The Early Christians Believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

Real Presence Eucharistic Education and Adoration Association ^ | 6/12/2009 | Real Presence Eucharistic Education and Adoration Association

[Claud]

Genesis 1 is plain? Hm.

So I’d be able to consult, say, many different authorities in the Talmud and get the same exact opinions on it then, eh? ;)

[refreshed]

Your exegesis needs some serious work.

“Alethes means “true, genuine, real”

Of course, you are correct here. However, what you have considered real is the mere physical aspect of it. It is spiritual food and drink, not only more real that physical, but also effective to secure our eternal salvation.

This is very easily proven looking at John 6:32, which has the same Greek word as John 15:1. Thus we see, just comparing scripture with scripture, the “true” bread and the “true” vine are spiritual, not metaphorical and not physical. This is not an argument of metaphorical versus physical. There is another aspect you did not consider and that is the spiritual.

I have yet to see the sacrament the Catholic church performs to change Jesus Christ into a physical vine.

That’s enough of the Greek game though. Comparing scripture with scripture, the obvious meaning of the passage throughout John 6 is that it is speaking of the spiritual effect of the body and blood of Christ, not literal cannibalism. The people were shocked that the man Jesus would claim to be the exclusive way to the Father (due to the fact they were expecting the conquering Christ the first time around). That was a direct slap at the false religion the Jewish faith had become by that time.

It really is not that hard unless you look at scripture through the goggles of men who lived hundreds of years after Christ and put tradition on the same level as scripture in terms of authority.

By the way:

“BUT note that it’s a slightly different Greek adjective there. Not alethes but alethine....not true according to substance but rather true according to analogy.”

John 6 disproves this view in its own text. If the first “true” is mentioned it meant true in substance, Christ changed it to “true according to analogy” in verse 32.

[refreshed]

“So I’d be able to consult, say, many different authorities in the Talmud and get the same exact opinions on it then, eh? ;)”

It would never be wise to consult those who have rejected the “true vine.” They have already shown their lack of spiritual wisdom.

[RobbyS]

For one thing, the words of Jesus are those of a man talking to other men. The language of Genesis is that of myth even if it aims to debunk myth

[Claud]

Yes, alethinos does occur in John 6:32....referring to an entirely different noun: “the true (by analogy) Bread from heaven”.

And how, pray tell, does that word nullify the use of alethes in 6:55? My body is true (in substance) food my blood is true (in substance) drink.

You can’t just take the first passage and have it conveniently obliterate the meaning of the second. Both usages are in Scripture. Both must be true. Christ was talking analogically in the first instance and literally in the second.

And no, if it’s all the same, I’m not quite done with the Greek game, because for one thing I find it somewhat telling that the Greeks—who presumably know their own language better than you and I do—still believe very strongly that they are consuming the Body and Blood of the Lord and not some mere memorial bread.

And if you go back and carefully look at the quotations from this thread, you would see that we are not talking solely about men who lived “hundreds of years after Christ”. The Didache was written in the mid-first century. Clement was writing in the mid 90s, and every indication was he was ordained by Peter himself.

[RobbyS]

By “spiritual effect” means, I assume you mean what Calvin meant by it. IAC. the symbolic meaning that Zwingli et all, attached to the Eucharist is a result of the influence of nominalism and a rejection of the realism in which the Catholic doctrine of transubstantialism is usually expressed. My guess is that the Church Fathers wouldn’t have had the slightest idea what either Zwingli or Calvin were talking about as they tried to distance themselves from the Catholic doctrine of the day. They probably wouldn’t have understand what Catholic theologians were getting at, which is why at Trent walks away from a lot of the philosophical word play.

[Claud]

It would never be wise to consult those who have rejected the “true vine.” They have already shown their lack of spiritual wisdom.

Oh, I wouldn't go so far as all that. Just because one is wrong on a theological point or two doesn't mean he or she can't contribute to the discussion in other ways. Who do you think taught English-speaking Christians to read and understand Hebrew?

[bdeaner]

Why do Catholics and Orthodox reject the plain, literal meaning of Genesis 1-11?

Because it is written in a different style than the rest of the Books of the Bible. Genesis is more in the style of Gilgamesh, whereas the Gospels are more in the style of biography. We don't read an ancient creation story and take it the same way we would read a more contemporary biography. Same thing with Genesis and the Gospels.

It should be noted, however, that some Catholics do take it literally, and this is not ruled out either. There is no doctrine in the Church, officially, on how accurate Genesis 1-11 is, if taken literally. But generally the Church teaches that it should not really be read as history or as science, but theologically.

Plus, again, we go back to tradition and look at the early Church Fathers, and they were in dispute on this. Some took it literally, some theologically. St. Augustine, for example, is an early Church Father who argued strongly that it should not be read as a history or science text, but rather as revelatory of theological truths.

St. Augustine (A.D> 354-430) wrote on this topic in his book, The Literal Meaning of Genesis. This quote comes from a translation by J. H. Taylor in Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41.

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]"

I'm with St. Augustine on this one.

[bdeaner]

Just wanted to say thank you to all of you who are contributing to this thread -- especially for your friendly and civil tone, as well as rational style of discourse with careful reference to Scripture. I'm really enjoying this conversation, and expect to learn a lot as it continues to unfold, as I am sure it will.

God bless.

[refreshed]

Please tell me where you are getting the information on the difference between alethinos and alethes. They appear to come from the same root. I see them being used with the same intent, obviously one being an adverb. Also none of my references make the distinction you have claimed (I admit I may just not have the references you are using).

I read all of the quotes. They do not refer to transubstantiation until the later ones.

I am sorry that I can’t stay on and discuss this at more length. I must add, it is more important to compare scripture with scripture. If you fail to do so, you will not understand the scripture. Jesus Christ was sacrificed once. I’ll stick to it, because once you start playing the
Greek game, you can make the Book say anything you want it to say. Just pick your definitions and your Greek authorities.

I am very much not interested in discussing textual criticism, but simply expressing the excessively clear doctrine that we celebrate the Lord’s Supper as a remembrance until he comes. That’s what the Bible says.

[refreshed]

I honestly don’t know what Calvin’s or Zwingli’s arguments were. If they agree with me, they too must have looked at scripture and read in it plainly that we are not to sacrifice Jesus Christ afresh and we are to celebrate the Lord’s Supper as a remembrance. I wish I could continue later, but I must go soon.

[bdeaner]

John 10:9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. Which Catholic dogma comes from this verse?

Many Catholic teachings can be linked to this verse, including the Catholic teachings on grace. You might be surprised that the Catholic Church agrees with Protestants that we can only be saved by the grace of Christ's sacrifice and only if we put our faith in His sacrifice.

Where we part ways is that Catholics reject the Protestant doctrine of sola fide. Faith alone is not enough. First, you need grace, and then that grace is justified through works, through which we are sanctified.

So, we Catholics fully assimilate and accept the Scripture you cite. But as a Protestant who believes in sola fide, you have a hard time explaining these verses:

Jas. 2:14-26:
What good is it my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?...You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone...faith without deeds is dead.”

Mat. 7:21:
Not everone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Pretty clear cut. Yes, you need faith. But faith without action is not true faith. And neither is possible without grace.

Just look at Obama. He can talk a good game about reducing abortions, but his action speak more loudly than his words.

Same with John 5:15. Yes, of course, Christ is the vine and we are the branches. But try to reconcile this passage with the Protestant notion that faith alone is enough, and you have some problems. If one does not attest to one's faith through action, one is not abiding in Christ, just pretending to. Those branches get cast into the fire.

More later...

[refreshed]

“Oh, I wouldn’t go so far as all that. Just because one is wrong on a theological point or two doesn’t mean he or she can’t contribute to the discussion in other ways. Who do you think taught English-speaking Christians to read and understand Hebrew?”

Learning the language and learning the spiritual meaning behind the text are two different things. A man could learn Hebrew and be an atheist. Yet, you wouldn’t say that an atheistic Hebrew scholar would have a deep understanding of the text just because he could read it flawlessly.

John 14:26

[refreshed]

I had to respond to a statement you made here that is completely incorrect according to Ephesians 2:8-9.

“Where we part ways is that Catholics reject the Protestant doctrine of sola fide. Faith alone is not enough. First, you need grace, and then that grace is justified through works, through which we are sanctified.”

Not only in Ephesians is this discussed, but also to a great extent in the book of Romans. Here are some verses for you:

Ephesians 2:8-9
(8) For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
(9) Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Romans 3:20
Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Romans 3:27-28
(27) Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
(28) Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Romans 4:2-5
(2) For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
(3) For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
(4) Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
(5) But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Romans 11:5-6
(5) Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
(6) And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

2 Timothy 1:8-9
(8) Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God;
(9) Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

Titus 3:5
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

It is arrogance against God to say that we can partially effect our own salvation. We start out dead in our trespasses and sins. Christ, while we were yet sinners, died for us. That is the heart of the “good news.” Romans 10:9 makes it abundantly clear. Also, where Paul says the law was our schoolmaster, teaching us that we aren’t capable of living up to God’s standards. If we are trusting in our own works, none of us are righteous enough. This, again, is clearly taught.

[bdeaner]

Very clearly, the Lord’s Supper is to bring us into remembrance.

This is the standard Protestant response, if I may -- not to take anything away from it.

The problem is that Protestants typically do not appreciate--per Scripture--that the bread and wine is a sacrifice. The sacrificial nature of the Mass is what seems to be missed. But that is the whole point! That is the whole meaning of salvation history!

David Currie, in Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic points out a passage that has stumped the Evangelicals:

Zech. 14:20, 21:
On that day...all who come to sacrifice will take some of the pots and cook in them..

The problem is this: If Jesus' sacrifice is final and complete, no sacrifices should be needed in Jerusalem after the death and Resurrection of Jesus. Right? Yet there is the verse, plain as day, for which there is "no plausible Evangelical explanation," says Curie (p. 45).

If priesthood is no longer needed here on earth, because the need for sacrifices have ended, as Evangelicals argue, then Zechariah would not contain that verse. And yet there it is. The Evangelical perspective does not have an answer. But the Catholic Church does have a Scripture-based answer to that problem.

The answer is simple: Zechariah is referring to the Eucharist! Yes, the Eucharist is foretold in the Old Testament.

Karl Keating, in Catholicism and Fundamentalism, pulls out another problematic verse for Protestants:

Psalm 110:4:
The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: 'You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.

The very meaning of "priest" is one who offers a sacrifice. And who is this Melchizedek character? He is from Genesis 14:18 -- a priest encountered by Abraham. And what does he offer Abraham? Bread and wine!

Now when did Jesus offer bread and wine as a sacrifice? Obviously, the Last Supper. The logical conclusion: the Last Supper is instituted by Christ as a sacrifice. This is what the Catholics celebrate during the Mass, which is why it is called "The Sacrifice of the Mass."

Within this sacrificial Biblical context, your question can be addressed.

In 1 Corinthians 11:24-25, indeed, Jesus says during the Last Supper, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." But "remembrance" as it is used here does not have quite the meaning you import into it, when understood in context.

In the Greek, this word for "remembrance" has a special connotation. It is used only one other time in the New Testament, in Hebrews 1:3. In this verse, the remembrance is an act of carrying out a sacrifice. "Those sacrifices are an annual reminder [remembrance] of sins." In the OT, the word is only used twice. Each time the word is used it is in reference to a sacrifice! In Lev. 24:7, "Put some incense as a memorial..to be an offering," and in Nb 10:10, "Sound the trumpets over your burn offerings and fellowship offerings, and they will be a memorial for you."

And so, understood in the context of the entire Scriptures as a whole, we can see that this word for "remembrance" is not just about thinking about the past and bringing it to mind. The term has strong sacrificial overtones, and has to do with remembering an event by participating in a sacrifice.

The same idea of remembrance, by the way, can be found in pagan cultures. In Haitian Voodoo, for example, the priest sacrifices an animal, or plants, to the ancestors, in order to remember them. If the ancestor is not remembered with a sacrifice, they are haunted by the ghost of the ancestor who brings bad luck. This notion of remembering via sacrifice is quite common throughout the world, across cultures, and anticipates but falls short of the one true sacrifice of Christ. Christ's sacrifice replaces the necessity of pagan sacrifices, as much as it replaces the sacrifices of the monotheistic Jews.

At Mass, Christ is remembered through the sacrifice which is the Eucharist in which his real presence resides. In the sacrifice of the Mass, the bread is changed into the substance of Chirst's Body, and this occurs by way of a miracle of God. The appearance of the bread and wine remain with all their usual properties. The substance changes, but not the appearance.

Why this sacrifice? I will refer you, first, to the links to the articles by Scott Hahn, which you can find in a prior post of mine, above. The Lord sacrifices his only Son because no other sacrifice can repair the damage done by original sin in the Garden. And in Revelations, John tells us that Christ continues to persist in the form of the slain lamb, always and forever, a perpetual sacrifice -- a key aspect of Christ's role in the Trinity. And whenever a Mass occurs, that perpetual sacrifice is made manifest again on earth -- which, as in Revelations, is celebrated with joy, for this is the sacrifice that breaks the seal. The only sacrifice that could break the seal.

Of course this is all revealed in Scripture! But the testimony of the early Church Fathers validates it without a shadow of a doubt.

God bless.

[Iscool]

The Jews expressed disbelief and admonished Christ--believing He could not really mean what He was saying. Now this would have been an excellent opportunity for Jesus to tell them he was only speaking metaphorically or figuratively and that he should not be taken literally.

You either don't understand the discourse or you don't accept it...You guys always leave out the salient part of the context...

Jesus said He already knew these people would not believe Him...He KNEW these people would not follow Him either way...

Jesus ALWAYS spoke to committed unbelievers in parables...ONLY explaining the parable to His true disciples when in private...

If you know the bible at all, you know that...

[bronxville]

John 10:9 (”I am the door”) and John 15:1 (”I am the true vine”). “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) - Jesus 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. Ask any Greek.

LUKE 22

You quoted:
19. And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them saying, “ This is my body, given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

Here’s the next verse for continuity:

20. In the same way, after supper, he took the cup, saying. “This cup is the New Covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”

While denying the miracle of the Real Presence of Jesus’ body and blood in the Eucharist, you ignore Jesus’s clear words “This is my body” and “my blood”, and concentrate on the phrase “Do this in remembrance of me” and use it to argue that the Eucharist was only meant to be symbolic. But of course, if we do something in memory of someone, (give a gift, for example) that does not necessarily mean that what we do (or the gift) is not real.

Let’s read some more verses from John where we can see whether they confirm the symbolic, or the Real, view of Communion.

JOHN 6
53 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. (I love that hymn)
55 “For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.
57 “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.
58 “This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.”

Yes, John continues to confirm that Jesus is not speaking symbolically. He’s stating that His flesh and blood are not only real food and real drink, but that His body and blood are necessary to give life. In fact, in the next verse his hearers certainly understood his teaching as we can see from their reaction....

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

And some of them didn’t accept His teaching then, either...

66. From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. Why didn’t Jesus call them back and tell them he was just speaking symbolically? These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways.

But he knew some didn’t believe. (It’s here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) “After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him” (John 6:66).

This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they made a mistake in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t Jesus call them back and straighten things out? There were other occasions when there was confusion and Jesus explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). But here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, Jesus didn’t correct Himself. Instead, He repeated Himself for greater emphasis - four times he said they would have “to eat my flesh and drink my blood.”

John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more explicit.

Here’s Paul - still consistent...

1 Corinthians 11

27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.
29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Once again, there’s an insistence on the reality of the presence of the body and blood of Jesus in Communion, and a demand that we recognize the sacredness of this sacrament. Yet this seems to be another of those biblical passages that most Protestants completely ignore. Why would Paul instruct them in such a serious way if it were mere wine and bread? Where did Paul hear these Words, from the Apostles, of course...and it continued on via Oral Tradition...via the early Church...

Read above what the Church Fathers believed only 30-40yrs later - they continued to take John 6 literally. In fact, there is no record from the early centuries that implies Christians doubted the constant Catholic interpretation. There exists no document in which the literal interpretation is opposed and only the metaphorical accepted. We can all learn a lot from how the Holy Scripture should be interpreted by examining the writings of early Christians.

All and all, one can see that the idea that Holy Communion is only symbolic and that the bread and wine of the Eucharist does not become the Real Body and Blood of Jesus, is a totally novel doctrine, newly invented by Protestants.

[bdeaner]

Jesus said He already knew these people would not believe Him...He KNEW these people would not follow Him either way...

I don't see how that statement refutes the arguments I've made about re: the real presence. It seems to be a non-sequiter.

True, Jesus is of the triune God. He knew the people would not listen to Him, would not believe Him. But it does not follow, logically, that, therefore, Jesus was speaking figuratively rather than literally when he spoke of eating His flesh and drinking His blood.

Jesus ALWAYS spoke to committed unbelievers in parables...ONLY explaining the parable to His true disciples when in private...

Yes, Jesus often spoke in parables. The parable of the vine, for example. Absolutely. No question about that. But, ironically, the fact that Jesus typically spoke in parables about being the vine and the shepherd, etc., all of which implied his Divinity and role as the Messiah, actually helps to support my arguments. When He is telling a parable, none of the disciples get up in arms and walk away. They KNOW it is metaphor and not to be taken literally. But when he speaks of eating His flesh and eating His body, His disciples and the Jewish authorities respond in a COMPLETELY different way! They are shocked, and many of his followers are so alarmed by what He says, they abandon Him!

So, I disagree that Jesus' tendency to talk in parables implies that when He spoke of His Body and Blood, He was also speaking metaphorically. On the contrary, His prior use of metaphor in the parables provides a clear contrast which allows us to see that, when He IS speaking literally, His listeners respond in a way that is fundamentally different from when He spoke metaphorically. This validates my argument.

[Iscool]

The fourth cup is drunken before the lamb is consumed -- and, at the Last Supper, this was the point at which Christ offered Himself up as a Sacrifice. But, at the Supper table, they never drank the fourth cup nor ate the lamb,

Again, we are faced with believing God, or believing you and your religion...

Luk 22:8 And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat.

The passover meal is a lamb...Jesus said to go prepare the meal that we may eat...

Luk 22:15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:

Jesus planned on eating a rack of ribs and maybe a little leg with mint sauce before his Crucifixion...If there was no food, it wasn't the Last Supper, eh???

Mat 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

As they were eating, Jesus broke the bread...What were they eating, a wet burrito??? They weren't eating the bread...Of course they were eating a lamb at the last Passover Meal...

Luk 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Must have been the 5th cup of wine...What did they do, skip the 4th cup???

Of course they ate the passover meal...I'll take Jesus' word for it every time especially when it contradicts the false teaching of your religion...

[bronxville]

You either don’t understand the discourse or you don’t accept it...You guys always leave out the salient part of the context...

Jesus said He already knew these people would not believe Him...He KNEW these people would not follow Him either way...

Jesus ALWAYS spoke to committed unbelievers in parables...ONLY explaining the parable to His true disciples when in private...

If you know the bible at all, you know that...

In context - John 6:30 - took place at the synagogue at Capernaum. The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that “our ancestors ate manna in the desert.” Could Jesus top that?

He told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. “Give us this bread always,” they said. Jesus replied, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.” At this point the Jews understood him to be speaking metaphorically.

Then Jesus first repeated what he said, and then He summarized:

“‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’” (John 6:51–52).

His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. Jesus yet again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: “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; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (John 6:53–56).

Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct “misunderstandings,” for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?

On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, there was NO effort by Jesus to correct. Instead, he repeated himself for greater emphasis.

In John 6:60 we read: “Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’” These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: “It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life” (John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14).

But he knew some did not believe. (It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) “After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him” (John 6:66).