Transubstantiation and John 6

[jim1130]

Yes, that seems most logical. The Jewish people had received visits from heaven in the past, so this would have been nothing new to the devout believers in the Old Testament. The implications were that Jesus was saying he was one of three beings:

1. 
   *]Elijah, who was taken up into heaven.
   *]An angel who was sent by God.
   *]God himself in human form.
   
   While (3) might have been hard to swallow, (1) and (2) would likely have been thought possible to his disciples, I think. In fact, when Jesus asked his disciples, “Who do you say I am?” one of them explained that some people believed he was Elijah returned from heaven.
   
   He did not make it clear–at least not in John 6–that he meant (3) so it seems to me this was not cause for a mass desertion of his disciples.

1. 
   When Peter answered to Jesus that He (Jesus) had the words to every lasting life, some non-Catholics read that as proof Jesus spoke figuratively.
   
   But as one follows the John 6 discouse, it is more interpreted as faith of the Apostles to follow Jesus while not understanding all he taught. The Apostles did not understand what Jesus meant, but they were willing to continue to follow him.

 

[spockrates]

When Peter answered to Jesus that He (Jesus) had the words to every lasting life, some non-Catholics read that as proof Jesus spoke figuratively.

But as one follows the John 6 discouse, it is more interpreted as faith of the Apostles to follow Jesus while not understanding all he taught. The Apostles did not understand what Jesus meant, but they were willing to continue to follow him.

True. So then, I suppose it is not a bad thing if Protestants don’t understand what Jesus meant, but still follow him outside the Catholic Church. But I’m thinking it’s better to understand him and follow him withing the true Church. What do you think?

 

[in_servitude]

Actually, I had definition (1) in mind, as given at this link:

dictionary.reference.com/browse/symbol?s=t

sym·bol

[sim-buhl] noun, verb, sym·boled, sym·bol·ing or ( especially British ) sym·bolled, sym·bol·ling.

noun

1. something used for or regarded as representing something else; a material object representing something, often something immaterial; emblem, token, or sign.
2. a letter, figure, or other character or mark or a combination of letters or the like used to designate something: the algebraic symbol x; the chemical symbol Au.
3. a word, phrase, image, or the like having a complex of associated meanings and perceived as having inherent value separable from that which is symbolized, as being part of that which is symbolized, and as performing its normal function of standing for or representing that which is symbolized: usually conceived as deriving its meaning chiefly from the structure in which it appears, and generally distinguished from a sign.

Definition (1) allows for a symbol to have a significance other than what it represents. An example: A wedding ban can have a duel-significance. It can have a monetary significance, as the gold from which it is made has monetary value. It can also have a symbolic significance, as it represents the unending love for the one to whom the one wearing it is married.

So… the Eucharist, the Passover, the eating of the lamb, this has significance not because it real food - but because it represents something else. It isn’t THE THING - it represents THE THING. In order for your definition to make sense in the case of the Eucharist, you must have to believe that the spiritual world is something conceptual. But, it is not conceptual. It is as real as your soul.

I’m thinking the sacrificial lambs had a duel-significance: First, they had a non-symbolic significance. For their blood protected the Jewish people from the plague that killed the firstborn sons of the Egyptians. Second, they had a symbolic significance. For they represented Christ who would come as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. What do you think, my new friend?

What do I think? The spiritual world is as real as the physical world. To say that the eating the lamb is a symbol denies the reality of the spiritual world. That is to say, when you receive the Eucharist, you are just going through some kind of motion that isn’t doing anything in and of itself. You are not participating in anything spiritual. In your view, it is just an intellectual exercise. I totally reject that kind of teaching.

That, if I am to have life within me, I am to eat the flesh of Christ, and drink his blood. And, in the same way as the Jews experienced, I will be freed of the spiritual bondage that I am in into spiritual freedom.

John 1:29

The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.

The Jews celebrated Passover repeatedly - and everyone knows what it means to eat the lamb. In John 6, we are told by Jesus to eat his flesh. John 1: “Behold the Lamb of God.” John 6: “Eat his flesh.” Trying to say that the Eucharist is simply symbolic misses the whole point of the Passover. The Jews had to eat the lamb to be saved physically. Today, we have to eat the Eucharist to be saved spiritually. It is not an intellectual exercise.

 

[jim1130]

True. So then, I suppose it is not a bad thing if Protestants don’t understand what Jesus meant, but still follow him outside the Catholic Church. But I’m thinking it’s better to understand him and follow him withing the true Church. What do you think?

There seems to be quite a bit of evidence that identifies Jesus as speaking literally. The modern day Protestantism seems to think that Jesus was speaking figuratively and that the Last Supper was a parting meal.

One reason I believe some interpret it as figurative because the idea is not plausible, but I recall that Jesus said with God all things are possible.

So why would it not be possible?

 

[spockrates]

So… the Eucharist, the Passover, the eating of the lamb, this has significance not because it real food - but because it represents something else. It isn’t THE THING - it represents THE THING. In order for your definition to make sense in the case of the Eucharist, you must have to believe that the spiritual world is something conceptual. But, it is not conceptual. It is as real as your soul.

Yes, that is the view many Protestants take. Sacrificing and eating lambs, goats, birds and bulls did not save the Jewish people. The sacrificial lambs were symbols of the lamb to come who would take away the sins of the world. As evidence, they quote Hebrews, among other passages:

3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. 4 It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:

“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7 Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, my God.’”[a]

8 First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered in accordance with the law. 9 Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

(Hebrews 10)

What do I think? The spiritual world is as real as the physical world.

Yes, I agree.

To say that the eating the lamb is a symbol denies the reality of the spiritual world. That is to say, when you receive the Eucharist, you are just going through some kind of motion that isn’t doing anything in and of itself. You are not participating in anything spiritual. In your view, it is just an intellectual exercise. I totally reject that kind of teaching.

I didn’t say it is my view, though it used to be mine at one time. But please explain: Why would eating a passover lamb, and believing the lamb is a symbol of the Christ to come, deny the reality of a spiritual state of existence?

That, if I am to have life within me, I am to eat the flesh of Christ, and drink his blood. And, in the same way as the Jews experienced, I will be freed of the spiritual bondage that I am in into spiritual freedom.

John 1:29

The Jews celebrated Passover repeatedly - and everyone knows what it means to eat the lamb. In John 6, we are told by Jesus to eat his flesh. John 1: “Behold the Lamb of God.” John 6: “Eat his flesh.” Trying to say that the Eucharist is simply symbolic misses the whole point of the Passover. The Jews had to eat the lamb to be saved physically. Today, we have to eat the Eucharist to be saved spiritually. It is not an intellectual exercise.

The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"

(John 1:29)

I think the difference of opinion between many Protestants and Catholics is over what caused God to forgive sins. Was it the killing of the lamb, or the eating of it? Was it the crucifixion of Christ, or the eating of him? Can you see how a Protestant might read John the Baptist’s words and think he meant the killing of the Lamb of God, rather than the eating of him would take away the sins of the world?

 

[spockrates]

There seems to be quite a bit of evidence that identifies Jesus as speaking literally. The modern day Protestantism seems to think that Jesus was speaking figuratively and that the Last Supper was a parting meal.

One reason I believe some interpret it as figurative because the idea is not plausible, but I recall that Jesus said with God all things are possible.

So why would it not be possible?

Yes, of course anything that is not illogical, or out of character for God is not impossible for God.



But for me, it was not faith in God, or the Catholic Church that led me to see how the Eucharist might really be the Real Presence of Christ. Instead, it was reason and wisdom. Those Catholics, who were more wise than me reasoned with me and helped me see what they could see and I could not. Faith, so to speak was not my salvation–wisdom was. For I had to know what the truth was before I could believe it. See what I’m saying?

 

[jim1130]

Yes, of course anything that is not illogical, or out of character for God is not impossible for God.



But for me, it was not faith in God, or the Catholic Church that led me to see how the Eucharist might really be the Real Presence of Christ. Instead, it was reason and wisdom. Those Catholics, who were more wise than me reasoned with me and helped me see what they could see and I could not. Faith, so to speak was not my salvation–wisdom was. For I had to know what the truth was before I could believe it. See what I’m saying?

Yes, you make perfect sense. I learn a lot from others. Some of the philosophical rhetoric is way over my head.

 

[spockrates]

Yes, you make perfect sense. I learn a lot from others. Some of the philosophical rhetoric is way over my head.

Yes, much of it is over my head, too. But it helps to ask people who know more than me questions.

 

[spockrates]

Jim and everyone:

Thanks for the thoughtful dialog. When I start doubting I’m on the right track by returning home to the Catholic Church, discussions like these help remind my why I am.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[inkaneer]

There seems to be quite a bit of evidence that identifies Jesus as speaking literally. The modern day Protestantism seems to think that Jesus was speaking figuratively and that the Last Supper was a parting meal.

One reason I believe some interpret it as figurative because the idea is not plausible, but I recall that Jesus said with God all things are possible.

So why would it not be possible?

There is ample evidence that the early church also took Jesus to be speaking literally. People such as Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp who were disciples of the Apostle John as well as Justin Martyr and others all taught of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Now to those protestants who claim otherwise I ask them to name one early church writer who holds the protestant position that the Eucharist is not the Body and Blood of Jesus. Of course there aren’t any such early church writers so protestants will say the early church drifted into error and was only corrected during the so called “Reformation”. But then the protestants will have to explain how the church could possibly drift into dogmatic error when Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would guide it into all truth… Was Jesus lying or was guiding ‘into all truth’ just figurative???

 

[in_servitude]

Yes, that is the view many Protestants take. Sacrificing and eating lambs, goats, birds and bulls did not save the Jewish people.

Well, it did save them (physically) at the first exodus. The sacrifice and eating did actually physically save them. The second exodus is spiritual (which is exactly just as real as the physical) which requires the eating - just like John6 says.

The sacrificial lambs were symbols of the lamb to come who would take away the sins of the world. As evidence, they quote Hebrews, among other passages:

3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. 4 It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:

“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7 Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, my God.’”[a]

8 First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered in accordance with the law. 9 Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

(Hebrews 10)

Catholics benefit from the one-time sacrifice on the altar in every Mass - the perfect and unblemished lamb. That sacrifice, contained in the Eucharist, is what sets us spiritually free from sin. There is nothing sufficient that we could do or offer that would be a sufficient sacrifice for our sin. Only the sacrifice of the Lamb of God is sufficient.

But please explain: Why would eating a passover lamb, and believing the lamb is a symbol of the Christ to come, deny the reality of a spiritual state of existence?

No. I say that calling the Eucharist a “symbol” - and not something spiritually real - is a serious problem. The lamb eaten at the first exodus was not an intellectual exercise. The physical eating made a physical change in their status as slaves.

I think the difference of opinion between many Protestants and Catholics is over what caused God to forgive sins. Was it the killing of the lamb, or the eating of it? Was it the crucifixion of Christ, or the eating of him? Can you see how a Protestant might read John the Baptist’s words and think he meant the killing of the Lamb of God, rather than the eating of him would take away the sins of the world?

Well, it was not until discussing this thread that I put my finger on something. When people say that the Eucharist is a symbol, I think that they are missing the spiritual component. It is as if there is NOTHING happening spiritually. It is just an exercise to help us remember something from a long time ago. That’s not a correct understanding.

I WAS Protestant for most of my life. I’m in the Church now for only 7 years. My family of origin is still (very) Protestant. Spiritually speaking - they seem highly diminished to me. I think I have a better way to discuss this with them now.

Thanks for the discussion. To modify your Spock Quote: “Live Eternally and Prosper in the Kingdom!”

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Jim1130,

It is truly amazing - Jesus stuck to His original statements - even though many walked away in apparent disgust at what was just said.

What has always amazed me is that those closest to Him - actually believed Him! And, then … those who immediately followed - right up to the end of the Apostolic Age! And, it still continued - all the way through the Early Church Fathers. If there was going to be confusion, and misunderstood statements - surely they would have come sometime prior to 500AD.

God bless

There seems to be quite a bit of evidence that identifies Jesus as speaking literally. The modern day Protestantism seems to think that Jesus was speaking figuratively and that the Last Supper was a parting meal.

One reason I believe some interpret it as figurative because the idea is not plausible, but I recall that Jesus said with God all things are possible.

So why would it not be possible?

 

[spockrates]

Well, it did save them (physically) at the first exodus. The sacrifice and eating did actually physically save them. The second exodus is spiritual (which is exactly just as real as the physical) which requires the eating - just like John6 says.

Catholics benefit from the one-time sacrifice on the altar in every Mass - the perfect and unblemished lamb. That sacrifice, contained in the Eucharist, is what sets us spiritually free from sin. There is nothing sufficient that we could do or offer that would be a sufficient sacrifice for our sin. Only the sacrifice of the Lamb of God is sufficient.

No. I say that calling the Eucharist a “symbol” - and not something spiritually real - is a serious problem. The lamb eaten at the first exodus was not an intellectual exercise. The physical eating made a physical change in their status as slaves.

Well, it was not until discussing this thread that I put my finger on something. When people say that the Eucharist is a symbol, I think that they are missing the spiritual component. It is as if there is NOTHING happening spiritually. It is just an exercise to help us remember something from a long time ago. That’s not a correct understanding.

I WAS Protestant for most of my life. I’m in the Church now for only 7 years. My family of origin is still (very) Protestant. Spiritually speaking - they seem highly diminished to me. I think I have a better way to discuss this with them now.

Thanks for the discussion. To modify your Spock Quote: “Live Eternally and Prosper in the Kingdom!”

If you think it will help, I’d be glad to discuss it further. If your family members are Evangelical, or Baptist, or even Calvinist, you will not be able to convince them apart from using scripture. Ideally, you will want a biblical passage that clearly says eating the lamb was not only required, but was also the cause of the temporal salvation of the Jewish people. We can take a closer look at Exodus together, if you like.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Cinette,

I do not think you were surprised that the ‘100 summary of John 6’ would be ingnored and dismissed. I wasn’t.

But, for those who claim that they know and understand John 6, here is my 100 word summary (I used the word count feature of M/S Word). I challenge anyone who doubts the Real Presence to come up with one better.

A 100 Word Summary of John 6

This Chapter consists of 72 verses divided as follows: v01-15 Jesus travels across the Sea of Galilee and feeds the 5,000 with five loaves and two fish, v16-21 Jesus walks on the water during a storm, tells His Apostles not to be afraid and their boat immediately arrived at its destination and, v22-72 Jesus challenges those who followed him to believe in Him and announces that if we are to have eternal life we must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. The Jews understood what Jesus said, rejected this teaching and walk away. Peter believed, Judas did not believe.

This is just a summary of what is actually written and has no interpretation. My hypothesis is that those who do not believe in the Real Presence - that Jesus Christ really did give us His Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity to eat will simply not be able to summarize what is actually written. As I see it, providing a summary of any written text is a real test of simple comprehension. So, let’s see what happens…

God bless

*Oh man! I just did a word count on this post and it is 314! You are playing games with us. You are not serious my friend!

:banghead::tsktsk:*

 

[Cinette]

Hi, Cinette,

I do not think you were surprised that the ‘100 summary of John 6’ would be ingnored and dismissed. I wasn’t.

But, for those who claim that they know and understand John 6, here is my 100 word summary (I used the word count feature of M/S Word). I challenge anyone who doubts the Real Presence to come up with one better.

A 100 Word Summary of John 6

This Chapter consists of 72 verses divided as follows: v01-15 Jesus travels across the Sea of Galilee and feeds the 5,000 with five loaves and two fish, v16-21 Jesus walks on the water during a storm, tells His Apostles not to be afraid and their boat immediately arrived at its destination and, v22-72 Jesus challenges those who followed him to believe in Him and announces that if we are to have eternal life we must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. The Jews understood what Jesus said, rejected this teaching and walk away. Peter believed, Judas did not believe.

This is just a summary of what is actually written and has no interpretation. My hypothesis is that those who do not believe in the Real Presence - that Jesus Christ really did give us His Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity to eat will simply not be able to summarize what is actually written. As I see it, providing a summary of any written text is a real test of simple comprehension. So, let’s see what happens…

God bless

*I have only just seen this post. In fact I received no alert but decided to visit the thread anyway - just in case, as this has happened before. To tell you the truth I really got tired of spock… He is a “yes…but” person and I got so tired of his old song “there’s a hole in my bucket…my bucket…” I must pray for patience.

*

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Cinette,

In the last analysis, either we accept Christ as a little child - and that means there is no ‘…yes, but…’ or we don’t. We all have free will and it is our responsibility to cooperate with the Grace of God as we learn more about our Faith - and develop a rightly formed conscience.

Don’t lose heart - I think everyone of this thread deserves prayers - beginning with me!

God bless

*I have only just seen this post. In fact I received no alert but decided to visit the thread anyway - just in case, as this has happened before. To tell you the truth I really got tired of spock… He is a “yes…but” person and I got so tired of his old song “there’s a hole in my bucket…my bucket…” I must pray for patience.

*

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

John 6:53-56
Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, 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 them 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 them.

Quoting these verses on their own without reference to Jesus’ previous statements can lead to the Catholic position on the Eucharist, but we must look at the whole chapter.

In verse 35, Jesus says:
I am the bread of Life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst

At verse 40, he says further:
For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

Verse 47:
Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life.

(my emphasis added throughout)

Jesus makes it clear that belief is the what is required for eternal life. There is no mention here that anything else is needed. Please look again at verse 35:
“I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.

Obviously, Jesus is using the words ‘hungry’ and ‘thirsty’ symbolically in this verse; we all know that believers in Jesus still get hungry and thirsty for real food and drink. Jesus is saying that, when it comes to our eternal life, belief in Christ will satisfy us (in our spiritual hunger and thirst). So since Jesus is not using these words literally here, we can understand the scriptures that follow it are to be understood in this light. For instance, verse 51:
I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

Jan

I.
I would submit that the structure and dynamic of the narrative in Jn 6 make it quite clear that the meaning in 6:52-59 is literal.

The discourse of Jesus in Jn 6 has two parts. Both are important:
(A) vv 35-50 – Jesus, the bread of life, nourishing us in His TEACHING and in our personal RELATIONSHIP with Him in faith.
–a transition in v 51 - “and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”
(B) vv 52-58 – Jesus, the bread of life, nourishing us as the true Passover Lamb, who gives His slain body and spilled blood for the life of the world.

In both (A) and (B) as elsewhere in his gospel John uses the protests of “the Jews” as foils to stress Jesus affirmative, literal meaning.

In the case of (A), in 6:41 he narrates that “the Jews” challenge how Jesus can have come down from heaven; and John also recounts Jesus’ affirmative, literal answer (6:43-50, esp. v 46) which comports with His same teaching elsewhere (e.g., Jn 1:18; 3:13,31).

We than transition in 6:51 from the first part to the second part.

Again in (B) the pointed protestations of “the Jews” (6:52) serve as a foil for Jesus’ affirmative, literal answer (6:52-58) that is nothing short of in your face as to its meaning. He says it 6 times in 7 verses–that we must eat his body and drink his blood.

It should be noted that “the Jews” also protest Jesus’ statement that Abraham saw His day and was glad (8:56). The author again narrates Jesus’ affirmative, literal response (8:58-59). Later these are “the Jews” who also want to stone Jesus in protest for saying He and the Father are one (10:30-31). He again goes on to give a literal, affirmative response (10:32-39). In all these cases (including 6:41,52) “the Jews” understood exactly what Jesus meant.

Back to Jn 6, next the evangelist notes that even some of Jesus’ “disciples” were perplexed (6:60) and He responds by asking if this teaching “shocks” them, and then says something else that He will literally do: ascend into heaven. And then the gospel writer comments that because of this teaching many of Jesus’ disciples left (v 66). Even this did not cause Jesus or the evangelist to allegorize or apologize.

II.
I would also point out that both Jesus and John can characterize a statement as figurative quite clearly when that is indeed the case: either explicitly (re the temple in 2:21, the gate in 10:6, and a woman in labor in 16:25, 29) or in other ways (6:32-35; 11:11-14). Yet there is no mention of metaphor, symbol, parable, or figure in 6:52-63. Also in Jn the word “spirit” is not used to characterize a statement as figurative.

III.
This text is viewed by RCs today in the same context as the ECFs and Ecumenical Councils: Tradition and Church together with Scripture handing on the word of God.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Fr of Jazz,

Excellent!

Just from a practical stand-point, it has always seemed to me that to make the argument that Christ words were just a confusing metaphor that the Jews misunderstood - one has to simply ignore several realities:

1.) Statements by St. Paul that taking the Eucharist unworthily puts one liable for the Blood of Christ. (1Cor 11 veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/1_Corinthians_11 )

2.) But, there is a lot more from Scriptuere to show us that this was no metaphor - here is a statement from the US Catholic Bishops that - if one is going to claim this is a metaphor, then in honesty, you will need to address these Biblical authors: usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/resources-for-the-eucharist/the-real-presence-of-jesus-christ-in-the-sacrament-of-the-eucharist-basic-questions-and-answers.cfm

3.) And, then it would seem that if this was just a metaphor - people hundreds of years after the Last Supper would have seen through this and simply rejected it as nonsense - but the Early Church Fathers embrased the idea of such intamacy with Christ. Beginning with Ignatius of Antioch in 110AD to John of Damascus in 743AD we have a consistent set of statements affirming that the Consecrated Bread and Wine is really the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. Here is a link: prounafides.blogspot.com/p/early-church-fathers-and-eucharist.html

4.) Actually for 1,600 years we have had the unified teaching of the Catholic Chruch that has never waivered from this doctrine. It is only when we the Protestant revolt took place - and they realized that if they split from Rome they would have no one who would be able to validly say the words of consecration - because they would have no priests - and they bolted from the Church of Christ. What we are witnessing are the fruits of 500 years of division, splintering, contradictions between competing groups and chaos.

So, I guess if you are willing to believe the traditions of men, reject the clear statements of Christ - and the teachings of His Church - you can believe any story you want. Ultimately, we will all be held accountable for not only what we believed but how we o used our free will tresponded to that belief through the Grace of God.

God Bless

I.
I would submit that the structure and dynamic of the narrative in Jn 6 make it quite clear that the meaning in 6:52-59 is literal.

The discourse of Jesus in Jn 6 has two parts. Both are important:
(A) vv 35-50 – Jesus, the bread of life, nourishing us in His TEACHING and in our personal RELATIONSHIP with Him in faith.
–a transition in v 51 - “and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”
(B) vv 52-58 – Jesus, the bread of life, nourishing us as the true Passover Lamb, who gives His slain body and spilled blood for the life of the world.

In both (A) and (B) as elsewhere in his gospel John uses the protests of “the Jews” as foils to stress Jesus affirmative, literal meaning.

In the case of (A), in 6:41 he narrates that “the Jews” challenge how Jesus can have come down from heaven; and John also recounts Jesus’ affirmative, literal answer (6:43-50, esp. v 46) which comports with His same teaching elsewhere (e.g., Jn 1:18; 3:13,31).

We than transition in 6:51 from the first part to the second part.

Again in (B) the pointed protestations of “the Jews” (6:52) serve as a foil for Jesus’ affirmative, literal answer (6:52-58) that is nothing short of in your face as to its meaning. He says it 6 times in 7 verses–that we must eat his body and drink his blood.

It should be noted that “the Jews” also protest Jesus’ statement that Abraham saw His day and was glad (8:56). The author again narrates Jesus’ affirmative, literal response (8:58-59). Later these are “the Jews” who also want to stone Jesus in protest for saying He and the Father are one (10:30-31). He again goes on to give a literal, affirmative response (10:32-39). In all these cases (including 6:41,52) “the Jews” understood exactly what Jesus meant.

Back to Jn 6, next the evangelist notes that even some of Jesus’ “disciples” were perplexed (6:60) and He responds by asking if this teaching “shocks” them, and then says something else that He will literally do: ascend into heaven. And then the gospel writer comments that because of this teaching many of Jesus’ disciples left (v 66). Even this did not cause Jesus or the evangelist to allegorize or apologize.

II.
I would also point out that both Jesus and John can characterize a statement as figurative quite clearly when that is indeed the case: either explicitly (re the temple in 2:21, the gate in 10:6, and a woman in labor in 16:25, 29) or in other ways (6:32-35; 11:11-14). Yet there is no mention of metaphor, symbol, parable, or figure in 6:52-63. Also in Jn the word “spirit” is not used to characterize a statement as figurative.

III.
This text is viewed by RCs today in the same context as the ECFs and Ecumenical Councils: Tradition and Church together with Scripture handing on the word of God.

 

[JerryZ]

6:51 I am the living bread which came down out of heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: yea and the bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.
6:52 The Jews therefore strove one with another, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
6:53 Jesus therefore said unto them,** Verily, verily**, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves.
6:54 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
6:56 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me, and I in him.
6:57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father; so he that eateth me, he also shall live because of me.
6:58 This is the bread which came down out of heaven: not as the fathers ate, and died; he that eateth this bread shall live for ever.

6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when the heard this , said, This is a hard saying; who can hear it?
6:61 But Jesus knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said unto them, Doth this cause you to stumble?

5 times count them 5 times he repeats this He is real flesh and real blood and YOU must eat of Him to abide by Him and His Father that sent Him.

This was something that was totally contrary to the Jews understanding, look at their kosher laws they have to drain the animal slaughtered of all blood and here is Jesus telling them thay they have to drink His blood!

 

[po18guy]

This still going on, if not exactly raging?

Language has nothing to do with it. Manuscripts have nothing to do with it. Exegesis has nothing to do with it. Nothing.

Church practice since that first Eucharist has everything to do with it.