I have written several articles on Jesus’ bread of life discourse, the meaning of the word to eat flesh and drink blood, John 6:48-58. The usage of the Greek term ‘trogo’. I have went into depth on that in several different articles. Here is my most recent take on that one here: http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/john6response.html. However, in this paper, I want to take a little more look at the background to Jesus’ Eucharistic discourse in John 6:48-58. I want to focus on just a couple of aspects. There is a rich background to Jesus flesh and blood saying, which in my view points to the reality of Jesus providing for us, his True Flesh and Blood. The loaves and fishes, provides a backdrop to Jesus’ Eucharistic teaching. I will spend more time on how Jesus says he will provide a manna that was superior to the manna that God provided the Israelites. It is often overlooked, which I will admit I have done when I’ve focused almost exclusively on the disputed texts of John 6:51-58, but not talked much about the manna which Jesus speaks throughout his whole discourse. We will see that this background will point us to how Jesus is the New Moses, and will provide a new manna which must be greater than the manna which God himself rained down from heaven as shown in the Exodus account. When we look at more in depth of John 6, it is much easier to understand Jesus, when he starts talking more in depth about him providing a superior manna, in John 6:48 going forward, which explains what kind of messiah he was. In many cases, Catholics, including me, focus on this part of John 6, and do not speak much about manna, though Jesus does. I will borrow in this paper, ideas planted by the name of Dr. Brant Pitre, who wrote a book ’Jesus and the Jewish roots of the Eucharist,’ available on his web site. It is much more indepth, and on many, many more issues than I will go into in this paper. His book I will commend, though I will not say anything I say accurately represents what he says, as his book will speak for itself. I will of course give my own take on the issues and will refer to other sources as well.

I will conclude by going over a specific Protestant objection that Jesus did not always explain his teachings, and that is why it is alright that Jesus did not say he was speaking metaphorically. I will show that objection does not apply in this circumstance of Jesus teaching on his Flesh and Blood in John 6.

The beginning of John 6 is where John puts the multiplication of loaves and fishes. There is a purpose for all of John’s writings. He writes that these things are written so that we may believe in Jesus, and have life in his name (Jn 20:30, 31). There is no doubt a miracle when Jesus feeds 5000. Despite the sceptic Catholics, he made out of 5 loaves and two fishes food in abundance and the people ate and were filled. Let us look at this passage and parts I would like to highlight:

John 6:1-14

1 After this Jesus went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, which is the Sea of Tibe′ri-as. 2 And a multitude followed him, because they saw the signs which he did on those who were diseased. 3 Jesus went up into the hills, and there sat down with his disciples. 4 Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand.5 Lifting up his eyes, then, and seeing that a multitude was coming to him, Jesus said to Philip, “How are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?”6 This he said to test him, for he himself knew what he would do. 7 Philip answered him, “Two hundred denarii[a] would not buy enough bread for each of them to get a little.” 8 One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, said to him, 9 “There is a lad here who has five barley loaves and two fish; but what are they among so many?” 10 Jesus said, “Make the people sit down.” Now there was much grass in the place; so the men sat down, in number about five thousand. 11 Jesus then took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed them to those who were seated; so also the fish, as much as they wanted. 12 And when they had eaten their fill, he told his disciples, “Gather up the fragments left over, that nothing may be lost.” 13 So they gathered them up and filled twelve baskets with fragments from the five barley loaves, left by those who had eaten. 14 When the people saw the sign which he had done, they said, “This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world!”

Now the loaves and fishes there were paintings, frescoes, seen as symbols of the Eucharist in the second century. This miracle pointed to the coming miracle that Jesus would speak about. The loaves and fishes were in abundant paintings as pointing to the miracle of the Eucharist, as referred to here in this book for example: Roman Catacomb Paintings

Going back to the passage, notice that in v. 14, the crowd said that this is the prophet who is to come into the world. Where did they get this from? They know that there is going to be a Messiah who is like Moses. Let’s go back to the prediction of the prophet that said would come into the world. Deuteronomy 18:15-18:

15: "The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brethren -- him you shall heed -- 16: just as you desired of the LORD your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, `Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, or see this great fire any more, lest I die.' 17: And the LORD said to me, `They have rightly said all that they have spoken. 18: I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.

Then in v. 51 he says that the bread that he will provide is his flesh. Now we know that the Jews definitely took him literally and Jesus did not correct them when he repeated time after time when he said his followers must eat his flesh and drink his blood. I have went over in another article that says, when John has Jesus using the word translated ‘trogo’ as eat flesh, it means literally chewing, physically eating his flesh. Protestant Argument on why ‘Eat Flesh’, Trogo in John 6 is Metaphorical: A Response. That is not the topic of this article. It is just Jesus repeats himself several times, emphatically that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood, between vv. 51-58. However, his emphasis on eating flesh and drinking blood, is completed when he refers to manna again. He again speaks of the superiority of Jesus flesh and blood, which will be eaten literally, as opposed to the manna that God provided for the Israelites. Remember, Scripture itself shows that manna was provided by God miraculously to feed the Jews. The Psalmist calls the manna the bread of angels. However, it did end when Israel actually reached the promised land. Jesus is telling them that the manna pales in comparison to partaking of his true flesh and true blood. Those who questioned Jesus earlier said ‘give us this bread always.’ Although he corrected them much, he actually tells them that they were right when they said ‘give us this bread always.’ Jesus tells them to partake of Jesus literally we must eat his flesh and drink his blood. Partaking of his flesh and blood will lead to eternal life. That is ‘always.’ But the comparison is to a true miracle when God provided manna to Moses and the Israelites. It was not a metaphorical miracle.

Dr. Pitre comments on the comparison of manna to the Eucharist saying of Jesus in John 6:

In other words, Jesus surrounded his teaching about the mystery of his presence in the Eucharist with references to the manna from heaven. This is extremely significant. Jesus could have chosen the Passover lamb to explain the Eucharist, or (as we will see in the next chapter) the mysterious Bread of the Presence. But when he wanted to emphasize the necessity of eating his flesh and drinking his blood and the fact that it would somehow become ‘real food’ and ‘real drink’, he didn’t choose either of these. He used the Jewish hope for new bread from heaven, and identified the Eucharist with the manna of the Messiah. From a Jewish perspective, if the Eucharist of Jesus is the new manna from heaven, it can’t be just a symbol. It must be supernatural bread from heaven. Pitre, p. 78.

Now let’s ask a pivotal question: If a first-century Jew believed that the old manna was supernatural bread from heaven, then could the new manna be just a symbol? If the old manna was the miraculous “food of the angels.” Could the new manna be just ordinary bread and wine? If so, that would make the old manna greater than the new! (Then he goes on to give many examples of Jesus being greater than the prefigurements of David & Solomon).

In short, if the old manna of the first exodus was supernatural bread from heaven, then the new manna of the Messiah must also be supernatural bread from heaven. This is of course exactly what Jesus said in the synagogue at Capernaum. After identifying the new manna as his own “flesh” (John 6:51), he ended by declaring “This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.” (Jn 6:58)…

But one thing for certain,. If Jesus had wanted his disciples to regard the Eucharist as ordinary food and drink, he would certainly never have identified it as the new manna from heaven. Pitre, p. 79-80

Now as noted in other papers written by me, we know that Jesus explained his literalness to the people that he is really providing his Flesh and Blood. The Jews said how can he give us his flesh to eat in v.52, when Jesus reiterates again the necessity of eating his flesh and blood. Catholics will say, ‘see, Jesus is speaking literally and he does not correct the questioners.’ Then a Protestant says, well, he does not always explain himself to people. Keith Thompson an anti-Catholic, of ‘Reformed Apologetics Ministries’, for example, writes the following:

The biblical fact is Jesus often allowed his message to be misunderstood, even when teaching on matters of extreme importance. Matthew 13:10-13 confirms: “10Then the disciples came and said to him, ‘Why do you speak to them in parables?’ 11And he answered them, ‘ To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given’” (Matthew 13:10-11 cf. John 12:37-40). Jesus spoke in parable and metaphor precisely because He knew the non-elect would not be able to understand since they were not people who received the secrets of the kingdom from God (i.e., illumination of the mind from God); they were not God’s sheep. John 12:37-40 confirms this since it says many were not able to believe Christ even after they listened to Him and saw His miracles in order that Scripture would be fulfilled; namely Isaiah 53:1; 6:9-10 which teach God blinds eyes and hardens hearts so that certain people can not believe or have the truth revealed to them. So it’s false for Armstrong to say Jesus would not allow his vital teachings to not be grasped by people. Moreover, as noted, Jesus often did not explain important metaphoric sayings people misunderstood like in John 2:14-20 which mentions Jesus’ “destroy this temple and I will raise it up” teaching. We note also, as before, His teaching that He is the shepherd who protects the flock and fights the wolves in John 9:7-20 where the Jews misunderstood him and received no clarification. Thus it is no surprise to see Jesus not correct the Jews in John 6 and explicitly say his teaching was symbolic. Proof that the Roman Catholic Mass is Unbiblical

Besides that, in opposition to Thompson’s theory are a couple of things. First the meaning of eating flesh and drinking blood does have a metaphorical meaning, and it is in the Scripture and it is always negative. It is opposing, not believing. Scripture shows this here (Micah 3:3, Psalm 27:2; Isaiah 9:18-20, for example). This is shown here: http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/ john6.html It means reviling, opposing, fighting him. That would make absolutely no sense.

Another reason why Thompson’s argument does not apply, is what follows John 6:48-58:

John 6:60-71

60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, " Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? 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. 64 But there are some of you that do not believe." For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. 65 And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." 66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. 67 Jesus said to the twelve, "Do you also wish to go away?" 68 Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God." 70 Jesus answered them, "Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?" 71 He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was to betray him.

Against Thompson’s argument by the way are Jesus’ words. Thompson even quoted Matthew 13. He says that they are unbelievers, they won’t get it, but let’s go back to Thompson quoting Jesus:

Matthew 13:10-13

10 Then the disciples came and said to him, "Why do you speak to them in parables?" 11 And he answered them, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven but to them it has not been given. 12 For to him who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

The fact is that even on a similar subject on breads and loaves elsewhere, he made an explanation to the disciples when they did not understand him.

Mt. 16:5-12:

5 When the disciples reached the other side, they had forgotten to bring any bread. 6 Jesus said to them, "Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sad'ducees." 7 And they discussed it among themselves, saying, "We brought no bread." 8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, " O men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves the fact that you have no bread? 9 Do you not yet perceive? Do you not remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets you gathered? 10 Or the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets you gathered? 11 How is it that you fail to perceive that I did not speak about bread? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sad'ducees." 12 Then they understood that he did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sad'ducees. (Reference attributed to Pitre, p. 106)

In this article I have written about how the miracle of the loaves and fishes points to the greater miracle of Jesus and the Eucharist. John placing the miracle of the multiplication of loaves and fishes in a Passover setting, gives us a setting of Jesus speaking of providing his true flesh and blood that we are to partake of, with Eucharistic clues tied into that miracle. Then we went into how the people were expecting a new Moses, and a new manna. They asked Jesus to provide this manna. Jesus explained to them that he was the true bread from heaven, he came from heaven to bring eternal life. However, he did not limit himself to say that they must believe in Him. He specifically taught that he was going to provide a bread that was true flesh and true blood. He made the comparison of this manna, to the Flesh and Blood of himself which true believers are to eat. When he taught about specifically eating his flesh and drinking his blood, he specifically tied it to the miracle of the manna. The manna that God provided, that sustained the Israelites for 40 years, was truly a miracle termed ‘bread of angels.’The manna that God provided in the Old Covenant, though pales into comparison to the New Moses, Jesus himself, and the new manna that He provides. So when he spoke of the flesh and blood, he specifically chose a comparison that was not metaphorical. Thus, the idea of him speaking metaphorically does not match the context of Jesus speaking about the manna that God provided the Israelites. The new manna can not be metaphorical either.

We saw a Protestant apologist say that it is okay that Jesus did not correct himself when he saw unbelievers taking his teaching literally. The apologist said that it was okay, because Jesus did not correct himself because unbelievers were not going to understand him anyway. He pointed to Matthew 13:10-13. However, when Jesus spoke in that context Matthew noted that Jesus said ‘you know the secrets of the kingdom’ to his disciples. And we saw Jesus explain to them in full specifically when talking about bread in Matthew 16!! When the disciples misunderstood him, Jesus said ‘do you not perceive’, and then goes on to explain his teaching to those disciples in Matthew 16. However, he did not say that here in John 6, he said in John 6, ‘do you take offense’, v. 61. So they joined the unbelieving Jews. So Jesus teaching on the literalness of the New Manna was understood, and Jesus ties in his providing his flesh and blood to his own resurrection. When we partake of Jesus in the Eucharist, we partake of the resurrected Christ. We who believe in the Eucharist can say with Peter, ‘to whom shall we go, you have the words of eternal life.’ It is a grace giving and much better, ‘true bread of angels.’ Protestants who reject Jesus teaching and try to make it metaphorical, join the ranks of Judas and unbelievers.

Page created by: Matt1618.
Send email with questions or comments on this writing to Matt1618 matt16182@yahoo.com

Return to Eucharist Page

2016, New Moses, Manna, and the Reality of the Eucharist in John 6...by Matt1618 ... This text may be downloaded or printed out for private reading, but it may not be uploaded to another Internet site or published, electronically or otherwise, without express written permission from the author.