One of the silliest things about Catholicism to me was the idea of transubstantiation – the thought that the communion bread and wine actually become Jesus’ body and blood. It was just laughable. I challenged my husband the scientist on more than one occasion: “You can’t actually believe that they change, do you? That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard! Everyone knows it’s just a symbol!”
I didn’t know that some Protestants also believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Presbyterians, Lutherans, Anglicans). I didn’t realize I was thumbing my nose at 2000 years of this understanding, since the first apostles and Church fathers. Clearly I was much smarter than these silly Catholics. Had they even read their Bibles? Jesus said “Do this in remembrance of me.” (Luke 22:19) Communion was simply symbolic.
Boy was I surprised when I discovered the Biblical basis for what I thought was a superstitious notion!In Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, and Luke 22:19, Jesus says “This is my body” and “This is my blood.” Note that he didn’t say “This is a sign of my body” or “This represents my body” – just “This is my body.” (I saw a linguistic explanation of the Greek “is” somewhere, but can’t find it – sorry. It basically said that it was more physical than figurative.)
John is the only gospel with a really extended talk about the Eucharist. (Check out chapter 6, verses 22-71 – The Bread of Life Discourse.) It happens shortly after the loaves and fishes. People are coming after Jesus in droves, and he responds, “Amen, amen, I say to you, you are looking for me not because you saw signs but because you ate the loaves and were filled. Do not work for food that perishes but for the food that endures for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him the Father, God, has set his seal.”
Of course the people are confused, and Jesus cuts to the chase when he states “I am the bread of life.” The people are skeptical and grumble that they know this guy’s parents, so how could he be from heaven? He addresses them again and repeats “I am the bread of life.”
Up ‘til now, I actually think a symbolic understanding works. Jesus said he was the vine, the light of the world, etc., so saying he’s the bread of life could just be another metaphor. But then he smacks them with the 51st verse: “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.”
Say what?! His flesh?! Is this guy a cannibal? That’s what the listeners thought!
Verse 52: The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
From a commentary*: “Many of the hearers have understood perfectly well what Jesus is saying and that he means exactly what He says, but they can’t believe that what He says could be true. How can He give them His flesh to eat? Is He going to start carving up His arm? Others may have been confused by a Semitic figure of speech where to “eat someone’s flesh” was to slander him (Psalm 27:2) (this is where we get the term “backbite”). If they had understood Him in a metaphorical, figurative, or spiritual sense, there would have been no reason for them to quarrel. Just as Nicodemus thought of being born again in the purely physical sense (John 3:4), and the woman at the well thought only of natural water (John 4:11), so now the Jews understand the reference to His flesh literally.”
The next (53rd) verse: Jesus said to them, “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.”
Whoa – now this kook is really taking things too far. Not only is he talking cannibalistically, he’s bringing in blood! “To the Jewish audience this would be even more repulsive. Blood was a forbidden food under the law (Leviticus 7:27, 17:10-14), the penalty for which was to be expelled from the tribe; they would be excommunicated."
Verse 54: Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
Agh, he’s said it again! He just keeps hammering it home!
Verse 55: For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
“Take me literally here, folks!”
Verse 56: Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
Commentary again: “In the first two instances (verses 53 and 54) where Jesus has talked of eating His flesh, the Greek word used for “eat” is phago which is a nice dainty word for eat; but from verse 56 on, the Greek word recorded is trago which literally means “munch, chew, gnaw.” So, what we have here is Jesus saying “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life… my flesh is real food, and my blood is true drink… whoever gnaws and chews on what is truly my flesh and drinks what is truly my blood remains in me and I in him.” Whoa.
Verse 57: Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
“This is the fourth time, in four verses, that Jesus has said they must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. … With this rapid four-fold repetition, it’s almost like Jesus is saying “what part of ‘eat’ and ‘drink’ don’t you understand?”. God is not stupid; when hearers misunderstand Jesus, He corrects their misunderstanding immediately (see John 3:3-6, for example, where Jesus corrects Nicodemus’ understanding of “born again” and explains that it is not a physical rebirth but a spiritual rebirth through baptism). Here, no correction is made because no misunderstanding exists.”
So there we have it, straight from the horse’s mouth. We are actually literally going to have to eat/gnaw/munch Jesus’ flesh. (Confession: I kind of got the willies just writing that.) I’m not surprised that the crowd had a hard time with this!
Verse 60: Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
“Hard” might be a bit of an understatement! Commentary: “Jesus has made many claims: He is the Messiah, or at least a prophet – but they know his family; He is the Bread of Life – but He looks like a human; He gives eternal life – but this is something only God can do; you must eat His flesh – but this is cannibalism; you must drink His blood – but this is forbidden by the Law; and to top it all off, He has said all this in the form of a covenant oath! … Break out the straight jacket, this guy’s gone off the deep end! This sounds like the ravings of a mad man!”
The only way to accept something like this is in faith, through grace. It’s a mystery, all but incomprehensible to us. It’s understandable that people won’t understand and so will reject it. Jesus acknowledged that some of the people didn’t believe what he was saying about the Eucharist.
And then we get to John 6:66: As a result of this, many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
“Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of souls left; turned their backs on Jesus and eternal life. If Jesus had not been speaking literally, this was His last chance to correct their misunderstanding. Since He didn’t, we have absolute assurance that their literal understanding is the correct one. This is the only incident recorded in Holy Scripture where anyone stops being a follower of Jesus for a reason of doctrine.” Talk about a hard saying!
Verses 67-69: Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave? Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”
So there we have it. Jesus repeated this hard saying over and over and over again, not correcting their understanding, and followers left him because of it. The 12 disciples didn't really understand it (what else is new) but believed it, taking it on faith. This is big stuff. How did I miss this before now?!
The entire early Church took Jesus literally and believed in His real presence in the Eucharist. This is confirmed by Paul in First Corinthians 11, verses 27-29: Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.
It’s taken me quite a while to come to terms with all this. I still don’t know if I completely understand the details of how the bread is changed even though it still looks/feels/tastes/smells the same – but I’m okay with it being a mystery. And to be honest, it took me several times of hearing explanations like the above before I accepted it. You know what made me really believe it? (Well, besides grace and faith, that is.) It was when I heard someone ask, “Is there anything that could make you believe in this?” Because really, if you refuse to believe something that Jesus actually said, then there’s probably no argument that could be made that would change your mind.
Well, I know I got a bit long-winded today – thanks for sticking with me! Drop me a comment to let me know that you actually did make it through! In the next couple days, I’m hoping to get to how this understanding of the Eucharist explains so much about why Catholics do certain things. Oh, and in case you’re wondering why I’m writing about this, it’s not because I’m trying to secretly convert you! This wouldn’t be the most subtle way of doing so, after all ;) I just find it’s really good for me to actually explain these things for my own benefit, so I can make sure I do understand them. And I know if I’m unclear or outright wrong, you’ll point it out. Also, I know the misunderstandings I held before, and I’d like to try to help rid you of those. So I guess my motives are partly selfish and partly altruistic! Thanks for you patience!
*I would love to reference the actual commentary I used, because it’s line-by-line and great. But I don’t know where it’s from, because I get it emailed to me from an RCIA leader. If anyone is really that curious, I can ask him.