I don't write any of this to argue. John 6 has long been a favorite passage of mine and love how it explains faith through a story and not by propositional teaching. Jesus pulls back the veil on His whole mission, and you see a wonderful description of Jesus' personality. I don't believe the passage teaches trans- or con- substantiation, but feel free to disagree. I'm know my Baptist views probably miss something too.
I think these verses are the emphasis of the passage. Jesus doesn't start talking about eating flesh and drinking blood until the crowd grumbled and argued with Jesus. As the crowd's response became harsh, Jesus' words became harsh, but I don't think it changes the message Jesus was trying to communicate. All these statements proceed the crowd grumbling and showing their unbelief.
"29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”"
"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."
"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.”"
As the crowd turns, Jesus still sticks with the message, but towards the end focuses on hard to hear statements.
"43 Jesus answered and said to them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. 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. 46 Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father. 47 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life."
He follows up this clear call to believe with one last comparison of Himself to bread.
"48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”"
All of this sounds clearly metaphorical to me. Jesus is the bread. Eat the bread and live. The parallel to this in what He said prior is to come and believe in Jesus. It is that last phrase where He starts to equate bread to His flesh in a more direct way. After this the crowd argues, so Jesus doubles down with the difficult language in vv. 53-58.
My personal thoughts are that the following verse explains why He did what He did.
"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.”"
The "disciples" were following Jesus for the wrong reasons. They ate the bread and saw His signs and followed Him, but they did not believe and the Father had not given them to Jesus. Jesus made that clear by using difficult language to offend them and convince them to leave. But those who believed namely the 12 apostles (and others to be sure) were not offended or convinced to leave. I think the whole point was the distinction. You see Peter in the next verse "getting it". He believed and continued to follow Jesus, abiding in Him and all that. Peter ate the flesh and drank the blood so to speak.
" 67 So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” 68 Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. 69 We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”"
I am very comfortable leaving this topic open, intending to describe only my evolving views.
However, what I do find interesting: I haven't seen a single example of a church practice of the Eucharist or Lord's Supper that conforms to the example set by Jesus. Not one. The disciples ate a meal before, yet some tell us to fast. They sat around a table, yet we walk up to a priest or pass around a tin tray. They had wine, some of us use grape juice. Etc., etc., etc.
My point isn't to be critical. Instead, it is to suggest that it might be best to have some charity when it comes to how to practice and understand this sacrament.
We live in a narrow zone of human history in which it is uncommon to think in spiritual terms except through force of will. From the Creation until the Enlightenment, our forebears lived in world filled with angels and devils. When I participate in the Eucharist, I have to set my mind to believe that it’s the body and blood of Christ.
My evangelical family doesn’t understand how I can be blessed at a Mass in which every word is in Spanish, a language that I still struggle to understand. To them, the meat of worship is the sermon. I go to be in the presence of the Eucharist, the presence of Jesus Christ.
Must understanding (or emotion) precede obedience? Did the ancient Hebrews understand the dragon on the staff? (A representation of the guardians of the Throne of the Most High?) Or did their obedience save them?
I heard a pastor once say that the most faithful, loving, devoted Christian at his church had downs syndrome. Perhaps this says something to your question.
I really enjoy your blog and it brings to mind many new ideas to ponder.
I have a couple of questions I think pertain to this and I hope you can help me out. What exactly was the bread and wine within the cultural context of Jesus day? Was this part of the Seder and was the Passover meal Christ's last meal? Have you ever looked into the eating of the matzah and the hiding of the Afikomen at the Seder? If they were performing these rituals at the time, it seems very symbolic of Christ body being broke and hidden. https://israelmyglory.org/article/the-marvelous-afikomen/
As for the literal wine becoming blood or the bread becoming flesh, would this be similar to believing that the snake on the pole was the redeemer of the people and not God? Eventually, 2 Kings 18:4 talks about the bronze snake that Moses raised up in the wilderness needing to be destroyed with other idols. When Christ is compared to that very bronze snake that was lifted up in John 3:14-15, does this seem as though it has anything to do with the literal power of the flesh or is it Christ's atoning work? If we get to the point that we believe it is the material that saves and not the substance, are we at risk of idol worship?
I really appreciate the Jonathan Pageau quote. I have been inclined to think that way about much Biblical symbolism, but wasn't able to express it so well.
I don't write any of this to argue. John 6 has long been a favorite passage of mine and love how it explains faith through a story and not by propositional teaching. Jesus pulls back the veil on His whole mission, and you see a wonderful description of Jesus' personality. I don't believe the passage teaches trans- or con- substantiation, but feel free to disagree. I'm know my Baptist views probably miss something too.
I think these verses are the emphasis of the passage. Jesus doesn't start talking about eating flesh and drinking blood until the crowd grumbled and argued with Jesus. As the crowd's response became harsh, Jesus' words became harsh, but I don't think it changes the message Jesus was trying to communicate. All these statements proceed the crowd grumbling and showing their unbelief.
"29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”"
"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."
"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.”"
As the crowd turns, Jesus still sticks with the message, but towards the end focuses on hard to hear statements.
"43 Jesus answered and said to them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. 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. 46 Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father. 47 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life."
He follows up this clear call to believe with one last comparison of Himself to bread.
"48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”"
All of this sounds clearly metaphorical to me. Jesus is the bread. Eat the bread and live. The parallel to this in what He said prior is to come and believe in Jesus. It is that last phrase where He starts to equate bread to His flesh in a more direct way. After this the crowd argues, so Jesus doubles down with the difficult language in vv. 53-58.
My personal thoughts are that the following verse explains why He did what He did.
"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.”"
The "disciples" were following Jesus for the wrong reasons. They ate the bread and saw His signs and followed Him, but they did not believe and the Father had not given them to Jesus. Jesus made that clear by using difficult language to offend them and convince them to leave. But those who believed namely the 12 apostles (and others to be sure) were not offended or convinced to leave. I think the whole point was the distinction. You see Peter in the next verse "getting it". He believed and continued to follow Jesus, abiding in Him and all that. Peter ate the flesh and drank the blood so to speak.
" 67 So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” 68 Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. 69 We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”"
I am very comfortable leaving this topic open, intending to describe only my evolving views.
However, what I do find interesting: I haven't seen a single example of a church practice of the Eucharist or Lord's Supper that conforms to the example set by Jesus. Not one. The disciples ate a meal before, yet some tell us to fast. They sat around a table, yet we walk up to a priest or pass around a tin tray. They had wine, some of us use grape juice. Etc., etc., etc.
My point isn't to be critical. Instead, it is to suggest that it might be best to have some charity when it comes to how to practice and understand this sacrament.
There is grace on this topic. Jesus doesn't give an exhaustive checklist or boxes to check off to make sure you did it right.
We live in a narrow zone of human history in which it is uncommon to think in spiritual terms except through force of will. From the Creation until the Enlightenment, our forebears lived in world filled with angels and devils. When I participate in the Eucharist, I have to set my mind to believe that it’s the body and blood of Christ.
My evangelical family doesn’t understand how I can be blessed at a Mass in which every word is in Spanish, a language that I still struggle to understand. To them, the meat of worship is the sermon. I go to be in the presence of the Eucharist, the presence of Jesus Christ.
Must understanding (or emotion) precede obedience? Did the ancient Hebrews understand the dragon on the staff? (A representation of the guardians of the Throne of the Most High?) Or did their obedience save them?
I heard a pastor once say that the most faithful, loving, devoted Christian at his church had downs syndrome. Perhaps this says something to your question.
I really enjoy your blog and it brings to mind many new ideas to ponder.
I have a couple of questions I think pertain to this and I hope you can help me out. What exactly was the bread and wine within the cultural context of Jesus day? Was this part of the Seder and was the Passover meal Christ's last meal? Have you ever looked into the eating of the matzah and the hiding of the Afikomen at the Seder? If they were performing these rituals at the time, it seems very symbolic of Christ body being broke and hidden. https://israelmyglory.org/article/the-marvelous-afikomen/
As for the literal wine becoming blood or the bread becoming flesh, would this be similar to believing that the snake on the pole was the redeemer of the people and not God? Eventually, 2 Kings 18:4 talks about the bronze snake that Moses raised up in the wilderness needing to be destroyed with other idols. When Christ is compared to that very bronze snake that was lifted up in John 3:14-15, does this seem as though it has anything to do with the literal power of the flesh or is it Christ's atoning work? If we get to the point that we believe it is the material that saves and not the substance, are we at risk of idol worship?
The answers to these questions are beyond my understanding.
As always, thankyou!
I really appreciate the Jonathan Pageau quote. I have been inclined to think that way about much Biblical symbolism, but wasn't able to express it so well.
Pageau is an enlightening experience, no doubt.