Eating Jesus in John 6

SheepOfJesus said:

In John 6:48-56, what does it mean to eat Jesus' flesh and drink His blood? This would be a very powerful argument for eternal security if I only knew how to eat Jesus!

Click to expand...

Mountainmike said:

Made clear at the last supper.
Real presence in Eucharist, in which Paul and all the early fathers believed.

The word " eat" used is specific , it means literally " gnaw" not just consume.

Notice also they are all so offended at Capernaum about " eating flesh" even his supporters leave, and rather than say " I meant symbolic" , he simply asks Peter and the others " will you go too?". If Jesus had meant symbolic, why would his own supporters leave?


Indeed, nobody questioned real presence in Eucharist it till after the reformation, and even then not all of the reformers challenged it

Consider: If the Eucharist were symbolic , how is it that taking it unworthily can " eat and drink judgement " on you? As per the epistles,

That's why early Christians were thought by ill informed romans as cannibals, because they talked of eating flesh , whilst under torture, which is how the lovely Romans extracted information, about the secret practices!

What is also true in early church ( e.g. Ignatius to smyrneans) is that to be valid a Eucharist had to be performed by bishops or appointees in succession, again, not contested for a thousand years, and even Luther believed it.

Click to expand...

ChristianFromKazakhstan said:

Figurative. Physical wants vs. Spiritual need. "Eat/drink" - to partake of smth and to make it part of you - is to have faith in Him. Jesus is very clear on that. No other way to God. Only though the forgiveness in His selfless act of giving Himself to us. It's grace. Only way to sustain life.

No way to "eat" Jesus by your intellect, emotions or body. Only if you exercise faith. Not hard. Not complicated. Child-like. Full and complete acceptance of Him as living entity who is able to open your eyes and to bring you into a much bigger reality. Ultimate revitalization. New and exciting life.

Click to expand...

ChristianFromKazakhstan said:

As long as you truly know Jesus, nothing else matters. I'm not here to argue. I have no problem in your believing the way you do. Let's concentrate on people to learn about the love of Jesus Christ, abiut His reality, about true life in Him. So many are missing it! Let's argue about Eucharist after we've done all we can in this mission.

Click to expand...

Mountainmike said:

With respect you are welcome to your own beliefs, and I won't challenge them, indeed our Lord matters more,

BUT

This is no mere trifle.

If this is the Eucharist as we contend ...then Jesus says John 6:53 and 6:54 your very salvation , and the salvation of the other to whom you replied may depend on it!
Since either he will " raise you up at the last day" OR " you have no life in you!" In short you cannot afford to get this interpretation wrong!

So The moment you decide to advise others on doctrine, this case " body and blood" you become responsible for that advice, and misleading others if your post does mislead, which is not good, on a matter of salvation!

So unless you have an authoritative argument you can present to support in this case a figurative view of symbolism, perhaps you should not present it as an authoritative interpretation when someone asks, Indeed, the more minority a view is, the better support it needs to persuade most of histories Christians they were wrong and baptists are right!

But I am also curious, how do you defend what I said in your own mind?
Baptists seemingly never tell me, but I will wager the next time John 6 is raised, a baptist will say much as you did! Are you not curious why others believe differently, or indeed what the church fathers had to say?

Click to expand...

ChristianFromKazakhstan said:

As long as you truly know Jesus, nothing else matters.

Click to expand...

prodromos said:

If you have not received His body and blood then from a Traditional understanding you do not truly know Jesus, neither do you have any part in Him, so it seems pretty important to me.

Click to expand...

ChristianFromKazakhstan said:

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.

Let's concentrate on people who rejects or do not know about Jesus.

Click to expand...

ChristianFromKazakhstan said:

I love you in Jesus. You know Him. Then He can explain everything. I can't .

Click to expand...

Greg J. said:

Jesus was not speaking symbolically when he said that (in the John 6:48-59+ passage). He made that point in the passage (John 6:55). He is speaking of things that actually happen in the spirit. He did not explicitly list how to do that in the passage, but is not too hard to gather from the rest of Scripture. It's along the lines of fully believing in and entrusting yourself to Jesus with the connotation of faithfully behaving accordingly (e.g., James 1:22-25, 1 John 2:6).

Click to expand...

Greg J. said:

If that were true, then we would find Jesus' DNA when the Eucharist is under an electron microscope, otherwise people wouldn't be eating his body. Even the Eucharist is an expression of the spiritual reality, otherwise it is just wheat. As a consequence, the question is, is it about wheat that God is concerned?

Click to expand...

shanethetheologian said:

Here is a paper I turned in on this subject in an undergrad class on the four Gospels. It's not published so this post is not infringing any copyrights. I got an 'A' for it arguing a traditional sacramental position at an evangelical-charismatic school, if that's worth anything.​

The 'Bread of Life' Discourse Interpreted​

Introduction:
The Gospel According to St. John is different in character from the other three Gospels such that Clement of Alexandria described it as a “spiritual Gospel”1 and Origen of Alexandria described its ideas as the “first fruits” of not just the Gospels, but the Scriptures.2 Central to this characterization is the development of several principle symbols or images, two of which Pope Benedict XVI identified as wine and bread.3 The 'bread of life' discourse is central to Jesus' revelation of himself - what he is for the world - and has taken on special significance because of the sacramental theology that has been developed from his words, "Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."4 The passage that this paper will consider is the synopsis of the 'bread of life' discourse, John 6:48-58.

Before the text is interpreted, the reader must have a sense of the social context in which it is set. The sixth chapter of John begins with an account of 'feeding the five thousand.' The 'bread of life' discourse occurs on the day following the feeding miracle. In John 6:26-27, Jesus criticizes the Jews for their carnality and challenges them to a deeper way of thinking by offering to feed them “food that endures for eternal life.” They are still not thinking spiritually, instead asking what works they might do “to perform the works of God.”5 Jesus tells them that the work of God is to believe and they respond by requesting a sign so that they may do so, as if they had not just seen a sign the day before. They present the example of the manna in the wilderness and Jesus again challenges them to a deeper way of thinking by challenging their fundamental understanding of that episode. John 6:35 lays out Jesus' thesis: “I am the bread of life.” The remainder of the chapter is a back and forth dialogue wherein the Jews refuse to acknowledge Jesus' claim and he continues to further develop his real meaning despite their obstinacy and disbelief until finally his own disciples say, in 6:60, “This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?” As the passage is approached, a good interpretive principle to keep in mind is set out by Pope Benedict XVI: “The Lord always speaks in the present and with an eye to the future."6

John 6:48-51

“I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”7​

The first notable aspect of the passage is Jesus' restatement, really re-emphasis, of himself as the 'bread of life.' He is making a comparison of himself to the manna and casting himself in a superior role; one might logically extend the comparison to his ministry and that of Moses.8 His evidence is the effect of the eating: the ancient Israelites died in the wilderness but those who eat this living bread will live forever. Martin and Wright comment, “The food that gives immortality is an allusion to the tree of life in the garden of Eden.” 9

Also notable is the way in which Jesus shifts the 'heaven' terminology that the Jews had first used in 6:31. The way in which the usage shifts gives us an insight into the development of the frame of mind of his audience. When they quoted the Torah, they were using the term to refer to the sky. When Jesus uses the term in 6:32-33 he is shifting the meaning to the place where God dwells; a meaning which becomes quite explicit, and objectionable to his audience, in 6:38: “For I have come down from heaven.” Because they were still acting rather dull, he makes the connection totally clear in 6:50-51.

We must now ask, is Jesus' statement “The bread that I will give. . . is my flesh” literal or metaphorical? The Jews found his assertion that he came down from Heaven objectionable. But what really set them off was his mention of flesh. Dongell comments:

Perhaps some understood his language in purely physical terms, as requiring a form of cannibalism. Some may have understood the symbolic value of Jesus' language, but found even the imagery of cannibalism (and particularly the drinking of blood) to be thoroughly offensive. Others may have been put off by the exclusive nature of Jesus' claim that no life at all was available apart from such a meal (whether symbolic or physical).10

Kruse looks ahead to the end of the larger story and rightly concludes, “This is an allusion to his death on the cross;”11 so Jesus' statement is quite literal. That leads into the obvious question, which the Jews ask, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”12

John 6:52-58

The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever.”13​

Before this passage is interpreted consideration should be given as to how it fits with the preceding paragraph. Textual scholars like Bultmann thought this was probably a separate paragraph that was inserted by a later editor who was attempting to harmonize the discourse with church dogma.14 Voelz asserted that such a position “fails to reckon with the true genius of our Lord.”15 Voelz goes on with his defense: “It seems to me that so much of Jesus' teachings looks to be shaped in this way—with the final portion of a discourse giving a slightly different twist than the main portion of the discourse—that it just may be that it was all totally purposeful, in the end.”16 Archbishop Royster quoted the ancient fathers at length to demonstrate that they saw a continuity in the reading with what came before.17

At this point a bit of word study is helpful. Sproul offered this observation: “Did you notice the recurrence of that little word unless early in this discourse? In the previous chapter, we saw that this word introduces a sine qua non, a necessary condition that must occur before some desired consequence or effect can take place.”18 How this condition is met will be examined in the next section of this paper - it is a point of much disagreement. However, Sproul gave further development to his 'unless' remarks: “Just to reinforce the point, Jesus restated it in the form of a promise [in 6:54].”19 This variation is not an either-or situation, it is a both-and: the prescription is both a command and a promise.

Royster and Voelz both work with the Greek word trogo, which is a verb for eating occurring in 6:54, 56, 57.20 Royster wrote, “However figuratively or spiritually [phagete, another word for 'eat'] may be understood, the literal meaning of physically eating, conveyed by [trogo], is necessary to understand.”21 Voelz offered a more colorful description of what this eating was: gnawing or munching; a verb not compatible with a meaning of “spiritual communion with God.”22 Low church commentators prefer to give a connotation of shock value to the use of this verb. That argument will be examined shortly.

The paragraph turns on the question posed by the Jews, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Jesus' answer was probably not as direct as they wished, but they were hardly in a frame of mind to receive much explanation and so Jesus continued on as he wished. Kruse notes that, “To the idea of eating his flesh he added that of drinking his blood.”23 This put him thoroughly in territory with which orthodox interpretations of the Torah were totally uncomfortable – prohibitions against consuming blood were quite explicit (see Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 3:17, Deuteronomy 12:23). Moreover, he again put himself in a position of superiority to Moses. The point is emphasized in the difference of the effect of the manna and the bread: the eaters of manna died but those who eat Christ's bread “live forever.”

Finally, backing up a bit, Christ made a connection between his disciples, himself, and the Father. The disciples who hear this hard word and act upon it enter into a unique communal relationship with the Father through the Son (and by the Spirit as later discourses reveal). Royster quoted Cyril of Alexandria: “When, therefore, we eat the holy flesh of Christ, the Savior of us all, and drink His precious blood, we have life in us, being made as it were, one with Him, and abiding in Him, and possessing Him also in us.”24 Martin and Wright work with the Greek word for this special communion, meno – translated 'abide' in the NRSV, which “designates the mutual indwelling of the Father and Son, the eternal relationship between them in which Jesus invites his to share.”25 Those authors and Kruse noted this recurring connotation in other pericopes in the Johannine Gospel: the 'Show us the Father' discourse, 14:8-11 and the 'Vine and Branches' discourse, 15:1-7.26

Perhaps, of the authors this paper has surveyed, it is Pope Benedict XVI who offered the clearest over-arching statement of the thematic basis for the 'Bread of Life' discourse:

In this chapter, then, the theology of the Incarnation and the theology of the Cross come together; the two cannot be separated. There are thus no grounds for setting up an opposition between the Easter theology of the Synoptics and Saint Paul, on one hand, and Saint John's supposedly purely incarnational theology, on the other. For the goal of the Word's becoming-flesh spoken of by the prologue is precisely the offering of his body on the Cross, which the sacrament makes accessible to us. 27​

In his application, the Pope has brought us to our final point of consideration: to quote Voelz, “Is it Eucharistic?”28

Is a sacramental reading a valid reading?
“There are some very vivid words of Jesus in our verses, words which seem naturally to suggest a specifically eucharistic meaning to anyone acquainted with the Christian religion.”29 The last five words of that sentence give the crux of the matter: Is looking back at the passage through a Christian prism a valid way of reading? Here we need to remember what Pope Benedict XVI offered as an interpretive key: Jesus speaks to the present and future. Many times in the NT, an OT text is given a surprising new meaning in light of the work of Christ. Though a eucharistic meaning would not have occurred to the first hearers of the Bread of Life discourse, that meaning is hidden in Jesus' words in the text. But in fairness, critics and supporters will be given a few moments' voice.

Dongell, a Wesleyan scholar, takes a moderate position, writing:

Since the other Gospels narrate the institution of the Lord's Supper with statements identifying bread and wine as Jesus' body and blood, are Jesus' words here in John's gospel to be understood as a veiled reference to the Eucharist? While the connection might seem perfectly obvious to many readers, several factors tell against seeing this as the primary import of Jesus' teaching.30​

Dongell and Kruse both note that the language in John is of “flesh and blood” rather than the “body and blood” language employed in other Eucharistic discourses.31 Royster was not impressed with this point and replied that the ancient fathers of the church used the terms interchangeably in Eucharistic discussions.32

If the meaning of the passage does not lend to a literal eating – a Eucharistic eating – what is the implication? Kruse and Sproul both make the case that the passage is presenting “a metaphor for believing in him.”33 Sproul explained:

I believe that Jesus is speaking here not about the Lord's Supper but about the same subject he addressed in His conversation with the Samaritan woman (John 4:1-26), when He talked about the living water that He would give. In short, I believe Jesus was making the point that He is the giver of supernatural life, life to all who put their trust in Him.34​

Martin and Wright, being Catholic, offer an unequivocally Eucharistic interpretation of the text. They develop the language argument presented by Voelz and Royster in conjunction with the belief argument to reach this conclusion: “While obedient listening and faith are means of ingesting God's Word and wisdom, the change to a more concrete verb for eating accents the fact that Christ's offer of his body and blood entails something even more radical: consuming his flesh and blood in the Eucharist.”35 Royster quoted Hilary of Poitiers giving an answer to early critics:

As to the veracity of the flesh and blood there is no room left for doubt. For now both from the declaration of the Lord Himself and our own faith, it is verily flesh and verily blood. And these when eaten and drunk, bring it to pass that both we are in Christ and Christ in us. Is not this true? Yet they who affirm that Christ Jesus is not truly God are welcome to find it false. He therefore Himself is in us through the flesh and we in Him, whilst together with Him our own selves are in God.36​

Hilary made a statement, bordering on an anathema, that many low church readers might find inflammatory when he invited those who deny Christ's divinity to reject his Eucharistic theology. This type of language is typical of the Orthodox of times past. They took the theology of the passage very seriously. Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and Lutheran scholars have often rightly pointed out that those who argue most loudly for a “literal interpretation” dispense with literalism to find a metaphor in John's passage.

Conclusion:
The way one chooses to read the text is spawned largely from sacramental theology: low church Protestants see a metaphor where high church Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox see a theological treatment of a sacrament. To the discredit of the low churchmen, they often set up a false either-or dichotomy: either the passage is a metaphor for believing or it is sacramental; but what if it is both? In closing, I make a lex orandi lex credendi appeal to my own Anglican tradition's Book of Common Prayer, which presents a both-and position in the communion liturgy, “The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life: Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving.”37


1Eusebius of Caesarea, “Church History: Book VI,” New Advent, 2009, CHURCH FATHERS: Church History, Book VI (Eusebius).
2Origen of Alexandria, “Commentary on the Gospel of John: Book I,” New Advent, 2009, CHURCH FATHERS: Commentary on John, Book I (Origen).
3Joseph Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth, trans. Adrian J. Walker (New York: Image, 2007), 248-271.
4John 6:53, NRSV.
5John 6:28, NRSV.
6Ratzinger, 257.
7John 6:48-51, NRSV.
8Ratzinger, 264-265.
9Francis Martin and William M. Wright IV, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015), 128.
10Joseph Dongell, John: A Commentary for Bible Students (Indianapolis: Wesleyan Publishing House, 1997), 102.
11Colin G. Kruse, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: John (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 174.
12John 6:52, NRSV.
13John 6:52-58, NRSV.
14James W. Voelz, “The Discourse on the Bread of Life in John 6: Is it Eucharistic?” Concordia Journal, January (1989): 29-37.
15Voelz, ibid.
16Voelz, ibid.
17Dmitri Royster, The Holy Gospel According to Saint John (Yonkers: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2015), 180-184.
18R.C. Sproul, St. Andrew's Expository Commentary: John (Orlando: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2009), 123.
19Sproul, ibid.
20Royster, 182. Voelz, ibid.
21Royster, ibid.
22Voelz, ibid.
23Kruse, 174.
24Royster, 183.
25Martin & Wright, 130.
26Martin & Wright, ibid. Kruse, 175.
27Ratzinger, 269.
28Voelz, ibid.
29Voelz, ibid.
30Dongell, ibid.
31Dongell, ibid. Kruse, 174.
32Royster, 181.
33Kruse, 176.
34Sproul, 124.
35Martin & Wright, 129.
36Royster, 183.
37The Book of Common Prayer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 256.

Click to expand...

Mountainmike said:

You misunderstand science ( I say as postgrad physicist) . Our observation model and empirical perception is not the same as objective reality. Indeed quantum physics determines all observation is subjective in the Copenhagen interpretation,

As a Christian why do you limit God to your limited understanding? Where is your faith and trust?

And furthering your point, when Jesus decides to show you, you would be surprised!

We ( Catholics ) are not obliged to believe in Eucharistic miracles but I do, and as a scientist I have collected an extensive file of the forensic science and pathology.

Of the ones in recent times,
The common factors between

Tixtla
Sokolka
Buenos Aires
Legnica
Are...
1/ human blood a/b
2/ human tissue recognised by specialised cardiac pathogists as heart myocardium, but with pathology of extensive beating, including white cells.
3/ the presence of white cells show it was live when sampled - they should disintegrate in hours in vitro because of autolysis. White cells Still there after years. The pathologists said "inexplicable"

And lanciano ( for example) has survived for a millennium, still showing 1/ 2/


4/ on DNA the fascinating thing is none of the labs ( many involved) could get PCR replication. Bizarrely it is human tissue, no viable DNA...but then who was jesus' earthly father? / DNA donor... see the issue? !


and before you say " fraud" accept the fact
1/ any fraudulent sample would replicate.... and Jesus had no earthly father!

2/ heart myocardium cannot be sampled without a cardiac surgeon and probably killing the patient, where are the bodies?

3/ the myocardium intermingles with bread at the edges, impossible to cheat.


There is far more evidence for life by Eucharistic miracle than there is for evolutionary abiogenesis ( ie life a lucky chemical accident for which there is no evidence at all, not even a hypothesis) . And ... for those who understand darwins writings, Darwin said that such life ( as the miracle) would disprove his theory!

Be careful what you wish for!with evidence! You may have to change view... but only back to what Jesus says literally!

Click to expand...

Paul Yohannan said:

I myself believe in Eucharistic miracles. As an Orthodox I don't believe such a belief is optional, either.

That said, I believe the normal rule is that if a priest notices a fleshy aspect to the Eucharist during the Prothesis he is to set it aside and contact the bishop, because there is a certain concern of demonic deception.

Click to expand...