Eucharist - Did Jesus really mean for us to eat His flesh and drink His blood?

Theology
1
Did Jesus really mean for us to eat His flesh and drink His blood?

preview (23)
preview (23)1344×768 82.2 KB

Through the #frontwood - John 6:53 -
“So Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.’”
#John6vs53 #EatAndLive #SpiritualNourishment #SonOfMan #DailyBreadVerse #VerseForToday #MorningScriptures #BibleVerseInspiration #FaithFeed #ScriptureSnippets #SoulfulScriptures #bibleverse #IntersectionOfFaithAndLife

In John 6:53, Jesus makes a bold statement: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” This passage has often sparked debate among believers—was Jesus speaking literally, or was He using symbolic language to convey a deeper spiritual truth?

What do you think? Did Jesus really mean for us to eat His flesh and drink His blood, or was He using metaphorical language to point to something greater? How does this verse influence your understanding of communion, faith, and the spiritual nourishment we receive from Jesus?

2 Likes
2

Jesus was the equivalent of a Jewish Zen master who dealt in wild hyperbole to jolt his followers out of their complacency. Love your enemies, pluck out your eye, cut off your hand, be perfect, hate your father and mother, lust is adultery, drink my blood. Drink my blood and eat my flesh meant identify with me and follow me to the nth degree. Communion is entirely symbolic, at least IMHO.

3

He was clearly using metaphorical language, as He made the statements while He was alive, in person, eating the Passover meal with His disciples.

4

In this passage, however, he was not making these statements at supper or the Passover.

John 6:59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

5

In which passage?

Matthew 26:17-18, " Matthew 26:17-18, " Now on the first day of the feast of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus and said, “Where do you want us to prepare for you to eat the Passover?” He said, “Go into the city to a certain man and tell him, ‘The Teacher says, “My time is near. I will observe the Passover with my disciples at your house.”

…

Matthew 26:26-28, " While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after giving thanks he broke it, gave it to his disciples, and said, “Take, eat, this is my body.” And after taking the cup and giving thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, that is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

6

@Benny Read the last half of John 6.

7

So, you’re saying that Jesus was just a Charismatic Leader (cult leader)?

8

John 6:56-57, "Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so the one who consumes me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven; it is not like the bread your ancestors ate, but then later died. The one who eats this bread will live forever.”

Do you think that Jesus was actually bread and not human?

9

The bread he spoke of, and as well- the bread he broke and shared among them (us), was the bread that came down from heaven. In scripture, bread is used as a powerful symbol of spiritual knowledge that is God-given to mankind, to nourish and sustain us throughout human history.

We are instructed to ask for it daily, as in the Lord’s prayer that he taught. We are warned to avoid the puffed up, leavened bread of the religious leaders, and to gather and seek ‘bread’ for ourselves on a daily basis-- enough for each day, fresh every morning, as the Israelites did when the manna was given to them.

While Jesus took the bread, and broke the bread, it was multiplied by sharing it person-to-person, as with the 5000.

3 Likes
10

The statement Jesus made in John 6:53-56, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you,” has often raised questions about its meaning. However, approaching this with a biblical, Oneness perspective, we see that Jesus was speaking metaphorically, not literally. He often used vivid language and symbolism to convey spiritual truths, and here, He was using “flesh” and “blood” to refer to the necessity of fully accepting and internalizing His life and sacrifice for our salvation.

In John 6:63, Jesus clarifies, “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” Here, Jesus directly points out that His teaching on “eating” and “drinking” was meant spiritually, underscoring that life is found not in literal consumption, but in embracing His words, teachings, and ultimately His sacrifice. Jesus is the Word made flesh (John 1:14), and to “eat” His flesh and “drink” His blood is to receive, believe, and live by the Word, letting His life and sacrifice transform our own.

In the Last Supper, Jesus further illustrates this spiritual communion, offering bread and wine as symbols of His body and blood, saying, “This do in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19). This act of remembrance calls believers to spiritually partake in the redemption He provided, allowing us to live as new creations in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17). Thus, in Oneness theology, we affirm that Jesus’ command was a call to spiritual unity with Him, not a literal requirement to eat and drink His physical flesh and blood. This remembrance centers our faith on His once-for-all sacrifice and celebrates His ongoing life in us through the Holy Spirit.

READ this next part very carefully:

Jesus’ teaching on “eating His flesh and drinking His blood” emphasizes the necessity of fully receiving His life and sacrifice for us, but He also warns of the importance of approaching this spiritual act with reverence and purity of heart. When the Apostle Paul writes to the church in 1 Corinthians 11:27-29, he cautions, “Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.”

To partake in the remembrance of Jesus’ body and blood “unworthily” means to come with unrepentant sin or with a lack of sincerity, failing to understand the weight of His sacrifice. Taking communion while harboring unrepented sin is a serious matter—it is a mockery of the grace offered through Jesus’ death, treating His holy sacrifice as common or trivial. Paul’s words remind us that approaching God casually, without self-examination, invites judgment rather than blessing. The sacrament of communion is a holy moment, meant to renew our relationship with Christ and reaffirm our commitment to live in His righteousness.

Therefore, examining our hearts with humility and confessing any sin is essential before partaking. Jesus died to cleanse us, to bring us into unity with Him, and we must approach with a repentant and sincere heart, not only out of reverence for what He has done but also to avoid bringing harm to ourselves. This isn’t about perfection but about coming to the table with an open heart, sincerely honoring Christ’s sacrifice and allowing Him to purify us, so we receive His life in us freely and fully.

2 Likes
11

At the last Passover meal, a.k.a. the “last supper”, Jesus shared the meal with everyone, including Judas. Taking communion while harboring unrepented sin is a serious matter, yet Jesus didn’t prevent Judas from participating in any way.

Anyone who wants to share the bread and wine should be allowed to do so.

12

When Jesus allowed Judas to partake in the Last Supper, it highlighted the deeply serious nature of free will and personal accountability before God. Though Christ showed love to Judas by not outright denying him the bread and cup, this choice ultimately intensified the gravity of Judas’s betrayal. Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 underscores that communion is not just an outward ritual, but a sacred participation in Christ’s sacrifice. Those who take communion unworthily bring judgment upon themselves, indicating that communion is a solemn act that must be approached with an open and repentant heart.

This unworthiness isn’t about being sin-free—since all need God’s grace—but it concerns willfully ignoring conviction and disregarding the holiness of the sacrament. Judas’s final outcome exemplifies the severe consequences of resisting that conviction; despite Jesus offering communion, Judas’s betrayal proceeded, showing the seriousness of rejecting divine mercy. Each person has the free will to examine their heart before approaching the table, ensuring they do so with reverence, gratitude, and a willingness to submit to God’s sanctifying work. Communion calls believers to humble themselves, recognize the seriousness of Christ’s sacrifice, and, by doing so, avoid the spiritual consequences Paul warns about when taking the Lord’s Supper carelessly.

1 Like
13

This was an Allegorical statement by Jesus, speaking metaphorically. Many times Jesus would use the physical elements to help explain a Spiritual truth.

Jesus is the source of eternal life, and believing in him is the only way to satisfy the hunger and thirst for God.

The passage is in the context of Jesus’ claim to be the “true bread from heaven,” which is the sole source of salvation for the world.

3 Likes
14

There was nothing metaphorical about The Eucharist . Jesus meant what he said.

‘Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you can not have eternal life.’

At the last supper he said do this in remembrance of me.

Unless??
Do this??

He meant it. Jesus did not ever speak metaphorically.
Nothing in scripture to suggest he did.

When the people all walked away he let them go. He did not correct himself in any way then he said to the apostles are you going to leave me too.

Peter said where are we to go you Are the Christ you have the words of eternal life.

Metaphorical???
Give me a break.

It seems people to this very day are still walking away.

15

So Jesus is telling us to be cannibals? I don’t think so. Let’s look at the situation…

Jesus is alive and well as a human. He, as a human, is reclining at the Passover table, sharing unleavened bread and (alcoholic) wine with His disciples. During this event he says “Do this in remembrance of me.”

Luke 22:19-20, " Then he took bread, and after giving thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you.
Do this in remembrance of me.” And in the same way he took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."

Jesus broke the bread. Is He breaking His body? Of course not! He is breaking actual bread and giving the pieces to the disciples. → the bread is symbolic ← There is no other reasonable interpretation.

Likewise, He shares actual wine with them. It is NOT blood; it is wine. It too is symbolic. The wine in the cup is symbolic of Jesus’ blood that will be spilled later, at His crucifixion. The wine is not His blood and the cup is not the New Covenant (contract).

I don’t understand why people have such difficulty understanding this analogy. Jesus said that when His followers (including us) drink wine together and share bread – real wine and real bread – then we are to remember His sacrifice that entirely satisfies God’s demand for the payment of all sin.

The bread is NOT His body; it is bread. The wine is NOT His blood, it is wine. He does not intend for us to be cannibals and/or vampires. He intends for us to REMEMBER HIS SACRIFICE as full payment for OUR SINS. By His sacrifice, we (who deserve death for our sins) have been set free. We do not get the punishment that we deserve. THAT is what we are to remember.

1 Like
16

Hi,
If Jesus is not speaking metaphorically, then He is promoting cannibalism.
You have no other recourse if Jesus is speaking literally.
So let’s stop with the literal nonsense.
Holy Communion is meant to be a celebration of what Jesus did for us on that cross.
Jesus defeated sin and all that is evil that day.
The veil of the temple was ripped open.
God, instead of only being accessible to the high priest, became accessible to everyone through Jesus.

Blessings

3 Likes
17

Hey brother, thanks for continuing this conversation — it’s sharpening me, and I hope it’s fruitful for both of us.
Let’s get straight to the point… Greek is not forgiving, that what I learnt.
in John 6:52-58 is situated within the Bread of Life discourse, where Christ transitions from feeding of the five thousand to a radical kenotic revelation of his identity, as “bread which came down from heaven” (John 6:58)
The Jews’ contention in verse 52
“How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
reveals their scandal at the corporeal realism of Christ’s words, Am I right?
See next, Jesus does not soften or spiritualize his language but intensifies it, using the verb trogo (to eat, chew or gnaw) in verses 54-58, a term more visceral than the earlier phago (to eat).
Why did Jesus shift from Phago (to eat) to a literal trogo ( to chew) even after seeing the Jews’ contention?, Why did Jesus intensify it??
Ur interpretation which equates “eating” with doing God’s will, I see in John 4:34, but this conflation overlooks the distinct divine economy of John 6, where Christ’s language points to a theandric (divine-human) reality
What I meant was Jesus wasn’t speaking in symbols. When He talks about eating His flesh and drinking His blood, He really means sharing in His life, His real Body and Blood. The “flesh” and “blood” are not symbolic abstractions but the hypostatic union of his divine and human natures offered for communion. (even though u denied saying it’s a mere symbol, what u told is a symbol, the bread is a symbol for spiritual life, anything other than the real presence is a symbol, and that’s reformed theology, u can learn this point)
2. Theosis
Orthodox theology interprets John 6:53-56 as a clear reference to the Eucharist, the sacramental participation in Christ’s real, deified flesh and blood.
Jesus’s assertion
“Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you”
establishes a soteriological necessity:
Without this participation, there is no life, in the eschatological sense.
The phrase “dwelleth in me and I in him”, reflects the Orthodox doctrines of theosis, wherein humanity is united to Christ’s divine energies through sacramental communion.
This is not merely doing God’s will, but a synergistic act of ingesting Christ’s Body and Blood which are “meat indeed” and “drink indeed” (John 6:55)
Ur spiritualized reading, while invoking “spirit and life” in John 6:63, misapplies the term pneuma.
Pneuma means spirit.
Jesus does not negate the material reality of his flesh, but clarifies that its life-giving power is accessed through the Holy Spirit..the catch is, it’s the Holy Spirit who actualises the mystery of the Eucharist.
The “spirit” here is not apposed to physicality but to the carnal misunderstanding of the Jews, who fail to perceive the spiritual reality of Christ’s deified flesh.
3. Scriptural Consistency
Corlove, u contrast between physical manna and spiritual life, is partially correct but see:
The manna in the wilderness was a type of the true bread, Christ, who fulfills the Old Covenant’s sacrificial system.
The Passover Lamb in Exo 12, whose flesh was eaten and blood marked the covenant prefigures the Eucharist as the new covenantal meal. Jesus’ command to “eat” and “drink” echoes this liturgical continuity, not mere ethical imperative to do God’s will/ THe verb trogo, as I said, is the physical act of eating the Passover Lamb, now fulfilled in the remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice (Luke 22:19 and 1 Cor 11:24-25)
Moreover, I had replied this in the prev post that
Ur emphasis on “communion with others” at a feast aligns with the ecclesial dimension of the Eucharist, but u miss its essential reality. The “feast” is not merely fellowship but the eschatological banquet (Matt 26:29, Rev 19:9) where believers partake of Christ’s hypostasis in the Eucharist, uniting them to the communion of the Trinity.

18

In John 6:53 Jesus declares “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you” using the visceral verb trogo meaning to chew or to gnaw, causes many disciples of abandon him as a “hard” saying. In 1 Cor 11:27-29, Paul warns that eating the bread and drinking the cup of the Lord “unworthily” makes one “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” incurring damnation for “not discerning the Lord’s body”. If as you say, “eating His flesh” and “drinking His Blood” in John 6 mean only doing God’s will, why does Jesus use trogo, to emphasize physical consumption, provoking a scandal that a call to obedience does not, and how can the metaphorical interpretation u gave account for Paul’s warning of guilt and judgement for failing to discern a real “body” and “blood” in the Lord’s Supper, which implies a tangible, salvific presence beyond mere ethical action?

19

Your argument collapses under the weight of its own lexical and contextual assumptions. First, τρώγω (trogo) does indeed mean to gnaw or chew, but its use does not necessitate literal consumption. In John 6:57, Jesus says, “He who eats Me (ὁ τρώγων με) shall live because of Me”—yet no literal chewing of Christ’s physical body was occurring when He spoke this. The verb is vivid, but used metaphorically, much like “I am the door” (John 10:9) or “eat this scroll” (Ezekiel 3:1), which signify spiritual internalization, not oral mastication. Christ defines the eating in John 6:63: “The flesh profits nothing, the words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” This is an exegetical key, not a throwaway. The benefit is in receiving Him by faith, not in biting molecules.

Second, your appeal to 1 Corinthians 11:27–29 misunderstands Paul’s context and misrepresents his concern. Paul’s rebuke targets sacrilegious behavior, not metaphysics. The Greek σώματος τοῦ Κυρίου (the Lord’s body) in verse 29 must be read in light of 1 Corinthians 10:17—“For we, being many, are one bread, one body”. The body not discerned is also the ecclesial body, the gathered saints, which the Corinthians were shaming by their selfish feasting (1 Cor 11:21–22). Paul is addressing covenantal dishonor, not transubstantiation. He does not teach that the elements become Christ’s literal corpus, but that abusing the meal profanes its redemptive meaning and tramples the unity it proclaims.

Furthermore, the Latin Fathers such as Tertullian consistently used metaphorical language. Tertullian says: “This is My body” means “a figure of My body” (figura corporis mei est, Adv. Marcion 4.40), demonstrating that early Latin theology saw figurative, not ontological transformation in the Eucharist. Even Augustine affirms, “If the sacrament is to be understood literally, it leads to murder” (Tract. in Joann. 27.1). The early Church knew how to revere the Supper without collapsing it into cannibalistic realism.

Lastly, your theological frame omits the cruciform focus of Christ’s mission. The “eating and drinking” that saves is faith in the crucified Lamb (John 6:35, “He who comes to Me shall never hunger”), not mystical ingestion. Salvation is grounded in προσερχόμενος (coming) and πιστεύων (believing), not oral participation. To miss this is to exalt ritual over redemption.

Conclusio: trogo is vivid metaphor, not ontological mandate; Paul’s concern is moral discernment, not metaphysical change; and the patristic voice affirms signification, not transmutation. Christ crucified, not Christ consumed, is the power of God unto salvation.

J.

1 Like
20

I see, thanks for the reply, im learning more about this
I didnt know abt this part: This one is new to me: