A Protestant Interpretation of John 6

Thank you I will study this and get back.

A question better for GKC, but my understanding is they are authoritative only for clergy in the C of E, of which I am not in communion.

As for me, what St. John of Damascus says is sufficient:

The body which is born of the holy Virgin is in truth a body united with divinity, not that the body which was received into the heavens descends, but that the bread itself and the wine are changed into the Lord’s body and blood. Now, if you inquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as God took on Himself the flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit… so the bread of the altar and the wine (and water) are mysteriously changed by the invocation and presence of the Holy Spirit into the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and are not two but one and the same.


If Jim sees this maybe he’ll respond

Ahh, I see, the ole division issue.

What exactly did St John Damascene say that is sufficient for you?

If Jim sees this maybe he’ll respond

Ahh, I see, the ole division issue.

Which is?

To Steve b

I’ve been educating myself to this in-house debate over the Eucharist. There are at least 5 different interpretations to the same passages found throughout the centuries. I thought there were only two. I was wrong. (1) There is the Roman Catholic view (2) The Orthodox view (3) The Lutheran view (4) The Reformed and Presbyterian view (5) And Non-Reformed.

There is no doubt the interpretations of the Eucharist was, and is, probably the most debated subject throughout Church history. Interestingly it was not a completely settled matter among Roman Catholics until the counsel of Trent 1546 A.D. There were nuances of thought among Catholics until Rome finally settled it and settled it with a threat!

But my research has not moved the needle for me at all. Rome still has not been able to connect the theological dots between the teachings of the Apostolic Church and those supposed early Church fathers.

In other words there is still a gap (of theological explanation) in between the biblical record and those of such people as Ignatius, A.D. 110, or Justine Martyr A.D. 150 or Irenaeus, A.D. 183, or even Clement of Alexandria A.D. 190. After reading the opinions of some of these guys, I realize their inability to interpret scripture is glaring. Some of their comments seem borderline heretical.

Since the Apostolic Church, Jesus Christ being the head, all authority belongs to Him and His apostles. I cannot yield to so-called fathers who “read into” the narrative ideas simply not there. The opinions of men do not move me. It must come from real authority.

When I can read how the Apostle John believed and taught the Eucharist to contain the very presence of God when the Bishop declares it, I will consider it. When I can read how the gospel writer Luke, believed and taught how the wafer literally transforms in substance, to Christ literal body, as a sacrifice on a bloodless altar, I may yield.

When I can hear the words of the Apostle Peter declare the Eucharist as a perpetual sacrifice to continue the unfinished work of Christ, I will yield.

The Hebrew writer too would need to correct his words here in Hebrews 7:27 when talking about how in Judaism the high priest would offer sacrifice, BUT NOW, (in Christ) He (Christ) does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins and then for the people’s, (Why NOT?) for this HE DID ONCE FOR ALL WHEN HE OFFERED UP himself. ) This is why He said, “It is finished” the lamb of God died as a sacrifice once, for all generations.

When I can hear the Apostle Paul, who wrote most of the New Testament, declare the theology of the host, and say that our Lord’s words transform into His literal body and that when we receive it, we are actually receiving Christ literally in the wafer, I will yield.

Unless the transubstantiation view is taught by at least two or three eye-witnesses of the founding fathers of the faith, anything less is heresy.

But until then, I am left with what they did say. And what they did say is more than enough.

In the maze of figurative speech found in the gospels, Jesus was, and is, a master of metaphor. His parables created two kinds of reactions: Those who would draw near intrigued by them and asking for more, from those who after hearing them, wrote him off and withdrew. John 6 is one of those passages for sure.

It has taken centuries for the Church to figure the simplicity of the Lord, but even now many struggle. Only through the unholy traditions of men who come up with such complex and problematic solutions to such simple words, do they struggle.

The Eucharist was and is a simple table of thanksgiving to be done in memory of His death. But the medieval Church with her sophistication and drive to sit herself in the chair of Moses (Mt. 23) wanted to impress the people with transubstantiation.

Ignatius and Irenaeus are from a line of Apostolic Tradition coming from John the Beloved, he whom the Lord gave His Most Holy Mother while He suffered on the Cross. Paul affirmed the Real Prescence when he wrote First Corinthians. So if you want to oppose Apostolic Tradition, go ahead.

Which is:

The body which is born of the holy Virgin is in truth a body united with divinity, not that the body which was received into the heavens descends, but that the bread itself and the wine are changed into the Lord’s body and blood. Now, if you inquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as God took on Himself the flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit… so the bread of the altar and the wine (and water) are mysteriously changed by the invocation and presence of the Holy Spirit into the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and are not two but one and the same.

Who decided that Ignatius was of the traditions of the Apostles? Who decides what is “sacred tradition?”

Just because one lived within the range of any of the Apostles or knew them, or helped them, does not make that person one of the Apostles, or of their tradition by default.

To be of the Apostles tradition is to be in step with the Apostle’s DOCTRINE.

Paul included himself when he said,
“Even if we (the Apostles) or an angel (a supernatural messenger)
from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have
preached to you, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8

Why?.. the gospel which was preached by Paul was not according to MAN. v12 For I neither received it from MAN, nor was I TAUGHT IT, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ. Gal. 1:12

My point is, if a “father” of the Church says that Jesus literally turned his body into the form of bread, but it is still his body, or that the Spirit of Christ came into the wafer, or any other such thing, this father is out of step with the Apostle’s doctrine. Why? Because the Apostles DID NOT TEACH ANY SUCH THING. IT WAS IMPOSED UPON THEM BY TRADITION. A predictable figure of speech read literally was the mistake in John 6. Okay… everyone makes mistakes. But the Apostles received their doctrine as a revelation of Jesus Christ and there is no evidence they taught “the presence.”

The fact that Paul used the same figure of speech when addressing the Corinthians is unconvincing. You would think that Paul or one of the others would have SAID as much about this as the so-called father did. Actually the fathers had MORE to say than the Apostles. This should have been a red flag way back when.

Jesus said it best: “… in vain do they worship Me, teaching as DOCTRINE the commandments of MEN. v8 You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.” Mark 7:7b-8

Ignatius was taught by the Apostle John. So when he says:

You realize, #'s 2-5 all got their starts leaving the Catholic Church. The only Church Jesus established on Peter and those in union with Peter.

May I suggest reading this entire post and also opening up the interior links #8 ]

I recommended earlier, that you ask questions rather than making statements like the ones you make. You’ve already been corrected, using references properly referenced, as evidence for you to see as correction.

Your research?

As far as primacy of authority,

This is an old argument, that Jesus Himself settled. #812 ] , #7 ]

Also, #93 ] , #60 ]

:rolleyes: good grief

You’ve gone to all the anti Catholic sources you can find.


Here’s 24 worthwhile minutes. Please watch youtube.com/watch?v=0uL_IAJWvX0

And as far as the real presence in the Eucharist, From Hebrews, look at what happens when one deliberately misses the Eucharist, (the mass) on Sunday. Can one have that happen to them with a symbol?

#25 ]



Here’s what I think those who deny the real presence need to take into consideration:

The Jews asked Jesus for a sign, and they mentioned that Moses gave their ancestors manna to eat. Jesus then said that it wasn’t Moses who gave them the bread, but His Father who gives the true bread from heaven.
For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world.” John 6:33

This bread is Jesus, as He says, “I am the bread of life …] For I have come down from heaven.” The Jews murmur at this, taking Him at His word- or, rather, they disbelieve what He is saying, but understand that this is what He is trying to convince them of. He repeats that He came down from heaven, affirming their understanding.

Not only is He the living bread from heaven, but, if we take Jesus at His word, we must eat this bread. This means eating Him.
I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever." John 6:51

We can confirm this with the rest of the verse, "and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

For further proof, the reaction of the crowd, and Jesus’ subsequent response, should tell us without a doubt, but everyone has their opinions…
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." John 6:52-53

If we defend the “Real Presence” what does that say about God’s presence everywhere else in our lives? Do we intend to mean God is "more " present? Is God not always present everywhere? Because of our weakness, dullness and sin we seldom see, hear or feel that presence. So we need a tangible sign on which to focus our attention. When Jesus said “Eat my body” “drink my blood” I am convinced he meant far more than just putting something into our mouths. Make his life our own, partake of all that he is.

It’s not either / or.

If one can receive Him properly in the Eucharist, then everything else in one’s life, is in order as well.

Yes, it is not either / or. But receiving him properly involves heart more than mouth.

Could you clarify?.

When you said
"if we defend the “Real Presence” what does that say about God’s presence everywhere else in our lives? Do we intend to mean God is “more " present? Is God not always present everywhere?”

it would seem you’re saying sitting on a park bench feeding the ducks is just as good as receiving the Eucharist, because Jesus is in both places, not more present in either?

Is that what you’re saying?

To qualify that a bit, if one is in mortal sin, they are not just dull, they are dead to God spiritually. If they physically, died in that state they’d go directly to hell.

To Steve b you said, You realize #’s 2-5 all got their starts leaving the Cathoholic Church, the Only Church Jesus established on Peter and those in union with Peter.

You assume too much Steve b. I believe that anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved and becomes a living-stone (to borrow one of Peter’s metaphors) in the house of God, whether it be in the Roman Catholic tradition, Evangelical, or otherwise.

You, and many like you on the other hand, remind me of the story of the disciples arguing over who will be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. The Roman Catholic Church! Says Steve b … but Jesus rebuked them when He said, ‘unless you humble yourselves and be converted you will by no means enter the kingdom.’ He went on to say… unless you humble yourself as a child …

Pride for your affiliation is a sign NOT of maturity but immaturity. I hear this all day long on this site. “we are the only TRUE church. We are THE Church! The Protestants are the lost sheep, we are the real Church … ect. as if you are trying to convince yourselves.

Paul rebuked the Corinthians for the same thing. They said, “I am of Paul!” or “I am of Apollos!” or “I am of Cephas=Peter”, or… I am of Christ.” IS CHRIST DIVIDED?..

v27, “But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty.” … v29 … that NO FLESH SHOULD GLORY IN HIS PRESENCE.

You also said, “You’ve gone to all the anti-Catholic sources you can find.” I am unware of any such source. The so-called Protestant side died-out years ago. I don’t know anyone in my circle who talks about the Roman Catholic Church.

The only people I know who talk in a Catholic v’s Protestant” way, is you and others like you on this site.

I know it grieves the Lord to see such spiritual posturing with attitudes of superiority. It is like liberal democrats who invent problems so that they can attempt to solve them. They alone have the answers. God uses no one else! No one can dare to know anything, or certainly anything more than a Roman Catholic. They are superior to the rest of the body!
(sarcasm here of course)

God’s best servants are those who love God first and love his neighbors as himself. These are those who will receive a great reward at the Judgment seat of Christ. It won’t be about what Church they attend.

In the Apostolic Age there was only ONE Church.

Steve b.

I DID listen to the link you provided Steve b …. By Dr. Scott Hahn.

Honestly, it sounded like double talk at first but as I paid close attention I could see what he was trying to suggest. But the cross WAS an execution for the Jews. They in no way saw Him as their Passover Lamb.

Reason being, they did not believe in Him, nor understood John the Baptist’ words about Him. Secondly for them a Passover lamb was a literal lamb, yet John the Baptist called Jesus the Lamb of God, figuratively. He knew something the other Jews didn’t know. A change was about to happen. God was no longer speak naturally. He’s going to begin to speak spiritually. And unless you became spiritual you would be left out.

Again, knowing the figurative language of the New Testament, Jesus was not born as livestock. Nor did he turn into a Lamb through a special miracle by a priest.

He died as a man. But the imagery of the O.T. lamb pointed to a spiritual message only found in the New Testament. The offering of Christ as a Lamb was to be done in the way that an innocent male lambs die. Their blood was applied in the holy of holies.

I do not see any evidence that the eye witnesses standing at the Cross understood that He was the Passover lamb. This is something they could only understand later when the Holy Spirit enlightened them to it.

Mary saw him as her son, the disciples saw him as their Messiah, his brothers and sisters saw Him as their first-born brother. No one at that time was saying he was the Lamb of God with the exception of John the Baptist who had already died.

Mr. Scott Hahn also said, … if the Eucharist is just a meal, then Calvary was an execution. … but if the Eucharist is the sacrifice of the New Covenant, then and only then is Calvary more than an execution it is the consummation of the sacrifice of the new covenant Lamb.

YES BUT ONLY IF THE LORD’S TABLE IS THE LITERAL BODY AND BLOOD of Christ. The Eucharist was a meal!.. but it was a meal to be offered as a memorial of His death, when they celebrated it. To go beyond this, is to impose on the author’s intent.

They were to feast on Jesus the Lamb of God (spiritually) like the Israelites feasted on the male Lamb (physically.) By feasting on Jesus they would receive eternal life. It is a beautiful metaphor fulfilling the Psalmist words, “Taste and see that the Lord is good!” Psalms 34:11

Again, we are back where we started from. The Eucharist is a hermeneutical disaster for Roman Catholics. I cannot violate my own conscience to break a rule of interpretation so that the table of the Lord, by an act of a miracle, can turn bread into His body and wine into His blood, literally.

To invoke this kind of interpretation can only set up a precedence to do the same with any other figure of speech. When Jesus held up bread, He said, ‘this is my body’. If the plane sense does not make rational sense, you are probably in a figure of speech, unless there are qualifying words in the immediate context to make an exception.

There are none in this passage.

RULE of INTERPRETATION = if the plane sense does not make sense, you are probably in a figure of speech. We read the bible literally in most cases and as a general rule, however, if the plane sense does not make sense look for a figure of speech as a secondary way to understand the passage.

Unless you can give me the exact words in the immediate context to cause the Eucharist to be understood as the literal body and blood of Christ, seeing that He was standing there in His own body, the interpretation is unconvincing.

The fact that Paul used the same figure of speech to the Corinthians is only proof there was no misunderstanding. Figurative was normal for Jesus. I have to believe that if there were discrepancies over this issue in the first century, Paul or Peter, or any other of the Apostolic circle would have cleared it up. Since this was not something to be debated in the Apostolic circle, there was no need to explain it extensively. It was a memorial.

This link also implied that God wanted to continue the Passover from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant in the form of the Eucharist. This is laughable. God was not interested in Judaism part two.

He was interested in a total fulfillment for all nations to enjoy. He called the Gentiles to also be saved. But not to be saved and then go and practice the Passover with all of it’s implications. “It is finished!” He said on the cross. No more Lambs to be slaughtered! Jesus was the final Lamb, the second Adam, who worked a work for us “once” and for all.

This great work satisfied the wrath of God against us and gave us peace with God. This work went beyond Rome. It went into all the world.

So those who participated in the Lord’s Supper unworthily died over a figure of speech? :rolleyes:

These are all Christian traditions.

Do they call on the name of the Lord? Yes
What do they all have in common? They are ALL heresies.

Paul’s instruction to Bishop Titus about heresy

Tit 3:10-11
*10 As for a man who is factious, **αἱρετικὸν (heretic) ] after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, *
11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.

Division from the Catholic Church has always had terrible consequences for one’s soul
#97 ]

And it also goes without saying, Jesus in the words He spoke, making Peter the leader of His Church, expects the apostles and everyone else to follow Peter’s lead ** 2233 **]. That ends the apostle’s argument. #4 ]

looking at specific terms in the readings selected

Jesus said "the one who rules ** ἡγούμενος** ] " Jesus is talking about Peter [Lk 22:26 ]

also within that definition, one is expected to follow the one who rules 2233 ]

Jesus establishes Simon Alone Matthew 16:16-19 as the leader

**then Jesus to Peter, ****John 21:16] **note: the term shepherd / tend/ **
**ποίμαινε ] = Poimaino

Definition : ** **ποίμαινε ]
*]to feed, to tend a flock, keep sheep
a)to rule, govern

  1. of rulers
  2. to furnish pasture for food
  3. to nourish
  4. to cherish one’s body, to serve the body
  5. to supply the requisites for the soul’s need

*](“a governor or official who leads others”).
*] deserves cooperation by those who are led
*] 2233 ]

*] to rule, command; to have authority over:
*] a prince,
*] a governor,
*]controlling in counsel,
*] the leader in speech, chief speaker, spokesman:
Add up the traits referring to Peter in the links from scripture…

lead, feed, rule, command, have authority over the others, govern, and control in counsels… make stable his brothers, strengthen them, and confirm them…and be the chief spokesman.

:hmmm:Gee, Sounds like Jesus established, & defends the papacy and the Catholic Church.

I give information all properly referenced. What one does with it is their business.

Did you forget the title of this thread?

If one “claims” to “love” Jesus, then in His words, they need to actually do everything he says. John 14:15 ]

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.