On taking John 6 literally

triablogue ^ | October 16, 2005 | Steve

[RnMomof7]

On taking John 6 literally

Roman Catholics claim to take Jn 6 literally, unlike the Baptists. But what exactly does it mean to take Jn 6 literally, and who is more literal, the Catholic or the Baptist?

1.Here is what I take a literal interpretation of Jn 6 to mean. Some time around the year AD 30 or so, Jesus performed three nature miracles (the multiplication of food, walking on water, stilling the storm) situated on or about (the E. shore of) the Sea of Galilee.

The next day, in a synagogue located in Capernaum, on the NW shore of the Sea of Galilee, a debate took place between Jesus and the Jews, prior to the Last Supper, centering on a comparison and a contrast between Jesus and the manna in the wilderness.

2.What does a “literal” Catholic reading of Jn 6 amount to? They treat Jn 6 as an allegory of the Mass. What it symbolizes is what takes place whenever the Mass is celebrated, every day, in different parts of the world.

They justify this anachronistic and allegorical interpretation on the grounds that they deny the historicity of the original setting and substitute, in its place, a sitz-im-leben supplied by the life of the Johannine community at the tail-end of the 1C or so, residing in Asia Minor or Shangri-la. By “they,” I mean the standard Catholic commentators on John like Ray Brown and Rudolf Schnackenburg.

3.There is also a striking difference in how a Catholic and a Baptist defines a true body. For a Baptist, the true body of Christ would be the same sort of body—indeed, the very same body—as we see on display in the Gospels and Acts (Mt 28:9; Lk 24:39-40,42-43; Jn 20:17,20,24-29; Acts 1:4; 10:41).

This would be the visible, tangible body of a 1C Palestinian Jewish man, of a certain height and weight—a body that you and I would recognize for what it is.

For a Catholic, however, the true body of Christ is an invisible, intangible, unrecognizable entity hidden beneath the species of bread and wine.

One can’t help noticing that the way in which a Catholic defines the true body and real presence of Christ bears a startling resemblance to those millennial cults (e.g., Millerites, Campingites, J-Dubs, hyperpreterists) which predict the visible, bodily return of Christ, only to redraw the terms of fulfillment when their prediction fails to materialize. They assure us that Christ really did return, and is truly is present with his people, but you just can’t see him, that’s all. He actually did come back in AD 70…or was it 1844?…or was it 1914?…or was it 1994?

[ADSUM]

Why would you infer cannibalism, when many non-Catholics do not believe that the consecrated host and wine becomes the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ?

It seems like a mocking of Jesus Christ.

Since Jesus told us that eating His Body and Blood was necessary for our salvation, why is it necessary to reject God’s words and mock Jesus?

[CynicalBear]

Why do you reject Jesus words that what He was speaking was spiritual and not physical? Do you also believe John ate the physical scroll?

[Salvation]

What I don’t understand is why they take the rest of the Bible literally, but refuse to do so with John 6.

Is something askew?

[don-o]

I got my question answered and made my point. I have no interest in plating in this specific mudhole any more.

[CynicalBear]

Do you have literal rivers of water flowing from your belly as well? Do you believe John literally ate the scroll also?

[don-o]

24 to you as well.

[don-o]

I have no interest in plating in this specific mudhole any more.

Playing in this mudhole / sewer

[CynicalBear]

The kitchen does get a little warm at times. I’ll not back away from exposing the errors of Catholicism.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

Do you have literal rivers of water flowing from your belly as well?

At times, Jesus spoke literally, metaphorically and hyperbolically. What does the evidence indicate in this case?

1) If Jesus meant what he said metaphorically, why did Jesus allow his disciples who said, "this is a hard saying," to walk away without clarifying His statement?

2) Again, we have the crystal clear words of St. Paul.

So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep [i.e., died]

The burden of proof is on the skeptic.

[don-o]

Bait declined.

[ravenwolf]

John 6
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

---

But John 6:63 indicates it does not have a literal meaning.

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

why is it that the 12 Apostles who believed and were taught by Jesus for three and one half years said nothing about it.

It is evident that there was nothing to say about it, Jesus said do this in remembrance of me and most likely that is what they did.

Jesus was trying to make it understood that a full belly was not what he was all about but that the words he was saying to them was life everlasting.

This is truly a hard saying and some of the people took it literal and that is why they no longer followed Jesus.

The people who took what Jesus said literally were not interested in salvation but only a full belly, and did not believe him.

The ones who stayed with him knew that he was speaking of eternal life and they believed.

His words are the bread of life.

[CynicalBear]

>>What does the evidence indicate in this case?<<

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

[Resettozero]

BUMP...

...especially for Post 31.

R2z

[Resettozero]

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary
(n.) Any cause of stumbling, perplexity, or error.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
STUMBLING-BLOCK; STUMBLING-STONE

stum'-bling-blok, (mikhshol, makhshelah; proskomma, skandalon): These are the most important of the varied renderings of either of two cognate Hebrew words, or of two different Greek words. Sometimes the Greek word for "stone" (lithos) accompanies the principal word. There is no important difference in the meaning of the words or of their renderings. the Revised Version (British and American) generally substitutes "stumbling" for "offence" of the King James Version.

The literal meaning of the Hebrew words-an object which causes one to stumble or fall-appears in such passages as Leviticus 19:14: "Thou shalt not.... put a stumblingblock (mikhshol) before the blind" (compare Jeremiah 6:21). But the expression is ordinarily figurative, referring to that which causes material ruin or spiritual downfall, which were closely connected in Old Testament thought (Psalm 119:165 Ezekiel 21:15). The things that lead astray are silver and gold (Ezekiel 7:19); idols (Ezekiel 14:3 Zephaniah 1:3, etc.).

One of the New Testament words, skandalon, literally means the stick of a trap to which the bait is attached, and which when touched springs the trap. Figuratively either word refers to a thing or a person that leads one to fall into error, into sin or into destruction: the cross of Christ (Galatians 5:11 Romans 11:9); another's liberty (1 Corinthians 8:9); Peter in Matthew 16:23; Christ, whose life and character were so different from Jewish expectation (Romans 9:33).

Reference

[Mrs. Don-o]

"On taking John 6 literally Roman Catholics claim to take Jn 6 literally..."

Just to correct the first sentence:

"On taking John 6 literally, Western (Latin) Catholics, Alexandrian Catholics (Coptic, Eritrean and Ethiopian), West Syrian (Maronite, Syriac, Syro-Malankara), Armenian Catholic. Byzantine (Albanian, Belarusian, Bulgarian, the Catholics of Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro, Greek Catholics, Hungarian, Italo-Albanian, Macedonian, Melkite, Romanian, Russian, Ruthenian, Slovak, Ukrainian, East Syrian, Chaldean, and Syro-Malabar Catholics,

*plus" Eastern Orthodox: Church of Constantinople, Greek Church of Alexandria, of Antioch, of Jerusalem, Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate), Church of Greece, Churches of Georgia, of Serbia, of Romania, of Bulgaria, of Cyprus, of Albania, of Poland, Church of Slovakia and the Czech Lands, Church of Sinai (Jerusalem Patriarchate), (Ecumenical Patriarchate) Church of Crete, of Finland, of Estonia, (Moscow Patriarchate) Church of Japan, of Ukraine, Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, Church of Ukraine (Kyiv Patriarchate), Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church, Macedonian Orthodox Church,

*plus* the Oriental Orthodox Churches: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church, Syriac Orthodox Church, Jacobite Syrian Church, Indian Orthodox Church, Coptic Orthodox Church, Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church,

*plus* others I may have failed to mention, almost all of them founded 1,000 years earlier than the Reformation, many of them reading the Scriptures in the original languages, many founded by the Apostles themselves---

claim to take Jn 6 literally..."

Excuse the catalogue approach. It's not mere pedantry. It's illustrative of the most ancient Christian communities with the most ancient understandings of Scripture, many of whom know Greek, Western Syriac and Aramaic very well, some of whom are not under the direct jurisdiction of Rome OR Constantinople --- who don't understand why the German and English-speaking innovators just don't get it.

If we're going to talk about the meaning of words, I would personally go back to the people who have the longest continuous lexical familiarity with those words --- as well as being much closer to the cultural contexts.

You won't find any ancient church which does *not* believe that the elements of the Eucharist, under the appearance of bread and wine, become the true Body and Blood of Christ.

It's the seminary-scribes of the West, I think, who have substituted spurious innovations for the continuous, lived understanding of the oldest Christian communities on the planet.

It's probably because of the impoverished concept of "Sola Scriptura" -- a doctrine not found in Scripture, and which turns out to mean "All hail the Magisterium of the Seminary Professors," "All power to the guy who learned Greek yesterday" --- which simply spurns the wisdom of the Church.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"On taking John 6 literally Roman Catholics claim to take Jn 6 literally..."

Just to correct the first sentence:

"On taking John 6 literally, Western (Latin) Catholics, Alexandrian Catholics (Coptic, Eritrean and Ethiopian), West Syrian (Maronite, Syriac, Syro-Malankara), Armenian Catholic. Byzantine (Albanian, Belarusian, Bulgarian, the Catholics of Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro, Greek Catholics, Hungarian, Italo-Albanian, Macedonian, Melkite, Romanian, Russian, Ruthenian, Slovak, Ukrainian, East Syrian, Chaldean, and Syro-Malabar Catholics,

*plus" Eastern Orthodox: Church of Constantinople, Greek Church of Alexandria, of Antioch, of Jerusalem, Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate), Church of Greece, Churches of Georgia, of Serbia, of Romania, of Bulgaria, of Cyprus, of Albania, of Poland, Church of Slovakia and the Czech Lands, Church of Sinai (Jerusalem Patriarchate), (Ecumenical Patriarchate) Church of Crete, of Finland, of Estonia, (Moscow Patriarchate) Church of Japan, of Ukraine, Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, Church of Ukraine (Kyiv Patriarchate), Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church, Macedonian Orthodox Church,

*plus* the Oriental Orthodox Churches: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church, Syriac Orthodox Church, Jacobite Syrian Church, Indian Orthodox Church, Coptic Orthodox Church, Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church,

*plus* others I may have failed to mention, almost all of them founded 1,000 years earlier than the Reformation, many of them reading the Scriptures in the original languages, many founded by the Apostles themselves---

claim to take Jn 6 literally..."

Excuse the catalogue approach. It's not mere pedantry. It's illustrative of the most ancient Christian communities with the most ancient understandings of Scripture, many of whom know Greek, Western Syriac and Aramaic very well, some of whom are not under the direct jurisdiction of Rome OR Constantinople --- who don't understand why the German and English-speaking innovators just don't get it.

If we're going to talk about the meaning of words, I would personally go back to the people who have the longest continuous lexical familiarity with those words --- as well as being much closer to the cultural contexts.

You won't find any ancient church which does *not* believe that the elements of the Eucharist, under the appearance of bread and wine, become the true Body and Blood of Christ.

It's the seminary-scribes of the West, I think, who have substituted spurious innovations for the continuous, lived understanding of the oldest Christian communities on the planet.

It's probably because of the impoverished concept of "Sola Scriptura" -- a doctrine not found in Scripture, and which turns out to mean "All hail the Magisterium of the Seminary Professors," "All power to the guy who learned Greek yesterday" --- which simply spurns the wisdom of the Church.

[ADSUM]

Your question: “Why do you reject Jesus words that what He was speaking was spiritual and not physical?”

Jesus was very explicit in his words and I believe in His specific instructions. Why do you need to contort the words and imply meaning that is not there?

You either have faith or you don’t have faith. Catholics have the actions and the teachings of the Apostles and their successors and sacred tradition.

There is also scientific evidence that has been reported that you seem to reject. One can either seek the Truth or develop their own meaning of the words of Jesus.

Your question: “Do you also believe John ate the physical scroll?”

Why do you just try to change the subject? The gift of the miracle that Jesus gave us His Body and His Blood that we celebrate at Mass with the Eucharist among 2 billion Catholics who accept this belief is much more significant than a scroll.

[ADSUM]

What I don’t understand is why they take the rest of the Bible literally, but refuse to do so with John 6.

Perhaps there is envy that non Catholics reject some Catholic teachings because they cannot truly receive the Eucharist without becoming Catholics (or returning to the Catholic Church).

Perhaps they just like to protest, instead of doing the will of Father as Jesus lived and showed us.

[Resettozero]

The gift of the miracle that Jesus gave us His Body and His Blood that we celebrate at Mass with the Eucharist among 2 billion Catholics who accept this belief is much more significant than a scroll.

Two billion souls is an incredibly large number of souls; a number not possible for me to imagine one at a time.

[Iscool]

•The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.

And of course it's impossible that someone over the course of those hundreds of years could have substituted real flesh and blood for the wine and bread...

Have an independent lab check for DNA on the stuff and then let's go from there...