What is your view on these verses?

[TimothyH]

Anyone who wants to understand Jesus words has to understand what the word spirit means in the Bible.

The world spirit comes from the Latin word spiritus which means breath. In Greek it is pneuma, from which we get pneumatic or pneumonia. In Hebrew it is ruah.

The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. (John 6:63)

The spiritus/pneuma/ruah of God is the life giving breath of God. Jesus is saying that the words about eating his flesh and drinking his blood are the life giving breath of God.

God had previously prohibited consuming animal blood. To consume the blood of animals is to live the life of an animal. To consume the blood of Jesus is to live the life of Jesus. Jesus’ flesh and blood are “spirit and life.”

-Tim-

 

[God_I_Love]

Just as I view John 3 as a teaching on the sacrament of Baptism, I view John 6 as a teaching on the sacrament of the Eucharist. Forms of the word eucharist appear earlier in John 6:11, 23, as forms of the word *baptism *appear in John 3:22,23,26. So, I view John 6:63 in the context of the sacrament of the Eucharist. However, I think the theme of John 6:63 actually applies to all the sacraments.

When Jesus says, “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is unprofitable,” I think he means, “It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh,* without the spirit*, is *spiritually *unprofitable.” In this case, “the spirit” refers to gifts of the Holy Spirit that are spiritually discerned, i.e., discerned by faith, as in 1 Corinthians 2:14. And, “the flesh” refers to things of the visible world, as in Romans 8:1-17.

The sacraments have a visible sign or “flesh” component and a corresponding, invisible, spiritually-significant action of the Holy Spirit. The visible sign or “flesh” component of the sacrament, without the corresponding action of the Holy Spirit, is spiritually unprofitable. For instance, the water bath of the sacrament of Baptism, apart from the spiritually-regenerating action of the Holy Spirit, is spiritually unprofitable and merely gets a person wet. Similarly, the bread and wine of sacrament of the Eucharist, apart from the transubstantiating action of the Holy Spirit whereby they are transubstantiated into the body and blood of Jesus, is spiritually unprofitable and merely affords a person a bit of bread and wine.

This is an excellent response and it does make a lot of sense. Like I said I just wish to understand a little more fully the content of the gospel. However in regards to this is the flesh necessary for the spirit to be profitable? Can the Spirit work without the flesh? Can I receive the spirit without the flesh (the visible)? For it is the spirit that we desire for by the spirit we are renewed.

 

[God_I_Love]

Anyone who wants to understand Jesus words has to understand what the word spirit means in the Bible.

The world spirit comes from the Latin word spiritus which means breath. In Greek it is pneuma, from which we get pneumatic or pneumonia. In Hebrew it is ruah.

The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. (John 6:63)

The spiritus/pneuma/ruah of God is the life giving breath of God. Jesus is saying that the words about eating his flesh and drinking his blood are the life giving breath of God.

God had previously prohibited consuming animal blood. To consume the blood of animals is to live the life of an animal. To consume the blood of Jesus is to live the life of Jesus. Jesus’ flesh and blood are “spirit and life.”

-Tim-

But can I live the life of Jesus merely by the action of His Spirit within me? Also taking the bread of life sermon and looking at all of 6, it seems that he is teaching them the importance behind faith in him. And looking at the verses I pointed out this seems to be the culminating point and where he clarifies understanding.

 

[God_I_Love]

Oh, but it does…The point the St. Was making is that while flesh is worldly, Christ’s flesh is not…without contradicting the fact that His flesh is real flesh…just as bread and wine are indeed bread and wine, but also His body and blood at the same time.

But Christ’s flesh without his Spirit Quickening it would be useless. Just as our own flesh is useless (unprofitable) without His Spirit dwelling within us (Rom 8:11). So isn’t Jesus saying that the Spirit is where life is and in order to live his life we must consume who he is entirely by the reception of his word and doctrine which in turn will allow us to receive the Holy Spirit and conform ourselves to Him in all our ways.

 

[God_I_Love]

Again, read the whole chapter of John. You’re assuming that His words refer only to what He said about His flesh and blood, and not to something else. Tell me, WAS there something else He could have meant there?

Tell me why would the quoted verses be prefaced by ‘‘knowing his disciples murmured at this’’, highlighting a this, not these, indicating a singular concept that they were having trouble coming to terms with. Mainly the concept outlined in the Bread of life speech; the carnal eating of His flesh and blood.

 

[CalCatholic]

How do you know that Christ was not trying to help them discern who he saw himself as; namely his words and doctrine were what he was, and eating of the doctrine he espoused would lead to life? Why does he say the flesh profiteth nothing? Nada zip zilch? It’s almost as if he was highlighting the meaning behind his previous bread of life speech. So mainly why would I want to eat of that which will profit me nothing?

Here is a foot note on this verse **from the Knox Bible:

If we understand ‘the flesh’ as referring to our Lord’s flesh, we must suppose him to mean ‘the flesh without spirit, without life’, condemning the folly of those hearers who imagine that he had been speaking of his dead body in all that he said above. But it is possible to understand ‘the flesh’ in a different sense altogether, the sense in which it is contrasted, throughout the New Testament, with ‘the spirit’. In this sense it denotes the natural as opposed to the supernatural man, and especially human wisdom as opposed to divine revelation (cf. 8.15 below). The sentence will then mean, that the mystery of the Holy Eucharist must be approached by faith, not by human reasoning.**

 

[God_I_Love]

Here is my take (and the Church’s) on your verses.

IF any person were to eat simply ‘dead flesh’ of another, it would not profit anything. We are body and soul. The body is ‘dead flesh’ unless it is animated by the Spirit. The Spirit is eternal.

BUT Christ is not simply ‘man’. He is God made man. HIS Flesh and Spirit are eternal. HIS Flesh and Spirit are perfectly combined. HIS Body is eternal as is His Spirit. So eating HIS Flesh (and Spirit); Body and Blood, Soul/Spirit and Divinity, is indeed what gives us life.

Can you give any other explanation which not only fits the fact that Christ spoke of eating HIS body and blood (not just 'anybody’s flesh), fits the fact that the Christian Church taught we eat His Body and Blood in order to have eternal life, fits the fact that Christ became man (why become a man if your ‘body’ meant nothing???), and makes perfect sense?

But his flesh is not what gives us life. His Spirit is what gives us life. It is what will quicken us on the Last Day. Our flesh without who we are to animate it is useless. It is literally a housing, a temple, for who we are. And It becomes a pleasing and acceptable temple when the Spirit of Christ dwell within it. So the flesh has no profit without the Spirit. None. So instead of focusing on carnal flesh we should focus on the Spirit. This also applies to his other doctrine in ‘‘what you do to the least of these, you do to me’’. He is saying that the Spirit is what makes us who we are. This thing I call my body doesn’t define me. If I say have a deformity does that change intrinsically the Spirit? no. And that’s what I think Christ was trying to show. Differentiation between the flesh and spirit

 

[CalCatholic]

But his flesh is not what gives us life. His Spirit is what gives us life. It is what will quicken us on the Last Day. Our flesh without who we are to animate it is useless. It is literally a housing, a temple, for who we are. And It becomes a pleasing and acceptable temple when the Spirit of Christ dwell within it. So the flesh has no profit without the Spirit. None. So instead of focusing on carnal flesh we should focus on the Spirit. This also applies to his other doctrine in ‘‘what you do to the least of these, you do to me’’. He is saying that the Spirit is what makes us who we are. This thing I call my body doesn’t define me. If I say have a deformity does that change intrinsically the Spirit? no. And that’s what I think Christ was trying to show. Differentiation between the flesh and spirit

We posted at the same time, see post #26 (above), it may help.

 

[God_I_Love]

Here is a foot note on this verse **from the Knox Bible:

If we understand ‘the flesh’ as referring to our Lord’s flesh, we must suppose him to mean ‘the flesh without spirit, without life’, condemning the folly of those hearers who imagine that he had been speaking of his dead body in all that he said above. But it is possible to understand ‘the flesh’ in a different sense altogether, the sense in which it is contrasted, throughout the New Testament, with ‘the spirit’. In this sense it denotes the natural as opposed to the supernatural man, and especially human wisdom as opposed to divine revelation (cf. 8.15 below). The sentence will then mean, that the mystery of the Holy Eucharist must be approached by faith, not by human reasoning.**

So essentially with the last part of this footnote, the idea is that it is an allegory for something much deeper. Instead of the simplistic approach which would be contrasting spirit and flesh and differentiating between the two simplistically. Not to say that deeper meaning isn’t to be found, but the face value meaning is to me the most important as that is the conclusion one would draw with no preconceived ideas about Christ’s doctrine. I would say it is highly unlikely that is what Our Lord was referring too though in his sermon to these men. With the last part regarding approaching the Eucharist by faith, and not by human reasoning, I don’t think that squares with his explanation. He explains what he meant. I think it’s pretty clear. But if you place preconceptions about the doctrine, formed in your mind through indoctrination and control of the concept, then yes. It would be beyond human reasoning in that sense. If you already take something to be true, instead of testing whether it actually is, you miss out on broader understanding of multiple concepts and how they fit together (I find). And that’s what this discussion is about. Highlighting pre conceived conceptions and figuring out if they are in line with the doctrine of Our Lord and Savior.

 

[Neofight]

But Christ’s flesh without his Spirit Quickening it would be useless. Just as our own flesh is useless (unprofitable) without His Spirit dwelling within us (Rom 8:11). So isn’t Jesus saying that the Spirit is where life is and in order to live his life we must consume who he is entirely by the reception of his word and doctrine which in turn will allow us to receive the Holy Spirit and conform ourselves to Him in all our ways.

But, the flesh and spirit of Christ cannot be separated, because he has both human and divine nature. Our (human) flesh is separated from our soul (spirit) at time of death, only to be reunited at the final judgment.

 

[TimothyH]

But can I live the life of Jesus merely by the action of His Spirit within me? Also taking the bread of life sermon and looking at all of 6, it seems that he is teaching them the importance behind faith in him. And looking at the verses I pointed out this seems to be the culminating point and where he clarifies understanding.

And then he lets those who find difficult his saying about eating flesh and drinking blood simply walk away.

We have to take the Bible as a whole. The discussion about drinking blood started way back in Leviticus. Jesus does not talk about drinking blood apart from that. As a faithful Jew his words always have reference in the Old Testament.

You can try to live the life of Jesus apart from eating his flesh and drinking his blood, and I hope you do, but the Eucharist is something revealed to us by God as a means to be able to do that.

-Tim-

 

[God_I_Love]

But, the flesh and spirit of Christ cannot be separated, because he has both human and divine nature. Our (human) flesh is separated from our soul (spirit) at time of death, only to be reunited at the final judgment.

They were separated for a few days in the tomb before his Spirit returned and he manifested himself to us through overcoming death. And is my flesh Christ’s flesh then? I have his Spirit within me.

 

[God_I_Love]

And then he lets those who find difficult his saying about eating flesh and drinking blood simply walk away.

We have to take the Bible as a whole. The discussion about drinking blood started way back in Leviticus. Jesus does not talk about drinking blood apart from that. As a faithful Jew his words always have reference in the Old Testament.

You can try to live the life of Jesus apart from eating his flesh and drinking his blood, and I hope you do, but the Eucharist is something revealed to us by God as a means to be able to do that.

-Tim-

You are missing the point of what I am saying. And those that walked away were under a misconception about what Christ meant BECAUSE of the Old Law. They believed they would have to literally consume His flesh and blood if they wanted to become like him and they couldn’t stomach that. Yet Christ tried to show that who he was was contained entirely in his Spirit and it is by that that we can be reborn into life. It is by the waters of his words (doctrine) that we have eternal life. Not by a carnal consumption of flesh. Not to say that Jesus’s flesh and blood are not contained in the Eucharist. However what does his flesh and blood profit? If I already have his spirit within me, do I need the Eucharist? His spirit is already sanctifying me through grace. So is his flesh and blood sanctifying in any way? It seems unnecessary (for one whom has the Holy Spirit) is all I’m saying basically

 

[CalCatholic]

I think the problem that is arising in the interpretation of these verses is the meaning of the word **‘flesh’ (sarx) **used can vary according to the context in which it is used. I think verse 62: "Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?’ transitions from talking about the ‘flesh of Jesus’ (eating his body and blood) to talking about ‘flesh of humanity’, and their lack of faith in the preceding verses of John’s Gospel.

In the notes of the the ‘Sacra Pagina’ commentary of these verses of John’s Gospel it is explained:

In the Fourth Gospel one must distinguish between the sarx** of Jesus** and the sarx** of human beings.** Sarx is used thirteen times in the Fourth Gospel, and its use is consistent. The sarx of Jesus tells the story of God (1:14, 18), and is essential for life (cf. 6:51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56). But the sarx of human beings is confined to the human sphere, that which is “below” (1:13; 3:6; cf. 8:23), and is the source of judgment limited by the superficial criteria provided by the physically observable (8:15; cf. 7:24). In 17:2 “all flesh” (pases sarkos) is used to render a Hebraism that means “every created thing.” There is no contradiction between the use of sarx in v v. 51-58, where Jesus speaks of his own flesh, and v.63 where he speaks of the superficiality of the limited human expectations the disciples have of Jesus (v.62): “the flesh is of no avail.”

 

[Neofight]

They were separated for a few days in the tomb before his Spirit returned and he manifested himself to us through overcoming death. And is my flesh Christ’s flesh then? I have his Spirit within me.

The separation of Christ’s body and spirit is truly a mystery, I guess best captured in "With God, all things are possible… his spirit is his body, and his body is his spirit, so whichever, spirit or body manifested itself, it was both… even after the resurrection Christ’s body walked through walls.

And, to your “is my flesh Christ’s flesh then? I have his Spirit with me.”… let’s go back to the premise that because of his having both human and divine nature body cannot be separated from spirit, your flesh is his flesh if you have eaten his body or drank his blood…that is the whole reason we celebrate the Eucharist, and his discourse which has been the subject of this entire thread.

 

[God_I_Love]

I think the problem that is arising in the interpretation of these verses is the meaning of the word **‘flesh’ (sarx) **used can vary according to the context in which it is used. I think verse 62: "Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?’ transitions from talking about the ‘flesh of Jesus’ (eating his body and blood) to talking about ‘flesh of humanity’, and their lack of faith in the preceding verses of John’s Gospel.

In the notes of the the ‘Sacra Pagina’ commentary of these verses of John’s Gospel it is explained:

In the Fourth Gospel one must distinguish between the sarx** of Jesus** and the sarx** of human beings.** Sarx is used thirteen times in the Fourth Gospel, and its use is consistent. The sarx of Jesus tells the story of God (1:14, 18), and is essential for life (cf. 6:51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56). But the sarx of human beings is confined to the human sphere, that which is “below” (1:13; 3:6; cf. 8:23), and is the source of judgment limited by the superficial criteria provided by the physically observable (8:15; cf. 7:24). In 17:2 “all flesh” (pases sarkos) is used to render a Hebraism that means “every created thing.” There is no contradiction between the use of sarx in v v. 51-58, where Jesus speaks of his own flesh, and v.63 where he speaks of the superficiality of the limited human expectations the disciples have of Jesus (v.62): “the flesh is of no avail.”

Ok but in reference to this verse, Right before he asks ‘’ If you shall see the son of man ascend up to where he was before?’’ Why? Because he is referencing his ascension and as a result he is saying ''what would you do if my flesh (that flesh and bone you see talking to you now) is gone? ascended? How will you eat of that which is gone to heaven? So obviously He had a concept he was trying to teach that they were not getting that I think the very next statement explains quite clearly. The Spirit is the only thing that matters. And Our spirit is contained within the words we speak and espouse. Hence why Christ says ‘‘every idle word’’ we will be judged for (Matt 12:26).

Now in reference to the differentiation between the two types of flesh I believe it shows flesh as in humanity (as a whole) and flesh as our actual body. Christ I’m sure differentiated as he believed best and used flesh (within the context being discussed) to refer to his physical body that housed his spirit. He even refers to the same flesh as something separate, when he refers to it as a temple ‘‘destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up’’ (John 2:19) Does you care about the temple or what’s inside the temple? And that is what I think Christ is trying to show. How do we become Him? Through his words and doctrine by which we receive his Spirit. That is why, when the apostles would preach the gospel (Christ’s doctrine) men would receive his spirit independent of any ritual or action (besides hearing).

 

[God_I_Love]

The separation of Christ’s body and spirit is truly a mystery, I guess best captured in "With God, all things are possible… his spirit is his body, and his body is his spirit, so whichever, spirit or body manifested itself, it was both… even after the resurrection Christ’s body walked through walls.

And, to your “is my flesh Christ’s flesh then? I have his Spirit with me.”… let’s go back to the premise that because of his having both human and divine nature body cannot be separated from spirit, your flesh is his flesh if you have eaten his body or drank his blood…that is the whole reason we celebrate the Eucharist, and his discourse which has been the subject of this entire thread.

Can my flesh be His flesh without the Eucharist? Can I receive the Holy Spirit simply by reading the Gospel?

 

[Neofight]

Can my flesh be His flesh without the Eucharist? Can I receive the Holy Spirit simply by reading the Gospel?

No…you can learn of, but not receive, through the reading…otherwise there would be no need for the Sacrament.

 

[God_I_Love]

No…you can learn of, but not receive, through the reading…otherwise there would be no need for the Sacrament.

Well I hate to break it to you but that is wrong. IF you accept the testimony contained with acts.
‘‘44While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word. 45And the faithful of the circumcision, who came with Peter, were astonished, for that the grace of the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the Gentiles also. 46For they heard them speaking with tongues, and magnifying God. 47Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we?’’

So reception occurs upon hearing, not through the sacrament.

 

[Randy_Carson]

''But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? 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. ‘’ John 6:62-64

The disciples were just murmuring about eating his flesh and blood.

In verse 63, Jesus said:

“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken are spirit and they are life.” (John 6:63)

Some people claim that these words prove that Jesus was speaking metaphorically because he said “the words I have spoken are spirit”. They take this to mean that Jesus was not speaking literally when he commanded us to eat his body and drink his blood. However, this would be a misunderstanding of what Jesus meant when he said, “the flesh counts for nothing.”

First, notice that whenever Jesus referred to his own body and blood, he said “my flesh” or “the flesh of the Son of Man”. Here are the examples:

“This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” (John 6:51)

"Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, 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 him 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 him.” (John 6:53-56)

At this point, the narrative explains that the disciples were on the verge of revolt over this teaching. Jesus tells them that they cannot understand this teaching with their natural minds. Here is the verse in context: “On hearing it, many of his disciples said, ‘This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?’ Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, ‘Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.’” (John 6:60-63)

In John 6:63, Jesus uses the phrase “the flesh” instead of “my flesh” or “the flesh of the Son of Man” because he is not talking about his own body; he is referring to man’s natural, unenlightened rational intellect.

Jesus tells the grumbling Jews (who can’t understand how he would give them his flesh to eat) that they cannot grasp it with their natural minds because it is a mystery beyond the ability of “the flesh” to understand. This is the same manner of speaking used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 2 & 3 when he is distinguishing between fleshly or carnal Christians and those who are discern the things of God with their spirits.

Second, it might be worth noting the obvious fact that Jesus cannot be saying that HIS own flesh “counts for nothing”; otherwise, his death upon the cross would be meaningless. Instead, we know that his own body, his flesh, was broken and pierced for our sake; no Christian would deny that. Therefore, since HIS flesh does count for something, he must have been referring to “flesh” other than his own in v. 63.

Thus, the one verse that many non-Catholics cling to as an argument against the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist does not mean what they falsely claim it means. Ironically, their “proof text” points out precisely why they cannot understand the Eucharist: they are using their own flesh or human reasoning instead of their spirits to discern the things of God. Unfortunately, their flesh “counts for nothing”.