I received a comment today from an anonymous visitor who read my John 6:52-59 post. Here is the original post, the anonymous comments, and my reply:
At each point in the conversation, the Jews become more offended at Jesus’ difficult teachings. Here, utterly appalled at His teaching that men should eat His flesh and drink His blood, they argue and debate amongst themselves. It was unthinkable to them that He could give life to the world through His flesh; and they did not understand the symbolism of “eating” His flesh. Have you ever devoured a book? It was so good that you couldn’t put it down. That’s what Jesus is saying. “You’ve got to want Me bad enough to eat Me; I’ve got to be your hunger and thirst, your passion. Don’t grumble about My teachings; don’t argue about My words. Want Me – not My miracles, just Me. Unless you are filled with Me – My Spirit as in the New Testament (Romans 8:4-12) – you have no life in you. If you deem My body inedible, if you can’t stomach Me, there is no hope of life for you.” There’s a deep and mystical, intensely intimate union. That’s what Jesus says.
The concept – seemingly easy to grasp – is that if one should eat physical bread, his life would be sustained, and thus applying this to true life, which involves eternal, joyful fellowship with God, the Jews could have understood Jesus to be speaking of the sacrifice of His body and His shedding of His blood to grant eternal life – and a Jew could make this connection with an understanding of the Old Testament. Anyone who believed in Christ’s becoming a perfect blood sacrifice in his own place, and for his own sins, would pass into eternal life. The feeding of the 5000 with physical bread signified the spiritual reality to which Jesus was now speaking. Just as the Son has the eternal life in Himself, through his inter-Trinitarian relationship with the Father, so anyone who ate Christ’s flesh would be given this same eternal life, through his relationship with the God-man, who can be united both to the Father and to mankind, by means of His divine and human nature, which exist in His one Person. Consider views of communion.
Catholicism takes this passage to support their view of the Eucharist (communion), or the Lord’s Supper, that of transubstantiation, where the bread and wine are said to actually become the body and blood of Jesus. Luther disagreed with this interpretation, and to this day, Lutherans hold to consubstantiation, where the Spirit and power of Christ is within the elements of communion; but they are not to be taken as the literal flesh and blood of Jesus – that would amount to cannibalism, said the Reformers. Other Protestants, however, hold neither of these views and claim rather that the elements are merely symbolic to help us recall the sacrifice of Christ as that which saves us. And still others liken communion to something in between Luther’s view and the symbolic-only view. For me, communion has power.
But notice what Calvin says commenting on this passage, and specifically Jesus’ repetitive use of the phrase, “And I will raise him up on the last day”: “It ought to be observed, that Christ so frequently connects the resurrection with eternal life, because our salvation will be hidden till that day. [We must hope for] the last resurrection. From these words, it plainly appears that the whole of this passage is improperly explained, as applied to the Lord’s Supper. For if it were true that all who present themselves at the holy table of the Lord are made partakers of His flesh and blood, all will, in like manner, obtain life; but we know that there are many who partake of it to their condemnation (1 Corinthians 11:26-29). And indeed it would have been foolish and unreasonable to discourse about the Lord’s Supper, before He had instituted it. It is certain, then, that he now speaks of the perpetual and ordinary manner of eating the flesh of Christ, which is done by faith only. And yet, at the same time, there is nothing said here that is not figuratively represented, and actually bestowed on believers, in the Lord’s Supper; and Christ even intended that the holy Supper should be, as it were, a seal and confirmation of this sermon. This is also the reason why the Evangelist John makes no mention of the Lord’s Supper.” So this passage often drums up that to which it doesn’t even speak. Rather it points to the unity of Christ and the Father, and the unity of Christ to the believer. Jesus is saying that His work is sufficient and efficient to accomplish the salvation of all united to Him by faith.
And notice v58. Jesus returns to the comparison between the manna and His flesh, with which He had begun this discourse; for it was necessary that He should close the sermon in this manner: “There is no reason why you should prefer Moses to Me, because he fed your fathers in the wilderness; since I supply you with far more excellent food, for I bring heavenly life with Me.” And finally in v59, John almost says it in passing that Jesus was teaching these things in the synagogue. Why? John wants us to understand that it is possible to be in a place of worship, in a place where the Scriptures are opened up on a daily basis, and yet to not understand anything at all about Jesus. People may be very religious, found often in church, where the Gospel is preached – even taking regular communion, thinking they are feasting on Jesus’ body and blood; yet many are still unconverted and have no idea what it means to feed on Christ for eternal life. My father-in-law visited Southeast several years ago now, and we were working out in the gym. We were jogging on the track and a lady in front of us was wearing a Biblical T-shirt, and he asked her the two questions that are useful for determining one’s understanding of Christianity. She failed the test, and he explained the Gospel to her. She was astonished that she could know she had eternal life, and she had been faithfully participating in service and worship at Southeast for 12 years.
-
Anonymous said... I find it interesting that you did not read the rest of John Chapter 6. This could be because it pokes some wholes in your theology.
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
Jesus is not stuttering. The word is means "is" not "isn't".
How about when Jesus asked his 12 followers after the 5000 left. "Jesus then said to the Twelve, "Do you also want to leave?"
Jesus knew exactly what the Jews thought he meant. He did not stop them and tell them "hey wait a minute guys. I meant that figuratively." No he asks them if they are going to leave also.
Again I think you have missed some very obvious things in your study of this saying. And it means everything. I suggest that you not be so critical of the Catholic view. It is the biblical view.
The Jews did not believe that he was the lamb. For the passover the Jews ate the lamb. They had to eat the lamb or they would not be spared. Jesus is the sacrificial lamb of god. We must eat the lamb. Literally.
Chip Crush said...I find it interesting that you posted anonymously. I also find it interesting that you think I failed to read the rest of John 6. If you notice, your comment was left in the middle of a walk through the entire Gospel of John, including the whole of chapter 6. Furthermore, I don't mind having "wholes" poked in my theology, because it makes it more complete. Now, when "holes" are poked in my theology, that helps too, as I am encouraged to learn and carry on dialogue with those who hold different views. However, it's hard to dialogue with "anonymous."
To address your point, if you read the "whole" of John's Gospel, you'll notice that Jesus is nearly always referring to spiritual truths, and His audience is nearly always hearing Him thinking about the physical. Thus they nearly always miss the point. Take, for example, the conversation with Nicodemus in John 3. You who say that John 6 supports transubstantiation, do you also side with Nicodemus in John 3 that a man must come from his mother's womb a second time to be born again? Of course not. You're missing the spiritual reality to which Jesus is pointing. He is fulfilling the imagery of the Tabernacle completely.
You say in your conclusion that "this means everything." What do you mean? Why? Also, in my original post, I was not critical of the Catholic view. I laid out a brief synopsis of the different views on the communion elements. That's all.
Lastly, you say that Jesus is the sacrificial lamb of God. While I agree that He fulfilled the imagery of the Passover Lamb, He was not a literal lamb, which you would have to admit is your view, since you take things so "literally." When John the Baptist said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world," did he really see a lamb? Or did he see a Man who would fulfill that imagery, as the author of Hebrews tells us?
No comments:
Post a Comment