Eat Jesus' flesh and drink his blood

The statement in John 6:53-57 that Jesus said we must eat his flesh and drink his blood has been interpreted in many different ways. Some Christians believe that Jesus was speaking literally, and that the Eucharist is a literal reenactment of his words. Others believe that Jesus was speaking figuratively, and that the Eucharist is a symbolic representation of his death and resurrection.There are several reasons why some Christians believe that Jesus was speaking literally. First, the words "eat my flesh" and "drink my blood" are very graphic and seem to be referring to a physical act. Second, Jesus's words were very shocking to his listeners, and they would have been even more shocking if he had been speaking figuratively. Third, the Eucharist is a central part of Christian worship, and it would be strange if it did not have a literal basis in Jesus's words.However, there are also several reasons why some Christians believe that Jesus was speaking figuratively. First, the context of Jesus's words suggests that he was speaking about spiritual nourishment, not physical nourishment. Second, the words "eat my flesh" and "drink my blood" were used in a figurative sense in the Old Testament, and there is no reason to believe that Jesus was using them in a different sense. Third, the Eucharist is not mentioned in any of the other Gospels, and it is not clear that Jesus intended for it to be a literal reenactment of his words.Ultimately, the question of whether or not Jesus was speaking literally in John 6:53-57 is a matter of interpretation. There are strong arguments to be made on both sides of the issue.

xxxx

There are many theologians who agree with the figurative argument. Some of the most notable include:

• Martin Luther: Luther believed that Jesus was speaking figuratively in John 6:53-57. He argued that the words "eat my flesh" and "drink my blood" were symbols of the spiritual nourishment that Christians receive from Christ.
• John Calvin: Calvin also believed that Jesus was speaking figuratively. He argued that the Eucharist is a symbolic representation of Christ's death and resurrection, and that it does not involve a literal eating of his flesh or drinking of his blood.
• Karl Barth: Barth believed that the Eucharist is a "sacrament of the word," and that it is a means by which Christians encounter the living Christ. He argued that the Eucharist is not a literal reenactment of Jesus's words, but rather a symbolic representation of his death and resurrection.

These are just a few of the many theologians who agree with the figurative argument. There are many other theologians who have written about this issue, and there is no one "correct" interpretation. Ultimately, the question of whether or not Jesus was speaking literally in John 6:53-57 is a matter of personal interpretation.