Protestant misinterpretation of John 6:63

[hoser]

This is in response to a post in the Eucharist thread.

"to reply to those using John 6 to justify mass and the eucharist, there is a verse within the chapter that controverts it extremely well and all other eucharist arguments:

It is the SPIRIT that quickeneth; THE FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING: THE WORDS I SPEAK ARE SPIRIT, and they are life.

John 6:63"

So are you saying that Christs flesh is of no avail? Then aren't you saying that Christ was incarnated for no reason? Aren't you saying that Christ died on the cross for no reason? And aren't you saying that Christ rose from the dead for no reason? Isn't Christs flesh more protitable than any other in the history of mankind? I sure think so.

If Christs flesh profits us nothing, then His incarnation, death and resurrection profit nothing and our faith is for nothing.

This is yet another gross misinterpretation of scripture by protestants. John 6:63 refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. In John 8:15-16 You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. 16 Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me.

This is showing that natural human judgement is unreliable, but God's judgement is always true. In John 6:63 "flesh" does not refer to Christ’s own flesh—the context makes this clear—but to mankind’s inclination to think on a natural, human level. "The words I have spoken to you are spirit" does not mean "What I have just said is symbolic." The word "spirit" is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (John 6:37, 44–45, 65). What words are spirit and life? The words that we must eat Jesus' flesh and drink His blood, or we have no life in us.

 

[FreeinChrist]

hmmm- another Protestant vs. Catholic thread.


This Protestant thinks that the verse was used wrongly too - but that won't prevent some from lumping all Protestants in one pot in an effort to attack Protestants.

 

[Lynn73]

This is in response to a post in the Eucharist thread.



So are you saying that Christs flesh is of no avail? Then aren't you saying that Christ was incarnated for no reason? Aren't you saying that Christ died on the cross for no reason? And aren't you saying that Christ rose from the dead for no reason? Isn't Christs flesh more protitable than any other in the history of mankind? I sure think so.

If Christs flesh profits us nothing, then His incarnation, death and resurrection profit nothing and our faith is for nothing.

This is yet another gross misinterpretation of scripture by protestants. John 6:63 refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. In John 8:15-16 You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. 16 Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me.

This is showing that natural human judgement is unreliable, but God's judgement is always true. In John 6:63 "flesh" does not refer to Christ’s own flesh—the context makes this clear—but to mankind’s inclination to think on a natural, human level. "The words I have spoken to you are spirit" does not mean "What I have just said is symbolic." The word "spirit" is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (John 6:37, 44–45, 65). What words are spirit and life? The words that we must eat Jesus' flesh and drink His blood, or we have no life in us.

I think I've pointed out before that Jesus isn't talking about His incarnation or His death on the cross. He's referring to eating His flesh and drinking His blood and that's what that verse pertains to. Eating His literal flesh profits nothing. His words are spirit. I'm sorry Catholics don't understand and misinterpret this. He's saying His words on the subject (eating His flesh and blood) are to be taken spiritually. Which means that's how we eat and drink Him: spiritually. I don't know why we have to keep hashing this out, Jesus clearly explained what He meant, it just doesn't support Catholic doctrine so you won't accept it. You know Catholics and Protestants are going to remain in disagreement about this so why bother?

 

[Saint_George]

1 John 4:1
Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

And it is repeated again, just in case one doesn't get it the first time:

2 John 1:7

Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

 

[Lynn73]

I see you're using those verses to try to prove the Eucharist but I believe they're referring to His incarnation in human flesh. I have never read those verses and gotten the Catholic Eucharist out of them.

Matt. 24:
23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. 24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. 25 Behold, I have told you before. 26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; (in a monstrance in a fancy box as a wafer?) believe it not. 27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

I do acknowledge Jesus has come in the flesh, He spent 33 years here in the flesh. I don't acknowledge that it has anything to do with the Catholic Eucharist.

 

[sojourner]

Lynn 73,

He's referring to eating His flesh and drinking His blood and that's what that verse pertains to. Eating His literal flesh profits nothing. His words are spirit.

Protestants on the whole have a problem with any physical manifestation regarding any sacramental event. In fact, they acknowledge none. They can be said to be quite gnostic in their beliefs in that regard.

Now, on the text itself, John 6:53 is very explicitedly speaking of His Flesh and Blood. It is both symbolic and real. The Greek word for symbol does not convey the same meaning as protestants use it as a representation. That Christ repeated it again in verse 54 without changing the meaning..
Vs 55 He once again states very clearly that it is indeed food, not spirit, not a symbol or representation.

Vs 58 compares it with manna. Real food that had life sustaining qualities. But a difference in the kind of life. One of survival in the desert, the other of eternal life with Him.

Then we come to the decisive words. In verse 61 which is a continuation of the thought of vs 60 in that those who heard it understood it as Jesus meant it to mean. He does not correct them one iota in their thinking which would now be logical if He had meant only as a representative as in a spiritual representation.
Then the second verse under discussion, 63. It is the words of Jesus, the words that He just has spoken about. The Spirit, the Holy Spirit gives life. It is the Holy Spirit that changes this physical bread and blood. It is what gives life.

Paul also uses it in I Cor 10:16. Here the Greek word, koinonia, is translated correctly if your translation uses the word, communion. Communion in Greek means to participate.
There is real participation, not commoration. Just as Christ shared in our human nature, we also share and are united with Christ in our participation in the Eucharist. Those who do participate become united as one IN Christ.

Christ also uses it in the initial Covenant offering in Matt 26:26-30. He institutes it as His Body and Blood. It will take effect after the Cross - vs 29. The Last Supper is really the initiation of the Messianic Age in which believers share the Messianic banquet until He comes again.

It is not so much as an individual having a commemoration of Christ's sufferings, as it is an all embracing act, participatory act of one Christian have the same faith, the same hope, the same baptism, the same Body, the Church IN Christ. It can also be the corporate act of many persons having one mind, one heart, one mouth in the service of Christ who is One Lord, One Savior of all, one Holy Spirit working in and through His Church and the faithful.
When we participate in the Eucharist we are communing with all the saints, past and present, as Life IN Christ.

I'm sorry Catholics don't understand and misinterpret this.

Not necessarily agreeing with Catholics in how or when it occurs but accepting it as a mystery, you would still need much more than your assertion to prove of what you state. History from the Apostles on to the present time have never agreed with you. The very earliest writers in explaining it always indicated the real Body and Blood.
I would be interested in seeing, other than your personal opinion of what the Bible might be saying, that the catholics did not understand the Apostles at all and missed it on this one.

 

[hoser]

hmmm- another Protestant vs. Catholic thread.


This Protestant thinks that the verse was used wrongly too - but that won't prevent some from lumping all Protestants in one pot in an effort to attack Protestants.

I don't mean to "lump" all protestants into one pot, but how else should I describe the christians that I am refering to? I cannot say non-Catholics because then that would also include Orthodox Chrisitans. I apologize for "lumping" you, but if you have a better word to describe who I am talking about, I'll take that into consideration.

 

[hoser]

I think I've pointed out before that Jesus isn't talking about His incarnation or His death on the cross. He's referring to eating His flesh and drinking His blood and that's what that verse pertains to. Eating His literal flesh profits nothing. His words are spirit. I'm sorry Catholics don't understand and misinterpret this. He's saying His words on the subject (eating His flesh and blood) are to be taken spiritually. Which means that's how we eat and drink Him: spiritually. I don't know why we have to keep hashing this out, Jesus clearly explained what He meant, it just doesn't support Catholic doctrine so you won't accept it. You know Catholics and Protestants are going to remain in disagreement about this so why bother?

So why do evangelicals "bother" Catholics with the question of "are you saved?" Why do evangelicals "bother" Catholics with "you'll be left behind" nonsense? Evangelicals have been "bothering" Catholics with their "views" for a long long time. It's about time that Catholics start answering that nonsense with the TRUTH. I bother with this because it is TRUE! Jesus told us to go out and evangelize. Wether or not you ever want to accept the truth or not, I will continue to do so.

"His words are spirit.

Since when does "spirit" mean symbolic???? Show me one other place in the Bible where "spirit" means symbolic!! What is it, the Father, Son and Holy Symbolic? Give me a break!

"I'm sorry Catholics don't understand and misinterpret this."

They don't. You do. And you are not just referring to Catholics are you? The Eastern Orthodox Churches also believe this, as did just about every Christian for century after century.

 

[hoser]

I see you're using those verses to try to prove the Eucharist but I believe they're referring to His incarnation in human flesh. I have never read those verses and gotten the Catholic Eucharist out of them.

[/color]

I do acknowledge Jesus has come in the flesh, He spent 33 years here in the flesh. I don't acknowledge that it has anything to do with the Catholic Eucharist.

Yes, but the "flesh profit nothing" as you would say.

 

[sojourner]

hoser,

I don't mean to "lump" all protestants into one pot, but how else should I describe the christians that I am refering to? I cannot say non-Catholics because then that would also include Orthodox Chrisitans. I apologize for "lumping" you, but if you have a better word to describe who I am talking about, I'll take that into consideration.

I have the same problem. No protestant wants to be lumped. They all want to retain their individual interpretation and understanding. Everytime you need to explain something, it is as if it will only apply to a single person.
Whereas the Gospel was given for all, to all, long ago. Why all this individualization? Christ stated He is the WAY, the only way, yet we need to deal with thousands of views as to which is the way. Instead of getting better is is prolificating

 

[Borealis]

So why do evangelicals "bother" Catholics with the question of "are you saved?" Why do evangelicals "bother" Catholics with "you'll be left behind" nonsense? Evangelicals have been "bothering" Catholics with their "views" for a long long time. It's about time that Catholics start answering that nonsense with the TRUTH. I bother with this because it is TRUE! Jesus told us to go out and evangelize. Wether or not you ever want to accept the truth or not, I will continue to do so.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to hoser again.

Curses! Foiled again!

Full agreement here. Truth is truth, and the false teachers must be countered at every turn. Enough is enough.

 

[Lynn73]

Yes, but the "flesh profit nothing" as you would say.

When it concerns eating it, no it doesn't, according to Jesus. That's the subject He was talking about. All it does is go into the stomach and digestive system. If you want to truly partake of Jesus it needs to be spiritually. He's in me, not because I phsyically ate His flesh, but because I believe and accept Him into my heart and life. That's how you receive Jesus, not by eating a wafer that has been proclaimed to be Him.

 

[hoser]

When it concerns eating it, no it doesn't, according to Jesus. That's the subject He was talking about. All it does is go into the stomach and digestive system. If you want to truly partake of Jesus it needs to be spiritually. He's in me, not because I phsyically ate His flesh, but because I believe and accept Him into my heart and life. That's how you receive Jesus, not by eating a wafer that has been proclaimed to be Him.

But that wafer or bread was proclaimed to be Him by Him.

Matthew 26:26-28 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body." 27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you; 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Mark 14:22-24 And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is my body." 23 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. 24 And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

Luke 22:19-20 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 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.

Sorry, you might not like what Jesus said here, but he said it. IS means IS. Would you like to bring up the Bill Clinton argument of the word "is" here? And you cannot compare the verses where Jesus says he is a door (John 10:7) or a vine (John 15:1,5) because nowhere does Jesus tell His Apostles to eat this door it is my body, and likewise nowhere does Jesus tell His Apostles to eat this vine, it is my body. There is quite a difference here.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Another thing, for us to say the writer of John would record these verses 50+ years later and not clarify the meaning (if you assume it symbolic) is beyond both good reason and belief.

Just from the letters of Paul, clearly the "breaking of bread" by that time was a central part of any Christian worship. Yet we are suppose to believe that the writer of John fails to mention/clarify that the very first mention of this central focus was only symbolic when people obviously misunderstood not only when these Words were spoken, but were still misunderstanding it at the end of the century. That is incredulous!

 

[Bulldog]

The word "spirit" is never used that way in the Bible.

No one said it does, but you're missing the point. If, as I believe, John 6 has nothing to do with the sacrement of the Eucharist, then it does not matter if the passage does not refer to the Eucharist as being symbolic - because it's not addressing the issue.

Jesus is not referring to the Eucharist, he is referring to coming to him and believing him as spiritual food. The language of "body" and "blood" is symbolic of this. (see vs. 35)

 

[Beoga]

L

Then we come to the decisive words. In verse 61 which is a continuation of the thought of vs 60 in that those who heard it understood it as Jesus meant it to mean. He does not correct them one iota in their thinking which would now be logical if He had meant only as a representative as in a spiritual representation.

I just wanted to touch on this because I have seen this arguement a lot. The thought that if these false disciples misunderstood Jesus, instead of letting them walk away, Jesus would have corrected them. The thing is, none of us can say without a doubt, that Jesus would have corrected them because we simply cannot know. At best we could say that Jesus might have corrected them, or most likely would have corrected. But even then, we have to remember that Jesus did not always clarify what he ment when He was talking to the pharisees and other unbelievers. Instead he kept his clarifications and explainations to His true disciples.

 

[Catholic Dude]

I just wanted to touch on this because I have seen this arguement a lot. The thought that if these false disciples misunderstood Jesus, instead of letting them walk away, Jesus would have corrected them. The thing is, none of us can say without a doubt, that Jesus would have corrected them because we simply cannot know. At best we could say that Jesus might have corrected them, or most likely would have corrected. But even then, we have to remember that Jesus did not always clarify what he ment when He was talking to the pharisees and other unbelievers. Instead he kept his clarifications and explainations to His true disciples.

Here is a Catholic favorite from 1Cor10 :

15 I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. 18 Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?
​

Hence the name of the Catholic section on these forums One Bread One Body. How many other groups can take their name from a Scripture passage?

And 1Cor11 :

23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. 27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
​

In both passages St Paul is clearly talking about real food here. In the first he compares it to various sacrifices of both Pagans (idols) and Jews so that its a clear comparison to physical food which is the Body and Blood.
In the second he says he received this from the Lord, he goes over that SAME Last Supper discourse, he says to participate REGULARLY in it. And says at the end to examine yourself because this isnt just a loaf of bread here. I dont know of many topics of sins in the NT there is where if someone disobeys there is sickness and death as punishment.

 

[Iollain]

How could ........if the bread and wine are physically Jesus' actual flesh and blood.....it be just a remembrance? That sounds kinda silly. I would say it is more spiritually His flesh and blood. I would almost believe the actual if the word remembrance was not there. Jesus gave His flesh and blood about 2000 years ago. The important one we have is the Holy Spirit.

 

[Svt4Him]

And you cannot compare the verses where Jesus says he is a door (John 10:7) or a vine (John 15:1,5) because nowhere does Jesus tell His Apostles to eat this door it is my body

Actually Jesus said to remain in the vine, as we are the branches. So tell me, when was the last time you hung around the vines?

 

[hoser]

Actually Jesus said to remain in the vine, as we are the branches. So tell me, when was the last time you hung around the vines?

When Jesus was saying that He is the vine, His followers were not questioning Him about His literal speech as they were in John 6. In John 6 Jesus confirmed that is flesh is food indeed and his blood is drink indeed after being questioned. There were not disciples asking, "how can this man be a vine?" There was no confusion as they understood Him metaphorically. Jesus was not speeking metaphorically in John 6 as we can see from His insistance after being questioned.

There is so much in scripture to defend the doctrine that Jesus is truely and physically present in the Eucharist it is sometimes hard to know at which angle to approach the subject. As I pointed out earlier, in the Gnostic Gospels, Jesus words are consistent. This IS my body, this IS the cup of my blood. Jesus is using very direct words. You would think that at least in one of those gospels if it was only symbolic, the language would reflect that. But no, not in one instance does it say, "this is like my body" or "this bread is symbolic of me". It is very consistent, and it is very literal.

In John 6:32-51 Jesus is comparing Himself to the manna from heaven. The manna we know is bread that was physically ate. If the bread (Eucharist) was merely symbolic, instead of being superior to the manna, it would be inferior to the manna for the manna was supernatural, heavenly, miraculous food. Would Jesus give us something less than that? I don't think so! In the Old Testament the Jews were given miraculous food from heaven, while in the New Testament Jesus gives us bread that is nothing more than symbolic? Wouldn't make sense.

I could get into the whole Passover argument and how jesus fulfills that, but I am tired and that will take a while. So for now, chew on this.