The Bread of Life Discourse is truly the heart and interpretive key of the whole Gospel. Studying the Gospel as a literary masterpiece, we see that the Bread of Life Discourse is thematically at the center of the Gospel.
4 reasons why the Bread of Life Discourse cannot possibly be a metaphor.
Handout is below the audio recording.
Listen online [here]!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catholic Commentary on the Gospel of St John
Following the great saints and Catholic theologians
Session 7 – The Bread of Life Discourse
I.
The Immediate Context --
A.
Introduction to chiastic structure
B. The
sixth chapter of John’s Gospel – The multiplication of the loaves (6:1-16), the
walking on water (6:17-26), the Bread of Life Discourse (6:27-72).
C. At the
center of the chapter, 6:20 – “But he saith to them: It is I; be not afraid.”
II. The Place of John 6 in the Gospel
–
A. Chiastic
Structure of the whole Gospel?
A (Chap 1)
- Witness of John (Baptist) & others - pre ministry Jesus.
B
(Chap 2-4a) – Jesus the Mosaic Messiah & Church’s New Bridegroom
C (Chap 4b) - Jesus
gives life to a stranger. [son of the ruler of Capharnaum]
D (Chap 5) – Jesus
heals a person of weak faith. [pool of Bethsaida]
E
(Chap 6-8) – Jesus, Son Messiah, gives life with spiritual food of Passover
(Ch 6)and water/wine/light/sight of Tabernacles (Ch 7/8).
D’
(Chap 9/10) – Jesus heals a person of strong faith. [man born blind]
C’ (Chap 11) – Jesus
gives life to close friend. [resurrection of Lazarus]
B’
(Chap 12-19) – Jesus the Davidic Messiah
& False “King” of the Jews.
A’ (Chap 20/21) - Witness of John
(Beloved Disciple) & others - post ministry Jesus.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Could the Bread of Life
Discourse be a metaphor?
“I am
the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live
forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.
[…] Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life. […] Whoever
eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.”
Most,
though not all, Protestants wiggle and fidget as they come to the Bread of Life
Discourse in the sixth chapter of the Gospel according to St. John; and they
have good reason to be disturbed! Our Savior speaks quite plainly of the
Eucharist when he states,For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink
indeed (John
6:56).
The
common solution for many modern Protestants (following the path set out by
Zwingli) is to call upon the words which follow toward the end of the
discourse: It is
the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have
spoken to you, are spirit and life (John
6:64). Appealing to these words, which reference the spirit as
opposed to the flesh, these
Protestants will claim that the Bread of Life Discourse is an extended
metaphor.
There
are four reasons why our Savior’s words in John 6:26-72 cannot be understood as
an analogy or a metaphor. Among these, the second is perhaps rather unknown.
[all four reasons come from Ludwig Ott’sFundamentals of Catholic Dogma]
1) From
the nature of the words used
One
specially notes the realistic expressions “true” and “real” referring to the
“food” and “drink” which is our Savior’s body and blood. Likewise, we note the
concrete expressions employed to denote the reception of this Sacrament: the
Greek word commonly translated as “to eat” is more literally “to gnaw upon” or
“to chew”.
The
bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. […] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed (John 6:52,56).
2) From
the biblical usage of the figure “to eat one’s flesh”
In the
language of the Bible, to eat another’s flesh or to drink his blood in the
metaphorical sense is to persecute him, to bring him to ruin and to destroy
him. Thus, if Christ tells the Jews that we all must eat his flesh and drink
his blood, and if he means this metaphorically, we would be led to conclude
(following the witness of Sacred Scripture) that our Savior intends us to
reject him.
Consider
how the metaphor of eating flesh and drinking blood functions in the
Scriptures:
“Whilst
the wicked draw near against me, to eat my flesh. My enemies that trouble me,
have themselves been weakened, and have fallen.” (Psalm 26:2)
“By the
wrath of the Lord of hosts the land is troubled, and the people shall be as
fuel for the fire: no man shall spare his brother. And he shall turn to the
right hand, and shall be hungry: and shall eat on the left hand, and shall not
be filled: every one shall eat the flesh of his own arm: Manasses Ephraim, and
Ephraim Manasses, and they together shall be against Juda.” (Isaiah 9:19-20)
“And I
will feed thy enemies with their own flesh: and they shall be made drunk with
their own blood, as with new wine.” (Isaiah
49:26)
“You
that hate good, and love evil: that violently pluck off their skins from them,
and their flesh from their bones? Who have eaten the flesh of my people, and
have flayed their skin from off them: and have broken, and chopped their bones
as for the kettle, and as flesh in the midst of the pot.” (Micah 3:2-3)
“Go to
now, ye rich men, weep and howl in your miseries, which shall come upon you.
[…] Your gold and silver is cankered: and the rust of them shall be for a
testimony against you, and shall eat your flesh like fire.” (James 5:1,3)
“And
the ten horns which thou sawest in the beast: these shall hate the harlot, and
shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and shall burn her
with fire.” (Revelation
17:16)
3) From
the reactions of the listeners
The
listeners understand Jesus to be speaking in literal truth – How can this man give us his flesh to eat? (John 6:53) – and Jesus does not correct them, as he had done
previously in the case of misunderstandings (cf. John 3,3; 4:32; Matthew 16:6).
In this case, on the contrary, he confirms their literal acceptance of his
words at the rist that his disciples and his apostles might desert him. Indeed,
our Savior is willing to test his apostles on this point:Then Jesus said to
the twelve: Will you also go away? (John
6:68)
4) From
the interpretation of the Fathers and the Magisterium
Finally,
we can recognize that this text is not to be understood as a metaphor from the
interpretation of the Fathers, who ordinarily take the last section of the
Bread of Life Discourse as referring to the Eucharist (e.g. St. John
Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexander, St. Augustine, et al.). Moreover, the
interpretation of the Council of Trent confirms this.
The
words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life
In John
6:64, Jesus does not reject the literal interpretation, but only the grossly
sensual interpretation. Our Savior insists that the Eucharist is spirit and life insofar
as it gives life. For the body we receive in the Eucharist is not dead flesh,
but profits us unto eternal life.
So St.
Augustine says, “This Flesh alone profiteth not, but let the Spirit be joined
to the Flesh, and It profiteth greatly. For if the Flesh profiteth nothing, the
Word would not have become Flesh.” The same (lib. 10, de. Civit. Dei) says,
“The Flesh of itself cleanseth not, but through the Word by which it hath been
assumed.” And S. Cyril, “If the Flesh be understood alone, it is by no means
able to quicken, forasmuch as it needs a Quickener, but because it is conjoined
with the life-giving Word, the whole is made life-giving. For the Word of God
being joined to the corruptible nature does not lose Its virtue, but the Flesh
itself is lifted up to the power of the higher nature. Therefore, although the nature
of flesh as flesh cannot quicken; still it doth this because it hath received
the whole operation of the Word.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. The Treachery of Judas
For Jesus knew from
the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would
betray him (John 6:65)
“By this John intimates that Judas the traitor was one of
those who did not believe; indeed, that he was offended at Christ’s sayings
concerning the eating His flesh: that he conceived and cherished a dislike to
Christ which at last broke out into treachery against Him. The connection makes
this conclusion necessary. Otherwise this mention of the traitor would be
inopportune, unless from this discourse of Christ Judas had taken the first
initiative of his unbelief and subsequent treachery. So S. Augustine, Bede,
&c
“Christ added this that the Jews might not think that He
had, unaware of his future treachery, admitted Judas to the Apostolate. He had
done it consciously and advisedly, that so His Passion and man’s redemption
might be fulfilled as God had decreed.” (Cornelius a’ Lapide)
