John Chapter 6 and the Real Presence

[CompSciGuy]

Hi,

so I’m a convert to the Catholic faith as of this past April and my dad is a Calvinist and likes to argue about the real presence all the time. I use a lot of scriptures to defend the real presence, such as St. Pauls writings on the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians, the fact that the only other place in the gospels Jesus talks about eating his body and drinking his blood is at the last supper, and I also bring up the fact that in the writings of the early Church there seems to be an unanimous belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. One passage I don’t often bring up is John chapter 6. This passage is quoted constantly as the number one defense of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Catholics will argue that the belief in the real presence is the only reasonable way of interpreting it. Here’s the thing though, so Protestants think that belief in Jesus is the simple way to eternal salvation. Jesus constantly refers to himself as “the bread of life,” which could be taken figuratively, since he is the spiritual lifesource of the human race, in the same way that bread is the source of life for our flesh, and believing in Jesus for salvation is in essence “eating” this “bread of life.” Thus when Jesus says “eat my flesh” it would make perfect sense if taken figuratively in this passage. What are your thoughts on this evaluation? People will often point to the fact that Jesus didn’t correct them when they were so shocked by his teaching that they walked away from him. But wouldn’t a correction be in order anyway? He could have said “wait, what I meant was I will make myself substantially present under the appearance of bread and wine and you will eat these and not be breaking the laws of Moses.” On Catholic Answers Live Jimmy Akin responded to a caller who was arguing against the real presence and told him that the understanding of eating Jesus’ literal flesh is very different from the sacramental aspect of eating Jesus’ literal flesh, which would be against God’s law according to Moses. If that is the case wouldn’t Jesus have still needed to explain himself, since the Jews were obviously taking the latter view?

 

[Newbie2]

There is very deep meaning in John 6; BOOKS have been written on it.

Scripturally, there are passages which are meant to be taken literally, some figuratively, some, sort of an admixture of both.

Eucharistic theology is an area where we need to have some faith that what Christ gave the Catholic Church to teach us is the real deal.

 

[Spirithound]

Jesus constantly refers to himself as “the bread of life,” which could be taken figuratively, since he is the spiritual lifesource of the human race, in the same way that bread is the source of life for our flesh, and believing in Jesus for salvation is in essence “eating” this “bread of life.” Thus when Jesus says “eat my flesh” it would make perfect sense if taken figuratively in this passage. What are your thoughts on this evaluation?

When a teacher constructs a metaphor to get his point across, he needs to make sure that the relationship between the signified and the signifier is close enough to make a plausible leap from the figurative to the literal. Trying to relate the concept of eating to the concept of believing just seems like more trouble than it’s worth.

 

[jtodisco]

This approximately 11 minute video by Father Robert Barron does a pretty good job of briefly explaining the belief in the Real Presence and John 6. I highly recommend it and any of Father Barron’s videos, web radio broadcasts, and articles/books.

wordonfire.org/trackback/5ddaecd2-ca8e-4748-9edd-ff48f646016f/Fr–Barron-comments-on-the-Real-Presence-of-Christ-in-the-Eucharist.aspx

 

[Vico]

CompSciGuy, you wrote:

Thus when Jesus says “eat my flesh” it would make perfect sense if taken figuratively in this passage.

A

Consider John 6

53 The Jews, therefore, disputed among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
56 *For my flesh, is meat indeed: and my blood, is drink indeed:

Haydock Commentary

Ver. 55. Jesus Christ, to confirm the notion his disciples had formed of a real eating of his body, and to remove all metaphorical interpretation of his words, immediately adds, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. … For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed;” which could not be so, if, as sectarists pretend, what he gives us in the blessed sacrament is nothing but a bit of bread; and if a figure, certainly not so striking as the manna.

B

John 6

64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.

Haydock Commentary

Ver. 64. The flesh profiteth nothing. Dead flesh, separated from the spirit, in the gross manner they supposed they were to eat his flesh, would profit nothing. Neither doth man’s flesh, that is to say, man’s natural and carnal apprehension, (which refuses to be subject to the spirit, and words of Christ) profit any thing. But it would be the height of blasphemy, to say the living flesh of Christ (which we receive in the blessed sacrament, with his spirit, that is, with his soul and divinity) profiteth nothing. For if Christ’s flesh had profited us nothing, he would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in the flesh for us. — Are spirit and life. By proposing to you a heavenly sacrament, in which you shall receive, in a wonderful manner, spirit, grace and life. These words sufficiently correct the gross and carnal imagination of these Capharnaites, that he meant to give them his body and blood to eat in a visible and bloody manner, as flesh, says St. Augustine, is sold in the market, and in the shambles;[3] but they do not imply a figurative or metaphorical presence only. The manner of Christ’s presence is spiritual and under the outward appearances of bread and wine; but yet he is there truly and really present, by a change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of his body and blood, which truly and really become our spiritual food, and are truly and really received in the holy sacrament. — The flesh[4] of itself profiteth nothing, not even the flesh of our Saviour Christ, were it not united to the divine person of Christ. But we must take care how we understand these words spoken by our Saviour: for it is certain, says St. Augustine, that the word made flesh, is the cause of all our happiness. (Witham) — When I promise you life if you eat my flesh, I do not wish you to understand this of that gross and carnal manner, of cutting my members in pieces: such ideas are far from my mind: the flesh profiteth nothing. In the Scriptures, the word flesh is often put for the carnal manner of understanding any thing. If you wish to enter into the spirit of my words, raise your hearts to a more elevated and spiritual way of understanding them. (Calmet) — The reader may consult Des Mahis, p. 165, a convert from Protestantism, and who has proved the Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist in the most satisfactory manner, from the written word. Where he shows that Jesus Christ, speaking of his own body, never says the flesh, but my flesh: the former mode of expression is used to signify, as we have observed above, a carnal manner of understanding any thing.

 

[CompSciGuy]

Has anybody looked into the Greek behind “my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink?”

 

[CatholicZ09]

Has anybody looked into the Greek behind “my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink?”

Here you go:

They [Fundamentalists] say that in John 6 Jesus was not talking about physical food and drink, but about spiritual food and drink. They quote John 6:35: “Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.’” They claim that coming to him is bread, having faith in him is drink. Thus, eating his flesh and blood merely means believing in Christ.

But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, “The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense” (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.

Fundamentalist writers who comment on John 6 also assert that one can show Christ was speaking only metaphorically by comparing verses like John 10:9 (“I am the door”) and John 15:1 (“I am the true vine”). The problem is that there is not a connection to John 6:35, “I am the bread of life.” “I am the door” and “I am the vine” make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, “For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (John 6:55).

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

Source: catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

 

[hn160]

I thought that I would put forth a Lutheran view of this subject by a Lutheran theologian Charles Porterfield Krauth:
In quoting the sixth chapter of John, as bearing on the Lord’s Supper, it may be well, once for all, to say that it is quoted not on the supposition that it speaks of the Lord’s Supper specifically, but that in stating the general doctrine of the life-giving power of Christ’s flesh and blood, it states a doctrine under which the benefits of the sacramental eating comes a species. If we come into supernatural, blessed participation of Christ’s body and blood, in the act of faith, without the Lord’s Supper, a fortiori, we have a blessed participation of them in the act of the Lord’s Supper. The sixth chapter of John treats of the grand end of which the Lord’s Supper is the grand means. We partake of Christ’s body and blood sacramentally, in order that we may partake of them savingly. Of the latter, not the former, the sixth of John speaks. – C. P. Krauth, The Conservative Reformation p. 598

 

[Newsy]

If John 6 is strictly a metaphor, then why do protestants celebrate it? I have heard people try to twist this passage to fit their theology with little success. If the Bread signifies His Life and this is all figurative, then what about the Blood? Vice versa, if the Blood represents His Life, then what about His Body? If it was all figurative, the why didn’t He explain it when the disciples walked away? If this is all just symbolic, then why would thousands of non-Catholic churches celebrate communion? The only way I can make all the pieces fit together, including 1 Corinthians, is to follow the Catholic Church’s teaching. Besides, nobody suggested other explanations of John 6 for about 1500 years.

 

[CatholicZ09]

If John 6 is strictly a metaphor, then why do protestants celebrate it? I have heard people try to twist this passage to fit their theology with little success. If the Bread signifies His Life and this is all figurative, then what about the Blood? Vice versa, if the Blood represents His Life, then what about His Body? If it was all figurative, the why didn’t He explain it when the disciples walked away? If this is all just symbolic, then why would thousands of non-Catholic churches celebrate communion? The only way I can make all the pieces fit together, including 1 Corinthians, is to follow the Catholic Church’s teaching. Besides, nobody suggested other explanations of John 6 for about 1500 years.

It’s either that or us Catholics and Eastern Orthodox folk got it wrong for over 1500 years. I don’t know if that’s possible.

 

[CompSciGuy]

It’s either that or us Catholics and Eastern Orthodox folk got it wrong for over 1500 years. I don’t know if that’s possible.

That was my reasoning… but this reasoning doesn’t seem to work on my dad. He really believes that his beliefs were espoused by the original Church. One previous poster had a good point when he brought up the matter of Jesus’ blood. It does seem like Jesus would have gone a bit over the top with his metaphor (assuming it is a metaphor).

 

[CatholicZ09]

That was my reasoning… but this reasoning doesn’t seem to work on my dad. He really believes that his beliefs were espoused by the original Church. One previous poster had a good point when he brought up the matter of Jesus’ blood. It does seem like Jesus would have gone a bit over the top with his metaphor (assuming it is a metaphor).

Well, and the fact that he repeated himself three times. It seems like he was thinking of those who would be reading His words today.

Jesus: "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.”

Reader: “Okay, he’s just speaking metaphorically.”

Jesus: 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."

Reader: “Is he serious?”

Jesus: "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.”

Reader: “Okay. I guess He is serious.”

I don’t think someone would be so persistent in explaining a metaphor. He seems to get really serious when He says, “Verily, verily, I tell you…”

The fact that your father is deep-seated in his “I’m believing as the early Christians believed before those heretical Catholics came” is really sad. Revisionist history is fantasy, not reality.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Hi,

so I’m a convert to the Catholic faith as of this past April and my dad is a Calvinist and likes to argue about the real presence all the time. I use a lot of scriptures to defend the real presence, such as St. Pauls writings on the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians, the fact that the only other place in the gospels Jesus talks about eating his body and drinking his blood is at the last supper, and I also bring up the fact that in the writings of the early Church there seems to be an unanimous belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. One passage I don’t often bring up is John chapter 6. This passage is quoted constantly as the number one defense of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Catholics will argue that the belief in the real presence is the only reasonable way of interpreting it. Here’s the thing though, so Protestants think that belief in Jesus is the simple way to eternal salvation. Jesus constantly refers to himself as “the bread of life,” which could be taken figuratively, since he is the spiritual lifesource of the human race, in the same way that bread is the source of life for our flesh, and believing in Jesus for salvation is in essence “eating” this “bread of life.” Thus when Jesus says “eat my flesh” it would make perfect sense if taken figuratively in this passage. What are your thoughts on this evaluation? People will often point to the fact that Jesus didn’t correct them when they were so shocked by his teaching that they walked away from him. But wouldn’t a correction be in order anyway? He could have said “wait, what I meant was I will make myself substantially present under the appearance of bread and wine and you will eat these and not be breaking the laws of Moses.” On Catholic Answers Live Jimmy Akin responded to a caller who was arguing against the real presence and told him that the understanding of eating Jesus’ literal flesh is very different from the sacramental aspect of eating Jesus’ literal flesh, which would be against God’s law according to Moses. If that is the case wouldn’t Jesus have still needed to explain himself, since the Jews were obviously taking the latter view?

To answer your central question, Jesus did not explain his words to the Jews who were not predisposed to listen, such as the Scribes, Pharisees and the Sadducees. He said that these things were “hidden from the wise and the learned” because they did not want to receive it. Therefore, he chose men to whom he wished to impart the deep things of God, whose hearts were open to receive them, upon whom he established his Church–who would need to know them in order to teach them to the whole world.