John 6 and Rome
Listening to Rome’s apologists on the doctrine of transubstantiation, one does not have to wait too long before the ‘Bread of Life’ passage in John 6 is invoked to substantiate their claims.
Before giving an analysis of what Jesus is teaching here in John’s Gospel, let us first see how Rome
Thomas Aquinas’ Catena Aurea, as translated by the late Henry Newman:
And, Haydock’s Catholic Commentary 1859:
In both sources, a distinction is made between what may be referred to as the ‘figurative verses’, and the ‘literal/real verses’. In both sources, the following verses are to be understood in a primarily figurative sense with respect to the ‘bread of life’:
John 6:22-51a (NASB)22 The next day the crowd that stood on the other side of the sea saw that there was no other small boat there, except one, and that Jesus had not entered with His disciples into the boat, but that His disciples had gone away alone. 23 There came other small boats from Tiberias near to the place where they ate the bread after the Lord had given thanks. 24 So when the crowd saw that Jesus was not there, nor His disciples, they themselves got into the small boats, and came toseeking Jesus. 25 When they found Him on the other side of the sea, they said to Him, “ Rabbi, when did You get here?” Capernaum
26 “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. 27 Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal.” 28 Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?” 29 “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”Jesus answered and said to them, 30 So they said to Him, “ What then do You do for a sign, so that we may see, and believe You? What work do You perform? 31 He gave them bread out of heaven to eat.’” Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘ 32 “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven.Jesus then said to them, 33 For the bread of God is [i]that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.” 34 Then they said to Him, “Lord, always give us this bread.”Jesus answered them and said,
35 Jesus said to them, “ I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”
41 “I am the bread that came down out of heaven.” 42 ‘ I have come down out of heaven’?”They were saying, “ Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, 43 “Do not grumble among yourselves.Jesus answered and said to them, 44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. 45 And they shall all be taught of God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.It is written in the prophets, ‘ 46 Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father. 47 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 51a I am the living bread that came down out of heaven;This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said,
Thomas Aquinas’ ‘Catena Aurea’, and ‘Haydock’s Catholic Commentary’ interpret only the following verses literally in regards to eating and drinking Jesus’ flesh:
51b if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”Catena Aurea quotes Chrysostom while commenting on verses 47-51a:
52 Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” 53 “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 yourselves.So Jesus said to them, 54 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”
CHRYS. He then gives them a strong reason for believing that they were given for higher privileges than their fathers. Their fathers eat manna and were dead; whereas of this bread He says, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. The difference of the two is evident from the difference of their ends. By bread here is meant wholesome doctrine, and faith in Him, or His body: for these are the preservatives of the soul.
Haydock’s Commentary says on verses 41 and 47 - 51:
Ver. 41. I am the living bread, which came down from heaven. These Jews did not believe that Christ was the true and eternal Son of God, who came down from heaven, and was made flesh, was made man. He speaks of this faith in him, when he calls himself the living bread, the mystical bread of life, that came to give life everlasting to all true and faithful believers. In this sensesaid, (trac. xxv. p. 489) why dost thou prepare thy teeth and belly? only believe, and thou hast eaten; but afterwards he passeth to his sacramental and real presence in the holy sacrament. (Witham) St. Augustine
…
Ver. 47. Thus Jesus Christ concludes the first part of his discourse: "Amen, amen, he that believeth in me, hath everlasting life;" which shews that faith is a necessary predisposition to the heavenly bread.We see that in verse 35, one is nourished by coming and believing:
Ver. 48. Because the multitude still insisted in begging for their corporal nourishment and remembering the food that was given to their fathers, Christ, to shew that all were figures of the present spiritual food, answered, that he was the bread of life. (Theophylactus) --- Here Jesus Christ proceeds to the second part of his discourse, in which he fully explains what that bread of life is, which he is about to bestow upon mankind in the mystery of the holy Eucharist. He declares then, in the first place, that he is the bread of eternal life, and mentions its several properties; and secondly, he applies to his own person, and to his own flesh, the idea of this bread, such as he has defined it.
Ver. 51. Christ now no longer calls the belief in him, or the preaching of the gospel, the bread that he will give them; but he declares that it is his own flesh, and that flesh which shall be given for the life of the world. (Calmet) --- This bread Christ then gave, when he gave the mystery of his body and blood to his disciples. (Ven. Bede)
35 Jesus said to them, “ I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.
The context gives no indication of a break from speaking figuratively to speaking literally, so do Romanist apologists take these later verses to be indicating a physical eating of Jesus flesh? The question then is, why should we take these later verses to be referring to a physical eating and drinking of Jesus’ flesh and blood, when it is agreed that the earlier verses speak of eating and drinking, but do so figuratively?
‘Phago’ and ‘Trogo’
There have been a number of reasons given by
.
50 This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”Transliterated, verse 54 says:
52 Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” 53 “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 yourselves.So Jesus said to them, 54 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.
Let us assume though, that ‘trogo’ must indicate a physical and carnal act, no matter what the context – verse 54 teaches that the eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood was a present possibility for them and this before the institution of the Lord’s Supper.
“The one chewing of me the flesh and drinking of me the blood is having life..”
If this passage teaches transubstantiation, then this verse teaches that one can eat Jesus body and drink His blood, outside of the Mass – ofcourse, no Roman Catholic apologist would want to say such a thing. If we hold onto and read the passage contextually, without divorcing particular verses from the body of the passage, then we can agree with Augustine who understands the passage figuratively. Earlier, we saw that Haydock’s Commentary considers Augustine’s words only to refer to the earlier ‘figurative verses’. Let us read Augustine’s words in context, noticing which verse he is commenting on:
NPNF1: Vol. II, On Christian Doctrine, Book III, Chapter 16 (section 24).If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.
Augustine is referring to verse 53. Remember that according to these Roman Catholic Commentaries, Jesus is speaking literally after verse 51? Not according to Augustine. In fact, the reason Augustine gives for believing Jesus to be speaking figuratively, has nothing to do with the words ‘phago’ or ‘trogo’, but because a literal interpretation seems to enjoin a crime. In verse 54, Jesus only restates and elaborates on the salvific reality of what He had been teaching. If this is where Jesus uses the word ‘trogo’, which is placed so much emphasis upon by modern Romanist apologists, then the word ‘trogo’ is not the reason why the listening Jews grumbled in verse 52, which brings us to the next Roman Catholic argument in defence of transubstantiation.
The Grumbling Jews
Another argument in favour of a transubstantiation reading of John 6, is the fact that when the Jews grumbled and doubted Jesus ability to give them His body, Jesus did not clarify or correct their ‘literal’ interpretation.
Interestingly, the Roman Catholic commentaries we have been looking at actually agree, that the primary issue was not eating or drinking Jesus’ body, but their unbelief. How can this man do this thing? Consider the words of Chrysostom as referred to in Haydock’s Commentary:
These words which call in question the almighty and incomprehensible power of God, which hinder them, says St. Chrysostom, from believing all other mysteries and miracles: they might as well have said: How could he with five loaves feed five thousand men? This question, How can he do this? Is a question of infidels and unbelievers.IFurther, after Jesus replies to them by confirming His previous statements is stronger terms, we read that the Jews grumbled again. Notice how Jesus responds:
52 Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”
53 “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 yourselves.So Jesus said to them, 54 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”59 These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in.60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “ This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?” 61 “Does this cause you to stumble?But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, 62 What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” Capernaum
Now that the Jews have grumbled again, Jesus responds with, what if they saw Him ascending back to where He was before? Jesus’ mentions his coming ascension to where He was before, says that it is the Spirit who gives lie and not the flesh, but there still some who don’t believe. How do these words of Jesus address the issue of physical or figurative eating of His flesh? They don’t. What they are addressing, is the identity of who Jesus is, which is what the Jews first grumbled at in verse 41:
41 Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, “I am the bread that came down out of heaven.”
Jesus understands their main problem, to be their unbelief in who Jesus really is. Their problem is that of unbelief as Chrysostom is mentioned to say in Haydock’s Commentary, and even if they saw Jesus ascending back to heaven, they would still not believe because it is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh profits nothing. In fact, in both instances of their grumbling, Jesus responds in the same way by teaching the inability of man to come to Him, without God. Compare verse 44 with 63:
44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.
63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
One begins to wonder then, where it is in John 6 that Jesus teaches that we must physically eat His flesh and drink His blood. If the Bible is insufficient to teach us truth, then the Roman Catholic should agree that the doctrine of transubstantiation can not be learned by examining the Scriptures alone. If it can not be read out from Scripture, and we need some words found external to Scripture, then a Roman Catholic reading of John 6 is only possible if we perform some ‘Magisterial eisegesis’.
Kind regards
Troy Smalley
