Why did He let them walk away?

  • Thread starter Thread starter st_felicity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

st_felicity

Guest
The disciples were angry. Jesus had fed them with the miracle of the loves and they wanted more—more bread—more miracles. Jesus said he was the TRUE bread from Heaven and that HE gives life to the world. Confused, they murmured isn’t he Joseph’s son? How can he say he came down from heaven when we know his mother and father? But Jesus said more…

He said…

I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."

52

The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”

53

Jesus said to them, "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.

54

Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

55

For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

56

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

57

Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.

58

This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."

59

These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

60

20 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”

66

**As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. **
***So the Questions are: ***
  1. What was the “saying” that was hard to accept?
  2. Why did the disciples ***leave ***Jesus?
  3. Why did Jesus let them go?
 
Good thread:) 1)They left because they knew he meant what he said:D 2)Because the whole thought of eating flesh and drinking blood was repulsive and considered an abomination to the Jews:D 3)Because they refused to believe and obey,had they “misunderstood” He would have been bound to explain or correct them or Our Lord would have caused them to be decieved.God Bless
 
When there was murmering and many people left what did the Apostles say to Jesus? They said ,“This is a hard saying”.

The Apostles wanted Jesus to say. “Aw fellas, I was just kidding”. But Jesus didn’t say he was kidding around! He said it more firmly. He said what He meant and meant what he said. Jesus let the people go!

That is why we have the Eucharist today. “This is my body”. This is my blood". Jesus said this the second time at the Last Supper.
 
My understanding is that the reason the thought

of eating flesh and drinking blood was so abhorent
to the Jewish people, was that such an act would
be seen to mirror the pagan custom of drinking
blood as a part of a pagan ritual.
reen12
 
Yes the practice of canabalisn was abhorent to Jews.

BUT THE BIG THING TO TAKE AWAY FROM JESUS STATEMENT IS:

Even though the people walked away when Jesus said ,“Eat my flesh”, JESUS WOULD NOT CHANGE HIS STATEMENT.
 
40.png
reen12:
My understanding is that the reason the thought

of eating flesh and drinking blood was so abhorent
to the Jewish people, was that such an act would
be seen to mirror the pagan custom of drinking
blood as a part of a pagan ritual.
reen12
Click to expand...
So you are saying the disciples thought he meant that they were to literally eat his flesh? Or is it just it would SEEM unseemly because the action was LIKE a pagan custom?

either way…

So they left because their revulsion at the idea outweighed their faith in his words of salvation?

And Jesus let them go because…?
 
40.png
st_felicity:
And Jesus let them go because…?
Click to expand...
Because He was telling the Truth and God gave us freewill. We can choose to reject the Truth. Jesus wasn’t about to force them to believe what He said so He layed it out there as clearly as can be and they made their choice.
 
40.png
Genesis315:
Because He was telling the Truth and God gave us freewill. We can choose to reject the Truth. Jesus wasn’t about to force them to believe what He said so He layed it out there as clearly as can be and they made their choice.
Click to expand...
You know…I totally agree…this is exactly how I see it…I’m interested in the Protestant perspective…

…any takers?
 
40.png
st_felicity:
I’m interested in the Protestant perspective…
Click to expand...
any takers?

I can’t give you a Protestant perspective. How about a perspective from way out in left field instead? Here it is:

OK felicity. John 6 is your specialty. Walk me through this one because I am full of questions.

26: Jesus sees the crowd coming. And says …”you are looking for me not because you saw signs but because you ate the loaves and were filled.”

My first reading of this (bear with me; there is a deepening method opening up to contribution from others) is that Jesus diagnoses their level of ‘interpretation.’ They want food. The signs were cool, but they want food. He can give them food. The food is free. Good deal. So the crowd is going to interpret information at a pragmatic level: can this feed our physical bodies?

27 So Jesus provides them with the opportunity for a paradigm change: “food that endures for eternal life.” He is offering them the option of learning to interpret information at a metaphysical level:

What is real? Food or signs?

Or at an ontological level:

Of what substance am I made of?
What do I need to sustain my substance?
What am I?
Am I my appetites?
Or that which remains unsatisfied when all my appetites are sated?

28-29 The crowd is confronted with the possibility of interpreting their existence at a level beyond loaves of bread. Jesus says “This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent.” To wit, interpreting beyond the level of loaves of bread is the work of God and flows from believing in Jesus. God gives the interpretive skills necessary to see reality beyond food and to see being beyond appetite. Those interpretive skills flow from believing in Jesus.

29-30 Although Jesus has already said that the crowd is not looking for signs, the crowd then asks for a sign. Why does the crowd ask for a sign, if they are not looking for signs? What possible sign could persuade them?

31 The crowd refers to a historical sign: manna in the desert. Why does the crowd refer to a sign, when they have not come looking for a sign, but for loaves of bread? What do they mean? Could it be that they refer to the sign of manna because that sign means to them only that God gives food to sustain the body? And they want loaves of bread, not signs? Of course, because their interpretive skills are at the level of food and appetite.

So this is the first part. The questions which arise from the first part are these:

1) What sign could have persuaded the crowd of its reality when the crowd was not looking for signs and had no skills to interpret signs?
2) If signs were to speak to folk in times such as those, then what form (substance) should that sign have taken?
 
More on substance:

John 20:25-28

20:25. The other disciples therefore said to him: We have seen the Lord. But he said to them: Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails and put my finger into the place of the nails and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.

20:26. And after eight days, again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them. Jesus cometh, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst and said: Peace be to you.

20:27. Then he said to Thomas: Put in thy finger hither and see my hands. And bring hither the hand and put it into my side. And be not faithless, but believing.

20:28. Thomas answered and said to him: My Lord and my God.

**What was it that Thomas felt when he put his hand into the side of Jesus? **

What is the substance of the Body of Christ?
 
40.png
st_felicity:
You know…I totally agree…this is exactly how I see it…I’m interested in the Protestant perspective…

…any takers?
Click to expand...
I’ve posed this question to every Protestant on these forums and not one has even attempted to answer. They blow me off everytime. So good luck finding a Protestant taker.
 
40.png
Genesis315:
I’ve posed this question to every Protestant on these forums and not one has even attempted to answer. They blow me off everytime. So good luck finding a Protestant taker.
Click to expand...
I haven’t been on the board for a very long time. But, yes, I have noticed that this topic has resulted in a general ‘haul -ss and bypass’ tactic. Nevertheless, perhaps you could set out your reading of this passage. Thanks.
 
On question 3
Why did Jesus let them walk?

Could it be a foreshadowing that for the rest of human history, there will always be those who will accept AND reject Jesus. (It’s called Free WIll). Maybe it is also a foreshadowing of those who would leave His Church in the future…i.e. Protestants

One thing I found out about Scripture…there are A LOT of Foreshadowing there.
 
When Jesus says to eat his flesh and drink his blood, does he mean to eat only the appearances of himself (similarity to his presence) or the substance of himself (actuality of his presence)?

The traditional ‘interpretation’ of the term ‘eating someone’s flesh’ meant to ‘revile or assault someone.’

Now this is a hard saying.

Did Jesus want those gathered in John 6 to revile or assault him?

Did Jesus want those gathered in Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Cor 11:24-25 to revile or assault him?

When the priest holds up the eucharist in front of me and says: “The Body of Christ,” does Jesus want me to revile or assault him by means of reviling or assaulting the priest? Or is a simple “amen” sufficient?

Here, for your reading pleasure, are the references to the symbolic ‘interpretation’ of ‘eating someone’s flesh’:

Psalm 27:1-2

27:1. …The Lord is my light and my salvation, whom shall I fear? The Lord is the protector of my life: of whom shall I be afraid?

27:2. Whilst the wicked draw near against me, to eat my flesh. My enemies that trouble me, have themselves been weakened, and have fallen.

Isaiah 9:18-21

9:18. For wickedness is kindled as a fire, it shall devour the brier and the thorn: and shall kindle in the thicket of the forest, and it shall be wrapped up in smoke ascending on high.

9:19. By the wrath of the Lord of hosts the land is troubled, and the people shall be as fuel for the fire: no man shall spare his brother.

9:20. And he shall turn to the right hand, and shall be hungry: and shall eat on the left hand, and shall not be filled: every one shall eat the flesh of his own arm: Manasses Ephraim, and Ephraim Manasses, and they together shall be against Juda.

9:21. After all these things his indignation is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.

Isaiah 49:26

And I will feed thy enemies with their own flesh: and they shall be made drunk with their own blood, as with new wine: and all flesh shall know, that I am the Lord that save thee, and thy Redeemer the Mighty One of Jacob.

Micah 3:2-4

3:2. You that hate good, and love evil: that violently pluck off their skins from them and their flesh from their bones?

3:3. Who have eaten the flesh of my people, and have flayed their skin off them: and have broken, and chopped their bones as for the kettle, and as flesh in the midst of the pot.

3:4. Then shall they cry to the Lord, and he will not hear them: and he will hide his face from them at that time, as they have behaved wickedly in their devices.

Revelation 17:6-8

17:6. And I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And I wondered, when I had seen her, with great admiration.

17:7. And the angel said to me: Why dost thou wonder? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman and of the beast which carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.

17:8. The beast which thou sawest, was, and is not, and shall come up out of the bottomless pit and go into destruction. And the inhabitants on the earth (whose names are not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world) shall wonder, seeing the beast that was and is not.

Revelation 17:16

17:16. And the ten horns which thou sawest in the beast: These shall hate the harlot and shall make her desolate and naked and shall eat her flesh and shall burn her with fire.
 
word meanings:

Bethlehem: Beth means house and Lehem means Bread
(city of bread)

Manger (french): To eat
 
I understand that some theologians - don’t know which - have hypothesized that Judas Iscariot was one of those who walked away. This was the day he turned against Christ.

Even if it’s just speculation, it sort of helps us understand why Jesus would allow people to walk away. He always insisted that accepting his Cross was a free choice, and you had to take it willingly. He didn’t beg anyone.
 
Dear st_felicity,

You know how it’s like when we look at someone’s
actions from *our *perspective? We have the understanding
of transubstantiation…the bread and wine become the
Body and Blood of Jesus Christ while maintaining
the “accidents” proper to bread and wine…color,
weight, “appearance”, if you will. The “substance” of
the bread and wine changes into the "substance’ of
the flesh and blood of Jesus.

If we look at the response of some of the followers
of Jesus, it is hard to grasp why they would not
have trusted Him, accepted what He was saying.
But that is hindsight, because we have the advantage
of the doctrine of transubstantiation at hand, and
we know, through scripture, what transpired at
the Last Supper.

We know what He meant…some of them did not…
they could not get past, what was for them, an
instinctive recoil *because *of what their
faith [Judaism] held about flesh and blood and
its relationship to pagan worship.

Why did Jesus let them go? To say that He
respected them each, individually, and their
free will is, in some sense, a facile reply.
I think it was more than that. I think that
He Himself understood, better than we,
*why *they could not accept this “hard saying.”
And, in His mercy, we cannot know how He
continued to call to them. One thing is certain.
He loved even those who walked away, marvelling
that after the miracles He had performed, they
could not recognize Who He was/is and trust Him.
“If the things that have been done in your
generation…” and so on.
Best wishes,
reen12
 
  1. Jesus meant what he said literally
  2. He would not force people to do anything against their will, even staying with him.
 
One of the keys to the Bread of Life Discourse can be found in John 6:28-30 Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” So they said to him, “What sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform?”
These were the same people he had fed the day before, 5,000 of them with five loaves and a couple of fish and they wanted signs!
Jesus wanted to be believed, he wanted them to know that he was the Messiah. He had pefrormed miracles and they wanted more “signs.”
Then, when he tells them they must eat his flesh and drink his blood, they didn’t ask him what he meant. They just grumbled and left.
Powerful stuff!
 
40.png
Strider:
One of the keys to the Bread of Life Discourse can be found in John 6:28-30 Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” So they said to him, “What sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform?”
These were the same people he had fed the day before, 5,000 of them with five loaves and a couple of fish and they wanted signs!
Jesus wanted to be believed, he wanted them to know that he was the Messiah. He had pefrormed miracles and they wanted more “signs.”
Then, when he tells them they must eat his flesh and drink his blood, they didn’t ask him what he meant. They just grumbled and left.
Powerful stuff!
Click to expand...
Well, dunno. If you look earlier on that chapter, you will notice the commentary of Jesus when he sees them scrambling over the hill. He says that they are not looking for signs. Their remark about signs is only to remind Jesus of the bread and fish he had given them the day before. They were curious about this ‘free meal ticket’ and could care less about signs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top