Eucharist, thoughts on John 6, and questions pt.1

[Ana_v]

This is the Catholic Answers defense of the Real Presence in the Eucharist that I read:

catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

I was genuinely impressed, things seemed to “click” all of a sudden, and I do think that interpreting Jesus’ words – about eating his flesh and drinking his blood – literally, allows us to make clear sense as to why some of his followers fell away upon hearing his words. And of course, we have the early church’s affirmation of the Real Presence.

However, after reading John 6 over and over, I am once again having doubts, and I hope that someone will respond.

All Scriptural passages cited below are taken from the NIV, and are in dark-red color.

(For those who don’t want to read all of this, and want me to just get to the point of my concern, scroll down to where I say “ I want to compare verse 54 with verse 40” ).

John 6:35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me** will not hunger**, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.

Christs calls himself the bread of life. But does that refer to physical life?

There are millions of people who believe in Christ, yet these people hunger, and thirst. They need to eat food to survive, and drink water to live. These are biological necessities. We physically die without them. Therefore, I take it Jesus was not speaking of physical hunger, and physical thirst. Christ ever more satisfies a non-physical hunger, and a non-physical thirst, for those who go to him and place their faith in him. Therefore, when he calls himself the bread of life, I take that to mean, the bread of [eternal] life. As opposed to earthly physical life.

36"But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe.

Do not believe what? It seems to me that what the crowd of Jews were yet not believing, is that Christ was sent to earth by God. That He is of God. To justify this interpretation, I appeal to verses 28 -30:

28 Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?”

29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”

30So they said to Him, " What then do You do for a sign, so that we may see, and believe You? What work do You perform?

The Jews were asking what they must do to do the “work of God”, (implying that they were not currently doing the work of God) and furthermore, were asking Jesus for a sign, (that implies a skepticism on their part. They were in a state of unbelief.)

40"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

Him who believes in Christ, will be raised up on the last day.*** In this verse, there is no mention of having to eat his flesh and drink his blood, to be raised up on the last day.***

47"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life.”

Two things:

1. Given that in verse 47, the word “life” is preceded by the qualifier “eternal”, I use that to justify interpreting the word “life” in verse 48, as likewise referring to eternal life. Verse 47 is additional support for interpreting the word “life” in verse 35, as referring to eternal life.
2. v.47 The requisite for having eternal life is believing. But believing in what? Believing in Christ. For one to receive eternal life from Christ, he must first believe that Christ is the source of eternal life.
   v.48 Bread = Christ. Christ is what ***provides ***eternal life

49"Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.

50"This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.

51"I am the living bread that came down out of heaven;”

What strikes me as interesting in this passage, is what I perceive to be an incongruent analogy. The fathers of the Jews are said to have died, despite having eaten the manna. But in what sense did they die? In what sense would the Jews understand the word “died”, when Christ used it? I think they would have understood it in a physical sense. Their fathers physically died, despite eating the manna.

Christ, who has identified himself as bread, says that whoever eats of this bread will not die. But what does he mean by “not die”? Physically die? I would say no (Catholics are physically dying all the time.) So then, when he says “not die”, he means that those who eat of the bread will have eternal life.

So what I’m seeing as an incongruent analogy, is that Jesus is comparing physical death to everlasting [non-physical] life.*** As opposed to comparing physical death to everlasting physical life***.

 

[Ana_v]

Verse 51 continued: “ if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh."

In any case. Christ equates the bread to his flesh. Christ is saying whoever eats of this bread, will live forever. Again, we know that Catholics die physical deaths, hence, by “live forever” he must be referring to ***non-physical ***eternal life.

Well, previously (in verse 47) Christ said “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.” And in that verse, He made ***no mention ***of having to eat the bread, to have eternal life. He only mentioned the issue of belief.

And in verse 51, he makes ***no mention ***of having to be a believer, in order to have eternal life. He only mentions the issue of eating the bread.

So, I face myself with two options:

• “eating the bread” and “believing” are the same thing. The former is the figurative way of saying the latter.
• “eating the bread” and “believing” are not the same thing.

52 Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”

It’s self-evident that the Jews were taking Jesus’ words literally. Cannibalism is probably what they were envisioning, and so naturally, they would be stunned by Jesus’ words.

53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you,** unless **you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have **no life **in yourselves.

He is presenting the eating of His flesh as a** requisite **for having “life”. The Jews He was addressing were obviously alive, so by “life”, again, I take it to mean eternal life.

If “eating the bread” and “believing” are one and the same, then Jesus is simply saying that unless they believe in him, they do not have eternal life. This seems like a reasonable interpretation.

However, if “eating the bread” and “believing” are not the same thing, then there is more than one requisite for having eternal life. One requisite is belief, which was already addressed by Christ earlier.

54"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and*** I will raise him up on the last day***.

I want to compare verse 54, with verse 40 which says: “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

There are three interpretations that come to mind:

• we have ourselves a contradiction (i.e. the two verses present contradictory ways of attaining eternal life)
• we have ourselves the same message, just worded differently (i.e. eating His flesh and drinking His blood means to believe in Him. The former is the figurative way of saying the latter. Or vice versa).
• we have ourselves complimentary messages (i.e. both belief AND eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, are requisites for attaining eternal life)

55"For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.

This is very interesting. I imagine that there is something important about the fact that the word “true” precedes the words “food” and “drink”. It does give it a more literal sensation, it seems, than if Christ had instead said “ For My flesh is food, and My blood is drink”.

56"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

57"As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me.

58"This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever."

Verse 58 repeats what verses 49-51 said.

Jesus definitely puts a lot of emphasis on the importance of eating his flesh. That much is clear. If believing in him, and eating the bread/ his flesh, were one and the same thing, one would still need to wonder why he emphasized the latter expression more.

Now I wanto fast forward to John 7:37-39, where Jesus is speaking at the Feast of Tabernacles:

37 "…If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink.”

Drink what, his blood? He doesn’t specify the drink as “blood” this time, so it makes the word a bit ambiguous. But since in verse 55, he identified his blood as “true drink”, I’ll interpret “drink” in this verse to likewise be referring to his blood.

38"He who** believes in Me**, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.’"

But this verse makes it appear that the “drink” is something that results from believing in Christ, and and that furthermore, the water flows from the believer. Tying this together to verse 35, him who believes in Christ will never thirst, because from such a person will flow water, which the person can drink.

39 But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

The water is the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit satisfies the non-physical thirst of a person.

 

[Ana_v]

So those are my thoughts. On the one hand, I do find the Catholic interpretaiton of John 6 convincing, on the other, given certain parts of John 6 that make it seem as though “eating” and “drinking” Christ just mean going to him and believing, I am still held back from fully embracing the teaching of Real Presence in the Eucharist as truth.

Two other concerns:

• If the Eucharist is the literal body and blood of Christ, then … Judas, who would betray Christ, partook of the Last Supper (Matthew 26: 26-29) Christ said that “whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life”(John 6:54). Does Judas have eternal life?
• In John 6, are the crowd of Jews who are skeptical of Christ (the ones who were asking him for a sign) a separate group from the disciples of Christ who turned away from him (John 6:66) ? Or were these disciples among the ones who were asking him for the sign?

 

[Cathhsmom]

I am going to respond by taking quotes from this site: scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html

John 6:4 - Jesus is in Capernaum on the eve of Passover, and the lambs are gathered to be slaughtered and eaten. Look what He says.

John 6:35,41,48,51 - Jesus says four times “I AM the bread from heaven.” It is He, Himself, the eternal bread from heaven.

John 6:27,31,49 - there is a parallel between the manna in the desert which was physically consumed, and this “new” bread which must be consumed.

John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat?

John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. Protestants, if they are not going to become Catholic, can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically.

John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word “phago” nine times. “Phago” literally means “to eat” or “physically consume.” Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus’ literal usage of “eat.” So Jesus does what?

John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as “trogo,” which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, “trogo” is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where “trogo” is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus’ words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).

John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says “For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed.” This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus’ flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as “sarx.” “Sarx” means flesh (not “soma” which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where “sarx” means flesh. It is always literal.

John 6:55 - further, the phrases “real” food and “real” drink use the word “alethes.” “Alethes” means “really” or “truly,” and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus’ flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.

John 6:60 - as are many anti-Catholics today, Jesus’ disciples are scandalized by these words. They even ask, “Who can ‘listen’ to it (much less understand it)?” To the unillumined mind, it seems grotesque.

John 6:61-63 - Jesus acknowledges their disgust. Jesus’ use of the phrase “the spirit gives life” means the disciples need supernatural faith, not logic, to understand His words.

I hope that helps.

 

[Cathhsmom]

I meant to point out especially this part.

John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word “phago” nine times. “Phago” literally means “to eat” or “physically consume.” Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus’ literal usage of “eat.” So Jesus does what?

John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as “trogo,” which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, “trogo” is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where “trogo” is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus’ words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).

John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says “For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed.” This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus’ flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as “sarx.” “Sarx” means flesh (not “soma” which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where “sarx” means flesh. It is always literal.

I find it important that the words used for eat are so specific which we lose in the English translation since our language is more limited, same as the different words for “love” in other languages.

 

[thomasf]

Something you have to consider here. Before Jesus’ death on the cross, and His payment for our sins to the Father, there was no getting into heaven for humans. There was no eternal life. There was no hope for those who died to dwell in Heaven with the Father. Although the jews in the desert ate the manna, they died, and had no hope for heaven. No matter what they did themselves, what they offered for sacrifice, there was no afterlife for them with the Father.

What Jesus is saying to people is, He is the bread of life. His bread is that of eternal life, a chance for salvation, and a chance for heaven and after that the resurrection. This was not possible before His death and resurrection.

Also keep in mind, Jesus was a jew, and as a jew he taught as the rabbis taught. With hyperbole and metaphors. Not necessarily one for one comparisons. When he says the jews in the desert ate manna and died, but if you eat His bread you will not die, he might mean literally in the first example, and figuratively in the second. Of course we will die a mortal death, but His bread is eternal and the life He offers is eternal.

 

[thomasf]

Jesus often speaks in broad terms about salvation, ignoring the little things He spoke of elsewhere. In John 6 He makes it pretty clear about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. In John 3 He speaks of being born of the water and spirit. There’s lots of little things that He speaks of that is necessary for salvation, that He doesn’t necessarily always speak of. That’s why you have to take in the whole picture of what Jesus says, all of what He spoke of, and not just John 3:16.

That’s why we have the church. The Apostles knew what was necessary for salvation, and they taught baptism as necessary, worshipped with the eucharist as the center of the mass, and were given the power to forgive and retain sins. Because there’s more to salvation, as Jesus taught, and the Church was given the full extent of the truth of the faith. Not just John 3:16.

 

[corsair]

Forgive my ignorance; but I have been searching in my three Bibles for John 6 :56.

All I can find is 1 John, which has 5 chapters; 2 John, 1 chapter and 3 John with 1 chapter.

Someone PLEASE direct me. I’m using the Baronius DR Bible, the DR from Tan Books and my wife’s Ignatius Bible.

I know I’m doing something wrong but for the life of me I can’t figure out what. This is really embarassing.

 

[jschutzm]

Sorry, but I can’t help but to see this as a classic example of the weakness of the “bible alone” doctrine.

When we try and use the bible as the ONLY source of knowledge of God and the faith… we can work our way into a corner. Limited by our own viewpoint and understanding. Ignoring other explanations and other supporting information.

I see the first couple of generations of Christians as PIVOTAL in establishing the correct interpretation of scripture.

IF Christ taught the Apostles and his Disciples that he was being figruative…then we should logically expect to see this interpretation or treatment of scripture in this manner.
We should see a more figurative and non-literal understanding of the Eucharist emerge in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries.

And if we saw this… then we’d be that much more sure that we are also right to take his words symbolically.

HOWEVER… that is not, in fact, what we see. IF Jesus meant it figuratively, the rather immediately, nearly all of Christendom went off in the wrong direction and never understood him correctly.

IF Jesus was not being rather literal, then nearly ALL the Bishops and Churches that the Apostles, themselves, established, were taught errors and incorrectly. From the very beginning, Christianity would seem to be deeply flawed.
We’re talking about the very 1st generations, those who grew up as these events were taking place…who were taught by the Apostles themselves.

IF we go by “bible alone” and our own fallible and imperfect interpretation, we may very well arrive at a conclusion, an interpretation, which is completely contrary to nearly all of Christian history, especially the 1st couple of generations.

So I think this is a perfect case when we need to temper our own interpretation with what is consistent with history and how the very first Christians understood and were taught.

By cross-checking our own understanding with the Christian Forefathers, then we aren’t just going at things alone and have a way to verify if what we are interpreting seems to be correct. - or at least consistent.

You admit to seeing more then one interpretation or way of understanding his words. – GOOD.
So why not then cross-check or “proof” those two potential solutions by looking at what the Apostles apparently taught the very first Christians, our Christian forefathers and then look through history for the interpretation that is the most consistent not just with scripture, but early Christianity and the rest of human history since then.

Then merely take the 1 option which fits best. – Seems simple enough to me.

I’m not asking you to believe in whatever fallible men tell you to. NO, but to choose amongst the possible explanations… the one that seems the best supported.

I personally see Jesus talking on multiple levels.

“Belief in him” being the sum total of ALL his teachings, INCLUDING what he was about to teach them regarding “the bread of life”

I see the bible treat belief, action, and obedience as different sides of the same coin.
So belief implies action, which implies obedience. Obedience therefore is an aspect of belief, as is action. One can not believe and never act on those beliefs. Likewise, one can not obey, without believing. – They are all intertwined.

As so Christ IS the bread, as is believing, because if we TRULY believed in him and what he said, we’d accept that he is the bread of life and we must eat of that bread for him to dwell within us. We accepted this belief, if we believe in him. We’d follow his teaching, even if at times it seems hard.

 

[Cathhsmom]

Forgive my ignorance; but I have been searching in my three Bibles for John 6 :56.

All I can find is 1 John, which has 5 chapters; 2 John, 1 chapter and 3 John with 1 chapter.

Someone PLEASE direct me. I’m using the Baronius DR Bible, the DR from Tan Books and my wife’s Ignatius Bible.

I know I’m doing something wrong but for the life of me I can’t figure out what. This is really embarassing.

Look for The Gospel of John, not the Letters of John. 4th Gospel.

 

[onenow1]

However, after reading John 6 over and over, I am once again having doubts, and I hope that someone will respon

1 Corinthians 11: 27, 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.

Hi, Ana,
In the above passage, St.Paul tells us not to profane the body and blood of Christ.

Here’s Jesus: In Matthew 26:25-29, Judas, who betrayed him, said, “Is it I, Master?” He said to him, “You have said so.” Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said,

“Take, eat; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

Quotes= onenow1 I “think a closer look at Jesus words, this is my body would let us conclude Jesus is not lying” ! "Notice He does not say it is a symbol of my body, nor of His blood "!

Can we compare St. Paul’s words in 1 Cor.11: 27,with the verses in Matthew I think absolutely !

"In John 6,Jesus repeats Himself several times and a lot of His followers leave, Jesus did not call them back and re-explain to them anything, they knew exactly what He was saying,thats why they left. Not to mention Jesus’s knowledge of Judas here:

John6:“64, But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.

70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?”

67 Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”

WoW! Jesus was willing even to let them go.And did you also notice Judas dipped his bread in Jesus blood in Matthew.

God Bless

 

[corsair]

Thanks, Cathh(name removed by moderator),

I have been feeling rather “brain-dead” lately. Not sure why I couldn’t find it.
Again, thanks.

 

[Randy_Carson]

However, after reading John 6 over and over, I am once again having doubts, and I hope that someone will respond.

Ana-

Since you posted at length, I hope you won’t mind if I do the same.

THIS IS MY BODY, THIS IS MY BLOOD
A Catholic Understanding of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
by Randy Carson

In the sixth chapter of John, Jesus makes the following statement: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If a man eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” Jn 6:51 (all scripture quotations from the NIV)

Just exactly what did Jesus mean when he said, “this bread is my flesh”? Many people argue that Jesus was only speaking symbolically when He said that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Is this true?

We can discover the true meaning of Jesus’ words by examining the reactions of the crowd who heard his teaching with their own ears, from the infallible word of God contained in the New Testament, and from the writings and teachings of the early Church.

Reaction of the Eyewitnesses

Speaking before a crowd assembled at a synagogue in Capernaum, Jesus delivered a teaching that has divided the Catholic and Protestant churches since the time of the Reformation. 1500 years earlier, his words had a similarly divisive effect on the audience who heard them for the very first time.

After Jesus declared Himself to be “the living bread that came down from heaven,” the very next verse of scripture tells us: “Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’” Why were they arguing? If they understood Jesus to be speaking metaphorically, then there would have been hardly an eyebrow raised. For example, on other occasions, Jesus said, “I am the gate for the sheep” (Jn 10:7) and “I am the true vine” (Jn 15:1) but on those occasions, the listeners easily discerned that Jesus was speaking metaphorically. In contrast, an argument did break out when Jesus said, “this bread is my flesh,” and this indicates that those in the crowd held different opinions about what he meant. Some said, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat? He’s crazy!” while others may have responded, “Of course he can’t do that…his words must have a symbolic meaning!” The one group rejected Jesus’ ability to give us his body and blood as real food and drink while the other missed his true meaning altogether. Either way, the crowd was divided.

Of course, Jesus knew what they were saying amongst themselves, and if it was merely his intent to draw a symbolic parallel between his flesh and the bread of heaven, he could have put an end to their misunderstanding immediately. Instead, Jesus reiterated and strengthened the literal meaning of his words by declaring,

“I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him 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 him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Our forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever. He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.” (Jn 6:53-58)

Rather than quieting the crowd which had broken out into arguments about what he had just told them, Jesus pressed his point home even more emphatically: “my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.” In fact, whereas he had initially said positively, ”If a man eats of this bread, he will live forever,” now he has just stated the negative result of failing to do so: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” Thus, Jesus has clarified his meaning by stating what happens if we do – and do not – eat his flesh and drink his blood.

The next verse is particularly revealing: “On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” (Jn 6:60) Notice that it was not Jesus’ typical enemies, the Pharisees and Sadducees, who rejected his teaching on this occasion but his disciples – those believers who followed him from place to place and hailed him as the Messiah. They had seen Jesus perform many miracles and heard him teach wondrous things. But this was too much even for them.

“Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said this to them, “Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” Jn 6:61-64

Not only does Jesus continue to uphold the literal meaning of his teaching, but also he presses even further by asking that if this bothers them, what will they do when they see him ascend to heaven? Protestants do not deny the ascension of the resurrected Jesus, yet here Jesus places two key truths side by side. He is saying, in effect, “If eating my flesh causes you theological problems, just wait until you see what else I have planned…you ain’t seen nothing yet!”

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

The gospel continues: “From this time, many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve. Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.” Jn 6:66-69

There is a lot going on in these three verses; let’s look at them closely. After hearing Jesus declare that his flesh is real food and his blood is real drink, his disciples, his followers, could not accept his words and no longer followed him. Of course, if they had understood that his body and blood were being used as symbols, they would have had no complaint. It was precisely because they understood exactly what Jesus meant that they refused to follow him any longer. Therefore, there can be no doubt as to what the eyewitnesses understood Jesus to be saying.

Now, imagine the scene: Jesus has been teaching a crowd, and many of them have gotten up to leave because they could not or would not accept his words. In rejecting his teaching, they rejected the one who gave it and turned their backs on the savior of the world. Thus, their souls were at risk of eternal separation from God. Jesus came to seek and save what was lost; therefore, if these disciples had a simple misunderstanding of the metaphorical language he had used that might cause them to spend eternity in Hell, Jesus would have corrected their error. But we do not see him chasing them down the road saying, “Wait, everyone. I think there’s been a misunderstanding … let me explain what I meant.” **Jesus could not correct a misunderstanding because there had been none. **

Instead, he watched sadly as they departed and then turned to the Twelve, the closest of his disciples, and put the question directly to them: “What about you? Are you leaving too?” In doing so, Jesus was risking everything he had been working for since he had first called Simon and Andrew to follow him by the shore of the Sea of Galilee. If the Twelve had abandoned him at this crucial moment, Jesus would have had to begin again with a new group of Apostles to whom he would entrust his teachings and upon whom he would build his church. By God’s grace, Simon Peter, the first among the Apostles, responded in faith acknowledging that Jesus is the Holy One of God and accepting this difficult teaching.

Was Peter’s response simply the result of being put on the spot unexpectedly – or was he prompted by the Holy Spirit to foreshadow the Church’s teaching of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist that would come after the Last Supper and Jesus’ death, resurrection and ascension? For an answer, we should examine what the New Testament writers had to say after reflecting on the words of Jesus for several decades.

Grasping at Straws: John 6:63

But first, let’s examine another common misunderstanding that arises from the text we just read. In verse 63, Jesus said:

“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken are spirit and they are life.”(John 6:63)

Some people claim that these words prove that Jesus was speaking metaphorically because he said “the words I have spoken are spirit”. They take this to mean that Jesus was not speaking literally when he commanded us to eat his body and drink his blood. However, this would be a misunderstanding of what Jesus meant when he said,“the flesh counts for nothing.”

First, notice that whenever Jesus referred to his own body and blood, he said"my flesh"or"the flesh of the Son of Man". Here are the examples:

“This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” (John 6:51)

"Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him 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 him.” (John 6:53-56)

At this point, the narrative explains that the disciples were on the verge of revolt over this teaching. Jesus tells them that they cannot understand this teaching with their natural minds. Here is the verse in context: “On hearing it, many of his disciples said, ‘This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?’ Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, ‘Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.’” (John 6:60-63)

In John 6:63, Jesus uses the phrase “the flesh” instead of “my flesh” or “the flesh of the Son of Man” because he is not talking about his own body; he is referring to man’s natural, unenlightened rational intellect.

(cont)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Jesus tells the grumbling Jews (who can’t understand how he would give them his flesh to eat) that they cannot grasp it with their natural minds because it is a mystery beyond the ability of “the flesh” to understand. This is the same manner of speaking used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 2 & 3 when he is distinguishing between fleshly or carnal Christians and those who are discern the things of God with their spirits.

Second, it might be worth noting the obvious fact that Jesus cannot be saying that HIS own flesh “counts for nothing”; otherwise, his death upon the cross would be meaningless. Instead, we know that his own body, his flesh, was broken and pierced for our sake; no Christian would deny that. Therefore, since HIS flesh does count for something, he must have been referring to “flesh” other than his own in v. 63.

Thus, the one verse that many non-Catholics cling to as an argument against the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist does not mean what they falsely claim it means. Ironically, their “proof text” points out precisely why they cannot understand the Eucharist: they are using their own flesh or human reasoning instead of their spirits to discern the things of God. Unfortunately, their flesh “counts for nothing”.

The New Testament Writers

In addition to the dramatic episode recorded in John 6, the New Testament records several other passages regarding the body and blood of Jesus. Writing from the mid to late first century (anywhere from 25 to 75 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus), Matthew, Mark, Luke and the Apostle Paul all recorded their versions of the events known as the Last Supper. But before looking at these passages, let’s consider one last point concerning the beloved disciple of Jesus, the Apostle John.

The Problem of John

We have already looked extensively at the Gospel of John’s teaching on the body and blood of Jesus. However, there is one other powerful observation that we can make concerning this book. The author, commonly considered to be John, the beloved disciple of Jesus, was the last of the original Twelve to die and the only one who did not suffer martyrdom. At the time of this writing, John had known the martyrdoms of the first four leaders of the Church: Peter, Linus, Cletus and Clement. John died around the year 100 A.D. while Evaristus, the fifth bishop of Rome, was leading the Church.

Given his longevity and his special relationship to Jesus, it would be understandable if the early believers gave a special place of honor to the Apostle John; no one alive would have had more authority to speak about the life and teaching of Jesus than he. Therefore, if John had felt that the Church had strayed from the true teaching of Jesus (or in its election of Church leaders), his objections would have been heard and heeded. Instead, his gospel account of Jesus’ teaching regarding his body and blood reinforced the plain meaning of our Lord’s words, “this is my body, this is my blood.” The fact that John, after more than half a century of reflection upon all that Jesus said and did, steadfastly held to the teaching of the early Church regarding the literal meaning of Jesus’ words, “this is my body; this is my blood” creates a problem for Protestants that cannot be explained away.

Now, let’s take a look at what Matthew, Mark and Luke wrote in their accounts of the last supper.

Matthew – 70-80 A.D.

“While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” Mt 26:26-28

Mark – 65-70 A.D.

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.” Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it. “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them. Mk 14:22-24

Luke – 60-63 A.D.

And he took the bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.” Lk 22:19-20

Note that not one of these writers records Jesus saying, “This represents my body; this represents my blood.” After several decades of reflection on the true meaning of Jesus’ teaching, they infallibly recorded the words of Jesus just as they were spoken – they wrote, “This is”. It would be another 1500 years before someone would proclaim, “This is not.”

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Apostle Paul

One of the greatest Jewish theologians, Saul of Tarsus, converted to Christianity after encountering Jesus on the road to Damascus. Known to us as the Apostle Paul, he became the most prolific of the New Testament writers and a tireless evangelist. In his first letter to the Church at Corinth, Paul wrote:

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night 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, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant of my blood; do this, whenever you drink of it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in and unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.” 1 Co 11:23-29

Paul was not one of the original Apostles nor was he an eyewitness to the life and ministry of Jesus (as far as we know). But we are certain that he was not present in the upper room when Jesus shared his last supper with the Twelve. As he states in the passage above, he received the words, “this is my body, etc” directly from the Lord himself. Elsewhere he states, “To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me.” Paul acknowledges that he had received “great revelations” from the Lord, and, of course, the Church discerned that his writings are the infallible word of God. As a result, we should be pay close heed when Paul warns “anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.” Would there be need for any admonishment of this type if the bread and wine were mere symbols?

After considering the verses discussed above, it seems clear what the New Testament authors understood Jesus to be saying when he spoke of his flesh and blood as real food and drink. However, some Protestants argue that Jesus frequently spoke in parables and that this was one of those occasions. Does this argument hold up to scrutiny in the light of scripture?

The Bible tells us that Jesus did speak in parables to the crowds that followed him and that he later clarified the true meaning of his words privately for his disciples. For example, in Lk 8:9-10 we read, “His disciples asked him what this parable meant. He said, “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables…” and Mark 4:10 tells us, “When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables” and again in Mark 4:34 we find “when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything.”

Without a doubt, if Jesus had meant for his words on his body and blood to be understood symbolically, he would have explained this to the Twelve when they were alone – especially after what must have been the demoralizing departure of so many who were his followers and their friends. Further, had Jesus given the Twelve private instruction on the symbolic meaning of his flesh and blood later that evening or the next day, then surely the authors of the gospels would have revealed this fact just as they provided explanations of other parables. But this did not happen. Jesus did not clarify this teaching privately for his closest disciples because he had not been using a parable when he spoke.

Finally, since the New Testament itself was not officially recognized as scripture until the late in the fourth century, we should examine the writings of the Early Church Fathers to learn what the Church actually believed and taught its converts regarding the body and blood of Jesus in those first centuries.

The Early Church Fathers

Below are excerpts from the writings of the early Church Fathers regarding the real presence of the body and blood of Jesus in the Eucharist. Please note that the dates of these writings indicate that from the very earliest days following the close of the New Testament, the Catholic Church has had but one teaching regarding the Lord’s body and blood.

Ignatius of Antioch

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (*Letter to the Romans *7:3 [A.D. 110]).

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . 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 that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (*Letter to the Smyrnaeans *6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Justin Martyr

“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor 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 nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (*First Apology *66 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus

“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (*Against Heresies *4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).

Clement of Alexandria

“’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children” (*The Instructor of Children *1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).

Tertullian

“[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (*The Resurrection of the Dead *8 [A.D. 210]).

Hippolytus

“‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper *” (Fragment from *Commentary on Proverbs **[A.D. 217]).

Origen

“Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]” (*Homilies on Numbers *7:2 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

“He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” (*The Lapsed *15–16 [A.D. 251]).

 

[Ana_v]

Thank you for the replies – in all sincerity, they were very helpful.

Cathh(name removed by moderator),

I meant to point out especially this part.

John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word “phago” nine times. “Phago” literally means “to eat” or “physically consume.” Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus’ literal usage of “eat.” So Jesus does what?

John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as “trogo,” which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, “trogo” is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where “trogo” is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus’ words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).

John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says “For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed.” This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus’ flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as “sarx.” “Sarx” means flesh (not “soma” which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where “sarx” means flesh. It is always literal.

Absolutely fascinating. ( While the Catholic article I linked in my OP, described the meaning of the word “trogo”, it was a brief mention, whereas the above contextualizes the significance of that word (by citing that literal usage of the word in other passages and absence of symbolic use of the word, by comparing it to “phago”, and by mentioning the use of the word “sarx”). The above that you brought to my attention really does make Jesus’ point crystal clear, and drives it home, and indeed shows how in English, passages are vulnerable to ambiguity, and thus the importance of referencing the Greek.

Randy,

The Problem of John

We have already looked extensively at the Gospel of John’s teaching on the body and blood of Jesus. However, there is one other powerful observation that we can make concerning this book. The author, commonly considered to be John, the beloved disciple of Jesus, was the last of the original Twelve to die and the only one who did not suffer martyrdom. At the time of this writing, John had known the martyrdoms of the first four leaders of the Church: Peter, Linus, Cletus and Clement. John died around the year 100 A.D. while Evaristus, the fifth bishop of Rome, was leading the Church.

Given his longevity and his special relationship to Jesus, it would be understandable if the early believers gave a special place of honor to the Apostle John; no one alive would have had more authority to speak about the life and teaching of Jesus than he. Therefore, if John had felt that the Church had strayed from the true teaching of Jesus (or in its election of Church leaders), his objections would have been heard and heeded. Instead, his gospel account of Jesus’ teaching regarding his body and blood reinforced the plain meaning of our Lord’s words, “this is my body, this is my blood.” The fact that John, after more than half a century of reflection upon all that Jesus said and did, steadfastly held to the teaching of the early Church regarding the literal meaning of Jesus’ words, “this is my body; this is my blood” creates a problem for Protestants that cannot be explained away.

This consideration of John the Apostle in relation to the Eucharist had never dawned on me, it’s a very interesting and reassuring point.

Randy, thanks for the extent of your reply to me, I’m sorry if my brief response here does an injustice to the amount you wrote, but there is simply not much more I can say after what I’ve read in this thread, I can’t conceive of a viable objection to the literal interpretation of Jesus’ words in John 6. You explained things very thoroughly and in an enlightening way, I appreciate that.

 

[haparker321]

Truly Ana,

I must admit that your observations are simply amazing! :clapping:

I have oftentimes read John 6 and came to the same conclusions as you have concerning the “proofs” for the real presence. As you can see, this is the reason why Protestants have rejected the Roman Catholic notion that Jesus was being liter because of the rest of the passages.

For that I must compliment you in your observations. :tiphat:

Parker

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy,

This consideration of John the Apostle in relation to the Eucharist had never dawned on me, it’s a very interesting and reassuring point.

Randy, thanks for the extent of your reply to me, I’m sorry if my brief response here does an injustice to the amount you wrote, but there is simply not much more I can say after what I’ve read in this thread, I can’t conceive of a viable objection to the literal interpretation of Jesus’ words in John 6. You explained things very thoroughly and in an enlightening way, I appreciate that.

:tiphat: