{This dialog was originally conducted at CARM on or around August 2004.  it is representative of many dialogs on this topic, and I offer it as a case study.  It will be useful to some who are encountering this topic.}

>John chapter 6 has been coming up in a few threads. I
>thought I would start a new one dedicated to John 6:35-70. I
>posted this over 2 years ago on this same message board. So
>here it is again....
>
>In his Bread of Life discourse, Jesus makes 2
>claims...
>1) "I am the Bread of Life that came down from Heaven" (verses
>35, 38, 51).
>2) "The bread that I will give for the life of the world is my
>flesh."(verse 51).
>
>Now we can determine whether he was speaking figuratively or
>literally by the reaction of the people to what he said.
>
>Let's take the first claim, I am the bread of life that
>came down from heaven. How do the people react? Verse
>41..."Then the Jews began to complain about him because he
>said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven. They were
>saying "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father
>and mother we know? How can he now say, 'I have come down from
>heaven.' The Jews focused on only the phrase "came down from
>heaven", because obviously they knew the "bread" was a
>metaphor. It is the "came down from heaven" that offended
>them. And Jesus does not let up...verse 44 "No one can come to
>me unless drawn by The Father who sent me." verse 46
>"Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is
>from God
; he has seen the Father."The people took Jesus
>literally when he said "He
>came down from heaven". Now why do Protestant not deny this
>and say "oh he is only speaking figuratively"?

We don't. That's a distortion of a common Protestant exegesis of this passage.

You have begun your explanation half-way into the discourse from Christ.

John 6:26 Jesus answered them and said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled.
27 "Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal."
28 Therefore they said to Him, "What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?"
29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent."
30 So they said to Him, "What then do You do for a sign, so that we may see, and believe You? What work do You perform?
31 "Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, 'HE GAVE THEM BREAD OUT OF HEAVEN TO EAT.'"
32 Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven.
33 "For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world."
34 Then they said to Him, "Lord, always give us this bread."

 

In vv 26-27, Jesus is admonishing the people becasue they are following Him not for spiritual reasons but because He filled their bellies once. V. 27 is especially telling because Christ is saying that they should not be working for belly-food, but for spiritual food -- food which ebdures to eternal life. cf. John 4 when Jesus tells the apostles that He has food which they know nothing about -- He's talking about the same thing here: not the food you run off to the market to purchase, not the food which satisfies you for a moment, but the food which gives eternal satisfaction.

In vv. 28-29, they ask what the work of God is. That parallels Jesus' assertion that they "should not work for ... but for" this food. What is the work? The work is to believe in the on God sent.

In vv. 30-33, since they recognize "here's the work", they ask for a sign (think on it: yersteday He fed 5000 with a couple of loaves and fishes, and they are now asking for another sign) because Moses provided them a sign -- Moses gave them bread from Heaven to eat (the implication, I think, being that Jesus just gave them measely loaves and fishes). Jesus' response is: "Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world."

Now as we read that, we have to remember, first of all, that we are reading the Gospel of John. That is to say, this isn't some text in the middle of nowhere talking about an abstract event in Jesus' life: this is part of the whole Gospel of John. In that, when Jesus says this about the bread which comes down out of heaven, it has some relationship to John 1:4, and John 1:12-13, and John 3:33-36.

Most people, Catholic or Protestant, would probably not have a problem with that -- to say that Jesus is Himself testifying to bringing redemptive life to the world. The question is whether Jesus is saying, "I bring redemptive life through the ceremony (which I haven't instituted yet) through some metaphysically-supercharged bread which is actually Me," or if Jesus is saying, "You are looking for bread to be a sign to you, but there is something God gives you which cannot see and it is better than merely bread for food."

I suggest to you that it is the latter, and that is substantiated in the verses you have just provided -- where you pick up this discourse. When the Jews say to Him, "Lord, give us this bread always," He replies how? "Here's some bread, and it is actually Me"? Of course not. He says, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst."

If you take that as the explanation of what Jesus just said, here's what you find:

 

John 6:32 Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you Me, the true bread out of heaven.
33 "For I am that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world."

 

When Jesus says, "I am the Bread of Life", there is no way to say that He means, "I am the Eucharist bread and wine" because this passage has absolutely nothing pointing to the Last Supper -- which was a Passover seder, not a re-enactment of the Jews in the wilderness -- and nothing pointing to a future ceremony which is related to that event.

In that, to say that Jesus is somehow talking about Heaven as a metaphor is completely unfounded. Jesus is saying that the Jews present want there to be bread -- the kind of bread they put in their mouths and it fills their bellies and that's how they will accept what God has done as a sign -- but that what God gives them is better than bread.

In that, "the bread which comes down from heaven" (the whole image) is certainly a "metaphor": it is a didactic image, a teaching image, to say that there is bread which is physical food, but there is something which is spiritual food not for your mortal life but your eternal life. No self-respecting person would say that the "bread" is a metaphor but "heaven" is not, because the two are joined inseparably by Christ. It is one image, and Christ makes clear the equation: I am the Bread I was just now talking about.

That all said, the Jews certainly did not ignore the "bread" for the "came down from heaven" part: they took the image as one image, one statement of fact. They grumbled among themselves because they thought they knew Jesus as the son of Joseph. How can the son of Joseph now say He is come down from Heaven? How can He be this Bread?

>Now the second claim..."The bread I will give for the
>life of the world is my flesh." How do the people
>react...(verse 52) …

The greatest problem with your “exegesis” here is that you are skipping great sections of Scripture for no reason, and taking context away from the verses you are trying to build you case upon. There is a huge chasm of information you have chopped out to jump ahead to v. 52 – including the fact that Jesus says at least twice that there’s nobody who can understand what He is talking about here unless God the Father teaches them what He means.

Think about that: if someone hears what Christ says in this event and the Father hasn’t taught that person what Christ is talking about, that person will not understand and will not be drawn to the Son. And lo and behold – the Jews are repulsed by Jesus’ teaching! Whatever it is that they understand in this discourse turns them away from Christ, which must mean – by Christ’s own definition, His own teaching about what He is saying – that they are not taught of the Father, and they do not understand what He is saying.

If we look at what the Jews who leave Christ at this point understand about this teaching, we can bank on the fact that whatever they understand is the wrong understanding of Jesus’ teaching. It is that context which you omit to come to your next point, and that is a critical divergence from the message of this text.

> … The Jews then disputed among themselves,
>saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Again
>they took him literally...and Jesus does not let up...(verses
>53-57) "...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....My flesh is true
>food 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."
>
>Further reaction...this time from his own disciples....(Verse
>60) "This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?" Some
>translations say "who can listen to it." This was scandalous
>to the Jews (which includes the disciples who were Jewish).

There is no basis to say that the disciples which stuck with Jesus after this event were the ones saying “who can listen to it?” There is ample evidence that those who did stick with Jesus after this event were not scandalized – because as Peter says clearly, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.” The ones who were scandalized walked away; the ones who stayed accepted that Christ had given them the words of eternal life.

>Not only that but to add to it the Greek verb for "eat"
>changes from eating like one would prepared foods to eating
>like one would raw vegetables. A type of gnawing and chewing.
>Why would John use such language if Jesus were speaking
>figuratively. But Jesus does not let up....verse 61 "Does this
>offend you?" Then what if you were to see the Son of Man
>ascending to where he was before? Remember the first claim
>they complained about? (come down from heaven).

When I say, “I have a gnawing suspicion that somebody is doing something bad,” I’m not talking about someone physically biting me or eating me. To say that the Greek words used here have no metaphoric or idiomatic sense and are never used that way is, in the first place, wrong if checked in any lexicon, and lastly, such a ridiculously narrow view of language that one wonders how the advocate of such an idea ever uses the word “go” properly in English.

I could go on, but I’m going to continue to go over where this advocate has gone overboard.

>Now verse 63 seems to be the only Protestant handhold in this
>whole discourse to the claim that Jesus was speaking
>figuratively. "It is the spirit that give life....What spirit?
>The spirit of God. Well who doesn't agree with that. No
>dispute there also no indication of figurative use on Jesus
>part...."the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and
>life." This must be where he said he is speaking figuratively.
>Now if Jesus said...."The words that I have spoken are spirit
>ONLY", Protestants may have some hope. But he didn't...He said
>"spirit and life." But again....look at the peoples reaction
>to what Jesus said.....Verse 66 "Because of this many of his
>disciples turned back and no longer went about with him." Now
>these were his disciples....people who have been following
>him. These were not just the Jews, not just the people he fed
>in the beginning of Chapter 6. These were his disciples. Now
>if Jesus said in verse 63 what the Protestants claim he did
>(ie speaking figuratively), WHY DID THEY LEAVE?
>
>Here are the possibilities....
>1) They took him figuratively and Jesus was speaking
>figuratively - then NO PROBLEM they would have stayed.
>2) They took him literally and Jesus was speaking figuratively
>- then NO PROBLEM their interpretation was wrong, Jesus
>cleared it up in verse 63 they would have stayed.
>3) They took him figuratively and Jesus was speaking literally
>- PROBLEM...They couldn't accept his teaching and THEY LEAVE.
>But verse 52 shows they were taking him literally.
>4) They took him literally and Jesus was speaking literally -
>PROBLEM...They couldn't accept this teaching THEY LEAVE.
>
>Well we know the outcome. It was number 4. Further evidence
>that it was #4, is in Jesus reaction to his disciples
>leaving....He does not run after them saying "I was speaking
>figuratively, didn't you understand verse 63?"

Again, the massive omission you make in the middle of this discourse fills in the reason why those who leave must leave: their understanding is a false understanding of Christ’s words – and it is right for them to leave. Jesus doesn’t do the Sungenis “Hey wait guys! I was just talking metaphorically!” because Jesus taught this way specifically to separate those with true faith, those who are taught by the Father, from those who are not drawn by the Father to the Son.

>Jesus reaction
>comes in verse 67...."So Jesus asked the twelve, 'DO YOU ALSO
>WISH TO GO AWAY?" He was willing to let the TWELVE walk away
>over this teaching. And beloved Peter speaks for all Twelve
>(no wonder he was the first pope), "Lord, to whom can we go?
>You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe
>and know that you are the Holy One of God."
>Peter didn't understand the teaching, nor did the rest of the
>Twelve...but they knew Jesus, they believed in Him. So they
>trusted.
>
>After hearing this entire discourse, What do you think the
>Apostles thought of while sitting with Jesus at the Last
>Supper and Jesus said "Take this and eat it, THIS IS MY BODY"?
>They knew exactly what he meant.

Yes. You must be right.

 

{This second part of this shows the rebuttal and response to the initial post.}

>When Jesus says, "I am the Bread of Life", there is no way to
>say that He means, "I am the Eucharist bread and wine" because
>this passage has absolutely nothing pointing to the Last
>Supper -- which was a Passover seder, not a re-enactment of
>the Jews in the wilderness -- and nothing pointing to a future
>ceremony which is related to that event. Saying it does not
>make it so. Look at John 6:4 Now the Passover, the festival
>of the Jews was near. How convenient of John to mention this
>at the start.


You’re saying that when Jesus feeds the 5000, He is actually providing them with the Passover meal? Or are your saying that when the Jews tell Him Moses gave us bread from Heaven, they are talking about the Passover?

The only way to make this mention of the Passover meaningful in the way you intend is to say that it is actually here that Jesus institutes the Eucharist by feeding the 5000 with a Passover seder. The last time I checked, Jesus did not provide wine at this event, Jesus did not say the magic “hoc est corpus” while feeding the 5000, and most importantly (if we are to take the 2000-year-old Tradition’s word for it, given recent events) the bread Jesus used to feed the 5000 was barley loaves – the proper main ingredient for Eucharistic bread being high-gluten flour. (for the skeptics: http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a798c754347.htm)

There is no way on Earth to substantiate what you have said here in a meaningful way. The event that Jesus uses to make the John 6 discourse on the Bread of Life is not about the Eucharist but about Himself, based on the Jews’ clear preference for earthly bread.

>That all said, the Jews certainly did not ignore the "bread"
>for the "came down from heaven" part: they took the image as
>one image, one statement of fact. They grumbled among
>themselves because they thought they knew Jesus as the son of
>Joseph. How can the son of Joseph now say He is come down from
>Heaven? How can He be this Bread?
>Read verse 42....This is the part they had a problem with
>"They were saying, 'Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph,
>whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, 'I
>have come down from heaven?
'" So you see, they understood
>the "bread" as a metaphor, but not the "come down from
>heaven". I believe they had an inkling that this Jesus was
>making himself out to be God.


Well, if you are going to ignore 20 verses of Scripture to make your point in the first place, who is surprised that you are willing to ignore any of my own original case? Here’s what I said in the first place:

When Jesus says, "I am the Bread of Life", there is no way to say that He means, "I am the Eucharist bread and wine" because this passage has absolutely nothing pointing to the Last Supper -- which was a Passover seder, not a re-enactment of the Jews in the wilderness -- and nothing pointing to a future ceremony which is related to that event.

In that, to say that Jesus is somehow talking about Heaven as a metaphor is completely unfounded. Jesus is saying that the Jews present want there to be bread -- the kind of bread they put in their mouths and it fills their bellies and that's how they will accept what God has done as a sign -- but that what God gives them is better than bread.

In that, "the bread which comes down from heaven" (the whole image) is certainly a "metaphor": it is a didactic image, a teaching image, to say that there is bread which is physical food, but there is something which is spiritual food not for your mortal life but your eternal life. No self-respecting person would say that the "bread" is a metaphor but "heaven" is not, because the two are joined inseparably by Christ. It is one image, and Christ makes clear the equation: I am the Bread I was just now talking about.

That all said, the Jews certainly did not ignore the "bread" for the "came down from heaven" part: they took the image as one image, one statement of fact. They grumbled among themselves because they thought they knew Jesus as the son of Joseph. How can the son of Joseph now say He is come down from Heaven? How can He be this Bread?

 

Given that you have not touched on the substance of the argument at all (again – just like in the sola Scriptura debate), there’s no need to refute your claim. You are just creating bandwidth.

>Again, the massive omission you make in the middle of this
>discourse fills in the reason why those who leave must leave:
>their understanding is a false understanding of Christ’s
>wordsProve
that their understanding (literal) is the
>wrong understanding. Show me where Jesus corrects their
>literal understanding.


In the list of things I love to hear Catholics say, “where does it say that” ranks in the top-5 for me. They make a case which omits a massive and weighty segment of the text, then act as if I’m using a Venusian text rather than the text they have provided.

Taking your second challenge first, Jesus does not correct their literal understanding! Why would He? Given the context of His discourse, He is telling them that they are not taught of the Father, and therefore they are not drawn by the Father. Jesus is not here clearing up all the misconceptions that people have of Him in order to make sure that they really do believe in Him and are not just following Him for another free meal: Jesus is here teaching that those who come to Him are drawn by the Father. Look: rather than me paraphrase, let’s read it …

 

John 6: 35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.
36 "But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe.”

 

Could He have said it any clearer? You (you Jews; you who are clamoring for a sign; you who have just had your bellies filled and came here for a second meal) have seen me and yet you do not believe. There is no question for Christ that these people do not believe – He knows before they walk away that they do not have faith. It’s not an assumption one has to make while reading or after one reads: Christ says it clearly: you do not believe.

 

37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.”

 

Notice first that we don’t have to jump all over the passage to get this statement. Jesus says they have seen and not believed, but what? All that the Father gives me will come to me. And all that come to me, I will certainly not cast out. So what’s the contrast? There are some which the Father gives, and those that He gives will come and Jesus will not cast them out – but what has happened with these Jews? They do not believe. If they do not believe, are they the ones Jesus is talking about, the ones given by the Father? How can they be?! They don’t come – they don’t believe! So whatever Jesus is saying, they did not get it – in the idiomatic sense that they didn’t understand it, but in the spiritual sense that they did not get it from the Father first.

 

38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

 

Again, how much more clear does Jesus have to be? If one is not intent on seeing only the Eucharist in this passage, the words of Christ explain themselves with specific clarity. What has come down from Heaven? I have come down from Heaven. And what is the will of Him who sent Me?

 

39 "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.
40 "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

 

The will of the Father is that Jesus loses none of those whom He was given; they will all believe in Him, and He will raise them up on the last day.

It is in these 6 verses that Jesus explains without any doubt that those who do not believe are not given by the Father to Him. But Jesus doesn’t stop there: He makes it even clearer what He means just a little further on.

 

44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.
45 "It is written in the prophets, 'AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.

 

So if they don’t come to Jesus, the Father has not drawn them (no one can come unless the Father draws him); the drawing is equated with having heard – which is to say, believing. If they have heard, they come to Christ.

Now think on it: these Jews do not come to Christ! What must that mean? If all who hear come, if all who are taught hear, then why do these Jews not come? There is only one explanation: they do not hear, they are not taught, they do not believe. Whatever they know or hear or believe is false and causes them not to come to Christ.

The literal understanding that these Jews have is not the understanding that is given by God and draws men to Christ. If the literal understanding were the true understanding of Christ’s teaching, it would draw these men to Him, not drive them away. Christ says so Himself.

>– and it is right for them to
>leave. Jesus doesn’t do the Sungenis “Hey wait guys! I was
>just talking metaphorically!” because Jesus taught this way
>specifically to separate those with true faith, those who are
>taught by the Father, from those who are not drawn by the
>Father to the Son. The context of the discourse simply
>defies your exegesis.


LOL! You’re going to bring up context? How? In what way? You have ignored every shred of context to get to this point in your argument, and have annihilated context to consider that the Jews had a true understanding of Christ’s words but hate Him anyway, and now you’re going to open school on context?

Oh man: readers, take notes. This will be classic.

> If the people took Jesus literally, why
>would he say 5 times in 5 different ways (53-57) you must "eat
>my flesh and drink my blood"? In amongst there we have the
>phrase that no Protestant can dismiss or argue away...."For my
>flesh is true food and my blood is true drink."
>
>Hmmm. Where have we heard that kind of talk from Jesus? Oh
>yea....The Last Supper discourse. But keep telling yourself
>Cent. that this discourse has nothing to do with the
>Eucharist. Denial is not a river in Egypt.


You are a fountain of cliché, {CARMposter}. Why would Jesus say that phrase 5 times? Hmm. I can think of at least one excellent reason, which Jesus Himself gives:

 

John 6:61 But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, "Does this cause you to stumble?
62 "What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?
63 "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
64 "But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him.
65 And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."

 

Jesus says these things in this way to be a stumbling block to those who do not believe. He is not speaking to the faithful here but to those without faith, to whom the Gospel must be an offense. Why would Jesus here be speaking in a parable or a metaphor – why would He be using veiled language? Because these men are not supposed to believe Him.

>In addition look at John the Baptist comment regarding Jesus …

Again, your grasp of context is utterly empty. John the Baptist? What does John 6 have to do with John the Baptist?

> … in chapter 1:29 "The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him
>and declared, 'Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin
>of the world!" Hmm a lamb? What animal is used in the Seder
>(Passover) Meal? What animal's blood is put on the door post
>and lintel of the houses of the Hebrews during the Passover
>meal? What animal's "flesh" is to be consumed during this
>Passover Meal?


OK, {CARMposter}: who said Jesus was not the paschal lamb? Who said Jesus does not take away the sin of the world? What does this have to do with the argument at hand? Protestants do not deny that Christ is the sacrifice which fulfills the OT law. You have wandered off the page here and into the street.

>
>But then this has nothing to do with the Eucharist which was
>set during the Passover Meal, does it Cent.


No, it does not. You are a very confused person.

 

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1