Protestant Fundamentalists, how do you interpret John chapter 6?

Question

Jesus, throughout the Gospels, instituted the Holy Eucharist (Holy Communion) for our benefit, stating "This is my Body and this is my Blood." He didn't say this is a symbol of my Body and Blood, but this IS my Body and Blood. John 6:53 states ".....unless you eat the flesh of the son of Man and drink His blood, you do not have life within you." Jesus lost many followers that day because of the reality of this message, which is to be taken very literally. We also know that the early Christians were persecuted for being alleged cannibals. Now why would this be unless they believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, which can only be transubstantiated through the ministry of a priest through the words of consecration.

So, I would like to know why you do not believe in the Real Presence of Christ within the Eucharist. It is plain to see that Jesus instituted this Sacrament and it's importance. What is your interpretation of such obvious Scripture?

Patrick H: some Scripture is to be taken literally and some is symbolic. How do we know which is which? That is why we have an authority to interpret Scripture for us, to teach it to us. This is why there are 40,000 Protestant denominations, NO authority - everyone interprets for themselves and only chaos remains. 1Timothy 3:15 tells us that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth, not you and I - so leave the interpretations to it.

D@!Z 1: what does any of those verses have to do with the Eucharist? I guess some of the Fundie interpretations are getting pretty wild these days.

Anthony B: Yeah, and we do it "in memory of Him" everyday! Show me where it states that it is meant to be symbolic, where?! I think stating "This IS my Body and This IS my Blood" is pretty obvious. By the way, if you call yourself a Christian and you are not a part of the one true Catholic Church, then you are a Protestant by default - unless you are Eastern Orthodox, whom the Church gave validity to its Sacraments.

Xom....: I know it is talking about Holy Communion because the Church, which is the pillar and foundation of truth (1Timothy 3:15) has taught me so. Besides, it is quite plain to see.

earanger: Thanks for the comment. The big problem with so many Fundamentalists, evangelicals is that they take the Bible whole Bible literally except where they need to the most. How do we know what to do? How do we know what means what? We have the security of knowing that there is an authority, a teaching authority, that has the correct interpretation. It is the true Church, the Catholic Church. Refer again to 1Timothy 3:15 which states that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth, not you and I. When we interpret Scripture for ourselves, we make ouselves the pillar and foundation of truth, which we are definetely NOT.

earanger: the rest of the New Testament doesn't support it?! Read 1Corinthians 11:17-32. It states that whoever drinks the cup or eats unworthily, they eat and drink the judgement of the Lord upon themselves. Seems pretty harsh punishment for just mere juice and crackers, doesn't it? It states that when people eat and drink in an unworthy manner, they become cursed with sickness and death. Again, seems pretty harsh for only a symbolic act.

Veritas and spiritroaming: Thankyou so much! It is obvious that Jesus was using metaphor here, if He was, he would have stopped those who said that the saying was too hard. Look at Nicodemus in John 3. Jesus told him that we must be born again. Nicodemus said, "How is this so, we cannot re-enter the womb." But Jesus basically said, No, No Nicodemus, not through the womb, but through water and Spirit must you be born again.

If Jesus was being symbolic about His Flesh and Blood being true food and drink, He would of stopped those who were leaving Him and cleared things up, just as He did with Nicodemus. But, Jesus was being VERY literal, as the Scripture clearly indicates through how many times Jesus repeats Himself and says that "My Flesh is food INDEED and my Blood is drink INDEED.

F'sho: Look at the Scripture and see that it is to be taken literally - this is obvious to see. Christians from the 1st century on have been writing about this reality. Revelations is NOT to be taken literally. It is written in apocolyptic dialouge, using symolism in numbers and other visual aids. But, again how do we know what is symbolic and what is not? Through the teaching authority of the true Church. Again, refer to 1Timothy 3:15 which states that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth, not you and I. I, as Christians have done throughout the ages, rely on the Church's interpretation, because the Church is "the pillar and foundation of truth" and I therefore know that it cannot err on such matters.

yachadho....: Like I stated before, some things are to be taken literally and some things are not. Again, how do we know how to determine what is and what is not. Through the teaching authority of the Church, which is the "pillar and foundation of truth." (1Timothy 3:15). But, if you refuse to rely on the God-given authority of the Church to interpret and teach, then just look at the context of John 6 compared to the other examples you have given. In John 6, Jesus states VERY plainly that "My flesh is food INDEED and my blood is drink INDEED." He doens't try to clear up any confusion when many followers left Him because "the saying was too hard." But, with Nicodemus, He DID!! He also didn't say that He was made of stone INDEED. Use that thinker that God has given you. Seek Him out with study and prayer and you will find the only truth, and that is the Catholic Church, the one true church of the Living God.

Jeancomm...: those verses are describing early heresies such as Arianism and Gnosticism, among other sects that forbade marriage and didn't allow the consuming of any meats. It also reflects on future sects that twist Scripture and lead away from the true Church. If you study Christian history you will find these things out. Like I have stated, if you seek God out on your own volition instead of thinking that you already know it all, then you will be inevetably led to His one true Church.

those verses also reflect on future sects (Protestantism) that will twist Scripture and give way to false doctrine. The 40,000 different braches of "Christianity" all differ doctrinally from each other. So, 39,999 of those would be considered "doctrines of devils" and only ONE would be the true doctrine, the pure Faith of the Aposltes. The Catholic Church has the pedigree. Also, in your use of the word MARRY in capital letters you are trying to state that the Catholic Church forbids marriage. On the total contrary, the Church encourages marriage and considers it one of the Holy Sacraments. Only celebicy is encouraged for clergy, and has become a discipline of the Church. But, this is 100% Biblical and traditional. Paul was a celibate and states several times in his epistles that celebicy brings one closer to God. Read 1Cor 7:32-34, Matthew 19:12, or did you skip those verses coming up with your doctrine.

Answer 1

Geez louise. They just don't get it.

Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings," for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?

On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, there was no effort by Jesus to correct. Instead, he repeated himself for greater emphasis.

In John 6:60 we read: "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’" These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: "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" (John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14).

"After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him" (John 6:66).

This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically.

But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood." John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more explicit.

As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, "The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense" (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.

Fundamentalist writers who comment on John 6 also assert that one can show Christ was speaking only metaphorically by comparing verses like John 10:9 ("I am the door") and John 15:1 ("I am the true vine"). The problem is that there is not a connection to John 6:35, "I am the bread of life." "I am the door" and "I am the vine" make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).

He continues: "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me" (John 6:57). The Greek word used for "eats" (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of "chewing" or "gnawing." This is not the language of metaphor.

"Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). "To answer for the body and blood" of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine "unworthily" be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.

Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to "those who hold heterodox opinions," that "they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (6:2, 7:1).

Forty years later, Justin Martyr, wrote, "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66:1–20).

Origen, in a homily written about A.D. 244, attested to belief in the Real Presence. "I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence" (Homilies on Exodus 13:3).

Cyril of Jerusalem, in a catechetical lecture presented in the mid-300s, said, "Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy
of the body and blood of Christ" (Catechetical Discourses: Mystagogic 4:22:9).

In a fifth-century homily, Theodore of Mopsuestia seemed to be speaking to today’s Evangelicals and Fundamentalists: "When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood,’ for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements], after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit, not according to their nature, but to receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1).

Whatever else might be said, the early Church took John 6 literally. In fact, there is no record from the early centuries that implies Christians doubted the constant Catholic interpretation. There exists no document in which the literal interpretation is opposed and only the metaphorical accepted.

Why do Fundamentalists and Evangelicals reject the plain, literal interpretation of John 6? For them, Catholic sacraments are out because they imply a spiritual reality—grace—being conveyed by means of matter. This seems to them to be a violation of the divine plan. For many Protestants, matter is not to be used, but overcome or avoided.

One suspects, had they been asked by the Creator their opinion of how to bring about mankind’s salvation, Fundamentalists would have advised him to adopt a different approach. How much cleaner things would be if spirit never dirtied itself with matter! But God approves of matter—he approves of it because he created it—and he approves of it so much that he comes to us under the appearances of bread and wine, just as he does in the physical form of the Incarnate Christ.

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

protestant fundamentalists interpret john chapter 6

Answer 4

Cj compares the other parables....that's apples and oranges. He says Christ was speaking only metaphorically by comparing with verses like John 10:9 ("I am the door") and John 15:1 ("I am the true vine"). The problem is that there is not a connection to John 6:35, "I am the bread of life." "I am the door" and "I am the vine" make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, "My flesh is true food, my blood is true drink" (John 6:55). He continues: "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me" (John 6:57). The Greek word used for "eats" (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of "chewing" or "gnawing." This is not the language of metaphor. "Very truly unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." (Jn 6:53) Many followers left him saying "who can follow this teaching." Christ let them leave. He did not say "Hey, you have it all wrong, come back, it's just a metaphor - a symbol- it's not really my flesh" He warned them not to think carnally, according to what their human judgment would tell them, but according to the power of God's Spirit: "It is the Spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:53; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12-14). Then Jesus eyed them and asked a simple question: "Does this offend you?" He made it clear that his hearers had to conform themselves to his teachings, not the other way around. Let's go back to 110 A.D. to the time of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch where Jesus' followers were first called Christians (Acts 11:26). Ignatius had heard the Good News from John himself who wrote a Eucharist passage himself. (Jn 6:48-58) He wrote to the Churches while he was on the way to Rome to be thrown to lions. His letters were highly regarded in the early Church. He said "...They (the heretics) even absent themselves from the Eucharist and the public prayers (c.f. Acts 2:42) because they will not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ." Ignatius He was ordained a priest by Peter and he studied under John (not simply "knew him"). I'm going to trust the words of Ignatius far sooner than I'd trust some johnny come lately who preaches a false doctrine. To see how much the Eucharist was reverenced, just look to St. Tarsicius "At Rome, on the Appian Way, the passion of St. Tarsicius the acolyte, whom the heathen met bearing the sacrament of the Body of Christ and asked him what it was he carried. He judged it a shameful thing to cast pearls before swine, and so was attacked by them for a long time with sticks and stones, until he gave up the ghost. When they turned over his body, the sacrilegious assailants could find no trace of Christ's sacrament, either in his hands or among his clothing." Why would one die willingly simply for a symbolic piece of bread. If the Church thought that the Eucharist was only symbolic, why would people die rather than hand it over to non-believers, and why would the Church revere those who thought this way?

Answer 5

As I understand it, these are the main Protestant objections to the biblical and historical teaching of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist:

PROTESTANT: Christ was speaking metaphorically: i.e. in many places He calls Himself "the bread of life" and "the door" and "the true vine."

CATHOLIC answer - Yes, Christ often spoke in metaphors, but not in this instance. Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55). He continues: "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me" (John 6:57). The Greek word used for "eats" (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of "chewing" or "gnawing." This is not the language of metaphor!

Christ also took pains to repeat His amazing statement THREE times precisely to assure the crowd He was NOT speaking figuratively. Many walked away because "it was a hard saying" and too unbelievable for them to accept. Why would a mere metaphor be so hard to accept?

PROTESTANT: Christ never said that eating His flesh and blood was a command. In fact, in John 6:63 He says "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." We are to receive Christ spiritually, not physically.

CATHOLIC Answer: The fact is that Christ’s flesh avails much! If it were of no avail, then the Son of God incarnated for no reason, He died "in the flesh" for no reason, and He rose from the dead and ascended to Heaven "in the flesh" for no reason. Christ’s flesh profits us more than anyone else’s in the world!

The John 6:63 phrase "flesh profits nothing" merely refers to man’s tendency to think using only what human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them.

PROTESTANT: Then why does Christ end this discourse in John 6 by saying "The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life."? He is clearly explaining that what He is just said is merely a spiritual reality.

CATHOLIC Answer: When Jesus says "The words I have spoken to you are spirit" does not mean "What I have just said is symbolic." The word "spirit" is NEVER used that way in the Bible! Christ simply means that this doctrine will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (see also John 6:37, 44–45, 65).

It is also fair to ask that if Transubstantiation is a Catholic invention and a perversion of Scripture, why was this belief held by Christians from the earliest times?

Early Christians took John 6 literally. There is NO evidence that says they doubted the Catholic interpretation and there are no written documents that support the metaphorical interpretation alone.

Pax Vobiscum+

Answer 6

Nic,

This is an excellent question - well written and thought out. I hope I can do it justice with my answer.

I am an evengelical Christian. I believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible. However, there are times when Jesus spoke in parable and allegory to explain His intent. In addition to Matt. 26:26-29 which you refer to, I look at Matt. 5:29-30 where Jesus said if your eye or hand causes you to sin then to pluck out your eye or cut off your hand. Does anyone really believe Jesus wants us to commit self-mutilation?
Now, back to Matt 26:26-29. Look at verse 29 carefully - it says, "I will not drink of this fruit of the vine...." He did NOT say anything there about the wine being His blood. It is obvious to me Jesus was using a metaphor with the wine.

A secondary reason I do not believe the wine/juice turns to the blood of Jesus, or the bread turns into the body, is the remainder of the New Testament doesn't support it. In 1Cor. 11:27ff calls the bread what it is - bread.
One further reason: No where in the New Testament is there a formula for causing the elements to change.

I hope I have done justice to your question.

"Ranger"

Answer 7

Holy crap you people are long winded! Your interpretations are longer than the passage you are interpreting. Don't you know you can analyze anything right out of any meaning it may have had. Well, at least ChadYahoo is not badgering Jews, as usual.

Hope you guys had a great Christmas celebration and your kids are happy with the loot and attention they have had the last few days.

Answer 8

Have you really gone as far as to believe in cannibalism?

John 6:50-54 - But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, (I guess you assume Jesus came from heaven as a loaf of bread) which a man may eat and not die (man stills physically dies). I am the living bread (I never knew bread 'lived') that came down from heaven (or lived in heaven). If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever (imagine that: eternal life from simply eating bread). This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat (It wasn't just the pharisees who obviously couldn't understand)?"

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you (many sinners are still standing without eating this bread and drinking blood). Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. Emphasis in parenthesis mine throughout.

The catholic (Babylon mystery religion) priests have obviously sold you on this lie. Jesus was speaking about things of a spiritual nature using symbolism. He did this often. Do you also take Revelation and His parables literally?

Jesus is our Savior. Abiding in Him brings eternal life. His atoning sacrifice justifies us before the Father. This teaching is about faith in Jesus the Messiah. Faith in the Messiah brings literal eternal life. Just as Y'shua does the Father's will, we also do the Father's will by following Jesus.

Christ's church is spiritual and with Him as its chief corner stone. No church on the face of this sinful earth can be exalted as such, especially the sun god worshiping, pagan derivative, Roman catholic church and her many spiritual adultery commiting daughters. The head of the Roman church (Pontifex Maximus ) is not the final authority in Biblical interpretation.

How much longer will you continue to allow this deception to keep you from reaching an obvious conclusion?

Answer 9

How does that Catholic church, as you call it that one true church in God, interpret 1 Timothy 4:1,2 & 3 Just a few verses after:
"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
FORBIDDING TO MARRY, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth."

If church members and affairs do not conform to the standards set forth in this epistle, the bulwark of the truth (the church) will be seriously undermined.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They ate His flesh and they drank His blood as they were slain in the Roman arenas for being a follower of Christ. They were persecuted horribly for the name of Jesus Christ.
Peter was crucified up-side-down. Paul was beaten so many times I can't remember. John boiled in oil and sent to the Isle of Patmos. At sometime in our life we will be persecuted for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. You will eat His flesh and you will drink His blood because He was hated and He said we would be hated also.

Answer 10

Sounds to me like you worship the Catholic Church more than Jesus Christ!

Answer 11

You left out the part were Jesus said "do this in memory of Me." Every born-again believer is a priest and of a "royal priesthood" and can institute the Lord's Supper. It is only a symbol to examine your walk with Christ. Many left when Jesus said this because because He was claimming to be the Bread of Life and the True Vine. Leave the blasphemous cult called Catholicism. They distort Scripture.

And I am not a Protestant.