Push Back on the Real Presence of the Eucharist

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 the Gospel reading for this upcoming 20^th Sunday of Ordinary Time, which is the exchange that Jesus has with the Jews concerning his command to eat his flesh. The passage is taken from John 6:51-58. The key apologetical topic, of course, is the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

 

Here’s what John records:

 

Jesus said to the crowds:
“I am the living bread that came down from heaven;
whoever eats this bread will live forever;
and the bread that I will give
is my flesh for the life of the world.”

The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying,
“How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
Jesus said to them,
“Amen, amen, I say to you,
unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood,
you do not have life within you.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood
has eternal life,
and I will raise him on the last day.
For my flesh is true food,
and my blood is true drink.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood
remains in me and I in him.
Just as the living Father sent me
and I have life because of the Father,
so also the one who feeds on me
will have life because of me.
This is the bread that came down from heaven.
Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died,
whoever eats this bread will live forever.”

 

There’s no one detail in this reading that we will focus on. Rather, we’re going to weave in and out of the passage for the purpose of answering this one question: How did Jesus intend for us to interpret his command to “eat his flesh” and “drink his blood”?

 

Some Christians say that Jesus meant his words to be taken in a figurative sense, the sense being that we must come to Jesus and believe in him. Other Christians (including we Catholics), however, say that Jesus meant his words to be taken literally—that’s to say, he literally meant for us to actually eat his flesh and drink his blood.

 

So which view is correct?

 

Well, let’s start with how the Jews understood this command. Clearly, they understood Jesus literally. In response to Jesus’ implication that we must eat the bread of life, which he identifies as his flesh, the Jews respond, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” They aren’t taking Jesus’ words to mean “come to me” and “believe in me.”

 

Now, the question becomes, “What did Jesus mean?” If he meant his words in a figurative sense, then there would have been a misunderstanding on the part of the Jews, interpreting Jesus’ words with a realistic understanding when Jesus meant them figuratively. If Jesus meant his words literally, then the Jews would have been correctly tracking Jesus.

 

To figure out what Jesus meant by his words, we must look at what Jesus says in response, asking ourselves, “Does Jesus’ response seem like an affirmation of the realistic understanding or a correction?”

 

Jesus’ response bears repeating:

 

Amen, amen, I say to you,
unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood,
you do not have life within you.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood
has eternal life,
and I will raise him on the last day.
For my flesh is true food,
and my blood is true drink.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood
remains in me and I in him.
Just as the living Father sent me
and I have life because of the Father,
so also the one who feeds on me
will have life because of me.
This is the bread that came down from heaven.
Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died,
whoever eats this bread will live forever.

 

Ask yourself the question, “Does this sound like Jesus is clarifying/correcting the realistic understanding of the Jews?” No, it doesn’t.

 

He repeats the language of eating his flesh, and adds in drinking his blood, six times in six verses. It doesn’t seem reasonable that Jesus would repeatedly use the supposed cryptic language in response to the Jews who were having difficulty with the teaching. This seems to be more of an affirmation of the realistic understanding rather than a clarification.

 

Furthermore, the Greek text in verses 54 through 58, the key section for Jesus’ command to eat his flesh and drink his blood, suggests something very physical, thereby underscoring the realistic understanding of the Jews.

 

John records in verse 53 the Jews’ struggle with Jesus’ claim that the bread he will give for the life of the world is his flesh. Then, in verse 54, John begins to recount Jesus’ response to such difficulty. Prior to Jesus’ response that begins in verse 54, the Greek word that John uses for “eat” is phagēte, which is a generic term for eating.

 

After John tells us the Jews have a difficult time accepting Jesus’ claim, and within the verses where Jesus affirms the Jews’ literal thoughts, the language for eating intensifies. The Greek word changes to trōgō, which literally means “to gnaw,” “to bite,” “(audibly) to chew.”[i]

 

Such a word is used in only two other places in the New Testament: Matthew 24:38 and John 13:18. In reference to the days before the Flood, Matthew 24:38 reads, “For as in those days before the Flood they were eating [Greek, trōgōntes] and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark.” In John 13:18, Jesus quotes Psalm 41:9 in reference to Judas: “He who ate [Greek, trōgōn] my bread has lifted his heel against me.”

 

So should we suppose that John switches to more graphic terminology for eating to convey a less than real meaning of eating? That doesn’t make sense. The Catholic argument, however, does make sense. The switch to the more graphic terminology is meant to support the claim that Jesus meant his words to be taken literally, and not in a figurative sense.

 

Here’s another thought: Jesus doesn’t retract back to the metaphorical language for eating and drinking that He articulated previously in verse 35. Recall, Jesus says, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.”

 

The implication here is that by coming to Jesus we spiritually eat him and thus will never hunger spiritually. And by believing in Jesus we spiritually drink him and thus will never thirst spiritually.

 

The Jews may not have disposed to believe in Jesus. But at least Jesus could have quelled their fears about eating his flesh and drinking his blood by drawing their attention back to this metaphorical meaning of eating and drinking.

 

But, of course, Jesus doesn’t do that. As mentioned before, Jesus sticks with the language of eating his flesh and drinking his blood and re-affirms it six times in six verses.

 

Now, a Protestant may counter and say that Jesus continued to use the cryptic language simply to leave the Jews in the darkness of their misunderstanding, which is nothing new under the sun. Throughout Jesus’ ministry, John 2:15-21 being one example, Jesus left his critics in the darkness of their misunderstanding.

 

I’m going to hold off on this comeback and deal with it in next week’s episode for the 21^st Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year B.

 

There is another Protestant comeback that I do want to deal with here. Some will argue that Jesus can’t intend us to literally drink his blood because the Bible prohibits the partaking of blood in Leviticus 17:10-12.”

 

Here’s the Mosaic prohibition of consuming blood:

 

If any man of the house of Israel or of the strangers that sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people.

 

The late American theologian Loraine Boettner appealed to this verse in his book Roman Catholicism and argued that the Catholic understanding of John 6 violates this prohibition of drinking blood.^[ii] Protestant apologist Matt Slick follows suit, concluding, “It would certainly appear that the Roman Catholic view is in contradiction to the Old Testament Scripture since it advocates the eating of the blood of Christ.”^[iii]

 

I deal with this objection in my book Meeting the Protestant Response: How to Answer Common Comebacks to Catholic Arguments. What I share here is detailed in the book as well.

 

Our first answer to this counter-argument is that the dietary laws of the Old Law, to which the prohibition of drinking blood belonged, passed away with the advent of Christ. The prohibition of consuming blood was not a precept rooted in the natural moral law, which is forever binding (Rom. 2:14-15). Rather, it was one of many dietary regulations that involved the ritual purity of Jews—disciplinary in nature, not moral, and thus subject to change.

 

From a Christian’s perspective, we know that this precept was not rooted in the moral law of human nature because Jesus gives the explicit command to drink his blood. If it were otherwise, then Jesus would have been commanding us to do something immoral. Even if we were to interpret his words figuratively, he would have been telling us to perform some action that symbolizes immoral behavior.

 

But this can’t be. Jesus is the Word made flesh and therefore can’t do anything that’s immoral. Therefore, a Christian must believe that the prohibition spelled out in Leviticus 17:12 is not rooted in the natural moral law, but is a precept subject to change.

 

That the precept did change is proven by the New Testament’s affirmation that the dietary laws of the old law are no longer binding for Christians. Consider, for example, what Jesus says in Mark 7:15: “There is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him.” Mark tells us that by saying this, Jesus “declared all foods clean.”

 

This is made even clearer in God’s revelation to Peter in Acts 10:9-16. We’re told that Peter “fell into a trance” and saw a “great sheet” in which were “all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air.” Peter heard a voice command him to “kill and eat.” But Peter refused, saying, “No, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” The voice responded, “What God has cleansed, you must not call common.” Luke tells us that this happened three times.

 

We find this new revelation in Paul’s writings as well. For example, he instructs the Colossians,

 

Having canceled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands; this [Jesus] set aside, nailing it to the cross. . . . Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ (2:14-17).

 

Similarly, Paul writes to the Corinthians: “Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do” (1 Cor. 8:8).

 

If the dietary laws of the Old Law are no longer binding for Christians, and the prohibition of consuming blood was a part of those dietary laws, it follows that the prohibition of consuming blood is no longer binding for Christians. This challenge from Leviticus 17:10, therefore, doesn’t undermine the argument that Jesus meant for us to literally 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 20^th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year B, continues to provide us with great material for Eucharistic apologetics:

 

• Jesus doubles down in his language to eat his flesh and drink his blood in response to the Jews’ difficulty, thereby indicating to the reader that Jesus intended his words to be taken with a realistic understanding rather than in a figurative sense.

 

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 20^th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year B. Until next time, God Bless!

 

 

[i] L. Goppelt, “τρώγω,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, eds. Gerhard Kittle and Gerhard Friedrich, Vol. VIII (Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans, Publishing Company, 1972), 236. See also R.L. Thomas, New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries (La Habra, CA: Foundation Publications, Inc., 1998), Electronic Edition; The Lexham Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament (Logos Bible Software, 2011).

[ii] See Loraine Boettner, Roman Catholicism (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1962), 178.

[iii] Slick, “Transubstantiation and the Real Presence.”