![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2021\/01\/Jesus36.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
John 6:60-67<\/strong> (RSV)\u00a0Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, \u201cThis is a hard saying; who can listen to it?\u201d\u00a0[61] But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, \u201cDo you take offense at this?\u00a0[62] Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?\u00a0[63] It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.\u00a0[64] But there are some of you that do not believe.\u201d For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.\u00a0[65] And he said, \u201cThis is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.\u201d\u00a0[66]\u00a0After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.\u00a0[67] Jesus said to the twelve, \u201cDo you also wish to go away?\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
As I will argue in this paper, Catholics contend that these \u201cdisciples\u201d (Jn 6:66) left because they refused to accept Jesus\u2019 explicit teaching about the real presence and transubstantiation, with regard to the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. Many Protestants, on the other hand, contend (among other things) that they misunderstood His teaching, and therefore left Him. I will address the utter inadequacy of the explanations of many Protestant commentaries in interpreting this passage.<\/p>\n
This methodology was used in my book,\u00a0The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants<\/a>\u00a0(2004). See its introduction (included with the book link) for further elaboration on that. The book is about Protestant special pleading and eisegesis (improperly reading into scriptural passages what isn\u2019t there) when they come across biblical passages that plainly teach distinctively Catholic doctrine and contradict their own.<\/p>\n
1) \u201cGeneric Gospel\u201d Explanation<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n
Many may be expected to be offended by the doctrines of the gospel. Having no spirituality of mind, and really understanding nothing of the gospel, they may be expected to take offence and turn back. . . .\u00a0We should honestly inquire whether we have been led to make a profession of religion by the hope of any temporal advantage, by any selfish principle, or by mere excited animal feeling. (Barnes\u2019 Notes<\/em><\/a>)<\/p>\n
Such is the malice of men, that they bring about their own destruction, even in hearing the very doctrine of salvation, . . . (Geneva Study Bible<\/a><\/em>)<\/p>\n
There is seen in this Gospel a continual departure and a deepening faith. (Pulpit Commentary<\/a><\/em>)<\/p>\n
He again states that faith is an uncommon and remarkable gift of the Spirit of God, that we may not be astonished that the Gospel is not received in every place and by all. For, being ill qualified to turn to our advantage the course of events, we think more meanly of the Gospel, because the whole world does not assent to it. . . . no man, whatever may be his acuteness, can arrive at faith by his own sagacity; for all are blind, until they are illuminated by the Spirit of God, and therefore they only partake of so great a blessing whom the Father deigns to make partakers of it. (Calvin\u2019s Commentaries<\/a><\/em>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This discourse is not about\u00a0the gospel of God\u2019s saving grace itself<\/em>, or the gospel per se. Rather, it\u2019s centered on the Holy Eucharist<\/em>: as, assuredly, a key means to salvation and eternal life, but still only related to transubstantiation. It\u2019s clear that these disciples were rejecting that specific aspect of Jesus\u2019 teachings. These commentaries refuse to deal with this plain fact in the text.<\/p>\n
2) \u201cTemporal King \/ Powerful Messiah\u201d Explanation<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n
[T]hey withdrew themselves from his ministry, they dropped their profession of faith in him, and relinquished him as a Saviour and Redeemer: for finding that he would not be made king, nor set up for a temporal redeemer; . . . (Gill\u2019s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/a><\/em>)<\/p>\n
[They left] on this account<\/em><\/span>, because of these words of Jesus,\u00a0John 6:61\u00a0ff., which so thoroughly undeceived them as regarded their earthly Messianic hopes. (Meyer\u2019s NT Commentary<\/a><\/em>)<\/p>\n
Probably there is a general reference to their carnal ideas about the Messiah: it is \u201cin our Lord\u2019s refusal to assume the outward insignia of the Messianic dignity, and in His persistent spiritualisation of the Messianic idea\u201d that we must seek \u201cthe ultimate cause\u201d of the defection of so many disciples. (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/em><\/a>)<\/p>\n
Great crowds are following Him to be healed and to be fed, while the politically inclined have at last made a distinct effort to make Him a king, to force Him into a collision with the authorities. His proper work is in danger of being lost sight of. He finds it necessary to sift the crowds who follow Him. And He does so by addressing them in terms which can be acceptable only to truly spiritual men-by plainly assuring them that He was among them, not to give them political privileges and the bread that perisheth, but the bread that endureth. They found Him to be what they would call an impracticable dreamer. They profess to go away because they cannot understand Him; but they understand Him well enough to see He is not the person for their purposes. They seek earth, and heaven is thrust upon them. (Expositor\u2019s Bible Commentary<\/em><\/a>)<\/p>\n
Meyer, more correctly, . . . On account of this discourse, \u201cwhich disappointed their carnal messianic hopes.\u201d (Lange Commentary<\/em><\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
These commentaries miss the overall point, as the text\u00a0 \/ discourse was also not about Jesus refusing to be a king or \u201ctemporal redeemer.\u201d The explicit clue in the text regarding what was disputed and disbelieved is John 6:52: \u201cThe Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, \u2018How can this man give us his flesh to eat?\u2019 \u201d That<\/em> was being disputed and rejected by those who decided to leave.<\/p>\n
3) Non-Eucharistic Explanation<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n
When he says, the flesh of the Son of man, the expression is emphatic; for he reproves them for their contempt, which arose from perceiving that he resembled other men. The meaning therefore is: \u201cDespise me as much as you please, on account of the mean and despicable appearance of my flesh, still that despicable flesh contains life; and if you are destitute of it, you will nowhere else find any thing else to quicken you.\u201d\u00a0The ancients fell into a gross error by supposing that little children were deprived of eternal life, if they did not dispense to them the eucharist, that is, the Lord\u2019s Supper; for this discourse does not relate to the Lord\u2019s Supper, but to the uninterrupted communication of the flesh of Christ, which we obtain apart from the use of the Lord\u2019s Supper.\u00a0(Calvin\u2019s Commentaries<\/a><\/em>)<\/p>\n
Dr. John Lightfoot . . .\u00a0 showed that \u201ceating\u201d and \u201cdrinking\u201d were used by Jesus metaphorically, . . . (William Kelly<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It is the spirit that quickeneth \u2013 It is the spiritual sense only of my words that is to be attended to, and through which life is to be attained,\u00a02 Corinthians 3:6. Such only as eat and drink what I have mentioned, in a spiritual sense, are to expect eternal life.\u00a0The flesh profiteth nothing \u2013 If ye could even eat my flesh and drink my blood, this would not avail for your salvation. These words contain a caution that the hearers should not understand his words in the strict literal sense, as if his body were really Bread, and as if his flesh and blood were really to be eaten and drank. . . .\u00a0our Lord\u2019s words here do not refer to any new point of doctrine which he was then inculcating, but to what he had spoken concerning his being the living bread, and concerning the eating of his flesh, and drinking of his blood, in the preceding verses. (Adam Clarke<\/a>)<\/p>\n
It is a wonderful discourse on His incarnation, His sacrificial, atoning death, and the blessed assurances given to those who believe on Him. (Gaebelein\u2019s Annotated Bible<\/em><\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Many of these commentaries imply that Jesus was frequently misunderstood, and usually didn\u2019t correct people\u2019s misperceptions. Thus, they contend that John 6 is an instance of Jesus was merely speaking metaphorically (which His hearers didn\u2019t grasp).<\/p>\n
But it\u2019s untrue that Jesus didn\u2019t correct misunderstandings. He did on\u00a0many\u00a0<\/em>recorded occasions; for example: John 3:1-15 (Nicodemus and the meaning of \u201cborn again\u201d), Matthew 13:36-51 (explanation of the parable of the tares), Matthew 15:10-20 (what defiles a man), Matthew 16:5-12 (metaphorical use of\u00a0leaven<\/em>), Matthew 17:9-13 (parallel of Elijah and John the Baptist), Matthew 19:24-26 (camel through the eye of a needle and rich men), Mark 4:33-34 and Luke 8:9-15 (meaning of parables in general), Luke 24:13-27 (Jesus\u2019 teaching about Himself to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus), John 4:31-34 (metaphorical meaning of\u00a0meat<\/em>), John 8:21-32 (His own divinity), John 10:1-9 (parable of the Good Shepherd), and John 11:8-15 (sleep as symbolic of death).\u00a0Another example is the entire Chapter 16 of John, where the disciples did not understand, and Jesus explained at length to clarify, and then they\u00a0did\u00a0<\/em>understand.<\/p>\n
Yet Jesus did not<\/em> explain in this instance; He merely repeated with more force. And it is the only recorded instance (other than Judas) of any of His disciples ceasing to follow Him. The plausible reason is because He knew that they were questioning and would not have accepted any further explanation anyway. We know this from the hard evidence of John 6:64: \u201cJesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe\u201d.<\/p>\n
This theme appears elsewhere in John, too (see 8:27, 43-47; 12:37-40). Jesus is emphasizing that some people don\u2019t \u201cunderstand\u201d because they don\u2019t\u00a0want\u00a0<\/em>to: they lack\u00a0faith<\/em>; they can\u2019t \u201cbear\u201d His word, and they are burdened with undue skepticism and led by the devil, the father of lies. This is what happened in John 6 with those disciples who left Him. It\u2019s a theme in the Synoptic Gospels as well (see Matt 13:13, 19; Lk 5:21-22).<\/p>\n
Jesus often explained and corrected His disciples who misunderstood and who were willing to listen. Therefore, John 6 makes sense only in terms of interpreting it as an instance where it was not an innocent\u00a0misunderstanding\u00a0<\/em>(mistaking a supposed figurative discourse for a literal one), but rather, a\u00a0deliberate refusal to believe\u00a0<\/em>(understanding but not\u00a0accepting<\/em>).<\/p>\n
The argument hinges on the clear distinction between how Jesus talked to open-minded and closed-minded people, and between how He talked to disciples and the masses. It\u2019s beyond ludicrous to think that Jesus would have allowed anyone to stop being His disciple based on a misunderstanding of supposed figurative or symbolic language for literal. He would have corrected them.<\/p>\n
Not explaining because He\u00a0knew it would be futile<\/em>\u00a0is perfectly consistent with His behavior in other such scenarios. The disciples were constantly misunderstanding Jesus, and He corrected and educated them over and over.\u00a0We\u00a0know\u00a0<\/em>that Jesus thought this about them because of what He said: \u201cDo you take offense at this?\u201d (John 6:61; meaning, of course, that they\u00a0did<\/em>, because He knew their hearts).<\/p>\n
Language of not believing and betrayal doesn\u2019t apply to misunderstandings. Therefore, it makes no sense to think that He let them stop being His disciples based on a supposed misunderstanding.\u00a0Jesus tells His disciples what His parables mean, but not the larger crowds. This is explicitly stated in Matthew 13:10-11 and Luke 8:9-10. And note that the \u201cdisciples\u201d were not just the Twelve, but included also at least the \u201cseventy\u201d mentioned in Luke 10:1 ff.: sent out to preach the gospel and heal the sick (10:9) and to cast out demons (10:17).<\/p>\n
Jesus \u201crejoiced\u201d upon their enthusiastic report and thanked His Father, \u201cthat thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes . . .\u201d (10:21): language quite similar to the parables being understood by disciples and not all the masses at large.<\/p>\n
Therefore, He would surely have revealed this teaching to these disciples who deserted Him if they had merely misunderstood it. But He did not, because He knew that they understood, but were hardhearted.\u00a0What they rejected was eucharistic realism. It requires more faith than symbolism or mystical, spiritual presence. They didn\u2019t yet have it, and they decided not to try to stick around in order to\u00a0get<\/em>\u00a0it. They had had enough.<\/p>\n
Let us pray that\u00a0we<\/em>\u00a0never fall into this grave error.<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
Related Reading<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n
Debate with a Protestant on John 6 & the Eucharist\u00a0<\/a>(vs. C. Michael Patton) [12-4-08]<\/p>\n
John 6: Literal Eucharist Interpretation (Analogical Cross-Referencing and Insufficient Counter-Arguments)<\/a>\u00a0[8-15-09]<\/p>\n
John 6, the Eucharist, & Parables (Dialogue)<\/a>\u00a0[8-16-09]<\/p>\n
John 6 & Lack of Faith in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist as a Parallel to Doubting Disciples<\/a>\u00a0[2-14-11]<\/p>\n
Is John 6 About Holy Communion?: A Brief Summary for Those Who Deny the Eucharistic Connection Altogether\u00a0<\/a>[3-2-16]<\/p>\n