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

[Rbt_Southwell]

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

O+

Let me clarify the above statement.

In your link, in Part One, there are these two quotations taken from “There is More to the Mystery.”

“According to the results of a survey conducted by the General Board of Discipleship prior to the 2000 General Conference, there is a strong sense of the importance of Holy Communion in the life of individual Christians and of the church.”

a few lines later:

“Many laypeople complain of sloppy practice, questionable theology, and lack of teaching and guidance.”

THIS is what I was referencing, Luke.

It takes a SURVEY to get a more Catholic viewpoint on this Sacrament? And from 8 years past?

A change of practice and theology and teaching and guidance is a CHANGE, Luke.

Albeit a change for the GOOD but still it is a mere MEMORIAL for your church.

The Real Presence has been in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches (and all their various Rites) since the institution of this Sacrament (contra the Anglican article statement) by Jesus at His last supper as reported in St John’s Gospel.

I am glad for you, but it is a mere memorial, it is NOT the Real Presence in your tradition.

Robert

 

[kalt]

*I have been to countless Pentecostal Churches, Assembly of God, Baptist, Non-denominational churches and once to a Lutheran and all but the Lutheran Church always taught that it was a symbol. Kind of sad but as far as I know they all DO get thrown off by the “in remembrance of me”

Hope to get some non-Catholics in here to I would like to hear there reasoning.

God Bless

EC*

 

[O.S.Luke]

I am glad for you, but it is a mere memorial, it is NOT the Real Presence in your tradition.

From the guiding principle regarding the presence of Christ at the Eucharist:

Principle:
Jesus Christ, who “is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being” (Hebrews 1:3), is truly present in Holy Communion. Through Jesus Christ and in the power of the Holy Spirit, God meets us at the Table. God, who has given the sacraments to the church, acts in and through Holy Communion. Christ is present through the community gathered in Jesus’ name (Matthew 18:20), through the Word proclaimed and enacted, and through the elements of bread and wine shared (1 Corinthians 11:23-26). The divine presence is a living reality and can be experienced by participants; it is not a remembrance of the Last Supper and the Crucifixion only. - from This Holy Mystery, the official statement and doctrine on the Eucharist in United Methodism

It is the Real Presence in our tradition. It has always been so.

There has been sloppy practice and theological teaching, but that does not mean the doctrine has not been present (nor is it the first time in Christian history where poor catechesis and practice has taken place). If you will show me in official statements and church theological statements (i.e., General Conference statements, not books and opinions) where it has ever said otherwise, and I will gladly stand corrected with such evidence.

Official church statements and Articles since the beginning of Methodism have stated otherwise - you are just being argumentative. It’s been stated clearly, historically, and with official documents. Again, all you have to do is point to eucharistic hymnody and sermons from the Wesleys to have clarity on the matter. The Wesleys died as Anglican priests in good standing.

By all appearances, you seem to know more about Methodism and Anglicanism than the Methodists and Anglicans. Why is this?

Again, if you want to go the mere memorial route, you need to follow the Zwinglians around. You won’t find memorialism in Lutheranism or Anglicanism/Methodism.

You are confusing Real Presence with Transubstantiation. There was no such word/concept as transubstantiation until the advent of Thomism and the use of Aristotelianism in eucharistic theology. And the Eastern Church no longer uses the word transubstantiation.

 

[O.S.Luke]

I have been to countless Pentecostal Churches, Assembly of God, Baptist, Non-denominational churches and once to a Lutheran and all but the Lutheran Church always taught that it was a symbol. Kind of sad but as far as I know they all DO get thrown off by the “in remembrance of me”

Memorialism is consistent with traditions that do not view the Last Supper as a sacrament, but as an ordinance (not all Protestants have sacraments). As a sacrament is a means of grace, it is much more than a simple remembrance of past actions.

It is not totally inaccurate to refer to a sacrament as a symbol; symbols point towards the realities which they represent. In the case of the Eucharist, the bread and wine are both symbols that point toward Christ, AND they are Christ. A much better word than symbol, of course, is sign/action (we all remember Augustine’s quote re: sacraments, “Outward and visible signs of inward and spiritual grace”).

Back to the original post: the word “remembrance” should not be a stumbling block - the Greek word was anamnesis - literally, “unforget.” In the case of the action of the Eucharist, the eucharistic prayer recalls the actions of God in the creation of the universe, the actions of the prophets and the Law, the birth and ministry of Christ, his crucifixion, and his resurrection. The danger is to center on Good Friday. By Christ being really present at the Eucharist, it is a presenting of Christ the logos who was in the beginning, Christ who was/is prophesied, Christ who healed/heals and preached/preaches, Christ who triumphed/triumphs over death. The verb tenses are not past; they are past, present, and future… for the great mystery of faith is Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Logic, philosophy, and reason start to fall apart when dealing with the supernatural. It becomes both/and, rather than either/or.

 

[John1]

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.*****

Hi,

I think you’re leaving out where Jesus explains that what he is saying is spiritual and the flesh is of no avail in chapter 6, verse 63.

 

[kalt]

I found this on UM communion. The real presence described here isn’t exactly the same as what the CC believes.

"Real Presence

United Methodists are part of the catholic tradition in the Church which teaches that the sacraments are means of grace, not just ordinances, and that when one partakes of the elements in Holy Communion we affirm that God’s grace is communicated to the believer. In the sacramental approach it is believed that the grace of Jesus Christ falls directly upon the elements of bread and wine, and then from the elements to the believer when the believer eats and drinks them with faith. The grace which is brought with it is the manifestation of the Real Presence of Jesus, dwelling in our hearts by God’s grace acting through faith (Ephesians 3:17).

As a means of grace, Holy Communion is not our action but God’s action; it is not our act of faith that is in focus here, it is God’s act of giving us the divine presence of Jesus. Through the sacrament of Holy Communion we are re-membered to the Body of Christ, we are given the wonderful, life transforming grace of our Savior which makes the Christian life possible.

United Methodists believe that Holy Communion is a Sacrament, a means of grace, where by the Real Presence of Jesus is communicated to us and, by faith, comes to dwell in us. This is what we believe."

Do you agree with the quote above?

From the guiding principle regarding the presence of Christ at the Eucharist:

It is the Real Presence in our tradition. It has always been so.

There has been sloppy practice and theological teaching, but that does not mean the doctrine has not been present (nor is it the first time in Christian history where poor catechesis and practice has taken place). If you will show me in official statements and church theological statements (i.e., General Conference statements, not books and opinions) where it has ever said otherwise, and I will gladly stand corrected with such evidence.

Official church statements and Articles since the beginning of Methodism have stated otherwise - you are just being argumentative. It’s been stated clearly, historically, and with official documents. Again, all you have to do is point to eucharistic hymnody and sermons from the Wesleys to have clarity on the matter. The Wesleys died as Anglican priests in good standing.

By all appearances, you seem to know more about Methodism and Anglicanism than the Methodists and Anglicans. Why is this?

Again, if you want to go the mere memorial route, you need to follow the Zwinglians around. You won’t find memorialism in Lutheranism or Anglicanism/Methodism.

You are confusing Real Presence with Transubstantiation. There was no such word/concept as transubstantiation until the advent of Thomism and the use of Aristotelianism in eucharistic theology. And the Eastern Church no longer uses the word transubstantiation.

 

[kalt]

You’ve attributed a quote to me that I didn’t post. ???

Memorialism is consistent with traditions that do not view the Last Supper as a sacrament, but as an ordinance (not all Protestants have sacraments). As a sacrament is a means of grace, it is much more than a simple remembrance of past actions.

It is not totally inaccurate to refer to a sacrament as a symbol; symbols point towards the realities which they represent. In the case of the Eucharist, the bread and wine are both symbols that point toward Christ, AND they are Christ. A much better word than symbol, of course, is sign/action (we all remember Augustine’s quote re: sacraments, “Outward and visible signs of inward and spiritual grace”).

Back to the original post: the word “remembrance” should not be a stumbling block - the Greek word was anamnesis - literally, “unforget.” In the case of the action of the Eucharist, the eucharistic prayer recalls the actions of God in the creation of the universe, the actions of the prophets and the Law, the birth and ministry of Christ, his crucifixion, and his resurrection. The danger is to center on Good Friday. By Christ being really present at the Eucharist, it is a presenting of Christ the logos who was in the beginning, Christ who was/is prophesied, Christ who healed/heals and preached/preaches, Christ who triumphed/triumphs over death. The verb tenses are not past; they are past, present, and future… for the great mystery of faith is Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Logic, philosophy, and reason start to fall apart when dealing with the supernatural. It becomes both/and, rather than either/or.

 

[kalt]

Hi,

I think you’re leaving out where Jesus explains that what he is saying is spiritual and the flesh is of no avail in chapter 6, verse 63.

“all Jesus said about the bread of life is the revelation of the Spirit.”

 

[Hisalone]

Hi,

I think you’re leaving out where Jesus explains that what he is saying is spiritual and the flesh is of no avail in chapter 6, verse 63.

Exactly John 6 was never indended to be meant literally. Those that followed Jessu left because they no longer believed in Jesus. Can anyone reasonable assert that Peter and the rest believed that Jesus was telling them thye must eat His body and drink His blood? Of course not. Wake up.

 

[kalt]

From the guiding principle regarding the presence of Christ at the Eucharist:

It is the Real Presence in our tradition. It has always been so.

There has been sloppy practice and theological teaching, but that does not mean the doctrine has not been present (nor is it the first time in Christian history where poor catechesis and practice has taken place). If you will show me in official statements and church theological statements (i.e., General Conference statements, not books and opinions) where it has ever said otherwise, and I will gladly stand corrected with such evidence.

Official church statements and Articles since the beginning of Methodism have stated otherwise - you are just being argumentative. It’s been stated clearly, historically, and with official documents. Again, all you have to do is point to eucharistic hymnody and sermons from the Wesleys to have clarity on the matter. The Wesleys died as Anglican priests in good standing.

By all appearances, you seem to know more about Methodism and Anglicanism than the Methodists and Anglicans. Why is this?

Again, if you want to go the mere memorial route, you need to follow the Zwinglians around. You won’t find memorialism in Lutheranism or Anglicanism/Methodism.

You are confusing Real Presence with Transubstantiation. There was no such word/concept as transubstantiation until the advent of Thomism and the use of Aristotelianism in eucharistic theology. And the Eastern Church no longer uses the word transubstantiation.

"1375 It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion.

Thus St. John Chrysostom declares:

It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God’s. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered.204

And St. Ambrose says about this conversion:

Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. The power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed. . . . Could not Christ’s word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature.

205
1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring:

"Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now DECLARES AGAIN that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation. "

this is not a new teaching, but is a restating.

Why do non-Catholics insist that any statement about the faith must be a new understanding or new doctrine?

 

[kalt]

Exactly John 6 was never indended to be meant literally. Those that followed Jessu left because they no longer believed in Jesus. Can anyone reasonable assert that Peter and the rest believed that Jesus was telling them thye must eat His body and drink His blood? Of course not. Wake up.

Wait. Was it or was it not meant to be taken literally? The post you’re agreeing with states that it should be taken literally. The author asserts that Catholics are forgetting another verse that, interpreted his way, makes a literal interpretation necessary. The verse he cites, using his interpretaion and taken literally, proves that he Eucharist is merely a memorial act and that it is not the literal body and blood of Christ.

 

[O.S.Luke]

It was my understanding that the dogma of transubstantiation was not dogma until the Fourth Lateran Council and was later fully defined at Trent. That came from my Catholic professor of sacramental theology.

Before that, the bread and wine became the Body and Blood of Christ. Period. End of story. No explanation needed.

 

[Hebrews_4_12]

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

God Bless

EC

You are attacking a strawman, reading the bible as the original author in his original context intended is what it means to read the words as they were literally intended. When we read the words in context we get to their literal meaning. When we read John 10:7 Therefore Jesus said again, “I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep.” It does not mean we take it in a wooden literal sense that Christ has hinges and a handle and that believers have four legs and a wool coat. The literal meaning intended by the author is clear that Jesus is “like” a gate in that believers must enter into his presence through him. The same can be said of John 6 Jesus defines his own terms. The problem with all those who heard his words is that they were stuck on the wooden literal words and could not wrap their minds around the deeper spiritual meanings of Christ’s words. Augustin gave this very chapter’s words as an example of that which is meant to be taken figuratively.

St. Augustin’s City of God and Christian Doctrine Book III
Chapter 16.—Rule for Interpreting Commands and Prohibitions.

1. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” John vi. 53. This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.

We are literally meant to take the words of his speech as figurative.

26Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. 27Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.”

28Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

29Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

30So they asked him, “What miraculous sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? 31Our forefathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’[c]”

32Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

34"Sir," they said, “from now on give us this bread.”

35Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. 36But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

41At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”

43"Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered. 44"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. 45It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’[d] Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. 46No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. 48I am the bread of life. 49Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53Jesus 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. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

 

[Hisalone]

Wait. Was it or was it not meant to be taken literally? The post you’re agreeing with states that it should be taken literally. The author asserts that Catholics are forgetting another verse that, interpreted his way, makes a literal interpretation necessary. The verse he cites, using his interpretaion and taken literally, proves that he Eucharist is merely a memorial act and that it is not the literal body and blood of Christ.

It is not to be taken literally Jesus is the bred of life becasue we are to feed on Him for our spiritual food. His words are spirit and they bring life. Peter and those that stayed did so becase they believed in Jesus and His words that give life not that they believed that they would have to literalyy eat the body and blood of Jesus.

 

[Hisalone]

It was my understanding that the dogma of transubstantiation was not dogma until the Fourth Lateran Council and was later fully defined at Trent. That came from my Catholic professor of sacramental theology.

Before that, the bread and wine became the Body and Blood of Christ. Period. End of story. No explanation needed.

I agree the Catholics would be better served for it to remain a mystery.

 

[kalt]

It was my understanding that the dogma of transubstantiation was not dogma until the Fourth Lateran Council and was later fully defined at Trent. That came from my Catholic professor of sacramental theology.

Before that, the bread and wine became the Body and Blood of Christ. Period. End of story. No explanation needed.

No explanation needed most likely because the belief had not been challenged until then.

At some point in your life, I’m sure, someone challenged you on your stance on some issue. You offered a response that restated, stated for the first time, clarified, or expounded on your stance. It wasn’t a new stance you were relating.

Challenges to your stance (or the church’s stance) are a good thing. They make us restate what we believe and make sure that our thinking is clear enough that there is no doubt where we stand.

This forum is good at that. Thank you for your responses, especially for your response teaching us about UM communion. Very informative. Thank you!

 

[kalt]

It is not to be taken literally Jesus is the bred of life becasue we are to feed on Him for our spiritual food. His words are spirit and they bring life. Peter and those that stayed did so becase they believed in Jesus and His words that give life not that they believed that they would have to literalyy eat the body and blood of Jesus.

Then you do take John 6 literally, using the other poster’s interpretation of the quoted verse.

If you don’t take that line literally, using that particular interpretation, then whether it’s the real presence or not is up for grabs. But you have to use that interpretation.

I think you need to read the verses that are being talked about here. It sounds like you’re not too sure what the verse in question says. If you don’t take that verse literally, and if you don’t use the poster’s interpretation, you can’t prove your point.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

O.S. Luke;4578176:

It was my understanding that the dogma of transubstantiation was not dogma until the Fourth Lateran Council and was later fully defined at Trent. That came from my Catholic professor of sacramental theology.

Before that, the bread and wine became the Body and Blood of Christ. Period. End of story. No explanation needed.

No explanation needed most likely because the belief had not been challenged until then.

At some point in your life, I’m sure, someone challenged you on your stance on some issue. You offered a response that restated, stated for the first time, clarified, or expounded on your stance. It wasn’t a new stance you were relating.

Challenges to your stance (or the church’s stance) are a good thing. They make us restate what we believe and make sure that our thinking is clear enough that there is no doubt where we stand.

This forum is good at that. Thank you for your responses, especially for your response teaching us about UM communion. Very informative. Thank you!

My understanding is that it was a consistent controversy that never did end. Part of the problem was that people were trying to figure out the nature of matter. That tangled up the problem of deciding what happened at the Lord’s Supper. The pagan Greeks had a number of different philosophical ideas about what matter was and where it came from. Depending on which pagan Greek philosophy seemed most convincing to an individual, the idea that the bread and wine were totally and utterly transformed into flesh blood and bone while retaining every sense-ible characteristic of bread and wine could seem plausible or nutty. Christians agreed that something special and important took place, but it was the precise mechanism that caused division.

The arguments I’ve read over exactly what goes on at the Lord’s Supper all seem to be proxy arguments for the nature of matter.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

We are literally meant to take the words of his speech as figurative.

 

[O.S.Luke]

My understanding is that it was a consistent controversy that never did end. Part of the problem was that people were trying to figure out the nature of matter. That tangled up the problem of deciding what happened at the Lord’s Supper. The pagan Greeks had a number of different philosophical ideas about what matter was and where it came from. Depending on which pagan Greek philosophy seemed most convincing to an individual, the idea that the bread and wine were totally and utterly transformed into flesh blood and bone while retaining every sense-ible characteristic of bread and wine could seem plausible or nutty. Christians agreed that something special and important took place, but it was the precise mechanism that caused division.

The arguments I’ve read over exactly what goes on at the Lord’s Supper all seem to be proxy arguments for the nature of matter.

Yes, and scholasticism came on the scene as well. Plus, as more divergence occurred between the West and the East, differing philosophies (as you noted) very much affected this controversy. The West had no problems using rationalism and Aristotelian logic, while the East was content to say that it was a mystery - it’s at best folly to attempt explanation regarding form and substance. Again, mysteries are at best unexplainable; using Aristotelian logic (i.e., EITHER/OR) is probably substandard to BOTH/AND. In other words, the bread and wine is the Body and Blood of Christ. It is also still bread and wine. The ordinary is still ordinary yet extraordinary. How can something be two things at once? Through God… all things are possible!

It’s to the point now where the Eastern Church, while in no way changing its belief in the Real Presence, has simply quit using the term transubstantiation. A good article can be read here.

O+