Episode 89: Year B – 18th Sunday of Ordinary Time
In this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word, we focus on one detail in the Gospel reading, taken from John 6:24-35, that pertains to the Sacrament of the Eucharist. It is Jesus’ metaphorical use of the images of eating and drinking. For many Protestants, such a metaphorical use is the key to unlocking the meaning of Jesus’ instructions to “eat his flesh” and “drink his blood” later in John 6. But we argue this is not the case.
Readings: Click Here
Looking for Sunday Catholic Word Merchandise? Look no further! Click Here
Hey everyone,
Welcome to The Sunday Catholic Word, a podcast where we reflect on the upcoming Sunday Mass readings and pick out the details that are relevant for explaining and defending our Catholic faith.
I’m Karlo Broussard, staff apologist and speaker for Catholic Answers, and the host for this podcast.
In this episode, we’re going to focus on one detail in the Gospel reading, taken from John 6:24-35, that pertain to the Sacrament of the Eucharist. It is Jesus’ metaphorical use of the images of eating and drinking. For many Protestants, such a metaphorical use is the key to unlocking the meaning of Jesus’ instructions to “eat his flesh” and “drink his blood” later in John 6.
Let’s get started. Here’s the Gospel reading in full.
When the crowd saw that neither Jesus nor his disciples were there,
they themselves got into boats
and came to Capernaum looking for Jesus.
And when they found him across the sea they said to him,
“Rabbi, when did you get here?”
Jesus answered them and said,
“Amen, amen, I say to you,
you are looking for me not because you saw signs
but because you ate the loaves and were filled.
Do not work for food that perishes
but for the food that endures for eternal life,
which the Son of Man will give you.
For on him the Father, God, has set his seal.”
So they said to him,
“What can we do to accomplish the works of God?”
Jesus answered and said to them,
“This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent.”
So they said to him,
“What sign can you do, that we may see and believe in you?
What can you do?
Our ancestors ate manna in the desert, as it is written:
He gave them bread from heaven to eat.”
So Jesus said to them,
“Amen, amen, I say to you,
it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven;
my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.
For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven
and gives life to the world.”
So they said to him,
“Sir, give us this bread always.”
Jesus said to them,
“I am the bread of life;
whoever comes to me will never hunger,
and whoever believes in me will never thirst.”
The detail that I want to highlight is Jesus’ last statement at the end of the Gospel reading:
“I am the bread of life;
whoever comes to me will never hunger,
and whoever believes in me will never thirst.”
Some Protestants appeal to this passage as evidence that Jesus’ words later in John 6, “eat my flesh and drink my blood,” should be interpreted metaphorically. Protestant apologist Robert Zins, in his book Romanism (pg. 117), identifies this verse as “the controlling verse of John 6.”[i]
In explaining this verse, Protestant apologist Eric Svendsen, in his book Evangelical Answers: A Critique of Current Roman Catholic Apologists, notes, “There can be no doubt that what Jesus meant by ‘eating’ and ‘drinking’ him was to come to him and to believe in him” (pg. 179). For Svendsen, since Jesus speaks of hunger and thirst symbolically here, he must be speaking symbolically of eating his flesh and drinking his blood later in verse 54. Protestant apologist James White concurs in his book The Roman Catholic Controversy (pg. 170):
“Coming” and “believing” will become “eating” and “drinking” in verse 54 . . . the definitions assigned to these terms by the Lord (being spiritual and symbolic, not literal and earthly) must be carried through the rest of the text.
Both White and Svendsen further cite verse 47, where Jesus says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life,” and infer from this that eating equals believing. For example, when White gets to the “eating” of the bread of life mentioned in verse 54, he comments,
The “eating” here is paralleled with the “believing” of verse 47—any attempt to make this a physical action misses the entire point the Lord is making. He who believes has eternal life—he who eats of the true bread from heaven will never die. Eating = believing. This is clearly the literal meaning of the text (The Roman Catholic Controversy, pg. 170).
I deal with this objection in my book Meeting the Protestant Response. So, I’ll share with you here what I point out in the book.
It’s true that in verses 27-48, Jesus speaks about the necessity to believe in him. But in verse 51, Jesus introduces his flesh and identifies it as the bread from heaven that he will give for the life of the world. It’s this detail that adds something new to the conversation.
Initially, the Jews murmured about Jesus saying he came down from heaven. But in verse 52, they quarrel specifically over Jesus identifying his flesh as the bread from heaven and saying whoever eats it will live forever, for they say, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Belief in Jesus is not the issue here. It’s eating his flesh. So, at least within the thinking of the Jews, there is something new added to the mix of Jesus’ teaching about believing in him—something that causes them distress.
Is there something new that Jesus intends to add as well? There is! If Jesus intended his statement about eating his flesh to be understood as mere belief, and not something that a believer will do in order to have his spiritual hunger and thirst satiated, then he could have easily retracted his language about eating his flesh and gone back to the metaphorical language of coming to him and never hungering and believing in him and never thirsting, as he did in verse 35. This would have gone a long way in calming the Jews’ fear that he was suggesting they actually eat his flesh.
But he doesn’t do that. Rather, he develops even more emphatically what the Jews understood to be a direct command to eat his flesh by speaking of eating his flesh and drinking his blood six times in six verses. Moreover, the language for eating in the Greek intensifies in those verses, from a generic term for eating to a more graphic term, meaning to gnaw and chew.
The same line of reasoning applies to his disciples. Remember, his disciples struggle just as much as the Jews. If Jesus intended his words “eat my flesh” and “drink my blood” to be taken metaphorically, as only to convey the idea that they must come to and believe in him, then Jesus could easily go back to the metaphorical language in verse 35. This would easily quell the disciples’ fear since they already believe in Jesus. They are his disciples!
But Jesus doesn’t do that. In fact, he underscores the difficulty by saying how it will be even more difficult to believe his ascension, and then teaches his disciples that an earthly perspective will not suffice to believe his words. The difficulty of the teaching to eat his flesh and drink his blood explains why Jesus spends some time priming his disciples with a teaching about coming to him and believing in him in verse 35. Belief in Christ must precede belief in the Eucharist, since one can believe the Eucharist only on account of belief in Christ.
Moreover, why would Jesus affirm and underscore the disciples’ difficulty if he meant his words to mean simply that we must believe in him? If he intended his words in a figurative sense, then he would have thought to himself, “Guys, you shouldn’t be having difficulty with this teaching, since you already believe in me.” Yet, Jesus agrees with the difficulty. Therefore, he can’t intend his words to be taken in a figurative sense, meaning that we must come to him and believe in him.
There are a few other things to consider in response. Note how Jesus says, “The bread which I shall give [Greek, dōsō, future tense of didōmi].” He doesn’t say, “The bread which I give now in the present.” The future tense doesn’t jibe with taking Jesus’ words to mean belief. Why would his disciples need to wait to believe in him in the future? Shouldn’t they believe in Jesus at that moment?
Furthermore, Jesus identifies the bread that he will give as his flesh. He’s clearly referring to the giving of his flesh on the cross and at the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper. If the one is a literal giving, so is the other.
Finally, Jesus’ teaching that faith is required to accept his command to eat his flesh and drink his blood fits with a literal interpretation of Jesus’ words to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Such a radical command requires such faith.
Jesus prefaces his revelation that his flesh is the bread of life by saying, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.” Then, after giving his discourse about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, he says, “There are some of you that do not believe. . . . This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.” If Jesus begins and concludes his remarks about eating his flesh and drinking his blood with faith, a gift that only the Father can give, then Jesus is revealing that faith is required to accept his teaching.
There’s something else Jesus says that reveals the requirement of faith: “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.”
Recall, “the flesh” is a New Testament phrase often used to describe human nature apart from God’s grace (Mark 14:38, Rom. 8:1-14, 1 Cor. 2:14-3:1). What Jesus means is that without God’s grace, and in particular the grace of faith, acceptance of Jesus’ command to eat his flesh and drink his blood is impossible. If his disciples are to believe his teaching, they must avail themselves of that grace.
Jesus’ statement about his words being “spirit and life” means that his teaching is of the Spirit and therefore can be accepted only by the power of the Spirit. This makes sense of why Jesus’ command to eat his flesh and drink his blood is bookended by his teachings about faith (v. 44, v. 65).
Now, what need would there be to emphasize the need for faith if his words were intended to mean simply that his disciples must believe in him? The disciples already believed in him, and thus were already exercising faith on some level.
The emphasis on faith, however, does make sense if Jesus is inviting his disciples to exercise faith specifically with regard to his teaching to eat his flesh and drink his blood, which only would be needed if he meant his words in the radical sense—to actually eat his flesh and drink his blood.
Conclusion
Well, my friends, that’s all the time we have for this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word. The Gospel for this upcoming 18th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year B, provides us with some great details that are relevant for doing apologetics on the topic of the Eucharist:
- Rather than the metaphorical use of eating and drinking in John 6:35-47 providing evidence against a literal interpretation of Jesus’ words “eat my flesh and drink my blood,” it actually supports such an interpretation, since Jesus never retracts back to it when his audience struggles with their literal interpretation of his words.
As always, thank you for subscribing to the podcast. And please be sure to tell your friends about it and invite them to subscribe as well at sundaycatholicword.com. You might also want to check out the other great podcasts in our Catholic Answers podcast network: Cy Kellet’s Catholic Answers Focus, Trent Horn’s The Counsel of Trent, Joe Heschmeyer’s Shameless Popery, and Jimmy Akin’s A Daily Defense, all of which can be found at catholic.com.
One last thing: if you’re interested in getting some cool mugs and stickers with my logo, “Mr. Sunday podcast,” go to shop.catholic.com.
I hope you have a blessed 18th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year B. Until next time, God Bless!
[i] Zins, Romanism, 117.