Yes, He did.
Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; 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.
Protestants say that in John 6 Jesus was not talking about physical food and drink, but about spiritual food and drink. You quote John 6:35: "Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.’" You claim that coming to him is bread, having faith in him is drink. Thus, eating his flesh and blood merely means believing in Christ.
But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, "The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense" (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.
For Fundamentalist writers, the scriptural argument is capped by an appeal to John 6:63: "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." They say this means that eating real flesh is a waste. But does this make sense?
Are we to understand that Christ had just commanded his disciples to eat his flesh, then said their doing so would be pointless? Is that what "the flesh is of no avail" means? "Eat my flesh, but you’ll find it’s a waste of time"—is that what He was saying? Hardly. The fact is that Christ’s flesh avails much! If it were of no avail, then the Son of God incarnated for no reason, he died for no reason, and he rose from the dead for no reason. Christ’s flesh profits us more than anyone else’s in the world. If it profits us nothing, so that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ are of no avail, then "your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished" (1 Cor. 15:17b–18).
In John 6:63 "flesh profits nothing" refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. Thus in John 8:15–16 Jesus tells his opponents: "You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me." So natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true.
And were the disciples to understand the line "The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life" as nothing but a circumlocution (and a very clumsy one at that) for "symbolic"? No one can come up with such interpretations unless he first holds to the Fundamentalist position and thinks it necessary to find a rationale, no matter how forced, for evading the Catholic interpretation. In John 6:63 "flesh" does not refer to Christ’s own flesh—the context makes this clear—but to mankind’s inclination to think on a natural, human level. "The words I have spoken to you are spirit" does not mean "What I have just said is symbolic." The word "spirit" is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (cf. John 6:37, 44–45, 65).
Eating Flesh and Drinking Blood: Metaphors of Reviling or Metaphors of Belief?
By Michael Taylor
In an effort to defend the literal interpretation of John 6:53-58, virtually every Catholic apologist resorts to some form of the following argument: Eating flesh and drinking blood cannot be metaphors for belief in Jesus, for both eating flesh and drinking blood were already Old Testament metaphors for reviling or causing someone injury (e.g., Psalm 27:2, Ecclesiastes 4:5, Isaiah 9:20, 49:26, Micah 3:1-3). Therefore, Jesus was speaking literally. Karl Keating, citing John A. O?brien, argues:
?[T]he phrase ?to eat the flesh and drink the blood?, when used figuratively among the Jews, as among Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating Him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense.? Christ would be saying, ?He that reviles me has eternal life? (Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, [San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988], 241).
Essentially the Catholic apologist is saying that either Jesus was speaking metaphorically of reviling, or he was not speaking metaphorically at all. But if Jesus was not speaking metaphorically of reviling, then he must have been speaking literally. There are several problems with this argument.
A False Dilemma
A false dilemma is the fallacy of forcing a complex issue into a choice between two options, without admitting of alternative solutions. The Catholic apologist is guilty of this fallacy. We do not need to choose between metaphorical reviling or literalism. There are alternatives. For example, the unbelieving Jews of John 6:52 interpreted eating and drinking in neither a figurative sense nor a sacramental sense; rather they interpreted his words in a crassly literal, or carnal sense: ?How can this man give us his flesh to eat?? Of course, this is not a viable alternative, as Jesus is clearly not prescribing cannibalism. But it does demonstrate the faulty logic of the Catholic position. Is there a viable alternative to metaphorical reviling and sacramental literalism? In deed there is. James D. G. Dunn argues that
[Jesus] uses the language of ?eating?, ?munching?, ?drinking? as metaphors for believing in Jesus: the need to believe in Jesus is the central emphasis of the whole passage [John 6] (vv. 29, 35, 36, 40, 47, 64, 69)?to munch Jesus? flesh and drink his blood is the believe in Jesus as the truly incarnate one (James D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, 2nd Edition, [Harrisburg: Trinity Press. 1990], 170, emphasis in original).
In other words, metaphorical believing is a viable alternative. The Catholic apologist rightly acknowledges that eating flesh and drinking blood can be metaphors of reviling, but errs in claiming that they can only be metaphors of reviling. Any given word or words can be used metaphorically in a number of ways. Consider, for example, the word ?sword.? In Luke 2:35, a ?sword? (romphia) will pierce Mary?s heart. Clearly ?sword? is a metaphor for sorrow. But in Revelation, the ?sword? (romphia) in Jesus? mouth is a metaphor for judgment (cf. Revelation 1:16; 2:16; 19:15, 21). In Matthew 10:34, ?sword? (machaira) is a metaphor for division and violence, whereas in Ephesians 6:17 and Hebrews 4:12, the ?sword? (machaira) is a metaphor for the Word of God.
There is therefore nothing wrong in principle with the suggestion that eating flesh and drinking blood can have more than one metaphorical meaning. The Catholic has to concede at least this point. But what is even more devastating to the Catholic argument is the fact that both eating flesh and drinking blood are metaphorical in other ways besides reviling or causing someone injury. Sometimes eating flesh and drinking blood are metaphors of distress under persecution (Leviticus 26:29; Dueteronomy 28:53; Jeremiah 19:9). Sometimes they metaphorically express divine justice or giving someone their just desserts (Numbers 23:24; Isaiah 49:26; Revelation 16:6). Ezekiel uses these metaphors in a combined sense of ironic retribution and festal celebration (Ezekiel 39:17-20). In Second Samuel 23:17, David refuses to drink the blood of the heroic men who risked their lives to bring him a drink of water. The metaphorical sense here suggests both solidarity with, and a refusal to dishonor the brave. Finally, James speaks of eating flesh as a metaphor for greed (James 5:3).
The Catholic could reply that all of these other metaphorical uses still convey the overall sense of calumny or violence?that they are all negative. In other words, one could legitimately object that if Jesus is using eating flesh and drinking blood as metaphors for belief in him, then this would be an unprecedented positive use of those terms. Of course this objection assumes that Jesus would be constrained by past usage?that there could be no first time positive use of these terms unless there had been a positive precedent. This, of course, is fallacious reasoning. It very well could be the case that eating flesh and drinking blood in John 6 are the first positive uses of these metaphors.
For the Sake of Argument?
Let us suppose for the sake of argument that Jesus? hearers would have understood both eating flesh and drinking blood as negative metaphors, and that no other metaphorical use is possible. If so, then such a metaphorical reading of John 6:53-57 would lead to several absurd propositions. For example, Jesus would be saying, ?Unless you revile me, you have no life in you? (John 6:53); ?He who reviles me has eternal life? (verse 54); ?He who reviles me abides in me? (verse 56); ?He who reviles me will also live because of me? (verse 57). Admittedly, such propositions are absurd when viewed prospectively. But when viewed retrospectively, each one of those propositions contains an ironic ring of truth. In the Old Testament, eating flesh and drinking blood metaphorically connoted both physical harm and psychological harm (i.e., slandering or mocking someone). In the passion according to John, Jesus is both physically reviled (John 18:23, 19:1, 18) and psychologically reviled (John 18:40; 19:2-3, 14, 19, 24). It is therefore possible that eating flesh and drinking blood allude to the cross.
But if such metaphors can allude to the passion, then why not the eucharist as well? The answer is that they can. We should not exclude the possibility that the eucharist may also be in view. In fact, there very well may be secondary sacramental allusions throughout John?s gospel. But the case for such allusions has to be argued, not presumed. What we can safely say is that there are no direct references to the eucharist in John 6 or anywhere else in John?s gospel. John has taken pains to leave out the institution of the eucharist. While there are ample allusions to the cross, there is nothing that is unambiguously allusive to eucharist.
Protestants sometimes object that the eucharist cannot be in view in John 6, because it had not yet been instituted. Catholic apologists reply that by that logic, the cross could not be in view either, since Jesus had not yet died. But there is one crucial piece of evidence that Catholics apologists should keep in mind: Throughout John?s gospel, Jesus has been alluding to his impending death: ?Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit? (John 12:24). Jesus has even alluded to the cross itself: ?As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up? (John 3:14, see also 8:28; 12:32). The same cannot be said of the eucharist. After all, John?s gospel actually has a crucifixion in it?but it takes pains to leave out the eucharist! Therefore, with all of the clear allusions to his death on the cross?and no unambiguous allusions to the eucharist?it would be most natural to understand the ?flesh and blood? of John 6 as primarily an allusion to Jesus? death on the cross.
Why Protestants Overreact
Were not for the extreme liberties that Catholic apologists have taken with John 6, it is unlikely that most Protestants would react as they do. Some Protestants can be down right anti-sacramental in their interpretation of John 6, not even conceding the possibility of a eucharistic subtext. But given the way Roman apologists have read their doctrine into the text, who can blame them? Take, for instance, the following comments by Catholic apologist, Stephen Ray:
In this narrative [the multiplication of the loaves], John gives us a beautiful picture of the Church: ?all the people? numbering five thousand men (excluding women and children) representing the universal Church, gathered in ?small groups? of fifty to one hundred, representing the local churches, all being fed by Christ, the Great High Priest, who provides the ?bread? to all the people through the hands of his priests, the apostles. Later he explains that the bread is his flesh, which must be eaten, just as the meat of the Passover Lamb had to be eaten? (Stephen K. Ray, Crossing the Tiber [San Francisco: Ignatius, 1997], 198, n. 11).
Where does one begin to sort out this eisegetical mess? Note well that this is really a conflation of several texts and traditions. The ?small groups? actually comes from Mark?s version of the multiplication of the loaves, and the ?Great High Priest? is Hebrews? theological interpretation of Jesus? death on the cross?not his multiplication of the loaves! If the multiplication of the loaves is eucharistic, as Catholics are wont to claim, then one wonders what the eucharistic significance of ?fish? might be, and why there was no wine. By Catholic standards, this would be an invalid consecration for lack of proper matter. We might also ask whether or not the loaves were made of unleavened bread, which, according to Catholic canon law, is the only kind of bread that can be consecrated. One can also see a bit of the Council of Trent, which asserted that by the words ?Do this in memory of me,? Jesus had ordained the apostles priests! Ray seems to have forgotten that the Institution of the eucharist (and therefore the alleged presbyteral ordination of the apostles) had not yet taken place! It would be better from him to claim that the apostles were transitional deacons at this point?or just plain old unordained eucharistic ministers. In any event, Ray?s eisegesis gives us a fairly representative example of the way Catholics will use any text as a pretext for justifying the theological ?developments? of the later church.
Metaphors of Belief
It can sometimes be difficult to follow the logical flow of John?s use of metaphor, especially in John 6. For example, in verse 27, Jesus tells us to work for imperishable food. But in verse 29, we learn that ?work? is really a metaphor for belief in Jesus. That is simple enough, but what is the imperishable ?food? that we are to ?work for?? Verse 33 gives us the answer: ?The Bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.? Now John is using one metaphor to explain another. But what is this ?bread of God?? Verse 35 gives us the answer: ?I am the bread of life.? Finally we have the complete picture. Jesus himself is the bread, which is the imperishable food for which we are to work?that is, the one in whom we are to believe.
Likewise we read in verse 53 we read: ?Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.? Here it appears that Jesus is using highly evocative language to express the necessity of belief in Him. This interpretation gains plausibility in light of what Jesus has already said in verse 47: ?Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.? Further confirmation can be found back in verse 35: We already know that Jesus is ?the bread of life.? But the rest of the verse tells us: ?he who comes to me will not hunger, and he who believes in me will never thirst.? This language strongly suggests that ?eats my flesh? should most likely be taken as a metaphor for coming to Jesus, while ?drinks my blood? is most likely a metaphor for belief in Jesus. Further confirmation for this is found in John 7: 37-38, where coming to belief in Jesus is metaphorically expressed as drinking: ?If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. He who believes in me, as Scripture said, ?From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.??
<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>
In verse 54 we read: ?He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.? This statement appears to be the metaphorical corollary to verse 40: ?For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who beholds the son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I myself will raise him on the last day.? What Jesus states literally in verse 40, he states metaphorically in verse 54. The connection between belief and eating/drinking could not be more obvious.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>
<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>
Finally we come to John 6:57: ?As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me, he also will live because of me.? For the Catholic apologist, ?he who eats me,? simply defies any metaphorical interpretation. But once again, we must ask if this is necessarily so. In verse 6:51, Jesus has already told us: ?if anyone eats this bread, he will live forever, and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.? Following the logic of metaphor, we see that the bread is Jesus? flesh, which is nothing less than Jesus himself. The terms ?eats me? in verse 57, therefore, simply restates the same metaphor of eating bread/flesh in a more direct way. The ?me? is Jesus himself. The ?eats? is the metaphor of coming to and believing in him.
Conclusion
Catholic apologists who claim that eating flesh and drinking blood are either metaphors of reviling in John 6 or they are not metaphors at all, are guilty of the either/or fallacy. They are giving us a false dilemma. While the Old Testament and other passages can shed light on how those terms have been metaphorically used elsewhere, the determining criterion for a proper exegesis of those terms is the immediate Johannine context. The context makes it clear that eating flesh and drinking blood are primarily metaphors for belief in Jesus. One could make the case that metaphors may also contain secondary sacramental allusions to the eucharist. But this case has to be made, not assumed.