Is Jesus really speaking about the Eucharist in John 6? My Protestant friends say that Jesus is only speaking metaphorically when He refers to people eating His flesh.

Before looking specifically at the Bread of Life discourse in John 6, read John 4:31-34 and Matthew 16:5-12. In these passages Jesus is speaking about food in a merely symbolic or figurative way. In one passage He’s talking about the “leaven” of the Pharisees, and in the other He’s saying that He has “food” that they don’t know about. In both cases, the disciples interpreted Him as meaning real food. Thereupon Jesus took the opportunity to clarify in unmistakable language that He was only speaking figuratively.

Let’s turn now to John 6.   

In the Old Testament, God prepared His chosen people for the coming of Christ. He established His covenant with Abraham, confirmed the covenant with Isaac, and raised up a people through the sons of Jacob. When the Israelites were made slaves in Egypt, He led them out of slavery. This rescue from Egypt was just the beginning. Only after many years of trials and hardships would the people finally reach their destination. To prevent them from starving on the way to the Promised Land, God gave the people manna—“bread from heaven” (cf. Exodus 16:4 and following). He also led them by means of a cloud that hovered over the ark of the covenant (cf. Numbers 9:15-23). These were two very tangible ways that the Lord demonstrated that He was truly with His people.

As much as God cared for the Israelites in the desert, even more does He provide for His pilgrim Church today, by giving us His Son as our daily bread. As Jesus Himself said:

“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 forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh” (John 6:48-51).

There are those today who accept the authority of the Bible but question whether Jesus was speaking literally/sacramentally in the Eucharistic passages, especially John 6, as the Church has always taught.

The Greek text itself evidences the Church’s constant understanding. In John 6:49, Jesus begins His teaching by first referring to eating manna. He uses a word that means “eat” or “consume.” This verb can be used literally or figuratively. He then refers to Himself as the new manna, the living bread from heaven, and those who eat this “living bread” will live forever. In this context, He uses the same word because of the figurative connection with manna.

After verse 52, when the Jews dispute His teaching, Jesus uses more emphatic language to clarify His teaching and address their concerns. He employs two techniques. First, He abandons any figurative association with manna. He no longer speaks of simply “eating,” but of “eating flesh and drinking blood.” He ends His explanation by stating, “This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as your fathers ate and died” (John 6:58).

Then later in the discourse Jesus began using a different verb, which translated means “gnaw” or “chew.” This verb is rarely used figuratively, and in the context used by Christ is evidently to be taken literally. Jesus doesn’t say, “Wait a minute, you’re misunderstanding Me!” Rather than back off His initial statements because of the murmuring of the crowd (e.g., verses 41 and 52), He reiterates them in even more graphic, literal terms.

Many of the disciples had left everything to follow Jesus. They had just witnessed a miraculous multiplication of loaves (John 6:1-14) and probably heard about His walking on water (John 6:16-21), yet now they walk away from Jesus on account of this teaching (John 6:66). This reaction simply would not make sense if Jesus were speaking only figuratively or symbolically.

Further, in the Aramaic language, to symbolically “eat the flesh” or “drink the blood” of someone meant to persecute or assault them. We see in passages such as Deuteronomy 32:42 and Ezekiel 39:17-18 how this idiom applies in the context of the brutalities of war. If He were only speaking symbolically here, He would be saying in essence, “whoever persecutes and assaults me will have eternal life”--surely not what He’s trying to say!

Some Protestant Christians have used John 6:63 to argue against the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist in favor of a metaphorical interpretation of the Bread of Life discourse. That’s the verse that begins, “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail.” Since the flesh is of no avail and it’s the spirit that gives life, the argument goes, then John must be understood metaphorically.

There are many things that can be said in response to that. Here are five points that I have found most compelling:

(1) Jesus’ Eucharistic talk ends prior to verse 63, at verse 58 (see verse 59). The subsequent dialogue in verses 60-70 surely is not unrelated, but these later verses deal primarily with faith, not the Eucharist.

(2) The word “spirit” is nowhere used in the Bible to mean “symbolic” or “metaphorical.” The spiritual dimension is just as real (more real, actually) than the material dimension.

(3) In verse 63, Jesus is contrasting the natural or carnal man (unredeemed, who lives according to the “flesh”) with the spiritual or faith-filled man. See 1 Corinthians 2:14-3:4 for St. Paul’s explanation of all this. Let’s note here, however, that when He refers to the Eucharist, Our Lord says “my flesh,” while He says “the flesh” in verse 63, in reference to the carnal man who will not believe anything beyond his own physical existence.

(4) Part of the trouble here is that “flesh” has two senses: It refers to our fallen human nature (“the flesh”) and also to our bodies. If Jesus meant “flesh” in the latter sense, then He would be contradicting all the Scripture passages concerning the importance of Jesus’ flesh for our salvation. But the Incarnation (literally “enfleshment”) of God is a big deal! “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us . . .” (Jn. 1:14). It simply does not make sense to interpret “the flesh is of no avail” as denigrating Our Lord’s flesh, through which God identified with sinful mankind and redeemed us.

(5) The unbelieving disciples leave Jesus only after verse 63. They wouldn’t have left if they understood verse 63 as an assurance from Our Lord that He was only speaking metaphorically or symbolically. In fact, this is the only time in the New Testament that any of Jesus’ disciples left Him because they found a doctrine too hard to accept.

Now of course there are several other Eucharistic passages in the Bible. Note the strong language of St. Paul: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:27).

Ted Sri makes this observation in the context of Jewish ritual and culture at the time of Jesus:

“It is clear that Jesus intended for us to have a real communion with His very body and blood: ‘He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him’ (Jn. 6:56; cf. 1 Cor. 10:16). This is the realism of Eucharistic Communion. Again, this realism fits in well with the biblical and Jewish understanding of the Passover, sacrifice, and communion.

“The idea of eating only a symbol of the sacrificed lamb would not fit into the Jewish mindset or the Passover framework. You wouldn’t eat a lamb-shaped cracker or lamb-shaped cookie as a sign of the sacrificial lamb. You really had to eat the lamb to share in the communion with God that was forged by the sacrifice.

“Similarly, in the new Passover of the Eucharist, Christians do not partake in a mere symbol of Jesus, but really partake in the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world—Jesus, really present in the Eucharist.”

While the biblical support for the Eucharist is foundational and compelling in its own right, we still come back to the authority issue. The Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God. But Christ didn’t come simply to build a New Testament. Even more, He came to build His Church (Mattthew 16:18), which is the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15). So, we learn much by examining the Bible as it is read and lived in its “natural habitat”--the Church, and specifically her liturgy.

In other words, what did the Apostles and their disciples and successors believe and preach and celebrate after Our Lord ascended to His Father and gave the Church a special outpouring of His Spirit? Well, there is an abundant record of writings from the first 500 years of Christendom which clearly demonstrate that early Christians did “do this” (i.e., celebrate the Eucharist) as a memorial of Christ’s Passion, death, and Resurrection, and that they believed they were really receiving Christ Himself.

There are many sources out there that provide this information. It’s best to read original sources (perhaps start with the letter of Pope Clement (pope number 4) and the epistles of St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, who was martyred shortly after the turn of the first century, though there are many heroes of the faith to choose from). Just to whet your appetite, click here for a collection of snippets, courtesy of Catholic Answers.

The foregoing response draws heavily from the following sources, which are strongly recommended for supplemental reading:

Faith Foundations II, interactive, online course available through My Catholic Faith Delivered

Hahn and Mitch, Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: The Gospel of John

Edward P. Sri, “The Heart of the Home: Jesus in the Eucharist,” as found in Hahn and Suprenant, eds., Catholic for a Reason: Scripture and the Mystery of the Family of God

Suprenant and Gray, Faith Facts: Answers to Catholic Questions

Jim Burnham, Beginning Apologetics: How to Explain and Defend the Catholic Faith