For the last five weeks, our pastor has been preaching on a passage from St. John, chapter 6, where Jesus fed 5,000 men (plus women and children) from five loaves and two fishes, and then later talked about being the Bread of Life.

Part of this is a passage that most Protestant preachers tend to skip over, focusing instead on the symbolic aspects or else ignoring it altogether in favor of the historical activities mentioned. I quote the passage below, in the New International Version that many people today tend to favor, partly because of that familiarity for many people and partly to show that this concept isn’t limited to just certain translations of the Bible. I’ve quoted excerpts, but you can click the link in the title to read the whole passage for yourself.

John 6:30-36, 48-61, 66-68
So they asked him, “What miraculous sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? Our forefathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

“Sir,” they said, “from now on give us this bread.” Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.

I am the bread of life. Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.” He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you?” … From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

“You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve. Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.”

Most Protestant denominations keep the Lord’s Supper only as a “feast of remembrance,” a memorial service that views the bread and wine as symbols of Christ’s body and blood–and only symbols–reminders of His sacrifice for us. That’s probably why this passage gives so many people such difficulty. If you just read what Jesus is saying here, you really have to twist His words to make His intentions merely symbolic.

Of course, there is the creative power of God’s Words, where He speaks and something is. “Let there be light” created light. “This is my body” is also viewed by many, including the Church Fathers, as being just such a statement, as St. Augustine said: “Christ held and carried Himself in His own hands.”

But aside from His institution of the Lord’s Supper, I want to focus on the passage in John 6. Jesus says, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever” (vs 53-58).

It’s very hard to get a merely symbolic meaning out of that passage. How much clearer can He be than saying “my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink?” It’s like He’s emphasizing the fact, particularly to say “this ISN’T just a symbol.”

If the listeners, in the context of the culture and times, understood this to mean that the bread and wine were only symbols of Jesus’ body and blood, why would they say, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” Moreover, if His intentions were misunderstood, why didn’t He clarify? Throughout the Gospels, whenever Jesus taught something that wasn’t understood correctly, He would at least take His disciples aside and explain it to them. In this instance, He instead asked, “You do not want to leave me too, do you?”

The bottom line is verse 66: “From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.” Given the context, it’s obvious that this large number of disciples left because of this issue. Too many people had a problem with what He was saying about His body and blood, and so they left Him.

I’d have to say that most Protestant groups (or non-Catholic groups if you want to mince words about definitions of “Protestant”) would take offense at this perspective. Or at least try to come up with reasons why it’s wrong. Much like how so many of Jesus’ disciples were offended and couldn’t accept His statements.

When in doubt, you have to go with the actual words spoken by Jesus. Questions of literal vs. symbolic intrepretations of Scripture are less relevant when Jesus clearly speaks in a literal sense. Or you can just choose to ignore sections of the Bible like this. Like I and many Protestants have done.

[tags]religion, eucharist, jesus, catholicism, protestantism[/tags]