"spirit And Life"

[daugher-of-Mary]

I read somewhere awhile ago about why the apostles would not have seen the "spirit and life" verse from John as contradictory to the Eucharistic verses before. It had to do with the language (Greek or Aramaic) of the word "spirit", but I can't remember what it was! Can anyone help me out here? Thank you!

[Cure of Ars]

I answered the question before. Here is what I said;

[quote]John 6
61  When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62  What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63  It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
[/quote]

[color=blue]Have you considered the significance of His, words.??[/color]


Yes I have. There are a number of problems with your interpretation if I understand you correctly. My question to you is why would Jesus bring up another miracle in verse 62? Jesus is not backing down from his statement that we have to eat his flesh; instead he is demanding more faith from them. If Jesus was speaking symbolically wouldn’t he refer to a symbol in verse 62 or do you believe that Jesus ascended symbolically?


Here is how I understand your interpretation of the passage, please correct me if I am wrong.

[my] flesh profiteth nothing[i.e. eating it]: the words that I speak to you, they are spirit [symbolic]

What is Jesus referring to when he says flesh? Is Jesus really referring to his flesh as “of no avail”? Jesus had just finished saying that one needs to eat his flesh (six consecutive times), this including the statements that his flesh is “true food” and that we have to eat his flesh to have eternal life, and then he says that the flesh profits nothing. Now are we to symbolically eat his flesh to show us that his flesh is of no avail? Or does he mean something else by flesh. The other problem is Jesus’ flesh does profit. In fact, it is by his flesh being nailed to the cross that we are saved. Your interpretation has Jesus contradicting himself and denying a central truth to Christianity. If you admit that Jesus flesh does profiteth then your argument falls apart. If you hold that Jesus flesh doesn’t profit then you are no longer Christian.

Now to the other part of the passage. When Jesus says that his words are spirit this does not mean that they are symbolic. Can you show me in the Bible a clear example where spirit = symbolic? I do not think that the Jews of Jesus’ time used the word spirit to mean symbolic like some do now. If it is the case that spirit means symbolic (and I do not believe that it does) then there is another difficulty. Symbolically, in Jesus culture to eat someone’s flesh meant to persecute or hate bitterly that person. Here are some biblical examples:

When the wicked, even mine enemies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh, they stumbled and fell. (Psalm 27:2, KJV).

“Why do you pursue me as God does? Will you never get enough of my flesh?” (Job 19:22).

Another problem with it being symbolic is that it does not make a lot of sense. Jesus is symbolically the vine because apart from him we cannot have life. Jesus is symbolically the door because we can only go to heaven by going through him. Jesus is the bread of life because he feeds our souls with his word. But to take the bread of life symbol to the next level does not make sense. What symbolic quality does Jesus’ flesh have to do with bread? It would be like Jesus saying that his belly button is a doorknob when using the symbol of the door or that his skin is bark when using the symbol of the vine. This does not make sense to do this. You do not take it to the next level if you are speaking symbolically unless there can be some connection, and I cannot see it in this case. What symbolic quality does Jesus’ flesh have with bread? Without this the symbol does not work.





Now let me give an interpretation of the given passage that is very straightforward, uses scripture to understand scripture (which most protestants respect) and clears up all the difficulties. Jesus is using the terms flesh and spirit the same way that Paul does in Romans 8:2-9. Paul says,

For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has freed you from the law of sin and death. For what the law, weakened by the flesh, was powerless to do, this God has done: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for the sake of sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, so that the righteous decree of the law might be fulfilled in us, who live not according to the flesh but according to the spirit. For those who live according to the flesh are concerned with the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the spirit with the things of the spirit. The concern of the flesh is death, but the concern of the spirit is life and peace. For the concern of the flesh is hostility toward God; it does not submit to the law of God, nor can it; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh; on the contrary, you are in the spirit, if only the Spirit of God dwells in you. Whoever does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.

Paul is using the word flesh to mean fallen humanity without the supernatural grace of God. In the spirit refers to humanity infused with Christ’s own life which is a supernatural life. So using these terms in this way the passage you gave would be interpreted to say the following.

the flesh [fallen humanity] profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit [supernatural], and they are life.


When we eat Christ flesh it does not die like fallen humanities flesh because he has a glorified resurrected body that cannot be damaged or hurt. By our human senses we cannot recognize Christ in the Eucharist but only by supernatural faith.




I have some another question for you. Paul says the following in regards to the Eucharist:

Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.

Can you think of any other symbol where performing the symbol unworthily (or even not “discerning” the symbol) warrants the judgment of murder? Is Jesus superstitious with this symbol? Or is there something more going on? How can we be guilty of Christ’s body and Blood if he is not present in the Sacrament?

[daugher-of-Mary]

[quote]Now to the other part of the passage. When Jesus says that his words are spirit this does not mean that they are symbolic. Can you show me in the Bible a clear example where spirit = symbolic? I do not think that the Jews of Jesus’ time used the word spirit to mean symbolic like some do now. If it is the case that spirit means symbolic (and I do not believe that it does) then there is another difficulty. Symbolically, in Jesus culture to eat someone’s flesh meant to persecute or hate bitterly that person.[/quote]

Thanks, Cure! That was what I was looking for!

[Cure of Ars]

No problem.

God Bless.

[phatcatholic]

[url="http://catholicapologetics.net/flesh%20profits%20nothing.htm"][b]The Flesh Profiteth Nothing[/b][/url]

"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." (John 6:63)

CHRONOLOGY OF THE DISCUSSION IN JOHN CHAPTER SIX:

To begin with this verse was a not referring it the Eucharist, it was part of a very different discussion, The discourse on the Eucharist ends with verse sixty, it took place by the see in the synagogue at Capharnaum (v. 59) and involved may people ("the Jews" v.53 ).

From verse sixty-one to sixty- six is a separate discourse with just the disciples. St. John does not say where this second conversation took place, but is clear that the multitude (the Jews) were no longer present. Some scholars have suggested that it took place outside the synagogue. The disciples are clearly disturbed by what they had heard Christ say in the synagogue (v.61). Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring amongst themselves, So he asked them, "Doth this offend you?" (V.62 KJV). From this point on he is no longer discussing the Eucharist, but their lack of faith in him and his teachings.

A third conversation takes place after many of the disciples had left (v.67), this third dialogue was between Christ and the Apostles. Here Christ tests the loyalty of the Apostles.



VERSE SIXTY- THREE COULD NOT HAVE MEANT THE FLESH OF CHRIST:

If we were to try to interpret John 6:63 as if is Christ was saying the "flesh" mentioned in his oration to the Jews (in the synagogue; v. 26-59) was non-profitable then it would take away the importance of Christ’s incarnation, manhood, and death upon the Cross of Calvary, no less than His corporal presence in the Blessed Eucharist. For if Christ’s Flesh were not profitable, then all these things were useless. Therefore, it necessarily follows that Christ was not denying His own Flesh to be profitable.

It is also clear from v. 66 that, even after their discussion with Christ, the disciples were still placing a literal understanding on the words spoken by Christ earlier in the synagogue at Capharnaum (in reference to the Eucharist), for we read that "many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him."



THE REAL MEANING OF THIS VERSE:

In this verse the word "Flesh" denotes human nature unaided by grace, the meaning of this verse is that they (i.e. the disciples) cannot understand the revelation without the help of the Spirit. His revelation, if accepted, will lead them to this spiritual life. We see Christ using a similar terminology in Mathew 16:17, when he says to Peter "for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."

[phatcatholic]

[url="http://css.catholicexchange.com/truthtract.asp?qid=114"][b]John 6:63: Was Jesus Speaking Symbolically?[/b][/url]

Question:

In John 6:63 Jesus says the spirit gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words spoken are spirit and life. Doesn't this mean that he was only speaking symbolically?


Answer:

No. The key word in your question is "only." The Church has never denied the symbolic aspect of the Eucharist. All sacraments are symbols. But the Church also reminds us that the apostles never understood Jesus to mean here or anywhere else that the Eucharist is merely a symbol. In fact, the new Testament nowhere tells us that the Eucharist is "only" a symbol while it repeatedly gives us our Lord's unqualified declaration concerning the bread and wine at the last supper that "This is my body. This is my blood." (Matthew 26:26-28). It also gives us Paul's clear statement that the love and cup are a "participation in" not a mere symbol of, the body and blood of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16) and his shocking statement that those who receive it unworthily "will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Corinthians 11:27). The simple fact is, no one in the New Testament nor for the first thousand years of the Church ever understood Jesus to be speaking as though the Eucharist were simply and solely a symbol. The whole of the early church is simply unanimous in understanding it to be quite literally the body, blood, spirit, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ himself.

Edited June 22, 2004 by phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

[url="http://www.catholicoutlook.com/john6dialog.html"][b]Dialogue on What "Eat My Flesh" Means[/b][/url]

[b]note from Gary Hodge:[/b] The following dialogue between myself and an Evangelical Protestant took place on a public message board. His words appear in [color=blue]blue[/color].

[color=blue]The Jews also misinterpreted Christ’s words too literally:[list]
[*]51“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.”
52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53Jesus 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.
54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.
57Just 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.
58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.”
59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you?
62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life” (John 6:51-63).
[/list]Christ was still in possession of both His real body and blood when He instituted the Eucharist, therefore it is impossible that these are the actual and real body and blood of Christ.[/color]

It was also impossible for him to walk on water or through walls. I guess you don’t believe those things either?

[color=blue]They are symbols. Any child can reason that out. That grown ups accept Jewish misinterpretation when Christ emphatically denied such nonsense is a marvel, absolutely incredible.[/color]

What is incredible to me is how easily you dismiss the very words of Christ just because you don’t understand them and can’t believe them. And if “any child can reason that out,” did you ever wonder why it never occurred to the people to whom Jesus was speaking to assume that He was using a metaphor? It turns out, there’s a good reason, a reason that’s easily overlooked by speakers of modern English.

If I said to you that someone was “pulling my leg” or “twisting my arm,” you would know exactly what I meant, because these are common figures of speech. You would know that I meant that someone was joking with me, or that they were trying to pressure me. But if I said to you, “eat my flesh” and “drink my blood,” you wouldn’t know what I meant, because these phrases have no meaning for us (apart from the literal meaning). They are not common figures of speech in our language. But they were established figures of speech in Jesus’s culture. They meant “attack” or “revile.” We see this in Scripture:[list]
[*]When the wicked, even mine enemies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh, they stumbled and fell. (Psalm 27:2, KJV).

“Why do you pursue me as God does? Will you never get enough of my flesh?” (Job 19:22).

For this reason at that time certain Chaldeans came forward and brought charges against the Jews. (Dan. 3:8) [The footnote in the NASB says that the phrase “brought charges against” is literally, “ate the pieces of”]

The king then gave orders, and they brought those men who had maliciously accused Daniel (Dan. 6:24). [Again, the footnote in the NASB say that the phrase “had maliciously accused” is literally, “had eaten the pieces of”]

“Then I said, ‘Listen, you leaders of Jacob, you rulers of the house of Israel. Should you not know justice, you who hate good and love evil; who tear the skin from my people and the flesh from their bones; who eat my people’s flesh, strip off their skin and break their bones in pieces; who chop them up like meat for the pan, like flesh for the pot?’” (Micah 3:1-3).

These will hate the harlot and will make her desolate and naked, and will eat her flesh (Rev. 17:16, NASB).
[/list]I suppose the closest thing we have to this in our language is when we use the phrase “chew someone out” to mean, “speak harshly to someone.” In any event, in the language of the Bible, to eat someone’s flesh is to attack him. That’s why the crowd didn’t think Jesus was speaking metaphorically. In this context, and in this language, it couldn’t have been a metaphor. They concluded that Christ must be speaking literally (“eat”) because in their language the metaphorical interpretation (“attack”) would have been nonsense. If Christ were speaking metaphorically, He would be saying,[list]
[*]“I tell you the truth, unless you attack the Son of Man and villify him, you have no life in you. Whoever blasphemes me and curses me has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”
[/list]The crowd appears to have ruled out the metaphorical interpretation immediately, and no wonder! It would have made no sense. But if Jesus meant to introduce some new metaphor, different from the one already in common use, and if He didn’t bother to tell the crowd what He was doing, then He was not only being obtuse, but downright deceptive. And to then let the crowd abandon him and march off to eternal damnation (“whovever denies me before men . . .”) over a misunderstanding caused by His own deliberately misleading use of a common Semitic idiom, well, that is more than I can accept.

Also, your interpretation ignores the flow of this whole passage. Remember, this all started when the people challenged Jesus to give them a miraculous sign, and reminded him that Moses gave the people manna in the desert (John 6:30-31). Jesus responded by comparing himself figuratively with the manna:[list]
[*]“For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world. . . . 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. . . . 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.”
[/list]Now, up to this point, Jesus was indeed speaking metaphorically, and now he explains the metaphor: “This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” This is our Lord’s own interpretation of the metaphor. “Bread” equals “flesh.” The bread that comes down from heaven is his flesh, which a man may eat and not die.

Once Jesus explained the metaphor, “the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’” Now, at this point, if your interpretation were correct, and the “bread of heaven” was a metaphor for Christ’s flesh, which in turn was a metaphor for something else, Jesus should have said, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about eating my flesh? Do you still not understand? How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about eating my actual flesh?” (loose paraphrase of Matt. 16:8-11).

But Jesus didn’t do that, did he? Instead, he became even more graphic: “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.” Something that’s lost in our English translations is the fact that in verse 54, Jesus emphasizes the literal force of His statement by switching from the Greek word fagein, which means simply “eat,” to trwgwn, which is a more graphic word, meaning “to crunch, eat, chew.”

The people took Jesus literally, and they were right to do so, but they did misunderstand him in one sense. They apparently thought he was going to hack off an arm and toss it to them to eat. So he said, “Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before?” In other words, “You will eat my flesh and drink my blood, but this body you see with your eyes will be in heaven, so it isn’t going to happen the way you think.” That was as much of a correction as Jesus was willing to make, but still the people wouldn’t accept it, and they left.

Would you have left with them?