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

[Non_Serviam]

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

I’ll try once more.

Robert, I approach the Gospel accounts as a record of events that actually happened (perhaps you don’t, I don’t know at this point based on your comments) which are objective facts.

To understand what Scripture is saying, it is important to consider these facts-Catholic scriptural interpretation holds that the literal sense of a biblical text is a foundation for all the other senses.

We read in the passage that the Jews had difficulty with what was said-to understand what the difficulty was, we need to understand what they took Jesus’ words to mean. Since the Eucharist hadn’t yet been instituted, they couldn’t have taken his words as a reference to the Eucharist. Therefore Jesus teaching on the Eucharist and Real Presence isn’t the Literal sense of the passage. It may be the spiritual, allegorical or anagogical sense of the passage, but not the literal. (Catechism “The Holy Spirit, Interpreter of Scripture”)

The catechism points out that the literal sense of a passage is found by exegesis-the interpretation and understanding of a text on the basis of the text itself-this means what the Jews thought is important to understand the literal sense of the text-the foundation upon which all the other senses rest.

Demean this as you will with straw man descriptions of playscripts and such, it doesn’t invalidate exegesis as the basis of both sound biblical and general textual scholarship.

Did the early church see this passage as useful to teach about the Real Presence? Yes. Does this make that the literal sense of the passage? No.

Is Luke 22 important in understanding the full counsel of Scripture and the doctrine of the Real Presence? Yes. Do the events cited in Luke 22 change the literal sense of John 6? No.

A belt can prove useful if one wishes to gird up his loins with Truth. The OP wanted to discuss the literal sense of the passage and I’ve engaged in that discussion to try and get at the truth of the assertion-if you feel the need to defend the papacy, sacraments and magesterium from attack, then there are better targets for you to choose since I’m not challenging any of those items in this discussion.

What I am challenging is the rhetorical tactic of calling the Eucharistic interpretation the passage the “literal sense” and then using that phrase to attack individuals who claim to believe in a literal interpretation of the Scriptures. It’s not a worthy tactic to defend the Real Presence.

I hope this clarifies things for you.

NS

 

[ncgolf]

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.

My assumption is Jesus meant what He said … tough sayings … very hard to understand and make sense of for the Jews of that time … even the 12 chosen ones … you think it’s any easier today. If it was this discussion would not be happening.

Let God assign levels of responsibility … I see less culpability by those people than Peter’s denial but I do see how one can leave when the beliefs becoming tough to understand or practice. I see their leaving as understandable … people not unlike any of us today. We are those people in a sense … we are given the choice to leave or to stay … based on what … only what they or we can see in front of us. The 12 stayed not because they could “see” what He was saying but because of faith. I still think today the “faith” Peter used in staying is still demanded. I have never seen what I believe to happen at the consecration … never … but I believe it to be true. I do admit it is a hard thing to explain to those who do not believe … I imagine people think exactly what those who left thougt.

I do not imply that what happened there did not make no sense … Peter had it right when He said … “To whom do we go you have the words of eternal life.” Peter’s statement is IMO full of faith … but not understanding.

Hasn’t anyone taken a class … made it through it without really understanding it but “getting” it later … something changed where the whole class made sense.

 

[O.S.Luke]

No, Luke, I am referring to Apostolic Succession.

Ok… I’m just not sure what Apostolic Succession has to do with John 6:47-58.

 

[SD_Catholic]

My assumption is Jesus meant what He said … tough sayings … very hard to understand and make sense of for the Jews of that time … even the 12 chosen ones … you think it’s any easier today. If it was this discussion would not be happening.

Let God assign levels of responsibility … I see less culpability by those people than Peter’s denial but I do see how one can leave when the beliefs becoming tough to understand or practice. I see their leaving as understandable … people not unlike any of us today. We are those people in a sense … we are given the choice to leave or to stay … based on what … only what they or we can see in front of us. The 12 stayed not because they could “see” what He was saying but because of faith. I still think today the “faith” Peter used in staying is still demanded. I have never seen what I believe to happen at the consecration … never … but I believe it to be true. I do admit it is a hard thing to explain to those who do not believe … I imagine people think exactly what those who left thougt.

I do not imply that what happened there did not make no sense … Peter had it right when He said … “To whom do we go you have the words of eternal life.” Peter’s statement is IMO full of faith … but not understanding.

Hasn’t anyone taken a class … made it through it without really understanding it but “getting” it later … something changed where the whole class made sense.

AMEN BROTHER!!! I totally agree… Those there had asked for the “bread, forever” like the manna had been for their ancestors… After this question he gave the description of himself being the bread of life and whoever eats this bread will have eternal life… The way he continues to expand on his words, rather than clarify them, begins to make it clear that he meant it more than just a simple comparison…

He told them all of this and they left because they didn’t believe… but believe what? They didn’t believe in what he had just told them which was that he would give them his flesh as the bread of eternal life… They didn’t have the faith to trust in what he claimed he would do he could really do… The rest were uncertain but had the faith to trust in him because they knew he was the Son of God… whether they could fully comprehend it or not they stayed because of their faith… the thing they couldn’t comprehend was how Jesus could do this (later they understood), but for now they just trusted, but it was still the things he said about his flesh being the bread of life that made all the listeners so confused.

SD

 

[John1]

You seem to be saying that the literal, physical things Christ referred to aren’t important but only spiritual meanings, so I have to ask you then, has Jesus Christ come in the flesh?

Hi,

If you re-read what I wrote in my post I pointed out that Christ taught the the Spiritual things were just as important as the physical things. The two passages that I have cited come from the Bible and are just two of very many passages that affirm that we worship God in Spirit and in Truth. In no way does this lessen the importance of the physical flesh Jesus, for it is by the cruxifiction this flesh that the old covenant was satisfied.

In Romans 8 it states: There is now therefore no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh. 2 For the law of the spirit of life, in Christ Jesus, hath delivered me from the law of sin and of death. 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and of sin, hath condemned sin in the flesh. 4 That the justification of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the spirit. 5 For they that are according to the flesh mind the things that are of the flesh: but they that are according to the spirit mind the things that are of the spirit. 6 For the wisdom of the flesh is death: but the wisdom of the spirit is life and peace. 7 Because the wisdom of the flesh is an enemy to God. For it is not subject to the law of God: neither can it be. 8 And they who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 But you are not in the flesh, but the spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. 10 And if Christ be in you, the body indeed is dead, because of sin: but the spirit liveth, because of justification. 11 And if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you; he that raised up Jesus Christ from the dead shall quicken also your mortal bodies, because of his Spirit that dwelleth in you. 12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh, you shall die: but if by the Spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live.14 For whosoever are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. 15 For you have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear: but you have received the spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry: Abba (Father). 16 For the Spirit himself giveth testimony to our spirit that we are the sons of God.

So in answer to your question, yes, Jesus came in the flesh, he had to for our sakes, to do away with the law of sin and death.

In 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 it states: 10:1 For I want you to know, brothers, [1] that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

I realize that you probably knoe the Bible as well,or better, than I do, so I don’t want to offend you by continually citing passages. Trying to separate the importance of the flesh between the carnal and the spiritual can lead to Nestorianism, which was dismissed at the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D… Jesus got his Glorified body after he gave up his carnal flesh on the cross.

I would like to cite at lest one more passage at this time. 1 John 4:2 states: By this is the spirit of God known. Every spirit which confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Ok… I’m just not sure what Apostolic Succession has to do with John 6:47-58.

It has to do with whether or not a denomination (Lutheran, Methodist, Presbytarian) has the Real Presence or is merely ‘memorializing’ the Last Supper of Jesus before His Crucifixtion.

John and Luke and all the rest of the OT and NT need to be read in context with what the early Church practiced in its LITURGY.

That is the ONLY context in which to discuss St John, Chapter 6.

That is what I meant.

Hope it helps.

Robert

 

[John1]

If you’re interpretation is correct, we can safely say that Christ’s crucifixion was of no avail.

Besides, this ignores Saint Paul’s (who took Jesus literally, as evidenced by this passage) statements about Christ in the Communion, and discerning His Body and Blood in the Sacrament.

Hi,

I think that I covered this fairly well in my reply to “CrazyDiamond”, but I wanted to reply to your post as well. In Romans 8 St. Paul states: 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. [1] 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you [2] free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, [3] he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.

In 1 Corinthian 15:45 St. Paul states: So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

In 2 Corinthians 5:16-17 St. Paul says: 16 From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. [2] The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.

So the “real” presence of Jesus in the Eucharist would be a “real” spiritual presence, not a corporeal one. Saying that the presence is spiritual does not make it ant the less “real”. Thank you for your correpondence.

 

[O.S.Luke]

It has to do with whether or not a denomination (Lutheran, Methodist, Presbytarian) has the Real Presence or is merely ‘memorializing’ the Last Supper of Jesus before His Crucifixtion.

John and Luke and all the rest of the OT and NT need to be read in context with what the early Church practiced in its LITURGY.

That is the ONLY context in which to discuss St John, Chapter 6.

That is what I meant.

Hope it helps.

Robert

I am totally lost. Are you are saying that the Gospels need to be read in context with liturgical practice?

I may be mistaken, but I believe that the liturgy was taken from the context of the Gospels. I’ve never heard anyone, Catholic or Protestant, say that the Gospels should be read in context with early Church liturgy.

Is this what you are saying?

As far as a denomination “memorializing” the Eucharist… whether or not you believe the Eucharist “counts” in our tradition, is would be inaccurate to say that it is a “memorializing”, since the whole of the liturgy is a Great Thanksgiving/eucharistia. The four-fold action takes place: taking the bread and wine, breaking the bread, blessing the bread and wine, and giving the Body and Blood. It is a giving thanks, a feast, a celebration, not simply a memorial. To say it is a memorial would to relegate it to a Good Friday celebration, not a paschal feast and Easter celebration.

 

[Non_Serviam]

My assumption is Jesus meant what He said … tough sayings … very hard to understand and make sense of for the Jews of that time … even the 12 chosen ones … you think it’s any easier today. If it was this discussion would not be happening.

Let God assign levels of responsibility … I see less culpability by those people than Peter’s denial but I do see how one can leave when the beliefs becoming tough to understand or practice. I see their leaving as understandable … people not unlike any of us today. We are those people in a sense … we are given the choice to leave or to stay … based on what … only what they or we can see in front of us. The 12 stayed not because they could “see” what He was saying but because of faith. I still think today the “faith” Peter used in staying is still demanded. I have never seen what I believe to happen at the consecration … never … but I believe it to be true. I do admit it is a hard thing to explain to those who do not believe … I imagine people think exactly what those who left thougt.

I do not imply that what happened there did not make no sense … Peter had it right when He said … “To whom do we go you have the words of eternal life.” Peter’s statement is IMO full of faith … but not understanding.

Hasn’t anyone taken a class … made it through it without really understanding it but “getting” it later … something changed where the whole class made sense.

Interesting perspective on this-I agree that John has a much better understanding of what “eating Jesus” means when he’s writing this than he likely did when he first heard it. I’m thinking there is something to what you are saying-rather than the choice many face today, rejecting the concrete concept of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, these folks were challenged to have faith that God would make something occur much like He did in the case of Abraham and Isaac. While it would appear that Jesus was speaking of cannibalism, in fact He was painting them a picture in broad, abstract brush strokes and asking them to respond to His demand in faith, trusting that the revealed solution would not violate God’s commandments.

Just as the Apostles tarried for the Day of Pentecost without knowing exactly what would occur, here they are also asked to do something without clearly knowing the outcome. John and later us as we look back can see what was being foreshadowed and prefigured, making it more a matter of belief for us than faith.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[ncgolf]

Interesting perspective on this-I agree that John has a much better understanding of what “eating Jesus” means when he’s writing this than he likely did when he first heard it. I’m thinking there is something to what you are saying-rather than the choice many face today, rejecting the concrete concept of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, these folks were challenged to have faith that God would make something occur much like He did in the case of Abraham and Isaac. While it would appear that Jesus was speaking of cannibalism, in fact He was painting them a picture in broad, abstract brush strokes and asking them to respond to His demand in faith, trusting that the revealed solution would not violate God’s commandments.

Just as the Apostles tarried for the Day of Pentecost without knowing exactly what would occur, here they are also asked to do something without clearly knowing the outcome. John and later us as we look back can see what was being foreshadowed and prefigured, making it more a matter of belief for us than faith.

Thanks for sharing.

Mary, too, did not totally understand the events at the Annunciation. There is also the story where Jesus tells his apostles to go and spread his message but carry no money, only 1 tunic … basically take almost nothing.

There is a line in the John 6, “These are hard sayings who can accept it.” This line is applicable to much of Christianity and our faith life … depending on your perspective … we all draw a line somewhere where our faith can be tested … will our faith take us past the hard saying into action. Many times the action is mere obedience.

I wonder for myself what the “hard saying” is in my life …

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

I wonder for myself what the “hard saying” is in my life …

The first major shock of my Christian life was when God told me that I had chosen my career path as a form of idolatry. I was worshipping a Ph.D. and sacrificing everything to it.

The aftershocks of that confrontation rumble through my life even now.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

Hi,

If you re-read what I wrote in my post I pointed out that Christ taught the the Spiritual things were just as important as the physical things.

…]

I would like to cite at lest one more passage at this time. 1 John 4:2 states: By this is the spirit of God known. Every spirit which confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God.

Whew! That’s a relief. It sounded to me like you were starting to say that physical things weren’t important, only spiritual meanings. That’s how the Gnostics got their conclusion that physical adultery wasn’t important, just the spiritual meaning (that they happened to like). Just checking to be sure you weren’t going off into Gnosticism.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

I am totally lost. Are you are saying that the Gospels need to be read in context with liturgical practice?

I may be mistaken, but I believe that the liturgy was taken from

 

[O.S.Luke]

Luke,

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

However, I don’t think it is backing the point you made in an earlier post, unless I understood you incorrectly. Did you not say: “John and Luke and all the rest of the OT and NT need to be read in context with what the early Church practiced in its LITURGY?” Uh… isn’t that backwards?

This might help (from Dr Hahn’s book):

1. “Athanasius shows us, here as elsewhere, that the ordinary place of biblical interpretation was the church, and the ordinary time was the liturgy. In the ancient world, the church’s liturgy–its public, ritual worship–was the natural and supernatural habitat of the church’s scripture.” (page 9) (emphasis mine)
2. “Biblical religion was liturgical religion, and its sacred texts were primarily liturgical texts.” (page 10)

3.Quoting Geoffrey Wainwright: “As to the origin of the Scriptures, much of the material…has been judged by contemporary scholarship to have had its Sitz im Leben [its original life-setting] in the worship of the believing community.” (page 11, footnote 4)

4.“The unity of scripture and liturgy may be described as both material and formal. It is *material *in that the content of the scripture is, to a great extent, concerned with the liturgy, and the content of the liturgy is drawn from scripture…[next paragraph] Their relationship is formal in that scripture took its final form–it was canonized–for the sake of the liturgy, and the canon itself derived from liturgical tradition.” (pages 34-35)

1. Then following with a quotation from James A Sanders: “[t]he whole of the Bible, the sum as well as its parts, comes to us out of the liturgical and instructional life of the early believing communities.” (page 35, emphasis mine)
2. “Of all the Gospels, John presents the most pervasive liturgical concerns.” (page 43)
3. “The Bible was made for liturgical use.” (page 46)
4. For both the Old and the New Testaments were canonized not for private study so much as public reading." (page 47)
5. "[l]iturgical use became a primary criterion for compiling the canon that would officially limit the books deemed suitable for liturgical use. It is one of the classic examples of lex orandi, lex credendi–the law of worship dictating the law of belief. (page 48)
6. “The liturgy is, once again, where the early church kept the scriptures. Indeed, the books we know as the New Testament were canonized not so much for devotional reading–which was rare in those days before the printing press-- but for liturgical proclamation.”

This supports my statement you quoted, Luke.

The earliest records of the Church attest to our liturgy, our Mass, and its origins in Jewish Temple and synagogue worship. No one thought to write a handbook for future historians to reference. The Gospel was preached to be heard as per the instructions of Jesus in St Luke and St John.

When the Church grew in those early centuries (1st and 2nd) many ‘letters’ and psuedo-Gospels were floating around looking for an audience. Some were pious, others were not (remember the one where the child Jesus turns His taunting schoolmates into animals!!).

You’re an intelligent man and I will not patronize you with the above quotations from Dr Hahn’s book, but the order does explain my statement.

If I am still unclear, let me know

Thanks and Merry Christmas and remember the REAL translation:
“Peace on Earth to men of good will.”

God bless you and your family,

Robert

 

[Non_Serviam]

Luke,

I think if you take time to consider the types of writing in the canon, you’ll come to a clearer understanding of what Robert is saying.

While the Old Testament wasn’t written down to be used in Christian Liturgy (apart from the sense in which God providentially prepared it) it was compiled for use in Jewish worship and assembly and many instances of this are recorded in Scripture.

Likewise in the New Testament, many of the greetings and conclusions of the Epistles make it clear that the authors were intending their epistles to be read during the congregational assembly, during that part of the liturgy (while Timothy and Titus are written to individuals, it appears the author had no objections to their being read publicly as well.

Beyond that we have the Gospels, some of which were written primarily to the church for the worship service as well as to record details of the life and message of Jesus to be used in Evangelistic preaching. Likewise, if the Introduction of Luke-Acts is to be believed these documents were compiled to provide an historical narrative to one or more individuals who appear to be converts or Godfearing Gentiles.

So the liturgical life of the early church did indeed have a significant impact on the development and use of Scripture. The point I believe you are trying to make is that the information contained in the writings also shaped liturgical practices, which is obviously true, taking Paul’s Epistles to the Corinthians as a clear example of this phenomenon.

Does that seem to strike a reasonable balance?

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Luke,

I think if you take time to consider the types of writing in the canon, you’ll come to a clearer understanding of what Robert is saying.

While the Old Testament wasn’t written down to be used in Christian Liturgy (apart from the sense in which God providentially prepared it) it was compiled for use in Jewish worship and assembly and many instances of this are recorded in Scripture.

Likewise in the New Testament, many of the greetings and conclusions of the Epistles make it clear that the authors were intending their epistles to be read during the congregational assembly, during that part of the liturgy (while Timothy and Titus are written to individuals, it appears the author had no objections to their being read publicly as well.

Beyond that we have the Gospels, some of which were written primarily to the church for the worship service as well as to record details of the life and message of Jesus to be used in Evangelistic preaching. Likewise, if the Introduction of Luke-Acts is to be believed these documents were compiled to provide an historical narrative to one or more individuals who appear to be converts or Godfearing Gentiles.

So the liturgical life of the early church did indeed have a significant impact on the development and use of Scripture. The point I believe you are trying to make is that the information contained in the writings also shaped liturgical practices, which is obviously true, taking Paul’s Epistles to the Corinthians as a clear example of this phenomenon.

Does that seem to strike a reasonable balance?

Well said, Non Serviam, but I would add a caveat:

looking for Christian ‘tenets’ in passages of the Bible leads one to, well, founding one’s own sect.

And we’ve seen and are seeing the fruit of that statement.

Merry Christmas!

Robert

 

[O.S.Luke]

1. “The liturgy is, once again, where the early church kept the scriptures. Indeed, the books we know as the New Testament were canonized not so much for devotional reading–which was rare in those days before the printing press-- but for liturgical proclamation.”

What I’m simply saying is that the liturgy is a reflection of the Gospel story. The Gospel story is not a reflection of the liturgy.

I wasn’t specifically referring to canon. I agree with your points.