Episode 92: Year B – 21st Sunday of Ordinary Time
In this episode, we continue our study of Jesus’ Bread of Life Discourse in John 6. The portion of the discourse that makes up the Gospel reading for this upcoming 21st Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year B, is verses 60-69. Like in last week’s episode, the question is whether Jesus intended his teaching to eat his flesh and drink his blood to be taken literally or figuratively. We argue for a literal interpretation.
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 continue our study of Jesus’ Bread of Life Discourse in John 6. The portion of the discourse that makes up the Gospel reading for this upcoming 21st Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year B, is verses 60-69. Like in last week’s episode, the question is whether Jesus intended his teaching to eat his flesh and drink his blood to be taken literally or figuratively. We argue for a literal interpretation.
Here’s the Gospel passage:
Many of Jesus’ disciples who were listening said,
“This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this,
he said to them, “Does this shock you?
What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending
to where he was before?
It is the spirit that gives life,
while the flesh is of no avail.
The words I have spoken to you are Spirit and life.
But there are some of you who do not believe.”
Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe
and the one who would betray him.
And he said,
“For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me
unless it is granted him by my Father.”
As a result of this,
many of his disciples returned to their former way of life
and no longer accompanied him.
Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”
Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go?
You have the words of eternal life.
We have come to believe
and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”
In last week’s episode, the portion of the discourse that we focused on was Jesus’ exchange with the Jews and their realistic understanding of Jesus’ teaching. Here, we focus on Jesus’ exchange with his disciples.
The first significant thing about this exchange is that it allows us to overcome a particular counter argument posed by some Protestants. I mentioned it in passing in last week’s episode.
The argument goes as follows: believers in the Real Presence assume that Jesus would have offered a clarification of the Jews’ realistic understanding if there were a misunderstanding of Jesus’ teaching. But such an assumption is false, since Jesus elsewhere left his enemies in the darkness of their misunderstanding.
For example, in John 2:15-21 the Jews misunderstood Jesus to be referring to the physical temple when he actually was referring to the temple of his body. Yet, Jesus doesn’t offer any sort of clarification, and a plausible reason is because of the hardness of their hearts.
So, perhaps Jesus doesn’t offer a clarification of the Jews’ realistic understanding because of the hardness of their hearts. This is why, so it might be argued, Jesus continues to use the cryptic language of “eating his flesh” and “drinking his blood.”
The problem with this counter argument is that it’s not only the Jews, or the enemies of Jesus, who have difficulty with Jesus’ teaching. Jesus’ disciples also have difficulty with the teaching.
Clearly, they interpret Jesus with a realistic understanding. If they understood Jesus to be speaking figuratively, in the sense of believing in him, then they would not have had difficulty with such a teaching given that they already believed.
Now, we know that Jesus does in fact offer clarification when his disciples misunderstand his teachings. For example, when Jesus spoke in parables to the multitudes, “privately to his own disciples he explained everything” (Mark 4:33-34; Matt. 13:10-11). When Jesus’ disciples thought he was speaking of real food—“I have food to eat of which you do not know” (John 4:32), Jesus clarified their misunderstanding: “My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work” (v.34). When Jesus’s disciples thought Jesus was speaking of the bread of the Pharisees and Sadducees—“Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees” (Matt. 16:6), Jesus, again, clarified their misunderstanding: “How is it that you fail to perceive that I did not speak about bread?” (v.11) Matthew tells us that the disciples then understood Jesus to be speaking of the “teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees” (v.12).
So, we should expect Jesus to offer a clarification of their realistic understanding if there were a misunderstanding. But he doesn’t. Rather, he affirms it.
First, he affirms their difficulty. He doesn’t try to persuade them that they shouldn’t have difficulty with the teaching. In response to their difficulty, Jesus says, “Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?” In other words, Jesus is saying, “You think this is hard. You ain’t seen nothing yet.”
If Jesus intended his words to be taken in a figurative sense, only to signify that they need to believe in him, then he wouldn’t have agreed that his teaching was difficult to accept, since they already believed in him. He would have said something like, “Guys, you shouldn’t have difficulty with this teaching because you already believe in me.”
But Jesus doesn’t do this. He affirms them in the difficulty.
Jesus also underscores the difficulty by appealing to his ascension: “[W]hat if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?” (v.62).
Such a response suggests that Jesus was not clarifying his disciples’ realistic understanding. Rather, he was affirming it. Why would Jesus appeal to his ascension, something even more difficult to believe, given its observably miraculous nature, if he were trying to ease the difficulty by clarifying the literal thoughts of his disciples concerning his teaching to eat his flesh and drink his blood?
Now, that Jesus affirms the difficulty of the teaching entails an affirmation of the meaning that is causing the difficulty—namely, a realistic understanding of his teaching to eat his flesh and drink his blood.
Most who swim in the waters of apologetics are familiar with the above argument. However, as I argue in my article “Jesus: No, Seriously Guys,” there’s two other lines of reasoning that aren’t so familiar.
For the first one, consider that in verses 33-35 the metaphor of “eating” and “drinking” are used in conjunction with Jesus’ command to “come to” him and “believe” in him:
“For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world.” They said to him, “Lord, give us this bread always.” 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” (vv.33-35).
The “eating” and “drinking” metaphors are implied in Jesus’ promise to never hunger when we come to him and never thirst when we believe in him. So, at least here, “eating” and “drinking” are metaphors for following Jesus and believing in him.
Now, if Jesus wanted to ease the difficulty that the disciples were having with his command to “eat his flesh” and “drink his blood” and clarify their realistic understanding, then he could have easily done so by retreating to the “come to me” and “believe in me” language. You can imagine him saying something like, “Hey guys, why are you having such a hard time with this. I just gave you the interpretive key for this language. All I’m asking you to do is come to me and believe in me.” And the disciples would have responded, “That’s all you mean? Whew! I thought you meant for us to actually eat your flesh and drink your blood. In that case, no problem here! We’re already following you and believing in you.”
Not only could Jesus have done this, but he would have done it. Jesus wouldn’t leave his disciples in the darkness of their misunderstanding when he had an easy fix available. That’s just not Jesus’ M.O. Sure, at times he left his critics in such darkness (John 2:1-15). But he never did that for his disciples, as we mentioned before.
So, to repeat: if Jesus wanted to ease the difficulty that the disciples were having with his command to “eat his flesh” and “drink his blood” and clarify their realistic understanding, then he could have, and would have, done so by retreating to the “come to me” and “believe in me” language.
But Jesus didn’t retreat to such language.
Therefore, Jesus wasn’t wanting to ease the difficulty and clarify their realistic understanding.
Now, given this, we have only three possibilities that would follow: either a) Jesus wasn’t concerned with the disciples’ difficulty, b) Jesus intended to leave the disciples in their false realistic understanding, or c) Jesus intended the disciples’ realistic understanding.
It can’t be that Jesus wasn’t concerned with their difficulty. He was: “Do you take offense at this?” (v.61).
Nor can it be that Jesus intended to leave his disciples in their false realistic understanding. The examples above where Jesus clarifies his disciples’ misunderstandings suffice as evidence.
Our only option left is that Jesus intended the disciples’ realistic understanding. Thus, there was no misunderstanding on the part of the disciples. They got it! And they left Jesus for it.
There’s yet another line of reasoning that suggests Jesus’ affirmation of the disciples’ realistic understanding. After we’re told that the disciples “drew back and no longer walked with [Jesus]” (v.66), Jesus asks the apostles, “Will you also go away?” (v.67).
Here’s the question for us: Why would Jesus think the apostles might leave him for his teaching to believe in him when they already believed in him?
This is what Jesus would have had to have thought if he intended his words to be taken as an idiom for coming to him and believing in him. But that doesn’t make sense.
The question as to whether the apostles would leave Jesus, along with the other disciples, makes no sense if all Jesus meant was to come to him and believe in him. No difficulty would have existed for the apostles, especially a difficulty of such a degree that they might leave him for it.
Therefore, Jesus’ question to the apostles is further evidence that he intended a realistic understanding of his words as opposed to a metaphorical/figurative one.
Well, there you have it: a few more lines of defense to add to the stock defenses for the realistic understanding of Jesus’ words “eat my flesh” and “drink my blood.” The mystery of these words never ceases to inspire awe within us and draws us ever deeper into reflection on God’s Word.
Now, there’s a lot more that we could talk about here:
- Jesus’ statement that his words are spirit and life, and that “the flesh” profits nothing while the Spirit gives life,
- The fact that the disciples leave Jesus and Protestant alternative explanations for such a response, and
- Much more.
But, for these other details, you’re going to have to check out the chapter on this passage in my book Meeting the Protestant Response: How to Answer Common Comebacks to Catholic Arguments.
Conclusion
Well, my friends, that brings us to the end of this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word. The Gospel for this upcoming 21st Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year B, continues to provide us with great material for Eucharistic apologetics:
- Jesus confirms the disciples in their difficulty and underscores such difficulty, thereby revealing to us the meaning that Jesus intended for his words: a realistic understanding.
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 21st Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year B. Until next time, God Bless!