have a covenant with God established in the Torah, and Jesus is responding by saying (effectively) that He is the new Moses with a New Covenant. Jesus has already told them (verses 27-29) to work for the bread that leads to eternal life, which Jesus will give to them by believing in Him.

Now, the Jews pretty clearly miss the point, as they think they’re going to be literally eating Jesus’ flesh, but the larger context points directly to Jesus establishing a New Covenant by His death, burial and resurrection.

So, how do we “eat”? We believe in the Messiah for eternal life. (vv27-29, 40, 47, etc.)

So how do we eat and drink damnation on ourselves by eating a metaphor unworthily?

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

If it is literal eating, and not spiritual eating (believing in Jesus/doing the will of God), then is it possible to have eternal life if we do not believe in Jesus but receive the Eucharist? Or, is it possible to have eternal life if we believe in Jesus, receive the Eucharist, but don’t do God’s will?

I guess I’m trying to figure out to what extent reception of the Eucharist can give eternal life (if it can), because it seems as though this belief in literal eating (Eucharist) makes reception of the Eucharist a matter of salvation, when this is hardly what I see the emphasis being on in the whole of the NT.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

Yet when I look at the rest of the chapter (about believing), and consider the things that we are told are required to have eternal life, it’s very hard for me to see literal eating making any sense. All of these promises about eternal life are centered around faith and living out that faith (doing the will of God). It seems much more likely that this eating is believing in Jesus and doing His will. It a literal eating/drinking doesn’t really fit the context of the rest of the chapter, nor does it fit with the other requirements for obtaining eternal life.

I am hard pressed to think that Jesus would have let thousands desert Him for their difficulty understanding Him if He was speaking of a symbolic eating. That fits the context of the rest of the chapter.

If it is literal eating, and not spiritual eating (believing in Jesus/doing the will of God), then is it possible to have eternal life if we do not believe in Jesus but receive the Eucharist? Or, is it possible to have eternal life if we believe in Jesus, receive the Eucharist, but don’t do God’s will?

I guess I’m trying to figure out to what extent reception of the Eucharist can give eternal life (if it can), because it seems as though this belief in literal eating (Eucharist) makes reception of the Eucharist a matter of salvation, when this is hardly what I see the emphasis being on in the whole of the NT.

The Eucharist IS Jesus. You can’t have One without the Other. To believe in Jesus is to want to do the will of the Father. Yet since that is in the NT you must take it into account, one cannot merely discount part of Scripture for what seems to be a discrepancy, or a topic that isn’t hammered on over and over.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

So how do we eat and drink damnation on ourselves by eating a metaphor unworthily?

I know you didn’t address this to me, but I would think that if the eating and drinking of the Lord’s Supper was a memorial of Christ’s sacrifice, it would be a serious offense to God if we were to take part in it irreverently, as some of the Corinthians were (getting drunk, hording food…). That behavior hardly indicates that one is doing that spiritual eating/drinking of believing in Jesus as the Christ (and His sacrifice) and doing His will.

Even if Jesus did not mean that the bread and wine were literally his body and blood, having referred to them as such, I would assume He also meant that we are to treat them as such; with as much reverence.

Which is something I also ponder. I know of non-Catholics who treat the Communion with such reverence that you would suppose they really did believe it was literally Jesus, whereas there are Catholics who approach the Sacrament of the Eucharist with such disrespect or nonchalance. And I wonder if, in such a case, who is more guilty of eating or drinking unto damnation.

Iow, is it our belief in Jesus and His sacrifice which saves us, or is it our belief that the bread and wine turn into Jesus? Is the former really that which the NT places emphasis on?

 

[Tomster]

Refuting post #5 (above).

We assume here that Christ, like any speaker, wished to be understood by His hearers. Supposing, then, that His expressions were metaphorical and not literal, how would the Jews have understood them?

Even Protestant philologists admit that “to eat the flesh of some one” had but one metaphorical meaning among the Jews, namely, “to hate someone intensely.”

Similarly, “to drink one’s blood” had only one metaphorical meaning for the Jews, namely, “to punish some one severely.”

Hence the Jews, if they had understood the words of Christ metaphorically, would have thought that he meant: “Unless you detest the Son of Man and inflict severe punishment upon Him, you shall not have life in you.” The absurdity of this meaning is evident. Therefore our Lord did not speak metaphorically.

 

[Muze]

So how do we eat and drink damnation on ourselves by eating a metaphor unworthily?

The manner in which we partake of the elements defines its worthiness, in the case of the Corinthians, they were excluding the poor, eating without waiting for all to be present, and getting drunk in the process. (last I checked, blood didn’t have a high alcohol content.)

 

[Tomster]

Refuting post #5 (above).

We assume here that Christ, like any speaker, wished to be understood by His hearers. Supposing, then, that His expressions were metaphorical and not literal, how would the Jews have understood them?

Even Protestant philologists admit that “to eat the flesh of some one” had but one metaphorical meaning among the Jews, namely, “to hate someone intensely.”

Similarly, “to drink one’s blood” had only one metaphorical meaning for the Jews, namely, “to punish some one severely.”

Hence the Jews, if they had understood the words of Christ metaphorically, would have thought that he meant: “Unless you detest the Son of Man and inflict severe punishment upon Him, you shall not have life in you.” The absurdity of this meaning is evident. Therefore our Lord did not speak metaphorically.

Muze,

Care to respond? I believe you were the author of post # 5.

 

[Muze]

Refuting post #5 (above).

We assume here that Christ, like any speaker, wished to be understood by His hearers. Supposing, then, that His expressions were metaphorical and not literal, how would the Jews have understood them?

Actually, the Jews were specifically blinded to their Messiah.

Matt 13:10Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” 11And he answered them, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 13This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

Notice that Jesus does NOT speak to them in order to be understood, but rather so that they wouldn’t.

Even Protestant philologists admit that “to eat the flesh of some one” had but one metaphorical meaning among the Jews, namely, “to hate someone intensely.”

(Which is what the Jews did.)

Similarly, “to drink one’s blood” had only one metaphorical meaning for the Jews, namely, “to punish some one severely.”

(Which is what the Jews did.)

Hence the Jews, if they had understood the words of Christ metaphorically, would have thought that he meant: “Unless you detest the Son of Man and inflict severe punishment upon Him, you shall not have life in you.” The absurdity of this meaning is evident. Therefore our Lord did not speak metaphorically.

Unless they were repeating the metaphor back to him.

 

[Tomster]

Actually, the Jews were specifically blinded to their Messiah.

Matt 13:10Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” 11And he answered them, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 13This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

Notice that Jesus does NOT speak to them in order to be understood, but rather so that they wouldn’t.

(Which is what the Jews did.)

(Which is what the Jews did.)

Unless they were repeating the metaphor back to him.

The Jews had no doubt about our Lord’s meaning. This is clear from their question (v 53):
“How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”

Now it is a principle of common sense that those who hear an entire sermon understand more plainly the speaker’s meaning than others who read fragments of the sermon afterwards. The Jews, however, were present at our Lord’s sermon. They heard it all. Yet they were convinced that our Lord meant that He would give them His own physical body to eat.

If Christ had meant only a metaphorical eating of His flesh by the stirring up of faith, the Jews would not have protested. They would have comprehended the “how” of this easily enough. But they could not understand “how” Christ could give them His physical body to eat. They were prototypes of the Rationalists who refuse to believe anything they cannot understand. The Jews had no doubt about our Lord’s meaning, but not comprehending how he could accomplish such a marvel, they refused to believe it. Just like you.

Protestantism = Rationalism

 

[Muze]

The Jews had no doubt about our Lord’s meaning. This is clear from their question (v 53):
“How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”

It’s also clear from Matt 13 and John 12 that Jesus didn’t intend to speak so they could understand.

(I noticed that you ignored being refuted on that point)

Now it is a principle of common sense that those who hear an entire sermon understand more plainly the speaker’s meaning than others who read fragments of the sermon afterwards. The Jews, however, were present at our Lord’s sermon. They heard it all. Yet they were convinced that our Lord meant that He would give them His own physical body to eat.

Except that the bible stands in direct opposition to your “Common Sense”, because Jesus’ purpose isn’t to have them understand, but rather to be hearing, but never understanding. Again, you ignored my cite of Matthew 13, which clearly stands opposed to you.

If Christ had meant only a metaphorical eating of His flesh by the stirring up of faith, the Jews would not have protested. They would have comprehended the “how” of this easily enough. But they could not understand “how” Christ could give them His physical body to eat. They were prototypes of the Rationalists who refuse to believe anything they cannot understand. The Jews had no doubt about our Lord’s meaning, but not comprehending how he could accomplish such a marvel, they refused to believe it. Just like you.

Oh… so… if the Jews had understood, then they’d have turned and followed Him, and He would have forgiven them? Did you bother to read Matthew 13? How about John 12?

Your rationalist argument here falls apart when we actually take into consideration what JESUS says about His own mission and about preaching to the Jews.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

I am hard pressed to think that Jesus would have let thousands desert Him for their difficulty understanding Him if He was speaking of a symbolic eating. That fits the context of the rest of the chapter.

There are many instances where people did not understand Jesus. Jesus had not always explained himself either when they misunderstood - like when He said “destroy this temple and I will raise it again in 3 days”. It is likely that Jesus let them go because they didn’t trust that there was a deeper meaning to his words, whereas the apostles stayed, b/c, as Peter said, He has the words of everlasting life, and they (or at least he…) believe He is the Christ. Those who left clearly did not believe these 2 things. Looked at in this way, it looks like those who left already had such weak faith that all it took was a “hard saying” to reveal their lack of faith. In fact, Jesus starts off by saying that they came looking for Him b/c he filled their bellies. He revealed already that He knew the condition with which they approached Him - that of having the physical needs met. It reveals their carnal nature - they were not spiritually-minded.

The Eucharist IS Jesus. You can’t have One without the Other. To believe in Jesus is to want to do the will of the Father. Yet since that is in the NT you must take it into account, one cannot merely discount part of Scripture for what seems to be a discrepancy, or a topic that isn’t hammered on over and over.

Agreed. And likewise, I cannot dismiss the fact that Jesus tried to help them understand what the eating and drinking He meant was right at the beginning with vs

35And 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.

And although Jesus hammers on over and over again about eating and drinking His flesh and blood, I cannot discount that part about coming to Jesus in faith.