Apologetics for the Masses #515 - John 6 Isn't About the Eucharist? What a Presbyterian Has to Say...

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe - to unsubscribe from this newsletter

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter - to subscribe to this newsletter

Topic

My Responses to a Presbyterian's Assertion That John 6 Has Nothing to Do With the Eucharist.

General Comments

Here's an article of mine on Trump's tariffs that was just published in Catholic Answers Magazine: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/in-defense-of-trumps-tariffs

Introduction

I received an email a few weeks back from a subscriber who had asked a Presbyterian friend of theirs a question about the Eucharist within a broader discussion about the Gospel of John, chapter 6. This person wanted to know how I would respond to what the Presbyterian said. Below is the question the Catholic asked, and then the Presbyterian's response. I first give the entire response, and then I go back and repeat the response but with my comments interspersed.

And, what I'm going to do is first make some specific replies to the Presbyterian's arguments, and then finish up with some broader general comments to argue for why John 6 is indeed all about the Eucharist.

Challenge/Response/Strategy

Catholic Question about the Eucharist to a Presbyterian
“Do you think it’s impossible for God to be present in the bread?”

Presbyterian’s Response
I absolutely believe God is capable of doing it. No doubt at all. I believe he spoke the universe into existence. Transubstantiation would be a very simple thing to do compared to that.

I also fully agree that his thoughts are higher than our thoughts and his ways higher than our ways.

For me it isn’t a matter of faith or no faith. It’s the desire to have a consistent hermeneutical approach. To interpret passages consistently from chapter to chapter. To understand Jesus’ intent.

Let me outline some of my thoughts on John 6. I’ll probably lose you early but this is just my honest opinion.

I don’t believe that John 6 is talking about the Lord’s supper at all. John 6 doesn’t happen in the context of a Passover meal. It happens after Jesus fed the 5,000. The disciples wanted another physical miracle. Another physical meal.

26 Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves.

27 Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal."

John 6:26-27

Jesus is teaching them that true nourishment comes from believing in Christ. He immediately draws a distinction between the spiritual reality of the belief that he was calling them to and the physical bread that they ate previously. The bread was a picture just like manna was a picture in the OT. Jesus is showing himself to be the I AM that nourishes his people.

Unlike manna, this is the nourishment that will cause us to never hunger again just like the rivers of living water will make us never thirst again.

Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. John 6:35. The “coming” to him is what makes us never hunger. The “believing” in him is what makes us never thirst.

From what I can see the Catholic view is the same as the Jewish leaders (v 52) and the disciples. They walked away from the hard teaching because they completely misunderstood what Jesus was talking about.

Jesus responds with: “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” John 6:63

So, what’s my point with all this? I’m just trying to communicate that for me it isn’t a lack of faith. It isn’t a lack of believing that God can do whatever he wills whenever he wills it. It’s a matter of taking a hard look at the text and asking what is actually being communicated here. And I think the Catholic view reads the Lords Supper into the text when it wouldn’t be there otherwise. And in so doing makes the same mistake as those who were present with Jesus.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Catholic Question about the Eucharist to a Presbyterian
“Do you think it’s impossible for God to be present in the bread?”

Presbyterian’s Response
I absolutely believe God is capable of doing it. No doubt at all. I believe he spoke the universe into existence. Transubstantiation would be a very simple thing to do compared to that.

I also fully agree that his thoughts are higher than our thoughts and his ways higher than our ways.

For me it isn’t a matter of faith or no faith. It’s the desire to have a consistent hermeneutical approach. To interpret passages consistently from chapter to chapter. To understand Jesus’ intent.

Let me outline some of my thoughts on John 6. I’ll probably lose you early but this is just my honest opinion.

I don’t believe that John 6 is talking about the Lord’s supper at all. John 6 doesn’t happen in the context of a Passover meal. It happens after Jesus fed the 5,000. The disciples wanted another physical miracle. Another physical meal.

My Comments
So, the first thing to note here, regarding his assertions, is that he is giving you his private opinion. Notice how he prefaces his thoughts on John 6 with, “I don’t believe...”. In other words, what he's giving you here is nothing more authoritative than his personal, fallible, interpretation of the Bible. You could even call it mere speculation as to what John 6 is or is not talking about. That may seem like an insignificant fact to some, but it is actually a very important point to keep in mind.

Next, he is correct that John 6 does not happen within the context of a Passover meal; however, he seems to be completely oblivious to the fact that it does happen within the context of the fact that the Gospel of John was written after the other 3 gospels - all of which contain narratives of the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper - had been written and disseminated amongst Christians. Which could very well be why John felt no need to include a narrative of the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper in his gospel...because Christians were already well acquainted with those details from Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as well as the fact that they had, for years, been “devoted...to the breaking of the bread and the prayers,” (Acts 2:42). The breaking of the bread - the Eucharist - being so important to Christians, though, would lend credence to the argument that John - since he had no Last Supper Eucharistic narrative - instead included a Eucharistic narrative elsewhere in his gospel. Not “proof” of such, but, rather, a reason for him to do so.

Presbyterian’s Response (cont’d)
26 Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves.

27 Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal."

John 6:26-27

Jesus is teaching them that true nourishment comes from believing in Christ. He immediately draws a distinction between the spiritual reality of the belief that he was calling them to and the physical bread that they ate previously. The bread was a picture just like manna was a picture in the OT. Jesus is showing himself to be the I AM that nourishes his people.

My Comments
A few things here:

1) Jesus is telling the people to “work” for the “food that endures to eternal life”. Which would be an argument that there is no such thing as Sola Fide - salvation by faith alone - since “work” is involved in securing the food of eternal life. Jesus is telling us that believing is, in and of itself, a work (verse 29). So, Sola Fide - faith alone, or believing alone - contains an inherent contradiction, since believing is a “work”. You can’t say works have nothing to do with our salvation when believing is itself a work.

2) This “food” being talked about is something that Jesus “will give to you”. Does Jesus “give” a person belief? Does Jesus “give” a person faith? No. If that were true, then He would give everyone faith because 1 Tim 2:4 says that God wants all men to be saved. So, if He wants all men to be saved, and He’s the one Who gives men their faith, then He would give all men faith. But, all men don’t have faith, do they? So, no, Jesus does not give us our faith. In verse 29 Jesus says to them, “...that you believe in Him Whom [God] has sent.” You. He doesn’t say I will give you your belief in “Him Whom [God] has sent”. Now, He does indeed give them grace so that they may believe, but He doesn’t actually “give” them their belief...He doesn’t force belief upon them. Believing...having faith...is something each person has to do for themselves...by the grace of God. It is important to note, however, that Jesus does indeed “give” us the Eucharist. So keep that in mind, Jesus is talking about some sort of food that He Himself will “give” to people. He also said that it was the Father Who gave them the Israelites the "food from heaven [manna]" in the desert and that "MY Father gives you the true bread from Heaven," (verse 32). So, whatever this food is that He is talking about, it is something that is given by the Father and the Son.

3) It is a mistake to say the 5 loaves of bread that were used to feed thousands of people was simply “physical bread”. It was indeed physical, but there was also a spiritual component to the feeding of the people. It was the same loaves that were used to feed thousands of people. Jesus didn’t create more loaves, He fed them all with the same 5 loaves - "So they gathered them up and filled twelve baskets with fragments from the five barley loaves..." (v. 13). It was a miracle. So there was most definitely a spiritual aspect to it. Same with the manna from heaven in the Old Testament. Physical food, of a miraculous nature. So this is not simply a physical vs. spiritual contrast in this passage, as this person is making it out to be, as the miraculous feedings are of both a physical and spiritual nature. Now, both are indeed types, or figures, or “pictures” of something greater...of some greater “food” that will feed the people. Which means, that whatever the manna from heaven and the multiplied loaves are “pictures” of, is something that is physical and spiritual and of a miraculous nature, yet greater than both of the other miracles. Nothing that is said here draws a hard and fast distinction between the physical and the spiritual.

4) Jesus does indeed make a distinction between Himself vs. the manna and the loaves that were multiplied. He is the “true bread” from Heaven (verses 27, 32). The manna and the multiplied loaves are “types” that point to something greater...that point to Jesus Himself. But, note, again, this true bread from Heaven is something the Father “gives” to them just as Jesus “give[s]” it to them. Furthermore, this true bread “gives life to the world” (verse 33). I have to ask: Is it my belief in Jesus that is the true bread that came down from Heaven, or is Jesus Himself that is the true bread that came down from heaven? Is it Jesus Himself that is the food that “endures to eternal life” or is it my belief in Jesus that is the food that endures to eternal life? Does my belief in Jesus give “life to the world”, or does Jesus give life to the world? I ask those questions because the Presbyterian is, essentially, saying that the food which "endures to eternal life" is not so much Jesus, as it is our belief in Jesus. One more question: Did Jesus and the Father give me my belief in some way that is more miraculous than the manna from Heaven and more miraculous than the multiplication of the loaves and fishes?

Presbyterian’s Response (cont’d)
Unlike manna, this is the nourishment that will cause us to never hunger again just like the rivers of living water will make us never thirst again.

Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. John 6:35

The “coming” to him is what makes us never hunger. The “believing” in him is what makes us never thirst.

My Comments
Amen! Amen! The problem with his interpretation, though, is that he is making verse 35 stand out as a verse that “trumps” all the other verses. He’s making it, in a sense, a stand alone verse around which all the other verses must revolve. He’s using that verse as THE verse by which all the other verses must be interpreted. Which is the mistake that completely skews his interpretation. Yes, we must come to Him...and eat. Yes, we must believe in Him...and drink. However, nowhere does this passage say believing “alone”, as in Sola Fide, is what saves us. When you “come” to Jesus, what must you do? Verse 50 tells us - you need to “eat” the bread. Again, what is the “bread” we need to eat? Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ in the spirit? Well, let’s see. Verse 51 says the bread that one needs to eat of in order to live forever is the flesh that Jesus will give for the life of the world. Is that His spiritual flesh, or His real flesh? Well, when did Jesus give His flesh for the life of the world? On the Cross. So, the question becomes: Was the flesh that Jesus gave for the life of the world on the Cross real...or simply spiritual? Was the blood that Jesus shed on the Cross real...or simply spiritual?

If you answer that the flesh nailed to the Cross was real, then you have to admit that Jesus is saying that the bread he wants to give to us to eat in order to have eternal life is His real flesh that was nailed to the Cross. Which would mean the blood He wants us to drink is the real blood that was shed on the Cross. You can’t say: “Oh, well in the first half of v. 51, Jesus is speaking “spiritually” when He’s talking about giving us the bread from heaven to eat, but in the 2nd half of verse 51 He’s speaking about the bread being His literal flesh He offered for the life of the world.”

Sorry, but you can’t have it both ways. Either verse 51 is talking about us eating the living bread from Heaven which is the “spiritual” flesh of Jesus, and so it was this “spiritual” flesh of Jesus that He gave for the life of the world on the Cross, or it is talking about us eating the living bread from Heaven, which is the real/actual/literal flesh of Jesus Christ - body, blood, soul, and divinity - and it was this real flesh of Jesus that He gave for the life of the world on the Cross. It has to be one or the other, it can’t be both.

Flesh given for the life of the world = living bread which came down from Heaven (verse 51). So, if the flesh that was given for the life of the world on the Cross was Jesus’ real flesh, then the living bread which came down from Heaven that a person needs to eat is Jesus’ real flesh. If, however, it’s only Jesus’ “spiritual” flesh that is the living bread from Heaven that one needs to eat, then it was only Jesus’ “spiritual” flesh that hung on the Cross, not His real flesh.

Presbyterian’s Response (cont’d)
From what I can see the Catholic view is the same as the Jewish leaders (v 52) and the disciples. They walked away from the hard teaching because they completely misunderstood what Jesus was talking about.

My Comments
Sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever! Exactly what is the "hard teaching" that Catholics have walked away from? In verse 52, the Jewish leaders asked, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Well, sorry, but that's not really a question Catholics ask. We know how He can - via transubstantiation. We don’t fully understand the “mechanics” of it all, but we believe He can and does do it. So, again, that’s not a question we ask, so, again: What hard teaching did we supposedly walk away from? Naw, we're more like the Apostles than the Jewish leaders - not understanding exactly how it all works - this whole thing of Him giving us His flesh to eat - but we have enough faith in Him that we do not walk away. That's opposed to all Protestants who do not take Jesus at His word and who do indeed walk away from Him in the Eucharist.

Furthermore, I would ask this person: In what way have Catholics “walked away” from Jesus?” Does he contend that we don't believe in Jesus? In the Creed we recite at Mass every Sunday, Catholics say, “I believe in Jesus Christ...” and that we believe He suffered and died for our salvation. We believe! So, again, in what way have we “walked away” from Jesus?

And, again, how is eating Jesus “spiritually” by believing in Him a “hard” teaching? In the entire 500 year or so history of the Presbyterian church, has it ever been known that someone walked away from the church because of the “hard teaching” of having to "symbolically" eat Jesus by believing in Him? Or having to symbolically eat Him by eating a cracker and drinking some grape juice? I sincerely doubt it! How is Jesus telling people to believe in Him a “hard teaching”? Sola Fide is a “hard” teaching? Sola Fide is a cream puff teaching. It’s a cheap grace teaching. It’s an easy teaching. Oh, maybe they misunderstood Him when He said they have to eat His flesh and drink His blood, but He explained to them that He was speaking symbolically in verse 63, right? You know, when He said, "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."

Well, if that was Jesus giving the folks a "symbolic" explanation of what He was saying, then all I have to say is that Presbyterian theology makes Jesus out to be probably the crappiest teacher who ever lived. He let a large number of His disciples walk away from Him because they “misunderstood” Him? What teacher lets their students walk away knowing that they are doing so because they misunderstood what he said? Only a crappy teacher would do that. I taught at both the high school and college levels, and I would never let a student walk out knowing that they misunderstood what I had said. Never! And, since salvation was on the line here for those who walked away, that would make Jesus the crappiest teacher ever for letting them walk away. Apparently He didn’t give a damn that they would be damned. You know, in all the other places in the gospels, when Jesus’ disciples misunderstood something, either they came to Him and asked Him to explain, or He went to them and explained it even without them asking. But not here. Why? Because they didn’t misunderstand anything. They understood Him to be saying they needed to eat His actual body and blood, because that is exactly what He was saying. They didn’t understand how that could be possible, but they understood perfectly that that’s what He was telling them to do.

And not only did they apparently misunderstand His teaching when He first said it, but then they also apparently misunderstood His "spiritual" explanation of what He had said. So, they didn't just misunderstand Him once, but they misunderstood Him twice! What a crappy teacher Jesus is in Presbyterian theology.

Even the Apostles. When Jesus turned to Peter and the Apostles and asked, “Will you also go away?” What did Peter say? “Oh no, Lord, we know you were talking spiritually. We understand completely!” No! Peter understood Jesus to be talking literally. He didn’t understand how it could possibly happen - for them to eat His flesh and drink His blood - but He took Him literally. But, Peter and the Apostles didn’t leave, even though it was a hard teaching, because they had faith in Him, just like Catholics do.

Presbyterian’s Response (cont’d)
Jesus responds with:

“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”

John 6:63

My Comments
Ah, yes, the supposedly “spiritual” explanation. First of all, Jesus’ supposed “spiritual” explanation has Him completely contradicting what He just said in the previous verses about His flesh and blood being “food indeed” and “drink indeed”.

Secondly, what I would ask anyone who interprets this in a purely “spiritual” manner, is this: Are you saying that Jesus’ flesh is “no help at all”. That Jesus’ flesh profits nothing? So, if you’re interpreting this as Jesus giving a purely “spiritualized” - or symbolic - meaning to His flesh that He’s been talking about in the preceding verses, then your interpretation has Jesus saying His flesh profits nothing...His flesh is of no help at all. Really?! Jesus’ flesh on the Cross is of no help at all? Do you really want to go with that? What Jesus was saying in verse 63, is that our flesh - the flesh of man - is of no avail on its own. That we do not have life without the Spirit. John 3:6: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”

Thirdly, if this is Jesus’ “explanation” for what He was “really” saying in John 6:51-58, then why did so many of His disciples walk away after they had heard His “spiritual” explanation? Why did they walk away after Jesus apparently told them that they only had to eat His flesh and drink His blood “spiritually”? Why did they walk away after Jesus essentially told them - according to Presbyterian theology - that they only had to believe in Him? Why do the disciples walk away in verse 66, after they heard the supposed “spiritual” explanation of Jesus in verse 63? Why?! (Note: the disciples walk away in John 6:66. 666.) They walked away because Jesus’ teaching on the Eucharist is indeed a hard saying, just as the Presbyterians find it to be today.

And why did He let them go?! These are people who have been with Him now for what...2-3 years? They’ve seen Him walk on water (just the night before). They’ve seen Him raise the dead. Heal lepers and the blind and the lame. And other miracles. And you want me to believe that they walked away from Him because He told them they have to spiritually eat His flesh and spiritually drink His blood by believing in Him?! Really?!

Or, again, maybe they misunderstood that, too?! So Jesus lets His disciples walk away knowing they misunderstood what He said in verses 51-58 and that they then also misunderstood His “spiritual” explanation in verse 63? Really?! Again, crappiest teacher that ever lived!

Presbyterian’s Response (cont’d)
So, what’s my point with all this? I’m just trying to communicate that for me it isn’t a lack of faith. It isn’t a lack of believing that God can do whatever he wills whenever he wills it. It’s a matter of taking a hard look at the text and asking what is actually being communicated here. And I think the Catholic view reads the Lords Supper into the text when it wouldn’t be there otherwise. And in so doing makes the same mistake as those who were present with Jesus.

My Comments
Okay, so it’s not a lack of faith, that causes his unbelief, rather, it’s a distorted and contradictory - and quite fallible - private interpretation of the passage that does so. Again, claiming Catholics make “the same mistake” as those who were present with Jesus on that day. How so? The mistake they made back then was to not believe that Jesus would give us His flesh to eat and His blood to drink. Catholics don’t make that mistake. So his comparison here is a bit off. He is actually the one making the same mistake as the Jewish leaders and the disciples who walked away. He does not believe Jesus would give us His flesh to eat and His blood to drink. So, in order to get around the very plain words of the Christ, he has to spiritualize Jesus’ teaching in such a way as to have Jesus speaking symbolically or metaphorically, so as to make it palatable to his theology. And, in so doing, he basically makes nonsense out of the passage and causes Jesus to, essentially, contradict Himself.

What really gets me about this, is that everyone who heard Jesus on that day, took Him literally. The Jewish leaders took Him literally. His own disciples took Him literally. Even the Apostles took Him literally. People who knew Him better than anyone save His own mother took Him literally. So, why, 2000 years after the fact, do the Presbyterians (and most other Protestants) say, “No, He wasn’t speaking literally.” Why? What evidence do they offer for such a belief? None. Evidence from the Church Fathers? Nope. Evidence from the tradition of the Church? Nope. Evidence from anything other than their own private, fallible, interpretations of Scripture. Nope.

They come to John 6 with the predetermined belief in Sola Fide and with the predetermined belief that, of course, Jesus wasn’t speaking literally. Then, reading John 6, and the rest of Scripture, through the lens of that predetermined belief, they have to twist passage after passage to make them fit that predetermined belief.

Now, why do Catholics see the “Lord’s Supper” - a.k.a., the Eucharist - in John 6, and, specifically, in John 6:51-58? Well, let’s see. In John 6:11, Jesus takes the bread and gives thanks before He distributes it. The Greek word for “gives thanks”? Eucharistēsas. Huh, sounds kinda familiar, doesn’t it? What did Jesus do at the Last Supper? He took bread and gave thanks before distributing it (Luke 22:19).

Then, Jesus talks about Himself as being the bread that came down from Heaven, not to do His own will, but to do the will of the Father (John 6:38). What did Jesus say at the Last Supper? “I have come from the Father,” (John 16:28). Also, He said, “The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father Who dwells in Me does His works,” (John 14:10), and “but I do as the Father has commanded me,” (John 14:31). In other words, not to do His will, but to do the will of the Father.

Furthermore, there’s the little thing where, in John 6:53-57, Jesus says we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. What did Jesus say at the Last Supper? “Take, eat, this is My body.” Then He took a cup and told them, “Drink of it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins,” (Matthew 26:27-28). So, eat my flesh and drink My blood in John 6, and eat My body and drink My blood at the Last Supper. Yeah, no reason for Catholics to think there is any similarity between John 6 and the Last Supper...at all.

Also, regarding the Last Supper, when did Jesus pour out His blood for the forgiveness of sins (Matt 26:27-28)? On the Cross. What does Jesus say in John 6:51, right before He said we must eat His flesh and drink His blood? That He will give His flesh for the life of the world. And, uhmm, where did He do that? On the Cross. So, at both the Last Supper and in John 6, Jesus points us to the Cross.

Another point I need to make. Notice what frames the whole discussion of Jesus telling us to eat His flesh and drink His blood. On the one hand, it’s the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves and the miracle of the manna from Heaven. On the other hand, it’s Jesus ascending into Heaven (John 6:62). And it’s very clear that whatever Jesus is talking about in verses 51-58, it is something greater than both of those two events. So, I ask, is symbolically eating Jesus’ flesh and symbolically drinking His blood, simply by believing in Him, a greater miracle than Jesus’ multiplication of the loaves and fish? A greater miracle than the manna from Heaven? A greater miracle than Jesus’ ascension into Heaven? I think an honest person, on all counts, would have to say, “No.” Which means, a so-called symbolic, or spiritual, interpretation of John 6:51-58, falls flat on its face.

Yes, we need supernatural grace in order to believe in Him; however, my believing in Jesus was not some miracle, outside the realm of known physics, performed by the Almighty Himself. God did not believe for me. God did not force me to believe. He did not suspend the laws of physics and perform a miracle in order to get me to believe in Him. Which means, an interpretation of John 6:25-58, which turns eating Jesus' flesh and drinking His blood into something less miraculous than the manna from Heaven and the multiplication of the loaves and Jesus' ascension into Heaven, but rather makes it some sort of argument for Sola Fide, is nothing but a load of garbage.

So, in truth, this Presbyterian's lack of belief in the Eucharist as the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ, is both a lack of faith and not a lack of faith. It's a lack of faith in the Church founded by Jesus and guided by the Holy Spirit; but it's not a lack of faith in his own private, fallible, non-authoritative interpretation of Scripture.

Closing Comments

I hope this has been an enjoyable, and edifying, read. And I hope all of you have a happy and healthy 4th of July this week! Please keep us in your prayers, as we do you in ours!

Donations

The Bible Christian Society is a non-profit organization that relies solely on your support to bring the truths of the Catholic Faith to tens of thousands of people throughout the U.S. and all around the world each year. If you would like to help us do what we do, you can donate online at:

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/donations

or send a check to:

Bible Christian Society

PO Box 424

Pleasant Grove, AL 35127.

Anything you can do is greatly appreciated!

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe - to unsubscribe from this newsletter

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter - to subscribe to this newsletter