Do We Really Eat Jesus?

In John 6, Jesus tells the crowd to eat His flesh and drink His blood. That’s weird, and would be objectively disgusting for you or me to suggest… but how we should view communion, or the Eucharist? Did Jesus mean this literally or figuratively?

I’m certainly no expert. Obviously, what Jesus said in John 6 is “a hard teaching,” and a lot of people walked away after hearing it. I recognize that a lot of readers may feel strongly about this issue, and may take disagreement about it personally. My intent here is simply to answer this question, posed to me directly: “What is your understanding?”

Disagreement over this issue should not, generally speaking, cause us to divide from brothers and sisters in the faith. We should work together to understand Scripture as well as we can, to encourage one another to respond obediently to what we learn, and to treat each other well in the meantime.

As for John 6, I see two possibilities:

1. The people had no idea what Jesus meant and walked away thinking, “That dude’s just plain nuts,” or
2. The people knew precisely what He meant and didn’t really want to hear it.

I’m confident that Jesus was using eating and drinking metaphorically. Millions of people have believed otherwise, of course.

Three common beliefs

1. Transubstantiation: after being blessed by a priest, the bread and wine actually BECOME Jesus’ body and blood.
2. Consubstantiation: the bread and wine don’t become Jesus’ body and blood, but He is somehow PRESENT in them. 
3. Memorial: when Jesus said to eat and drink in REMEMBRANCE of Him, that’s all it is: a ceremonial reminder of His sacrifice on our behalf.

Transubstantiation seems, to me, a bit like magic. Jesus – a human being – is somehow replicated a zillion times so that each person actually eats His physical flesh and drinks His physical blood. Of course, Jesus had just turned 5 barley loaves and 2 fish into a meal for thousands, so the parallel could be literal or figurative. In this view, the bread and wine still looks and feels and tastes like bread and wine, but they’re actually – in reality – Jesus Himself. This presents a problem with communion leftovers… they can’t be thrown out, because they’re literally Jesus. Priests often eat and drink the leftovers to avoid disposing of them improperly. As far as I can tell, this view comes only through tradition and not from Scripture.

Consubstantiation is, like transubstantiation, a hard concept to grasp. Jesus is present IN, WITH, and UNDER the elements, but they haven’t changed. As with transubstantiation, those who believe this view don’t seem able to explain it in technical terms, of course… they can only take it on faith. They must appeal to ‘mystery.’ It’s not that Jesus will be with us in spirit when we eat and drink (or pray, or gather, or always), but that He’s in the bread and wine. Again, this comes through tradition… not a deal-breaker, but certainly an addition – or an overlay – on Scripture itself.

The Memorial view makes the most sense to me. It uses a basic principle of biblical interpretation: to take each passage of Scripture in the most plain sense in which it was written. Obvious metaphors should be read as metaphor. Poetry should be understood as poetry. History is historical, and so on. If Jesus meant for us to literally eat and drink Himself, this passage should be read that way. If Jesus was using a metaphor, the passage should be read that way. So: which way should we read it? I think there are seemingly obvious clues in the passage.

Drinking blood

We see no indication that anyone responded with, “That Jesus guy has lost his mind.” Jews were prohibited from drinking blood, so one might expect them to have a strong and obvious response to a literal interpretation. Imagine if Jesus told them that following Him meant they HAD to eat pork… there would have been an uproar. Not only were Jews prohibited from drinking blood, we see in Acts 15 that even Gentile Christians in Antioch were instructed to abstain. For these reasons alone, I don’t believe that Jesus actually meant that we should literally drink His blood. Here is Leviticus 17:10-12:

“‘I will set my face against any Israelite or any foreigner residing among them who eats blood, and I will cut them off from the people. For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life. Therefore I say to the Israelites, “None of you may eat blood, nor may any foreigner residing among you eat blood.”

The New Testament records a number of times where Jesus was accused of breaking the Mosaic Law. At no time did anyone accuse Jesus of encouraging anyone to actually drink blood.

No explanation

Sometimes Jesus’ audience, including the twelve, needed an explanation to understand what He meant. Considering God’s instructions to not drink blood, one would think they’d have questions about this. Oddly, neither the twelve nor the thousands and thousands of people are mentioned as having questions, let alone objections to what Jesus said.

Flesh counts for nothing

In John 6, we see this: “On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing.” Jesus literally said, right after talking about eating His flesh, that the flesh counts for nothing. If Jesus meant for them to eat His literal flesh, this would certainly be a confusing statement.

Salvation implications

Jesus compares Himself to the manna that God provided for Israel in the wilderness. He called Himself the true bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world. Consider the implication: eating the true bread gives life to the world. If the eating is figurative, this suggests choosing to follow Jesus, as He is the Messiah. If the eating is literal, then we must eat His flesh in order to have life. This is NOT what the New Testament teaches… not in any sense at all. When we read about people coming to faith, there’s no mention of eating or drinking anything.

• In Luke 23, the thief on the cross was promised Paradise. There’s no mention of eating or drinking.
• In Acts 2, about 3,000 came to faith in Jesus. There’s no mention of eating or drinking.
• In Acts 4, that number grew to 5,000. There’s no mention of eating or drinking.
• In Acts 8, the Ethiopian eunuch came to faith in Jesus. There’s no mention of eathing or drinking.
• In Acts 10, Cornelius and his family came to faith in Jesus. There’s no mention of eating or drinking.
• In Acts 13, Sergius Paulus came to faith in Jesus. There’s no mention of eating or drinking.
• In Acts 16, the Philippian jailer came to faith in Jesus. There’s no mention of eating or drinking.
• In Acts 17, the Bereans heard the message and believed. There’s no mention of eating or drinking.

Also:

• In Mark 16:15 we see that those who believe will be saved.
• In John 3:16 we see that whoever believes in Jesus will have eternal life.
• In John 3:36 we see that whoever believes in the Son has eternal life.
• In John 5:24 we see that whoever hears Jesus’ word and believes God will have eternal life.
• In Romans 1:16 we see that the gospel is the power of God for salvation for those who believe.
• In Romans 10:9-10 we see that we’re saved by believing and confessing Jesus and His resurrection.
• In Ephesians 2:8-9 we see that we’re saved by grace through faith, and not by works.

Conclusion

I could go on and on with Bible verses about salvation. While some Bible verses seem to indicate that we’re to actually eat Jesus’ flesh and drink Jesus’ blood, the rest of God’s Word shows no indication that literal eating and drinking, as we do in communion, has anything to do with the life Jesus gives to the world. Because nobody in the New Testament is shown to actually receive life by literally eating and drinking Jesus, the only reasonable conclusion I can find is that His words in John 6 are metaphorical.

Disclaimer

I will readily admit that I’m not mystical in the least. I’m not personally inclined to spiritualize things to any degree, so anything mystical runs against the grain of how I understand Scripture. I could be wrong, of course. This is just my view: we take communion to commemorate Jesus’ death. That’s seems to be exactly what He said at the Last Supper, and that’s how I understand John 6.

Join me on Substack!