Sitting on the page, isolated, the various statements that “I am a door/vine/way” look like the statements in John 6.
That’s only if you ignore the crowd. In John 6, he is speaking before a crowd who are outraged and scandalized by what he is saying, and who get up and leave by the thousands. There isn’t a hint of such a reaction to the other sayings. “He’s nuts! He says he’s a door! He’s crazy! He says he’s a vine!”
But Jesus doesn’t just say “I am food. I am drink.” He says we must “eat,” “gnaw,” “chew” his body. When the horrified reactions begin, he DOUBLES DOWN on the graphic, concrete language.
Is it even conceivable that Jesus could UNNECESSARILY outrage and scandalizes people by putting a perfectly reasonable, pleasant, metaphor in such a way as to drive thousands of them away?
Is it conceivable that the gospel would tell us of such a SIN on the part of Jesus?
If the non-Catholic interpretation of John 6 were true, wouldn’t the declaration that we must eat his body and drink his blood be received by the crowd with the same equanimity as his statements that he is a door/vine/way, etc.?
The mob who abandon Jesus are the main witnesses that these statements about eating Jesus’ body and drinking his blood are not in the same category as his many other metaphors.
Why does John WANT us to know that thousands of people walked away from Jesus? I.e., by telling us about it, John is making a point FOR US. He’s telling us that, if we understand what Jesus is saying, WE might be outraged, disgusted, etc. Of course, as in every other scene in his gospel, John’s purpose is that we should hear and believe.
Bottom line: The “Catholic” interpretation of John 6 is the only interpretation according to which the crowd is wrong in abandoning Jesus, and the apostles are not fools for staying.
And He goes on to say.....
John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
Scripture says a lot about meditating on the word of God.
Are you taking all of chapter 6 into context when you examine this?
It sure looks like the conversation begins in John 6:22 where the conversation begins regarding food. On more than one occasion Jesus is linking food and belief.
In v27 He tells the crowd to not work for food that will perish but for the food that endures to eternal life.
They respond in v28 by asking how may they work the works of God....His reply in v29 is to believe in Him.
Then they ask for a sign that they may believe and reference God giving their ancestors manna.
Jesus explains the Father has given true bread from Heaven and they reply in v 34 to give them this bread.
In v35 Jesus identifies Himself as the bread of life. He who comes to Him will not hunger and he who believes in Him shall not thirst.
In v36, which is critical to understanding this, Jesus says, "But I said to you, that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe."
He follows up on this in v40 by saying that everyone who believes in Him, may have eternal life.
In v41 the Jews aren't happy as He called himself the bread of life and then attempt to cast further dispersion upon Him by noting: Is this not the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say I have come down out of Heaven?"
Jesus knows they are grumbling about His statement as noted in v43.
From there He again links Himself with God in vv 44-46 and then restates the need for belief in v47 "Truly, truly, I say to you he who believes has eternal life.
He makes the connection that He is the the bread in 48 that gives life and continues this theme in vv 49-51.
In v52 the Jews debate as to how He can give His flesh for them to eat. They are aware of the OT prohibitions on eating blood so this is blowing their minds.
In vv53-58 we come upon the verses we are debating. These verses relate back to v35 when Jesus notes that those who come to Him will not hunger or thirst. We know this is a metaphor because as Christians we still get hungry and thirsty....but not spiritually. So if this is not literal why do we take the verses in 53-58 as literal when the clear meaning is have faith in Christ...believe in Him.
If we keep all of this in context going back to v22 we have to ask the following:
What message has Jesus been trying to communicate to the Jews?
How has He said we have eternal life?
What has He compared Himself too that came from Heaven?
To reinforce that this is all about believing in Him, He questions His disciples who were grumbling amongst themselves.
In v64 he notes "there are some of you who do not believe."
Peter reinforces this is about faith in vv67-69 when Jesus asks the twelve if they want to leave also.
Peter answers by noting that "You have words of eternal life. And we have believed and have come to know that you are the Holy One of God."
The whole passage is about faith. Do you believe Jesus is the bread of life?
That's what He's asking the Jews and that's the message He still asks today. Is He the bread of life? Do you have faith in Him?
In all of John this is the central question Jesus asks of people....do you believe in Me?
When Jesus says "I am the door, if anyone enters through Me, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture." John 10:9
If you suggest John 6:53-58 is to taken literally...that the bread and wine are His flesh and blood, why do we not take this literally and believe Jesus is an actual physical door? Does He mystically turn Himself into a door that looks like one in our homes and we literally pass through it??
Of course not. It is a figure of speech as are the passages in John 6.
We see the figure of speech used again in John 15 when Jesus says He is the true vine and we are the branches. We do not take this to mean He is a literal vine and us branches.
Again, it all comes down to faith in Christ. In all these verses, He is attempting to drive home the point that only through faith in Him can we have salvation.
Why??? Certainly nothing offensive or in violation of the law was said in claiming he was the door or vine...