Posted on 03/29/2015 6:09:23 PM PDT by Faith Presses On
The following is a study of John 6, with a particular focus on the Jewish aspects of it. John 6 is often cited by Roman Catholic apologists in support of their church's teachings on the Lord's Supper, but the issue of Jesus as the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament is typically ignored, which drastically affects the understanding of events.
One claim frequently made by Catholic apologists is that their church is merely taking literally what Jesus says about His body and blood in John 6, while Protestants who take the Bible literally choose not to do so when it comes to that passage in order to defy Catholic teaching.
Catholic apologists also commonly say that in a dialogue with a group of Jews, Jesus left no doubt that He literally meant eating His flesh and drinking His blood, and once the people got what He meant, they were offended at the thought and many stopped following Him. Their reaction is said to prove what Jesus meant, which is in effect both cannibalism and the drinking of any blood, which was forbidden under Jewish law.
But these can't be proper interpretations as is because Jesus never followed through with the very literal acts that Catholic apologists say offended the people in John 6 and drove many of them away from Him. He never gave to His apostles for them to eat from His actual body and blood, although He was there physically, both at the Last Supper, and after His resurrection. Certainly Jesus knew how these people would take His words and intentionally gave them the idea of cannibalism and blood drinking, but what they envisioned, which He knowingly and intentionally prompted by His words, didn't actually happen, and a closer look at John 6 shows that Jesus had different reasons for saying what He did, other than what Catholic apologists say.
Catholic apologists also tend to focus on a few passages of John 6 and ignore their context and what's happening in the chapter on the whole. Because the context is omitted, the heart of the matter in John 6 is almost completely lost in Catholic interpretation, and a vastly different meaning is given to the snippets of the dialogue the Catholic apologists emphasize.
What Catholic apologists typically leave out is that a major part of what John 6 is about is Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. Specifically, that even after being prepared for the prophesied Messiah, and then actually witnessing His miracles, many of the Messiah's own people, the Jews, didn't believe on Him. Any interpretation of John 6 that ignores this matter, as Catholic interpretations so often do, is not holding to what's actually there.
As Christians we know that the Old Covenant was a preparation for the New, and a shadow of the Heavenly. It all points to Christ, who fulfilled the Old Testament. The Jews of the time of the Incarnation were awaiting the promised Messiah, and this is not only a primary concern in John 6, but a primary concern throughout all of John, all of the Gospels, and the entire New Testament as well. Any study of them clearly shows that. While it was God's plan that later the Gospel would be take to the Gentiles, Jesus while on earth went to the Jews, since He was and is their Messiah. John 6 and the entire Gospel for that matter is about that.
Looking at some of the Gospel of John outside of chapter 6, the Messiah issue is continually there.
John 1:11 says, "He came unto his own, and his own received him not." And later in John 1, several of the men who would become Jesus' disciples rejoice that they have found the Messiah.
In John 2, the miracle of Jesus turning the water into wine causes His disciples to believe on Him (miracles being said in the New Testament to be done to demonstrate He was the Messiah), and after He cleanses the temple, some Jews are already asking Him for a sign.
John 3 is about the need to believe in Jesus as the Messiah and to be born again.
In John 4, Jesus reveals Himself as the Messiah to the Samaritan woman at the well and a multitude of other Samaritans that she tells about Him (the Samaritans, with a partial Jewish ancestry, also know of the prophesied Messiah).
In John 5, the Jewish authorities begin to persecute Jesus after He heals a man on the Sabbath.
In John 7, when Jesus appears and preaches in Jerusalem during the Feast of the Tabernacles, there is a great debate among the people on whether or not He is the Messiah. In John 8, after some Jews had brought an adulterous woman to Jesus to see if he would say to stone her, but he had instead convicted them of their own sin, Jesus then argues with some Pharisees, who accuse Him of bearing witness of Himself and of having a devil. Jesus tells them that He's the one that He's told them all along that He is - the Messiah - and that unless they believe that He is, they will die in their sins.
In John 9, after Jesus heals a blind man, it's revealed that the Pharisees have decreed that anyone confessing that Jesus is the Messiah will be put out of the synagogue.
In John 10, the people again debate if Jesus is the Messiah or not, and some Jews again question Jesus about it.
It's also very important to the proper understanding of John 6 to recognize that the miracles Jesus did were chiefly done to reveal who He was and is, the Messiah. Those with faith would believe and have their faith strengthened by the miracles, while those who didn't would either be impressed into repentance towards God, or else become hardened in their sin and separated as the chaff from the wheat.
"24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. 25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. 26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you."
In John 5:36, Jesus tells the Jewish authorities, "But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me."
And in John 14:11, Jesus also tells the Twelve, "Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake."
John, and the other three Gospels as well, also refer to a prophecy of Isaiah concerning the Jews:
"37 But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: 38 That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? 39 Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, 40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. 41 These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him." (John 12)
In Matthew 13:13-14, Mark 4:12, and Luke 8:10, Jesus Himself mentions the Isaiah prophecy about hearing in order to explain to His disciples why He speaks to the multitudes only in parables that they don't understand, saying it hasn't been given to them to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven.
Altogether, what the New Testament teaches us on Jesus as the prophesied Messiah of the Jews is that it was revealed to the Apostles, Jews themselves, that the Jews overall did not receive their Messiah when He came to them, and this rejection was a part of God's plan to take the Gospel of salvation through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, to the rest of the world.
How, then, does this relate to what happens in John 6?
John 6 begins with a great multitude following Jesus because "they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased." Jesus then decides to feed them and asks the disciples how it can be done, but they don't know. This was to test them, John says, since He Himself "knew what he would do."
He then multiplies the loaves and fishes of a boy in the crowd and feeds them all. At that point, some of the crowd declare Him to be the prophesied Prophet and are about to forcefully seize Him and make Him king, but knowing their thoughts, He escapes from them. The disciples end up going off in a boat for Capernaum themselves, but Jesus goes up a mountain, and later in the night He walks on the sea to join them in their boat.
The following the day, the multitude is puzzled to see that apparently Jesus went to Capernaum without a boat, and go there in search of Him. Upon finding Him, they ask Him when He had gotten there, apparently to try to figure out how He had. He ignores their question, though, and instead says to them:
"Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled." (6:26)
Right here we see that Jesus, knowing everything about everyone, including what was in their hearts, knew they weren't seeking Him out of love for God, but out of "the cares of this world" which they had.
And note how He put this, saying that they hadn't sought Him because they "saw the miracles," implying that they should have. Again, these people knew that miracles were to be a sign of the Messiah, and they had even seen some, yet they had not believed to the point of putting aside worldly concerns, and instead acknowledging they were in the Messiah's presence and responding in their hearts with repentance towards God. They just expected to be miraculously fed as the Israelites were fed by God with manna in the wilderness (something they even bring up to Jesus, though in their telling, it was Moses, not God, whom they give the credit to). That's all they wanted.
But despite their unbelief, Jesus speaks to correct them, telling them to be concerned with the spiritual before the worldly. He is met only with more unbelief, though.
"27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. 28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent."
So, again, the actual context here is the question of the Jews believing in their prophesied Messiah or not, and Jesus had already done many miracles (including miraculously feeding the very ones asking Him for a sign at this point) and revealed Himself to be the Messiah. Yet here (and even later on, as mentioned above), many of the Jews kept responding to Him with unbelief, despite the evidence of His words of divine authority and His miracles. The Pharisees will even accept that He has done miracles, but fearing that the public uproar over Him will cause the Romans to take away their positions as leaders, they will still be determined to kill Him all the same.
In 6:30-58, Jesus continues to tell the Jews that salvation is through believing on Him, but their unbelief persists, and eventually in the course of the dialogue He tells them that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life. To Jesus' response that the work of God that they should do is to believe on Him, they ask Him to do a sign, despite all they knew that He'd already done.
30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?
31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
Note, too, that it is the unbelieving people, not Jesus, who bring up the subject of bread again.
32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
So again, the Jews here reply out of the unbelief in their hearts. Having been given all the evidence they need to acknowledge that Jesus is indeed the Messiah, instead they say that because they know that Jesus was born into a certain human family, He couldn't have come down from Heaven.
43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48 I am that bread of life.
49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
Then Jesus speaks of His death on the Cross, which He will die to make atonement for man's sins, so that those who believe on Him can have eternal life.
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
Jesus' words about eating His flesh and drinking His blood have the effect of turning away those in the multitude who tried to make Him king and have followed Him to Capernaum, but have refused to accept Him as their Messiah despite His words of authority and miracles. This was what Jesus intended by what He said - to offend them so that they would turn away, as the just reward for their continual unbelief. His words also offend many of His disciples for the same reason.
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
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.
64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
Again, it was not truly believing in Jesus that is the issue here, and Jesus' words on eating His flesh and drinking His blood reveal what He has already known, that the following multitude and many of His disciples didn't truly believe, and they cause many to forsake Him. Their unbelief causes them to be offended, as it leads them to think that Jesus is suggesting sin.
Then after seeing many of His disciples leave Him, Jesus asks the Twelve if they will do the same.
67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.
So, answering for the twelve disciples, Peter says they will not leave Jesus because He has the words of eternal life, and they believe and know that He is the Messiah. And again, Jesus, knowing everything, knows that one of the twelve, Judas, also truly doesn't believe in Him and so will betray Him. Here, too, the matter is belief in Jesus as the Messiah versus unbelief in Him, not the matter of what He means by the words eating His flesh and drinking His blood.
What Jesus was certainly referring to by saying that He would give His flesh for the life of the world was His sacrificial death to atone for man's sin, and this also has to do with the Jews' rejection of Him as their Messiah. The Jews had begun to divide the Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah into two kinds, with one kind being about the "Triumphant King," the Messiah, Son of David, and the other being about the "Suffering Servant," the Messiah, Son of Joseph. Some thought there might even be two Messiahs. Since so many Jews wanted to be delivered from Roman rule and re-establish their own nation ruled by themselves, they rejected the "Suffering Servant" prophecies and didn't think that Jesus fulfilled the ones about the "Triumphant King," since His kingdom wasn't of this world. And they did not accept that the Messiah would die for the sins of others, despite what is said in Psalm 53. Paul wrote that the message of the Cross was rejected by the Jews.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. (1 Corinthians)
In summary, then, the Jews of the time of the Incarnation for the most part denied the revealed truth that Jesus was and is the Savior of the world. They rejected the prophecies of the Suffering Servant Messiah who would die in their place to make peace with God for them, in favor of seeking a political savior who would expel the Romans and give them a life of plenty. And John 6 is about this, their hearts being in the wrong place, so that they don't receive and believe on the Messiah, the true Bread of Life, despite the miracles He does.
I am impressed wit your scholarly effort. Salvation is summed up in John 3:16. We try to justify tithing and institutional mortgage payments on a lie. No need for that at all. Believe in Jesus as the Son of the real God and you are done. No need to pay agents or strive for legalistic approval. Nice work. God Bless.
John 3:17 goes hand in hand with John 3:16 - people always stop there instead of going to the next verse which ties it all together. It should have been one verse.
Who’s yer rabbi?
I agree with you, though I have never made the connection between this dialogue and Jesus’ condemnation of the Jews’ unbelief. That is very telling.
But I like to compare verse 35 “Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.” with his statement in verses 54-55 “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.”
Jesus seems to be saying that to eat his flesh is to come to him in faith (that is, in coming to him we receive him, the bread of life), and to drink his blood is to believe in him (by faith the redemption of his blood is accounted to us).
Also, when Jesus is talking to his true disciples he clarifies that his words are not fleshly, but spiritual “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.” (v. 63)
As I posted earlier this evening, why is it always "Roman Catholic" apologists, when Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, some Lutherans, and traditional Anglicans believe the same things?
The eucharistic significance of this passage [Jn 6:43-59] is indisputable. Our Lord's declaration that He is Himself the living bread that gives life reveals the Mystical Supper of the New Testament Church. John never reports the details of the Last Supper such as the "words of institution" recorded in Luke ... instead, he reveals the significance and truth of these events, events that were already known to his hearers, by reporting here Christ's own words
Here, Christ declares Himself to be the true food and drink, the true bread that has come down from heaven (John 6:48-53 reads: "I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate manna in the wilderness, and died. This One is the bread, the One coming down out of the heavens, in order that anyone might eat of it and not die. I am the bread, the living One, the One having come down out of the heavens; if anyone should eat of this bread, he shall live forever. And indeed the bread that I will give in My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." Then the Jews began quarreling with one another, saying, "How is this One able to give us His flesh to eat?" Then Jesus said to them, "Verily, verily, I say to you, unless ye should eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, ye are not having life in yourselves.").
In Communion, we truly eat His flesh and drink His blood, and this grants the faithful eternal life(From the Eastern Orthodox blog "Orthodox Ecclesiology and the World", here.
Your view is the minority report in Christendom, and was the non-existent report up until about AD 800; insignificant until the 16th century. Your view is a consequence of late medieval rationalism, it's not part of Christianity as it existed in the first 500 years of the church. It simply isn't.
You state: “Jesus is literally the Word of God, I also believe that there is some literal meaning to Jesus saying the bread and wine are His body and blood. The Catholic doctrine on it, though, I don’t accept, as it conflicts with Scripture. “
I do not understand your comment on how the Catholic Doctrine of transubstantiation conflicts with the Words of Jesus.
Your comment: “But these can’t be proper interpretations as is because Jesus never followed through with the very literal acts that Catholic apologists say offended the people in John 6 and drove many of them away from Him. He never gave to His apostles for them to eat from His actual body and blood, although He was there physically, both at the Last Supper, and after His resurrection”
You may not believe in the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into Christ’s Body and Blood, but how can you make a factual statement that Jesus did not (nor does not to this day)make it happen?
You seem to accept other miracles that Christ performed, how can you be so certain that Christ does not continue to perform miracles through His apostles and the priests of the Catholic Church for the last 2000 years?
And you were answered at least twice...Yet you are pretending you didn't get an answer...
later
Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians:not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.
Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”
–Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391
That's not Christ. That's Clinton.
Many deserted Christ because they could not accept His teaching about His Body and Blood. And when they began to leave, Christ didn't amend or clarify His words - instead He confirmed that He did indeed mean them to eat His Body and drink His Blood.
The disciples (however) stayed with Christ because they recognised that He was the Son of the living God. They were the first to eat His Body and drink His Blood at the Last Supper.
Christ commands us to eat His Body and Blood. His words are unmistakeable.
I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
Christ literally gives Himself to us as real food and real drink. There's nothing to misinterpret here. There's no room for manoeuvre.
Moreover when we consider the language used in the Gospel of John, the literal interpretation becomes undeniable.
In John 6:50-53 we encounter various forms of the Greek verb phago, 'eating.' . As in 'Sarcophagus'.
However after the Jews begin to express incredulity at the idea of eating Christ’s flesh, His language intensifies.
In verse 54, John begins to use trogo instead of phago. Trogo is a decidedly more graphic term, meaning 'to chew on' or to 'gnaw on'—as when an animal is ripping apart its prey. The text is closer to:
Whoever gnaws on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
If anything more needed to be said: St Paul is also abundantly clear
Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
All this: not to mention Christ's insitutution of what we now call the Eucharist at the Last Supper.
From Luke:
And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."
If any corroborating evidence were needed, St Paul speaks about the Eucharist in Corinthians.
And when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
I quote these to show that Christ's Body and Blood were eaten and drunk in the very early Church.
I'm off to work now. I daresay that another attack thread exactly like this one will be along in a few hours. May God bless us today and grant us all that we need.
Christ also told the woman at the well that he would give her “living water” so that she would never go thirsty and she would have eternal life.
So perhaps churches should start the ritual of “the living water” so that such consecrated waters also convey saving grace just in case the living presence in the “bread and cup” is working.
I mean no disrespect to our Lord...but these were all metaphors our Lord was using to describe the transactions of life and grace transmitted to the inner man by the Holy Spirit “day by day” as Paul describes. You read the Bible, you pray and commune in the Spirit and you get life transmitted to you. Christ said “it wasn’t by BREAD ALONE” we live but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of the Father”
Exactly...He had the 'words' of eternal life...The flesh meant nothing...
The flesh that Jesus gave was given on the Cross, not in a piece of bread...The flesh that was broken was broken in the Crucifixion, not a piece of bread...The blood that was shed hit the ground...No one drank it...
By then the disciples had heard enough parables that they didn't understand but they knew why Jesus was speaking in parables...
Mat 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Just like your religion...You see and see not...
Jesus warned you about calling priests Father...And you see not...
Jesus warned you that all have sinned, even Mary...And you see not...
Jesus warned you about those who demand you abstain from meat...And you see not...
Jesus warned you about bishops and elders who were not married...And you see not...
Jesus warned you about those religious people who wear long robes...And you see not...
Jesus warned you about building, bowing and praying to idols...AND YOU SEE NOT...
So Jesus lays another parable on you guys...And you see not...You even built an entire false religion on those things Jesus told you not to do...
Note, too, that it is the unbelieving people, not Jesus, who bring up the subject of bread again.
Another way of looking at it is, when Jesus mentioned the meat which endureth that the Son of God will give them in verse 27, He said it knowing that those words would make these Jewish people think of the manna.
One thing I have not seen addressed is, what were Peter and the others thinking? Did they, too, believe that it “was a hard saying”? I think they did, that they understood it the same way that those who left did, that Jesus was saying He will give them to eat from His actual body and blood. Peter was very careful not to say they believed what Jesus was saying; he said where else would we go, you have the words of everlasting life, we believe you are the Son of the Living God. I can imagine the conversations that the apostles had when Jesus went off to pray. Eat His body? Drink His blood? What is He talking about? So at the last supper, imagine their relief when He gave them the bread and said that it was His body and the same with the wine. Oh, that’s what He meant; He is changing the bread and wine into His body and blood. We don’t understand how, but it sure is better than taking a bite out of his arm or sucking His blood.
Two things wrong with this idea ...
1. Literal interpretation does not mean we abandon the ability to recognize a figure of speech, poetic language, and other Biblical genre of the text. Literal interpretation in John 6 makes no sense ... as for a Jew consuming literal human flesh and literal human blood is a violation of OT law.
2. We adhere to a metaphorical understanding of John 6, not because we want to defy Catholic teaching ... but because that is the correct interpretation ... consistent with the entire chapter.
I am 55 yeas old, a cradle Roman Catholic, relatively new to Free Republic, but no more. In just a few short months I have been condemned for my faith in these pages so many times it has made my head spin. Well, sir, I’ve had enough. I know that Jesus died on the cross for me, as all Catholics do—they are reminded by the crucifix that hangs above the altar. I believe that the Eucharist, or Communion, is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus. Every Sunday mass includes three scripture readings—we just heard the Passion yesterday and John 3:16 a week or two ago. There are several other instances in the mass that feature short scripture verses as well. I know that God answers the prayers of Catholics also. Though I never smoked, I was diagnosed with stage 3A lung cancer two years ago. After lots of treatments and a lot more prayer, I am cancer-free for 15 months. If we RC’s are so wrong, what is God doing by allowing my health restored? Finally, faith and works plus scripture and tradition have built in me a deep love for my faith; the Catholic mass is beautiful, its purpose righteous. Finally, what about the bit about not judging lest you be judged?
Don’t bother responding, please, for as I note at the beginning, I am tired of being condemned and you can’t possibly convert me. I will not read your or any responses. I am out of this forum for good.
Your comment: “So perhaps churches should start the ritual of “the living water”
The Catholic Church has the Sacrament of Baptism with water.
Perhaps you shouldn’t mock the words of Jesus in promising us “the living water”.
I checked only because I read these Catholic-Protestant threads consistently and I didn't recall that name at all. My memory isn't what it used to be but I am confident that I recognize all the screen names of the regular posters.
Who said I was mocking....John 4:11 “Sir,” the woman said, “you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? 12 Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his livestock?”
13 Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14 but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”
So what is it that saves...Christ’s living water that he gives us to “DRINK”!? His body and blood?! Or were these metaphors for the deeper work that the Holy Spirit does in those who believe...Hmmmmmmmmm? Christ wasn’t speaking of water baptism in this instance and neither was I...but he was speaking of consumption of spiritual water was he not?
And if this supply of living water becomes a spring welling up in every believer to eternal life, what does it say about the doctrine of the presence of Christ in communion...does it complement that doctrine or negate it?
Best you check your accusations of mockery and read a little deeper!
Sorry I took your comment as mocking (”So perhaps churches should start the ritual of “the living water” ).
In verse 15, the woman then begs our Lord, “Sir, give me this water, that I may not thirst, nor come here to draw.”
There is no doubt the Samaritan woman has it wrong here. But far from leaving her in her error, our Lord responds most profoundly, beginning in verse 16, “Go, call your husband…” And when the woman responds, “I have no husband,” in verse 17, Jesus reads her soul and tells her, “You are right… for you have had five husbands, and he whom you now have is not your husband.”
He now has her attention, to say the least. And he then turns the conversation to what he was really speaking about in terms of the “living water” he came to give that would “well up to eternal life.” In verse 23, he declares,
But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him. [24] God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
When the woman then responds, in verse 25, “I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ); when he comes, he will show us all things,” Jesus then tells her plainly, in verse 26, “I who speak to you am he.”
It seems clear that the woman then understood that Jesus’ words were metaphorical concerning the “living water,” because she immediately “left her water jar,” went back to her fellow countrymen and urged them to, “Come, see a man who told me all that I ever did. Can this be the Christ” (verses 28-29)? And according to verse 39, “Many Samaritans… believed in him because of the woman’s testimony.” She came to realize Jesus was about much more than filling war jars.
Yes the first step to accepting eternal life with God is Baptism through living water and by following His Commandments and by believing and participating in the teachings and Sacraments of the Catholic church including receiving the Body and Blood of Christ.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.