A Protestant Interpretation of John 6

Why is His presence in the Eucharist important? How about his presence manifested in our hearts. How about His presence manifested in our gathering. What is the significance of His presence in the wafer?

We know He instituted a memorial of His death in the bread and wine. We know this is the table of the Lord. “Do this in memory of Me…”

But what is not clear is the theology of the Eucharist found in the intent of the gospel writer’s narrative. What was the Holy Sprit saying through their hand?.. Was it more than the obvious? … if so, on what basis?

There is no doubt His words caused people to stumble. Actually it causes many to turn away from Him. They were interpreting His words LITERALLY. This is why they were stumbling over Him. Catabolism wasn’t His message.

No one would say “catabolism” was the message. They did interpret his words literally; that is true. But they did not interpret it with a correct literal understanding. They failed to understand him through their own human reason and were not open to understanding him through the gift of the spirit. It’s telling that Jesus did not correct his disciples or interpret his words for them, as he did at other times they didn’t understand.

And we must look at John’s own intent for quoting this passage between 90 to 110 AD. Christians had already been celebrating the breaking of the bread with the words of institution for at least sixty years. There was already that background context before John wrote this passage in which Jesus in no uncertain terms repeatedly declares that his flesh is true food and his blood true drink and that it must be consumed. It is far more practical that John included this passage, which he knew would be read out during the same services that would celebrate the Eucharist, with the intent of declaring that the true theological meaning of the Eucharist can only be understood if one accepts it on faith instead of on carnal human reasoning. And the true theology behind the Eucharist is the Real Presence. Given the historical context, any other meaning would have been downright confusing.

That’s like asking what is the purpose of any sacrament? Sacraments are outward signs instituted by Christ to give grace.

God gives what He established.

Links are operational
Lk 22:
17 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I tell you that from now on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this ποιεῖτε ] in remembrance of me.” 20 And likewise the cup after supper, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.c

ποιεῖτε, ] = make, manufacture, construct, (b) do, act, cause, ( from Strongs, with the subjunctive to appoint or ordain one ).

Jesus said They (the apostles) are to Do exactly what JESUS DID here. That is to actually Change bread and wine into His body and blood. Not a symbol, of what He did, but do exactly what He did. Make the actual body and blood of Jesus present in the bread and wine as His flesh and blood whenever celebrating the Eucharist… And in this action and those words, Jesus by definition ordained His apostles to do what He did. And it is to continue.

Don’t take my word for it, Open the link and read the definition yourself ποιεῖτε, ]

Cannibalism? We know that wasn’t His message. Taking Jesus literally here doesn’t lend itself to cannibalism.

The reason people were stumbling was exactly because Jesus wasn’t speaking “figuratively”. He meant His words to be taken at face value, so to speak. Eat means to eat, “his flesh” means “his flesh”. Had Jesus not meant His words to be taken literally… He wouldn’t have said them at all! He would have conveyed what He “truly” meant by not saying something that refers to acts of war or violence when used in the “figurative” sense.

I believe another poster said something like this: Remember, Jesus didn’t say remember this in memory of me, but do this in memory of me.

He instituted a sacrament. A sacrament that is the height and summit of our faith.

maybe I’ve answered this already #45

You might be right, except for the fact that Christ makes His words literal in the upper room.

The 39 articles, AFAIK, are not taken in Anglicanism like, say, the Augsburg Confession is in Lutheran. In the APA, I have been taught the real presence, else I would of be a member.

I have heard Anglicans happily speak of Transubstaniation.

Okay. We disagree on that, but I’ve heard lots of different types of Christians talk about John 6 as figurative. I don’t see it myself, but any doubts that could exist are dispelled by the Words of Institution

So what. That is because they were breaking literal bread. A literal interpretation is plausable in the upper room.

Matters of faith shouldn’t be reduced to, “so whats”. What Jesus said in John 6 is the “promise”, I’ll call it, and the Last Supper is the fulfillment.

Jesus said that He is the bread of life, and that whoever eats of it should have eternal life. The bread that He gave for the life of the world is His flesh. This bread is what we’re told to eat. This is the bread that He broke with His apostles in the upper room, and it’s the bread that He told them to eat. This bread is His flesh.

“I am the living bread that came down from Heaven…the bread I will give is My flesh for the life of the world.”

“This is My Body given for you.”

Still don’t see the connection?

Jon,

With all due respect, A further observation,

the Anglican Church USA
bible.ca/cr-Anglican.htm#us

scroll down to **XVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper. for the US Anglicans (it reads just like article #28 of the 39 articles)

**

“The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith. The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.”

The highlighted is saying, there is no realization of the real presence in the Eucharist …true?

So, these are the literal words, “take and eat; this is my body…”. “Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”

But are the 39 articles of religion authoritative in Anglicanism, or are they no longer authoritative?

I ask, in order to get your views yea or nay on this particular article supporting the 39 articles for Anglicanism stpeter.org/crouse/writings/39_articles.htm

I understand that everyone has their opinions, but I think a rejectiion of the literal meaning of John 6 is as foolish as denying Jesus’ divinity. The fact that He doesn’t correct the crowd, allows His disciples to believe that He spoke plainly, and said that the bread He gives for the life of the world (which must be eaten) is His flesh, should make it obvious.

As a friendly suggestion, :wink:

You would do better to ask questions than make statements like that.

St Ignatius, ordained Bishop of Antioch in approx 68 a.d., by the apostles, who also was a direct disciple of St John the apostle… yes the same John who was at the last supper, even resting his head against Jesus chest, … John’s disciple Ignatius

Wrote Epistle to the Smyrnæans

Re: the Eucharist (ch 7)

Let us stand aloof from such heretics

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.”

Where would he learn that? From the apostle John no doubt, who he was a direct disciple of.

Read the entire letter.

As a friendly suggestion, :wink:

You would do better to ask questions than make statements like that.

St Ignatius, ordained Bishop of Antioch in approx 68 a.d., by the apostles, who also was a direct disciple of St John the apostle… yes the same John who was at the last supper, even resting his head against Jesus chest, … John’s disciple Ignatius

Wrote Epistle to the Smyrnæans

Re: the Eucharist (ch 7)

Let us stand aloof from such heretics

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.”

(Ch 8)
Let nothing be done without the bishop

“See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love feast but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.”

Where would Ignatius learn that? From the apostle John no doubt, who he was a direct disciple of.

Read the entire letter.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.