Relevance of John 6:54-58

[Dave]

John 6
54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever."
(NIV)

Here Jesus is using the greek trogo for eat. It has a very literal chewing/rending connotation that is different from the earlier used phago which is generalized eating and possibly even metaphorical in nature.

So effectively, Jesus is saying a person must chew His flesh in order to have eternal life. And that is what his disciples found so abhorrent. Imagine the Master telling you that you must literally eat his flesh. It's not surprising they acted as they did!

What do you think of this particular passage?

Peace,
Dave

My 4th post! :yipee:

[Ric]

John 6:54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 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. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not as the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever." 59 Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.
60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 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. (ESV)

In verse 63 Jesus insists that the Holy Spirit is the one who imparts life to the believer; it is not transmitted by the process of physical eating. Jesus was saddened by the dullness of some of his disciples that prevented their truly believing in him.

[Dave]

Today @ 01:14 AM
Ric:

John 6:54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 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. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not as the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever." 59 Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.
60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 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. (ESV)

In verse 63 Jesus insists that the Holy Spirit is the one who imparts life to the believer; it is not transmitted by the process of physical eating. Jesus was saddened by the dullness of some of his disciples that prevented their truly believing in him.

I just can't take you anywhere, can I?:bonk:

55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

But, let's suppose it is Jesus really is talking in metaphor. Well, then. We have these OT verses where eating someone's flesh and drinking their blood was to commit heinous acts (Micah 3:3, Psalms 27:2, Isaiah 9:18-20).

Was Jesus telling them that those who follow Him must revile Him? That's as if you are saying that in order to have eternal life we must rail against Jesus. That line of thinking just doesn't square up.

Unfortunately for the metaphorical view Jesus also says (back in v. 51 and 52) that he will give his flesh for the life of the world. Now if we are to stay on this metaphorical flesh than that means Jesus was only symbolically giving his flesh for the life of the world. But we all know that isn't true, either.

Now to address verse 63.

63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Notice the 2nd half of what He says. He says his words are 'spirit and life'. What words? why the ones He just spoke where He said we had to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"

66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.

Interesting in that all the metaphors, all the parables, all the teachings; when His disciples didn't understand Jesus explained it to them. But not this time.

In answer to the question Jesus poses, we should not turn away as many did. Instead we should answer as the disciples did:

"to whom shall we go, you have the words of eternal life" (John 6:67)

Peace,
Dave

[Woman]

62 seems oddly out of context.

?

[Socrates]

The context of this passage has nothing to do with the Last Supper despite the claims of the ‘infallible guide’ to the contrary. The Last Supper was instituted at Passover a long time after the John 6 discourse. Also, the Lord’s Supper was instituted at a Passover meal, where the whole idea is remembrance. The Passover is loaded with representative symbols, e.g. the salt water is (=represents) the tears of suffering in Egypt, the charoseth is (represents) the mortar, the bitter herbs represent the bitterness of bondage. So Jesus's statements muct be taken in this representative context.

The RC Church claims to take ‘ am the living bread’ literally. But in its grammatical context, it is clearly metaphorical. This can be shown by comparing it with other similar constructions in Scripture, ‘I am the true vine’ (John 15:1), ‘I am the door’(KJV; gate in NIV) (John 10:7). The RC church doesn’t take these verses literally.

This shows how important comparing Scripture with Scripture is. The passage about eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood can again be understood by comparing Scripture with Scripture. In the same discourse, Jesus had said (John 6:35):

35 Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.

Note that ‘coming’ to Jesus stopped hunger, and ‘believing’ in Him stopped thirst. Thus ‘eating’ was a figure of speech for coming, and drinking = believing. The RC doctrine of Transubstantiation originated by imposing Aristotelian categories onto the Jewish Passover. A Jew, on hearing Jesus’ words ‘This is my blood’ would have recalled 2 Samuel 23:15–17:

15 David longed for water and said, “Oh, that someone would get me a drink of water from the well near the gate of Bethlehem!”
16 So the three mighty men broke through the Philistine lines, drew water from the well near the gate of Bethlehem and carried it back to David. But he refused to drink it; instead, he poured it out before the LORD.
17 “Far be it from me, O LORD, to do this!” he said. “Is it not the blood of men who went at the risk of their lives?” And David would not drink it. Such were the exploits of the three mighty men.


Although David said of this water, ‘this is the blood …’, he clearly did not mean that the water that his men risked their lives for was transformed into the substance of their blood, while retaining the accidents of water (to use RC terminology).

[Ric]

I've tried to explain this to Dave on the http://new.carmforums.org/dc/dcboard.php boards many times. But I'm just now going to answer once because he know the Roman church is wrong, but if he chooses to follow the teaching of mere men - so be it!

Socrates, thanks for your post, it's well thought out and also is presented well!

[Dave]

03-28-2003 @ 10:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47461#post47461)
Ric:

I've tried to explain this to Dave on the http://new.carmforums.org/dc/dcboard.php boards many times. But I'm just now going to answer once because he know the Roman church is wrong, but if he chooses to follow the teaching of mere men - so be it!

Socrates, thanks for your post, it's well thought out and also is presented well!

and Ric, I have tried to show you the errors of your man-made traditions of men. But if you want to continue in your denial of the truth, then so be it.:argh:

as for everyone else, I'll answer probably later tonight. I'm entertaining relatives for the week.

[Dave]

03-28-2003 @ 02:03 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46739#post46739)
Woman:

62 seems oddly out of context.

?

Most likely Jesus was saying this as an example of something else they probably wouldn't believe. But Jesus did that too!

[Dave]

03-28-2003 @ 03:57 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46788#post46788)
Socrates:

The context of this passage has nothing to do with the Last Supper despite the claims of the ‘infallible guide’ to the contrary. The Last Supper was instituted at Passover a long time after the John 6 discourse. Also, the Lord’s Supper was instituted at a Passover meal, where the whole idea is remembrance. The Passover is loaded with representative symbols, e.g. the salt water is (=represents) the tears of suffering in Egypt, the charoseth is (represents) the mortar, the bitter herbs represent the bitterness of bondage. So Jesus's statements muct be taken in this representative context.

where did I ever bring up the Last Supper? I am specifically talking about John 6 v.54-58.

The RC Church claims to take ‘ am the living bread’ literally. But in its grammatical context, it is clearly metaphorical. This can be shown by comparing it with other similar constructions in Scripture, ‘I am the true vine’ (John 15:1), ‘I am the door’(KJV; gate in NIV) (John 10:7). The RC church doesn’t take these verses literally.


This shows how important comparing Scripture with Scripture is. The passage about eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood can again be understood by comparing Scripture with Scripture. In the same discourse, Jesus had said (John 6:35):



Note that ‘coming’ to Jesus stopped hunger, and ‘believing’ in Him stopped thirst. Thus ‘eating’ was a figure of speech for coming, and drinking = believing. The RC doctrine of Transubstantiation originated by imposing Aristotelian categories onto the Jewish Passover. A Jew, on hearing Jesus’ words ‘This is my blood’ would have recalled 2 Samuel 23:15–17:



Although David said of this water, ‘this is the blood …’, he clearly did not mean that the water that his men risked their lives for was transformed into the substance of their blood, while retaining the accidents of water (to use RC terminology).

I'm afraid this doesn't quite hold up. You see, Jesus' disciples (the very ones who were with Him when He fed the 5,000) thought more of Micah 3:1-4, or Psalm 27:2. To eat someone's flesh (metaphorically or even literally) was to commit great violence and hatred towards another. And Jesus' disciples fully understood this. To them, Jesus was saying 'you must hate Me in order to have eternal life'. THAT is why they turned away. Because they couldn't accept His literal telling them (v.54-58) to eat His flesh and drink His blood.

'You must revile Me, in order to have eternal life'. There was absolutely nothing positive about eating the flesh of a human being in OT times (or NT times for that matter).

But was Jesus speaking metaphorically when He said:

55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

doesn't sound like it. So again, I point you towards the change in verb meaning 'to eat' in John 6:54-58 as compared to previous John 6.

Peace,
Dave