Why Don't Protestants Interpret John 6:47-58 Literally ?

[O.S.Luke]

The whole official statement for United Methodism regarding the Eucharist can be found here. As far as the Real Presence, this statement probably helps with the discussion:

Christ’s presence in the sacrament is a promise to the church and is not dependent upon recognition of this presence by individual members of the congregation. Holy Communion always offers grace. We are reminded of what God has done for us in the past, experience what God is doing now as we partake, and anticipate what God will do in the future work of salvation. “We await the final moment of grace, when Christ comes in victory at the end of the age to bring all who are in Christ into the glory of that victory” (By Water and the Spirit: A United Methodist Understanding of Baptism, in Book of Resolutions; page 816), and we join in feasting at the heavenly banquet table (Luke 22:14-18; Revelation 19:9).

The Christian church has struggled through the centuries to understand just how Christ is present in the Eucharist. Arguments and divisions have occurred over the matter. The Wesleyan tradition affirms the reality of Christ’s presence, although it does not claim to be able to explain it fully. John and Charles Wesley’s 166 Hymns on the Lord’s Supper are our richest resource for study in order to appreciate the Wesleyan understanding of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. One of these hymns expresses well both the reality and the mystery: “O the Depth of Love Divine,” stanzas 1 and 4 (The United Methodist Hymnal, 627):

*O the depth of love divine,
the unfathomable grace!
Who shall say how bread and wine
God into us conveys!
How the bread his flesh imparts,
how the wine transmits his blood,
fills his faithful people’s hearts
with all the life of God!

Sure and real is the grace,
the manner be unknown;
only meet us in thy ways
and perfect us in one.
Let us taste the heavenly powers,
Lord, we ask for nothing more.
Thine to bless, 'tis only ours
to wonder and adore*…

United Methodists, along with other Christian traditions, have tried to provide clear and faithful interpretations of Christ’s presence in the Holy Meal. Our tradition asserts the real, personal, living presence of Jesus Christ. For United Methodists, the Lord’s Supper is anchored in the life of the historical Jesus of Nazareth, but is not primarily a remembrance or memorial. We do not embrace the medieval doctrine of transubstantiation, although we do believe that the elements are essential tangible means through which God works. We understand the divine presence in temporal and relational terms. In the Holy Meal of the church, the past, present, and future of the living Christ come together by the power of the Holy Spirit so that we may receive and embody Jesus Christ as God’s saving gift for the whole world.

• from This Holy Mystery, PART TWO: CHRIST IS HERE — EXPERIENCING THE MYSTERY, The Presence of Christ

Hope that helps.

O+

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

The whole official statement for United Methodism regarding the Eucharist can be found here. As far as the Real Presence, this statement probably helps with the discussion:

Hope that helps.

O+

Yes it does. Since by their own statements within the text, post-Vatican II, the UMs have “only” been concerned with the Eucharist “as a sacrament” since the 1960s.

Welcome back, UMs: now what was your beef???

Robert

 

[O.S.Luke]

Yes it does. Since by their own statements within the text, post-Vatican II, the UMs have “only” been concerned with the Eucharist “as a sacrament” since the 1960s.

Welcome back, UMs: now what was your beef???

Robert

That’s ridiculous. The sacraments have always been a part of the Articles of Religion, and there were over 100 eucharistic hymns written by the Wesleys. Surely you know that.

 

[CWBetts]

That’s ridiculous. The sacraments have always been a part of the Articles of Religion, and there were over 100 eucharistic hymns written by the Wesleys. Surely you know that.

According the the 39 Articles, which governed the Anglican Church, the presence of Christ in the Eucharist was merely symbolic.

 

[LeroyCRHP]

ErrorCMDR: I would also add John 20:21-23 to the question. I was in study with fundamentalist on John and this section really caused a problem.

 

[John1]

Hi,

I think that some, maybe most, Protestants do interpret John 6:47-58 literally, but they do it in context with John 6:63 where Jesus says that “It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”
I believe that the disagreement or misunderstanding comes from the term “real”. As I understand it, in one case “real” means in a corporeal or physical sense, while in the other case “real” means spiritually. I am a member of the RCC and have been for several years. When I take the Eucharist I believe that I am taking the real spiritual presence of Jesus.

If you were asking because you were really interested, I hope that my answer helped. If you were just throwing that statement out there to demean our Christian brothers and sister who are Protestant, then I hope that you would stop with all the hatred.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

That’s ridiculous. The sacraments have always been a part of the Articles of Religion, and there were over 100 eucharistic hymns written by the Wesleys. Surely you know that.

However, Methodists did NOT doctrinally believe the Eucharist to be the Real Presence, but a mere memorial of our Lord’s last supper. That was in those 25 Articles. The recent link you have provided speaks of a wide variety of views on the Holy Eucharist with many believing it to be the Real Presence.

That is the change.

Robert

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

… not apply the same logic to these verses?

Tradition. They have a strong tradition to tell them which ones to take literally and which not, regardless of the textual indicators that indicate how literally a particular passage is to be taken.

For those of us who believe that Scripture is the comprehensible standard for faith, it appears to be a particularly offensive parable for those who wanted to make Jesus king by force. This passage occurs right after the feeding of the five thousand and Christ walking on water. The people who experienced that miracle found him again, and had the conversation that, for us Protestants, sets the tone of the passage:

25And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?

26Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.

27Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

28Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

29Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

The people were looking for physical, literal food. They weren’t looking for repentance, holiness, or anything like that. They wanted physical food provided without any work on their part. Jesus told them they were looking for the wrong thing. They needed to look for eternal “meat.” The crowd immediately understood the metaphor, that he was talking about doing what God wants. So they asked “what does God want” and Jesus answers that he wants the people to believe in him, Christ.

Why should we believe in you? they wanted to know. Their minds still on getting food for nothing, they bring up another food miracle: the manna.

32Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

33For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

34Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.

35And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

36But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

37All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

38For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

Since he apparently started with a metaphor, many Protestants see no reason to believe he suddenly switched to something more literal. Instead, we interpret it as Jesus saying he came down from heaven in the way they viewed manna as having come. He ironically points out that the crowds would believe in physical manna but refuse to believe in him, though both came from the same place.

…continued…

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

Since he apparently started with a metaphor, many Protestants see no reason to believe he suddenly switched to something more literal. Instead, we interpret it as Jesus saying he came down from heaven in the way they viewed manna as having come. He ironically points out that the crowds would believe in physical manna but refuse to believe in him, though both came from the same place.

…continued…

In the next verses, Jesus goes on to talk about believing in him, and that believers will have eternal life. They knew exactly what he was saying - their grumbling about him calling himself the manna from heaven condenses their whole disagreement. I can’t seriously interpret that passage to say they agreed with everything else he said and just had a problem with the Jesus=manna part. In fact, one of the verses explains exactly what their problem was - it wasn’t the “bread” part but the “from heaven” part:

42And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

They wanted a miracle worker to fill their tummies with physical bread, and Jesus was pointing to himself as something far greater.

In answer to their grumbling, does Jesus launch into an explanation of bread transubstantiating into his body and blood? No, he sticks with his point, and to quote vs 47-58 without this preface takes the passage entirely out of context:

43Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.

44No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

45It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

46Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

More about belief in Christ, more about eternal life, more about the relationship with God. We Protestants see these verses as setting up the increasingly offensive metaphor with which he hammers them even harder:

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

48I am that bread of life.

49Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

50This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

51I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53Then Jesus 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 no life in you.

54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

57As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

58This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

59These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

The metaphor becomes more brutal, more offensive. However, we still see no reason to believe that what started as a metaphor has shifted to a literalism. Believing in Christ really was for that audience like choking down human flesh. Everything in them was repelled by the thought, because only God could draw anyone to Jesus.

So, in essence many Protestants don’t interpret that passage literally because, in context, it seems metaphorical. Having said that, however, nothing in Scripture *condemns *a literal interpretation of that passage. The *Sola Scriptura *principle essentially says that you can only insist on what Scripture insists on. There are Protestants who believe Jesus meant in a literal sense that his followers would eat his flesh and drink his blood; however, it would violate the Sola Scriptura principle to insist that such is the only valid interpretation.

If you want Sola Scriptura Protestants to believe in transubstantiation based on this passage, then you have to show that this passage has textual elements not merely indicating a literalism but insisting upon it.

 

[Singinbeauty]

Why do Protestants and Fundamentalists who may think the entire Bible is literal not apply the same logic to these verses?

God Bless

EC

Maybe for somewhat of the same reason that Catholics don’t take John 19:25-27 literally.

25Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Dear woman, here is your son,” 27and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.

Jesus is directly addressing Mary and the ‘disciple whom he loved’ not everyone in the crowd nor the rest of all us christians and yet per catholic teaching this was ***‘symbolic’ ***of Him giving all of us Mary as our mother.

I will ask you the same question… If you take John 6 literally, why not John 19?

 

[JonNC]

The whole official statement for United Methodism regarding the Eucharist can be found here. As far as the Real Presence, this statement probably helps with the discussion:

Hope that helps.

O+

Thanks, O. I was hoping you would reply. That does help.
Jon

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

Maybe for somewhat of the same reason that Catholics don’t take John 19:25-27 literally.

I have to disagree with you on that point. Catholics view those parts of John 6 literally and John 19 figuratively for different reasons than Sola Scriptura protestants view John 6 figuratively. For Catholics, those are the traditional interpretations. For protestants, it has to do with textual analysis.

 

[graceandglory]

in some “Methodist” books that my friend obtained from the the MC he attends** talked only of it being a spiritual presence… not in such an actual presence.**

SD

If it were only a spiritual presence, then Jesus’ followers and disciples wouldn’t have left Him over it.

***John 6:60-61
Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this?

And in verse 66:
** After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.*****

 

[JonNC]

According the the 39 Articles, which governed the Anglican Church, the presence of Christ in the Eucharist was merely symbolic.

Maybe an Anglican can explain this better than me, but this is what the 39 Articles says about the Lord’s Supper.

XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper. The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

XXIX. Of the Wicked, which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord’s Supper. The Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ; yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ: but rather, to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.

XXX. Of both Kinds. The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people: for both the parts of the Lord’s Sacrament, by Christ’s ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike.

Jon

 

[brambling21]

I believe that Yeshua was saying in John 6:47-58, that He was the sufficiency for all men.

He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. 1 John 5:12 (NASB).

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I believe that Yeshua was saying in John 6:47-58, that He was the sufficiency for all men.

He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. 1 John 5:12 (NASB).

So to try and answer the thread question, why do you believe it is saying this and why do you not take the verse literally? If you do not in fact already.

God bless you

 

[SD_Catholic]

If it were only a spiritual presence, then Jesus’ followers and disciples wouldn’t have left Him over it.

***John 6:60-61
Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this?

And in verse 66:
** After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.*****

I realize this:thumbsup: … did you misunderstand my post? I was indicating that my Methodist friend was describing to me the way he thought the UMC viewed communion and it was also the way the Methodist books I viewed made it sound… I was only trying to find out how the UMC viewed communion.

Perhaps you quoted the wrong person.

SD

 

[O.S.Luke]

Maybe an Anglican can explain this better than me, but this is what the 39 Articles says about the Lord’s Supper.

Jon

That is the same Article in the Methodist Articles of Religion. It means that there is no change in substance. That does not mean it is not the Real Presence of Christ.

Would someone show me where the word symbolic is in the Articles of Religion pertaining to the Eucharist?

 

[O.S.Luke]

However, Methodists did NOT doctrinally believe the Eucharist to be the Real Presence, but a mere memorial of our Lord’s last supper. That was in those 25 Articles.

The word memorial does not occur in the Articles of Religion pertaining to the Eucharist. And the Eucharistic hymns of the Wesleys certainly do not explicitly or implicity suggestion a memorial understanding of the Eucharist. Memorialism is the Zwinglian camp, not Lutheran or Anglican.

The recent link you have provided speaks of a wide variety of views on the Holy Eucharist with many believing it to be the Real Presence.

That is the change.

There has never been a change. There has been more poor and mistaken teaching on the matter, however.

O+

 

[JonNC]

That is the same Article in the Methodist Articles of Religion. It means that there is no change in substance. That does not mean it is not the Real Presence of Christ.

Would someone show me where the word symbolic is in the Articles of Religion pertaining to the Eucharist?

Well, I kind of thought that Anglicans and Methodists were generally on the real presence side of things. If I’m not mistaken, UMC and ELCA share the Lord’s Supper.

Jon