What are the Most Misunderstood Bible Verse(s)

[PRmerger]

Okay, well…It is a metaphorical discourse that, at its heart is about believing that Christ is the Messiah from heaven. Its not a communion passage in any sense. I understand why someone could look at it that way, but only do to anachronism. Now, don’t misunderstand…I am not using that to say Catholic beliefs on the eucharist are wrong because John 6 is not a eucharistic passage.

I don’t see any other passages in Scripture which have disciples leaving Jesus after he declares himself to be the Messiah from heaven, calling this idea a “hard saying”.

However, it does make sense that telling his disciples to eat his flesh would prompt many to leave him over this hard saying.

 

[PRmerger]

After reading and reflecting on the sola scriptura thread comments and the frequent disagreement on scripture interpretation, I starting wondering what Catholics and catholics (non-Catholics) thought were the most mis-understood bible verses? While the number of responses could likely fill a book on its own, a few suggestions per post would be interesting to read…and discuss.

:coffeeread:
(Dunkin Donnuts today minus the donut)

I don’t know if this is the most misunderstood, but it’s definitely misquoted. A lot.

2 Corinthians 5:6-8

Most use it as an indictment of the Catholic teaching on Purgatory, claiming that St. Paul said, “To be absent from the body is to be at home with the Lord.”

Except that this is not what the verse says. This Christian is simply quoting another Christian who heard another Christian say that this is what the verse says, but no one actually went to the Scriptures to see what it really says.

 

[adrift]

I understand why someone could look at it that way, but only do to anachronism. .

Could you be more specific with exactly you mean by anachronism?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

I was going to ask why if Peter was the rock, you’re not Catholic. Until I read your last paragraph. So in reading the ECFs you don’t believe the ECFs believed as the Catholic Church does?

Not even remotely. According to patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly, of the period that spans the church fathers, from the first through 7th centuries, only roughly 1/3rd of the fathers understood the passage to be referring to Peter. The other 2/3rds interpreted it either as his confession of faith, or the rock being Christ himself. Since no one in the early church period (especially the anti-Nicene period) ever conceived of the modern notions of a papacy, even those who do interpret the passage as referring to Peter, never connect it with later papal claims. The best thing to do, though, is go to the horses mouths, as it were. First, examine an early church theologian who did interpret the passage as referring to Peter, Tertullian:

“Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called the ‘rock on which the church should be built’ who also obtained ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and earth? (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Volume III, Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics 22).”

“If, because the Lord has said to Peter, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church,’ ‘to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;’ or, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,’ you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? ‘On thee,’ He says, ‘will I build My church;’ and, ‘I will give thee the keys’…and, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt have loosed or bound’…In (Peter) himself the Church was reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself essayed the key; you see what key: ‘Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears: Jesus the Nazarene, a man destined by God for you,’ and so forth. (Peter) himself, therefore, was the first to unbar, in Christ’s baptism, the entrance to the heavenly kingdom, in which kingdom are ‘loosed’ the sins that were beforetime ‘bound;’ and those which have not been ‘loosed’ are ‘bound,’ in accordance with true salvation…(Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Volume IV, Tertullian, On Modesty 21, p. 99).”

When Tertullian says that Peter is the rock and the Church is built upon him he means that the Church is built through him as he preaches the gospel. This preaching is how Tertullian explains the meaning of the keys. No mention of a papacy, primacy, infallibility, etc. Of the fathers that disagreed with Peter being the rock. Another father who interprets it as being Peter, Cyprian:

“The Lord saith unto Peter, I say unto thee, (saith He,) that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven (Matt. 16:18–19). To him again, after His resurrection, He says, Feed My sheep. Upon him being one He builds His Church; and although He gives to all the Apostles an equal power, and says, As My Father sent Me, even so I send you; receive ye the Holy Ghost: whosoever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted to him, and whosoever sins ye shall retain, they shall be retained (John 20:21);—yet in order to manifest unity, He has by His own authority so placed the source of the same unity, as to begin from one (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3-4, pp. 133-135).”

Later he says: “Our Lord whose precepts and warnings we ought to observe, determining the honour of a Bishop and the ordering of His own Church, speaks in the Gospel and says to Peter, I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Thence the ordination of Bishops, and the ordering of the Church, runs down along the course of time and line of succession, so that the Church is settled upon her Bishops; and every act of the Church is regulated by these same Prelates (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), The Epistles of S. Cyprian, Ep. 33.1).”

continued.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

But later, Cyprian says: Our Lord whose precepts and warnings we ought to observe, determining the honour of a Bishop and the ordering of His own Church, speaks in the Gospel and says to Peter, I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Thence the ordination of Bishops, and the ordering of the Church, runs down along the course of time and line of succession, so that the Church is settled upon her Bishops; and every act of the Church is regulated by these same Prelates (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), The Epistles of S. Cyprian, Ep. 33.1).

Cyprian, like Tertullian, states that Peter is the rock. But such a statement must be qualified. He definitely does not mean this in the same way the Church of Rome does. In his treatise, On the Unity of the Church, Cyprian teaches that Peter alone is not the rock or foundation on which the Church is built, but rather, he is an example of the principle of unity.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

I don’t see any other passages in Scripture which have disciples leaving Jesus after he declares himself to be the Messiah from heaven, calling this idea a “hard saying”.

However, it does make sense that telling his disciples to eat his flesh would prompt many to leave him over this hard saying.

Yes, they did. Because they misunderstood him. Peter, however, did not. “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”

“But we are God-taught, and glory in the name of Christ. How then are we not to regard the apostle as attaching this sense to the milk of the babes? And if we who preside over the Churches are shepherds after the image of the good Shepherd, and you the sheep, are we not to regard the Lord as preserving consistency in the use of figurative speech, when He speaks also of the milk of the flock?… Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; ” describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.” (Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus 1)

“They thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, It is the spirit that quickens; and then added, The flesh profits nothing — meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. In a like sense He had previously said: He that hears my words, and believes in Him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life. Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, We ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. (Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh 37)”

 

[mskejj]

Not even remotely. According to patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly, of the period that spans the church fathers, from the first through 7th centuries, only roughly 1/3rd of the fathers understood the passage to be referring to Peter. The other 2/3rds interpreted it either as his confession of faith, or the rock being Christ himself. Since no one in the early church period (especially the anti-Nicene period) ever conceived of the modern notions of a papacy, even those who do interpret the passage as referring to Peter, never connect it with later papal claims. The best thing to do, though, is go to the horses mouths, as it were. First, examine an early church theologian who did interpret the passage as referring to Peter, Tertullian:

“Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called the ‘rock on which the church should be built’ who also obtained ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and earth? (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Volume III, Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics 22).”

“If, because the Lord has said to Peter, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church,’ ‘to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;’ or, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,’ you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? ‘On thee,’ He says, ‘will I build My church;’ and, ‘I will give thee the keys’…and, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt have loosed or bound’…In (Peter) himself the Church was reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself essayed the key; you see what key: ‘Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears: Jesus the Nazarene, a man destined by God for you,’ and so forth. (Peter) himself, therefore, was the first to unbar, in Christ’s baptism, the entrance to the heavenly kingdom, in which kingdom are ‘loosed’ the sins that were beforetime ‘bound;’ and those which have not been ‘loosed’ are ‘bound,’ in accordance with true salvation…(Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Volume IV, Tertullian, On Modesty 21, p. 99).”

When Tertullian says that Peter is the rock and the Church is built upon him he means that the Church is built through him as he preaches the gospel. This preaching is how Tertullian explains the meaning of the keys. No mention of a papacy, primacy, infallibility, etc. Of the fathers that disagreed with Peter being the rock. Another father who interprets it as being Peter, Cyprian:

“The Lord saith unto Peter, I say unto thee, (saith He,) that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven (Matt. 16:18–19). To him again, after His resurrection, He says, Feed My sheep. Upon him being one He builds His Church; and although He gives to all the Apostles an equal power, and says, As My Father sent Me, even so I send you; receive ye the Holy Ghost: whosoever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted to him, and whosoever sins ye shall retain, they shall be retained (John 20:21);—yet in order to manifest unity, He has by His own authority so placed the source of the same unity, as to begin from one (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3-4, pp. 133-135).”

Later he says: “Our Lord whose precepts and warnings we ought to observe, determining the honour of a Bishop and the ordering of His own Church, speaks in the Gospel and says to Peter, I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Thence the ordination of Bishops, and the ordering of the Church, runs down along the course of time and line of succession, so that the Church is settled upon her Bishops; and every act of the Church is regulated by these same Prelates (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), The Epistles of S. Cyprian, Ep. 33.1).”

continued.

From the most respected and thorough commentary on Matthew in the 20th century by Protestant scholars:

[T]he major opinion of modern exegetes… [is] that Peter, as a sort of supreme rabbi or prime minister of the kingdom, is in 16.19 given teaching authority, given that is the power to declare what is permitted (cf. the rabbinic shara’ ) and what is not permitted (cf. the rabbinic ’asar). Peter can decide by doctrinal decision what Christians must and must not do. This is the traditional Roman Catholic understanding, with the proviso that Peter had successors. This interpretation of binding and loosing in terms of teaching authority seems to us to be correct… Peter is the authoritative teacher without peer” (W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 2:638-39)

These scholars use Jewish writings from that time period to have a better understanding as to how the Jews of that day would have interpreted Jesus’ words concerning “rock”, the keys to the kingdom, gates of Hades, and power to bind and loose.

Isaiah 22 shows the prefigurement of this “office” in the Old Covenant. The prime minister held an office of which one could be removed or replaced. The Jewish Targum on Isaiah 22 shows this office as a priestly office as well…

 

[Porknpie]

I don’t know if this is the most misunderstood, but it’s definitely misquoted. A lot.

2 Corinthians 5:6-8

Most use it as an indictment of the Catholic teaching on Purgatory, claiming that St. Paul said, “To be absent from the body is to be at home with the Lord.”

Except that this is not what the verse says. This Christian is simply quoting another Christian who heard another Christian say that this is what the verse says, but no one actually went to the Scriptures to see what it really says.

PR,

I have a local dermotologist that I see once in a while……he quoted this verse in error exactly as you say. At the time I didn’t have a response but know better now. How is it that this verse is repeated in error so commonly?? I’m confused here and don’t understand.

 

[CMatt25]

Christ also tells him that he knew that because of God, and not because of men.

True.

And John 1:29 tells us a man John the Baptist “saw Jesus coming to him, and he saith: Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who taketh away the sin of the world”. Then in verse 40 a man named Andrew, “the brother of Simon Peter, was one of the two who had heard of John, and followed him”. Then in vs 41 Andrew found Simon Peter and “saith to him: We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.” Then in vs 42 Andrew brought his brother to Jesus “and Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.”

Source: Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, they did. Because they misunderstood him.

They misunderstood him? They thought Jesus was saying they had to eat his flesh and left him over this hard saying. And Jesus only repeated: “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

No, they understood him perfectly and left over this hard saying.

They wanted to create a god in their own image, not conform themselves to the hard sayings of Christ.

 

[PRmerger]

PR,

I have a local dermotologist that I see once in a while……he quoted this verse in error exactly as you say. At the time I didn’t have a response but know better now. How is it that this verse is repeated in error so commonly?? I’m confused here and don’t understand.

Dern! Too bad you couldn’t have asked him, “Could you show me where it says that in the Bible?”

Next time, we’ll be ready, eh?

 

[CMatt25]

Most misunderstood by Catholics - John 6 (various verses)

Most misunderstood by Protestants - Matthew 16:18 (Sorry Jon )

Oh yes definitely John 6 is another one with different interpretations each with strong advocates and arguments for each interpretation.

 

[mskejj]

But later, Cyprian says: Our Lord whose precepts and warnings we ought to observe, determining the honour of a Bishop and the ordering of His own Church, speaks in the Gospel and says to Peter, I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Thence the ordination of Bishops, and the ordering of the Church, runs down along the course of time and line of succession, so that the Church is settled upon her Bishops; and every act of the Church is regulated by these same Prelates (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), The Epistles of S. Cyprian, Ep. 33.1).

Cyprian, like Tertullian, states that Peter is the rock. But such a statement must be qualified. He definitely does not mean this in the same way the Church of Rome does. In his treatise, On the Unity of the Church, Cyprian teaches that Peter alone is not the rock or foundation on which the Church is built, but rather, he is an example of the principle of unity.

The literal sense of this passage is that Peter is the rock on which the Church would be built. This does not discount other metaphors which are used in the New Testament for the foundation of the Church. Christ (1 Cor 3:11), apostles and NT prophets with Christ as cornerstone (Eph 2:20) 12 apostles as a group (Rev 21:14) are all other examples. None of these should be treated exclusively true or used to deny or diminish the validity of the others.

That is why we can also read a quote from Cyprian concerning the primacy of Peter:

“And he says to him again after the resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided.” Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

The literal sense of this passage is that Peter is the rock on which the Church would be built. This does not discount other metaphors which are used in the New Testament for the foundation of the Church. Christ (1 Cor 3:11), apostles and NT prophets with Christ as cornerstone (Eph 2:20) 12 apostles as a group (Rev 21:14) are all other examples. None of these should be treated exclusively true or used to deny or diminish the validity of the others.

That is why we can also read a quote from Cyprian concerning the primacy of Peter:

“And he says to him again after the resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided.” Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

Yes and again, I am agreeing that Matthew 16:18 means Peter. You cannot take the word “primacy” used by Cyprian snd read into it what you mean by primacy. That is anachronism.

The holy churches of the East also have used primacy in reference to the churchb of Rome but they most certainly don’t mean by it what you do.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

They misunderstood him? They thought Jesus was saying they had to eat his flesh and left him over this hard saying. And Jesus only repeated: “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

No, they understood him perfectly and left over this hard saying.

They wanted to create a god in their own image, not conform themselves to the hard sayings of Christ.

Jesus often did not explain to his hearers what his words meant. That doesnt prove much. Viz Tertullian. The crowd was looking for physical boons. Jesus directs their focus on the food which is eternal and faith in that eternal bread. Being spiritually dead, they cannot understand spiritual things. John’s gospel has these metaphors spread throughout it. The vine, living water, the light, etc. It’s mishandling the text to think in that one instance, Jesus is speaking in physical terms.

 

[PRmerger]

Jesus often did not explain to his hearers what his words meant.

Indeed.

And here Jesus only reinforces that which his disciples grumbled about. He does the opposite of what you claim above. He repeated his hard saying.

That doesnt prove much. Viz Tertullian. The crowd was looking for physical boons. Jesus directs their focus on the food which is eternal and faith in that eternal bread. Being spiritually dead, they cannot understand spiritual things.

You misunderstand the Catholic position, Gaelic. Certainly “the food which is eternal and faith in that eternal bread” is part of the Eucharist.

John’s gospel has these metaphors spread throughout it. The vine, living water, the light, etc. It’s mishandling the text to think in that one instance, Jesus is speaking in physical terms.

And was he also only speaking in spiritual terms when he foretold his resurrection? Modernists seem to use your argument above to support their claim that Jesus didn’t really physically resurrect, but that the resurrection was only a spiritual one. They say that Jesus spoke metaphorically (the vine, living water, a door, etc etc etc) and thus apply this to his resurrection.

Do you see how you cannot deny the physical eucharist in John 6 without denying the physical resurrection? (At least, as it applies here using “Jesus spoke metaphorically therefore he was speaking metaphorically all the time.”)

 

[Isaiah45_9]

At best, tangential, if even that. Of course, there’s been much ink spilled on it but it depends on how much you want to get into it coming/believing = eating/drinking. It seems that the communion connection is a later interpretation. Augustine and Cyprian interpreted the passage in the figurative sense as a discourse on faith receiving the heavenly manna, which gives eternal life, as opposed to the earthly manna which is temporary. It defeats Jesus’ point to again refer to something physical rather than spiritual.

Much earlier than both, Justin Martyr:

CHAPTER LXVI – OF THE EUCHARIST.

And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Much earlier than both, Justin Martyr:

earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html

I am not arguing the real presence, Isaiah. We are discussing John 6. Does Justin reference John 6 or the institution passages?

 

[johnnyjones]

Jesus often did not explain to his hearers what his words meant. That doesnt prove much. Viz Tertullian. The crowd was looking for physical boons. Jesus directs their focus on the food which is eternal and faith in that eternal bread. Being spiritually dead, they cannot understand spiritual things. John’s gospel has these metaphors spread throughout it. The vine, living water, the light, etc. It’s mishandling the text to think in that one instance, Jesus is speaking in physical terms.

Sir, I have to say this is a really reaching statement. How do you refigure people leaving Jesus because the words were misunderstood. Eating His body and drinking His blood is what the passage says, they heard it and it was too much for them. The Last Supper quantifies the meaning of the text.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I am not arguing the real presence, Isaiah. We are discussing John 6. Does Justin reference John 6 or the institution passages?

I’m not arguing at all.

I just like to post ECF stuff