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

[Matariel]

Here is the most recent survey of Catholic beliefs and practices I know of. Page 54 gives around 40% of Catholic respondents saying that Jesus is not really present in the bread and wine. Unfortunately, that survey is much more about how Catholics “feel” about various beliefs and practices, not about what they themselves actually believe. The 60% who believe in the Real Presence is not broken down into those who believe in transubstantiation vs consubstantiation vs some other variation. So there’s no way to tell how many Catholics are Methodist at heart.
.

You have to remember that this includes so-called “non-practicing Catholics” (i.e., people who were raised Catholic but aren’t really Catholic, except culturally). This is a problem with surveys among Catholics that isn’t present in Protestant circles (Protestants, after leaving, do not continue to identify as Protestant) so it skews the data in a big way, considering that there are numerous cultural “Catholics” out there.

So really this survey is unreliable. All the Catholics I know (and some at my parish are liberal) believe in the Real Presence, and I’ve never come across any that don’t, not even the liberal variety.

 

[ncgolf]

It seems no one has touched on what may be a key point in interpreting this passage. The folks who were there listening to Jesus predated the Last Supper, and any institution of the Eucharist in the church.

Given this fact, how were they supposed to understand what Jesus was telling them? If they took it “literally” they should have taken an arm and started gnawing.

Jesus must have had some meaning to his words that was available to them that didn’t rely on information and events that hadn’t happened yet.

Any suggestions?

I will toss this out. Jesus was teaching graduate level theology to 1st grade students here … but with the Holy Spirit He knew they would understand, in time and with events that had not yet transpired … He had to plant the seed of the Eucharistic teaching somewhere.

Another thought was that for Christianity to flourish it had to be separate from Judaism … it could not be ultimately seen as a sect of Judaism. All the early teachers of Christ’s message were Jewish and it was a big deal to include Gentiles, early Christianity was seen as a form of Judaism.

This teaching flew in the face of Jewish custom and practice was a piece of that puzzle. All the people there were Jewish, Jesus was a Rabbi, so it was a Jewish get together. You can begin to see how followers of Jesus were beginning to distinguish themselves from other Jews (they stayed) … even though they did not fully understand. The apostles had no reason to think that they were still practicing anything other than Judaism. The Eucharist would help define Christianity as a distinct and separate belief than Judaism.

So another aspect of this passage, though less obvious than the Real Presence, is the beginning of the ability of the early church to see themselves differently … not merely a form of Judaism.

 

[Matariel]

I see noöne had anything to say about my posts on the previous page?

 

[Non_Serviam]

I will toss this out. Jesus was teaching graduate level theology to 1st grade students here … but with the Holy Spirit He knew they would understand, in time and with events that had not yet transpired … He had to plant the seed of the Eucharistic teaching somewhere.

Another thought was that for Christianity to flourish it had to be separate from Judaism … it could not be ultimately seen as a sect of Judaism. All the early teachers of Christ’s message were Jewish and it was a big deal to include Gentiles, early Christianity was seen as a form of Judaism.

This teaching flew in the face of Jewish custom and practice was a piece of that puzzle. All the people there were Jewish, Jesus was a Rabbi, so it was a Jewish get together. You can begin to see how followers of Jesus were beginning to distinguish themselves from other Jews (they stayed) … even though they did not fully understand. The apostles had no reason to think that they were still practicing anything other than Judaism. The Eucharist would help define Christianity as a distinct and separate belief than Judaism.

So another aspect of this passage, though less obvious than the Real Presence, is the beginning of the ability of the early church to see themselves differently … not merely a form of Judaism.

It’s an interesting interpretation you propose looking back on the event, but it doesn’t seem to do justice to the situation faced by those who were there that day. Jesus is telling them they must do something to have eternal life-should we assume it was a rhetorical request on his part that would make no sense until later in the future?

Those who left at this statement are held responsible for leaving-since Jesus didn’t expect them to begin physically eating Him there and then, there must have been another conclusion they would have been able to draw from His words-otherwise their refusal to commit cannibalism would be a virtuous act, which isn’t the sense we get from the passage in John.

While the Real Presence can be deduced from this passage, I don’t believe it can be considered the “literal” interpretation of the text for just this reason. Just as the calling out of Egypt had a literal (Israel) and a prophetic fulfillment (Jesus)-so this passage must have a literal meaning that comes before the allusion to the Eucharist.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

Too bad this doesn’t take into account that there is no analogy between “I am the door” and “Whomever eats Me lives because of Me” and “My Body is real Food and My Blood is real drink”.

What is the rule for textual interpretation that says to you “the door” was figurative but “eat my flesh” was literal?

And it doesn’t take into account what Christ himself says at the Last Supper or what St.Paul says (“descerning the Body”, "“Guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord” etc.) or what the early Church says and what was believed 1500 years until Zwingli came along.

Ah, but we’re specifically discussing John 6:47-58. There are answers to those arguments as well, but the OP claimed that it was obvious this passage is meant literally. It’s reasonable to stick with this passage, then.

Or the fact that Christ uses the word trogo, which is never used in the Bible symbolically, anywhere, and which was never used symbolically in any known secular koine Greek literature from that time. Go figure.

That’s interesting. I’d never heard that one before. Two points - how much literature was really written in “street greek”? I’ve been under the impression it was kind of like ebonics, but far more prevalent among non-greek Romans. True literature was written in better Greek than most of the NT, as I understand it. Second point, there isn’t always enough koine literature available from the period to show precisely how a particular word was used. I’ve read that where Paul says “it is not good for a woman to have authority over a man” that the word “have authority over” is only used in two other places in ancient literature. In both those places, it implies a sexual relationship, like the priestess/prostitutes of ancient temples. I don’t know how often “trogo” is used, but I don’t know it would be often enough to show that using it figuratively was impossible.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

You have to remember that this includes so-called “non-practicing Catholics” (i.e., people who were raised Catholic but aren’t really Catholic, except culturally).

Of course! How could they have gotten a good sample size otherwise?

This is a problem with surveys among Catholics that isn’t present in Protestant circles (Protestants, after leaving, do not continue to identify as Protestant)

You’d be surprised. There are plenty of functional atheists who attend church regularly because it gives them standing in the community, or even crudely gives them contacts of multilevel marketing. I’ve seen lots of people claim membership in one protestant denomination or another when they haven’t been to any church in years.

so it skews the data in a big way, considering that there are numerous cultural “Catholics” out there.

So really this survey is unreliable. All the Catholics I know (and some at my parish are liberal) believe in the Real Presence, and I’ve never come across any that don’t, not even the liberal variety.

That still begs the question. Many people don’t really know the full implications of the Catholic use of the phrase “the Real Presence.” Many Catholics can say they believe in it, but they may believe in one of a number of variations on the idea that aren’t part of Vatican teachings. How often do catechism or RCIA classes go over the many variations and make sure that the student gives heartfelt assent only to the official Catholic version?

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

I see noöne had anything to say about my posts on the previous page?

I get that a lot myself. Maybe I use too many clauses in my sentences?

 

[CWBetts]

Of course! How could they have gotten a good sample size otherwise?

You’d be surprised. There are plenty of functional atheists who attend church regularly because it gives them standing in the community, or even crudely gives them contacts of multilevel marketing. I’ve seen lots of people claim membership in one protestant denomination or another when they haven’t been to any church in years.

That still begs the question. Many people don’t really know the full implications of the Catholic use of the phrase “the Real Presence.” Many Catholics can say they believe in it, but they may believe in one of a number of variations on the idea that aren’t part of Vatican teachings. How often do catechism or RCIA classes go over the many variations and make sure that the student gives heartfelt assent only to the official Catholic version?

Our Parish deals wit this by having the priest teach the class session on the Eucharist

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

Given this fact, how were they supposed to understand what Jesus was telling them? If they took it “literally” they should have taken an arm and started gnawing.

Crudely put, crudely put… but a very good point.

 

[SD_Catholic]

Sure. Rbt Southwell’s argument was that if a survey indicates that a significant percentage of the members of a particular church don’t know or don’t believe the official teachings of that church, then there has been

on the part of that church, regardless of that church’s official statements. He states

So one would expect a survey of Catholic respondents to indicate a very high degree of agreement with official teachings. I provided a counterexample. (And yes, I’m aware of some of the statistical weaknesses the study.)

The point is simply that if you want to know what the teachings of an ecclesial body are, you have to go to the most official statements of that body you can find. Surveys of parishioners don’t count.

Are you just making a statement that a lot of Catholics don’t know their stuff? If so I would agree that many couldn’t explain the real presence or how it happens, but most practicing Catholics “believe” in the real presence.

If you’re saying that since many can’t explain the real presence then the Church should conform it’s theology and teachings in order to meet the understanding of the faithful then I would say, “No Way!”

If you mean that the Church should make a bigger point of helping the faithful understand the real presence… well to that I would say, “Amen Brother!”

SD

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

Our Parish deals wit this by having the priest teach the class session on the Eucharist

You’ve got a good one. Does he actually go over the different variations, so people understand what the differences are? It’s a little hard to understand unless you hear it directly that there is a difference between teaching that the body and blood are present “in” vs “with” bread and wine vs the teaching that the bread and wine no longer exist, but are entirely replaced by lookalikes that are actually flesh and blood. As one example of a variation on the teaching.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

Are you just making a statement that a lot of Catholics don’t know their stuff? If so I would agree that many couldn’t explain the real presence or how it happens, but most practicing Catholics “believe” in the real presence.

If you’re saying that since many can’t explain the real presence then the Church should conform it’s theology and teachings in order to meet the understanding of the faithful then I would say, “No Way!”

If you mean that the Church should make a bigger point of helping the faithful understand the real presence… well to that I would say, “Amen Brother!”

SD

The point is simply that if you want to know what the teachings of an ecclesial body are, you have to go to the most official statements of that body you can find. Surveys of parishioners don’t count.

However, you raise other worthy possible points of discussion as well.

 

[CWBetts]

That class is coming up soon this year…and it has been a year since I’ve heard it…so I will let you know. what I like about our RCIA is that it is on a weekday evening, so Father is there almost every week to help with questions

 

[Non_Serviam]

Crudely put, crudely put… but a very good point.

Agreed. But the reaction of the Jews makes a great deal more sense when one realizes that Jesus’ words to them sounded an awful lot like “gnaw on me” and there wasn’t necessarily an immediately obvious secondary meaning for them to interpret His statements.

Catholics avoid that “literal” interpretation, by substituting another “literal” interpretation that they read back into the passage, and some Protestants avoid that interpretation through a variety of interpretative choices.

I believe Jesus was commanding his listeners to do something that they were able to do then and there, with a later fullness of understanding becoming available after the Last Supper.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

Agreed. But the reaction of the Jews makes a great deal more sense when one realizes that Jesus’ words to them sounded an awful lot like “gnaw on me” and there wasn’t necessarily an immediately obvious secondary meaning for them to interpret His statements.

Catholics avoid that “literal” interpretation, by substituting another “literal” interpretation that they read back into the passage, and some Protestants avoid that interpretation through a variety of interpretative choices.

I believe Jesus was commanding his listeners to do something that they were able to do then and there, with a later fullness of understanding becoming available after the Last Supper.

It’s a point I definitely hadn’t thought of bringing up. “How literal is literal?” There are a couple of levels of literalism that one could try to apply to this passage.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

I believe Jesus was commanding his listeners to do something that they were able to do then and there, with a later fullness of understanding becoming available after the Last Supper.

Of course, Non Serviam, your “interpretation” is based upon your premise that any statement from a Church founded by Christ (our belief based upon our Scripture and Tradition) is inherently suspect.

Therefore, any statement from YOU about events in those days is authentic and verifiable: just ask yourself!

Where have you been??? There are thousands looking for the man with the ANSWERS to the ‘Da Vinci Code’ and the ‘Bible Code,’ you must find them, they need your wisdom.

Robert

 

[CWBetts]

Agreed. But the reaction of the Jews makes a great deal more sense when one realizes that Jesus’ words to them sounded an awful lot like “gnaw on me” and there wasn’t necessarily an immediately obvious secondary meaning for them to interpret His statements.

Catholics avoid that “literal” interpretation, by substituting another “literal” interpretation that they read back into the passage, and some Protestants avoid that interpretation through a variety of interpretative choices.

I believe Jesus was commanding his listeners to do something that they were able to do then and there, with a later fullness of understanding becoming available after the Last Supper.

It sounds to me you are trying to make the scriptures say something they don’t say just so you can justify your own misguided interpretation.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Of course, Non Serviam, your “interpretation” is based upon your premise that any statement from a Church founded by Christ (our belief based upon our Scripture and Tradition) is inherently suspect.

Therefore, any statement from YOU about events in those days is authentic and verifiable: just ask yourself!

Where have you been??? There are thousands looking for the man with the ANSWERS to the ‘Da Vinci Code’ and the ‘Bible Code,’ you must find them, they need your wisdom.

Robert

So Robert, you think that the crowd who heard Jesus knew about the Eucharist which hadn’t yet happened?

My comments are based on the original post. I’m calling into question what a literal interpretation of the passage would include. If you take the trouble to clearly read what I’ve written, you’ll see that I acknowledge that the passage speaks about the Eucharist in a secondary sense, just like the example I gave of the prophecy of coming up out of Egypt.

What I’m saying is that Jesus’ listeners could not have understood him to “literally” mean the Eucharist when the inaugural Eucharistic meal (i.e. the Last Supper) hadn’t yet taken place.

You are reading back in time, try reading the passage from their point in time and confine yourself to what had been revealed up to that point.

After you’ve done that, let me know if my comments make any more sense.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

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.

No, Luke, I am referring to Apostolic Succession. The elements (bread and wine) become the body and blood of Jesus at the Eucharistic Prayer during the Mass when spoken by an ordained priest who traces his ordination through bishops back to the early Church. This applies to Orthodox priests as well.

This is what I meant by the Real Presence.

To quote Origen: “We are said to drink the blood of Christ not only when we receive it according to the rite of the mysteries,but also when we receive his words, in which life dwells, as he said himself, ‘The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.’” (Homilies on Numbers 16.9)

I hope this clears up any misunderstanding.

Robert

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

What I’m saying is that Jesus’ listeners could not have understood him to “literally” mean the Eucharist when the inaugural Eucharistic meal (i.e. the Last Supper) hadn’t yet taken place.

You are reading back in time, try reading the passage from their point in time and confine yourself to what had been revealed up to that point.

After you’ve done that, let me know if my comments make any more sense.

Non Serviam;

If your intent is to parse the Scripture (Old and New) into discreet packets and “read[ing] the passage from their point in time and confine yourself to what had been revealed up to that point,” then you have succeeded.

However, you are assuming Scripture to be “interpreted” that way. Catholics and Orthodox have NEVER taught that what was compiled into the canon (officially by Pope Damasus I in 382) was a blow-by-blow description of what constitutes Christianity.

The early Church was all about the Real Presence, it was the liturgy that was of paramount importance. The Bible was compiled we believe (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) to support that liturgy. And what was written was never intended to support a “You Are There” playscript.

It doesn’t matter what the Jews thought who left him there. What mattered was what occurred later as recounted also in St Luke’s Gospel, chapter 22, verses 15 et seq.

The ‘gnaw on me’ argument is not on point. Their reaction does not constitute commentary on interpreting St John’s account.

The point may be how so many of us pick and choose verses and snippets of phrases and words and haggle over the sandals and belt when Scripture and the Magisterium teaches us to look at the whole sweep of events and teachings of God-with-us.

I hope this helps.

Robert