I believe the debate of the Real Presense of Christ in the Eucharist comes down to the principles established by Paul in the above quote from I Cor. 1:27. To have the infinite God put all his divine being into a wafer of bread seems just plain foolishness to some. Yet, as we see from Paul’s quote, God purposely chooses things that are considered foolish so that he can reveal his wisdom and shame the wise. Many of the sacraments in Catholicism are of this nature. For example, the idea that water would be used of God to bring salvation (also known as “baptismal regeneration”) seems preposterous to many. “How can water have such power?” they say. Not only does the Bible support this doctrine (e.g., Ac. 22:16; 1 Pt 3:21), but did you know that every early church father (2nd to 4th centuries) who wrote on the subject believed that baptismal water was the instrumental means of grace for salvation? No, you won’t find that fact written in many Protestant commentaries. It’s much too embarrassing to admit. Now let’s suppose, as our critics do, that baptismal regeneration was not originally taught by the apostles. Wouldn’t we then have to conclude that either the early church fathers formed an elaborate conspiracy to defraud us, or, that they were all deluded? Everything in us screams “no, that couldn’t have happened.” These were the same fathers who taught the deity of Christ, the Trinity, etc, all passed down from the apostles. In fact, one of the chief means of judging truth in the first centuries of the church was to ask the simple question: Did Jesus and the apostles teach this doctrine?

Like baptismal regeneration, the doctrine that Christ is present in the Eucharist seems ludicrous to some. Human wisdom reacts vehemently against this concept. But tell me, what is easier to believe: that the infinite God became a man, died on a tree, and will remain a man forever, or, that God performs a miracle to make himself present in the Eucharist? When you think about it, the former statement is much harder to believe. As a matter of fact, the concept of an Incarnation is the very thing that keeps the major percentage of the world from accepting Christianity, not the Eucharist. They simply cannot fathom that God would become a man. It was the same problem the Jews had with Jesus (John 10:33). On the other hand, the major percentage of Christianity has accepted the Eucharist, including the Eastern Orthodox and variations of the doctrine among Anglicans and Lutherans. So why are my opponents so critical of this doctrine?

Perhaps if the doctrine of the Real Presense was something that just sprang up in the last few centuries or so, I could understand their outrage. But did you know that the belief in the Real Presense was also taught by the early fathers of the church? There wasn’t one father who denied it. The impression given by FCFC as they quoted Will Durant was that the doctrine of the Real Presense just sort of popped on the scene in the 8th century. I suggest that all of you research this for yourselves. You will be amazed to find voluminous evidence in the early fathers for the doctrine of the Real Presense. Now lets ask the same question we asked of baptism. Does it seem possible that the early fathers would have been so far from New Testament apostolic teaching; so misguided that they lost all sense of truth and honesty, leading them to propagate a “ludicrous” doctrine like the Real Presense? How could all them have failed so miserably when it came to baptism and the Eucharist? A haunting question, indeed, for any Protestant who looks fairly at early church history.

Now to the finer points of our debate. FCFC posed this question: “I would ask Mr. Sungenis to produce one Scripture where we are commanded to eat a live sacrifice with the blood.” This is a typical straw man argument. If I can’t disprove what the opponent props up as contradiction, then it appears they have proved their point. Much of the argumentation presented by FCFC is of this nature. In actuality, the question is irrelevant to our discussion and exposes the ignorance of my opponents as to the nature of the Eucharist in Catholicism. The Church has carefully defined the Real Presense, using terms from St. Thomas Aquinas regarding the difference between “substance” and “accidents,” teaching that it is not raw flesh we eat, nor raw blood we drink. Rather, it is the mysterious and sacramental presense of Christ, accomplished by the miraculous power of God, that is the nature of the Eucharist. We are no more perplexed at this phenomenon than we are concerning the New Testament’s teaching that God’s Spirit actually lives within Christians (Romans 8:9-11). How can the infinite God be resident in my body? A mystery indeed yet its mystery does not deny its reality. I can’t show you the Spirit in me, but it is there nonetheless. Likewise, I can’t show you Christ in the Eucharist but he is there and I accept it by faith.

FCFC asked regarding the statement in Matthew 26:29, i.e., “I will not drink of this fruit of the vine,” since that was its actual appearance. Similarly, we are not required to refer to the end of the day as “a revolution of the earth, rather, we can say it is a “setting of the sun.” Second, it is not unusual for things that have changed to be called by their original state, eg., Gn. 2:23; Ex. 7:12; Jn. 2:9; 2Pt. 2:22). Third, the Greek word for “fruit” is “genneema.” It is used 9 times in the NT denoting “generation” or “birth,” (e.g., Matt. 3:7; 12:34;23:33). Hence, the literal meaning of the phrase is, “that which is generated or produced from the vine.” From its literal meaning it cannot be deduced whether it refers to fruit juice, wine, or the blood of Jesus, since all three can be produced from the vine. The possibility of it being Jesus’ blood is also heightened by the fact that there is an interchange of terms in the context between “cup,” “blood,” and “fruit of the vine.” The interchange of terms does not disprove that the “fruit of the vine” is Jesus’ blood; if anything, it opens the possibility.

Paul uses the same type of interchange in 1 Cor. 11:23-29, sometimes referring to “bread” other times referring to “the body of the Lord.” If it was only bread that he had in mind, why confuse the poor Corinthians by referring to it also as “the body of the Lord”? Paul says quite specifically in 1 Cor. 11:29, “for anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.” The word “recognizing” is from the Greek “diakrino.” Used 18 times in the NT, it is understood as an act of discernment, with many passages adding the nuance of “not doubting” (e.g., Mt. 21:21; Mk.11:23; Acts 10:20; 11:12; Rm 4:20; 14:23: Jm. 1:6). Hence, the Corinthians were either not discerning or doubting the bread was the body of the Lord. If this was not the case, we would have to ask the fair question why the Corinthians were judged with sickness and death as verse 11:30 stipulates if it were mere bread that they were abusing? Such harsh punishments are not recorded in the New Testament for disregarding mere symbols. In Cor. 11:27 Paul says they are actually “guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.” This must mean that the body and blood of the Lord is connected with “eating” if the body to which he refers is not present in the eating? The nature of the words compel the conclusion that he who eats unworthily is guilty in regard to what he eats. If not, then Paul would have said he sins “against the Lord’s Supper” or some other entity. You can’t sin against it unless it is present to sin against. The whole context just screams that there is something very serious and profound going on here.

Now, to John 6. FCFC writes: “The reason certain of the disciples left wasn’t because he said “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood...”, they knew he was speaking figuratively, and even said, “This is a hard SAYING” (Emphasis mine).” This kind of interpretation shows how taking things out of context is so deleterious to biblical doctrine. What FCFC fails to see is that the context of John 6 shifts from one of demonstrating Jesus as the spiritual bread from heaven to one insisting that he is also the sacramental bread. The context presents this shift in verse 50 when Jesus begins to answer the phenomenon of the manna given in the desert differently than he did in verse 31. Jesus, for the first time, speaks of “eating” the bread. Then in verse 51, for the first time, he defines the substance of the bread as being “my flesh.” The coupling of “eating” and “my flesh” immediately caused an objection in the Jewish mind that was not present in the previous verses regarding Jesus being the spiritual bread. Consequently, they said in verse 52, “...how can this man give us his flesh to eat.” Contrary to what the FCFC team says, the Jews did not take his language figuratively. How could they be taking it figuratively when they are complaining that Jesus is asking them to eat his literal flesh?? We should also point out that a purely symbolic interpretation of “eating another’s flesh” would have been understood as destroying an enemy, not becoming intimately close with them (e.g., Ps.27:2; Is. 49:26; Mic. 3:3).

Notice that Jesus does not quell their fears. Not only does he not entertain a mere symbolic connotation to his words but he reinforces his literal teaching by changing the Greek word for “eating” from “phago” to “trogo.” The word “trogo” is a more specific word than “phago.”Its lexical definition carries the concept of “gnaw, chew, nibble, or munch,” whereas “phago” is only the general word for eating. For emphasis, Jesus uses “trogo” four times in the remaining context (vrs. 54,56,57,58). The flow of the chapter shows us that since they didn’t accept Jesus as the spiritual bread in verses 50-58. Contrary to the statement given by FCFC, it is during the “eating his flesh” part of his discourse in verses 50-58 when the Jews say, “This is a hard saying,” NOT when Jesus is explaining his spiritual mission in verses 31-47. Yes, the Jews knew what Jesus was saying and that was why they were so upset with him. Jesus doesn’t say, “Oh, I’m sorry, you misunderstood me. I was only speaking symbolically.” He maintains his intent by specifically choosing words to denote a literal meaning.

The distinction between the purely symbolic context of verses 31-47 and the physical/sacramental context of verses 50-58 is also made clear by the addition of “drink my blood” in verses 53-56 which had not been mentioned in the Synoptic gospels which also use “eat my body” and “drink my blood,” and the early church who practiced the solemn ceremony under the same two species in 1 Cor. 10:16-17 and 11:23-30. If the context of John 6:31-58 were purely a symbolic context, there would be no reason to add the “drinking of blood” since bread could very well carry the symbolic meaning by itself.

To be sure, there is deep spiritual meaning in the whole context of John 6. Jesus is the spiritual bread of life sent by the Father. The giving of his flesh certainly points to his death on the cross. Eternal life is certainly the driving force of the chapter. But the glory of Christianity is that it does not merely display these truths symbolically, she does so physically as well. Because we are physical, God has provided a physical dimension to our faith to bestow his blessings. Hence, we take part in the sacrifice of Christ not only by believing in Jesus with our mind, but by taking him into our physical body. As in marriage when the two become one flesh, so it is with Christ and his bride, the Church (Eph. 5:31-32). Christ physically comes into us and becomes one with us. To many critics this may seem foolish, but remember, God chooses the foolish things of the world to confound the wise.

Regarding John 6:63, this is one of the most abused and misunderstood verses of this chapter. In my next installment I will give an exegesis of this verse.

Submitted by Robert A. Sungenis

Catholic Apologetics International