John 6:26-58- what is the context?

[matthew11v25]

Many Roman Catholics would say that this passage is speaking of the Lord's supper. Do you think the context supports this?

[Edited on 11-13-2005 by matthew11v25]

 

[cupotea]

Originally posted by matthew11v25
Many Roman Catholics would say that this passage is speaking of the Lord's supper. Do you think the context supports this?

[Edited on 11-13-2005 by matthew11v25]

Interesting question. When I was studying for the Roman priesthood John 6:51-58 was the basis of one of my major theses. So I know why they hold this passage to be teaching about the Real Presence of Christ in Holy Communion.

What's weird is that now, as a 5-point Lutheran, I *still* think the passage deals with the Sacrament. The thing is, Luther and confessional Lutherans (not to mention Reformed) all disagree with me.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Originally posted by Globachio

Originally posted by matthew11v25
Many Roman Catholics would say that this passage is speaking of the Lord's supper. Do you think the context supports this?

[Edited on 11-13-2005 by matthew11v25]

Interesting question. When I was studying for the Roman priesthood John 6:51-58 was the basis of one of my major theses. So I know why they hold this passage to be teaching about the Real Presence of Christ in Holy Communion.

What's weird is that now, as a 5-point Lutheran, I *still* think the passage deals with the Sacrament. The thing is, Luther and confessional Lutherans (not to mention Reformed) all disagree with me.

In thisthread Saiph and I would agree with you. It is a little blurb that was a little off topic.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

To eat the true bread from heaven is to believe in Christ by faith and have eternal life.

 

[Saiph]

John, unlike the synoptic gospels, does not mention the Lord's supper. This is the counterpart of that feast. Even if Christ is not making a direct reference to the feast, He is teaching the same truth. So why fight for the distinction ? We do not need to do that in order to disprove transubstantiation, we only need verse 63 of the same chapter.

Joh 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

[Edited on 11-13-2005 by Saiph]

 

[Puritan Sailor]

I think John left out the sacrements on purpose in his gospel. I thnk he was anticipating the abuse of Rome (or something like it) and thus moved to explain the realities pictured by the sacraments as works of the Spirit, not bound to the sacramental elements.

[Edited on 11-13-2005 by puritansailor]

 

[cupotea]

Originally posted by Saiph
John, unlike the synoptic gospels, does not mention the Lord's supper. This is the counterpart of that feast. Even if Christ is not making a direct reference to the feast, He is teaching the same truth. So why fight for the distinction ? We do not need to do that in order to disprove transubstantiation, we only need verse 63 of the same chapter.

Joh 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

[Edited on 11-13-2005 by Saiph]

While the pagan & magical teaching of transubstantiation can be found nowhere in Scripture (and contradicted in other places - e.g., 1 Corinthians 11:26-28) I wouldn't try to find it here. The reference to v.63 must lead us to ask, *whose* flesh is Jesus speaking of? His own? If so then John 1:14 is not good news, but bad.

Instead I think our Lord is here speaking of a fleshly, natural, unspiritual way of understanding His teachings.

John's Gospel is the only one that uses "flesh" (sarx) - at least occasionally - in a positive manner. Thus, in my opinion John 6:51-58 *do* speak of Christ's flesh (His real human nature) present in the elements of Holy Communion. But then, as I said above, this places me outside the mainstream of both Reformed and Lutheran understanding of this passage.

 

[Saiph]

Joh 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Note that spirit is not capitalized in the second part.

In other words, Jesus is saying the Spirit gives life, and His words are spiritual (pertaining to man's spirit). The Holy Spirit uses the words of Christ.

[Edited on 11-14-2005 by Saiph]

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

John 7:37 On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, "œIf anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. 38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, "˜Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.´" 39 Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

 

[BlackCalvinist]

My take:

Jesus continues on with the presentation of Himself. Drawing from previous verses, we see He began with the presentation of His mission - to sacrifice Himself. In showing Himself to be the 'living bread', points to the totality of Himself as the object of faith and belief - not simply 'following' externally, as many were already doing, but a taking in of all that Jesus is and represents. He likened it to taking in His very flesh and blood. We've heard the expression before 'my life's work is in this' or 'I put all my blood, sweat and tears into this'. These things are spoken as a representation of how deeply the person put him/herself into the creation of whatever work it was. Likewise, Jesus emphasized that believing in Him was not simply 'assent to fact', but taking in His 'blood and flesh' - something that goes way beyond a simply 'Sunday morning' relationship (Luke 9:23-26). But.... they still didn't get it.

The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" So Jesus said to them, "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. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not as the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever." Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum. (vv. 52-59)

Like parts to a puzzle, Jesus expounds more on what belief in Him means at this point. Here, Jesus speaks of Himself as the bread - the true bread - that if men partake, they will have life. We already know that Jesus isn't speaking of cannibalism here , but the kind of belief (vv. 39-40) that is required for eternal life. The Jews around him, had confused this temporal life with eternal life. Jesus expounded on what eternal life was by giving them a well known definition of what eternal life is compared to temporal life - 'Your fathers ate manna in the desert and are now DEAD.' The life Jesus gives does not just sustain for a little while, but eternally.

http://theologicallycorrect.com/relationship/ch7.html

The link has my entire exposition of John 6.... complete with dozens of smilies (including one that eats another one while I'm talking about John 6:51-54). Enjoy.

 

[cupotea]

Originally posted by OS_X
Like parts to a puzzle, Jesus expounds more on what belief in Him means at this point. Here, Jesus speaks of Himself as the bread - the true bread - that if men partake, they will have life. We already know that Jesus isn't speaking of cannibalism here , but the kind of belief (vv. 39-40) that is required for eternal life.

That's a well-used, well-relied-upon understanding of the passage. Many an excellent theologian and exegete (both Reformed and Lutheran) sees it that way. However, in my usual cantankerousness I disagree.

Jesus makes a radical break with the "belief" language He uses in, say, verse 47. Now, rather than speaking of "belief" He begins to use the word "eat." Yet it's not just the ordinary word that's spoken. In fact, He's used that word (phago) before. He uses it this passage several times. It was a common word.

But in vv. 54, 56, 57, 58 there's a very different word at work ... "trogo". In fact it's used *only* here ... and in 13:18 - in John's version of the Last Supper. There are no coincidences in God's Word.

It (trogo) does not mean "eat". Rather it means "munch," or "gnaw." I love a good medium-rare t-bone steak. And when I'm just about finished with it I'll bring the bone up to my mouth and gnaw (trogo) on the remaining meat (sarx)

"Ho trogo mou tan sarka ..." says Jesus. Literally, "Munch my meat." It's quite graphic and, to many people's ears, repulsive. Which is why so many of His followers abandoned Him after this. Yet it's really what He says. Hence you can see how and why the Romanists use this passage as a defense of transubstantiation.

Yet just because the antichrist mis-uses Scripture is no reason for us to throw the baby out with the bathwater. For the same reasons as Rome, I also believe the passage is, at heart, about Holy Communion. Yet though I would hold that it supports the teaching that both Jesus' human and divine natures are really present in the elements, that we actually chew on them, I also just as firmly state that it nowhere supports transubstantiation (actually a pagan notion borrowed from Aristotle) because other passages dispel that superstition. (e.g. 1 Cor 11:26 says it's *still* bread.)

Yet it can't be cannibalism because what we eat (chew, munch, gnaw) on in Holy Communion is not His dead body, but His Risen.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Saiph]

Yet just because the antichrist mis-uses Scripture is no reason for us to throw the baby out with the bathwater. For the same reasons as Rome, I also believe the passage is, at heart, about Holy Communion. Yet though I would hold that it supports the teaching that both Jesus' human and divine natures are really present in the elements, that we actually chew on them, I also just as firmly state that it nowhere supports transubstantiation (actually a pagan notion borrowed from Aristotle) because other passages dispel that superstition. (e.g. 1 Cor 11:26 says it's *still* bread.)

With the peace offering the fat and entrails were burned and the remainder was eaten by the priests and (if it was a free-will offering) by the worshippers themselves. It was a sacrifice of thanksgiving (eucharist).
What was physical under the old covenant becomes spiritual in the new.

[Edited on 11-14-2005 by Saiph]

 

[cupotea]

Originally posted by Saiph
With the peace offering the fat and entrails were burned and the remainder was eaten by the priests and (if it was a free-will offering) by the worshippers themselves. It was a sacrifice of thanksgiving (eucharist).
What was physical under the old covenant becomes spiritual in the new.
[Edited on 11-14-2005 by Saiph]

And note that with the free-will offering, it became a communal meal with God Himself being the Host. Some see this as a foreshadowing of the image of the Heavenly Banquet.

Good point.