GotQuestions vs The Bible
A Response to GotQuestions on the Eucharist
Note: All Bible verses cited by the author are from the Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition. All Bible verses cited in the original article by GotQuestions (preserved here, where possible) are from the English Standard Version. All views expressed herein are the author’s own
Introduction
This article is Part III of a three-part deep dive into Protestant objections on the Eucharist, Real Presence, and Transubstantiation which I’ve been working on. I would highly recommend you check out Part I and Part II before diving into this article.
Okay, so maybe the title is a bit too provocative. Maybe it isn’t the most helpful introduction to what I hope to be an honest breakdown of a presumably well-intended article explaining why, in GotQuestions’ estimation, the Catholic belief in the Real Presence and Transubstantiation is an unbiblical teaching. What I hope to show today, however, is that not only is the teaching on the Eucharist perfectly Biblical, but that GotQuestions’ attempts to provide counterproof unwittingly throws the very foundation of Christianity into question. Without further ado, let’s jump right into this article entitled “What is the Catholic sacrament of Holy Eucharist?”
“Remembrance” and “Memory” In the Bible
To begin with, let’s take a look at the first few paragraphs of this article. The author (who I don’t have a name to give, since GotQuestions doesn’t give the names of those who write their individual articles) gives a description of the Holy Eucharist/Catholic Mass:
For Catholics, the Holy Eucharist / Catholic Mass is considered the most important and highest form of prayer. In fact, attending Mass is an obligation, under penalty of mortal sin, each Sunday and on certain other Holy Days of Obligation. The Mass is divided into two sections, the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The Liturgy of the Word consists of two readings (one from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament), the Responsorial Psalm, the Gospel reading, the homily (or sermon), and general intercessions (also called petitions).
The center of the Mass is its second part, the Liturgy of the Holy Eucharist. During this time, Catholics share in the body and blood of Jesus in the form of the bread and wine passed out to the congregation. According to the Bible, this is done in remembrance of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:23-25; cf. Luke 22:18-20 and Matthew 26:26-28). However, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1366, "The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit." The catechism continues in paragraph 1367:
The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner . . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory." (CCC 1367)
Okay, fairly basic stuff thus far. We do indeed believe that the Eucharist, primarily linked to the celebration of the Mass, is the “source and summit of Christian life” (also rendered “fount and apex”, Lumen Gentium 2.11). We do also believe that attending Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation is mandatory under penalty of mortal sin, however, that seems a bit irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The author then describes the structure of the Mass accurately, including a broad description of what the Liturgy of the Eucharist entails.
The first objection I raise is the author’s attempt to put a wedge between the Biblical language of “remembrance” (“Do this in remembrance/memory of me”) and passages from, the Catechism calling the Eucharist a sacrifice. Now, we’ve discussed at length how a description can have two senses (recall signs and symbols), and here I don’t even see the contradiction. As can be clearly seen, the Catechism says that the Eucharist is a memorial, which corresponds with the Biblical text. After all, it was at a Passover seder in which Our Lord instituted the Last Supper, a day when the entire Jewish world joined in memorial and remembrance of the first Passover, and the Exodus from Egypt. As the Old Testament says:
“This day shall be for you a memorial day, and you shall keep it as a feast to the Lord; throughout your generations you shall observe it as an ordinance for ever. (Exodus 12:14)
In the Biblical context, calling something a “memorial” isn’t simply a sentimental way to call back to an event which came before, like remembering a fond childhood Christmas or remembering your wedding day. To remember (“zakar” in Hebrew) implies both a remembrance and an act. It’s both aspects in one concept. Therefore, when the Israelites are called to “… remember all the way which the Lord your God has led you these forty years in the wilderness, that he might humble you, testing you to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep his commandments, or not.” (Deuteronomy 8:2), there’s more going on here than some sentimental notion of remembrance. The Israelites are meant to keep this event in active memory, making it present to them in all times and places. Naturally they may not be physically present at the first Passover, but they are spiritually linked to this event by nature of what they are doing, especially considering God’s place outside of time.
Since the Passover and Old Covenant are handled with this idea of “living memory” or “zakar”, it’s only natural that the New Covenant would have a similar concept. The Greek in which most of the New Testament is written has exactly this, using “anamnesis” in these passages. This term literally means “living memory”, harkening back to the “zakar” concept in Hebrew. When Christ is recorded as saying “do this in memory of me” or “in remembrance of me”, he isn’t being sentimental; he’s instructing us to make His sacrifice (A Passover sacrifice) present whenever we celebrate the Eucharist. That’s exactly what the Catechism of the Catholic Church is indicating when it mentions “re-presenting” and “making present” At every Mass. We do not “re-crucify” or “re-sacrifice” Christ as the common objection goes, but instead participate in the one sacrifice on Calvary, making it present to us today as it was to those in the year 33, exactly in the way that the Jews keep that one Passover in active memory each year during their feast. “And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Hebrews 10:10)
It’s important to note that this concept is admittedly a bit nebulous to us as modern English readers (after all, English wasn’t so much as a thought in anyone’s mind when the Bible was written). When the Bible was translated, our words “memory” and “remembrance” are what was used, though we can’t just assume our definitions; we have to use the understanding of the ancient writers or we miss the whole point of the text. The ancient Israelites would be using the term “zakar” and all of its connotations, and the first-century Christians would be using the Greek “anamnesis”. Whenever we see them discussing these terms, we need to put our modern understanding of a term like “memory” or “remembrance” aside and focus on what they meant in their day. For more on this, there’s a fantastic article by Daniel Esparza on Aleteia which explains some of these minutiae.
Can We Save Ourselves? – GotQuestions’ Pelagian Slant
Moving forward we come to one of the most disquieting aspects of this entire article, one way in which GotQuestions’ troubling theology brings the entire Christian claim into question. The author makes some conclusions which are baffling, and unless I am misunderstanding, lead to an un-Christian and un-biblical understanding of the Old Testament, in order to cast doubt on the idea of the Eucharistic as a sacrifice. He says:
In the book of Malachi, the prophet predicts elimination of the old sacrificial system and the institution of a new sacrifice: "I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord of hosts, and I will not accept an offering from your hand. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to my name, and a pure offering. For my name will be great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts" (Malachi 1:10-11). This means that God will one day be glorified among the Gentiles, who will make pure offerings to Him in all places. The Catholics see this as the Eucharist. However, the apostle Paul seems to have a different slant on it: "I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship" (Romans 12:1). The Eucharist can only be offered in select places: churches consecrated and blessed according to Catholic canon law. The idea of offering our bodies as living sacrifices fits better with the language of the prediction, which says that the sacrifices will be offered "in every place."
Now I grant I may not be correctly understanding what the author is trying to convey here, but in my estimation, he seems to be advocating that the sacrifice which the prophet Malachi predicts, the one which will supersede the Old Covenant sacrifices in the Jerusalem Temple, is one in the same with the sacrifice St. Paul mentions in Romans 12:1. Paul’s sacrifice, mind you, is one where we offer our bodies as a living sacrifice to God. Therefore, it seems to me that according to GotQuestions, Malachi’s prophesy – a critical piece of the Old Testament foreshadowing the ending of Temple sacrifice and initiation of a new type of sacrifice, i.e. that of Jesus Christ – isn’t about Christ at all. Instead, this “new sacrifice” is our offering of our bodies as a living sacrifice.
I’ll let you pick your jaw up off the floor.
I’m not one to throw the word “heresy” around willy-nilly, but if this article is advocating that the new sacrifice of the New Covenant is one in which we offer ourselves, then that’s the “we can save ourselves” heresy of Pelagianism, plain and simple. The whole point of Christianity is that we cannot save ourselves, hence why we need Christ – God – to sacrifice Himself. As Malachi goes on to say, “Cursed be the cheat who has a male in his flock, and vows it, and yet sacrifices to the Lord what is blemished…” (Malachi 1:14). If we tried to offer ourselves sacrifices in this way – this liturgical way in which Malachi is talking about (don’t forget, he starts off by discussing the temple sacrifice) – then we’d be doing so in vain. We need a “pure offering” as Malachi says in verse 11, and none of us are “pure offerings”. Only Christ can fulfil this role, because he is the lamb without blemish (1 Peter 1:19). Indeed, the Early Church understood this, and if you’ll allow me a quote, our friend St. Justin Martyr (ca 100 - 165) makes a Eucharistic connection to Malachi’s prophecy, showing that the first Christians saw it in this light:
Hence God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: 'I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands: for, from the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same, My name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure offering: for My name is great among the Gentiles, says the Lord: but you profane it.' Malachi 1:10-12 [So] He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us, who in every place offer sacrifices to Him, i.e., the bread of the Eucharist, and also the cup of the Eucharist, affirming both that we glorify His name (Dialogue with Trypho, 41)
Going back to St. Paul, he of course understands that Christ is the sacrifice referred to here, therefore when he mentions this living sacrifice of our bodies, GotQuestions’ take cannot be what he means, unless we’re going to say Paul also believes we can save ourselves. Instead, in context, Romans 12 isn’t trying to dialogue with Malachi. Instead, Paul is discussing how the newly baptized Romans are to live as Christians, referring to the daily sacrifices which we need to do in order to serve God. It isn’t a commentary on the capital “S” Sacrifice of Christ which Malachi is predicting. It simply cannot mean that or, again, St. Paul is in error, and that would throw the doctrinal truth of a large segment of the New Testament into question.
Finally, one last bit of criticism that GotQuestions offers is that Malachi’s statement “For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to my name, and a pure offering” (Malachi 1:11) is in conflict with the stated Catholic idea of offering sacrifice only in Churches, since the prophet says that incense will be offered in “every place”. According to GotQuestions, canon law contradicts this. The exact canon goes as follows:
The eucharistic celebration is to be carried out in a sacred place unless in a particular case necessity requires otherwise; in such a case the celebration must be done in a decent place. (Canon Law, 932.1)
I think it’s important to point out that the Code of Canon Law is not any sort of definitive, infallible teaching of the church, but merely a collection of practical laws and practices meant to organize and regulate the workings of the Church in different ages. Without getting into a whole debate about whether or not the Catholic Church has this authority (different article for a different time), let me just point out that canon law has changed many times and will change many times in the future. It’s meant to keep some structure for general circumstances but can be abrogated and exceptions can be given (as opposed to actual infallible teachings like the Trinity or the Eucharist or the Virgin Birth, which are unchangeable and completely unrelated to canon law). It’s like US federal law – it regulates how we order our society but is ultimately subservient to the Constitution and federal law cannot supersede or contradict the Constitution. Granted the analogy breaks down in that infallible teachings cannot be amended like the Constitution can, but I think you can understand the picture. Plus, to go back to Malachi, we do offer sacrifice in any place, since a church can be built anywhere, not relegated to a specific geographical location like the Jerusalem temple. That, after all, is what Malachi is comparing the new sacrifice to. Unlike the Old (current, in Malachi’s time) Covenant, which relegates worship to Mt. Zion, the new covenant will have no such place. We Catholics agree that there is no longer such a central place. That has nothing to do with declaring that certain places can’t be more fitting, though. After all, we have to meet and celebrate somewhere. Why not build specific buildings for this purpose? Unless we’re going to say that building churches is wrong full-stop, which I presume most Protestants wouldn’t agree with. But that can’t be true, because St. Paul created church communities on his missionary journeys, which had buildings (albeit houses, most likely) in which they met. Buildings in which, as we know, they were celebrating some sort of Eucharistic meal (1 Corinthians 11).
The Grand Finale – John Chapter 6
If you thought we were finished with baffling Biblical interpretations by GotQuestions, I regret to inform you that you’d be sadly mistaken. Up next, we need to look at the one passage which has haunted our discussion over the past few articles, yet I haven’t given a lengthy consideration to as of yet. We need to dialogue with the Grand Admiral of all Eucharistic prooftexts: John 6. GotQuestions has a series of objections to this chapter which, to their estimation, does not prove the Catholic belief in the Eucharist, but instead a metaphorical understanding. I will discuss each of these objections, but first, I think it would be helpful to do a brief deep-dive into John 6 itself, just so we understand the context of what is happening here. Let’s start with the first part of this Chapter, where we find a familiar story which is oft overlooked and is key to understanding this chapter, the Feeding of the Five Thousand (emphasis mine):
After this Jesus went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, which is the Sea of Tibe′ri-as. And a multitude followed him, because they saw the signs which he did on those who were diseased. Jesus went up into the hills, and there sat down with his disciples. Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand. Lifting up his eyes, then, and seeing that a multitude was coming to him, Jesus said to Philip, “How are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?” This he said to test him, for he himself knew what he would do. Philip answered him, “Two hundred denarii would not buy enough bread for each of them to get a little.” One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, said to him, “There is a lad here who has five barley loaves and two fish; but what are they among so many?” Jesus said, “Make the people sit down.” Now there was much grass in the place; so the men sat down, in number about five thousand. Jesus then took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed them to those who were seated; so also the fish, as much as they wanted. And when they had eaten their fill, he told his disciples, “Gather up the fragments left over, that nothing may be lost.” So they gathered them up and filled twelve baskets with fragments from the five barley loaves, left by those who had eaten. When the people saw the sign which he had done, they said, “This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world!” Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the hills by himself. (John 6:1-15)
There are a couple of things which stand out here that I want to point out: First, St. John makes the point in verse 4 to show that it was around the time of the Passover in which these events take place. That will come back into play in a moment. Next, when Christ takes the loaves and “gives thanks” in verse 11, that phrase is rendered as “eucharisteo” (literally “thanksgiving”) in the original Greek. It’s also striking how similar the language is to Luke 22:19, when he breaks the bread at the Last Supper: “And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”” But let’s also leave that for now and continue. The next few verses give the familiar recounting of Jesus walking on water during a storm. I’ll pass by these and come to the next relevant passage to our Eucharistic discussion, the famous “Bread of Life discourse”. In the interest of brevity I won’t include the whole thing here, only a few relevant passages. For further reading, see the entirety of John 6:22-49.
When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you come here?” Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. Do not labor 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 has God the Father set his seal.” (John 6:25-27)
“Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world.” They said to him, “Lord, give us this bread always.” (John 6: 31-34)
The Jews followed Jesus across the Sea of Galilee, in order to see him again. He rightly calls out their rather practical desire to have their appetites sated, having eaten their fill of the bread which He miraculously multiplied the day before. They are hoping for another miracle, yet Jesus tells them that what they really need is the true bread from heaven, which gives life to the world. The chapter goes on:
Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me; and him who comes to me I will not cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me; and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” (John 6:35-40)
This seems to be a very metaphorical passage, I’ll grant that and even agree. The Jews, who were just physically fed miraculous food, are looking for more. Jesus promises to give them the true bread from heaven, which he equates to himself. His word is ultimately nourishing to the soul in a way which normal bread is not. Those who believe will have eternal life and be raised on the last day. Does that mean this chapter is only metaphorical? If it ended there, then perhaps we could conclude that, but St. John continues:
The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” (John 6:41-42)
The Jews are confused at what Jesus says, as they know him as the son of Joseph and Mary. Therefore, they don’t understand how he could have come from heaven. This is similar to objections raised by those in his hometown of Nazareth from the synoptic Gospels (Matthew 13:53-58, Luke 4:22-29).
Jesus answered them, “Do not murmur among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Every one who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me. Not that any one has seen the Father except him who is from God; he has seen the Father. Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. 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.” (John 6:43-51)
There’s a distinct shift in tone with this passage. Again, Jesus tells them that he is the “bread of life”, however now he is comparing the eating of the manna in the wilderness to the eating of the bread which comes down from heaven (which He says about Himself in verse 38). Earlier he was saying that those who come to him shall not hunger and have eternal life (metaphorically), but now Jesus is saying that those who eat of the bread from heaven (i.e. Him) shall not die. This is a radical shift from the earlier passage and cannot simply be cast off as metaphorically (which we’ll see as this discourse continues). Predictably, the Jews do not understand what this is to mean.
The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “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.” This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper′na-um. (John 6: 52-59)
Notice how Jesus handles this: he has just said that one must eat his flesh in order to inherit eternal life, and the Jews are understandably perturbed at the passage. So what does Jesus do? He doesn’t clarify, nor tell them they are misunderstanding, nor explain what this strange metaphorical language must mean. Instead, he doubles down with the definitive “Truly, truly” (“Amen, amen”) which indicates a definitive teaching. He reiterates this idea of his body and blood as flesh and drink which we should consume not once, not twice, not thrice, not four times, not five times, but six times in the following passages. If this wasn’t what he meant and those around were visibly, even disturbingly confused, then why would Jesus so starkly continue to make the same statement, unless this was to be understood unambiguously literal?
Furthermore, let’s take a look at the Greek again. By verse 54, the term which Jesus uses to refer to “eat” is trogo. Unlike the more common esthio which has been used until this point, trogo implies more of a “chew” or “gnaw” a word used in Greek literature to refer to the feeding of animals. It’s very crude in its imagery, driving home the point that Jesus is really talking about eating in a graphic, physical sense here. Rounding off our analysis of John 6, we have the disciples’ reaction to this teaching:
Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that should betray him. And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” (John 6:60-65)
The disciples are understandably shaken at this strange teaching. Indeed, in the following verse 66, it says that many drew back and no longer walked with him. Does Jesus clarify now? No. He says that the words He’s spoken to them are spirit and life, confirming what’s been said so far.
Whew. That’s a lot of scripture all at once. I apologize for that, but I think it’s important to understand this passage before we tackle GotQuestions’ objections. I’m going to start a bit out of order on this one, skipping down to the part where GotQuestions claims that all of John 6 is simply Jesus metaphorically referring to himself as superior to the Torah, and how the “eating” and “drinking” is simply reading and understanding scripture. In his own words:
In Jewish thought, bread was equated with the Torah, and "eating of it" was reading and understanding the covenant of God (cf. Deuteronomy 8:3). For example, the apocryphal book of Sirach states, "'He who eats of me will hunger still, he who drinks of me will thirst for more; he who obeys me will not be put to shame, he who serves me will never fail.' All this is true of the book of Most High’s covenant, the law which Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the community of Jacob" (Sirach 24:20-22). Quoting from Sirach here is not endorsing it as Scripture; it only serves to illustrate how the Jewish people thought of Mosaic Law. It is important to understand the equating of bread with the Torah to appreciate Jesus’ real point.
In John 6, Jesus is actually telling the crowd that He is superior to the Torah (cf. John 6:49-51) and the entire Mosaic system of Law. The passage from Sirach states that those who eat of the Law will "hunger still" and "thirst for more"; this language is mirrored by Jesus when He says, "He who comes to Me will never be hungry, he who believes in Me will never be thirsty" (John 6:35). Jesus is not commanding people to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood. He is telling them the core of all Christian doctrine: belief in Jesus Himself ("The work of God is this: to believe in the One He has sent," John 6:29, emphasis added). Therefore, the Catholic interpretation of John 6 is unbiblical.
That’s fair, as we’ve said, that can totally fit as an explanation for the first part of this discourse. After all, as he points out, “…man does not live by bread alone, but that man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord.” (Deuteronomy 8:3), and as we know, Jesus is the Word of God (John 1:1). (as an aside, I find it amusing that GotQuestions also gives a quote from the Book of Sirach to prove this, while being sure to vehemently deny that Sirach is scripture). But the point is true; there is a metaphorical comparison to the early parts of the Bread of Life discourse and the Law. However, GotQuestions settles on this as the primary interpretation, and therefore concludes that “…the Catholic interpretation of John 6 is unbiblical”.
But wait…hold on…what about the rest of the chapter? All that’s been cited so far are verses before verse 48 where Jesus again reiterates “I am the bread of life” and starts to go down this more literal explanation. Why are we just ignoring that? There’s so much more going on here, and to just ignore it and say “ah, case closed!” is a disservice to the text. It’s like reading up to the Council of Elrond in The Fellowship of the Ring, stopping, then getting mad when someone tries to tell you about how Gandalf sacrificed himself to fight the Balrog at the Mines of Moria. “That didn’t happen in what I read!” Of course not; you didn’t finish the book! Without this important piece of context missing, I don’t understand how GotQuestions can so confidently wave the Catholic understanding off as “unbiblical”. The author’s next point about John 6’s analogy between Jesus and the manna in the desert is true, but the conclusion he draws about consuming Christ being simply “fully receiving [Jesus] in faith” is an assumption which is lacking. GotQuestions goes on:
It is very clear that Jesus referred to Himself as the Bread of Life and encouraged His followers to eat of His flesh in John 6. But we do not need to conclude that Jesus was teaching what the Catholics have referred to as transubstantiation. The Lord’s Supper / Christian communion / Holy Eucharist had not been instituted yet. Jesus did not institute the Holy Eucharist / Mass / Lord’s Supper until John chapter 13. Therefore, to read the Lord’s Supper into John 6 is unwarranted.
The author seems to be implying with this that just because Christ hadn’t instituted the Eucharist until Chapter 13, that Chapter 6 cannot be related to the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist. My only question is…why not? Christ’s whole ministry is structured in such a way that He gradually revealed the truth of who He was over time. So…why can we so confidently assume that Christ couldn’t prefigure something he was about to do very soon? To ensure that the teaching of the Eucharist made sense to the apostles when he instituted it at the Last Supper, I’d imagine Christ would absolutely have discussed it before in order to prepare their hearts and minds. After all, the teaching to “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19) happened at the end of his ministry, right before the Ascension. Yet we wouldn’t say it’s unwarranted to read a baptismal interpretation into John 3:5 when Christ is speaking with Nicodemus, telling him one must be “born of water and the Spirit”, which happened much earlier in His ministry (I realize Baptism is another controversial teaching, but putting aside the specifics – whether it takes away sin, whether babies should be baptized, sprinkling vs full immersion, etc. – it is central to most Christian denominations in one way or another). Our Lord’s truths are sometimes confusing, and He chooses to give them to us throughout the pages of scripture, which we should read as one.
Let’s also recall some of the points we tucked away for later: namely that John begins this entire chapter by indicating that it was Passover time when this happened. That would be an interesting detail to include if he was not intending to link this event with the Last Supper, which was to happen soon. Add to that the feeding of the five thousand which happens here, where “Jesus then took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed them to those who were seated” (John 6:11), which is extremely similar language to the Last Supper, and I think the Eucharistic connotations are clear here. I don’t think linking this with a future Last Supper is nearly as much of a stretch as GotQuestions believes given these details. I think, in light of this critical framing detail, it’s much harder to unlink these events as the author attempts to do.
Finally, let’s jump back and take a look at one final objection to the Catholic understanding of John 6: the infamous verse 63. The Gospel of John says:
Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that should betray him. And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” (John 6:60-65)
And GotQuestions responds:
What does that really mean? Jesus goes on to say that "it is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63-64). So, if "the flesh is of no avail," why would we have to eat Jesus’ flesh in order to have eternal life? It does not make sense, until Jesus tells us that the words He speaks are "spirit." Jesus is saying that this is not a literal teaching, but a spiritual one. The language ties in perfectly with the aforementioned statement of the apostle Paul: "Present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship" (Romans 12:1).
“So if the flesh is of no avail, why would we have to eat Jesus flesh in order to have eternal life?” Because Jesus isn’t talking about His flesh; he says “the flesh”. It’s completely different terminology from how Christ was just speaking. If Christ was speaking of His flesh, He would have said that instead of changing the terms used. Granted it wouldn’t make sense for Christ to say that anyway, because if His flesh is of no avail, then He’d be denying His whole mission. Think about it; if Jesus was indeed speaking about His flesh (the same flesh he just told us to eat, several times) then he would have completely contradicted His own word. “Eat my flesh. Eat my flesh. Eat my flesh. Gnaw on my flesh. Gnaw on my flesh. Gnaw on my flesh Oh, and my flesh is of no avail.” That seems a bit odd, and simply doesn’t make sense of this entire passage. Plus – and this is a big one – if Jesus was talking about His flesh here, then he’d be saying His flesh of no avail. If His flesh is of no avail, then the Crucifixion, where he sacrificed His flesh for us, would be of no avail! Therefore, there’s no forgiveness of sins, and suddenly the very foundations of Christianity are in question again! I can’t underscore this enough- to say that Christ is referring to His own flesh when saying that “the flesh is of no avail” here, would mean that He is denying the whole purpose of what he came here to do! Instead, Christ is referring to our sinful, fallen Human nature, i.e. flesh being of no avail. As St. Paul says, “But you are not in the flesh, you are in the Spirit, if the Spirit of God really dwells in you.” (Romans 8:9). Paul is not speaking of Christ’s flesh here, but our fallen sinful nature. We are meant to live in the spirit in that we are meant to live infused with the Spirit of God. We cannot, through our feeble, Human ability, do anything to merit eternal life. We need the nourishing bread of life, Christ Himself, the word made flesh, in order to be spiritually filled and have life. John 6 makes it clear that not only do we need to believe in Him and His word, but also consume his flesh, which he has given us in the Eucharist of the Lord’s Supper, to do “in remembrance of me”.
To (finally) conclude, I admit that this surely isn’t an exhaustive explanation of all the ink that’s been spilled on the topic, however I do hope I’ve dispelled at least some of the specific objections that GotQuestions has raised vis-à-vis the Catholic teaching. I think in trying to oppose the Catholic belief the author does a better job at denying the Christian belief in Christ’s sacrifice itself, which is problematic no matter what Christian background you come from. The author tries to kneecap the Catholic teaching, but instead misses and inadvertently performs a bit of friendly fire on his own position. When it comes to John 6, there is a lot more going on here than GotQuestions admits, which I believe gives much more credence to the Catholic position. Christ speaks metaphorical in a bit of this chapter, but quickly changes into a more definitive, literal explanation which the Jews listening (many disciples who had been with him for a long while) find offensive and hard to accept. His true followers, however, aren’t those who “drew back and no longer went about with him” (John 6:66). We Christians are the ones who, like St. Peter, respond to this strange teaching with ultimate trust: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.”
Other Posts in this Series:
Signs, Symbols, and Spiritual Things
GotQuestions vs The Bible (you are here)
Further Reading/Viewing:
What is the Catholic sacrament of Holy Eucharist? by GotQuestions - the original article
From Zakar to Anamnesis: The memory of salvation by Daniel Esparza - explanation of rememberance/memory in the original Hebrew and Greek
The Shocking Reality of the Eucharist by Ascension Presents (YouTube) - a video by Father Mike Schmitz explaining that latter part of John 6.
Are Catholics Wrong About John 6? by Karlo Broussard - an article touching on some objections, including the “flesh is of no avail” part, as well as discussing why John 6 is different from when Christ calls himself the “vine” or “door” elsewhere
