The Symbolism of John 6

[bibleapologist]

While everyone is concentrating on John 6, we also need to think about something else that was touched on earlier in this thread; that being the Passover meal and sacrifices.

What you have just shown is that the Seder meal, and the Lord’s supper are symbolic events that remind us of a deeper truth.

The Seder meal foretold the coming salvation in Christ, while the Lord’s supper that we participate in today “remind” us of what Christ has done for the world, and in us personally.

BA

 

[LuvHim]

In John 6:63…

John 6:63 KJV 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Isn’t Christ saying…you need to look at this from a spiritual perspective and not a physical or carnal perspective? He was responding to their questioning and murmuring for they were repulsed at the idea of actually eating his flesh and drinking his blood…literally…

John 6:60-61 KJV 60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

So, then he said…

John 6:63 KJV 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Certainly, he was not speaking of the giving of his body on the cross when he spoke of “the flesh” in John 6:63 (as Mr. Carson seems to insinuate at the beginning of this thread)…the giving of his flesh was necessary for our salvation - the flesh in that sense profits us greatly, but again, he was correcting them that they might not take these statements in from a physical or carnal standpoint (which would cause one to think of eating his literal flesh and drink his literal blood). Note, again, he was referring to the words that he was speaking…He is speaking of a spiritual intake of Christ.

The Bible many times over speaks of “eating the word of God” but we are not really eating the words…it is our spiritual food and all by faith (believing). And Jesus was called the Word of God…John 1:1. In this same context, Jesus says…

John 6:47 KJV 47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

It seems to me, when we come to faith and continue in faith, and we are constantly entering in the most Holy Place through the veil, which is His flesh and by His blood for continual confession and repentance…

Hebrews 10:19-20 KJV 19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, 20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

…and also, remembering His great sacrifice at the Lord’s Supper. What a great thing - to remember and meditate on His great sacrifice on the cross…this is a spiritual feast!

I looked at my mother’s Catholic Bible, New American Bible, St. Joseph’s Edition today and, it agreed with the information that I shared above. Jesus says in John 6:62 - His words are spiritual - referring to a spirtual eating and drinking and not literal.

 

[Linkowski]

In John 6:63…

John 6:63 KJV 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Isn’t Christ saying…you need to look at this from a spiritual perspective and not a physical or carnal perspective? He was responding to their questioning and murmuring for they were repulsed at the idea of actually eating his flesh and drinking his blood…literally…

John 6:60-61 KJV 60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

So, then he said…

John 6:63 KJV 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Certainly, he was not speaking of the giving of his body on the cross when he spoke of “the flesh” in John 6:63 (as Mr. Carson seems to insinuate at the beginning of this thread)…the giving of his flesh was necessary for our salvation - the flesh in that sense profits us greatly, but again, he was correcting them that they might not take these statements in from a physical or carnal standpoint (which would cause one to think of eating his literal flesh and drink his literal blood). Note, again, he was referring to the words that he was speaking…He is speaking of a spiritual intake of Christ.

The Bible many times over speaks of “eating the word of God” but we are not really eating the words…it is our spiritual food and all by faith (believing). And Jesus was called the Word of God…John 1:1. In this same context, Jesus says…

John 6:47 KJV 47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

It seems to me, when we come to faith and continue in faith, and we are constantly entering in the most Holy Place through the veil, which is His flesh and by His blood for continual confession and repentance…

Hebrews 10:19-20 KJV 19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, 20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

…and also, remembering His great sacrifice at the Lord’s Supper. What a great thing - to remember and meditate on His great sacrifice on the cross…this is a spiritual feast!

I looked at my mother’s New American Bible, St. Jospeh’s Edition and found it to agree with the position above. Jesus was speaking about eating and drinking from a spirtual standpoint and not from a literal, physical standpoint.

 

[bibleapologist]

I looked at my mother’s New American Bible, St. Jospeh’s Edition and found it to agree with the position above. Jesus was speaking about eating and drinking from a spirtual standpoint and not from a literal, physical standpoint.

This is exactly the position I have tried to prove in this article.

gideonsword.net/articles/BibleDoctrineandTheology/BDTarticles/thebreadoflife.htm

BA

 

[Mannyfit75]

I looked at my mother’s New American Bible, St. Jospeh’s Edition and found it to agree with the position above. Jesus was speaking about eating and drinking from a spirtual standpoint and not from a literal, physical standpoint.

In essence, when we receieved the Body and Blood of the Lord; it does in a way become our spiritual drink, and it is also real presence of Christ, the Lord.

Like this Mass;

Liturgy of the Eucharist

Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made.
It will become for us the bread of life.
Blessed be God forever.

By the mystery of this water and wine may we come to share in the divinity of Christ, who humbled himself to share in our humanity.
Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands. It will become our spiritual drink.

 

[bibleapologist]

In essence, when we receieved the Body and Blood of the Lord; it does in a way become our spiritual drink, and it is also real presence of Christ, the Lord.

Like this Mass;

Liturgy of the Eucharist

Kind of like the sacrifice of Cain. Remember God was displeased with Cain’s sacrifice… but he honored Abel’s sacrifice.

The difference between Cain’s sacrifice and Abel’s was the portion of the Eucharist Liturgy I bolded above.

Cain’s sacrifice was provided by himself and was the fruit of the land. Abel’s sacrifice was a living animal which God provided.

BA

 

[Mannyfit75]

Kind of like the sacrifice of Cain. Remember God was displeased with Cain’s sacrifice… but he honored Abel’s sacrifice.

It isn’t a sacrifice of Chain. The Mass symbolizes the sacrifice at the Cross in an unbloody manner, since that Jesus’ death at the cross is once and for all.

The difference between Cain’s sacrifice and Abel’s was the portion of the Eucharist Liturgy I bolded above.

Cain’s sacrifice was provided by himself and was the fruit of the land. Abel’s sacrifice was a living animal which God provided.

BA

I would be careful to place judgement on Mass.

 

[bibleapologist]

It isn’t a sacrifice of Chain. The Mass symbolizes the sacrifice at the Cross in an unbloody manner, since that Jesus’ death at the cross is once and for all.

The sacrifice for sin has ALWAYS been provided by God. Anything else is nothing more than a golden calf (so to speak).

I would be careful to place judgement on Mass.

I don’t respect the sacrament of mass… but I will keep my personal feelings to myself… I will only expose the invalidity of it here.

I worship God in Spirit and in Truth

“John 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.”

I have no desire to emulate that “true worship” with a fruitless act of religion such as the mass.

BA

 

[Mannyfit75]

The sacrifice for sin has ALWAYS been provided by God. Anything else is nothing more than a golden calf (so to speak).

I don’t respect the sacrament of mass… but I will keep my personal feelings to myself… I will only expose the invalidity of it here.

I worship God in Spirit and in Truth

“John 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.”

I have no desire to emulate that “true worship” with a fruitless act of religion such as the mass.

BA

Fine let us continue the discussion of John 6 then. Though I shall be headed out to go to Mass… I’ll catch up with you later.

 

[VociMike]

Kind of like the sacrifice of Cain. Remember God was displeased with Cain’s sacrifice… but he honored Abel’s sacrifice.

The difference between Cain’s sacrifice and Abel’s was the portion of the Eucharist Liturgy I bolded above.

Cain’s sacrifice was provided by himself and was the fruit of the land. Abel’s sacrifice was a living animal which God provided.

Wow, the things one learns here! So now the fruit of the land is not alive, is not provided by God also?

You have just invented a distinction between Cain’s offering and Abel’s which has no basis in scripture, in order to continue your battle against the hard saying of Christ.

 

[bibleapologist]

Fine let us continue the discussion of John 6 then. Though I shall be headed out to go to Mass… I’ll catch up with you later.

Agreed.

While you’re at mass, I will concentrate on preparing my sermon for tomorrow.

Maybe I will preach on Gen. 22:1-13 and how Isaac typified Christ.

“Gen 22:8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.”

BA

 

[Eden]

Firstly, I see that the fact that the words chosen by St. John in Greek, “sarx” and “trogo” are going to be ignored because the implication is obvious. There is no doubt that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Christ. You won’t find one Christian within the first 500 years A.D. who believed otherwise. If you do the math, that means that when the Canon was set, there is not one Christian who was recorded as believing the Eucharist was symbolic.

Secondly, Vatican II identifies the Mass as follows: ***“At the Last Supper, on the night He was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of His Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the Cross throughout the centuries until he should come again, and so to entrust to His beloved spouse, the Church, a memorial of His death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us. (Sacrosanctum Concilium)” ***

Thirdly, and this is key: Non-Catholics believe that John 6:53 is merely a symbol and not the actual presence of Christ. If Jesus were truly a symbol, then** verse 27 through 29 in 1 Cor. 11 **would not make sense. In this verse Paul states:

**(1 Cor. 11:27-29) **"***Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." ******But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. ***

This is from Fr. Mitch Pacwa:

anawim.pair.com/CATHOLICS/CATHOLIC%20MASS.htm

So, if we add up these elements** 1)** St. John used the Greek words sarx (literally flesh) and trogo (literally to gnaw, munch) which are never used figuratively 2) No Christian, before or at the time that the Canon was set (and John 6 chosen as an inspired writing), believed that the Eucharist was symbolic (I can provide documentation from early Christians who discussed the fact that the Eucharist was truly the Body and Blood of Christ) 3) 1 Cor. 11:27-29 makes absolutely no sense if we are talking about a symbolic body and blood, someone who is being intellectually honest cannot deny the fact that those who believe the Eucharist is symbolic are wrong.

 

[Eden]

Let’s look again at how absurd John 6 reads when we interpret the body and blood as symbolic:

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 a cracker which will symbolize my flesh, for the life of the world.

53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us a cracker to eat as symbol of his flesh ?

54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, Amen I say unto you: Except you eat **a cracker which is a symbol of **the flesh of the Son of man, and drink grape juice as a symbol of his blood, you shall not have life in you.

55 He that eateth a cracker which is a symbol of my flesh , and drinketh grape juice which is a symbol of my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

56 For a cracker as symbol of my flesh is meat indeed: and grape juice as a symbol of my blood is drink indeed.

57 He that eateth a cracker as a symbol of my flesh, and drinketh **grape juice as a symbol **of 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 in symbolic form as crackers and grape juice, 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 which is symbolic crackers and grape juice, shall live for ever.

60 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.

61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying that we must eat crackers and drink grape juice to symbolize his Body and Blood is hard, and who can hear it?

62 But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you to hear me say that you must to eat crackers and drink grape juice as a symbol of my Body and Blood?

63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth:the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. 65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him. 66 And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. 67 After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him. 68 Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? 69 And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 70 And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.

 

[bibleapologist]

Wow, the things one learns here! So now the fruit of the land is not alive, is not provided by God also?

You have just invented a distinction between Cain’s offering and Abel’s which has no basis in scripture, in order to continue your battle against the hard saying of Christ.

Let me ask you then VM… why did God not have respect unto Cain’s offering? Since you say that there is no distinction between Cain’s and Abel’s offering.

I doubt you will have an answer… so here is my reply…

Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed [is] the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat [of] it all the days of thy life;
Gen 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return.

The key is found in verses 18 and 19. This was the curse on man for the sin committed in the garden. And by the “sweat of thy face” is what it takes to grow plants and till the ground.

Cain’s offering was a proud offering of what he had done. Abel’s offering was not what he had done, but was provided by God and had nothing to do with the curse of labor that is associated with tilling the ground and farming.

The Eucharistic liturgy exclaims the pride and arrogance of Cain’s offering… and God does not have respect unto it.

BA

 

[Eden]

Kind of like the sacrifice of Cain. Remember God was displeased with Cain’s sacrifice… but he honored Abel’s sacrifice.

The difference between Cain’s sacrifice and Abel’s was the portion of the Eucharist Liturgy I bolded above.

Cain’s sacrifice was provided by himself and was the fruit of the land. Abel’s sacrifice was a living animal which God provided.

BA

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the Church’s greatest prayer. In it, Jesus Christ becomes present and offers Himself in love to the Father as He did on the Cross almost 2,000 years ago.

Although the Sacrifice of the Mass and Jesus’ Sacrifice on Calvary are the SAME, there are important DIFFERENCES in these two actions of Christ. On the Cross, Our Lord offered Himself in a BLOODY MANNER; whereas, in the Holy Mass, He offers Himself in an UNBLOODY MANNER. **This in no way implies that Jesus’ Blood is no longer present in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It simply means that Jesus chooses to act in a different way at Mass than He did on the Cross. **

Source: Catholic Truth for Youth, by Father Robert J. Fox, Published by Ave Maria Institute, Copyright 1978, Washington, N.J. 07882, ISBN: 09265429, Lesson 12, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, page 121.

 

[bibleapologist]

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the Church’s greatest prayer. In it, Jesus Christ becomes present and offers Himself in love to the Father as He did on the Cross almost 2,000 years ago.

Although the Sacrifice of the Mass and Jesus’ Sacrifice on Calvary are the SAME, there are important DIFFERENCES in these two actions of Christ. On the Cross, Our Lord offered Himself in a BLOODY MANNER; whereas, in the Holy Mass, He offers Himself in an UNBLOODY MANNER. **This in no way implies that Jesus’ Blood is no longer present in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It simply means that Jesus chooses to act in a different way at Mass than He did on the Cross. **

Heb 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

BA

 

[Randy_Carson]

Heb 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

BA

Amen! Catholics love those verses as they do the entire Word of God.

Is there a question?

 

[VociMike]

Let me ask you then VM… why did God not have respect unto Cain’s offering? Since you say that there is no distinction between Cain’s and Abel’s offering.

I didn’t say any such thing. You need to have better comprehension. What I did say is that the distinction you claim is nowhere to be found in the account.

I doubt you will have an answer… so here is my reply…

Then you doubt wrong. Be more careful next time.

A good possibility, actually supported by scripture (unlike your assertion) is that God knew that evil was brewing in Cain’s heart.

*6: The LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen?
7: If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is couching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.” *

Obviously, as we see in the next verse, Cain did not master it.

BTW, I hope you do know that grain offerings to the Lord were actually prescribed in the OT, so they could hardly be displeasing in and of themselves to God.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Kind of like the sacrifice of Cain. Remember God was displeased with Cain’s sacrifice… but he honored Abel’s sacrifice.

The difference between Cain’s sacrifice and Abel’s was the portion of the Eucharist Liturgy I bolded above.

Cain’s sacrifice was provided by himself and was the fruit of the land. Abel’s sacrifice was a living animal which God provided.

BA

Forgive me for interrupting, but could you clarify for me exactly why the one was acceptable to God and the other was not?

Thanks in advance.

 

[bibleapologist]

Forgive me for interrupting, but could you clarify for me exactly why the one was acceptable to God and the other was not?

Thanks in advance.

Post #64

BA