I lead RCIA, and last week we were talking about the Eucharist, and
I used John 6 as the scripture that we had our conversation around. How do you respond
to the idea of "He's using an analogy, it's an example, it's a symbol, it's
a metaphor," and then they say, "Oh that sounds like cannibalism, he can't have been serious."
Well, here's one thing you might do in order to show the difference between Jesus' use of
metaphors and what Jesus is speaking of in John chapter six. You can compare it with John 10:5—I
think it's verse 5, John chapter ten for sure—where Jesus said speaks of himself as being
"the door" or "the gate," right, through which the sheep enter; and then in John chapter 15, Jesus
speaks of himself being "the vine." And those are actually two passages that our Protestant friends,
Jeff, will actually appeal to in order to try and argue that Jesus is speaking figuratively in John
chapter six. But we can actually turn the table and use it to our benefit here. In your case,
Jeff, notice how in John chapter ten when he speaks of himself as "the door" or "the gate," and
in John chapter 15 when he speaks of himself as "the vine," his audience in no way interprets him
to be speaking literally. No one says "Oh, go get the oil so we can oil Jesus' hinges on himself."
And in John 15, no one says "Oh go get the the trimmers, because we need to trim the leaves off
of Jesus because he said he's a vine." In no way do we have evidence that the audience took him
literally in those passages. But the audience did take Jesus literally in John chapter six.
Both the Jews, who within the context represent those who were opposing Jesus, and
Jesus' disciples in verses 60 through 61, they're having a hard time with the teaching, okay? And so
just by comparing and contrasting these teachings of Jesus, we can see something different is going
on in John chapter six. And of course that, Jeff, as you know, sets up the question: how does Jesus
respond to this audience, both the Jews and the disciples, who are taking him literally?
And you were spot on, Jeff in articulating how Jesus doubles down in response to the Jews who
say "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" He does not back down, he does not correct their
thoughts; in fact, he affirms their thoughts six different times in six different ways—including,
we have a change of the verb from regular general eating to a more graphic eating, as you pointed
out, Jeff. But here's the key, I think this might be a clincher for your RCIA folks, Jeff: whenever
the disciples—notice how the disciples say "This is a hard saying; who can accept it?"
If Jesus were only speaking figuratively—that is to say, eating his flesh and drinking his blood
only means that we must believe in him—if that's all Jesus meant, well then his disciples, Jeff,
would not have had a hard time embracing that teaching and accepting that teaching.
Why? Because they already believed in him. That's child's play. They've been doing it already.
There's nothing difficult in accepting Jesus and following him, for his disciples,
because they were already doing that; and it is precisely because of this teaching to
eat his flesh and drink his blood that these disciples get up and walk away,
and Jesus does not call them back. If all Jesus meant were to believe in him,
why would Jesus let his disciples walk away when they already were believing in him? Right? It
would seem reasonable that Jesus could have just said "You're misunderstanding me, all I mean for
you to do is to do what you've already been doing: believing in me!" But Jesus doesn't do that. Why?
Because Jesus did not intend his words to be taken figuratively here. He meant them literally,
and they're having a hard time with the teaching, and because of their lack of faith
they are unable to accept it as true, and consequently they leave and Jesus lets them leave.
This is just a sketch of a few reasons, Jeff, of why we can conclude that Jesus was not speaking
figuratively, but that he was speaking literally. And finally, with regard to cannibalism,
the analogy is disanalogous. The analogy falls apart, the parallel falls apart, Jeff, because,
as we know in light of the revelation of the Last Supper, Jesus, does not intend for his apostles
and for his disciples to eat his flesh and drink his blood in a cannibalistic mode or manner,
in a grotesque way. Jesus reveals at the Last Supper that he's going to give us the substance
or the reality of his flesh and blood, but under the appearance of bread and wine,
in order to comport or to cohere and harmonize with our human sensibilities about this stuff.
But it does require faith. This is why Jesus turns to Peter and the apostles
and says "Will you leave me also?" And of course Peter exercises that faith,
assumingly in his mind thinking "How in the world is Jesus going to do this? I don't know, but I
believe it because I have faith." And that's what Jesus is calling us to do, Jeff, is to have faith
in his word that the bread and wine of the Last Supper are indeed changed into his body and blood.