John 6 Debate

My thanks to Scott Windsor for offering me the opportunity to debate, and for pointing out that we can all learn from this.

Please read what I write carefully (and pray that I will read carefully what SCOTT writes), with an open mind and open heart. I am not here to attack anyone, but to plow through the scriptures to ensure that we can more adequately understand what we must believe and do as Christians.

Ready? Have you opened your heart and mind? Okay...

Is he speaking literally? figuratively?

My worthy opponent will probably argue BOTH :)

But we will let him speak for himelf.

I seek to show you that we cannot and even should not take Jesus literally... that when we do, we are suddenly beset with a number of scriptural problems and contradictions. And since God is not the author of confusion, by showing that Jesus is only being figurative in John 6 can we prohibit distorting the scriptures.

For the time being, I will rely only on scripture. Scripture is God- breathed (2 Tim 3:16), scripture makes us wise for salvation (2 Timothy 3:15). Therefore, scripture should certainly allow us to clearly build a case, one way or the other.

Here are ten specific reasons that will reinforce my view:

1. Jesus' discourse on "eat my flesh, drink my blood" occurs approximately two years BEFORE the Last Supper. Therefore, it is highly unlikely He is talking about communion, given the enormous gap (relative to His ministry) between these two events.

The entire theme of the gospel of John is not "eat my flesh," but that Jesus is the Son of God, and by believing in the Son of God, we can have life in His name (John 20:31). This theme is reiterated OVER and OVER in the gospel.

We must ask ourselves if we HAVE to consume the flesh of Jesus, and to do so to have eternal life, why this command to eat His flesh and drink His blood is never repeated in the gospel.

In fact, nowhere in the synoptic gospels are we EVER told that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood for the purpose of having eternal life.

In fact, nowhere in the rest of the New Testament are we EVER told that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life.

This is an amazing omission on the part of the Holy Spirit!

Even without waiting for such reference, since it is clear that this command IS GIVEN in John 6, I request you retract the statement that there was "an amazing omission on the part of the Holy Spirit!"

Ask yourself this question - "How many times must your Lord command you to do something before you are required to obey Him?"

Now, lest my opponent think that I am arguing there is a set number of times Christ must say something for us to believe it, I have many more arguments that will buttress the notion that the absence of "eat His flesh" (and the corresponding "drink His blood") is a clear indication that it is NOT literal. It is a figurative statement from Christ, one of His many figurative statements that taken figuratively lead us to the real truth -- that we must come to Him and believe in Him for eternal life.

That is the way of salvation.

Jesus Himself in John 6 clarifies this for us:

John 6:35 "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst."

Now to deal directly with Dr. Guinee's attempt to deflect here in saying "lest my opponent think I am arguing there is a set number of times Christ must say something for us to believe it...," well, that's precisely the point which destroys Dr. Guinee's opening argument! I do believe there is a set number of times Christ must say something in order for us to believe it - ONCE!

I have no argument against the fact that this statement is made chronologically separated from Christ's celebration of the First Eucharist, the fact is that is absolutely true! It is also absolutely true that Christ did not say this was something He was giving them then and there, but that it is something He will give (John 6:51) so clearly He has explicitly stated that the "giving" will be sometime in the future.

a. "I am the bread of life" (6:35, 41, 48, 51)
b. "I am the light of the world" (8:12)
c. "I am the door of the sheep" (10:7, 9)
d. "I am the Good Shepherd" (10:11, 14)
e. "I am the Resurrection and the Life" (11:25)
f. "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (14:6)
g. "I am the true vine" (15:1,5)

All of these metaphors are used by John to reiterate the message of his gospel writing: Jesus is God who came to save the world, and belief in Him is the way to salvation.

Please note that in the other figurative statements, nowhere are we required to take those statements literally, forcing us to conclude that we must commit some act with our flesh in order to validate the literal interpretation.

We aren't called to walk through a literal door that Jesus becomes, we aren't called to drink from an actual vine that Jesus turns into.

Why then should we expect to take Jesus' "eat" and "drink" literally when it is disconcordant to do so in light of these other great "I am" statements?

Again I must reiterate - metaphorical language does not equate to a figurative meaning! The use of metaphorical language, in most of the citations you make above, are literal truths.

a. "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up" (2:19b) referring to the crucifixion and resurrection of His body; the Jews mock him thinking it is the temple that took 46 years to construct.

b. "You must be born again" (3:7b) referring to Jesus' encounter with Nicodemus; Nicodemus takes Jesus literally and asks how a man can enter his mother's womb a second time

c. "The water of everlasting life" (4:14b) the Samaritan woman at the well, who believes it is actual water that will never need to be replenished

d. "Food to eat of which you do not know" (4:32b) the disciples cannot understand how Christ consumed food when there has been no meal for quite some time; Jesus later adds that His "food" is to do the will of the Father

e. "Jesus feeds the multitudes" (chapter 6) Jesus then retreats, for the Jews want to take Him as their "king"; Jesus having no intention of setting up an earthly kingdom retreats to solitude

There are more of these figurative statements that come AFTER chapter six; the aforementioned are listed here to set the theme of Jesus' teachings. The entire gospel is replete with examples of Jesus speaking of spiritual things, and the listeners misunderstanding Him because they keep taking Him LITERALLY.

That being said, I do not deny there are figurative statements in the Scriptures and in St. John's Gospel. Pointing out figurative statements does not detract from the literal command Jesus gives to us, and repeats several times to us, in John 6.

We keep going from a literal point so that Jesus can use it to make a spiritual one.

When Jesus and the Jews begin discussing the bread of life, we DO start with literal bread, because the Manna from heaven WAS literal bread from heaven.

But now in order for Jesus to be literal when He says "Eat my flesh" I think we have broken our pattern

We had literal turning into figurative to make a teaching point:

Drinking water -- living water Born of water -- born of Spirit Bread of life -- belief in Christ

But when the Catholic takes Christ back into the literal, the pattern is broken.

And in the levitical law it CLEARLY states:

"...therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of NO MANNER OF FLESH: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eatheth it shall be cut off" [Leviticus 17:14]

Please note the Hebrew word is "basar," which refers to the flesh of MEN and ANIMALS. So how can Jesus command the Jews, disciples, and apostles to break the Written law of God???

"Do not think that I came to abolish the law or the prophets: I came not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you (that) until heaven and earth shall pass away not one iota or tittle shall in any way pass from the law until all comes to pass. Whoever then shall break one of the least commandments and shall teach people so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven." [Matthew 5:17-19]

When Jesus is crucified, the law is lifted, and yet in Acts 10, it appears the apostles are still abiding by the dietary restrictions:

"He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. Then a voice told him, `Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.' `Surely not, Lord!' Peter replied. `I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.' " [v. 10- 14]

Certainly Peter could not have claimed to have NEVER eaten anything unclean if the restrictions have been removed.

Moreover, when the early church begins to understand that the dietary restrictions of the levitical law are lifted, blood is still OFF LIMITS:

"But that we write unto them, that they ABSTAIN from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and FROM BLOOD." (Acts 15:20; see also Acts 15:29)

Even if Jesus changed the Law concerning eating and drinking blood, He had not done so yet, because his reference to clean and unclean foods came chronologically later than when Jesus spoke in Capernaum in John 6.

Thus another reason why we cannot and should not take John 6 literally.

The prohibition of drinking blood is the drinking of the blood of animals. When Jesus has declared "My Blood is TRUE DRINK INDEED" - that is NOT a figurative statement. If the Lord Himself commands something, then we MUST DO IT! And we MUST NOT rationalize our way out of following His direct commands!

The argument regarding what Peter said makes no sense at all. He said he had not eaten anything impure or unclean, so whether or not the restrictions were in place is irrelevant, he had not done it, period, so yes he could claim to have never eaten anything unclean.

The argument regarding the lifting of the Law upon Jesus' resurrection also doesn't work. The Apostles, at least some of them, were also still enforcing the Law regarding circumcision - which was also post-resurrection - declared to be unnecessary.

Regarding the argument that of Jesus not coming to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it - Dr. Guinee has basically just contradicted his own argument! In Acts 10 are not some of the Levitical Laws abolished? The Law which Jesus refers to is clearly not the minor dietary laws - but THE LAW, as in the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments).

Regarding the Hebrew word "basar" and the argument that it means the flesh of both men and animals, well, so does the English word "flesh" relate to animal and human flesh!

Regarding the first point made in this section, that of the Levitical Law, my opponent is attempting to use an ancient and likely health-based law to trump what our Lord and Savior and God has clearly and explicitly and REPEATEDLY commanded us to do! All attempts to rationalize this command away aside - we cannot avoid the FACT that Jesus made this as a direct command - and even while many of His own disciples were walking away - BECAUSE THEY TOOK HIM LITERALLY - He does not clarify this command in the least! He lets them walk and turns to The Twelve and challenges them as well, "will you also leave?!"

"Many therefore of the disciples, when they had heard this, said, `This is a hard saying, who can understand it?' Then Jesus knew IN HIMSELF (implies they quibbled out of listening range) that His disciples murmured at it, He said unto them, `Does this offend you?' " [John 6:60-61]

Is eating the flesh the scandal? Jesus' response suggests otherwise:

"What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where He was before?" [v. 62]

Remember this whole discourse starts with Jesus claiming to be the true bread FROM HEAVEN and that "No man hath seen the Father, save He which is of God, He hath seen the Father."

The assertion of divine sovereignty, v 64, referring back to v 37ff and v 44ff, was a stumbling block and an offense. The Jews thought they had free will to come to God on their own, and Jesus told them they couldn't, but that only those whom the Father gave to the Son could come, and only those drawn by the Father to the Son could come and be saved.

In verse 53 Jesus says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unles you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves."

In verse 54 He says: "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

Verse 55 says: "For My flesh is true food, and My Blood is true drink."

Verse 56: He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

Verse 58: "This (speaking of Himself) is the bread which came down from heaven, not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever."

Verse 59 just states where He said these things, and then we get to 60-61. CLEARLY they are grumbling over the fact that He's commanding them to eat His flesh and drink His blood. If I were to walk into a room and tell people to eat my flesh and drink my blood - that too would be a "hard saying" and who could listen to it, could you?

Jesus did not say touto gignetai ("this has become" or "is turned into"), but touto esti ("this signifies, represents" or "stands for").

And Jesus is not the first in the Bible to claim figuratively that a glass of liquid was really "blood": One time, David's friends heard him express a strong desire for water from the well of Bethlehem. In spite of extreme danger, these men broke through the enemy lines of the Philistines and brought the water to him. When David found out that these men had risked their lives in this way, he refused to drink the water, exclaiming, "Is not this the blood of the men who went in jeopardy of their lives?" [II Sam. 23:17]

Interestingly, when Jesus presides over the Last Supper, all three synoptic gospels use the word "phagos" when Jesus says "Take, eat, this is my body" [Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22] and "eat this passover" [Luke 22:15]. Further, when Paul speaks about communion in 1 Cor 11, he does not use "trogas" but "phagos."

As stated, Jesus spoke in Aramaic, so John's Greek language may suggest part of John's stylistic writing. John might have used "trogos" instead of "phagos" for several reasons:

a. Think of how similar "crunch" is to "crush." Remember Isaiah says He was CRUSHED for our iniquities -- His body was crushed on our behalf.

b. According to biblical scholars John's Gospel was written partly to defend against the heresy of docetism, the false belief that Jesus was not really a human being, He only seemed to be a human being. they took this heresy to the point of arguing Christ only SEEMED to suffer. With John using "flesh" instead of "body," as well as "crunch" instead of "eat" -- THE FLESH (has to be real then) WAS CRUSHED. Blows a hole in their silly theory, doesn't it?

This hearkens us back to John 1:14 "And the Word was made FLESH, and dwelt among us"

What I find interesting though is that "trogos" is not the only word used here for "eat!" In fact in verses 49, 50, 51, 52, 53 and 58 use the word "esthio" which means "to eat." Verses 54, 56 and 58 (58 has both forms) use the word "trogo" - but both words mean "to eat." I truly fail to see where Dr. Guinee's point 7 has any merit for his argument.

ONLY by the Spirit? This would contradict taking in his literal body!!

Further, Paul refers to the Israelites being spiritually nourished in the wilderness (1 Cor. 10), partaking the SAME Christ we do.

We must ask ourselves -- did the Israelites eat the flesh of Jesus Christ and drink His blood?

NO. They did not.

Mr. Windsor will surely not argue that prior to the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ that He availed His flesh and blood to the Israelites, will he?

No. Since they obviously did not receive Christ's literal body and blood, Paul must be speaking of "eating" as "believing."

Yet there is not one detail in any of the Four Gospels that Jesus turned bread into flesh, and wine into blood, and certainly no astonishment recorded on the part of the Apostles.

It is true his presence remains with us, but not in bodily and perceptible mode in which it will be again at the last day (Acts 1:11). Much like the sun hangs in the heavens, and yet brings its light to earth, we have Christ seated by His father's side and yet shining his light down to earth.

It is beautiful to see how St. Thomas sets out the objections with all their force, and humbly, firmly and fervently attaches himself to Christ's words. "The fact that the body and the blood of Christ are in this sacrament", he tells us, "cannot be perceived with the senses or with the understanding; it can be perceived only by faith, which is founded on divine authority". Then, with St. Cyril and with the Church, he repeats the text from St. Luke: "This is my body, which will be given for you", and comments, "Do not doubt that this is true, but receive the Saviour's word with faith, for he is the truth; he does not lie" (S. Th. q 75, a. 1).
[qtd on: http://ewtn.com/library/Theology/TRANSUBT.HTM]

Why is the Lord's death proclaimed "until He comes" if the wine and bread have already been transubstantiated? There is no mention here of any physical presence, but the communion is spoken of as a COMMEMORATION.

I will now sit and allow Mr. Scott Windsor to present his initial case.

I will expect him to deal with the arguments I have presented, at a certain point in the debate.

Further, I will expect him to answer a number of questions, the first of which I will leave for him and other Catholics to ponder.

Romans 8:5-8 says "For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God."

So if Jesus really does command us to literally eat His flesh, a non- Christian, a lost sinner, reads John 6 and believes Jesus to be speaking literally.

What would prevent this lost sinner from going to Mass on Sunday and immediately consuming the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ in order to be saved?

Would it not be pleasing to God for him to do so?

If not, why not?

Respectfully,
Dr. Jim Guinee

1. What would prevent "this lost sinner" from going to Mass on Sunday and immediately consuming the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ in order to be saved? Physically, nothing would, but if he approaches and receives that Eucharist unworthily, then he would not be eating and drinking to his salvation, but to his judgment!
2. Would it not be pleasing to God for him to do so? That's not so easy to answer - we cannot speak for God. If God determined that this "lost sinner" partook of the Eucharist worthily, then God has so determined it. If "this lost sinner" has not examined himself properly (1 Cor. 11:28) then he would take upon himself the judgment refered to in the next verse (1 Cor. 11:29).
3. Dr. Guinee asks "why not?" The obvious answer is that the "lost sinner" does so in ignorance of what is expected prior to receiving. To not fully understand what is expected and to do one's best to fulfill what is expected may be outright offensive to God and far from "pleasing."