Catholic apologetics is more robust today than it has been in the recent past. Since Rome has given more freedom of exploration and discover along with the encouragement for Catholics to study the Scriptures, there have been many Catholic apologists preparing Catholics to defend the faith. Despite our temptation in today’s world to let bygones be bygones, the engagement between Protestants and Catholics must go on for the differences are still relevant.
One of the key differences between Protestants and Catholics through the years is the view of the Lord’s Supper or the Eucharist. Catholics, along with the Orthodox Church, have traditionally believed that the Eucharist represents the centerpiece of our worship to God. Catholics call the celebration of the Eucharist “Mass.” They believe that when properly administered, the bread and the wine literally turn into the body and blood of Christ. This is called “transubstantiation” because the “substance” of the elements “transform” into Christ’s body and blood. Most Protestants rejected this view of the Eucharist opting for either a memorial view or a spiritual view of the Lord’s supper (Lutherans believe in a somewhat mediating position called “consubstantiation”).
Why is this important? Because historic Protestantism has often charged the Catholic church with idolatry, believing that they have turned God into an idol of bread and wine, worshiping the elements without, indeed, contrary to, a scriptural basis. Catholics, on the other hand (and this is important), have elevated the celebration of the Mass and the belief in Transubstantiation to an essential of Christianity. In other words, according to Catholic dogma, if you do not celebrate the Mass as they believe it to be understood, you are in great danger of the fires of Hell, since missing Mass without a valid excuse is a mortal sin.
With the recent rise of modern Catholic apologetics, Catholic lay people are being trained to answer some of the more difficult objections to their faith that Protestants bring forward. The two primary areas that Catholic apologetics is centering on are issues with the canon of Scripture and the doctrine of Transubstantiation. We are focusing on Transubstantiation here. Not only this, but I want to focus on one particular argument that is being put forth more and more in defense of Transubstantiation that comes form John 6.
Here is the passage:
John 6:48 “I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 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 you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on 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 whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not as the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum. 60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? . . . After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.”
The Basic argument is this: If Christ was not speaking literally when He said, “Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day,” why did they respond by saying: “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” If Christ was only speaking symbolically about feeding on His flesh and drinking His blood (as most Protestants believe), then it is not really a “hard saying,” just a misunderstood saying. According to the Catholic apologist, if Christ was speaking symbolically, Christ could have—indeed would have—corrected them and said, “This is not really hard. You must understand I am only speaking symbolically of eating my flesh and drinking my blood.” But He did not. He let them walk away. The Catholic apologist will often emphasis this fact and declare it to be incontestable evidence that Christ was speaking literally about eating and drinking His flesh and blood. Thus, this becomes a primary defense of transubstantiation and the necessity of partaking in Mass for eternal life.
Karl Keating, a popular Catholic Apologist and President of Catholic Answers, says:
“There was no attempt to soften what was said, no attempt to correct misunderstanding, for there were none. His listeners understood him quite well. No one any longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, why no correction? On other occasions, whenever there was confusion, Christ explained what he meant. Here, where any misunderstanding would be catastrophic, there was no effort to correct. Instead, he repeated what he said” (Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, [San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988], 233-234).
While I respect and appreciate the attempts of some very fine Catholic apologists to defend difficult positions and believe this to be a good argument on the surface, I believe it is seriously flawed. I believe that it is taken out of the context of the entire book of John and bears a burden that it cannot sustain on exegetical and theological grounds.
Why? For two primary reasons:
1. Jesus is always being misunderstood. John rarely records Jesus’ correcting the misunderstanding of people.
The people in John 6 were looking for Christ to provide for them like Moses did and they were not interested in His talk about belief and eating his flesh. Some naturally thought that he was being literal about his statements. It is true, Christ did not correct them. But this is a common theme in the ministry of Christ. As Peter demonstrates, it is only those who stay with him that get the answers for eternal life (John 6:68). Often Christ would speak in parables and not tell any but those who were His true followers (Luke 8:10). The rest He let go in their ignorance since he knew all men and he was not committing himself to them.
John presents this side of Jesus more than any other of the Gospels when he says: John 2:24-25 “But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, for He knew all men, and because He did not need anyone to testify concerning man, for He Himself knew what was in man.” He did not entrust himself to his listeners. Why? I suppose some wanted a king who would provide literal food for them like Moses did in the wilderness and they left when it became clear that He was not going to do the same. Some thought that He was speaking about actually eating his flesh and blood, I violation of the Mosaic Law, and they left. But why didn’t He simply correct their misunderstanding in this case? For the same reason He does not throughout the book of John. He often says things that are open to misinterpretation and then leaves His listeners in their confusion. Notice these examples
a. John 2:18-21 “The Jews then said to Him, ‘What sign do You show us as your authority for doing these things?’ Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’ The Jews then said, ‘It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?’ But He was speaking of the temple of His body.”
Notice, Christ was not being literal here yet He did not correct the misunderstanding. This misunderstanding eventually leads to His conviction and death.
b. John 3:3-4 “Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.’ Nicodemus said to Him, ‘How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?”
Notice again, Jesus does not correct Nicodemus’ misunderstanding (although, like in John 6, it is obvious to the reader that this is not to be taken literally).
c. The disciples want Jesus to eat: “Rabbi, eat” (John 4:31). Jesus answers: “I have food to eat that you do not know about” (4:32). “So the disciples were saying to one another, ‘No one brought him anything to eat, did he?’” (John 4:33).
This time Jesus does correct his disciples, but in frustration because they cannot see the symbolism behind it. In other words, they should know enough by now to interpret His words symbolically since this is the way He always spoke.
Now we come to John 6. John’s readers should know by now that Christ speaks symbolically in such statements as these. We should understand by now that Christ is always being misunderstood by “outsiders.” They also know that sometimes Christ corrects the misunderstanding (especially with true followers) and sometimes he does not. Therefore, it would be irresponsible for the reader to take Christ literally in John 6.
Would Christ have corrected the misunderstanding of unbelievers whose heart he already knew?
“For judgment I came into the world, so that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind” (John 9:39).
“For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, ‘He has blinded their eyes and he hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and be converted and I heal them’” (John 12:40).
It does not seem so. This was not His modus operandi.
2. Another important factor that Keating and other Catholic apologists fail to take into account is that John does not even record the central events of the Last Supper at all. Obviously if we took the Catholic interpretation of John 6 and believed John included this passage to communicate that believers must eat the literal body and blood of Christ in order to have eternal life, you would expect John to have recorded the events that it foreshadows. You would expect John to have a historical record of the Last Supper, the inaugurating meal of the Eucharist. But John does not. What an oversight by John! In fact, John is the only Gospel writer that did not record the Last Supper. Therefore, it is very unlikely that in John’s mind, a literal eating and drinking of Christ body and blood are essential for salvation. Remember John wrote the only book in the NT that explicitly says it is written for the purpose of salvation and he does not even include the Lord’s Supper.
John 20:30-31 “Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.”
Why did they walk away? Because, like all other unbelievers, they expected something of Jesus that He did not come to provide and they misunderstood His teachings and intentions. A very common theme in John and a very common mistake today.
In short, before you start paddling across the Tiber, set an anchor and think seriously about the exegetical and theological viability of the Catholic interpretation of John 6.
194 replies to "Why I Don’t Buy the Roman Catholic Interpretation of John 6 in Defense of Transubstantiation"
Alan,
I as a reformed Protestant and Presbyterian believe the following concerning the Lords Supper. I was never comfortable with the adoration aspect of the Eucharist as roman catholics call it. I experienced a “true Protestant conversion as John Calvin also a fromer roman catholic described. I understand your position but please try to understand what I most fervently believe now as a Protestant.
The Lord’s Supper
The Supper of the Lord Jesus was instituted by Him the same night on which He was betrayed to be observed in His churches until the end of the world for the perpetual remembrance, and showing forth of the sacrifice of Himself in His death. It was also instituted by Christ to confirm believers in all the benefits of His death; – for their spiritual nourishment and growth in Him; – for their further engagement in and commitment to all the duties which they owe to Him; – and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with Him and with their fellow believers.
In this sacrament Christ is not offered up to His Father, nor is there any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sin (of the living or the dead). There is only a memorial of that one offering up of Christ by Himself upon the cross once for all, the memorial being accompanied by a spiritual oblation of all possible praise to God for Calvary. Therefore, the popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominable, being injurious to Christ’s own sacrifice, which is the only propitiation for all the sins of the elect.
The Lord Jesus has, in this sacrament, appointed His ministers to pray and bless the elements of bread and wine (so setting them apart from a common to a holy use) and to take and break the bread, then to take the cup, and to give both to the communicants, also communicating themselves.
The denial of the cup to the people, the practices of worshipping the elements, lifting them up or carrying them about for adoration, or reserving them for any pretended religious use, are all contrary to the nature of this ordinance, and to the institution of Christ.
The outward elements in this sacrament which are correctly set apart and used as Christ ordained, so closely portray Him as crucified, that they are sometimes truly (but figuratively) referred to in terms of the things they represent, such as the body and blood of Christ. However in substance and nature they still remain truly and only bread and wine as they were before.
The doctrine commonly called transubstantiation, which maintains that a change occurs in the substance of the bread and wine into the substance of Christ’s body and blood, when consecrated by a priest or by any other way, is repugnant not only to Scripture but even to common sense and reason. It overthrows the nature of the ordinance, and both has been and is the cause of a host of superstitions and of gross idolatries.
Worthy receivers, outwardly taking the visible elements in this ordinance, also receive…
Worthy receivers, outwardly taking the visible elements in this ordinance, also receive them inwardly and spiritually by faith, truly and in fact, but not carnally and corporally, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of His death. The body and blood of Christ is not present corporally or carnally but it is spiritually present to the faith of believers in the ordinance, just as the elements are present to their outward senses.
All ignorant and ungodly persons who are unfit to enjoy communion with Christ are equally unworthy of the Lord’s Table, and therefore cannot without great sin against Him, take a share in these holy mysteries or be admitted to the Supper while they remain in that condition. Indeed those who receive (the elements) unworthily, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, eating and drinking judgement to themselves.
In faith.
Dudley
I am an ex roman catholic and now a Reformed Protestant. I wrote another roman catholic considering converting to the Reformed Protestant faith the following regarding John 6. I wrote Roman Catholics interpret this passage literally, and apply its message to the Lord’s Supper, which they title the “Eucharist” or “Mass.” Those who reject the idea of transubstantiation interpret Jesus’ words in John 6:53-57 figuratively or symbolically. How can we know which interpretation is correct? Thankfully, Jesus made it exceedingly obvious what He meant. John 6:63 declares, “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.” Jesus specifically stated that His words are “spirit.” Jesus was using physical concepts, eating and drinking, to teach spiritual truth. Just as consuming physical food and drink sustains our physical bodies, so are our spiritual lives saved and built up by spiritually receiving Him, by grace through faith. Eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood are symbols of fully and completely receiving Him in our lives.
The Scriptures declare that the Lord’s Supper is a memorial to the body and blood of Christ (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25), not the actual consumption of His physical body and blood. When Jesus was speaking in John chapter 6, Jesus had not yet had the Last Supper with His disciples, in which He instituted the Lord’s Supper
You fools: The only figurative translation of “eeat my body and drink my blood,” is “to revile, or slander.” The only way you can interpret it figuratively would be to revile jesus to get to heaven.
“πραγματικά, πραγματικά, σας λέω, εκτός εάν εσείς φάνε τη σάρκα του γιου του ανθρώπου και να πίνουν το αίμα του, δεν έχετε κανένα ζωής σε εσάς. 54 όποιος ζωοτροφών από τη δική μου σάρκα και ποτών αίμα μου έχει αιώνια ζωή, και θα θέσω αυτόν
Many Disciples Desert Jesus
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”
This article fails to mention that when the disciples did not understand the teaching (like Protestants), Jesus did not clarify that this is a “symbolic teaching” because its not. It’s literal. See 1 Corinthians 11:27. That’s a pretty big deal if its just a symbol!
Was it actually his body at the first Lord’s table? Did he correct the religious leaders when they though he was literally going to break down the temple? Couple of things to think about.
Did Jesus ever once say, in John 6 in the Bread of Life Discourse that the Bread is a symbol of His real presence? The answer is no. When His desciples walked away from Him when He talked about His Flesh and Blood did Jesus ever go after them and explain that He was speaking metaphorically? The answer is no. In fact why did they leave Him if they thought He was speaking symboliccally? I have also seen Eucharistic miracles where the host has actually bled.
[…] did he let them walk away” argument. But I think this argument is weak. I talk about that here. Nevertheless, it still does not answer why John left out the giving of the Lord’s Supper. It […]
[…] completo “¿Por qué los dejó marchar?”. Pero creo que este argumento es débil. hablo de eso aquí . Sin embargo, todavía no responde por qué Juan dejó fuera la institución de la Cena del […]
[…] completo “¿Por qué los dejó marchar?”. Pero creo que este argumento es débil. hablo de eso aquí . Sin embargo, todavía no responde por qué Juan dejó fuera la institución de la Cena del […]
I read every post, every word. The differing scriptural interpretations on something as important to salvation as the body and blood of Christ is mind-boggling. This is exactly why I am no longer Protestant. It’s as if each of you were your own Pope. Common sense tells me there must be One authority, one Church.
Still studying, but remaining Catholic.
I find the biblical evidence cited of Jesus not correcting misunderstandings problematic.
First, lets look at John 2. For Christ to make a correction would be totally out of context with the Lord’s larger salvation plan. Christ had to die. This article points out that the misunderstanding about destroying the temple led to his conviction and death. So, I guess it makes sense then. In addition, it would seem, based on the text, that Christ deliberately left this statement unresolved so that people would believe in him after the resurrection, and not before.
“When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken” John 2:22
In John 3 Nicodemus does misunderstand Jesus, and though Jesus doesn’t explicitly correct him immediately in that conversation, Jesus continues to teach him. Nicodemus then becomes a loyal follower of Christ, to the point of anointing his body with along with Joseph of Arimathea at his burial (John 19:39). I think it is safe to assume that the conversation was not recorded fully in John 3, or Nicodemus had subsequent conversations with Jesus.
“Let that Eucharist be held valid which is offered by the bishop or by the one to whom the bishop has committed this charge. Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
– St. Ignatius, Epistle to the Romans, 7, 110 A.D.
“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.” – St Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.
“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” St. Justin the Martyr (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
“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 to our bodies.” – St. Irenaeus 180 A.D.
It is not the power of man which makes what is put before us the Body and Blood of Christ, but the power of Christ Himself who was crucified for us. The priest standing there in the place of Christ says these words but their power and grace are from God. ‘This is My Body,’ he says, and these words transform what lies before him.”
– St. John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Treachery of Judas” 1,6; d…
“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” – St. Augustine (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411])
The Early Christians believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. St. Ignatius heard the original apostle John preach and was the third bishop of Antioch. The Early christians were so unanimous about their belief in the real presence that Martin Luther himself wrote this:
“Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that ‘my body’ is the same as ‘the sign of my body’? or, that ‘is’ is the same as ‘it signifies’? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present. Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”
~Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391
Hello! C Michael Pattton, are you still there? If so, could you help this upset Catholic with your understanding of Jesus’ line to Peter about whatever you . . . I need to understand some other enlightened response to help me find a community that i can believe in and enjoy spiritual communion Please.
You dirty, rotten twisted Protestant heretic. People died rather than abandon the Blessed Sacrament and you profane their holy example just to score cheap intellectuals points defending your heresy. Plus your argument is based on a false, not to mention selective, reading of John. Jesus is most certainly speaking literally in John 2, referring to his sacred body, which, He knew, would rise from the tomb on the 3rd day. (I should add, pace another false claim of yours, that this claim was not what got him into trouble with the Jewish authorities- He was not brought up on charges of vandalism- but his assertion, heretical in their hardened hearts, that He was the Son of God.) He also DOES correct his disciples in John 4, in the very next paragraph following the one you quote: ‘My food is to do the will of Him who sent me ….’ As for the dialogue with Nicodemus, how can you also fail to see the correction there: ‘Answering him, Jesus said ….’ (3: 10-21) Now man up and admit your mistakes and save your soul from eternal damnation- ‘There is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church.’
Jesus’ words were clearly literal. This is because He made a typological analogy. In John 3:14 Jesus compared to His being raised on the cross to the serpent statue being raised in the desert, clearly a literal analogy
Likewise, in John 6 Jesus compares Himself coming down from heaven to the manna having come down from heaven, clearly literal comparison.
In the same respect He compares His flesh to the manna in saying that His flesh is to be eaten like the manna was eaten. Again, clearly literal.
Jesus used clear literal analogies.
Just because John doesn’t record the Last Supper doesn’t mean that it isn’t referenced in this passage.
Jesus at time used literal physical analogies.
For example in John 3:14 He compared His body being raised on the cross to the serpent statue in the desert being raised in a similar manner, clearly a literal physical analogy.
In John 6 Jesus compares Himself literally descending from heaven similar to how the manna literally came down from heaven. He also compares His flesh being eaten to the way that the manna was eaten. Clearly a literal physical analogy.
Just because John doesn’t record the Last Supper meal, doesn’t mean the book doesn’t refer to the Eucharist in John 6.
Can John 6 have a symbolic meaning to it? Sure it can. Catholics don’t have a problem with that. Is Jesus the “bread of life” I eat every day to sustain my spiritual life in a symbolic and spiritual sense? Absolutely. Where Protestants go wrong is to insist it is meant only symbolically, at the expense of its equally correct literal meaning. Scripture has a polyvalent sense to it, which means that things can have more than one meaning. But Protestants always forsake the physical or literal for the spiritual when they should embrace both. Was not Jesus God who is in essence Spirit? Yup. Was he also not a human man who is a physical entity? Yup, again. Jesus was both God(spirit) and man(physical). So when Jesus talks about eating His flesh and drinking His blood why couldn’t it be both literal (its primary meaning) and symbolic (its secondary meaning)?
I think when looking at Scripture as a whole, it seems Protestants fail to see it in a Jewish context. Let’s not forget that Christianity is fulfilled Judaism. Some will say, “But we do take that into account. That is why Jesus couldn’t be talking literally because Jews could not drink blood and it ends up being cannibalism.”
However, I think you are missing the forest through all the trees. John tells us something very important at the beginning of his gospel that Jesus is “..the Lamb of God who takes away this sins of the world.” In the Eucharist, when the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus, we are eating “the Lamb of God.” That term does not just mean the sacrificial animal the Israelites slaughtered as an offering for sin in the OT because they actually offered different kinds of animals for different kinds of sin. The lamb John is referring to is the lamb that was offered at the Passover.
Going back to the OT to Exodus, what were the Jewish people supposed to do so the Angel of Death would pass over them? Everyone knows that, right? They had to slaughter an unblemished lamb and sprinkle its blood on the doorposts. Everyone knows the symbolism here refers to Christ’s sacrifice, but unfortunately, that seems to be where Protestants stop reading. They were to eat a meal consisting of unleavened bread and the meat of the sacrificed lamb, along with bitter herbs.
Now let me ask a question: Say there was a certain Jewish father at the time of the Exodus who didn’t happen to like lamb meat. He said to himself, “I’ll sacrifice the lamb, just as Moses said, I’ll sprinkle its blood on the doorposts, heck I’ll even cook the darned thing just like Moses said, but I won’t eat the lamb.” What would have happened to his first born son? He would have died. You had to eat the lamb! You had to follow God’s directions exactly for the Passover to take. Moses said they had to eat the lamb and what was left over in the morning was to be burned. Actually, the act of eating the lamb is mentioned more than once in the passage. I would put forth that God was actually emphasizing the eating of the lamb.
Now with this in mind, how could one think Jesus, who is the Lamb of God, was talking in a spiritual sense and not a literal sense when He was saying “eat my flesh and drink my blood”?
Even Paul says that if anyone takes the Eucharist in an unworthy fashion, he is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. If it is symbolic, no matter how much I may defile the bread and wine, I would not be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. I could stomp on it, spit in it, and all I’m doing is making the bread and wine uneatable. But if it was really the body and blood of our Lord and Savior, then I would actually be stomping on Him, I would actually be spitting on Him. Then! Then I would be guilty of the body and blood of Jesus.
To give another example: If someone burns a flag out of protest, what they are really doing in burning what it represents. It is distasteful, disgusting, and unpatriotic, but a person won’t go to jail for doing it. But if that same person kidnaps the President of the United States who also is a representation of the United States and then burns him out of protest, that person will go to jail and more than likely be put to death.
Paul is making a distinction that necessarily needs the body and blood to be physically Jesus and not some symbolism.
One last thing: Jesus gives us a hint as to what “flesh” exactly He was referring to in John 6 when He said, “Do you take offense at this? What if you were to see the Son of man Ascend to where he was before?” Everyone worried about being cannibals is given their answer right here. When we eat the flesh and drink the blood of our Savior we are partaking in the supernatural body and blood of the Resurrected Jesus, not the mortal flesh and blood of the Jesus who was standing there in front of them at the time!
More could be said, but I’ll stop here.
I have yet, throughout all if postings above, to see any Protestant apologists here mention the Church Fathers and their views on the Eucharist.
Protestants rarely talk about that aspect of church history, and may be surprised to learn what they have to say on the matter of whether the Eucharist is valid or not.
The Eucharist, according to them, was part of church practice.
Jyesterday I read an article about the church fathers & communion. No, it’s not true they saw it as a real thing. They use the word symbolic many times.
Interesting read, however, I do not agree. Having been raised evangelical Christian, I have heard similar, almost identical arguments. (I came into full communion with the Catholic Church a few years ago). The general problem with Protestant theology is the idea that each saved individual is given the power through the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture… which ironically is precisely, in many ways, why we have thousands and thousands of post-Reformation Christian denominations. Christ gave this authority to the Church, which is evident throughout the new testament. To say over and over again “the Catholic belief is…” might be accurate, but it was the unified, dogmatic, Christian belief right up until the Reformation (though Luther did believe in the true presence). The historical Christian doctrine of the Eucharist is long standing and accurate. The idea that “it’s all just a symbol” is relatively new in terms of historical Christian belief, and depending on which church you belong to, there are a plethora of beliefs when it comes to Holy Communion, again based on individual interpretation. The Catholic view on John 6 is exegetically accurate and historically proven to be what Christians believed up to and after the Reformation. Mind you, these Christians who believed in the true presence were the ones whom the Holy Spirit guided to assemble the books of the new testament as we know them today. So, while I hear what you are trying to say based on your personal study of the text, and I even ascribed to a version of yours most of my life, I know that the next Protestant might have a slightly different version of it. To me, that’s a red flag. Christ desires the Church to be unified in all beliefs. We need to ask ourselves what that looks like. We need to ask Him for truth, and not rely on ourselves. Just my two cents… I certainly meant all of the above with respect for what you believe, as my brother in Christ. God Bless.
I too am an ex-Catholic. I had such a hunger to read God’s word that I joined an Assembly of God church, and attended for several years. My husband was a Roman Catholic and was greatly disturbed, to the extent that he threatened to divorce me. I decided to start attending church with him again to please him and avoid the arguments, but never losing my faith in Jesus Christ only. I continued to attend Bible study with women who were all ex-Catholics also. Since my husband died, I continued to attend Catholic church because all my Catholic friends are beloved to me. But one Sunday I looked around me at the statues and said to myself, “What am I doing here?” Then when the priest referred to Jesus’ mother as the “Queen of Heaven,” I said that’s it. I’m out of here. Now I don’t attend any church, because I don’t know which one is the Bible teaching church that has as its center the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. On Sunday mornings I listen to one particular pastor who centers his sermons on the life of Jesus. He is Egyptian and he has led many Muslims to Christ and it is a huge part of his ministry. I continue to learn from him. His name is Dr. Michael Youssef. Does anyone know him and if so, what is your opinion? I also receive letters from the Berean Call Ministry and have learned a great deal about the Catholic church from their teachings. I am praying that the Holy Spirit will help me how to tell all my Catholic friends that I no longer believe in the extra-Biblical teachings of the Catholic Church and especially transubstantiation. I know they will be greatly shocked and will probably lose some, and maybe even gain some. Who knows? How anyone can believe that the bread and wine become the literal body of Jesus Christ is totally incomprehensible to me. Don’t they realize that eating a literal body is cannibalism? When did such teaching become part of the Catholic Church?
John 6
The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life (verse 54)
then
Does this cause you to be offended? … The Spirit is the one who gives life. (verses 61-62)
then in the next chapter
John 7
Let the one who believes in me drink … From within him will flow rivers of living water (verse 38)
then
he said this about the Spirit (verse 39)
In John chapter 6, Jesus says all he eat of him will receive eternal life. Later Jesus says that his words are spirit and life, and that the flesh profits nothing. In chapter 7, Jesus says that all who drink of him (water, not wine) will have eternal life. The Gospel writer John clarifies that Jesus was talking about the Holy Spirit when he said this. In my mind, these two narratives are parallel, as are many other illustrations Jesus uses when he says that all who enter through the gate are his, etc. Jesus is not saying there are 19 different ways to be saved: by drinking the water and eating his flesh and believing in his name and going through the gate, etc. He is talking about one type of obedience to the Gospel, and the same obedience and faith is expressed many different ways. The Catholics make it sound as though in addition to belief you must also eat his flesh, as though they were two distinct acts.
It can be argued that in John 3 Jesus did actually correct Nicodemus and answer his question about how a man can be born a second time. Jesus answers that you must be born from above (a second time, from on high). We don’t easily pick up on this from the English.
I’ll agree that in John 2, Jesus did not clarify what he meant about destroying the temple and raising it again in three days. We have a parallel in other Gospel accounts to help us think that he did not clarify.
Still, the case may be overstated that Jesus frequently let people walk away if they were walking away based on a misunderstanding. We don’t see many examples of that in the Gospels, if there is even one more besides this one.
I appreciate the chapter 2 account, … and the verses about speaking to them “lest they understand” (the opposite of “so they could understand”), … and the other reasons they may have been walking away (besides just the thought of cannibalism). Catholics have used this argument with me, and I am now better prepared to answer.
I have some difficulty in ascribing motives to John whose gospel was written later than the others. He may well have taken for granted that the story of the Last Supper needed no further repetition (or there may be a whole slew of other possibilities which we cannot know at this point in history). In fact, the whole argument seems to focus on why we should NOT believe certain statements in the bible literally rather than on the arguments for the contrary that are supposedly being refuted. Faith is a choice. Stop arguing that people ought not to make the choice. Btw, I am not a Catholic.
Thanks for your well-written refutation of the error of Catholicism on this issue, much of which is similar to what I wrote too much about here .
Well dear Michael and Dudley and those who are in denial of the Roman Catholic Doctrine on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, I would say that if you were to continue to do your homework prayerfully and openly, you will discover how much you are indeed gravely mistaken. Even Luther believed (knew) that Christ is truly and substantially present in the Eucharist. Even Luther, by the way venerated Mary as Holy and wondrous (just coming to our Holy Mother’s aid as well). These things Luther knew before he fell into schism and fell away from the Fullness of Truth. Any why? I suspect it was as usually is the case; human pride. Many have very good reason to suspect the Catholic Church of error and even sin, because of so much sinfullness within Her walls, but again I would suggest “doing one’s homework” before taking a certain position. If you can show me how there is no sign of sin within your own churches, I will sit up and pay attention. Just as when you can truly refute Christ’s True and Substantial Presence in the Eucharist at every single Roman Catholic Mass, I will convert to your cult. How can you explain then why the saints down through the ages from the very first disciples of our Blessed Lord to today being so devout to the Catholic Doctrine on “Transubstantion” and the “Real Presence” and willing to die for this belief? I suppose you both would also deny that our Lord established His hierarchy in His first priests/disciples and founded His Holy Church upon St Peter, our first pope who has an un-broken (not perfect charecters in ever age) lineage right up to our current Pope Francis? If this is so, I again encourage you to study more deeply. The Genius within the Roman Catholic Doctrine is Jesus Christ Himself. When you attempt to take away the sacraments and the magesterium, you end up with so much less, that one will ultimatley become empty. Read “The Lambs Supper” and/or “The Fourth Cup” by Dr Scott Hahn (two of many hundreds of works put together by the faithful) if you are not too proud and see if that may help. It’s nothing “new”, just comprehensive for those of us who are so ignorant in a very secular, sinful, prideful society. Most of all, me. God bless you both and may His Easter Presence be with you.
Chapter 6 has Jesus saying multiple things that could offend his listeners, not just one.
– In other parts of John’s Gospel, people turned away when Jesus said he came from above, like Jesus says in John chapter 6. See 3:31, 6:38, 6:41-42, 6:50-51, 6:58, 8:23, 8:58-59).
– For the Messiah to give his flesh meant the Messiah would die. Many were unwilling to believe the Messiah would die, as we find in chapter twelve.
– Jesus did not feed the people like they wanted, so all who had come to have free bread were let down when answered with Messianic theology instead of hand-outs.
– Jesus was claiming that His Father is God (6:41-42, 8:19-20), and that Jesus could grant eternal life (11:26). These were two hard sayings. A third is that Jesus had implied he was greater than Moses.
Additionally, just after using the term “flesh” in the context of eating his flesh, Jesus explained to his disciples that the flesh has no benefit, only the Spirit (6:63). As with many other difficult sayings, Jesus did not explain himself to the multitudes, but did explain what he meant to his inner circle in private.
I am a catholic and I truly believe in the Transubstantiation. St. Irenaus, who was a hearer of Polycarp, who in turn was the disciple of John the apostle, wrote series of books called against heresies. Mind you they had direct relation to the apostles and it is said in against heresies, “If our flesh is not saved, then the Lord has not redeemed us with his blood, the eucharistic chalice does not make us sharers in his blood, and the bread we break does not make us sharers in his body. There can be no blood without veins, flesh and the rest of the human substance, and this the Word of God actually became: it was with his own blood that he redeemed us. As the Apostle says: In him, through his blood, we have been redeemed, our sins have been forgiven.
We are his members and we are nourished by creatures, which is his gift to us, for it is he who causes the sun to rise and the rain to fall. He declared that the chalice, which comes from his creation, was his blood, and he makes it the nourishment of our blood. He affirmed that the bread, which comes from his creation, was his body, and he makes it the nourishment of our body. When the chalice we mix and the bread we bake receive the word of God, the eucharistic elements become the body and blood of Christ, by which our bodies live and grow. How then can it be said that flesh belonging to the Lord’s own body and nourished by his body and blood is incapable of receiving God’s gift of eternal life? Saint Paul says in his letter to the Ephesians that we are members of his body, of his flesh and bones. He is not speaking of some spiritual and incorporeal kind of man, for spirits do not have flesh and bones. He is speaking of a real human body composed of flesh, sinews and bones, nourished by the chalice of Christ’s blood and receiving growth from the bread which is his body.
The slip of a vine planted in the ground bears fruit at the proper time. The grain of wheat falls into the ground and decays only to be raised up again and multiplied by the Spirit of God who sustains all things. The Wisdom of God places these things at the service of man and when they receive God’s word they become the eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ. In the same way our bodies, which have been nourished by the eucharist, will be buried in the earth and will decay, but they will rise again at the appointed time, for the Word of God will raise them up to the glory of God the Father. Then the Father will clothe our mortal nature in immortality and freely endow our corruptible nature with incorruptibility, for God’s power is shown most perfectly in weakness.
with love,
Kriston
I am a catholic and I truly believe in the Transubstantiation. St. Irenaus, who was a hearer of Polycarp, who in turn was the disciple of John the apostle, wrote series of books called against heresies. Mind you they had direct relation to the apostles and it is said in against heresies, “If our flesh is not saved, then the Lord has not redeemed us with his blood, the eucharistic chalice does not make us sharers in his blood, and the bread we break does not make us sharers in his body. There can be no blood without veins, flesh and the rest of the human substance, and this the Word of God actually became: it was with his own blood that he redeemed us. As the Apostle says: In him, through his blood, we have been redeemed, our sins have been forgiven.”
with love ,
Kriston
We are his members and we are nourished by creatures, which is his gift to us, for it is he who causes the sun to rise and the rain to fall. He declared that the chalice, which comes from his creation, was his blood, and he makes it the nourishment of our blood. He affirmed that the bread, which comes from his creation, was his body, and he makes it the nourishment of our body. When the chalice we mix and the bread we bake receive the word of God, the eucharistic elements become the body and blood of Christ, by which our bodies live and grow. How then can it be said that flesh belonging to the Lord’s own body and nourished by his body and blood is incapable of receiving God’s gift of eternal life? Saint Paul says in his letter to the Ephesians that we are members of his body, of his flesh and bones. He is not speaking of some spiritual and incorporeal kind of man, for spirits do not have flesh and bones. He is speaking of a real human body composed of flesh, sinews and bones, nourished by the chalice of Christ’s blood and receiving growth from the bread which is his body.
The slip of a vine planted in the ground bears fruit at the proper time. The grain of wheat falls into the ground and decays only to be raised up again and multiplied by the Spirit of God who sustains all things. The Wisdom of God places these things at the service of man and when they receive God’s word they become the eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ. In the same way our bodies, which have been nourished by the eucharist, will be buried in the earth and will decay, but they will rise again at the appointed time, for the Word of God will raise them up to the glory of God the Father. Then the Father will clothe our mortal nature in immortality and freely endow our corruptible nature with incorruptibility, for God’s power is shown most perfectly in weakness.
with love,
Kriston
As a fairly new Christian I struggled coming into the church for one basic reason- there’s approximately 40k denominations to choose from. That being said I found most Protestants claiming to have it “right”. So how does one choose? My salvation depends on it. After finding the Catholic Church and learning that it is and always was the one true church until the 1500’s it was an easy decision. Do I like everything about the church? Lol no. It could definitely improve especially on a social level. It is not perfect but was Jesus? Yes he was but could he get every person to follow him? No, so not even his church was perfect. He was even betrayed by one of his own. I just think it’s unfortunate that Protestantism has created thousands of denominations in my opinion hurting the faith. I could see one or two maybe three denominations but my goodness what a train wreck it has become. Might I point out the three reformers weren’t even in the same page and eventually split as well which I’m sure you all know. God bless you all you seem really well educated on the subject and nice people as well.
Could you imagine if we were all one church? Isn’t that what He wanted?
God bless,
Jeremy
Who are you to question what Jesus said? What Jesus says IS!
This IS my body, this IS my blood. I AM the bread of LIFE. Amen, Amen; Truly, Truly; Verily, Verily; Really, Really. Believe, Believe.
We believe His spoken Word because of who He IS. THE Great I AM.
He’s ALIVE
For you protestants who live by “faith alone”, which is unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence, this is FAITH. GRACE poured out on the cross which IS: GOD’S VERY OWN TRINITARIAN (FATHER, SON, AND HOLY SPIRIT) LIFE POURED INTO OUR SOULS and we receive a share in the divine life. This grace must be responded to, received and believed. You will be able to “see” and “hear” and understand the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven. Not man’s (flesh) understanding, but God’s, as children and co-heirs, we live for God, in Jesus, by the Holy Spirit. AMEN. GOD BLESS YOU ALL.
It is not ironic in the slightest that the Eucharist should divide the faithful from infidels, heretics, and impenitent sinners, for thus saith the Lord, “I have come not to bring peace but to bring a sword.” Amen, whoever eats or drinks without discerning the Body or eats or drinks with an unclean conscience eats and drinks damnation on himself, for he has desecrated the Body and Blood of the Lord. Yes, you can go to Hell for taking Communion improperly.
Some of you ask, “How often must I partake of Communion to be saved?” How often must you feed the hungry and clothe the naked? How often must you forgive those who sin against you? When God tells you to do something, you do it without question. While it may suffice to partake of the Lord’s Body and Blood only once a year, who would limit themselves to that? Who among you, being married, would make love to your spouse only once a year? Should we not desire Communion at least as much as we desire marital relations? Seventy times seven times at the Lord’s Table should only make us desire Him more.
Your examples of Jesus not speaking literally are hilarious.
a) His meaning is explained within the quote you took.
b) He explains what it means to be born again one paragraph later
c) you admit that Jesus does actually explain himself later (but somehow it’s an example of him not)
You assert that Jesus’s teachings are never explained when people misunderstand him, give three examples that directly contradict your point, and then continue to assert your claim while offering no proof.
You’re whole argument falls apart if you can’t demonstrate where misunderstandings aren’t corrected and instead offer proof to your counterpoint.
If that’s the best you got, try again heretic.
This is the truth. The Eucharistic Miracle of Buenos Aires – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gPAbD43fTI
I encourage everyone to look up the Greek verb phago verus trogo. John purposefully uses trogo. This will open up your eyes to the context of the moment and what has led 2000+ years of the Church.