He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: "Only the spirit gives life; the flesh is of no avail; and the words I have been speaking to you are spirit, and life" (John 6:64)…John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper-and it was a promise that could not be more explicit (Keating, 234).

Since Jesus instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist at the Last Supper, we can surmise that "literally" is to be understood in a spiritual (and specifically a sacramental) sense rather than a carnal sense.

The Resurrection is a spiritual event, but it is also a physical one. Understanding something "spiritually" does not necessarily mean that the physical reality is not present. Notice, for instance, how Mr. Taylor fails even to appreciate this truth after quoting Keating above. John 6:64 says the "words" that Jesus has been speaking are "spirit". Yet, His words are also audible sacramental sounds that fell from His sacred lips. Hence, one need not separate, as Mr. Taylor attempts to do, the physical sound of the word from the "spirit" of the word. John 6 does not do it. Why does Mr. Taylor?

Since Keating also holds that there were no "misunderstandings" on the part of Jesus' hearers, it seems that Keating is saying they had correctly understood Jesus to be speaking of the sacrament of the Eucharist. At least the logic of his argument seems to commit him to this conclusion. I rather suspect that Keating would not want to go so far as to say that the Jews and the disciples were thinking of the eucharist when Jesus spoke of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, especially since the sacrament had not yet been instituted!

The mere institution of the Eucharist at the last supper hardly mitigates against a basic or fundamental understanding of it earlier in Jesus' ministry (i.e. in John 6). Mr. Taylor wants you to believe that someone cannot really be describing what a car (the Eucharist) is like because his audience has not actually driven (Eucharistic Institution) it yet! What kind of argument is that?

The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a single term is given more than one meaning in an argument without acknowledging the change in meaning. Catholic apologists, such as Ray and Keating, seem to be guilty of this fallacy with respect to the word "literally." With a little definitional sleight of hand, "literally" can carry a sacramental or crassly carnal meaning in the same argument without a specific acknowledgement of its change in meaning.

It is difficult to believe that Mr. Taylor, spending over "a decade in the Jesuit order", still cannot grasp what a sacrament is. (In fact, it's rather astounding.) Here is the kind of language that the Church uses when it speaks of a "Sacrament":

His humanity appeared as 'sacrament', that is, the sign and instrument, of his divinity and of the salvation he brings: what was visible in his earthly life leads to the invisible mystery of his divine sonship and redemptive mission". (CCC,515)

In other words, for there to be a sacrament, Mr. Taylor, there also must be an underlying physical element to it. Since Jesus Christ was true man and had true flesh and since He himself is a sacrament, there is no silly contradiction between a "sacrament and carnality" as you have proposed. - unless, of course, you wish to define our sacramental theology for us.

But in reality, the most the Catholic apologist can claim is that Jesus probably would have corrected their misunderstanding. It would be far more honest to simply state this up front. Such a concession, however, would significantly weaken the argument, which is why Catholics seldom make the concession. To admit that Jesus would not necessarily correct his hearers is to concede the possibility that they had misunderstood Jesus and, worse yet, to concede the possibility that Jesus wasn't speaking literally at all.

What? Just listen to yourself, Mike! You go from probability to possibility to no possibility at all without a lick of evidence to support your position. Exegesis is almost always based on the probability of an interpretation. Ask your colleague about the possibility of 'heos hou' being understood as a continuation of the main clause. Good grief.

But if only you would believe in me and reform your lives by stepping into the light, if only you would figuratively eat my flesh and drink my blood, then you would belong to the New Covenant that I will literally establish with my own flesh and blood when you lift me up on the cross and I draw all men to myself.

Mr. Taylor seems to have missed the import of this verse:

I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." (John 6:51)

Mr. Taylor, I ask you forthrightly and directly: What precisely is the flesh that Jesus gives for the "life of the world"? Is it not the flesh that was crucified on Calvary? Of course it is. And because it is, it is also the same flesh that he asks you to eat. In fact, he calls it "true food":

For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. (John 6:55)

Show us precisely how reading John 6 would incline you to conclude that Jesus would be speaking about two different kinds of "flesh" - one literal and the other metaphorical. If, as you say, Jesus will literally establish his own flesh and blood on the cross, why do you switch to a metaphorical understanding when no such exegetical or philological basis exists for that switch?

One will look in vain in John's gospel to find any unambiguous example of Jesus correcting the misunderstanding of unbelievers. Only rarely does Jesus correct the misunderstanding of his own believing disciples (John 4:34; 6:63; 11:14; 16:19, 25).

Hey, Mike! Do you know how to count? Five instances is hardly "rare", considering the likely small and relevant population for such a study. It seems to me that inquirers into this question really do not have to read Keating or Ray to confirm the Catholic position. They just have to read the facts which you present! Are you sure you've converted? You're still a darn good Catholic Apologist!

But we cannot infer from John's silence that Jesus was therefore speaking literally.

Of course not. Next time somebody says "eat my flesh and drink my blood", you would naturally think he was kookoo or that such a claim would gravitate to some supernatural explanation. Funny how that works, eh?

In fact, we see the divine nature of the Eucharist prefigured in the earlier verses of the same chapter. Our Lord, in multiplying the loaves and fish, is hinting at the inexhaustable source of His divine flesh manifested by His Power as God Incarnate. Thus, when the Jews later ask "how can this man give us his flesh to eat", they were already answered some time before in the multiplication of the loaves. Jesus is God. He can do anything:

One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, said to him, "There is a lad here who has five barley loaves and two fish; but what are they among so many?" Jesus said, "Make the people sit down." Now there was much grass in the place; so the men sat down, in number about five thousand. Jesus then took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed them to those who were seated; so also the fish, as much as they wanted. And when they had eaten their fill, he told his disciples, "Gather up the fragments left over, that nothing may be lost." So they gathered them up and filled twelve baskets with fragments from the five barley loaves, left by those who had eaten. (John 6:8-13)

The fact that there were "twelve baskets" of leftovers is an indication of entirety or the totality of the population. Again, this is a hint that Jesus would be able to supply all believers in partaking of the divine substance.

In fact, John's silence may imply just the opposite-that Jesus' words about eating flesh and drinking blood were so obviously metaphorical that no explanation was required!

Mr. Taylor, can you please tell us why if such a metaphorical explanation was understood, the Jews reacted like this:

"The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" (John 6:52)

First, if it were metaphorical, then the Jews would never have asked about Jesus' teaching by using such concrete phraseaology as "giving them his flesh". Moreover, if it were indeed metaphorical and not substantial, then there would never have likely been a question as to how Jesus would be able to do it. The stumbling block to them, however, was not the "spirit of Jesus" but His flesh and, in particular, how a mere mortal man can feed them on his flesh. But here is the surprise: A mere mortal man cannot do it! Ergo, for a Catholic, John 6 is one of the principal proof texts for Jesus' divinity. The flesh that Jesus is talking about is His Divine Substance, the bread of angels, His Body and His Blood which gives life eternal to both the spirit and the flesh. Our redemption is not merely a spiritual one, let us remember, but a bodily one as well. This is what the Resurrection of Jesus is about. This is why Jesus tells us in this very same chapter:

"...unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you..." (John 6:53)

Jesus pegs the relationship between His flesh and life because it was through that same flesh on the cross that we were given life. No crucified flesh? No life. If "flesh" merely means "belief" then the whole connectioin between Jesus' discourse in John 6 with the crucifixion of Calvary falls flat and makes no cogent sense. "Belief" was not crucified on the cross, Mr. Taylor, your Lord's flesh was.

In any case, if Christ simply meant 'belief', he would have stated it plainly - just as He did many times in His ministry, including, it must be observed, against the Jews earlier in the discourse (Cf. John 6:29-40). The fact that He later chose to use such graphic language all but cinches it for the Catholic side.

Who is the bread of life?

I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. (John 6:48-50)

What did the Jews do in the desert? They actually (physically) ate the bread (the manna), but they died. Jesus, on the other hand, is a different kind of bread - a heavenly and divine substance - which comes down from heaven, and He instructs us to "eat of it". Tell us, Mr. Taylor, how it is that you accept "eat" in the physical sense in regards to the Manna, but do not permit the inescapable conclusion that we are to do the same with Jesus' command? If Jesus' command were merely metaphorical, why bother confusing the context with the physical eating of the manna just one sentence before?

In order to see why Jesus did not correct the misunderstanding of unbelievers, we need only look at previous examples of misunderstanding in John's gospel.

Mr. Taylor then goes on to defend his position by citing examples of misunderstanding in John's gospel. For the sake of illustrating the shallow argumentative basis which Mr. Taylor relies on, let us examine the first two that he addresses:

For example: "The Jews then said, 'It took forty-six years to build this temple, and you will raise it up in three days?'" (John 2:20) In context, the temple is clearly a metaphor for Jesus' resurrected body. The Jews, however, understood Jesus to be speaking literally about the Herodian Temple. While John does explain to the reader what Jesus meant (John 2: 21-22), Jesus himself never gives the unbelieving Jews an explanation. Their misunderstanding is never corrected.

Let's focus here for a moment, Mike. Precisely now, how do we know that Jesus was speaking of His Body? Answer: Because the inspired word of God tell us (Cf. John 2:21-22). Suppose John did not communicate that teaching to us. Suppose he said nothing at all for clarification. What view would you take of Jesus' prediction? Would you not logically assume that He would be talking about the Herodian Temple? Of course, because that is the immediate context of the passage. It is only because John relates Jesus' true meaning that we know He was instead speaking of His Body.

Now then, applying this simple hermeneutic to John 6, what's missing? Answer: the clarification from John explaining that Jesus was not speaking literally. Do you see that clarification anywhere? No. So then if the clarification was missing in John 2, we would conclude, from the text only, that Jesus was speaking about the Herodian Temple; just like we would conclude that, lacking clarification, He was speaking about his actual flesh and blood in John 6. If there is no further clarification by either Jesus or His Inspired Writer in His Eucharistic discourse, then the context forces you to accept the face value reading of the text. It's that simple.

Quoting Scott Hahn's writings, where he paraphrased John 6:53:

You've got it right. If you drink my blood, you'll be cut off....

you offer your own paraphrase of the verse:

In effect, Jesus was saying to them, "Unless you come to believe in me-unless you come to believe that I am-you have no life in you."

Now stopping for a moment and reflecting on the actual text:

"...unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you..." (John 6:53)

I appeal to your good sense of fairness and sobriety: which paraphrase is a closer paraphrase of the text? Which paraphrase uses the actual words of Scripture? Obviously, Hahn's does. Compare his rendering, "drink my blood", and your rendering, "believe in me", with the actual text: "drink his blood".

Taylor then goes on to cite Jesus' discourse with Nicodemus for his second example:

Nicodemus said to him, 'How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?'" (John 3:4). Jesus has just stated that one must be born again or born from above (John 3:3). Nicodemus takes Jesus' double entendre in the first sense and asks how a man can literally be born a second time. His question how, expects an explanation as an answer. Jesus, however, never gives an explanation. Instead he answers with an ultimatum: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (3:5). At this point, Nicodemus is an unbeliever. He misunderstands the metaphors that convey the spiritual intent of Jesus' words. But Jesus does not give him an explanation. Nor does John clarify Jesus' words for the benefit of the reader.

Well, again, Mike, there is no necessary disagreement here. If Nicodemus was an unbeliever as you say, then Jesus did not (or the inspired writer did not) need to correct him. But so what? What you must do is show where Jesus does not correct his true disciples. That's the cookie you need to bake.

Mr. Taylor continues:

Hahn's second mistake is to wrongly suppose that Jesus would have and should have ("absolutely essential") corrected his hearers. But one will look in vain in John's gospel to find any unambiguous example of Jesus correcting the misunderstanding of unbelievers.

I would agree with you that Jesus would probably NOT have corrected the misunderstanding of the unbelieving Jews. But He would have corrected and did correct His true disciples. You admit as much near the end of your piece:

Jesus simply never corrects the misunderstanding of unbelievers, and only rarely corrects the misunderstanding of his believing disciples. (For other possible examples of misunderstanding, see John 7:33; 8:22, 25; 10:6; 11:12; 12:29; 13:29; 16:17-18).

The insertion of the adverb rarely is simply gratuitous on your part. You never, in your whole article, produce evidence where Jesus (or the Gospel writer himself) does not correct His disciples if there is a misunderstanding. And, what is most disturbing is that you have written your piece supposing that the unbelieving Jews were the only direct audience of Our Lord's graphic discourse. Yet is that what the Scriptures tell us?

"On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?...From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him." (John 6:60,66)

Hence, since Jesus did not correct His disciples, then there was no misunderstanding of the plain and graph language which Jesus used and which the Jews and some of His own disciples rejected. The "default" in understanding any text of Scripture is on the literal understanding of it. The onus is on the person who seeks to "symbolize away" such a meaning to provide evidence through the context of the passage which contradicts or mitigates the literal interpreation. Mr. Taylor has not been able to do it.

Let's take a look at the verses Mr. Taylor cites immediately above:

Well, that about does it for Mike Taylor's "Corrections". Perhaps his next piece should be entitled "Retractions".