John 6 & the Eucharist: Help my unbelief

  • Thread starter Thread starter LuciusMaximus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LuciusMaximus

Guest
I’m a Pentecostal who may have the Tiber in my sights, and I’ve recognized that the whole thing probably hinges on the Eucharist and the Real Presence. My denomination teaches that “communion” is symbolic.

Walking through John 6, which I’ve seen presented as a precursor to the Last Supper, it’s hard for me not to interpret it as Jesus stressing that we need to believe in Him as the Son of God and accept his sacrifice, not anything to do with the Eucharist. I am familiar with Scott Hahn’s “The Lamb’s Supper,” and the view of the early church fathers.
  • Jesus tells us in verse 27 not to work for the food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life.
  • People ask how to work for it, and He replies that the work is “to believe in the one [God the Father] sent.”
  • Jesus then says that He is the bread of life, and that He, as the bread that the Father sent down from Heaven (like manna), came to do the Father’s will.
  • Then He says He’ll raise up those who the Father gives him, at the last day.
  • The Jews grumble because He said He came down from heaven, but He reiterates that He’ll raise up at the last day those who the Father sends him.
  • verse 47: The one “who believes” has eternal life. Their ancestors ate manna that came down from Heaven, but Jesus is the living bread that came down from Heaven, and whoever eats it will not die. The bread is “His flesh”.
  • He says that if we eat His flesh and drink His blood, we have eternal life and He will raise us up at the last day. Doesn’t this harken back to the previous verses where he’ll raise up at the last day those who “the Father sends him”? Especially as in verse 40, where He says, “For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him shall have eternal life” and he “will raise him up at the last day”.
Doesn’t it all tie together that Jesus is the new, superior (its consumers will not die) manna that came down from Heaven, He will raise up at the last day those who the Father gives him; the Father gives him those who look to the Son and believe in Him, and the Father’s will is that he won’t lose any of them? His flesh is “true food” and his blood is “true drink” because it’s what we should really aspire to “eat” and “drink”, since it’s food that endures to eternal life, not food that spoils like in verse 27.

I see this as pointing to belief in Jesus as the Son of God 100% of the way through, not having to literally eat him and drink him some other way. If it’s our faith, working through love, that saves us, what does eating and drinking the Eucharist have to do with anything here? Doesn’t his flesh and blood signify what He’ll be giving up during the sacrifice at Calvary? Verse 51: "This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” He does give it at Calvary. Why would all this be about giving it in the Eucharist, since it’s the sacrifice of Calvary that saves us, not eating and drinking the Eucharist? If I’m totally missing the point and it has something to do with the Eucharist and Calvary being one and the same, I am willing to listen on that point as well.
 
I’m going to assume you know the Catholic apologetic arguments for the Real Presence, I’ll try to approach from a different angle.

I seem to remember Jesus saying something along the lines of where I am going you cannot follow, etc. (John 8:21) Which leads us to ask why?

Well, because we have a mission, we are suppose to preach the gospel to those who don’t know about the sacrifice of the cross and who still are capable of choosing going to hell (which to a Catholic is everyone alive on earth). Often times Jesus is referred to as a new “Moses” he gives a new commandment, gives instructions on how we are to live, and similarly, he provides a source of food for us on our journey through the “desert of life”. For the Israelite people this was the Manna, which was a miraculous food that sustained them in the desert in addition to the flesh of birds; which also a foreshadow of what was to come through Jesus.

The new Manna, the Eucharist (Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity) must be a greater miracle than that of Moses because we know Jesus was the greater of the two. Additionally, In order to fulfill the Passover in the old times, you HAD to eat the flesh of the lamb no negotiations. If Jesus is the Lamb of God then how could this be lesser than the old practice.

I think you have to get out of the Protestant mindset of not having to do anything except accepting Jesus into your life. Jesus FULFILLED the old Covenant, he didn’t throw it away. The Sacraments are a way that we actively participate in the plan that God has made for us. They are graces and the Highest Grace you could ever receive would be to have God physically reside in your body. This is the purpose of the Sacraments anyway, to prepare you for what is to come in the new promised land (heaven).

Edit: A little side note, Just because its hard to believe doesn’t make it easy (I guess what I’m trying to say is, you can still have doubts, and say “you know sometimes I find it really hard to believe but I trust you Jesus and I’m going to do what you say”). You have to trust in Jesus and the Apostles who truly believed. Unless you are a mystic or have seen a Eucharistic Miracle its going to look like bread and taste like bread, but If Jesus created the Universe, and he could raise himself and others from the dead, is it so crazy to think that he could do this too? Many walked away from him, and the apostles even had a hard time but remember what they said, “Lord to whom will we go?”
 
Last edited:
Thanks. That brings up another question I had, but had run out of space. When Jesus presented the cup at the Last Supper, he said “this cup” is the new covenant “in my blood”. He didn’t actually say “this is my blood” in the same way he said “This is my body”. Can that indicate that he was speaking metaphorically? I’m summarizing, probably poorly, an argument I heard someone else make recently to that effect. Also, Paul said that we should repeat this “until he comes”. Why wouldn’t he say something about Jesus being literally present right then while we repeat it?
 
Last edited:
LuciusMaximus said:
Why would all this be about giving it in the Eucharist, since it’s the sacrifice of Calvary that saves us, not eating and drinking the Eucharist? If I’m totally missing the point and it has something to do with the Eucharist and Calvary being one and the same, I am willing to listen on that point as well.
Click to expand...
Yes. 1 Corinthians 11:26.
 
You have to understand the Real Presence was a belief held by all Christians until the Reformation. Anyone who believed otherwise was labelled a heretic, formed their own church, which eventually failed. Remember when Jesus said "the gates of Hell will not prevail against it (His Church).

Jesus is referring to his blood and he transforms the wine into the blood. I would say see the church fathers because that is what they believed.

It has extremely large implications and symbolism. We are called to be partakers of the Divine Nature (2 Peter 1:4). At every Mass a small amount of water is added to the wine before the consecration (before it turns into the blood). This water with the wine represents a couple different things:
  1. Christ’s Human Nature (water) and Divine Nature (wine)
  2. The water also is representative of baptism which is so important because Christ was baptized so that man could be part of his new people (hence why everyone has to be baptized)
  3. Christ will eventually take our human nature and glorify it, so that we can fulfill 2 Peter 1:4 and escape death forever.
Guess what Christ’s first miracle was? Yep you guessed it: turning water into wine.

Guess how many jars of water there were? 6 (the Hebrew number for man) and he had them filled to the brim…and then he turned them into wine, representing divinity. His first miracle foreshadowed what he intended from the beginning. He wanted you to partake in his body and blood so that you could be raised when He comes again.
 
I had never heard that angle. Thank you. That’s very interesting.
 
Right, I’m familiar with many of the Catholic arguments for the Real Presence. I just needed someone to walk through John 6 with me and show me that I’m wrong to view that particular passage as pointing to the Real Presence instead of it being completely about believing in Him. It’s at least plausible that you could read it both ways, and of course, before knowing the Catholic interpretation of it, I had only seen the “belief” view. And aside from that, I couldn’t figure out how the Eucharist itself is even tied to eternal life if Jesus himself kept tying being “raised up at the last day” to belief in Him.
 
Last edited:
Yep, “Unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” and he certainly is not talking about the life they were living then, (obviously because hes not talking to a bunch of dead people). He is talking about Eternal life.

The devil is also in the details, because many of the Jews are scandalized when Jesus started speaking in John 6, because not only could the Jews not drink blood but cannibalism was out of the question lol. This is probably why God chose to put it under the form of bread because I could see that being pretty tough to swallow no pun intended.

Whats more is that depending on the interpretation, exodus talks about the “Shewbread” which is a horrible interpretation in English (and probably not without its bias) because in HEBREW it actually means the “bread of the presence” of the “bread of the face [of God]” which obviously is not the Eucharist because that was old testament, but it is yet another foreshadow of what is to come.
 
Last edited:
I guess viewing the words “eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood” would be a totally weird way of reiterating that we need to really believe in Him and His sacrifice, right? (In addition to the Old Testament overtones of doing violence to someone when that language is employed)
 
Yeah, that would seem a little vague wouldn’t it? Plus you have to remember that right before then he did a miracle involving food (multiplication of the loaves and fish) which is not a coincidence.

read john 6 60 - 62

and what I’m getting at there is that hes not talking about devouring him right there before the Crucifixion, the gospel implies that Jesus cannot only multiply mere food, he can multiply the Eucharist (his glorified body) as much as he wants, and he does. But he allows his priesthood to do so. “you will do miracles greater than these.”
 
Last edited:
“Jesus started speaking in John 6, because not only could the Jews not drink blood but cannibalism was out of the question”. I had it argued to me, when speaking to another Protestant, that Jesus could not have meant it literally because it would have meant cannibalism.
 
The Holy Eucharist is indeed a symbol - BUT, stay with me here - it also conveys that which it symbolizes. It is not primarily a symbol, but is the source and summit of our faith. Until 1500s Europe, it was not seriously challenged. Fr. Mitch Pacwa sums up the reformation as primarily an attack on the Eucharist, as that was a furious debate among the reformers. None left the 1500 year old belief alone - all altered it according with their personal beliefs.

That alone should give you pause as to remaining where you are. Please consider phone, emailing or texting Dr. David Anders in his EWTN radio show “Called to Communion.”

In the meantime, you might also read and ponder 1 Corinithnas11. How can you be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord - eating and drinking damnation unto yourself! - by failing to examine your conscience before eating a mere “symbol”? If it were only a symbol, would that not be idolatry of some sort?

Millions of Christians make no such examination of conscience before wine/grape juice and crackers. They are not falling either sick or dead. Why? Theirs is only a symbol.
 
Right and I’m not going to back down from this: The Eucharist IS Jesus Christ’s Glorified Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. You are consuming Him in the Eucharist. This is why people (and they weren’t all just random people, some were disciples who were following him for a long time, and even they walked away because they were scandalized).

But I tell you what, If that is Jesus Body and He is commanding me to eat it, I’m going to eat it no matter what form its under. In God’s mercy he has given it under bread and wine. You have to trust in Him, where else are you going to go? who else can save you?
 
Since you have seen a lot of what the Church holds as to the True Presence, I will approach from another angle also.

There are something in the range of 120 to 150 Eucharistic Miracles, but I will narrow it down to 5.

Lanciano, Italy: from the 8th century; analysis of the flesh in 1971 was identified as cardiac flesh, with no preservatives.

The corporal of Bolsena: a priest saying Mass (and having doubts) saw the Host drip blood onto the corporal. It remains on display in the Cathedral at Orvieto. As the first accounts of the story did not appear for about 100 years, there have been some doubts, but it remains an object of veneration.

The Hosts of Siena, Italy - 18th century - some hosts were stolen, and were subsequently found in an offering box in another church is Siena, entangled in dirt and cobwebs. Because they were dirty, they were allowed to deteriorate; 285 years later they have not deteriorated but appear fresh.

Chirattakonam, India, 4/28/2001. During Adoration, three res stains materialized on the Host. The priest put the Host back in the tabernacle; a few days later he examined it again and the stains had rearranged themselves to look like the face of a man.

Santarem - 13th century: A woman in Portugal, thinking her husband was unfaithful, consulted a sorceress for help. The sorceress told her the price of service was a consecrated Host. She went to Mass, received on the tongue, and removed the host to her veil and exited; while doing so the Host began to bleed. She put the Host in a trunk; during the night a miraculous light emanated from the trunk. She repented the next morning and confessed to a priest, who went and retrieved the Host. The bloodied Host remains on display to this day.

There are numerous other miracles.

So, if Christ is not present in the Eucharist literally - as opposed to symbolically - how do they happen - and more importantly, why?
 
Ok let’s look at what John has to say about the Eucharist:
John 6:50-66
“But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.
I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
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.
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. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.
He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

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?

Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. 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.”

66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.”

This last line is very telling, these disciples left because this was a hard teaching, now had Christ meant his words to be taken as symbolic, he could’ve easily said “hey wait a minute, I’m only talking about my flesh and blood as symbols, what you’ll really be doing is eating bread and drinking wine in a symbolic ceremony”, but he did not do this, he let them leave because they couldn’t accept his words at face value.

Continued…
 
…Continued

Now I have a good non-denominational evangelical friend that once replied (I’m approximating his response to this very same topic, when I noted the above to him, his response was similar to what follows, as I am working off of memory from about a year ago) to the above thus:

I honestly think it’s explaining that you must partake by believing in the sacrifice of the body of Jesus. If we truly believe in our heart that Jesus died for us, and was buried, and on the third day he rose again by the spirit that is how we eat of his flesh and drink of his cup: For it says “it is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”
(Then in his next text, without a word said from me, he stated)
“But maybe you are right, the apostles were right when they said it was a hard saying”.

My response was as follows:

That’s the thing, I can fully accept what your interpretation is saying, it’s not hard to accept, but if you look at what I believe, the Catholic interpretation is hard for a lot of people to accept.
If it wasn’t hard there’d be a lot more Catholics in the world”.

I think this conversation that I had with my non-dom friend provides a pretty good look at exactly what your struggling with.
Now ask yourself, yes it is a hard teaching to accept, but it is the teaching that Christ gives us, you have felt the call, can you accept it?

Thats ultimately up to you to decide, but I will pray for you.
 
Last edited:
Below, in this and my next 3 posts, is the commentary, pretty much verse-by-verse, on John 6:22-72 in the book, A Commentary on the New Testament, published by the Catholic Biblical Association in 1942:
6, 22-72: The Discourse on the Eucharist is progressive, leading from the symbol of the manna to the revelation of the full reality. We can distinguish the setting (22-25) and two main divisions, the bread of life (26-47) and the Eucharist (48-59), followed by certain effects of the discourse (60-72).

22-25: The setting. Next day the people, knowing that Jesus had not gone with the disciples, looked for Him near the scene of the miracle. (The note that other ships docked there is a parenthetic explanation of 24b.) Finding that He also was gone, they went by boat to look for Him at Capharnaum; and meeting Him there, expressed surprise at His having evaded them. Their motive, vitiated by material notions of the gifts of the Messias, is the starting point of His discourse.

26-47: The bread of life. The place is the synagogue at Capharnaum (60). In this part of the discourse our Lord leads His audience from their material aims to a knowledge of the true bread which gives spiritual life, and of the need of faith in His words. He addresses those who had witnessed His miracle, the people of Capharnaum, who had not, and the officials of the synagogue. Which endures: i.e., produces an enduring effect, eternal life. Set his seal by divine confirmation, through miracles. 28. Their question means, what work, in addition to fulfilling the Law, can win us this divine reward? 29. Faith in Christ, the constant lesson of the Gospel, is now required particularly to receive the coming revelation.

30-36: The true bread from heaven. 30. The question is somewhat impatient, either reflecting the official temper, or defending the sufficiency of the Law against implied derogation. 31. Yesterday’s miracle is balanced on their minds by the manna of Moses, which was known as bread from heaven: cf. Ex. 16, 13-15; Ps. 77, 24 f; Wisd. 16, 20. For the demand of a further sign cf. Matt. 16, 1; Mark 8, 11; Luke 11, 16. 32. The manna was from heaven only in the sense that it was given by God. In itself it was perishable, and it nourished bodily life only. It is not the true bread. 33. This true bread not only comes down from heaven , but also gives life, the real life to mankind. 34. Give us . . . this bread recalls the request of the Samaritan woman for the living water. 35. Our Lord’s answer leads them a step nearer His object. He is the heavenly bread; faith is necessary to make it available; and its effect is a life which knows neither hunger nor thirst. Cf. Isa. 49, 10. 36. Reminding them that He has already adverted to their lack of faith, Jesus now emphasizes this radical impediment.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
37-47: The necessity of faith. 37. The call of the Father is vital to faith. Cast out: cf. Matt. 22, 13. 38-40. Our Lord holds an essential place in the divine plan to give mankind eternal life, so that belief in Him is absolutely necessary. 41. The Jews, without replying, whisper to one another an objection which reveals some misunderstanding on their part. 42. They object that they know His parents: cf. Matt. 13, 55; Mark 6, 3. Knowing nothing of His virgin birth, they think His earthly origin incompatible with the claim of descent from heaven. 43-47. Jesus does not reply by explaining His Incarnation, but repeats His relation to the divine plan, insisting that correspondence with the Father’s invitation means adherence to the Son. The quotation in 45 is from Isa. 54, 13 (cf. Jer. 31, 33). In the Prophets: i.e., in the volume containing their writings. Not that any one has seen: cf. 1, 18; 5, 37. Him who is from God, not only by mission but also by nature. The conclusion is that faith in Him ensures eternal life ( 5, 24; 6, 40).

48-59: The Eucharist. 48-51. Christ is the bread of life. This returns to the direct line of the revelation to which Jesus is tending. 48. I am the bread of life definitely identifies with His own person the notion of the true bread which gives spiritual life. 49 f. This bread surpasses the manna in two respects: it gives life, and that life is eternal. 52-59. The climax, the revelation of the Eucharist. 52. The Eucharist explicitly announced: the bread which gives eternal life is the flesh of Christ. 53. The Jews understand Jesus to speak of the eating of His flesh, and the statement puzzled them. 54-59. Our Lord’s reply is a solemn insistence upon this literal meaning of His words. 54. Spiritual life requires this eating of the flesh and drinking of the blood of the Messias. 55. In the Semitic manner, the thought is repeated in a more positive form, excluding any symbolic interpretation. 56. It is repeated a third time, with emphasis on the fact that this food is His flesh and blood. 57. The effect of this food is to communicate life by uniting him who eats of it with Christ; cf. 15, 4-7; 17, 23; 1 John 3, 24; 4, 16. 58. I live because of the Father probably signifies both His eternal generation and the Incarnation; further, it expresses Christ’s devotion to the work of His Father, and His servant’s devotion to the service of Christ. 59. The revelation concludes with a final comparison between the Eucharist and the manna; the comparison is that of death with life.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top