Three reasons to take John 6 literally.

n my last post (here) I respond­ed to a few argu­ments, made recent­ly by TurretinFan—known here as Mr. X—on the sub­ject of the Real Pres­ence of Christ in the Eucharist. You may find his posts here and here.

Mr. X’s argu­ment, in his two posts, relies on two non sequiturs:

• If we can estab­lish that Christ is using the word “cup” in a metaphor­i­cal sense (in Matt. 26:28, Mark 14:24, and Luke 22:20), it must fol­low that he is using the word “blood” in a metaphor­i­cal sense too.

Strict­ly speak­ing, Christ’s use of the word “cup” is not metaphor but metonymy—but that’s a lit­er­ary dis­tinc­tion fine enough to both escape the sub­tle brain of Mr. X, and to be tan­gen­tial to the real point. Just because one word in a sen­tence is metaphor­i­cal does not imply that oth­ers are. Mr. X attempts to argue that the word “blood” is used metaphorically—not because it is, but because cup is. That just won’t do: It’s a shell game with metaphor.

• If we can show that the word “blood” is used metaphor­i­cal­ly else­where in Scrip­ture, it must be used metaphor­i­cal­ly in John 6 (and relat­ed pas­sages) as well.

This too is a non sequitur. It simul­ta­ne­ous­ly proves too lit­tle and too much. Are we then to assume that the word “blood” is metaphor­i­cal every time it is used in Scrip­ture? That makes a mock­ery of the crucifixion—though I am sure that that is not Mr. X’s inten­tion; he is just unaware (I speak as a char­i­ta­ble man) of the impli­ca­tions of his hasty and ill-con­sid­ered argu­ment. I do not sug­gest that he is John Shel­by Spong, or a covert mem­ber of the Jesus Sem­i­nar. I do not sus­pect that his true iden­ti­ty is Bart Ehrman, and that Dr. Ehrman makes weird and unten­able argu­ments under a pseu­do­nym the bet­ter to dis­cred­it Calvin­ism. I sug­gest none of those things.

The true ques­tion is not whether there’s a fig­ure of speech else­where in the Bible, or even whether there is one in the same sen­tence. To point out such things is tan­ta­mount to argu­ing: “Metaphors exist, there­fore this is a metaphor.” You can make a metaphor of any­thing you like that way. Per­haps the real rea­son no one knows who Mr. X is is because he does­n’t exist; he’s just a metaphor for the secre­tive, odd­ball Calvin­ist. But no one seri­ous­ly sug­gests any such thing. Instead, the only ques­tion is: What are the rea­sons to take this pas­sage lit­er­al­ly. And in my view, there are three.

THE JEWS UNDERSTOOD JESUS LITERALLY, AND HE DID NOT CORRECT THEM

Here is the full pas­sage from John 6:

30. They said there­fore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

31. Our fathers did eat man­na in the desert; as it is writ­ten, He gave them bread from heav­en to eat.

32. Then Jesus said unto them, Ver­i­ly, ver­i­ly, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heav­en; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heav­en.

33. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heav­en, and giveth life unto the world.

34. Then said they unto him, Lord, ever­more give us this bread.

35. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall nev­er hunger; and he that believeth on me shall nev­er thirst.

36. But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

37. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

38. For I came down from heav­en, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

39. And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath giv­en me I should lose noth­ing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

40. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have ever­last­ing life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

41. The Jews then mur­mured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heav­en.

42. And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and moth­er we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heav­en?

43. Jesus there­fore answered and said unto them, Mur­mur not among your­selves.

44. No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

45. It is writ­ten in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man there­fore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

46. Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

47. Ver­i­ly, ver­i­ly, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath ever­last­ing life.

48. I am that bread of life.

49. Your fathers did eat man­na in the wilder­ness, and are dead.

50. This is the bread which cometh down from heav­en, that a man may eat there­of, and not die.

51. I am the liv­ing bread which came down from heav­en: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52. The Jews there­fore strove among them­selves, say­ing, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53. Then Jesus said unto them, Ver­i­ly, ver­i­ly, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

54. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drin­keth my blood, hath eter­nal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56. He that eateth my flesh, and drin­keth my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

57. As the liv­ing Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

58. This is that bread which came down from heav­en: not as your fathers did eat man­na, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

59. These things said he in the syn­a­gogue, as he taught in Caper­naum.

60. Many there­fore of his dis­ci­ples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard say­ing; who can hear it?

61. When Jesus knew in him­self that his dis­ci­ples mur­mured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

62. What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

63. It is the spir­it that quick­eneth; the flesh prof­iteth noth­ing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spir­it, and they are life.

64. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the begin­ning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

65. And he said, There­fore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were giv­en unto him of my Father.

66. From that time many of his dis­ci­ples went back, and walked no more with him.

67. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

68. Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eter­nal life.

69. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the liv­ing God.

70. Jesus answered them, Have not I cho­sen you twelve, and one of you is a dev­il?

71. He spake of Judas Iscar­i­ot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

The text begins with His dis­ci­ples ask­ing Christ for a “sign that they might believe in Him. They recall the man­na, sent by God in the wilder­ness, as the very kind of “sign” they are think­ing of. (Of course, the Jews did not believe God even then, so why some­thing like man­na should mat­ter now is any­body’s guess.)

Now, no one argues, except he be lib­er­al-mind­ed, that the man­na in the desert was mere­ly sym­bol­ic of some­thing. And even most lib­er­als will agree that it was true bread, though they may not want to attribute a super­nat­ur­al ori­gin to it. But at this point—note—Christ says that He is truer bread than even the man­na was, He is “the bread of life.”

Now, this could have a mere­ly spir­i­tu­al mean­ing. The man­na in the desert was phys­i­cal bread, and the Jews ate it, and they died. Christ, however—figuratively; by way of analogy—is the “bread” through which one has eter­nal life. That’s how Mr. X under­stands Him.

But it is not how those who first heard Christ under­stood Him, when He said that he is “liv­ing bread.”

“How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” they said. And indeed, one can under­stand their dis­tress: To eat human flesh, and drink blood, was an abom­i­na­tion (Lev. 17:10).

So if Christ’s mean­ing was mere­ly fig­u­ra­tive, this was the right moment to reas­sure His audi­ence on that point. But He does­n’t. Indeed, He repeats Him­self; if any­thing, more strong­ly: “Ver­i­ly, ver­i­ly, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drin­keth my blood, hath eter­nal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

And then—this is cru­cial; pay atten­tion here, Mr. X—Christ specif­i­cal­ly says that he is not speak­ing metaphor­i­cal­ly. In verse 55 He says, “My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.”

Lest any­one try to reas­sure him­self, “Oh, Yeshua is just using a fig­ure here,” Yeshua says: No, sir. Get that idea out of your head. Yeshua does not “clar­i­fy”; He dou­bles down. Thus in verse 57 He says: “He that eateth me, even so shall he live by me.”

All this goes far beyond Christ’s pre­sum­ably using the word “blood” metaphor­i­cal­ly at the Last Sup­per. Here, if we are to believe Mr. X, Christ is using the word “eat,” and even the word “true,” metaphor­i­cal­ly as well. If we are to believe Mr. X, at the very moment the Jews took a metaphor lit­er­al­ly, Christ repeat­ed the metaphor in even more extreme terms. Hey, broth­ers, if you think that metaphor was con­fus­ing, try this one on for size!

“This is a hard say­ing,” his dis­ci­ples say. “Who can hear it?” So they still under­stand Christ lit­er­al­ly: Far from being reas­sured, they’re all the more trou­bled.

And note that Christ, again, is firm in stand­ing behind what he had just said. “Doth this offend you?” he says. Per­haps it offends; they under­stand me lit­er­al­ly; and well they should, too. “What an if you shall see the Son of Man ascend up to where He was before?”

You think this is dif­fi­cult, wait until you see the Ascen­sion. Then you’ll have some­thing to wres­tle with, that let me tell you.

Verse 63 is the one that Protes­tants such as Mr. X often cite in an attempt to show that Christ was speak­ing metaphor­i­cal­ly. “It is the spir­it that quick­eneth; the flesh prof­iteth noth­ing,” Christ says. “The words I speak unto you, they are spir­it.”

Now, the prob­lem with that inter­pre­ta­tion is not mere­ly that it relies on look­ing at the word “spir­it” and inter­pret­ing it to mean “metaphor­i­cal.” (Are our spir­its only metaphors, or are they real things?) The prob­lem is also that it utter­ly dis­re­gards what Christ is respond­ing to. He is respond­ing not to His dis­ci­ples’ dif­fi­cul­ty with under­stand­ing what He has said, but rather their dif­fi­cul­ty with accept­ing it. And what He is say­ing is that they must accept it on the basis, not of human rea­son, but of spir­i­tu­al faith. By your own rea­son, you will not get it; by faith, you will: That is Christ’s mean­ing. His mean­ing is not: Calm down, broth­ers, I’m just using a fig­ure of speech here.

At this point, many of Christ’s dis­ci­ples aban­don Him. Evi­dent­ly, they still under­stand Him lit­er­al­ly (even after the “flesh prof­iteth noth­ing” pas­sage). Does Christ turn to the twelve and say, “Do you also mis­un­der­stand”? No. Does He say, “To them it is giv­en to mis­un­der­stand, lest they repent and be saved; but to you, I will explain myself plain­ly”? No. He says, “Will ye also go away?” He gives no indi­ca­tion at all of hav­ing been mis­un­der­stood lit­er­al­ly when He meant His words fig­u­ra­tive­ly. And Peter says, “Lord, to whom shall we go?” Those are words of aban­don­ment to Christ—not of human rea­son reas­sured, but of faith despite the lim­i­ta­tions of human rea­son.

But it is Judas who does begin to aban­don Christ at this moment. That is inter­est­ing: It is over the doc­trine of the Real Pres­ence that Judas first begins to aban­don Christ.

ST. PAUL’S STRONG LANGUAGE ABOUT THE EUCHARIST

I can remem­ber, two years before I became Catholic, being tremen­dous­ly struck by the sever­i­ty of St. Paul’s words about the Eucharist in 1 Corinthi­ans 11:26–29:

For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. Where­fore whoso­ev­er shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthi­ly, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man exam­ine him­self, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drin­keth unworthi­ly, eateth and drin­keth damna­tion to him­self, not dis­cern­ing the Lord’s body.

Of course, I was struck by the last clause of the last verse, in which St. Paul indi­cates that one should “dis­cern the Lord’s body” in the Eucharist. But more than that, I was struck by how uncom­pro­mis­ing and direct his lan­guage was. Who­ev­er par­takes of the Eucharist “unworthily”—that is to say, in a state of mor­tal sin—is guilty of the cru­ci­fix­ion itself. Who­ev­er par­takes of the Eucharist in a state of mor­tal sin “drin­keth damna­tion.” That’s hard.

It’s hard, that is, if we’re mere­ly talk­ing about a sym­bol.

But it makes per­fect­ly rea­son­able sense if the Eucharist actu­al­ly is, lit­er­al­ly, the body and blood, soul and divin­i­ty, of Christ. Then it makes sense to be guilty of the cru­ci­fix­ion in the cir­cum­stances St. Paul describes. The cru­ci­fix­ion did not involve a sym­bol­ic body or sym­bol­ic blood; nei­ther does the Eucharist. To link the two—crucifixion and Eucharist—as Paul does implies that they are linked.

THE UNANIMOUS WITNESS OF THE EARLY CHURCH

And I mean unan­i­mous:

• Justin Mar­tyr: “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” (First Apol­o­gy 66, here).
• Ignatius of Anti­och: “Take note of those who hold het­ero­dox opin­ions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how con­trary their opin­ions are to the mind of God.… They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not con­fess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Sav­ior Jesus Christ, flesh which suf­fered for our sins and which that Father, in his good­ness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are per­ish­ing in their dis­putes” (Let­ter to the Smyr­naeans 6–7, here).
• St. Cyril of Alexan­dria: “The offer­ings, by the hid­den pow­er of God Almighty, are changed into Christ’s Body and Blood” (Com­men­tary on Matthew 26–27, quot­ed here).
• Cyril of Jerusalem: “After the invo­ca­tion the Bread becomes the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ” (Cat­e­chet­i­cal Lec­tures 19:7, here).
• Cyril of Jerusalem: Since then He Him­self declared and said of the Bread, This is My Body, who shall dare to doubt any longer? And since He has Him­self affirmed and said, This is My Blood, who shall ever hes­i­tate, say­ing, that it is not His blood?” (Cat­e­chet­i­cal Lec­tures 22:1, here).

Who shall dare to doubt, Mr. X? Who shall hes­i­tate? It is not enough to sim­ply show that metaphor exists else­where in the Bible, or even else­where in the same pas­sage, if you can not show that this is metaphor­i­cal. Y is metaphor­i­cal because x is is no argu­ment; nei­ther is x was metaphor­i­cal when it was used there, there­fore it is metaphor­i­cal when it used here. That is sopho­moric reasoning—a cop-out, an attempt to avoid the real hard work of hon­est exe­ge­sis and his­tor­i­cal inquiry.

Well, but then, exe­ge­sis and his­tor­i­cal inquiry do run counter to the notion that the body and blood of Christ are mere­ly sym­bol­ic in the Eucharist. That inter­pre­ta­tion does not bear up under close exam­i­na­tion of the rel­e­vant bib­li­cal pas­sages, and it does not square with the under­stand­ing of Christ’s dis­ci­ples and the ear­ly Church.

I end by quot­ing the fol­low­ing, very amus­ing, foot­note from Mr. X: “I should add that the Roman Catholic posi­tion is par­tic­u­lar­ly absurd in that it takes “this is my body” as imply­ing that the bread ceas­es to be bread and becomes the body, blood, soul and divin­i­ty of Jesus. Like­wise, it is claimed that “this is … my blood” implies exact­ly the same thing about the con­tents of the cup. That’s quite far from tak­ing the words lit­er­al­ly, in which the bread would just be the body, and the con­tents of the cup would just be the blood.”

How now, Nesto­rius? Still attempt­ing to sep­a­rate the human­i­ty and the divin­i­ty of Christ? Old here­sies nev­er die; they just fade away into new­er ones.

 

You can read more about the Church Fathers on Tran­sub­stan­ti­a­tion here; and you can read a good arti­cle on John 6 by sem­i­nar­i­an Joe Hes­chmey­er (of Shame­less Pop­ery) here.