Reflection on John 6:35-40

Rev. Marcel Divine Emeka Okwara, CSsR

Wednesday, April 29, 2020

In this Gospel, Jesus declares that he is the bread of life and then promises everlasting life to all those who believe in him. Upon hearing him say, “I am the bread that came down from heaven,” the Jews murmured and complained, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph? Do we not know his father and mother? Then how can he say, “I have come down from heaven?” Without backing down, Jesus insisted and said, “Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died, this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. 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” (John 6:47-51). By this time, the Jews are no longer murmuring. Jesus’ declaration has raised the tempo. They quarreled among themselves and complained, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (John 6:52) As if to add salt to injury, Jesus defiantly maintains, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him” (John 6:53-56).

The controversy about the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is not new at all. It started right from the very moment Jesus declares his flesh as the true food and his blood as the true drink. For a first century Jew, there is a good reason to hesitate and reject this new teaching. Scattered throughout the Old Testament are the prohibitions of the eating of animal flesh with blood. The blood is life, so they don’t eat animal flesh with blood. It was strictly forbidden. And here is Jesus whom they knew his father and mother stating that they have to eat his flesh and drink his blood. It is not only gross, but also theologically objectionable to the highest degree. So, the Jews balked and refused to accept the new teaching of Jesus. As you can see, in this Gospel passage, Jesus was given a number of opportunities to soften his teaching, to propose a more symbolic or metaphorical reading, but rather than take that path, he insists, “Amen, amen, I say to you (that is, listen, listen, there is something very important coming), unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.” And to rob it in, he says, “For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.” In these words, Jesus turns the heat. He was not speaking symbolically but literally. 

After laying down this new teaching, this new marker, many of his followers turned back and will not go with him anymore. They said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it” (John 6:60). After they left, Jesus turned to the Twelve and asked, “Do you also want to leave?” (John 6:67). Speaking on behalf of the Twelve, Peter replied, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life” (John 6:68). Now, if Jesus was speaking symbolically, his Jewish audience wouldn’t have been so upset with him; and some of his early followers wouldn’t have turned back. The reason why they stormed away in protest is because Jesus didn't compromise or soften his teaching. He knew exactly what he was saying, that is why he turned to the Twelve and asked if they were going to leave him as well. 

Beloved in Christ, the Eucharistic Discourse of John 6 and of course the institution narratives is the great ground for the Catholic Church insistence of the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. This is not a later invention; the root is here in the Gospel of John 6. Now, let’s look at what some of the Church Fathers said about the Eucharist. This is important so that we are not tempted to argue that this Real Presence is a later and medieval theology, and that in the Early Church people didn't believe it. St. Ignatius of Antioch was a very early figure; born around the year 35 AD and died 108 AD. He knew the Apostles at earliest level. In his Letter to the Smyrnaeans, he said, “They (the docetists) abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.” As for Justin Martyr, he wrote, “For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these (the Eucharistic Elements); but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” (First Apology, 66). Justin is clear “that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word… is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. ” The “prayer of His word” refers to the words of institution, which come from Jesus’ lips at the Last Supper. So after the words of institution, the bread and wine become the flesh and blood of “that Jesus.” In the early third century, Origen of Alexandria said, “ You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received THE BODY OF THE LORD, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall, and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish….how is it that you think neglecting the word of God a lesser crime than neglecting HIS BODY?” (Homilies on Exodus 13:3). 

You know, if the Eucharist were to be a mere symbol, no one would treat it with this kind of attention. Yes, we might show some respect to a symbolic object, but this kind of obsessive care given even to particular crumbs that fall from the Eucharist wouldn't be accorded to a symbolic object. Only someone who believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist can have such reverence. As for St. Gregory of Nyssa, he said, “The bread again is at first common bread; but when the mystery sanctifies it, it is called and actually becomes the Body of Christ.” St. John Chrysostom said, “What is that Bread? The Body of Christ! What do they become who are partakers therein? The Body of Christ! Not many bodies, but one Body.” This is a very profound saying. In all the Church Fathers writings, you can see that the Eucharist is the means by which we are Christified and eternalized body and soul. Our minds, hearts and souls are Christified, but so also our bodies. Our lowly bodies are prepared for heaven by our contact with the reality of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist. St. Hillary of Poitiers said, “As to the reality of His Flesh and Blood, there is no room left for doubt, because now, both by the declaration of the Lord Himself and by our own faith, it is truly Flesh and it is truly Blood. And These Elements bring it about, when taken and consumed, that we are in Christ and Christ is in us.” 

I can go on and on to quote several of the Church Fathers’ teachings on the Eucharist, but the few I have mentioned show us that what begins in John 6 is carried on by the early Church in unambiguous way. If the Eucharist were a mere symbol, Jesus would have said so. When his Jewish audience protested, he would have told them he was only speaking in a symbolic sense. When some of his early followers walked away and stopped following him precisely because of his Eucharistic teaching, he would have clarified his earlier comment. He would have told them he was speaking in a metaphorical sense. But he did not. If the Eucharist were a mere sign or symbol, the Church Fathers would not have used the kind of language they used. So, if the doctrine of the Real Presence is true, then it must be maintained and taught unapologetically. The literal eternalization of the one who receives Communion must be insisted upon. 

But what does this transformation really mean? It means that the recipient’s whole life— body, soul, spirit, passions—are now ordered to eternal dimension. The recipient of the Eucharist who is now a Christified and Eucharitized person becomes finally aware that his or her life is no longer about him or her, but about God. Having become the one he or she has received, they now understand that their greatest treasure is to be found above and not below. Like St. Thomas Aquinas, they understand that they have nothing except Jesus, the Lord. 

Prayer

Soul of my Savior, transform me

Body of Christ, heal me

Blood of Christ, sanctify me

Jesus crucified, make me die to sin

Risen Lord, rise in me, wake me up from spiritual slumber and make me a firebrand disciple

Eucharistic Christ, may something change in me. May something good happen in me. May I become less of me, and more of you whenever I receive you. Help me become what I have received.

Amen.  

©Rev. Marcel E. Okwara, CSsR