Is John 6:66 Evidence of Transubstantiation?

In Plain Sight ^ | March 31,2015 | Jason Engwer

[RnMomof7]

If priests indeed have the exclusive power to change finite bread and wine into the body and blood of the infinite Christ, and, if indeed, consuming His body and blood is necessary for salvation, then the whole world must become Catholic to escape the wrath of God. On the other hand, if Jesus was speaking in figurative language, then this teaching becomes the most blasphemous and deceptive hoax any religion could impose on its people. There is no middle ground. (Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood. by Mike Gendron)

“There is no indication in the biblical accounts of the Last Supper that the disciples thought that the bread and wine changed into the actual body and blood of Christ. There simply isn't any indication of this. Should we say that the disciples who were sitting right there with Jesus, actually thought that what Jesus was holding in his hands was his own body and blood? That would be ridiculous...

...The Mass is supposed to be a re-sacrifice of Christ. Therefore, the body and blood represented in the Mass become the broken body and shed blood of Christ. In other words, they represent the crucifixion ordeal. But how can this be since Jesus instituted the Supper before He was crucified? Are we to conclude that at the Last Supper, when they were all at the table, that when Jesus broke the bread it became His actual sacrificial body -- even though the sacrifice had not yet happened? Likewise are we to conclude that when Jesus gave the wine that it became His actual sacrificial blood -- even though the sacrifice had not yet happened? That would make no sense at all”. (Matthew Slick Transubstantiation and the Real Presence.
 

 

 

Is John 6:66 Evidence of Transubstantiation?
Jason Engwer

"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....It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life." - John 6:35, 6:63

Catholics often claim that John 6 is a passage about the eucharist, and that Jesus was teaching transubstantiation by telling people to "eat His flesh and drink His blood". Typical is the April 22, 1998 edition of Mother Angelica Live, a television program on the Roman Catholic network EWTN. The guests on the program, Bob and Penny Lord, argued that Jesus wouldn't have let people leave Him, as some did in John 6:66, if His statements about "eating My flesh and drinking My blood" were not to be taken as actual eating and drinking of flesh and blood. Supposedly, Jesus allowing those people to leave Him is evidence that He was teaching transubstantiation, and that He was unwilling to compromise that teaching in order to have more followers. Surely He would have explained to the people in John 6:66 what He really meant if He wasn't referring to actual eating and drinking of flesh and blood, right?

Actually, there are some problems with the Roman Catholic interpretation of John 6. In verse 35, Jesus identifies what the "eating and drinking" are. They represent coming to Him and believing in Him. Trusting in Christ, not participation in Roman Catholic mass, eliminates a person's hunger and thirst. Throughout John 6, statements about faith in Christ are interspersed with the statements about "eating and drinking" (verses 29, 35, 36, 40, 47, 64). As Jesus often did, He was using an analogy to illustrate a point. In this case, He was illustrating a true faith, a faith that involves a person coming to Christ, believing in Him, and then never hungering or thirsting again as a result. This is why Jesus told people that He is the bread of life, and that they are responsible for eating His flesh and drinking His blood. He said these things before the Last Supper. People were just as responsible for eating His flesh and drinking His blood before the eucharist was instituted as they were after.

Not only does the Catholic interpretation of John 6 miss the theme of the passage, but it also rests on some bad assumptions. Did Jesus really let the people in John 6:66 leave Him without a clarification of what He meant? No, He didn't. In verses 35 and 63, Jesus reveals that He isn't referring to actual eating and drinking of flesh and blood. If some who heard Him missed or forgot what He was saying in those verses, that was a problem with them, not with Jesus.

And was it even the concept of actual eating and drinking that motivated the people in John 6:66 to leave Jesus? Possibly not. The immediate context of their departure is Christ's teaching about His own foreknowledge and predestination (John 6:64-65). Catholic apologists often overlook the verses immediately before verse 66, and go back to what Jesus was saying earlier in the passage. Why should we do that? We really don't know all of what was motivating the people in John 6:66. For all we know, they may have left because what Jesus said in verses 64-65 convicted them that they didn't truly believe in Him.

It's also possible, of course, that they did think Jesus was referring to actual eating and drinking of flesh and blood. Does it follow, then, that Jesus would have tried to keep those people from leaving Him if He really wasn't referring to actual eating and drinking? No, it doesn't. He knew that these people had never really believed in Him (John 6:64). And contrary to what Catholic apologists suggest, Jesus didn't always clarify His teachings to those who rejected Him. In Matthew 13:10-17, Jesus explains that He purposely kept some people from understanding what He was teaching. In John 2:19-22, Jesus refers to His body as a "temple", which many people misunderstood as a reference to the actual temple in Jerusalem. He didn't explain to these people what He really meant. We read in Mark 14:56-59 that some people, long after Jesus had made the statement in John 2:19, were still thinking that He had referred to the actual temple in Jerusalem. And in John 21:22-23, we read of another instance of Jesus saying something that was misunderstood by some people, with the misunderstanding leading to the false conclusion that the apostle John wouldn't die. Yet, Jesus didn't clarify the statement. It was John who clarified it decades later in his gospel. (Any suggestion that John didn't clarify chapter 6 in his gospel only begs the question. How do Catholics know that passages such as John 6:35 and 6:63 aren't clarifications of what Jesus meant?) When Catholic apologists claim that it would be unprecedented for Jesus not to further clarify His message to the people in John 6:66, if He wasn't referring to actual eating and drinking, they're mistaken. He could have been following the same pattern we see in Matthew 13:10-17, John 2:19-22, and John 21:22-23. To this day, people continue to disagree about what Jesus meant by some of the parables in Matthew's gospel, for example.

Catholic apologists sometimes argue that the metaphorical concept of eating somebody's flesh and drinking his blood always had a negative connotation among the Jews. They point to passages of scripture like Psalms 27:2 and Revelation 16:6. Therefore, if Jesus was using such terminology in a metaphorical way, He would have been telling His listeners to do something negative. Since Jesus wouldn't have done that, He must not have been speaking metaphorically. The problem with this Catholic argument is that it's erroneous in its first claim. While metaphorically eating flesh and drinking blood did sometimes have a negative connotation, it also sometimes had a positive connotation (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/hnoblood2.html#john6). And since Jesus gave us a positive definition in John 6:35, there's no need to look for any other definition.

We're told by Jesus and the apostle Paul that the bread and wine of the eucharist remain bread and wine even after consecration (Matthew 26:29, 1 Corinthians 11:26-27). The Roman Catholic view of communion is filled with errors, some of them undermining fundamental doctrines of scripture. Citing John 6, or citing John 6:66 in particular, doesn't change that.
 

[RnMomof7]

Claiming that Jesus sinned by eating blood and causing others to do so is not a good thing

Yep would make Jesus death on the cross useless.. but wait they do believe it is useless

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

No, actually what’s funny is that Ignatius was disputing the Docetists and Gnostics who denied Jesus even HAD a physical body

---

actually, the Gnostics at least had a consistent logical belief. if Jesus did not have a body, than the Eucharist could not be His flesh as Ignatius taught, since He had no flesh.
the followers of the 16th century tradition of men I think believe Jesus had a body, but apparently does not have the power to change bread into His Body.

the one true God CHRISTIANS have put their faith and trust in for 1,982 years, is not only sovereign but He is able to enter into his creation by taking on human flesh, he is able to turn water into wine, he is able to multiply loaves and fishes, walk on water, make the blind see, make the deaf hear, raise the dead, forgive sins, change man’s heart of stone into a heart of flesh and able to preserve His Church for 1,982 years and yes, this one true God is able to come to his followers under the appearance of bread and wine.

to say transubstantiation did not enjoy official Church sanction until the 13th century is to make the same mistake Oneness people make when they say the Church invented the Trinity in the 4th century or Jehovah Witnesses say the Church made Jesus God in the 4th century.

but let’s go with the 16th century position for a minute and suspend belief about what Ignatius, Justin Martyr, the Didache, Irenaeus and all the other Catholic Church Fathers wrote.
we know from the history of the Church whenever someone proposes a new doctrine, or a different doctrine than the Apostolic Faith, we can trace that doctrine to a person, time and place. for example, Arius in the 4th century denied the divinity of Christ, Pelagius in the 5th century denied salvation by grace, etc etc.

who started this belief that the Eucharist is the Body of Christ? if the Apostles taught it was merely symbolic and a memorial only, who changed the doctrine?
where was the upheaval from those who kept faithful to the Scriptures??
the fact is, there was no upheaval because there was no controversy until the 16th century.
if you are going to claim the 13th century, explain to me how the Orthodox, when the Catholic Church split in 1054ad, hold the same belief as the Catholic Church today?
so, we know the doctrine had to have changed before 1054ad, but who did this?
let’s next look at the Coptic Church, which split from the Catholic Church around 440ad over the nature of Christ.
they have the same belief in the Eucharist as the Body of Christ as the Catholics do. in fact every ancient Church that can trace itself back to the Apostles has this belief.
hmm, how did that happen?
the reason we know men like Zwingli at all is the NEW DOCTRINE they invented in the 16th century.

so when Ignatius, who witnessed the Apostle John offer the Eucharist probably hundreds of times, tells us the Gnostics deny the Eucharist IS THE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, I would think one would want to stand with him, the Catholic Church and oppose this Gnostic belief. yet, sadly, unbelief reigns in the hearts of many who claim to know Christ.

[Elsie]

Yep...Cherry picked scripture is Rome’s speciality

[redleghunter]

Excellent run down. This is a keeper.

[CynicalBear]

>>but let’s go with the 16th century position for a minute<<

No, let's not. Let's get back to what the apostles taught.

[RnMomof7]

You have to take into consideration that all of these anti-Catholic posters are the same ones that don’t believe in celebrating Christmas by putting up Christmas trees, giving their kids presents from Santa, singing secular carols or going to Christmas parties. Carving a pumpkin, putting on a costume and going trick-or-treating is considered evil. So is dyeing Easter eggs and visits from the Easter bunny. If you take part in any of these things you are practicing paganism, and that’s a big no-no-. I’m not sure what their position is on eating a Thanksgiving turkey, but I’m sure they have some kind of problem with that too.

Eating flesh and drinking blood are forbidden by the levitical law ... was Jesus a sinner?

[RnMomof7]

No, let's not. Let's get back to what the apostles taught.

Exactly... what is written in scripture is inspired and infallible...the" church fathers" were working to understand what was in those scriptures and what they meant.. so they often disagreed with each other or seemed to talk out of both sides of their mouths.. they were very fallible

[Petrosius]

Eating flesh and drinking blood are forbidden by the levitical law ... was Jesus a sinner?

Jesus in God, the LAWGIVER. He can change the law. BTW, we are no longer under the levitical law. That is why we call it the NEW Testament.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

No, let’s not. Let’s get back to what the apostles taught

---

perfect!

please show me where any Apostle taught the Eucharist is symbolic or anything other than the Body of Christ.

did you ever wonder if Jesus wanted us to know the Eucharist is His Body, could He have said anything plainer or clearer than “this is my body”
I think not.

on the other hand, if He wanted us to know the Eucharist was NOT His Body and merely symbolic or representative, could He have said anything differently to convey that?
the answer to that has to be yes.
for example, he could have said:

this is a symbol of my body
or
this is a figure of my body
or
this represents my body
or
this is like my body

I think Jesus was very well aware of what He said and His words were no accident.

[Aliska]

You need to get a refund for the course.

That was too many years ago.

It seems one more doctrine for Christians to fight over. It's a valid word and if it's all I learned in that course, I got my first understanding of how Christians bickered to the point of bloodshed over Jesus' teachings.

I just don't feel like arguing about it. I tried to post benign material which I believed to be of merit, without rancor either way on my part, and people either ignore it or you pick on me for what I'm not sure.

I shouldn't have said where I first learned that word and the context was the Reformation, not theology.

[MDLION]

“Sure, the Holy Spirit was on vacation in Vegas for fifteen hundred years, with the Tooth Fairy in fact.”

Don’’t forget BigFoot and the Loch Ness Monster.

[imardmd1]

If just one more person is influenced to look up the differences between the interpretive methodology, posting this brief summary has been worth it. Dr. Wittman discipled me and several others in it, with the book as the guide. to me, it was worth, say, ten years of listening to a patchwork of sermons.

Thanks for the encouragement! I really would recommend going to the HHI site and asking for the book. It is free, but I know they would greatly appreciate if the requester wanted to assume the postage.

[MamaB]

You would be very wrong. I am as conservative as anyone on here and Catholics are very wrong with some of their beliefs.

[Springfield Reformer]

please show me where any Apostle taught the Eucharist is symbolic or anything other than the Body of Christ.

As CommerceComet has rightly pointed out, the RC apologist who denies the metaphor here is guilty of the fallacy of special pleading.  In nearly all the other major metaphors of Jesus' teaching, the indirect form is not used, but the direct (I am the Door, I am the True Vine, I am the Way, etc.).  "A is B" is the direct form, and "A is like B" is the indirect form.  They are functionally identical. They are both metaphors. In none of those other cases do we suggest Jesus should have said A is like B ("I am like a door," "I am like a true vine," etc.) , because we don't have an invented doctrine to protect.  So we allow the ordinary rules of language to apply, and in ordinary language, when you cross-reference two domains for the teaching value of the overlap, that's a metaphor.  There is no ambiguity.  To call it something other than what it would ordinarily be is precisely what CommerceComet said, special pleading, a fallacy of evidence, making a naked assertion this one case should be treated differently, but providing no evidence as to why. The burden of proof is not on us to prove a negative, why He didn't use "like."  That is utter nonsense.  The burden of proof is on the RC apologist to give evidence why the ordinary rules of human language should be suspended in this one place and a doctrine inserted here which did not exist until hundreds of years later.

To illustrate this, let's invent a hypothetical new cult.  Let's call them the Doorists.  They claim that unless you pass through the sacramental Door of their church building, you cannot obtain eternal life.  This cult is founded on the passage in John 10:9 where Jesus says He is the Door.  We are told that we must understand this Door as literally being Jesus, because, after all, He did not say He was like a door, but He is the Door, and most importantly, they have recognized this truth about Jesus really being the Door of their church building for a very long time and with the agreement of a very large number of people.  So it must be right.

OLOF, would you accept such reasoning?  If not, you are applying a double standard.  Or as CommerceComet puts it, entangled in the fallacy of special pleading.  If the true basis of your claim is the form of the metaphor (with or without "like"), you have to apply the same rule the same way in both cases, or else it is your burden to give good reason why you should treat them differently.  Are the Doorists wrong, or are they right?

Peace,

SR

[MDLION]

John 6:66 - “returned to their former way of life”

The low road, the wide road which the followers of the Anti-Christ will be on. These that walked away from Jesus are the forerunners of the followers of the Anti-Christ.

The low road, the wide road which even many believers will return to at the end because they won’t find the Supernatural Strength to persevere because they deprive themselves of the Holy Eucharist. The Beast and his followers won’t allow one to participate in the economy without the mark of the Beast (the tracking microchip, which is injected into dogs and some willing human beings already for medical and work reasons and upon initial rollout was said to be best received in the hand or forehead). Without the mark they won’t allow you food, water, medical care, shelter, and on and on. They’ll try to dehydrate and starve you right off the bat like Terri Schiavo.

The Rapture- Denial of the Cross. There are more martyrs today than even in the first century. But those at the end are more special and get magically raptured out? No. They’re imprisoned (go into captivity Rev 13:10) or are beheaded (Rev 20:4; 13:11).

The denial of the need for individual penance - Denial of the Cross. I don’t have to get my disordered appetites under control because Jesus did everything. Then how am I being conformed to the Christ who fasted in the desert for 40 days?

The defense of birth control - Denial of the Cross. How difficult self-control is in this area and so we’ll pretend that the break with the constant Christian teaching and tradition beginning with the Lambeth Conference in 1931 was right all along.

Without the Holy Eucharist, we can’t live fully the way Christ wants us to live and so we pretend that our “former way of life”, the low road, the wide way, the easy road, the path of least resistance is the high road.

It’s not.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

if you follow the levitical law, there are much bigger problems than the Eucharist.......

btw, can one of you guys do this papist a huge favor?

what does a Baptist or whatever church one of you attends ( if you do ) communion service consist of?
I have been to a Lutheran service and almost forgot it wasn’t a Catholic Mass.
if you could describe your service, or post an attachment I would appreciate it.
always wondered what does the minister say?
I assume he prays in some fashion.
does he quote Jesus saying this is my body?
when the bread is distributed to the people, is anything said?
do they say this bread represents the body of Christ?
thanks in advance.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

Jesus wasn’t using a metaphor in this instance.

He never blessed a particular door and said that door is me.
He never blessed a particular vine and said that vine is me.

we have the writing of the Apostles and Fathers and the 2,000 year testimony of the Church.

Paul told us in his day there were some who did not discern ( recognize ) the Body, as the saying goes, nothing new under the sun.

[RnMomof7]

if you follow the levitical law, there are much bigger problems than the Eucharist.......

Jesus and the apostles were under the Levitical laws at the time of the last passover

If Jesus was to be a sinless Savior, he could not break the levitical law

[CommerceComet]

I think Jesus was very well aware of what He said and His words were no accident.

I agree with this statement. Jesus knew very well that He was using figurative speech and He expected His audience to understand that.

[CynicalBear]

Why do you keep insisting that Jesus sinned by eating blood and causing other Jews to do it also?