The hard saying in Jn 6,

[bbas 64]

Good Day all

My first OP here :angel:

The question has been raised in an other thread as it refers to Jn 6, and the hard saying. It is often followed up by "why did Jesus let them leave" this is typical line of questions based on a misunderstanding of the text.

I thought I would address it here.

Joh 6:52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"



Joh 6:53 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.



Joh 6:54Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.



Joh 6:55For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.



Joh 6:56Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.



Joh 6:57As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me.



Joh 6:58This is the bread that came down from heaven, not as the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever."



Joh 6:59 Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.



Joh 6:60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"



Joh 6:61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, "Do you take offense at this?



Joh 6:62Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?



Joh 6:63It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.



Joh 6:64But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.)



Joh 6:65 And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."



Joh 6:66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.


The reson they left was the verse 65.


Augustine Notes:

The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." What means "are spirit and life"? They are to be understood spiritually. Hast thou understood spiritually? "They are spirit and life." Hast thou understood carnally? So also "are they spirit and life," but are not so to thee.







7. "But," saith He, "there are some among you that believe not." He said not There are some among you that understand not; but He told the cause why they understand not "There are some among you that believe not," and therefore they understand not, because they believe not. For the prophet has said, "If ye believe not, ye shall not understand." We are united by faith, quickened by understanding. Let us first adhere to Him through faith, that there may be that which may be quickened by understanding. For he who adheres not resists; he that resists believes not. And how can he that resists be quickened? He is an adversary to the ray of light by which he should be penetrated: he turns not away his eye, but shuts his mind. "There are," then, "some who believe not." Let them believe and open, let them open and be illumined. "For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed, and who should betray Him." For Judas also was there. Some indeed, were offended; but he remained to watch his opportunity, not to understand. And because he remained for that purpose, the Lord kept not silence concerning him. He described him not by name, but neither was He silent about him; that all might fear though only one should perish. But after He spoke, and distinguished those that believe from those that believe not, He clearly showed the cause why they believed not.



"Therefore I said unto you," saith He, "that no man can come unto me except it were given to him of my Father." Hence to believe is also given to us; for certainly to believe is something. And if it is something great, rejoice that thou hast believed, yet be not lifted up; for "What hast thou that thou didst not receive?" 8. "From that time many of His disciples went back, and walked no more with Him." Went back, but after Satan, not after Christ. For our Lord Christ once addressed Peter as Satan, rather because he wished to precede his Lord, and to give counsel that He should not die, He who had come to die, that we might not die for ever; and He says to him, "Get thee behind me, Satan; for thou savorest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men." He did not drive him back to go after Satan, and so called him Satan; but He made him go behind Himself, that by walking after his Lord he should not be a Satan. But these went back in the same manner as the apostle says of certain women: "For some are turned back after Satan." They walked not further with Him. Behold, cut off from the body, for perhaps they were not in the body, they have lost life. They must be reckoned among the unbelieving, notwithstanding they were called disciples. Not a few, but "many went back." This happened, it may be, for our consolation. For sometimes it happens that a man may declare the truth, and that what he says may not be understood, and so they that hear it are offended and go away. Now the man regrets that he had spoken that truth, and he says to himself, "I ought not to have spoken so, I ought not to have said this." Behold; it happened to the Lord: He spoke, and lost many; He remained with few. But yet He was not troubled, because He knew from the beginning who they were that believed and that believed not. If it happen to us, we are sorely perplexed. Let us find comfort in the Lord, and yet let us speak words with prudence.

The ones that left misunderstood the nature of the statement in verse,58 becasue they were unbelivers and could not understand. Thus in there misunderstanding, caused by unbelief that was a "hard saying".



But they did not leave till after verse 65 was spoken, that indeed is a hard saying many fall over it today "No man can" people do not like thier inability to come. They tend to think in error that they are free... that is Jn 8 sorry wrong text.



Gill Notes:

said, this is an hard saying; or it is to be objected to; so ayvq, "an hard thing", the word here used in the Syriac version, and yle awh hvq, "it is to me a hard thing", are phrases used to express an objection in the Talmudic writings, where they are often met with: or it is difficult to be understood and received; so hvqh rbdh, "an hard saying", or "an hard cause", is a cause difficult to be tried and determined, Exo_18:26, and is used of that which seems incredible and absurd, and is surprising and unaccountable: so it is said (z), that

For His Glory alone!!


Bill

 

[JM]

Isn't God great! All should find themselves under the wrath of God and yet, we find sinners saved from hell! AMEN

 

[Orthodoxy]

bbas 64,

It appears the disiples really did not understand what Jesus was saying in John 6 because Jesus asked them why they were not leaving also and they said "Thou hast the words of eternal life"

The hard saying is Jesus told them you must eat my flesh and drink my blood for eternal life. This was a hard saying because to a jew cannibalism was forbidden. How can we eat his body and drink his blood was what they were thinking. Jesus is saying you must become a cannibal to retain eternal life in Me. The disiples trusted Christ and continued with Him and soon found out at the passover meal what Jesus meant when He said "do this in rememberance of me". This eating His body and drinking His blood is seen in the Liturgical celebration of the Church called the Eucharist.

Orthodoxy

 

[Kasey]

bbas 64,

It appears the disiples really did not understand what Jesus was saying in John 6 because Jesus asked them why they were not leaving also and they said "Thou hast the words of eternal life"

The hard saying is Jesus told them you must eat my flesh and drink my blood for eternal life. This was a hard saying because to a jew cannibalism was forbidden. How can we eat his body and drink his blood was what they were thinking. Jesus is saying you must become a cannibal to retain eternal life in Me. The disiples trusted Christ and continued with Him and soon found out at the passover meal what Jesus meant when He said "do this in rememberance of me". This eating His body and drinking His blood is seen in the Liturgical celebration of the Church called the Eucharist.

Orthodoxy

I would like to know how your church celebrates this Eucharist

 

[bbas 64]

bbas 64,

It appears the disiples really did not understand what Jesus was saying in John 6 because Jesus asked them why they were not leaving also and they said "Thou hast the words of eternal life"

The hard saying is Jesus told them you must eat my flesh and drink my blood for eternal life. This was a hard saying because to a jew cannibalism was forbidden. How can we eat his body and drink his blood was what they were thinking. Jesus is saying you must become a cannibal to retain eternal life in Me. The disiples trusted Christ and continued with Him and soon found out at the passover meal what Jesus meant when He said "do this in rememberance of me". This eating His body and drinking His blood is seen in the Liturgical celebration of the Church called the Eucharist.

Orthodoxy

Good Day, Othodoxy

If we are to take your assertion as the reason they left, why were the still there to hear verse 65?

Why did they not leave pior to verse 65, their reason for leaving would have been the last thing they heard which would have been verse 65.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[Restin]

Same words -- different meanings

Same words -- different people/different meaning

• 2 Cor 2:15-16
  15 For we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those
  who are being saved and among those who are perishing;
  16 to the one an aroma from death to death,
  to the other an aroma from life to life.
  NASU

John 6 is a good illustration of this text in 2 Cor.
LIFE to some/death to others........from the same words and actions.

.....Restin

 

[fiat]

Add to that the fact that "to eat and drink flesh" when used figuratively among Jews (as with modern Arabs) meant to insult or slander a person. Is Christ promising Eternity to someone who hates Him? The entire passage would be nothing but nonsense if Christ were speaking symbolically.

Additionally, the word "spirit" is NEVER used in Scripture to indicate intended symbolism. Why would Christ, who frequently quoted OT passages, create a new meaning for the word "spirit" when speaking to a Jewish audience. That would only create confusion.

 

[phatcatholic]

AMEN fiat! :D

 

[William Putnam]

My two cents...

Verse 65 changes nothing about how the Jews and some of Jesus' own disciples will abandon Him, because it is simply a statement that God knew this would happen from all eternity, that it fits into His divine plan. It simply explains why they refuse to believe is probably the most astounding doctrine that would have us believe against what our senses tell us, that what looks, feels, tastes and digests like bread and wine, is no longer bread and wine (going against the senses of the flesh) and believing that it is actually the body and bood, soul and divinity of Christ Himself, which surely takes the holy Spirit within us to come to this belief.

And because Christ simply affirms what He already knows about the disbelief of the Jews and some of His disciples does not answer the awesome literal meaning that is hammered-in with verses 53 through 58, that there is no mistake is seeing a literal but a most emphatic literal meaning Christ is saying here.

Verse 51 is the first time in the "Bread of Life" discourse that Christ relates "bread" with His "flesh," and the Jews took Him literally, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" (paraphrased) The Jews are asking Jesus to clarify what He said in verse 51. How does He answer? Do you see Him saying that the "bread" He speaking of is to be taken as a metaphor of His "flesh"?

Verses 53 through 58 is the obvious answer...and again, verse 65 does nothing more then affirm what Christ, being God, knew from all eternity, the reaction of the Jews and some of his weaker disciples, they abandoned Him.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Regina Angelorum, ora pro nobis!

 

[JM]

One more time!

 

[AVBunyan]

Do you Catholics believe that one can still get to heaven if they never take part in their mass?

Simple yes or no will suffice - thanks

God bless 8-)

 

[thessalonian]

Do you Catholics believe that one can still get to heaven if they never take part in their mass?

Simple yes or no will suffice - thanks

God bless 8-)

Not everything is a simple yes or no answer. I will instead answer with a scriptural principal.

Luke 12
[48] But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more.

We are responsible for what God has given each of us. If some do not have the grace to understand the Church does not judge and neither will I as you ask me to. You may all go to hell. That would be completely within his boundless justice. You may not. That would be completely within his boundless mercy. I trust in God's mercy as well as his justifice.

 

[AVBunyan]

Not everything is a simple yes or no answer. I will instead answer with a scriptural principal..

Hi Thess – good to see you again – based upon the info below it appears a simple “Yes†from you would have been the proper answer. Instead of scripture I will supply some Roman resources and others.

And below just scratches the surface.

"Christ...commanded that his bloody sacrifice on the Cross should be daily renewed by an unbloody sacrifice of his body and blood in the Mass under the simple elements of bread and wine." (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 10, Pg. 13, Article: "Mass, Sacrifice of")

"In the celebration of the Holy Mass, the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ. It is called transubstantiation, for in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of bread and wine do not remain, but the entire substance of bread is changed into the body of Christ, and the entire substance of wine is changed into his blood, the species or outward semblence of bread and wine alone remaining." (Vol. 4, pg. 277, Article: "Consecration")

"As the Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches: 'the bloody and unbloody victim are not two, but one victim only, whose Sacrifice is daily renewed in the Eucharist... The priest is also one and the same, Christ the Lord; for the ministers who offer Sacrifice, consecrate the holy mysteries, not in their own person, but in that of Christ, as the words of consecration itself make clear; for the priest does not say: 'If anyone saith that in the Mass [each and every Mass] a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God... let him be anathema!'

Below paragraph taken from the “Way of Lifeâ€Â

"The Mass is the Roman Catholic form of the Lord's Supper. According to Catholic doctrine, the mass is a re-sacrifice of Christ in which the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ when it is blessed by the Catholic priest. The authoritative Vatican II Council of the mid-1960s stated: "The Mass, the Lord's Supper, is ... a sacrifice in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated. ... In this sacrament Christ is present in a unique way, whole and entire, God and man, substantially and permanently. This presence of Christ under the species `is called real, not in an exclusive sense, as if the other kinds of presence were not real, but par excellence'" (Vatican Council II--The Conciliar and Post conciliar Documents, 1975, pp. 108,114). The Catholic Catechism, 1975, says: "The sacrifice on the altar is no mere commemoration of Calvary, but a true and proper act of sacrifice, whereby Christ the high priest, by an unbloody immolation offers himself a most acceptable victim to the eternal father, as he did on the cross."

Some more:

Get the whole story: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... s2c1a3.htm

"If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema." (Trent: On the Sacrifice of the Mass: Canon 3);

"The sacrifice of Christ the only Mediator, which in the Eucharist is offered through the priests' hands," (CCC 1369);

"As sacrifice, the Eucharist is also offered in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead," (CCC 1414);

God bless 8-)

 

[thessalonian]

AV

What is "the way of life". Is that a catholic publication? Perhaps you could find me a Catholic publication that tells me that Christ is "resacrificed" at the Mass. Otherwise, with regard to explaining Catholic theology, my advice for you and other protestants "don't try this at home". You badly botch, distort, and prooftext without a proper global view. My post is quite in conformity with the statements made, normatively speaking. I don't have time right now but will attempt a more full answer which you will summarily reject because you will be unable to comprehend due to the closed nature of your mind toward the truths of the Catholic faith. Perhaps you will just for a second however give me the benefit of a doudt that these things can be reconciled quite nicely and then we can make some progress.

 

[AVBunyan]

AV Perhaps you could find me a Catholic publication that tells me that Christ is "resacrificed" at the Mass.

Now Thess - you know what the official Roman teachings from Trent, Vatican II, and others on the importance of the mass in the eyes of Rome - it is so important that they say if one doesn't except their official view then they are cursed - sounds important to me.

I mean this quote and others says they say the mass is needed for forgivness of sins.

"As sacrifice, the Eucharist is also offered in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead," The dead??!! :o :o :o

By they Thess - how are things going these days? :D

God bless

 

[thessalonian]

AV Perhaps you could find me a Catholic publication that tells me that Christ is "resacrificed" at the Mass.

Now Thess - you know what the official Roman teachings from Trent, Vatican II, and others on the importance of the mass in the eyes of Rome - it is so important that they say if one doesn't except their official view then they are cursed - sounds important to me.

I mean this quote and others says they say the mass is needed for forgivness of sins.

"As sacrifice, the Eucharist is also offered in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead," The dead??!! :o :o :o

By they Thess - how are things going these days? :D

God bless

AV,

I'm doing great. I've been lurking. 8-) I saw this thread and couldn't stay away.

Do you completely understand nuclear physics? I would hope that you would say that you do not. I don't either. Your probably pretty smart at whateever it is that you do. But you don't know Catholicism and you don't have a birds eye view of it. I am well aware of what trent says and what Vatican II says. Yes, the Mass forgives sins. There are other ways sins are forgiven. As for the dead, the Mass is for their sanctification. Reparation is not forgiveness. Reparation means that our souls have been damaged and need to be fixed. It means the neighbor doesn't hold a grudge when my kid breaks his window but still expects my kid to mow his lawn all summer. Do you believe in imputed righteousness? Do you think that when someone is sitting at the pearly gates God will only require imputed righteousness to get in. i.e. you will still lust and have greed and envy? You think you are presenting me with dichotomy and confusion. There is little that your really understand. Like I said with regard to Catholic theology and Protestants "don't try this at home". Perhaps more later.

 

[thessalonian]

you know what the official Roman teachings from Trent, Vatican II, and others on the importance of the mass in the eyes of Rome -

AV, let me see if I can give you an example that will help you understand luke 12:48 that I quoted above. If an american drives accross the center line and into oncoming trafic there are two possibilities. He is guilty of suicide or carelessness and perhaps murder. If an Englishman comes to America and does not know that he is supposed to drive on the right side, or out of habbit drives on the left does he have a murderous, suicidal heart? The results may be the same as the latter but the heart of the issue is entirely different. Those things that you speak of in Trent are for the ears of Catholics and those who KNOW that the Catholic Church is Christ's Church. To those who do not know (read Luke 12:48) we leave in the hands of God alone as to whether they are culpable or not.

 

[Vic C.]

If an american drives accross the center line and into oncoming trafic there are two possibilities. He is guilty of suicide or carelessness and perhaps murder. If an Englishman comes to America and does not know that he is supposed to drive on the right side, or out of habbit drives on the left does he have a murderous, suicidal heart?

Or... the American driver may have been distracted by noisy crumb-snatchers (children -lol) in the back seat or may have had a heart attack or stroke, etc. :o while drivivg. The English driver is a different story... shame on him for not 'boning up" on the rules of the road here in the good ol' US of A. :-D

 

[mutzrein]

Folks - to aid your understanding here is some meat to chew on.

The Lord instructed Moses to tell the people of Israel, after the Passover lamb has been slaughtered the elders are to take a bunch of hyssop, dip it into the blood in the basin and put some of the blood on the top and both sides of the doorframe. Not one of you shall go out the door of his house until morning. When the Lord goes through the land to strike down the Egyptians he will see the blood on the top and sides of the doorframe and will Passover that doorway and he will not permit the destroyer to enter and strike them down. The blood will be a sign for you on the houses where you are and when I see the blood I will Passover you. No destructive plague will touch you when I strike Egypt.

The Israelites were given strict instruction not to go out the door of his house until morning and they must remain under the covering of the blood so that the destroyer would not be able to enter their house and strike them down

In the same way as this instruction was given to the Israelites, Jesus has instructed us to remain in Him. It is written, “If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit. Apart from me he can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers. Such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.†In both cases God cannot intervene if we do not remain under the covering of the blood.

That same night they are to eat the meat roasted over the fire, along with bitter herbs and bread made without yeast. Do not eat the meat raw or cooked in water but roasted over the fire. Head legs and inner parts. Do not leave any of it till morning. If some is left till morning you must burn it. This is how you are to eat it, with your cloak tucked into your belt, your sandals on your feet and your staff in hand. Eat it in haste. It is the Lord’s Passover.

This was because they were called to move into a land that was unknown and they would be totally reliant on Gods provision for their mere existence. In other words to a 100% walk of faith, not looking back nor wandering left or right but focusing on the promise of a land flowing with milk and honey.

In the same way as the Israelites were to eat the meat, with cloaks tucked in, sandals on their feet, staff in hand, Jesus gave directive to the disciples and said, “eat of my body and drink of my blood. Unless you eat of my body and drink of my blood there be no life in you.â€Â

In making this statement, Jesus was not referring to the physical body and blood as we would interpret the creation of the first Adam but rather to walk in the Spirit, remaining totally reliant on Gods provision in the same way as the Israelites were called to a walk of faith, with the promise of a home, not yet seen.

However the road they were to travel was wrought with danger and obstacles that could only be overcome by the power of Gods hand and the physical presence of God’s power so by day the Lord went ahead of them in a pillar of cloud to guide them on their way and by night a pillar of fire to give them light so they could travel by day or night. Neither the pillar of cloud by day nor the pillar of fire by night left its place in front of the people.

In the same way that God encapsulated the Israelites with power and glory when he brought them out of the land of Egypt he has made it possible for us who have been born again to be encapsulated by His power and glory by living in His spirit, made possible through the body and blood of Jesus.

 

[AVBunyan]

If anybody wants to know the history of the mass then all they have to do is read Alexander Hislop's "Two Babylon's" - Babylonian from the outset.

Many a saint (including women and children) have been roasted alive for not adhering to this blasphmeous doctrine.

God bless