During my sophomore year in college, I was seriously considering going from Baptist to Catholic. I itched to know why Catholics, and most Christians throughout history, have affirmed the Real Presence (among many other things). I honestly had no opposition to the idea, despite believing at the time that Communion is purely symbolic. I simply wanted the evidence.
The first passage my Catholic friends showed me was John 6:25-71, the Bread of Life discourse. They emphasized that Jesus does not clarify his words, but instead just continuously affirms that he must be consumed for salvation (vv. 6:53-58). Even after having become Catholic, this argument still moves and convicts me of the Real Presence.
I’ve decided to dub this the argument from clarification: the best explanation for why no clarification is offered of Jesus’ command in the Bread of Life discourse, despite ample opportunities, is that Jesus meant for his command to be taken literally. By clarification I mean an explanation that would have made clear that the crowd had actually misunderstood Jesus’ words by taking them literally.
There are at least three people through whom John 6 could have been clarified: Jesus, John, or Peter.
First, we know that Jesus clarifies his teachings not only in John’s Gospel, but also in the synoptics: Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
Jesus, for example, explains to his disciples what he means by “food” when he says, “I have food to eat that you do not know about” after meeting the Samaritan woman: “My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to complete his work” (John 4:32-34).
Jesus explains in Matthew 16:6-11 what he means by the “yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees,” and Matthew notes in verse 12 that “they understood that he had not told them to beware of the yeast of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” Luke 12:1 also includes this clarification in a more succinct form: “Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees, that is, their hypocrisy.”
Indeed, Mark 4:34 sets an important pattern: “He did not speak to them except in parables, but he explained everything in private to his disciples.” If Jesus were speaking parabolically, then we would expect a private clarification to the disciples. In turn, we would expect these private clarifications to transfer into the Gospels just as they do in Matthew 16:12 and, for example, Mark 7:19.
One might object here that Mark 4:34 undermines the case for the real presence. If Jesus only spoke parabolically to the disciples, then mustn’t John 6 also be metaphorical? The answer is simple. Mark is exaggerating when he says that Jesus “did not speak to them except in parables,” as Jesus certainly spoke in plain language to them sometimes (e.g., Mark 1:44, 2:14, 6:7-8, etc.) and clearly does so in John 10:30 when he declares that “the Father and I are one,” wherein the crowd is angered not for misunderstanding, but for properly understanding what Jesus intends.
Another often overlooked point is that the Gospel writers insert themselves into the text and explain what Jesus is talking about. Take John, for example, who could have corrected the crowd in John 6 if they had misunderstood Jesus:
- John 2:20-22: “The Jews then said, ‘This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and will you raise it up in three days?’ But he was speaking of the temple of his body.After he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this; and they believed the scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.”
- John 7:22: “Moses gave you circumcision (it is, of course, not from Moses, but from the patriarchs), and you circumcise a man on the sabbath.”
- John 10:6: “Jesus used this figure of speech with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them.”
- John 21:23: “So the rumor spread in the community that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, ‘If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?’”
John 21:23 is especially important, because it shows that John is willing to thwart popular misunderstandings of what Jesus had said. The disgusted people in John 6 are ripe candidates for John’s correction. Indeed, John could have exercised numerous unambiguous ways to correct the crowd for their literalism, as clearly shown above. He does not, despite having good reasons and the means to do so.
A third datum for the argument from clarification is Peter’s confession: “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have [already] come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God” (John 6:68-69). Jesus has just asked his innermost disciples, “Do you also wish to go away?” (6:67).
Peter’s words can be interpreted in two ways. Either Peter could be submitting to Christ’s teaching to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood, or Peter is saying he (and the disciples) have already believed in Jesus and therefore, unlike the crowd, did not need the exaggerated sign of consuming him. After all, Jesus begins with the simple command to believe in him, and apparently, he escalates in response to the people’s stubbornness (John 6:29).
Of course, this interpretation can be reversed—perhaps part of believing in Christ is believing his commands no matter how strange or counterintuitive they seem. After all, Jesus says disobedience counts as unbelief (John 3:36). Jesus was simply revealing a genuine teaching here, and the people are condemned for lacking the faith to accept it.
How do we break the tie? Let’s look at the rhetorical context. The other disciples leave, saying, “This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?” (John 6:60). Jesus condemns these disciples, and then he turns to the Twelve (6:61-67). Jesus in v. 67 is essentially asking, “Is this teaching too difficult for you also? Will you leave me?” Now, recall that the only interpretation on the table of Jesus’ teaching is literalism. This appears to be Christ’s exact intention (see John 6:52-58). Jesus now subjects the Twelve to the same test.
Notice that Peter’s confession is being contrasted against those who could not accept the teaching. Moreover, the difficult teaching is being understood here literally. Indeed, neither Jesus nor John has defeated the literal interpretation. Thus, if Peter interprets Jesus metaphorically, in spite of their context, then Peter is dodging the question or overlooking the elephant in the room.
The better interpretation is this: Peter has the faith to accept the literal consumption of Christ, because Jesus’ words are “eternal life,” and Jesus is “the Holy One of God.”
Like Peter, I felt the obligation to submit to Christ. And I am grateful for how I had learned to love Christ and the Scriptures through my Baptist tradition. It was precisely these things that led me to become Catholic and enjoy receiving the Lord in the Holy Eucharist.