John 6 is often used by Roman Catholics to “prove” Transubstantiation. While some Latter-day Saints and other critics of Catholic theology might want an easy “out” to claim that John 6 is not Eucharistic at all, but such is problematic for many reasons, including (1) there is a tradition in LDS interpretation that John 6 is, in part, Eucharistic and (2) there is weak exegetical support to reject John 6 as not addressing the Eucharist at all. Instead of seeking an easy “out” when it comes to Catholic arguments for their interpretation of John 6 and the nature of the Eucharist (e.g., the shift from φαγω to τρωγω beginning in v. 54), we should dig deep into the text and meaningfully interact with both the text and the best Rome has to offer on this topic. For my attempt to interact with what I consider the best arguments, both biblical and historical, see the articles at:
Leon Morris, who until the time of his death in 2006, was perhaps the leading Australian New Testament scholar, offered the following note against John 6 not being Eucharist at all:
Most modern scholars hold that John is here referring to the Holy Communion. But despite the popularity of the view no one seems to have explained why Jesus should have puzzled an audience in Capernaum by referring to a non-existent sacrament (it would be another year at least before the Holy Communion would be instituted); he could not possibly have been understood. And if we say that John is not concerned with accurate history in our sense of the term but is giving his eucharistic teaching at this point in his narrative, the question arises of why John thought his readers would find no problems with eucharistic teaching alleged to have been given to a group consisting largely of unbelievers at least a year before there was any Eucharist. It is also a problem that no one partook of this Eucharist (there is no report of anyone drinking the wine that was an integral part of that sacrament). And further, in all the early accounts of the Eucharist there is a reference to Jesus’ “body”, but not his “flesh.” Why should the terminology be changed on this one occasion? We should also take note of the strength of the language used. In verse 53 we read, “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.” This language is absolute. Are we to say that John taught that unless we receive the Eucharist we “have no life”? And that this is the one thing necessary for life. For all its popularity the hypothesis is flawed. (Leon Morris, Jesus is the Christ: Studies in the Theology of John [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1989], 200 n. 190)
There are many flaws with Morris’ reasoning.
John 6 pre-dating the Institution of the Lord’s Supper
Robert Letham, a Reformed Presbyterian theologian, offered the following defence of the Eucharistic interpretation of John 6:47-58:
Some argue that this passage is not sacramental [as] Jesus spoke these words before he gave instructions about the eucharist. His speech [according to critics of the Eucharistic interpretation] here would have made no sense if he intended it to refer to the Supper . . . let us consider [this] claim that it would have been anachronistic of Jesus to have referred to a sacrament he had not yet introduced.
First, while the institution of the Lord’ Supper did not occur until after the events described here, nevertheless from John’s perspective (as the compiler of the Fourth Gospel), looking back on the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus as a whole, he saw Jesus’ speech as directly connected to the later introduction of the sacrament. From his later authorial standpoint the two were in effect part of the same reality.
Second, there are other instances in the Gospels where Jesus mentions events before they actually occur. Frequently he refers to his coming death and resurrection, although his disciples had not the faintest idea what he was talking about. Moreover, he discusses the persecution the church was to face, the impending destruction of Jerusalem, the discipline the church was to exercise over its members, and the very existence of the church itself long before those things came to be (Matt. 16:21-28; John 16:1-4; Matt. 24:1-36 [cf. Mark 13:1-31; Luke 21:1-33]; Matt. 18:15-20; Matt. 16:13-20). In view of this, there is no reason why he could not have done the same in connection with the Supper.
Third, the preceding narrative of the feeding of the five thousand is couched in similar language in the Synoptic Gospels’ description of the institution of the eucharist. At the Last Supper Jesus took bread, gave thanks, broke, it, and distributed it (Luke 22:19; Matt 26:26-27; Mark 14:22-23). Here, with the assembled crowds sitting on the ground, he takes the loaves, gives thanks, and distributes them (John 6:11). The parallel is close but not exact. There is sufficient correspondence, however, to suggest a possible allusion to the Lord’s Supper. We recall also that a common theme in Christin art was the association of the eucharist with the theme of multiplication and that frequently that this theme was directly associated with this feeding miracle (Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (i-xiii) [London: Chapman, 1966], 246ff.; C.F.D. Moule, “A Note on Didache ix.4,” Journal of Theological Studies 6 [1955]:240-43).
Fourth, the following section portrays apostasy by many erstwhile disciples in the light of the “hard sayings” of the bread of life discourse (vv. 60-71). At the conclusion Jesus refers to Judas as the only one of the Twelve who will defect. This recalls the events at the Last Supper itself, when Judas, having received the bread, stalked out of the room to betray Jesus.
Fifth, as we shall see in what follows, the only way to make sense of the hard saying on eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood is to see it in the light of the eucharist. Indeed, the early church was accused, among other things, of cannibalism and incest since they often spoke of eating Christ’s flesh and drinking his blood in the context of love-feasts at which they were all brothers and sisters (J. Stevenson, ed., and WH.C. Frend, rev., A New Eusebius: Documents illustrating the History of the Church to AD 337 [London: SPCK, 1987], 36, 66, citing Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, and Athengoras, Legatio pro Christianis). In the first few centuries of the church this passage was generally understood to refer to the eucharist. (Robert Letham, The Lord’s Supper: Eternal Word in Broken Bread [Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2001], 8-10, comments in square brackets added for clarification)
Elsewhere, commenting on the shift of verb “to eat” in v. 54, Letham notes:
From John 6:54 there is a remarkable change of verb. Hitherto, John had used phagō, which means simply to eat. Now, however, he switches to trōgō, a crude and vulgar word meaning to chew, gnaw, or bite audibly (cf. Raymond E. Brown, John (i-xii), 282-83, 291-92). He uses this verb exclusively throughout the rest of the passage. By choosing it, he draws attention to the physical process of chewing and swallowing and to the audible accompaniments that go with it. This is so in verses 54, 56, and 57, where the verb is used. He underlines further what he has said. Far from appeasing his opponents, he challenges them head on. So much is clear by their ultimate reaction. These words are recognized as “a hard saying” and an unbearable one (vv. 60-66). Many turn away and abandon discipleship. Even the Twelve seem to waver.
What does it mean? It is obvious that Jesus is not advocating real-life cannibalism. But neither can his language be emptied of its raw force. If he had wanted to offset the Jewish hostility, he had every opportunity to do so. But neither he nor they were governed by the philosophy of Plato, which would have enabled them to see these claims in a purely spiritualized dimension. If we view the narrative as connected theologically with the eucharist (and frankly I know of no other way that adequately explains both Jesus’ meaning and the audience’s response), we can immediately find a solution.
By talking of our eating his flesh and drinking his blood in the Lord’s Supper, Jesus shows exactly how he is the bread of life, feeding and nourishing us to everlasting life. Christ is to us the bread of life as we feed on him in the eucharist, as we eat his flesh and drink his blood. This means two things so inseparable that they are like two sides of the same coin. Believing on the one hand, eating and drinking on the other—both go together and both are necessary and indispensable.
First, we feed on Christ the bread of life through faith. The eucharist is not some magical rite that automatically conveys the grace of God. As the wilderness generation fell short, and Jesus’ opponents also did not believe, so without faith we cannot eat the true bread and so receive eternal life. We cannot eat the Lord’s Supper aright apart from faith.
Second, Christ is the bread of life in the Lord’s Supper. Jesus does not teach magic but neither does he purvey some idealized, spiritual salvation divorced from the flesh. Eating and drinking go together with faith. They are two sides of the same coin. The eucharist is central to the gospel. While the eucharist without faith profits us nothing, so faith without the eucharist is barren and empty. In the Lord’s Supper through faith (the gift of the Holy Spirit) we eat Christ’s flesh and drink his blood and so are nourished to everlasting salvation. (Ibid., 12-13, italics in original)
Liberal German Protestant scholar Leonhard Goppelt , commenting on John 6, wrote:
In 6:51, 52 the presentation of the gift unmistakably adopts eucharistic language (in structure and content 6:51c corresponds to the bread saying in 1 C. 11:24b. The terms σαρξ and αιμα, which occur together in Jn. 6:53, are the traditional designation of the eucharistic gift in Ign.) and the eating is characterised as really corporeal by αληθως (-ης). If the intervening v. 54 breaks the many preceding references to εφαγον by using an expression with τρωγω which is repeated three times, this may underline at least the allusion to the eucharist.
This way of introducing the eucharist by the mode of expression is theologically significant. In Jn. 6:51c-58 we do not have the fig. description of one of the Church’s institutions but a direct continuation of the preceding revelatory address. In its mode of expression the section is proclamation which summons to faith, but the formulation shows that this can be truly accepted only in the form of the eucharist. The self-proffering of Jesus by the word becomes the more concrete self-proffering by the eucharist and appropriation by believing hearing becomes correspondingly appropriation by believing eating. The necessity of the eucharist to salvation, which in some sense is stated by Jn. 6:53 as is that of baptism by Jn. 3:5, is thus the necessity of the uncurtailed incarnation of the Word. The connecting line which we discover between Jn. 6:51c-58 and the address on the bread of life is thus an indisputable sign that they belong together. Elimination of this section would destroy the finest presentation of the relation between word and sacrament in the NT (we can put baptism and eucharist together under the later term sacrament because they are associated in Jn 3:5; 6:53; 19:34; 1 Jn. 5:8 as already in 1 C. 10:1-4—so long as we understand by the term what is common to them). (Goppelt, "τρωγω." TDNT 8:236-37, here, p. 237)
If one rejects John 6 as being Eucharistic at least to some degree, they then end up, not just going against the majority of scholarship on John 6 (to his credit, Morris noted this), but more importantly, against any meaningful exegesis of John 6, too.
“Body” (σωμα) vs. “Flesh” (σαρξ)
This is not a good argument, as σαρξ and σωμα are used interchangeably in the New Testament (e.g., Rom 7:24-25; 8:13; 1 Cor 6:16; 10:17-18; 2 Cor 4:10-11; Eph 5:28-30; Col 2:23). Furthermore, Bruce Vawter, addressing the Eucharistic theology of the Gospels, noted:
John’s Eucharistic word is “flesh” (sarx), whereas in Pal and the Synoptic Gospels it is the “body” (sōma) of Christ; in the early patristic Church both terms were used indifferently. The Johannine formula is probably closer to the Semitic expression employed by Jesus. (Bruce Vawter, The Four Gospels: An Introduction, Volume 1 [Garden City, N.Y.: Image Books, 1969], 259)
Elsewhere, Vawter wrote:
John, who reproduces no Eucharistic formulation of his own, nevertheless quotes the Lord as speaking of his flesh rather than his body. It is altogether likely, in fact, that “flesh” is the word Jesus himself used to designate his Eucharistic presence under the sign of bread. Neither Hebrew nor Aramaic—in one of which Jesus must have spoken—possessed an acceptable word for what we understand by “body,” for the simple reason that the Semites did not distinguish the body from the self. “Flesh” is about the only word that Jesus could have used. But “flesh,” as we know, also possessed some undesirable connotations, more so for the Greek, but even for the Semite as well: it is this fact, we saw, that made Jn 1:14 such an astounding utterance. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Gentile churches soon took advantage of the greater flexibility of the Greek language to substitute the more neutral term “body” for the earlier “flesh” of the Eucharistic formulations. (Bruce Vawter, The Four Gospels: An Introduction, Volume 2 [Garden City, N.Y.: Image Books, 1969], 191)
John 6:53 and having [eschatological/eternal] life
Such is truly a “hard” saying, but only for those who reject the biblical teaching on ordinances. Indeed, Morris rejects, in both this book and his commentary on John (part of the NICNT series) that John 3 teaches baptismal regeneration, notwithstanding the overwhelming biblical and patristic support for such a doctrine as well as interpretation of the text (see Baptism, Salvation and the New Testament: John 3:1-7). Furthermore, Morris was Reformed in his soteriology, so he understood justification to be a once-for-all, external, forensic event where the person is merely declared to be “righteous,” but no change in the person themselves (that being completely within the framework of sanctification only). See my article Response to Leon Morris on -οω verbs and the meaning of δικαιοω, as well as the articles linked therein, to see the overwhelming problems with this (frankly, blasphemous) theology.
It should be noted, however, that John 6:53 is directed to those who deliberately reject to accept Jesus' teachings, not those who are ignorant of his teaching (cf. vv. 36, 64-66, 70).
To be fair to Morris, however, he does not argue, as did Zwingli and others, that v. 63 ("It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life") is a "proof-text" against any sacramental interpretation of John 6. As he notes:
In this very difficult expression we should see a reference to the Holy Spirit rather than a contrast between spirit and flesh in the human body, for the human spirit is not life-giving. That Jesus’ words “are spirit and they are life” means that the Holy Spirit is involved in the teaching. (Ibid., 201)
For more on this issue, see the discussion of σαρξ (flesh) and πνευμα
(spirit) in John 3:6 and other passages in the article linked above discussing
John 3 and water baptism. It should be enough that those who absolutise this verse, ignoring the context, are guilty, not just of eisegesis, but also showing that they have a strong disdain of the use of materials by God as instrumental means of salvation (e.g., water in baptism; bread and wine/water in the Eucharist), a dangerous and blasphemous notion held by many Gnostics and Docetists.
To reject John 6 as not containing any teaching on the Eucharist is eisegesis, not exegesis, and seems to be fuelled by a knee-jerk reaction to Roman Catholic abuse of such Eucharistic passages.