Like a driver who switches the gears forward, Jesus slowly builds upon the significance of the bread that He gives for life, as we have heard in the recent Sunday Gospels. Jesus fed a multitude of people, beginning with five loaves of bread and two fish. The people want to make him a king. Jesus slips away. When He is found, He asserts that what He is teaching is more important than the bread with which He fed the people. His teaching is bread for life. The crowd can accept that easily enough. They savor His teaching as they savored the bread.
His words were strong, but His listeners assumed He was giving added emphasis to His message. Then, He went further and announced, “I came down from heaven” (Jn 6:38). Did He actually mean that? This was more difficult to swallow than the bread. They knew His family. Perhaps He meant God was teaching through Him. They might accept that His teaching was spiritual bread that God had sent from heaven.
However, He was saying much more: He Himself was the bread of life that had come down from heaven and could give life. Jesus has moved the symbol of bread from His teaching to His very person. They must eat Him: “I am the bread of life.” He asserted that if they ate this bread, they would never be hungry or thirsty again (Jn 6:35).
He gives the reason for His authority: He is “the Son” in relation to God, whom He speaks of as “My Father”: “This is the will of My Father that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him on the last day” (Jn 6:40).
Today’s Gospel, John 6:51-58, develops the “bread of life” being Himself even further: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever” (Jn 6:51). He was announcing, as Thomas Aquinas puts it, “Christ, the true bread, gives life to the world by reason of his divinity; and he descends from heaven by reason of his human nature” (Commentary on John, 610). Bread strengthens life but Jesus declares that not only can He strengthen our lives. He gives life, even eternal life.
Was this a spiritual or metaphorical way of speaking? He became more insistent: “The bread I will give is My flesh, for the life of the world” (Jn 6:51). He was so intimately united with the Father that His flesh itself is life-giving.
Thomas Aquinas explains that Jesus’ being the living bread is not only His being the eternal Word or refers only to His human soul but to His very flesh: “… even His flesh is life-giving, for it is an instrument of His divinity. Thus, since an instrument acts by virtue of the agent, then just as the divinity of Christ is life-giving, so too His flesh gives life because of the Word to which it is united” (Commentary on John, 959). Jesus healed by His human touch, as the instrument of His divinity.
Scripture scholars generally agree that the beginning of Jesus’ Bread of Life Discourse, Jn. 6:35-50, refers to Jesus’ teaching as life-giving. Raymond Brown, S.S. in his commentary, The Gospel According to John I-XII, alerts us that the Eucharistic theme is present even in the opening words but becomes stronger as the passage proceeds: “There is a secondary, Eucharistic reference in 35-50, and this reference will become primary in 51-58” (p. 274).
Thomas acknowledges that the first part of Jesus’ words could be applied to His teaching but now He means “eating” His flesh, “… but what He is saying here pertains to the sharing in His body, that is, to the sacrament of the Eucharist” (Commentary on John, 959).
Thomas considers the possibility that Jesus only intended “eating His body” as a parable or a metaphor. Jesus affirmed, “For my flesh truly is food” (Jn 6:55). He recalls Jesus’ words at the Last Supper: “Jesus took bread, He blessed it and broke it, and gave it to His disciples, saying: ‘Take and eat it, this is My body’ (Mt 26:26).” Thomas comments: “Just as Christ gave His body to death by His own will, so it is by His own power that He gives Himself as food” (Commentary on John, 961).
Jesus asserts, “The bread which I will give is My flesh” (Jn 6:51). Jesus gives the bread, even though the priest is given the power to consecrate “in the person of Christ.” In the other sacraments, the priest uses his own words or those of the Church but, in the Eucharist, the priest speaks Jesus’ own words.
Thomas is struck by the realism of Jesus words: “Jesus does not say, ‘This signifies my flesh,’ but it is My flesh, for in reality that which is taken is truly the body of Christ” (Commentary on John, 962),
Thomas wonders why Jesus specifies that the sacrament is His “flesh” when the whole Christ is in this “mystical sacrament.” Are not His divinity and His human soul also present? Why does Jesus emphasize “flesh”?
Thomas grants that it might be easier to accept the presence of Jesus’ soul and divinity than His flesh yet the Eucharist, in a special way, is a commemoration of Jesus’ Passion as St. Paul writes, “As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord” (1 Cor 11:26). Thomas affirms that the Passion of Christ relates to His weakness, “He was crucified through weakness” (2 Cor 13:4). According to Thomas, the “flesh” represents “the weakness through which He died” (Commentary on John, 962).
Thomas emphasizes that the “usefulness of this sacrament,” is “great and universal.” It is great because “It produces spiritual life within us now, and will later produce eternal life” (Commentary on John, 963).
Christ is present in the sacrament: “Since this is the sacrament of our Lord’s passion, it contains in itself the Christ who suffered.” The sacrament transmits the effects of Jesus’ Passion: “Whatever is an effect of our Lord’s passion is also an effect of this sacrament. For this sacrament is nothing other than the application of our Lord’s passion to us” (Commentary on John, 963).
Thomas affirms that Christ gave us this sacrament of His presence because He would no longer be physically present with us. The sacrament is useful because it destroys death and restores life: “The destruction of death, which Christ accomplished by His death, and the restoration of life, which He accomplished by His resurrection, are effects of this sacrament” (Commentary on John, 963).
Thomas asserts that this sacrament is universally useful because it not only gives life to one person but to the whole world: “… for this the death of Christ is fully sufficient. ‘He is the offering for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the entire world’ (1 Jn 2:2)” (Commentary on John, 964).
While other sacraments have effects for individuals, in the Eucharist “the effect is universal” because it affects not just the priests, but those for whom he prays, as well as the entire Church, living and dead. This is so because: “It contains the universal cause of all the sacraments, Christ” (Commentary on John, 964).
Jesus’ listeners refused to accept His words because they thought He wanted them to literally eat Him. The Gospel tells us that they argued among themselves. Augustine recognizes the contrast between those who accept Jesus and those who argue among themselves: the Eucharist is “the food of unity, which makes into one those who are nourished on it” (Commentary on John, 966).
Jesus declares, “If you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you” (Jn 6:53). Thomas reflects that just as material bread is necessary for bodily life, “so spiritual food is necessary for the spiritual life to such an extent that without it the spiritual life cannot be sustained: ‘Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word which comes from the mouth of God’ (Dt 8:3)” (Commentary on John, 966).
Thomas reminds us that both the Eucharist and the Church are described as His body. Thomas points out, “the body of Christ is the Church, which arises out of many believers forming a bodily unity: “We are one body” (Rom 12:5). According to Thomas, the Eucharist is the “sacrament of the body of Christ” because bread is formed from many grains, just as the Church is formed of many members (Commentary on John, 960).
Jesus’ words may be taken in a “spiritual” way or in a “sacramental” way. Thomas asserts: “For that person eats the flesh of Christ and drinks his blood in a spiritual way who shares in the unity of the Church; and this is accomplished by the love of charity: ‘You are one body, in Christ’ (Rom 12:5)” (Commentary on John, 969).
One who is not united is without life: “One who does not eat in this way is outside the Church, and consequently, without the love of charity. Accordingly, such a one does not have life in himself: ‘He who does not love, remains in death’ (1 Jn 3:14)” (Commentary on John, 969).
The mystical body of Christ is signified by sharing in the unity of the Church. Thomas affirms, “In reference to the mystical body of Christ, one will necessarily have eternal life if he perseveres: for the unity of the Church is brought about by the Holy Spirit: ‘One body, one Spirit … the pledge of our eternal inheritance’ (Eph 4:4; 1:14)” (Commentary on John, 972).
Thomas points out that this statement pertains also to eating in a sacramental way. Just as Baptism is a necessary sacrament, “Unless one is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (Jn 3:5) so Jesus declares: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man…” Thomas concludes, “Since baptism is a necessary sacrament, it seems that the Eucharist is also” (Commentary on John, 969).
Thomas grants that the sacrament of baptism is necessary for everyone, either in reality of by desire but “The sacrament of the Eucharist is necessary for adults only, so that it may be received in reality, or by desire” (Commentary on John, 969).
Thomas realizes that the Eastern Church gives the Eucharist to newly baptized infants. He affirms that the Syrian monk-author Dionysius (Denis), around 500, proposed that every sacrament should culminate in the sharing of the Eucharist. Nevertheless, Thomas agrees with this in the case of adults but he would not apply it to children, since “receiving the Eucharist should be done with reverence and devotion” (Commentary on John, 969).
Thomas recognizes a problem in that Jesus declared that everyone should “drink My blood.” Yet, at that time, the custom in a number of churches was that only the priest drank the blood. He believes that some churches fear that the precious blood could be spilled. Thomas acknowledges that in the early Church and, even in his time, in some churches, the reception under both forms was practiced. However, he maintains, “Whoever receives Christ’s body receives His blood also, since the entire Christ is present under each species, even His body and blood” (Commentary on John, 969).
Thomas reflects that the “whole Christ is contained under the species of bread and wine.” In partaking of this sacrament, “One eats His flesh and drinks His blood in a spiritual way if he is united to Him through faith and love, so that one is transformed into Him and becomes His member: for this food is not changed into the one who eats it, but it turns the one who takes it into itself” (Commentary on John, 972).
Thomas refers to the words that Augustine received from Christ: “I am the food of the robust. Grow and you will eat me. Yet you will not change Me into yourself, but you will be transformed into Me” (Commentary on John, 972). Thomas concludes: “This is a food capable of making man divine and inebriating him with divinity” (Commentary on John, 972).
We may ask ourselves whether we actually consider that the Eucharist transforms us. It is true that the Eucharist is an encounter with Christ but we must also realize that this encounter has an effect upon us.
Thomas concludes: “So this bread is very profitable, because it gives eternal life to the soul; but it is so also because it gives eternal life to the body”: “Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life” (Jn 6:54).Just as material food is necessary for the body so without spiritual food, there is no spiritual life. Whoever eats this bread has Christ within him or her, Christ is “the true God and eternal life” (1 Jn 5:20) (Commentary on John, 972).
Augustine pointed out that the Word raises up souls, and it is the Word made flesh who gives life to bodies: “Now in this sacrament the Word is present not only in His divinity, but also in the reality of His flesh; and so He is the cause of the resurrection not just of souls, but of bodies as well: ‘For as death came through a man, so the resurrection of the dead has come through a man’ (1 Cor 15:21)” (Commentary on John, 973).
Thomas relates eternal life to the Holy Spirit: “For, one who eats and drinks in a spiritual way shares in the Holy Spirit, through whom we are united to Christ by a union of faith and love, and through Him we become members of the Church. But the Holy Spirit also merits the resurrection: ‘He who raised Jesus Christ our Lord from the dead, will raise our mortal bodies because of His Spirit, who dwells in us’ (Rom 8:11)” (Commentary on John, 973).
Thomas relates eternal life with our union with Jesus: “Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood is united to Me, but whoever is united to Me has eternal life: therefore, whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life” (Commentary on John, 975).
A person is incorporated into Jesus’ mystical body in a spiritual way through “a union of faith and love.” Thomas recalls: “Through love, God is in man, and man is in God: ‘He who abides in love, abides in God, and God in him’ (1 Jn 4:16). And this is what the Holy Spirit does; so it is also said, ‘We know that we abide in God and God in us, because He has given us His Spirit’ (1 Jn 4:13)” (Commentary on John, 976).
In addition to the spiritual union with Christ by faith and love, the Eucharist brings a sacramental union: “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him” (Jn 6:56) (Commentary on John, 976).
However, this sacramental union is more than the reception of the sacrament. There must be an internal reception. Thomas insists the sacrament has no effect for those who approach the sacrament with an insincere heart because there is no connection between the outward action and the interior person: “One who does not desire this union in his heart, or does not try to remove every obstacle to it, is insincere. Consequently, Christ does not abide in him nor he in Christ” (Commentary on John, 976).
On the contrary, those who receive the sacrament with an internal disposition really receive Christ. St. Augustine explains: “This is the way of those who eat the body of Christ and drink His blood not just sacramentally, but really… In the sacrament of the Eucharist, what is outwardly signified is that Christ is united to the one who receives it, and such a one to Christ” (Commentary on John, 976).
Just as the Son is united with the Father and receives life from Him, so the one who is united with Christ receives life from Him. Christ receives life from the Father; therefore one who is united to Christ receives life from Christ.
Jesus proclaimed: “Just as the living Father has sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on Me will have life because of Me” (Jn 6:57). Our similarity to the Son’s receiving from the Father is not exact because the Son receives “the fullness of divine nature.” We receive “a certain particular perfection and nature” (Commentary on John, 977).
There is a similarity between us and Christ in His human nature: “… as Christ the man receives spiritual life through union with God, so we too receive spiritual life in the communion or sharing in this Sacrament. Still, there is a difference: for Christ as man received life through union with the Word, to whom He is united in person; while we are united to Christ through the sacrament of faith” (Commentary on John, 977).
Denis Vincent Wiseman, O.P. St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, Part I, 959-972, trans. James A. Weisheipl, O.P. and Fabian Larcher, O.P. (Albany, NY: Magi Books, Inc., 1980), pp. 380- 386.