Why Don't They do This for Everybody?

[Trinity]

Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
John 6:53-56 (NIV).

[Jem]

Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
John 6:53 (NIV).

When his audience heard him say the words above, they left in disgust. Eating human flesh and drinking blood were unthinkable for a Jew who was under the Mosaic Law and its rigid dietary restrictions. Jesus did not run after the ones who left, but waited to see if his apostles would react the same way.

"Because of this, many of his disciples went off to the things behind and would no longer walk with him. 67 So Jesus said to the Twelve: “You do not want to go also, do you?” 68 Simon Peter answered him: “Lord, whom shall we go away to? You have sayings of everlasting life. 69 We have believed and have come to know that you are the Holy One of God."

They knew that their Lord was not going to ever tell them to break God's law, so they waited for an explanation, knowing that there was nowhere else to go.

On Passover night, "Jesus took a loaf and, after saying a blessing, he broke it and, giving it to the disciples, he said: “Take, eat. This means my body.” 27 Also, he took a cup and, having given thanks, he gave it to them, saying: “Drink out of it, all of you; 28 for this means my ‘blood of the covenant,’ which is to be poured out in behalf of many for forgiveness of sins." (Matt 26:26-28)

The bread and the wine were symbols of the sacrifice of his body and the shedding of his blood, which were vital for salvation.

[Trinity]

Jem,

Why didn't Jesus give an explanation to the people who left in disgust?

[jbejon]

I believe that God had specific laws on blood, apart from its consumption as food because blood is synonymous with life itself.  The taking of a life was regarded as shedding blood.  The sprinkling of blood sanctified the alter and the blood of sacrificed animals provided the temporary forgiveness of sin for God's people before the blood of Christ was offered once for all time.

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have given it on the altar for you to make atonement for yourselves, because it is the blood that makes atonement by means of the life in it. 12 That is why I have said to the Israelites: “None of you should eat blood, and no foreigner who is residing in your midst should eat blood." Lev 17:11, 12)

Out of interest, Jem, (not that this makes any difference to the relevant doctrinal points at stake), but what do you mean by “temporary forgiveness” here?  Do you mean, ‘Temporary in that they don’t provide ongoing forgiveness or only ‘last’ until an Israelite next sins’?  Or in terms of, ‘Until Christ came’?  (Or both?)  I’ve recently been reading through the Book of Leviticus, and it seems to me that the purpose of the sacrifices outlined there (and the ‘atonement’ they accomplish) is primarily ceremonial as opposed to moral.

According to God’s law, in order for a person who had sinned against God or against his fellowman to have his sins forgiven, he first had to rectify the wrong as the Law prescribed and then, in most cases, present a blood offering to Jehovah. (Lev 5:5–6:7) Hence, the principle stated by Paul: “Yes, nearly all things are cleansed with blood according to the Law, and unless blood is poured out no forgiveness takes place.” (Heb 9:22)

The blood of animal sacrifices could not take away sins and give the individual a perfectly clean conscience. (Heb 10:1-4; 9:9, 13, 14) By contrast, the foretold new covenant made possible true forgiveness, based on Jesus Christ’s ransom sacrifice. (Jer 31:33, 34; Matt 26:28; 1Cor 11:25; Eph 1:7) Even while on earth, Jesus, by healing a paralytic, demonstrated that he had authority to forgive sins. (Matt 9:2-7)

What exactly, then, do you think the blood of animal sacrifices did achieve, Jem?  If it couldn't take away sins, then what exactly did it accomplish?  And what, if only the new covenant made 'true forgiveness' possible, were the Israelites meant to do to obtain full forgiveness?  And what does 'partial forgiveness' even mean?  Either you're forgiven or you're not, right?

[Jem]

Jem,

Why didn't Jesus give an explanation to the people who left in disgust?

If you read the verses in context, you will appreciate the setting in which he said those "shocking" things. (Read John 6)

They took what he said at face value because they were already murmuring among themselves. If Jesus was their Messiah, sent to them by the Father, then they should have had the same attitude that his apostles displayed and realized that his words, even though they sounded equally shocking to them, were not intended to be taken literally. He spoke to them in illustrations all the time, so if they were so easily stumbled by his words, they were not exercising faith in him to begin with.

Sometimes God allows tests of faith to see what is really in our hearts. Some among the ones who left on that occasion may have thought more about it and come back for an explanation, or they may have used it as an excuse not to accept him as Messiah at all. Either way, Jesus never ran after anyone. The genuine ones would always come back because their hearts would impel them to. As Jesus said in John 6:44, the Father "draws" people to his son. That being the case, nothing will impede the actions of God's spirit...not slander, not ridicule, not even outright persecution will stop God's spirit from leading a person onto the road to everlasting life...which is "cramped an narrow" for a reason. It isn't God who makes the way tough, it is his adversary trying to appeal to self interest that makes a person want to stay on the easy road to death. (Matt 7:13, 14)

If people want excuses to stay on the wrong road, they will find them.....and God will not prevent it. He will grant them the desires of their own heart. (2 Thess 2:11, 12)

[Jem]

What exactly, then, do you think the blood of animal sacrifices did achieve, Jem?  If it couldn't take away sins, then what exactly did it accomplish?

The blood sacrifices made forgiveness possible for the Jews but only on a temporary basis. It foreshadowed the greater sacrifice of the "lamb of God". This principle is stated by Paul: “Yes, nearly all things are cleansed with blood according to the Law, and unless blood is poured out no forgiveness takes place.” (Heb 9:22) 

And what, if only the new covenant made 'true forgiveness' possible, were the Israelites meant to do to obtain full forgiveness? 

They needed to wait for their Messiah. Understanding that God does not operate in earth time requires us to be patient....very, very patient. From Adam's creation to the coming of the Messiah was over 4,000 earth years, yet his coming was prophesied in Eden, right after Adam's sin. (Gen 3:15) And here we are, almost another 2,000 years has elapsed and we are still waiting for Jesus to begin ruling the earth as King of God's kingdom and to eradicate all wickedness. Universal time makes things appear to be taking forever to us bound by earth years.

And what does 'partial forgiveness' even mean?  Either you're forgiven or you're not, right?

Yes, they were forgiven from week to week, or even from day to day as long as they approached God repentantly with a sacrifice. The blood of the animal obtained a temporary forgiveness (atonement) for them back then whilst they waited for the permanent solution to their sinfulness....permanent forgiveness on the basis of the shed blood of Christ. Atonement  is literally "at-one-ment".

Paul explains the temporary nature of the sacrifices offered under the law and contrasts them with the one perpetual sacrifice of Christ....

"So when he comes into the world, he says: “‘Sacrifice and offering you did not want, but you prepared a body for me. 6 You did not approve of whole burnt offerings and sin offerings.’ 7 Then I said: ‘Look! I have come (in the scroll it is written about me) to do your will, O God.’” 8 After first saying: “You did not want nor did you approve of sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sin offerings”—sacrifices that are offered according to the Law— 9 then he says: “Look! I have come to do your will.” He does away with what is first in order to establish what is second. 10 By this “will” we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all time.
11 Also, every priest takes his station day after day to offer holy service and to make the same sacrifices often, which can never take sins away completely. 12 But this man offered one sacrifice for sins for all time and sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from then on waiting until his enemies should be placed as a stool for his feet. 14 For it is by one sacrificial offering that he has made those who are being sanctified perfect for all time." (Heb 10:5-14)

[jbejon]

I was thinking in more individualistic terms, Jem.  Suppose I’m a Jew in the days of the OT.  I commit a moral transgression of some kind.  What do I do?  Offer a sacrifice?  If so, when?  Do I immediately head off to Jerusalem?  What happens if I die on the way there?  Do I die unforgiven?  Or what happens if I have an impure thought on the way back from Jerusalem?  Should I turn round again and offer another sacrifice?, etc., etc.

My own suspicion is that the sacrificial system instituted in Leviticus focuses on the purity of the worship system rather than the individuals, and concerns primarily unintentional or ceremonial sins rather than the kind of sins we now class as ‘moral transgressions’.

[Jem]

I was thinking in more individualistic terms, Jem.  Suppose I’m a Jew in the days of the OT.  I commit a moral transgression of some kind.  What do I do?  Offer a sacrifice?  If so, when?  Do I immediately head off to Jerusalem?  What happens if I die on the way there?  Do I die unforgiven?  Or what happens if I have an impure thought on the way back from Jerusalem?  Should I turn round again and offer another sacrifice?, etc., etc.

That kind of pedantic thinking was what motivated the Pharisees to incorporate oral laws to cover every aspect of a written law. It left nothing to personal conscience, but kept strict adherence to their rigid interpretation. The spirit behind the law was more important than the letter, which leads to mindful worship rather than mindless performance.

My own suspicion is that the sacrificial system instituted in Leviticus focuses on the purity of the worship rather than the individuals, and concerned primarily unintentional or ceremonial sins than the kind of sins we now class as ‘moral transgressions’.

I believe that it helps to understand why the law was given to Israel in the first place.

I think that this is a good explanation.....

"Transgression, an “overstepping.” Sin may take the form of a “transgression.” The Greek pa·raʹba·sis (transgression) refers basically to an “overstepping,” that is, going beyond certain limits or boundaries, especially as in breaking a law.

Matthew uses the verb form (pa·ra·baiʹno) in recounting the question of the Pharisees and scribes as to why Jesus’ disciples ‘overstepped the tradition of men of former times,’ and Jesus’ counterquestion as to why these opposers ‘overstepped the commandment of God because of their tradition,’ by which they made God’s word invalid. (Mt 15:1-6) It also can mean a “stepping aside,” as in Judas’ ‘deviating’ from his ministry and apostleship. (Ac 1:25) In some Greek texts the same verb is used when referring to one who “goes beyond, and does not abide in the doctrine of the Anointed one.”—2Jo 9, ED.

In the Hebrew Scriptures there are similar references to sinning by persons who “overstepped,” ‘sidestepped,’ “bypassed,” or ‘passed beyond’ (Heb., ʽa·varʹ) God’s covenant or specific orders.—Nu 14:41; De 17:2, 3; Jos 7:11, 15; 1Sa 15:24; Isa 24:5; Jer 34:18.

The apostle Paul shows the special connection of pa·raʹba·sis with violation of established law in saying that “where there is no law, neither is there any transgression.” (Ro 4:15) Hence, in the absence of law the sinner would not be called a “transgressor.” Consistently, Paul and the other Christian writers use pa·raʹba·sis (and pa·ra·baʹtes, “transgressor”) in the context of law. (Compare Ro 2:23-27; Ga 2:16, 18; 3:19; Jas 2:9, 11.)

Adam, having received a direct command from God, was therefore guilty of “transgression” of stated law. His wife, though deceived, was also guilty of transgression of that law. (1Ti 2:14) The Law covenant spoken to Moses by angels was added to the Abrahamic covenant “to make transgressions manifest,” that ‘all things together might be delivered up to the custody of sin,’ legally convicting all of Adam’s descendants, Israel included, of sin, and demonstrating that all clearly needed forgiveness and salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (Ga 3:19-22) Thus, if Paul had put himself back under the Mosaic Law, he would have made himself a “transgressor” again of that Law, subject to its condemnation, and would thereby have shoved aside the undeserved kindness of God that provided release from that condemnation.—Ga 2:18-21; compare 3:1-4, 10.

The Hebrew peʹshaʽ carries the idea of transgression (Ps 51:3; Isa 43:25-27; Jer 33: as well as that of “revolt,” which is a turning away from, or rejection of, the law or authority of another. (1Sa 24:11; Job 13:23, 24; 34:37; Isa 59:12, 13) Willful transgression, then, amounts to rebellion against God’s paternal rule and authority. It sets the will of the creature against that of the Creator, and so he indulges in revolt against God’s sovereignty, His supreme rulership." (Exerpt Insight Volumes) (Bold mine)

http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200004132

[Trinity]

Jem,

Why didn't Jesus give an explanation to the people who left in disgust?

If you read the verses in context, you will appreciate the setting in which he said those "shocking" things. (Read John 6)

They took what he said at face value because they were already murmuring among themselves. If Jesus was their Messiah, sent to them by the Father, then they should have had the same attitude that his apostles displayed and realized that his words, even though they sounded equally shocking to them, were not intended to be taken literally. He spoke to them in illustrations all the time, so if they were so easily stumbled by his words, they were not exercising faith in him to begin with.

Sometimes God allows tests of faith to see what is really in our hearts. Some among the ones who left on that occasion may have thought more about it and come back for an explanation, or they may have used it as an excuse not to accept him as Messiah at all. Either way, Jesus never ran after anyone. The genuine ones would always come back because their hearts would impel them to. As Jesus said in John 6:44, the Father "draws" people to his son. That being the case, nothing will impede the actions of God's spirit...not slander, not ridicule, not even outright persecution will stop God's spirit from leading a person onto the road to everlasting life...which is "cramped an narrow" for a reason. It isn't God who makes the way tough, it is his adversary trying to appeal to self interest that makes a person want to stay on the easy road to death. (Matt 7:13, 14)

If people want excuses to stay on the wrong road, they will find them.....and God will not prevent it. He will grant them the desires of their own heart. (2 Thess 2:11, 12)

If Jesus spoke in illustrations rather than literally, then why do we read this in John 6:66 (NIV):

⁶⁶ From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

Keep in mind that in John 6:66 Jesus has already explained John 6:53-56 to the disciples, so why do many of them turn back and no longer follow Him if what Jesus said is not literal?

[Jem]

Jem,

Why didn't Jesus give an explanation to the people who left in disgust?

If you read the verses in context, you will appreciate the setting in which he said those "shocking" things. (Read John 6)

They took what he said at face value because they were already murmuring among themselves. If Jesus was their Messiah, sent to them by the Father, then they should have had the same attitude that his apostles displayed and realized that his words, even though they sounded equally shocking to them, were not intended to be taken literally. He spoke to them in illustrations all the time, so if they were so easily stumbled by his words, they were not exercising faith in him to begin with.

Sometimes God allows tests of faith to see what is really in our hearts. Some among the ones who left on that occasion may have thought more about it and come back for an explanation, or they may have used it as an excuse not to accept him as Messiah at all. Either way, Jesus never ran after anyone. The genuine ones would always come back because their hearts would impel them to. As Jesus said in John 6:44, the Father "draws" people to his son. That being the case, nothing will impede the actions of God's spirit...not slander, not ridicule, not even outright persecution will stop God's spirit from leading a person onto the road to everlasting life...which is "cramped an narrow" for a reason. It isn't God who makes the way tough, it is his adversary trying to appeal to self interest that makes a person want to stay on the easy road to death. (Matt 7:13, 14)

If people want excuses to stay on the wrong road, they will find them.....and God will not prevent it. He will grant them the desires of their own heart. (2 Thess 2:11, 12)

If Jesus spoke in illustrations rather than literally, then why do we read this in John 6:66 (NIV):

⁶⁶ From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

Keep in mind that in John 6:66 Jesus has already explained John 6:53-56 to the disciples, so why do many of them turn back and no longer follow Him if what Jesus said is not literal?

If you read the context of John ch 6, it appears as if they were looking for an excuse not to believe him and this was just the icing on the cake. They wanted an excuse and he gave them one.

As a reader of hearts, Jesus knew the motivation of his audience. After he fed the multitudes, they found him again....Jesus said to them “Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. 27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you.” (John 6:26, 27)

It's not what we do as much as why we do it that interests Jesus and his Father. If we are not genuine in our approach, or have a "what's in it for me?" kind of attitude, we will not make loyal disciples of Christ, because we are told that we need to walk the same path that he walked, which may even include giving our lives for our faith. There is no room for self interest. If we have bad motives, they will be obvious to God, but not necessarily to ourselves.....

"The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, 10 and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness." (2 Thess 2:9-12 NIV)  That "wickedness" is not seen as "wickedness" to them because they do not love the truth.

Inconvenient truths are soon brushed aside by those who love human traditions. (Matt 7:21-23) They want to worship....but THEIR way.

[Trinity]

John 6 does not mention that they were looking for an excuse . In fact, the disciples explicitly stated why they did not accept the teaching:

On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
John 6:60.

The reason why they rejected Jesus' teaching is not because they looked for an excuse, but rather because the teaching is hard to accept. Jesus did not gave them an excuse, Jesus gave them an offer. They rejected the offer.

[Jem]

John 6 does not mention that they were looking for an excuse . In fact, the disciples explicitly stated why they did not accept the teaching:

On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
John 6:60.

The reason why they rejected Jesus' teaching is not because they looked for an excuse, but rather because the teaching is hard to accept. Jesus did not gave them an excuse, Jesus gave them an offer. They rejected the offer.

You need to read the whole chapter.

John 6:63-65:
Jesus said...."The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who 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.” (see v 44)

Unless God "draws" a person, they will not truly come to Christ...it's really that simple. Jesus did not have to chase after anyone because God knows the difference between those who belong to him and those who just imagine that they do.  (Matt 7:21-23)

[Keith_]

Romans 14:1-23 ESV

As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. ...

[Jem]

Romans 14:1-23 ESV

As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. ...

Exactly. Being "fully convinced" means that you have availed yourself of all the relevant information on any subject. Informed choice is the only one worth making.

[Trinity]

You need to read the whole chapter.

John 6:63-65:
Jesus said...."The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who 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.” (see v 44)

Unless God "draws" a person, they will not truly come to Christ...it's really that simple. Jesus did not have to chase after anyone because God knows the difference between those who belong to him and those who just imagine that they do.  (Matt 7:21-23)

There are two possibilities with regard to John 6:

1) Jesus taught in illustration. People left in disgust, because they took Jesus' teaching literally.
2) Jesus taught literally. People left in disgust, because they took Jesus' teaching literally.

If (1) is true, then why did Jesus let those people go under a false impression of His teaching?