The Analogy of John 6

One of the doctrines which separates Christians from one another is the nature of the Lord's Supper.  What exactly did Jesus mean when He said:

"This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me. This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood." - Luke 22: 19-20

Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and some others take Jesus quite literally.  We confess that the Eucharist is the real presence of Jesus Christ's body.  That is to say, Jesus Christ literally makes Himself available as food during the celebration of the Mass (aka the Lord's Supper).

In contrast, Evangelicals, Baptists, and most independent congregations hold that Jesus was speaking figuratively at the Last Supper.  They believe the Eucharist is only a token, a symbol, an emblem of Christ's body.

For simplicity I will call these two camps Group L and Group F.  (Literal and Figurative)

Today I want to discuss why this disagreement between Groups L and F is important.  Then I want to share an insight I had which I think definitively rebuts an argument against the literal bodily reality of the Eucharist.

A Dichotomy:

This disagreement cannot simply be swept aside as a "non-essential".  These two sides are irreconcilably different and there are enormous moral consequences of either side being right.

If Group L is correct, the Mass is the pinnacle of the Christian life.  To quote the Catholic Catechism, it would be the "source and summit of our faith" [CCC 1324].  And all the people in Group F would be refusing to take part in the central act of Christian worship.

If Group F is correct, the Mass would become an abominable act of idolatry.  The people in Group L would be bowing down to bread and worshiping wine.  There is no middle position.

The Bread of Life:

One piece of evidence presented by Group L is the second half of John chapter 6.  It is proposed that Jesus' statement at the Last Supper ought to be read in light of His statements in the Bread of Life Discourse:

"I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever - and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh. 

Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.  He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 

He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died.  He who eats this bread will live for ever.” - John 6 48:-58

People espousing the real bodily presence of Christ as the Eucharist will point to that and ask:

"What the heck else could He be talking about?"

The Argument from Other Analogies:

The standard response from Group F is to say that Jesus was being figurative there too.  The argument typically sounds like this:

"Throughout the Gospel of John, Jesus makes several analogies about His identity.  In one instance He says He is a door.  In another instance He says He is a vine.  But you don't see people thinking Christ's body is literally present in a door or in vines.  Jesus claiming to be the bread of life is one more in this pattern of these analogies."

Now, the typical rejoinder to this from Group L is to say...

"No, this seems to stand apart from those other analogies.  Jesus seems to be speaking quite literally here."

However, I've recently come to realize this is precisely the wrong approach.  Because in reality... the observation made by Group F about the pattern of analogies is absolutely right.  The bread of life discourse is indeed in that pattern of analogies.

.... but that's where their argument backfires.

Analogies and Applications:

All of those other analogies follow a clear pattern.  First, Jesus would make some claim about Himself.  Then He would explain the literal implications of that analogy.  Let's look at how this plays out in the ones mentioned above:

So there is your pattern.  You get a figurative image of how Christ relates to us ... followed by a literal explication of what this means.

What happens you apply this same pattern to the Bread of Life discourse?  Let's see...

Huh!  That seems to be exactly what Group L is trying to say.  We don't actually believe Jesus is a loaf of baked wheat flour.  That much is certainly an analogy like the others.

But the literal application of that analogy - as Jesus explained it - is that He really expected us to eat His flesh.  So if you really stay faithful to the pattern of analogies seen elsewhere, you get the belief in the Real Presence.

In other words, the Evangelical's argument about John 6 is correct.  But it proves the Catholic's point.

Third Step Needed:

Thus, the folks who are really proposing a break in the pattern of analogies are those in Group F.  In John 6 they actually need one more layer of analogy before Christ's words becomes something palatable to their ideology.

Like this:

The problem here is Jesus never goes on to give an additional meaning of what it means to "eat His flesh".  He stops there with the crowd being disgusted and confused.  And this leaves the people in Group F having to fabricate the true  meaning of Christ's words out of their own imagination.

Because if you go with the bare text of what Jesus said.... using the same patterns He used elsewhere.... you get the Real Presence.



---------

For more on how the Early Church treated the matter, click this [link] to see my earlier work on that matter.