www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings spirit and flesh John chapter 6

I am in a discussion with a protestant who ignores the six times that Jesus says in John 6 that we must eat his flesh.
She focuses in on the verse where Jesus says that the flesh is of no worth and the spirit gives life.
How can I show her that "the flesh" in this verse doesn't refer to "his flesh" which we must eat to have life?

Perhaps show the parallel with John 3? "The flesh" means worldly understanding. The "Spirit" means seeing with the eyes of faith.

Joe

As Joe mentions, the word "flesh" is not being used univocally by Our Lord. In one case, he means his flesh literally; in the other, he is speaking about flesh as a principle of self-direction/preservation, somewhat as St. Paul does in Romans 5?

Yes, and also the fact that Christ makes a big deal out of not only eating his flesh but drinking his blood. If that isn't a Eucharistic reference, then I don't know what is. If Christ only meant his flesh metaphorically, then why would he bother to talk about eating and drinking? Also, the Gospel of John has no institution narrative and most biblical scholars think that this means that John is more subtly including it in John 6.

Joe

I agree with your analysis.
Do you know of anywhere that this distinction is explained?

Melkiteman,

JPII's Theology of the Body has a long analysis of the play between "Spirit" and "flesh" in Paul, 1 John, et al., which is very well done.

He doesn't distinguish meaning from John 6. I have found the notes in the New Jerusalem Bible to be helpful as a guide to the various meanings of "flesh" and "spirit".

Michael

I remember going over this passage in a Protestant bible class. We were told that the scripture was literal up to that point, and then it was figurative, and then literal again once that imagery had ended. They said this, but there is no break in the narrative which would support such a shift. That is one of the reasons I get slightly bothered by the "picking" done by those who read too much into the verse separations; at times the natural flow of the narrative is broken by a verse, and that can be missed if the book is not read carefully.

Though, it may be a matter out of our hands, and it will be by grace that such a person can see.

You may be able to add support by showing passages in the epistles which reference the breaking of bread and framing the importance historically (they may not accept a reference to the apostolic Fathers, but that would help there if they did). You may also allude to the repeating imagery of bread, from the manna to the Bread of Life.

Terry

"Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."

From how this passage would be seen in that class I took, one would have to accuse Jesus Christ of equivocation since he shifts the meaning of "bread" from one point to another as it is literal in one of the cases and figurative in the next.

Lets remember that in the Gospel, Our Lord changes the verb for eating from a proper eating verb (High Tea with the Queen) to a more crude eating verb (pigs in a trough.) Just to make sure everyone gets the idea.