Is John 6:66 Evidence of Transubstantiation?

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.

"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.

figurative speech

his audience, the Apostles, travelled the known world teaching, baptizing and making disciples.
the Universal Church they left behind handed down the teaching from the Apostles that this was not figurative speech.
glad this mistake was corrected 1,500 years later ( sarc )

Then there is the unanswerable question of why John did not mention the institution in the Upper Room Discourse in John 13-17. John is the only gospel that does not mention it ... but does mention lesser events like the Triumphal Entry.

An even more unanswerable question is why would John write about it? As you stated, the Holy Spirit revealed the institution of the Eucharist in the other three Gospels. Paul also wrote about it in 1 Corinthians 11 before the Gospel of John was written. So why would John need to write about it a fifth time?

Also, the breaking of the bread was an established practice by the time John wrote his Gospel. Luke writes about the breaking of the bread several times in Acts and Paul wrote about it in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11. So by the time John wrote about the foreshadowing in Chapter 6, the followers of Christ had already had the words spoken at the last supper written on their hearts. So why would John feel the need to write about it again?

Also consider John’s reason for writing his Gospel. He writes in John 20:31, “But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.” John’s narrative of the triumphal entry is tied in with the raising of Lazarus and ends with the Pharisees saying to one another how they are gaining nothing as the whole world is gone after Jesus. Too John, is was more important to write about this.

Jesus wasn’t using a metaphor in this instance.

I am aware of your assertion, but still waiting for evidence why the ordinary rules of language should be abandoned here.

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

Blessing the bread and the wine was an ordinary and customary part of the passover celebration. For thousands of years, no Jewish participant, that I am aware of, ever expected the matza to be any thing but matza. The form Jesus gave is absolutely that of a direct metaphor. Please provide an actual reason for disregarding that fact.

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

I am edified by the writings of many. I as a Christian am only conscience-bound to what God has said, and not the traditions of men, be they 2 or 4 or 6000 years old.

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.

Indeed, and still they have trouble recognizing it. Imagine how surprised they will be on judgment day when those who ill-treated their brothers in Christ failed to see them as the body of Christ. Because that body of Christ, the family of believers, and not the bread or wine, is the locus of Paul's concern in 1 Corinthians 11. Indeed that whole section is about the body of Christ, the worthiness of even the least member of it, because each one of us carries the gift of the Holy Spirit, and each has something of value to give within that body, and each was the object of Christ's supreme love at the cross. This is why one should never partake of the remembering of Christ's sacrifice, while treating those for whom Christ died in an unloving manner. It is a wretched hypocrisy, and it does and should bring us under the disciplinary hand of God.

But no, no mystical, gnostic-like "recognition" of deity in the bread. That sort of mysticism was never part of the Lord's Supper until much later. Seeing it here is anachronistic projection, and a rejection of nearly the entire context surrounding the "proof text." But like you say, nothing new under the sun.

Peace,

SR

How about “do this in remembrance of me” just as Christ instructed? In remembrance of His broken body and shed blood on the cross just as He instructed. No magical mystical changing of some cracker into something it isn’t. Just a symbolic remembrance of His broken body and shed blood

The Passover miracle pointed to Christ.. it was a "type" of Christ

The Jews were told to remember this miracle with a yearly celebration ...and so ..at the remembrance , Jesus explains that He was the fulfillment of the Passover, and now do this in remembrance of Him ..no longer the historic type ... The broken unleaven bread , was His body, the blood over the door post was His blood which would be spilled on the cross.. He was the lamb to be slayed ...all the OT pointed to Him.. every prophet, every Law, every Jewish Holiday pointed to Him

read Leviticus 17, the prohibition is against eating the blood of any creatures.

one might want to ponder the Biblical statement the life is in the blood.
then one might want to ponder that Scripture interprets Scripture and that all Scripture is true.
then one might to ponder how we are commanded to drink the blood of Christ.
so obviously drinking the blood of Christ is not a sin, does not violate Leviticus 17.

I guess it depends on who’s life you want in you, I have decided only Jesus Christ and him alone can satisfy my soul.

I as a Christian am only conscience-bound to what God has said

yet, that doesn’t seem to be the case.

God said it’s His Body.

it seems the more like being conscience-bound to follow the 16th century tradition of men.

peace

The Passover miracle pointed to Christ.. it was a “type” of Christ

excellent!
the OT is full of types and shadows pointing to Christ.

but.......once Christ came, the need for types and shadows went away, the promised one came!

we no longer have need for types, shadows, symbols, etc.

we now can receive Christ!

Jesus said He was the "lamb" that was slain.

Revelation 13:8 All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast--all whose names have not been written in the Lamb's book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.

I thought Catholics claim to believe what Christ said. Are you now telling us that you don't believe what Jesus said? Are you now changing to metaphor?

I am aware of your assertion, but still waiting for evidence why the ordinary rules of language should be abandoned here

if I said to you, take and eat, this is chicken soup.

under the ordinary rules of language, what would you be expecting to eat?
one might answer - chicken soup.

so......under the ordinary rules of language, if Jesus says take and eat, THIS IS MY BODY.
What would you be expecting to eat??

yet, that doesn’t seem to be the case.

I understand that to you it wouldn't seem so. Happily, each of us will stand or fall before our own Master, and not the misunderstandings of our mortal critics. That's actually beneficial to both of us. :)

BTW, you have yet to offer any proof why this clear metaphor should be disregarded, and the rules of ordinary language suspended. Do you have an offering in that regard? Or should we consider that part of the conversation closed?

Peace,

That’s actually beneficial to both of us. :)

amen to that! I am glad to agree with!

we disagree, clearly it is not a metaphor and never was considered a metaphor by the Church.
we are going in circles.

read Leviticus 17, the prohibition is against eating the blood of any creatures.

So are you saying that cannabalism is Ok under levitical law ?

one might want to ponder the Biblical statement the life is in the blood.,

As indeed it is.. That is why Jesus poured out HIS life for us on the cross

He poured out HIS life for us !

then one might to ponder how we are commanded to drink the blood of Christ. so obviously drinking the blood of Christ is not a sin, does not violate Leviticus 17.

That makes no sense at all..are you saying that it was fine for the to break levitical law because the life is in the blood?..Funny how God missed that

One might just ask if Jesus had any blood left after He hung on the cross for 8 hours.. and had His heart area speared by a sword

Luke 39"See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." 40And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet.…

Might it be the body that ascended into heaven had no blood for you to drink?? Something to ponder

I guess it depends on who’s life you want in you, I have decided only Jesus Christ and him alone can satisfy my soul.

Unfortunately the cracker god is not the Jesus of the bible. The Jesus of scripture saves to the outermost..

He is not re-sacrificed daily on an altar...He is not locked in a golden prison to "keep Him safe"

He is King of Kings and Lord of lords ..subject to no mans call

if I said to you, take and eat, this is chicken soup.

under the ordinary rules of language, what would you be expecting to eat?
one might answer - chicken soup.

so......under the ordinary rules of language, if Jesus says take and eat, THIS IS MY BODY.
What would you be expecting to eat??

An excellent demonstration of my central point. Remember what a metaphor is. If I say "chicken soup," and I am actually presented with literal chicken soup, I do not have a cross-reference between two dissimilar domains. That contrast of domains is exactly what triggers the metaphor analysis processing of the human mind. No contrast, no metaphor. Soup is soup is soup. Big deal.

BUT, if someone is holding something which is clearly not His body, a piece of bread for example, and yet calls it His body, the metaphor recognition wire is tripped, and we automatically begin to look for the lesson of the metaphor, which Jesus provides explicitly, in that like the broken bread, His body is broken for us, and that like the flowing wine, His blood has flowed for us. Add to that all the prophetic significance of the Passover meal itself, and you have a tremendous, wonderful metaphor of our Savior's great gift of Himself to us. Oh yes, this is most definitely a parable of unmatched love, and one we should never ever forget, to the praise of His glory!

Peace,

SR

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.