ST. AUGUSTINE COMMENTS ON JOHN 6:53 "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you." Are these words of the Lord Jesus Christ, spoken at Capernaum, to be interpreted literally or figuratively? The Roman Catholic Church insists that we give these words a literal interpretation READ THE OTHER SIDE TO SEE A MORE SCRIPTURAL AND HELPFUL VIEW

THE BACKGROUND:

The RC Church believes that this passage supports her teaching of the Mass i.e. that the bread and wine becomes the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ.  Protestantism rejects that literal interpretation, insisting instead on a figurative interpretation.  An interesting outcome of this dispute lies in the observation which Frank Duff, founder of the Legion of Mary, makes in his booklet "Capernaum and the Eucharist" I quote:

"Catholicism insists that our Lord meant precisely what he said at the Last Supper "This is my body etc.," Protestants are convinced that He only spoke those words figuratively. It is well nigh impossible to move them from that position if we confine our attention to the Last Supper itself,  for frequently enough our Lord did speak figuratively. But there was a prelude to the Last Supper. It was the disputation that took place at Capernaum, told of in the 6th chapter of  St. John. That discussion has decisive bearing  on the question."

I think those words "well nigh impossible to move them" shows just how strong the Protestant interpretation on the Last Supper is. Frank Duff believes that John 6 has a "decisive bearing" on the subject…but if we can show that John 6 does not relate to the Eucharist at all, then we are back to the thought that the words of Jesus Christ can be taken figuratively "for frequently enough our Lord did speak figuratively." Mr Duff has analysed the issue well for us.

NOT ALL THE CHURCH FATHERS APPLY THESE WORDS IN JOHN 6:53-55 EITHER LITERALLY OR TO THE MASS:

Perhaps the most potent quote here is that of Augustine (above) who is heralded as a Doctor of the Church. His comments are entirely Protestant:

Augustine clearly teaches that it is criminal to interpret these words literally and insists, as do Protestants, that they must be interpreted figuratively.

Cardinal Wiseman, no mean defender of the Roman faith, in his Lectures on the Eucharist (pp170-173) also brings an interesting observation. After acknowledging his own belief that John 6 refers to the Eucharist, basing his belief in the Council of Trent, the Cardinal acknowledged concerning the same Council:

"But regarding the  promise in St John, the Holy Synod observed its usual caution, which proves how far it was from merely seeking to impose doctrines without sufficient proof to satisfy the conditions of our principle of faith. For the functions of a General Council being to define what the Church always taught, as such unanimity among the ancient Fathers, and among later Divines was not discovered, as could meet the intensity of proof required, it manifestly drew a distinction, etc.,"

The Church Fathers and  later theologians were not unanimous in their belief that John 6 referred to the Eucharist.

SOME REASONS WHY JOHN 6 CANNOT REFER TO THE EUCHARIST:

1) The words of John 6 relate to the way of salvation whilst the Lord's table is only for those who are already saved. Note the reoccurrence of the words believe and life. v37 reassures the seeking sinner of his reception by Christ. The words are clearly evangelical. The Lord's table is not for the unregenerate. Whilst the most unworthy sinner can come to Christ (1 Timothy 1:15) for the most unworthy sinner to partake of the Supper would bring damnation upon himself (1 Corinthians 11:27-29) The Lord's Supper is for the strengthening of the converted.

2) The Lord's Supper had not yet been constituted. Approximately thirteen months lay between these words in John 6 and those spoken in the Upper Room. At least one Passover after the Jewish rite was to take place during this time. It is significant that when Paul spoke of his authority for the Lord's Supper, he mentions only "the night in which [Jesus] was betrayed" (1 Corinthians 11:23) The language of John 6 is present tense - a referral to the here and now. The Lord's Supper was yet future.

3) If John 6 is referring to the Eucharist, then salvation is by that rite. This contradicts the teaching of the Bible that teaches salvation by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9) Paul got pretty upset when the Jewish faction in Galatia sought to introduce a sacrament (circumcision) into God's salvation plan. He eyeballed Peter over the matter (Galatians 2:11)  If salvation is by the Lord's Supper or by the Mass…then the repentant thief in Luke 23:40-43 could not have been saved since he did not partake. Furthermore, all who have not partaken of the mass including millions of baptised Catholics (infants etc) and billions (over the ages) of Protestants could not be saved. This is the logical outcome of the doctrine. We need to think it all through. It is not enough that we should lay hold on a few words and make them fit into a pre conceived doctrine. Where truth is not rightly applied or interpreted, there is usually some fly in the ointment to spoil the erroneous view.

JOHN 6:53-56 DOES NOT STAND UP TO LITERAL INTERPRETATION:

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54  Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55  For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56  He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

A/ A literal reading of these words leads us (as Augustine points out above) to conclude that Christ commanded naked cannibalism. The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines a cannibal as "a person who eats human flesh…hence cannibalism" Unless we change the meaning of the word, we can come to no other conclusion.

B/ The drinking of blood was prohibited by the law of God (Leviticus 17:10/ Deuteronomy 12:16) Christ did not come to destroy the law…but to fulfill it. (Matthew 5:17) The New Testament Church upheld this prohibition of blood (Acts 15:29/21:25) which thing could not be if literal blood was being drank at the Lord's Supper.

JOHN 6:53-56 DOES STAND UP TO A FIGURATIVE INTERPRETATION:

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54  Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55  For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56  He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

Scripture always interprets itself. Clement of Alexandria observed: "The way for understanding the Scriptures is to demonstrate out of themselves, concerning themselves." John 6:35 is the key to the whole passage:

35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Here is one of the "I am's" of Christ. We take the others figuratively: I am the door…the true vine…the bright and morning star etc., Likewise the Bread of Life.  The hunger and thirsting which Jesus speaks about is obviously spiritual. Later on, Paul was to record that he experienced  literal hunger and thirst  (2 Corinthians 11:27) which would negate the word of Christ unless Christ's words were figurative. They denote the hunger and thirst of the soul. Eating the flesh of the Son of Man and drinking his blood is just the same as believing on Him. We may use other terms to denote this one act of coming savingly to the Lord Jesus: receiving Christ - converted - drawn to Christ etc., Compare v54 with John 3:15/36:

6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life;
3:15  That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
3: 36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

You cannot have everlasting life by two ways and so the terms are synonymous - one graphically describing the other - and therefore by one act.

OBJECTION: WHY DID CHRIST NOT CALL BACK THE OFFENDED JEWS (WHO HAD OBVIOUSLY TAKEN THESE WORDS LITERALLY v52) SAYING: YOU HAVE GOT IT ALL WRONG - NO NEED TO TAKE OFFENCE - THE WORDS ARE FIGURATIVE?

Frank Duff concludes that such an explanation would have drawn them back and that they would no longer have been offended. But this cannot be proven. Christ was preaching salvation by faith. Look at vs 29/35/40/47/53-56. Although they were termed his disciples (v66) yet they had not faith (v36) at least not the faith of God's elect (Titus 1:1) i.e. a real God given genuine faith. Their faith was akin to that of devils (James 2:19) i.e. intellectual only but not of any purifying consequences to the heart. This doctrine of Christ that a man is justified without the deeds of the law (Romans 3:20) is ever offensive to proud man who believes that he can contribute something to his own salvation. Paul preached this doctrine again and again: Romans 3:20/28/4:1-16/5:1/Galatians 2:16/Philippians 3:9 etc., Even had Christ summons them back again and explained to them that he was teaching salvation by free grace alone, the people would still have forsook him. The fact is that no man can come to Christ except he be first drawn of the Father (v44/65) and this sinks the thought of any form or any degree of creature merit without trace. It was only the preserving grace of God that prevented even the apostles likewise forsaking Him:  Lord [Cp. 1 Corinthians 12:3 where we read: no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. ] to whom shall we go thou hast the words of eternal life.  And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. v68-69.

CONCLUSION

I think that we have proved conclusively that John 6 is not connected to the Eucharist nor can be the thought of eating the flesh of the Son of man and drinking His blood be taken literally. We have drawn from leading Catholic theologians and observed the very strong words of Augustine who points out that if taken literally, then they enjoin a vice or a crime.

It is a great pity that the passage is shrouded in theological controversy…both during the event itself and in the centuries afterwards even unto this day.  Peter's words are highly significant. Only Christ has the words of eternal life. Only He is the giver of eternal life. We vainly seek it elsewhere e.g. in a sacrament or in a church of whatever creed. Eternal life is exclusively linked to a Person and that Person is Jesus Christ alone. Faith in Him secures it and does so for all eternity.

Thank you for reading this e-tract. Don't forget to ring our 24/7 Gospel Hotline for a two minute recorded message from the Bible:
Telephone: 021-4393334. This is a Cork based landline and therefore carries the cost only of a local call.
Come and visit us in Cork Free Presbyterian Church, 10 Briarscourt (Annex), Shanakiel, Cork  (Top of Blarney Street)
Sunday's at 11:30am and 6:30pm. Press here for precise directions.
If you get saved through reading the above card or through this page, please encourage us here by letting us know.
We can help you "grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ " (2 Peter 3:18)

* More questions about the gospel  - including an expansion on some of those mentioned here
* Questions about Cork Free Presbyterian Church

Click here to for .mp3 file on the way of salvation

  If you would like further spiritual help, please email us at:
colin.maxwell@fpcmission.org