Implausibility of Non-Literal, Non-Eucharistic Exegesis of John 6

One Protestant argument against the literal interpretation of John 6 is to claim that Jesus’ contrast of “flesh” and “spirit” in 6:63 establishes the symbolic and metaphorical nature of the whole discourse. But when the words “flesh” and “spirit” are opposed to each other in the New Testament, it is always a figurative use, in the sense of sinful human nature (“flesh”) contrasted with humanity enriched by God’s grace (“spirit”). See Mt 26:41; Rom 7:5-6,25; 8:1-14; 1 Cor 5:5; 2 Cor 7:1; Gal 3:3; 4:29; 5:13-26; and 1 Pet 3:18; 4:6. In other words, Jesus is saying that His words can only be received by men endowed with supernatural grace.

Note also that Jesus did not explain or elaborate upon what He meant when some disciples “murmured” (6:61). It is the only recorded instance (other than Judas) of any of His disciples ceasing to follow Him. The plausible reason is because He knew that they were questioning and would not have accepted any further explanation anyway. We know this from the hard evidence of John 6:64: “’But there are some of you that do not believe.’ (RSV) For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.” Jesus often noted hardness of heart leading to unbelief (e.g., Mt 13:13,19; Lk 5:21-22; Jn 8:27,43-47; 12:37-40).

Despite this, the counter-argument to the straightforward Catholic interpretation of Real Presence in this passage is that it was purely a symbolic, metaphorical discourse, which the disciples misunderstood, causing some of them to forsake Jesus (6:66). But this makes no sense, because Jesus certainly would have explained what He meant in order to clear up the misunderstanding (and the abandonment), rather than simply reiterate and emphasize the same point more and more strongly: as the passage records.

Moreover, in many other places in Scripture, Jesus explains His meaning when someone merely is uncomprehending (as opposed to willfully disbelieving). A typical example of this occurs in John 3:1-15: the incident with Nicodemus regarding the meaning of “born again”. Nicodemus asks: “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” (3:4). Jesus explains His meaning (3:5-8). Nicodemus, still baffled, again asks: “How can this be?” (3:9). Jesus replied: “Are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand this?” (3:10) and then proceeds to explain some more (3:11-15). He explained because He knew that Nicodemus was truly seeking. When someone wasn’t seeking or open in their spirit, He usually (if not always) would not do so, as in John 6.

Further examples of Jesus' practice along these lines occur in Matthew 13:36, 51; 15:10-20; 16:5-12; 17:9-13; 19:24-26; Luke 8:9-11; 9:46-48; 24:13-27; John 4:31-34; 8:21-32; 10:6-7; 11:8-15; 16:17-19, 29-31.

See, in particular:

Mark 4:33-34 With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it; he did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.

Therefore, He would have in John 6 if a misunderstanding were involved, rather than hardhearted disbelief, brought on by the influence of Satan.