Hebrews, Matthew and John 6

The discussion on the Early Church Fathers started to morph into a discussion of the Eucharist and scripture, particularly with a passage in Matthew 24 and Hebrews 9.


Kelly and I have done John 6 at great length in the past and you can find those here.

Jennie wrote:

It is wonderful that God rained manna on our fathers and they were fed with daily food from heaven. And so it is written: Man ate the bread of angels. Yet those who ate that bread all died in the desert. But the food that you receive, that living bread which came down from heaven, supplies the very substance of eternal life, and whoever will eat it will never die, for it is the body of Christ. Ambrose of Milan, treatise On the Mysteries was originally spoken to newly baptized Christians around the year 370 AD.

This quote is apparently referring to John 6. I would like to give a few scriptures to show why Jesus in John 6 is not referring to Christ literally giving us His body and blood to eat, and that the bread is not literally the 'body, soul, and divinity of Christ' or the whole Christ.

Matthew 24:23 “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There!’ do not believe it. 24 For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you beforehand.
26 “Therefore if they say to you, ‘Look, He is in the desert!’ do not go out; or ‘Look, He is in the inner rooms!’ do not believe it. 27 For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.

 
This passage says that if anyone tells you that Christ is here or there on earth DO NOT BELIEVE IT and DO NOT GO OUT to look for Him, because His coming will be 'as the lightning come from the east and flashes to the west'

.
John 19:30 He said, “It is finished!” And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.
Hebrews 10:16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,” 17 then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” 18 Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.

Jesus finished His propitiatory work on the cross and for those who believe in Him, their sins are forgiven and there is no more need for an offering for sin.

Hebrews 9:25 not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another— 26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

This passage says that He appeared once to put away sin by His sacrifice of Himself, not often, and that He will appear for those who eagerly await Him a SECOND TIME, APART FROM SIN, for salvation. He will appear a second time when He comes back to earth, 'just as He ascended' the first time. He will appear 'apart from sin' that is, not as a sacrifice for sin. He does not come back as a physical perpetual sacrifice. Every word of Hebrews denies this doctrine. He sat down at the right hand of the Father in victory over sin and death and having finished His suffering, He intercedes for us against our accuser the devil.

 

Let's look at Matthew 24 in it's entirety. I will emphasize some parts I want to use to make a point.

 Matthew 24

Signs of the End of the Age

 ¹Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. ²"Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."  ³As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"
 ⁴Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you. ⁵For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,^[a]' and will deceive many. ⁶You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. ⁷Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. ⁸All these are the beginning of birth pains.
 ⁹"Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. ¹⁰At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, ¹¹and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. ¹²Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, ¹³but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. ¹⁴And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
 ¹⁵"So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,'^[b] spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— ¹⁶then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. ¹⁷Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house. ¹⁸Let no one in the field go back to get his cloak. ¹⁹How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! ²⁰Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. ²¹For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again. ²²If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. ²³At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. ²⁴For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible. ²⁵See, I have told you ahead of time.
 ²⁶"So if anyone tells you, 'There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, 'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it. ²⁷For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. ²⁸Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.
 ²⁹"Immediately after the distress of those days
   " 'the sun will be darkened,
      and the moon will not give its light;
   the stars will fall from the sky,
      and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'^[c]
 30"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. ³¹And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
 ³²"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. ³³Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it^[d]is near, right at the door. ³⁴I tell you the truth, this generation^[e] will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. ³⁵Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

The Day and Hour Unknown

 ³⁶"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,^[f] but only the Father. ³⁷As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. ³⁸For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; ³⁹and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. ⁴⁰Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. ⁴¹Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.

Jennie is trying to say that we can't refer to the Eucharist Jesus Christ because of this passage.  I say she has totally misinterpreted it.  What Jesus clearly referring to in this passage is to be aware of false prophets who are claiming to be him. Clearly the Eucharist does not proclaim itself verbally, "I am the Christ."  Christ's verbal silence in the Eucharist is part of His power - the power of just being, of being "I Am."  So Matthew 24:4 does not refer to the Eucharist in any way shape or form and it's a mighty stretch to try to connect it.   Also Matthew 24:26 again refers to a false Christ claiming to be in the desert, or the upper room, or could be the street corner or the stadium or stage.  But the Eucharist is present  only in a very specific holy place- in the tabernacle of a Catholic church being distributed by the church or in hospitals, nursing homes, prisons etc. by specially trained ministers of the Eucharist.  Matthew 24 doesn't cut it for disproving the Eucharist either.

And I can't resist just saying Christ does say we do not know the hour or the day.  I feel sorry for Christians who spend so much time and energy worrying about it. Be like the birds of the field or like a little child and don't worry about things that you can't control anyway.

Now let's look at Jennie's other passage in context.

Hebrews 9

The Blood of Christ

 ¹¹When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here,^[b] he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. ¹²He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. ¹³The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. ¹⁴How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death,^[c] so that we may serve the living God!  ¹⁵For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
 ¹⁶In the case of a will,^[d] it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, ¹⁷because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. ¹⁸This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. ¹⁹When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. ²⁰He said, "This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep."^{[e] 21}In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. ²²In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
 ²³It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. ²⁴For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. ²⁵Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. ²⁶Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. ²⁷Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, ²⁸so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

This passage explains why it was necessary for Christ to become the new sacrifice and why we refer to Him as the Lamb of God. And with Christ's sacrifice comes the new covenant. Catholics know this and we do not re-sacrifice Christ over and over again. Instead we take part of the ever-living sacrifice that is once and for all and not bound by time and space.

Incidentally this is what St. Paul also taught:

Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, "Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). "To answer for the body and blood" of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine "unworthily" be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.

I think it is pretty clear that Matthew 24 has been totally misinterpreted as well as Hebrews. Bible believing Christians really need to quit looking for ways to avoid it and consider that when Christ says, "This is my body," he actually meant it!


Update: Jennie blogged on this too.

John Chapter six.

Looks like after taking some criticism for rerunning the same ole stuff on her blog, Candy tried to spice up this latest post with more of her own "insights." But closer inspection shows that we've done most of this stuff with her before.



We handled Candy's view of the Eucharist and the Bible: John Chapter 6 back on October 5, 2007. This week Candy writes:

My Notes: I referenced John 6:63 here, because it is made clear that when Jesus was speaking about eating his flesh and drinking His blood in John 6, that many people left Him, because they thought He literally meant that they should cannibalize and vampirize Him. Jesus clarified that He wasn't speaking literally, when he said "It is the spirit that quickeneth' the flesh pofiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."




Candy makes the classic Fundamentalist error:

For Fundamentalist writers, the scriptural argument is capped by an appeal to John 6:63: "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." They say this means that eating real flesh is a waste. But does this make sense?

Are we to understand that Christ had just commanded his disciples to eat his flesh, then said their doing so would be pointless? Is that what "the flesh is of no avail" means? "Eat my flesh, but you’ll find it’s a waste of time"—is that what he was saying? Hardly.

The fact is that Christ’s flesh avails much! If it were of no avail, then the Son of God incarnated for no reason, he died for no reason, and he rose from the dead for no reason. Christ’s flesh profits us more than anyone else’s in the world. If it profits us nothing, so that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ are of no avail, then "your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished" (1 Cor. 15:17b–18).

In John 6:63 "flesh profits nothing" refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. Thus in John 8:15–16 Jesus tells his opponents: "You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me." So natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true.

And were the disciples to understand the line "The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life" as nothing but a circumlocution (and a very clumsy one at that) for "symbolic"? No one can come up with such interpretations unless he first holds to the Fundamentalist position and thinks it necessary to find a rationale, no matter how forced, for evading the Catholic interpretation. In John 6:63 "flesh" does not refer to Christ’s own flesh—the context makes this clear—but to mankind’s inclination to think on a natural, human level. "The words I have spoken to you are spirit" does not mean "What I have just said is symbolic." The word "spirit" is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (cf. John 6:37, 44–45, 65).

A final Protestant appeal is also made to St. John 6, 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." We are told that these words mean that the eating of flesh is of no spiritual value, only faith can profit one unto eternal life. That being the case, Christ could not have meant to eat His flesh in order to have life. The Catholic response is that Christ was in reality making an appeal to His listeners to trust Him on faith rather than try and rationalize His words in order to find their true meaning. In the previous verse (v. 62) Christ infers that His listeners would have had no problem accepting His words if they had seen Him as He was before He came down from heaven, that is, as the Son of God equal to the Father, for then His words would obviously be the words of God rather than the words of man - words of "spirit and life."

To conclude it is also necessary to examine the words of St. Paul in chapters 10 and 11 of his first epistle to the Corinthians. In these chapters he sternly chastises the Corinthians for their idolatry and their poor attitude towards reception of the Eucharist. His language is remarkably literal and his warnings blunt:

"I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same supernatural food and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ (10, 1-4)…Therefore, my beloved, shun the worship of idols…The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread (10, 14-17)…You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons (10, 21-22)…"

In verses 1-4 St. Paul is regarding the manna, the water and the rock as types of things to come. This ties in with the words of Christ in St. John outlined earlier, "I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die" (vv. 48-50). The early Christians undoubtedly saw the Eucharist as a fulfillment of the promised manna, but unlike the manna he who eats the bread of the Eucharist will "live forever" (v. 51).

The language of verses 14-17 again is the type that excludes all sense of the figurative or symbolic. St. Paul speaks directly of "participation in the blood and body of Christ." If one is still prepared to argue the matter, St. Paul uses even more striking language in chapter 11:

"…For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me. In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died" (vv. 23-31).

According to most scholars this is the first written account of the institution of the Eucharist, predating even the Gospel accounts.² One ex-Protestant convert to Catholicism comments on vv. 23-31 as follows:

"Being guilty of someone’s ‘body and blood’ was to be guilty of murder. How could one be guilty of murder if the body (bread) was only a symbol? The Real Presence of Christ’s Body is necessary for an offense to be committed against it. How could one be guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ by simply eating a little bread and drinking a little wine?…St. Paul’s words are meaningless without the dogma of the Real Presence." ³

John Chapter six.: "Vs 63*, Jesus said, 'It is the spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing. The words I speak to you, they are spirit, and they are life.'
Did He say He was speaking figuratively or in parables? This is the second verse detractors use to try to 'prove' that Jesus spoke figuratively for the whole chapter. Did Jesus say 'My' flesh? No, He said 'the' flesh. What Jesus had said was, that we cannot accept this mystery if we accept it in too human a way, by having an earthly view of things. Those who can only think of cannibalism, are they not having an earthly view?
See John 3:6, 'That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.' Verse 63 means that we should not have a carnal human understanding of His words, but a spiritual understanding."

John 7

Candy has the latest installment in her series on the Gospel of John. Here are our previous installments:


Let's Study The Bible! (John 1)
John 2
John 3
John 4: Sanctifying Grace and Infant Baptism
John 5
John 6

Although Candy's notes start on verse 5, the note is initially a comment on Mat 1:23-35. We recently discussed this in the comments section here on our blog. "Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son."

From my Navarre Bible:

The word "donec" (until) of itself does not direct our attention to what happened afterwards; it simply points out what has happened up to that moment, that is, the virginal conception of Jesus Christ by a unique intervention of God. We find the same word in John 9:18, where it says that the Pharisees did not believe in the miraculous cure of the man blind from birth "until" (donec) they called his parents. However, neither did they believe afterwards. Consequently, the word "until" does not refer to what happens later.

This is common in Biblical language. To read more into the word "until" is to apply English grammar to a non-English language. See also 2 Samuel 6:23 "As to Michal daughter of Saul, she had no child till the day of her death."

This is by no means a new interpretation.

"And when he had taken her, he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son.' He hath here used the word till,' not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform thee that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, hath he used the word, till'? Because it is usual in Scripture often to do this, and to use this expression without reference to limited times. For so with respect to the ark likewise, it is said, The raven returned not till the earth was dried up.' And yet it did not return even after that time. And when discoursing also of God, the Scripture saith, From age until age Thou art,' not as fixing limits in this case. And again when it is preaching the Gospel beforehand, and saying, In his days shall righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away,' it doth not set a limit to this fair part of creation. So then here likewise, it uses the word "till," to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves thee to make the inference.” John Chrysostom, Gospel of Matthew, V:5 (A.D. 370).

It is worth noting that St. John Chrysostom was cited positively in the preface to the King James Version of the Bible. "S. Chrysostom that lived in S. Jerome’s time, giveth evidence with him: “The doctrine of S. John [saith he] did not in such sort [as the Philosophers’ did] vanish away: but the Syrians, Egyptians, Indians, Persians, Ethiopians, and infinite other nations being barbarous people translated it into their [mother] tongue, and have learned to be [true] Philosophers,” he meaneth Christians. [S. Chrysost. in Johan. cap.I. hom.I.]"

As to verse five in St. John's Gospel, it says "For even his brethren did not believe in him." The Jewish custom was for close relatives to be called "brothers."

Candy says "Christ has half siblings. Here, verse 5 tells us that Jesus' very brethren did not believe Him. Familiarity breeds contempt. Jesus' half brother James didn't believe on Him until after the resurrection."

Mark 6:3
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

Matthew 27:55-56
And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him: Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedees children.

There is more than one Mary in the New Testament. It is entirely likely that Mary, the mother of James and Joses is a relation of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Therefore, they would be his brethren, as close relations.

Skipping ahead to verse 15, Candy writes: Oh, how very like those religious people of Jesus' day, are so many of the large religious organizations of this day! They think that one can't have knowledge of God, unless that person has special training, such as going to seminary, or getting a college degree.

I am not aware of any branch of Christianity which teaches that one can't have knowledge of God without special training. If that were the case, only the clergy would be considered Christians. One can have knowledge of God without special training, but you can also learn a lot from your elders, and the wisdom of others. Candy, herself, often points to the notes in her Dake Bible as an authority. The King James Bible translators spoke highly of the Early Church Fathers.

In verse 16, Candy makes an allusion to her perceived persecutions: Christian, how many times have people attacked you, because they didn't like the Gospel message you spoke? Maybe they called you such names as "hater," "naive," or worse. Remember, the world thinks the Gospel is foolish (1 Cor. 1:12). Yet, we Christians are not declaring that so and so is going to hell, we are simply being messengers of God, as God commanded us to do. We are spreading the Gospel message of salvation. Logically, if the world doesn't like that message, then the world should go after the originator of that message (God), and not shoot the messenger (Christians). However, this fallen world is quite illogical in many ways, isn't it?

Candy says that Christians are not declaring that individuals are bound for hell. Candy once wrote "Angie, it's nice that you believe in Jesus Christ - whatever that means. I believe in Abraham Lincoln, but that's not getting me into heaven. Also, I already told you that I'm not condemning you, GOD has ALREADY done that, and I gave you scripture which proved it.
"
Candy also wrote "You can be the most sincere, devout person in the world, but if you haven't accepted God's free gift the way the BIBLE says to, then you are sincerely going to hell." and
"In fact, it is highly likely, and quite sad to say, but highly likely, that Mother Theresa is in hell right now. Good works will never get one into heaven."

As I've written many times before, we have no problem with Candy sharing the Gospel message. We just disagree that posting lies about the Catholic Church is the same as sharing the Gospel. Must you believe the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon and a cult in order to attain salvation? Because she certainly posts more about the Catholic Church than about the Biblical message of salvation.

Verse 17: This is a warning against taking any religious authority's word without checking it against Scripture.

We don't disagree with that message. Fortunately, Catholicism is completely Scripture compatible.

Verse 38: Spiritual rivers of living water flow from my belly, because I believe on Christ. This is the living water of life which quenches my soul, as per John 4:14. After having partaken of this water, I have no more thirst. Christ fills my spiritual thirst. Verse 39 makes it clear that Christians won't literally have water splashing out of their bellies.

My Navarre note: Furthermore, when Jesus speaks of "rivers of living water" flowing out of his heart, he is probably referring to Ezekiel 36:25 where it is announced that in messianic times the people will be sprinkled with clean water and will be given a new spirit and their heart of stone will be changed for a heart of flesh. In other words, Jesus, once he has been exalted as befits his position as Son of God, will send at Pentecost the Holy Spirit, who will change the hearts of those who believe in him.

This is similar to John chapter 6, where the Bible is clear that Jesus is spiritually the Bread of Life as well as the drink of life, but not literally physical food and drink - "he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." - John 6:35b. "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit." - John 6:63b Just as Jesus doesn't literally turn into some Eucharist cracker upon communion, Christians do not literally have water spewing forth from their bellies. John 6 and John 7:38 are talking about how Jesus fulfills our soul's hunger and thirst.

I think we've covered this pretty extensively. And we don't believe Jesus turns into a cracker. The "cracker" is changed into Jesus.

Candy's specific look at John 6

Let's take a closer look at Candy's notes:


verse 35 To partake of the bread of heaven - one must come unto Jesus. He is that spiritual bread that feeds our souls. He is that living water that satisfies our spirits. If we partake of the bread and drink of Jesus, our souls will never thirst or hunger again. 

These verses are specifically:
35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.
36
But I told you that although you have seen (me), you do not believe.
37
Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me,
38
because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me.
39
And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it (on) the last day.

I suppose Candy would be shocked to learn that there is a very popular contemporary Catholic Hymn that Catholics sing regularly that comes directly from these verses!!!
In fact it is one of my favorites and I find it to be very, very moving.



See verses 51 and 54. This cannot be referring to any Communion, Eucharist, or Mass - else, one would never have to eat or drink food again, after partaking of the "host" and wine. (Talk about saving money on groceries, if this were the case.)

I don't grasp her logic here. Obviously the Early Church Fathers, and the apostles realized that he was not talking about groceries! Catholics today understand that partaking in the Eucharist is mainly a spiritual food.


verse 40 This is the Gospel. This message is repeated over and over and over again, all over the Bible. Jesus wants it to be clear, that the will of God is that we partake of the bread of life, by believing on Jesus.

40
For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him (on) the last day."

Obviously Catholics have no problem with vs. 40. And because we BELIEVE in the Son, we do what He tells us to do in the rest of the chapter, which is to eat his body and drink his blood!

verse 42 This is a logical fallacy, called "Genetic Fallacy." This is when people dismiss what someone says, because of who that person is, where they came from, or because of actions of that person in the past. This doesn't change that what the person is stating at that very moment may be the absolute truth. Of course, in Jesus' case, He is not the son of Joseph. Joseph and Mary were the "adoptive" parents of Jesus while on this earth. Jesus’ Father is God. Notice how Jesus doesn't waste time correcting the wrong assumptions of the people. He stays with His point, and continues on with what's important.

Um...Mary was not an "adoptive" parent. Jesus was conceived and grew in her womb and he was "Born of a virgin" which is scriptural. I challenge Candy or any of her followers to find a single verse that describes Mary as "adoptive."

verse 45 Thus, those who really are seeking out the truth will come to Jesus.

I have no problem with that verse although I think how that happens can be somewhat of a mystery (although call me a cynic -I have a hard time believing it happens every weekend in a Meeze room!)

verse 48 Verse 47, again tells us that everlasting life is through Jesus. Verse 48 again makes the point that He is the bread of life. If we believe on Him (verse 47) then we have partaken of the bread of life - and our souls will be filled.

47
Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
48
I am the bread of life. 47
Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
48
I am the bread of life.

I note that there is a problem here for Candy and she never addresses it. How does one "partake" of the bread? I suspect that her answer includes some sort of vague rhetoric about believing and spirituality. But these verses are very, very graphic that Jesus is discussing actual eating and digesting. And she addresses it not, because she understands it not.

verse 49 God provided physical bread from heaven, when he provided manna to the Israelites in the wilderness. Yet, the Israelites chose not to believe on God, so they had to wander in the wilderness for 40 years, until all of the unbelievers died. Then, the children of the unbelievers got to finally enter the promised land. The manna was a physical food. It kept them alive physically, but not spiritually. They died spiritually, when they chose not to believe God.

Read my prior article for a full explanation of how the Eucharist is prefigured throughout the Old Testament.

verse 50 Yet, if one believes on Jesus, then he is partaking of that spiritual bread of life, and though his body may die, the person them self will not. Their body will sleep in the grave, and the soul and spirit of that person will go to God, until the day of resurrection.


verses 52-53 Many of the people were not listening to what Jesus was saying, so they thought that they had to literally eat and drink Jesus. Their minds were still on the free bread they received earlier. Remember verse 26, our key verse? Reread verse 26, then go down and reread verse 42. These people weren't listening to Jesus. They wanted to eat some free bread. They dismissed what Jesus was saying about everlasting life, so they didn't understand what Jesus meant when He said he is the "bread of life."

The one who is not listening here is Candy. Jesus DID SAY THAT THEY HAD TO LITERALLY EAT HIS FLESH AND DRINK HIS BLOOD!!! That is LITERALLY WHAT HE SAYS:

53
Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54
Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

and because they did not understand that He was speaking of His mystical resurrected body in the Eucharist they left. THEY LEFT BECAUSE THEY HAD THE SAME UNDERSTANDING THAT CANDY DOES! They thought he this was a reference to cannibalism. I submit that if Candy had been with that group of disciples with her current understanding, she would have agreed with them, and she would have left too.




verse 56 We partake of the bread of life, via believing on Jesus (see verses 40 and 47, where Jesus explained this). We partake of the blood of Jesus via accepting His death on the cross.

I called it! A paragraph of vague gobbeldy gook wrapped around scriptural feel-good talk that totally takes the focus of what is actually happening in these verses.

The rest of her take is pretty much summed up in my prior article.  Candy's explanation has to go through many gyrations which are only necessary if you are trying to find a way to avoid the correct Catholic interpretation.  Jesus said "

55

"For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink."

.  What Candy presents is a way of wiggling past what He Actually Said. 

But what is key in this passage, and what is one of the key points that solidifies the Eucharist for me and why I WILL ALWAYS BE CATHOLIC is this:  The word "Spirit"  IS NEVER used as a synonym with "symbol."  Ever.  Jesus is not saying here that this is symbolic!  If He were it would be a complete departure from how that is used anywhere else in scripture! 

And I have yet to read a non-Catholic Apologist, explain that away.  So it is not surprising that Candy is unable to do so as well.

A review of John 6 and the Eucharist for Candy.

In light of Candy's look at John 6 today, Kelly and I thought it was important to bring this article forward from last fall.  

John 6:51-55

A There is good news here. I don't have to have a "take" on it, I just need to read the Bible, and see what it says about said passage. Roman Catholics take these verses and try to use them to prove that their IHS cracker in each mass is Jesus Christ Himself. However, that is NOT at all what said passage says. RCs are stopping at verse 55 or earlier, and are therefore interpreting the scripture incorrectly. Lets follow the biblical principle of scripture interpreting scripture, shall we? Is it okay to drink blood? NO:

Well let's look at the entire passage then.


Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
48
I am the bread of life.
49
Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
50
this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
51
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."
52
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?"
53
Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54
Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
Remember this is where Candy says we Catholics stop and therefore misinterpret the passage.
56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."
59
These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60
20 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?"
61
Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "Does this shock you?
62
What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 21
63
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh 22 is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
64
But there are some of you who do not believe." Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
65
And he said, "For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father."
66
As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

I find this quite stunning. The disciples reject Christ's teaching of the Eucharist at John 6:66. 666!

"
67
Jesus then said to the Twelve, "Do you also want to leave?"
68
Simon Peter answered him, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
69
We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God."
70



Now back to Candy Brauer's comments.

"Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people." -Leviticus 7:27

"That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood." -Acts 15:29a

It is clear that it is a both Old and New Testament command that we are not to drink or eat blood. God is consistent, and He does not contradict Himself.

Since the Bible is the Word of God, it cannot contradict itself, thus, Jesus can't literally mean that we are going to eat his flesh and drink his blood, and he didn't mean that. He explains to the disciples that what he said was not literal. Read further in the same chapter:

If Candy has such a love for the Old Testament, she might learn something THE EUCHARIST’S LONG SHADOW ACROSS THE BIBLE (This Rock: January 1999)"from this article.

In the sacrifice of Isaac and the offering of Melchizedek there is a Eucharistic imprint that deserves serious consideration and prayerful meditation. In fact, the Eucharist is present in the three distinct stages of salvation history: In the Old Testament it is present as a type; with the arrival of the Messiah it is present as the event; and in the age of the Church it is present as a sacrament. The purpose of the figure or type was to prepare for the event, and the purpose of the sacrament is to continue the event by actualizing it in Jesus’ mystical body, the Church.

From the marital-covenantal theme that the Holy Spirit inaugurates in Genesis and develops in the succeeding books of the Bible until its culmination in the marriage feast of the Lamb (Rev. 21), the Eucharist is seen as the sublime consummation of Christ’s marital oneness with his bride. This union is anticipated in the covenants God established with the human race through Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Esra, and Nehemiah, all of which find their fulfillment in the marital covenant that Christ established with his church: "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood" (Lk. 22:20).

In a profound sense, as Raniero Cantalamessa points out in his book The Eucharist, Our Sanctification, the "entire Old Testament was a preparation for the Lord’s Supper" (p. 6). In Matthew’s Gospel Jesus proclaims the parable of the "king who gave a marriage feast for his son and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the marriage feast" (Mt. 22:2–3). In this light, those servants can be seen as the Old Testament prophets.

The first of these was Melchizedek. St. Paul declares that Jesus is "a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek" (Heb. 6:20) who, in offering bread and wine, is clearly a type of Christ (Heb. 7:1 ff; Ps. 110:4; Gen. 14:18). John’s Gospel (6:31) makes the connection between the Eucharist and the manna Yahweh sent to feed the Israelites in the desert (Ex. 16:4 ff), but it is Jesus who shows that the manna is a mere foreshadowing of the "true bread from heaven" (Jn. 6:32–33).

The greatest Old Testament figure of the Eucharist is the Passover (Ex. 12:23). That night when God smote all the first-born of the Egyptians, he spared the first-born of Israel. Why? "The blood shall be a sign for you upon the houses where you are; and when I see the blood I will pass over you, and no plague shall fall upon you to destroy you (Ex. 12:13). But was it the blood of the Passover lamb alone, into which a hyssop was dipped to sprinkle blood on their doorposts, that saved the Israelites? No. This was a type: What God foreshadowed by it was the blood of the Lamb of God—the Eucharist.

Catholics understand that we are not eating Christ's earthly mortal body the same as when he lived on earth 2000 years ago. We instead are partaking of his mystical body that, the resurrected body.

The word "mystery" is commonly used to refer to something that escapes the full comprehension of the human mind. In the Bible, however, the word has a deeper and more specific meaning, for it refers to aspects of God's plan of salvation for humanity, which has already begun but will be completed only with the end of time. The Eucharist is a mystery because it participates in the mystery of Jesus Christ and God's plan to save humanity through Christ. We should not be surprised if there are aspects of the Eucharist that are not easy to understand, for God's plan for the world has repeatedly surpassed human expectations and human understanding. For example, even the disciples did not at first understand that it was necessary for the Messiah to be put to death and then to rise from the dead. Furthermore, any time that we are speaking of God we need to keep in mind that our human concepts never entirely grasp God. We must not try to limit God to our understanding, but allow our understanding to be stretched beyond its normal limitations by God's revelation.

By his real presence in the Eucharist Christ fulfills his promise to be with us "always, until the end of the age" (Mt. 28:20). St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, "It is the law of friendship that friends should live together...Christ has not left us without his bodily presence in this our pilgrimage, but he joins us to himself in this sacrament in the reality of his body and blood". With this gift of Christ's presence in our midst, the church is truly blessed. As Jesus told his disciples, referring to his presence among them, "Amen, I say to you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it" (Mt. 13:17). In the Eucharist the church both receives the gift of Jesus Christ and gives grateful thanks to God for such a blessing. This thanksgiving is the only proper response, for through this gift of himself in the celebration of the Eucharist under the appearances of bread and wine Christ gives us the gift of eternal life.

We refer to this as the true presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, in the host.

Back to Candy Brauer:

"When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? (The disciples made the same mistake Roman Catholics do. They thought Jesus literally meant that he should be cannibalized and vamparized)

Catholics don't make that mistake at all. We understand that we are partaking of Jesus Christ's true presence in the Eucharist in a divine in a holy mystical way. We understand that we are not cannibals or vampires.

But Candy is missing the point. What the disciples did not understand was that Jesus was speaking of his mystical body/true presence in the Eucharist, but he was very clear that it was himself that would be consumed and because the disciples did not understand it, they left.

And Jesus did not change his story.

Here is what This Rock Magazine had to say on this part of the chapter:
This Is a Hard Teaching (This Rock: September 1999): "Eucharist: Forceful Repetitions To many non-Catholics, the Eucharist is a thing to do occasionally as a remembrance of the Last Supper, but it is not the body and blood of Christ. They argue that passages such as John 6 are to be read symbolically.

So when Christ said, 'Eat my flesh,' he did not really mean, 'Eat my flesh' but 'Believe in me.' In defending the Eucharist to a Protestant, we can ask the same question we used in defending Christianity to a non-Christian: What did the people who saw and spoke with Jesus think he was saying? Did they think he was using symbolic language? If they misunderstood him, why didn't he correct them? Christ repeats himself to three different groups to emphasize his point. He does not withdraw it. When Jesus first made his claim, his hearers began to argue with one another. 'How can this man give us his flesh to eat?' They thought he was saying to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood. And so they rejected this teaching and left. Did Christ change his teaching? Did he tell his hearers, 'No, no, you've misunderstood, here is what I really meant'? He did not. Many of the disciples who followed Christ-like many people of today-had this to say about the Eucharist: 'This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?' When they left Christ, did he try to correct their thinking? It is unlikely that he would have allowed them to remain in error. Unlike the Jewish leaders he would later stand before, these were his followers, the ones favorably disposed to him. But even to them he repeated rather than retracted this hard teaching (John 6:60-66).

Next, he challenged the Twelve Apostles on the issue: "Do you also wish to go away?" He did not correct the "misconception" of his audience or the Twelve. Why? Because their understanding was true. They had not heard him wrong. There was no misconception. Just like he didn't correct the members of the Sanhedrain when confronted over his Messiah-ship, he did not correct even the thinking of those who loved him most because there was nothing to correct. There was no misunderstanding; the teaching was true and to be accepted. The disciples responded, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the holy one of God" (John 6:67-69). They were saying in essence, "Yes, this is a hard teaching, but we will take it on faith, for you are the Christ."

When we look at how his audience, disciples, and the Twelve interpreted the teaching of Christ, we soon discover that there was no other option left open to them other than the literal teaching of eating his flesh and drinking his blood. The merely symbolic reading wasn't left open to them, and it isn't left open to us.

And why did they leave?

Christ in the Eucharist: "He continues: 'As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me' (John 6:57). The Greek word used for 'eats' (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of 'chewing' or 'gnawing.' This is not the language of metaphor.

Mrs. Brauer:

What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: (Here Jesus is giving us a distinction between spirit and flesh) the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit Jesus just said here that we are not to literally eat his flesh and blood, but spiritually), and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not." -John 6:61-64a

Candy makes the classic Fundamentalist error:

For Fundamentalist writers, the scriptural argument is capped by an appeal to John 6:63: "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." They say this means that eating real flesh is a waste. But does this make sense?

Are we to understand that Christ had just commanded his disciples to eat his flesh, then said their doing so would be pointless? Is that what "the flesh is of no avail" means? "Eat my flesh, but you’ll find it’s a waste of time"—is that what he was saying? Hardly.

The fact is that Christ’s flesh avails much! If it were of no avail, then the Son of God incarnated for no reason, he died for no reason, and he rose from the dead for no reason. Christ’s flesh profits us more than anyone else’s in the world. If it profits us nothing, so that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ are of no avail, then "your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished" (1 Cor. 15:17b–18).

In John 6:63 "flesh profits nothing" refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. Thus in John 8:15–16 Jesus tells his opponents: "You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me." So natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true.

And were the disciples to understand the line "The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life" as nothing but a circumlocution (and a very clumsy one at that) for "symbolic"? No one can come up with such interpretations unless he first holds to the Fundamentalist position and thinks it necessary to find a rationale, no matter how forced, for evading the Catholic interpretation. In John 6:63 "flesh" does not refer to Christ’s own flesh—the context makes this clear—but to mankind’s inclination to think on a natural, human level. "The words I have spoken to you are spirit" does not mean "What I have just said is symbolic." The word "spirit" is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (cf. John 6:37, 44–45, 65).

Read ALL of chapter 6, and you'll see that there is no way that Jesus is saying that we are to literally eat and drink Him.

Yes, do read all of Chapter 6 and I think it's clear that Candy Brauer's take on the Eucharist is severely flawed. She may live to regret all the disrespectful times she referred to our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament as a "cracker."

I could not believe my good fortune then for Candy calling on the early church as testimony for her stand!!

Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, "Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). "To answer for the body and blood" of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine "unworthily" be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.

Jesus clearly tells us that to "spiritually" eat His flesh and drink His blood is to BELIEVE ON HIM. Hence, saved by grace through faith (see Ephesians 2:8-9), you do not receive Christ by physically eating and drinking something or someone. Believe to Receive. See Romans 10:9-11 and Mark 16:16.

Meanwhile, in regards to communion...

The IHS cracker is not Jesus Himself. The Bible nowhere states this. Communion is done in remembrance of Jesus, and is modeled off of the Last Supper. Did the disciples cannibalize and vampirize Jesus at the Last Supper? Certainly not.

What Did the First Christians Say?

Anti-Catholics also claim the early Church took this chapter symbolically. Is that so? Let’s see what some early Christians thought, keeping in mind that we can learn much about how Scripture should be interpreted by examining the writings of early Christians.

Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to "those who hold heterodox opinions," that "they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (6:2, 7:1).

Forty years later, Justin Martyr, wrote, "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66:1–20).

Origen, in a homily written about A.D. 244, attested to belief in the Real Presence. "I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence" (Homilies on Exodus 13:3).

Cyril of Jerusalem, in a catechetical lecture presented in the mid-300s, said, "Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy
of the body and blood of Christ" (Catechetical Discourses: Mystagogic 4:22:9).

In a fifth-century homily, Theodore of Mopsuestia seemed to be speaking to today’s Evangelicals and Fundamentalists: "When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood,’ for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements], after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit, not according to their nature, but to receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1).



I think it's clear that there is a little bit more to the Catholic Eucharist that Candy Brauer's assessment. Candy's readers would do well to remember that she is no way a bible authority or scholar.

John 5

Previous installments in this series:


Let's Study The Bible! (John 1)
John 2
John 3
John 4: Sanctifying Grace and Infant Baptism
John 6

The fifth chapter of John begins with Jesus traveling to Jerusalem for a Jewish feast. The notes in my Bible say that it was probably the feast of Passover, but possibly Pentecost. In Jerusalem, Jesus heals a paralytic next to the pool with five porticoes.

The John Chrysostom, in his homilies, sees this healing as a symbol of baptism:

A Baptism was about to be given, possessing much power, and the greatest of gifts, a Baptism purging all sins, and making men alive instead of dead. These things then are foreshown as in a picture by the pool, and by many other circumstances. And first is given a water whichpurges the stains of our bodies, and those defilements which are not, but seem to be, as those from touching the dead, those from leprosy, and other similar causes; under the old covenant one may see many things done by water on this account.

Candy has a note explaining the relevance of this healing:
verse 17 The Lord does not rest on the Sabbath. He rested on the seventh day of creation. Nowhere does the Bible say that God rested on any other seventh day after that. Jesus here affirms that God works on the Sabbath day, and therefore He does as well.

Though I don't think Candy has studied St.Thomas Aquinas, but she agrees with his interpretation:

The Jews, however, did not do any work on the Sabbath, as a symbol that there were certain things pertaining to the Sabbath which were to be accomplished, but which the law could not do. This is clear in the four things which God ordained for the Sabbath: for he sanctified the Sabbath day, blessed it, completed his work on it, and then rested. These things the law was not able to do. It could not sanctify; so we read: “Save me, O Lord, for there are no holy people left” (Ps 11:1). Nor could it bless; rather, “Those who rely on the works of the law are under a curse” (Gal 3:10). Neither could it, complete and perfect, because “the law brought nothing to perfection” (Heb 7:19). Nor could it bring perfect rest: “If Joshua had given them rest, God would not be speaking after of another day” (Heb 4:8).

These things, which the law could not do, Christ did. For he sanctified the people by his passion: “Jesus, in order to sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered outside the gate” (Heb 13:12). He blessed them by an inpouring of grace: “Blessed be God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing of heaven, in Christ” (Eph 1:3). He brought the people to perfection by instructing them in the ways of perfect justice: “Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Mt 5:48). He also led them to true rest: “We who have believed will find rest,” as is said in Hebrews (4:3). Therefore, it is proper for him to work on the Sabbath, who is able to make perfect those things that pertain to the Sabbath, from which an impotent law rested.

Verse 24: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Candy writes: THAT is how to get saved. God made it simple, because He desires that all come unto Him. How does one hear "the word?" By the spreading of the Gospel. Each Christian is given the job, by God, to spread the Gospel, so that more will hear, and believe, and get saved. Time is short - spread the truth of the Gospel of Christ while there is still time!

This is a clear difference in our theology. The note in my Navarre Bible explains the Catholic interpretation:

There is also a close connexion between hearing the word of Christ and believing in him who has sent him, that is, in the Father. Whatever Jesus Christ says is divine revelation; therefore, accepting Jesus' words is equivalent to believing in God the Father (Jn 12:44, 49).

A person with faith is on the way to eternal life, because even in this earthly life he is sharing in divine life, which is eternal; but he has not yet attained eternal life in a definitive way (for he can lose it), nor in a full way: "Beloved, we are God's children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him " (1 Jn 3:2). If a person stays firm in the faith and lives up to its demands, God's judgment will not condemn him but save him. Therefore, it makes sense to strive, with the help of grace, to live a life consistent with the faith.

Again, the difference in our theology boils down to salvation resting on the action of our faith, our acceptance, or on God's grace. Catholicism puts the emphasis on God's grace, while not discounting the importance of faith in salvation.

CCC #161: Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. "Since "without faith it is impossible to please [God]" and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life 'But he who endures to the end.'"

#183: "Faith is necessary for salvation. The Lord himself affirms: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned" (Mk 16:16)."


In verses 31-39, Jesus is answering the objections of the Jews by appeals to four witnesses that what he is saying is true. Beginning in verse 39 through the end of the chapter, his fourth witness is the Scriptures.

In verse 39, Candy notes: Jesus is the word of God made flesh (see 1 John 5:7 and John 1:1). The Bible is the word of God in writing, for all to read, so that they will read of Jesus Christ, and be saved.

However, for verses 45-47, she says This is referring to the Old Testament, of which a large part was written by Moses. The Old Testament shows us that we are all guilty of sin, and that we cannot fully atone for our sins, without the shedding of blood. This is why Jesus came to this earth. This is why Jesus died on the cross. He shed His blood, so that we may have life eternal with the Heavenly Father.

I don't know if she intends to make it seem as if verse 39 is referring to the complete Bible, while verses 45-47 refer only to the Old Testament or if that is accidental.

However, it is worthwhile to note that all of this passage would have been referring to the Old Testament. Jesus may be found in the Old Testament, but not explicitly. Dei Verbum, a document of Vatican II, states it this way, "The economy of the Old Testament was deliberately so orientated that it should prepare for and declare in prophecy the coming of Christ."

Jesus clearly could not have been referring to the complete Scriptures in verse 39, because the New Testament did not exist at this time. Nor did New Testaments fall from the heavens after Jesus ascended, so that everyone could "read of Jesus Christ, and be saved." The early Christians had to rely on the oral Word, passed from person to person, in order to hear the message of salvation. You can read my defense of sacred Tradition here.

This does not mean that we differ from Candy in other aspects, such that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God.

I thought to close, I would post a few selections from the Catholic Catechism on Sacred Scriptures.

#103-107

For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates Lord's Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God's Word and Christ's Body.

In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, "but as what it really is, the word of God". "In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them."

II. INSPIRATION AND TRUTH OF SACRED SCRIPTURE

God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."

God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."

The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."

and #131-133

"And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigor, and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting fount of spiritual life." Hence "access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful."

"Therefore, the study of the sacred page should be the very soul of sacred theology. The ministry of the Word, too - pastoral preaching, catechetics and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place - is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture."

The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful. . . to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.

John 4: Sanctifying grace and infant baptism

Most of the fourth chapter of St. John's gospel deals with the Samaritan woman.

In verse 10, Jesus begins speaking to the Samaritan woman about the living water. Candy interprets the water of life to be the Holy Spirit:

The living water is the Holy Spirit, which enters into each person, when they become a true believer, and this gives them eternal life after their resurrection

The notes in my Navarre Bible, which represent the Catholic view, indicate that the living water is sanctifying grace:

"Everyone knows from experience that water is absolutely necessary for human life; similarly, the grace of Christ is absolutely necessary for supernatural life. The water which can truly quench man's thirst does not come from this or any other well: it is Christ's grace, the "living water" which provides eternal life. . ."

The Catholic Catechism defines sanctifying grace in paragraph #2023:
Sanctifying grace is the gratuitous gift of his life that God makes to us; it is infused by the Holy Spirit into the soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it.

This goes to show, once again, that Catholics do not believe we are saved by works, but by God's grace, His sanctifying grace.


For verses 13-14, Candy writes:
Once the living water is received, there is nothing more the person must do. There are no works to add to salvation. There are no rites or initiations, or ceremonies to perform. Once one receives this living water, their salvation is complete. They are saved, not "being saved," as some religions falsely teach.

There are several points to be made in this paragraph. First, is the point that I have made several times before. Candy feels that Catholicism teaches you must "earn" your salvation through "works." But she says that in order to be saved a person must accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior. Acceptance is an action. Catholics believe we are saved through God's sanctifying grace, not through our actions.

Secondly, Candy says that after you are saved, there are no more works which you must do. Yet, Candy lists in this article quite a long list of actions that a person will perform once they have been saved. She often says that you will know you are saved because you will have a radical change of life, and begin studying the Bible. If you have not performed these works, then you are probably not saved.

Finally, she feels that "are being saved" is a false teaching. The King James Version translates 2 Cor 2:15 and 1 Cor 1:18 as "are saved" while other translations, including Young's Literal Translation uses "are being saved."

It seems we must discount those verses from the KJV point of view, but I can still point you to another verse which point to salvation as a process.

Phil 2:12: "Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."

You can find lots more on the Scripture Catholic website.


On verses 25-26, Candy writes:
There is a heretical teaching going around, by even recognized evangelists, purporting that Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah. That is a false wind of doctrine. Right here in these verses, Jesus plainly affirms that he is indeed the Messiah. Messias is the Greek form of Messiah.

Fortunately, that heretical belief is not compatible with Catholicism. The Catechism states (look carefully, and you'll see Scripture citations!):

453 The title "Christ" means "Anointed One" (Messiah). Jesus is the Christ, for "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power" (Acts 10:38). He was the one "who is to come" (Lk 7:19), the object of "the hope of Israel" (Acts 28:20).


For verse 34, Candy writes:
God has a job for all Christians to fulfill, and part of that job is doing the Great Commission. The Bible tells us that the Christian's meat is the Bible - the Word of God. See 1 Corinthians 3:2; Hebrews 5:12-15 How do we know the will of the Lord? By partaking of the meat of His Word (reading the Bible daily), by prayer, and by the leading of the Holy Spirit, which indwells every saved Christian.

This is remarkably similar to the notes in my Bible:

Every genuine conversion is necessarily projected towards others, in a desire to have them share in thh joy of encountering Jesus.

"The Apostles, when they were called, left their nets; this woman leaves her water jar and proclaims teh Gospel, calling not just one person but influencing the whole city" (St. John Chrysostom, Hom. on St. John, 33).

Candy does not comment on verse 53, which concerns the curing of a royal official's son:
So the father knew that it was at the same hour, in the which Jesus said unto him, Thy son liveth: and himself believed, and his whole house.

This is one of the verses which points us to infant baptism. We have already discussed in John 3, that the Catholic Church teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation. This chapter is a nice chance to give some Scriptural support for infant baptism.

Acts 16:15: And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

Acts 18:8: And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.

Acts 16:33: And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

Children are members of a household, therefore they would have been baptized, too. Some contend that this was a later innovation by the Catholic Church, but there are plenty of records showing that infant baptism was the practice of the early church.

"And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family." Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 (c. A.D. 215).

"[T]herefore children are also baptized." Origen, Homily on Luke, XIV (A.D. 233).

"For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too." Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).

"Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous." Origen, Homily on Leviticus, 8:3 (post A.D. 244).

Additional resources on infant baptism:
Scripture Catholic
Catholic Answers
Can infants be "born again"?

Infant baptism is not unique to the Catholic Church.
Why We Baptize Babies (Lutheran site)
Presbyterian 101: Infant Baptism