Prior to this revelation (of sorts) I felt that the one Bible passage most challenging to Protestantism and most supportive of the Catholic Church was Matthew 16. But, after reading Upon This Rock by Steve Ray, I think they have something of an argument. That is not to say that I believe any less firmly that Peter was the first Pope and that the Catholic Church is Christ's Church. Rather, I can see how someone can twist the English translation of that passage to fit their Protestant beliefs. I don't understand how that's possible with John 6.
My sister is about to finish her first year of seminary in Boston. The seminary she is attending is Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, MA. The question I most want to ask her is how she is taught to interpret John 6. How does a school designed and charged with teaching Protestant ministers teach this chapter of John's Gospel. I haven't gotten that opportunity yet, but I will be fascinated with whatever she says.
There is no Biblical passage that more fully undermines Protestant beliefs than John 6. The verses I focus on to make this statement are John 6:52-55. In John 6:50-51 Jesus requires anyone who wants eternal life with him to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Had John stopped there and skipped on to what is now verse 60, there would still be some wiggle room, like with Matthew 16. However, John goes on to recount that there were those following Jesus who were, lets just say, shocked by Jesus' statements. They questioned how Jesus could give his flesh to eat. (6:52). Jesus responds by saying whoever does not eat his flesh and drink his blood will have no life within them. (6:54). In other words, Jesus responds to those who ask, "do you really mean actually eating your flesh," with "yes, I really mean actually eating my flesh."
Despite this passage, Protestants do not believe in transubstantiation. In other words, Protestants do not believe that they really have to eat His flesh. Now, I am have not studied what the different Protestant doctrines are regarding the last supper (there are over 33,000 of them after all), but I assume that they believe that the twelve Apostles actually partook of the actual body and blood of Jesus. Which only means they believe that when Jesus said "do this in remembrance of me" (Luke 22) he was really saying, "do something symbolic of this in remembrance of me."
Yes, even if those masters of literal Biblical interpretation wanted to believe that Jesus was mincing his words in the hours before his death, John 6 corrects their error unequivocally. After Jesus demands that they eat his flesh and drink his blood to gain eternal life, His followers, as us humans are prone to do, sought wiggle room in His demand. But, Jesus responded by walling off any room for wiggling. Jesus' response directly refutes any question about whether or not symbolism has a place at the communion alter.
Just as important, in John 6 Jesus gives us a glimpse into how hard it will be to follow Him. Each of us struggle to live our lives fully in Christ. When we face a decision and question what God would have us do, we often search to find that wiggle room, that justification for taking the easy route. At those times we should all remember those early disciples and ask am I going to follow those that walked away from Jesus (John 6:66) or am I going to be like Peter who asked, "to whom shall we go"?
"If you want to be happy, really really happy, use your talents to serve others." - Eduardo Verastegui