John 6:53–54—What did Jesus mean when He said we should eat His flesh?

Problem: Evangelical Christians believe in taking the Bible literally. But Jesus said, “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you” (John 6:53). Should this be taken literally too?

Solution: The literal (i.e., actual) meaning of a text is the correct one, but the literal meaning does not mean that everything should be taken literally. For example, the literal meaning of Jesus’ statement, “I am the true vine” (John 15:1) is that He is the real source of our spiritual life. But it does not mean that Jesus is a literal vine with leaves growing out of His arms and ears! Literal meaning can be communicated by means of figures of speech. Christ is the actual foundation of the church (1 Cor. 3:11; Eph. 2:20), but He is not literally a granite cornerstone with engraving on it.

There are many indications in John 6 that Jesus literally meant that the command to “eat His flesh” should be taken in a figurative way. First, Jesus indicated that His statement should not be taken in a materialistic sense when He said, “The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life” (John 6:63). Second, it is absurd and cannibalistic to take it in a physical way. Third, He was not speaking of physical life, but “eternal life” (John 6:54). Fourth, He called Himself the “bread of life” (John 6:48) and contrasted this with the physical bread the Jews ate in the wilderness (John 6:58). Fifth, He used the figure of “eating” His flesh in parallel with the idea of “abiding” in Him (cf. John 15:4–5), which is another figure of speech. Neither figure is to be taken literally. Sixth, if eating His flesh and drinking His blood be taken in a literalistic way, this would contradict other commands of Scripture not to eat human flesh and blood (cf. Acts 15:20). Finally, in view of the figurative meaning here, this verse cannot be used to support the Roman Catholic concept of transubstantiation, that is, eating Jesus’ actual body in the communion

Expanded from Luke 22:19:
Luke 22:19
—What did Jesus mean when He said “This is My body”? Should it be taken literally?
Problem:
Orthodox Protestants believe in interpreting the Bible literally. But if Jesus’ statement here is taken literally, it seems to support the Roman Catholic view of transubstantiation, namely, that, when consecrated, the communion bread becomes the actual body of Christ.
Solution:
Jesus no more meant that the statement “This is My body” should be taken literally than the statement “I am the true vine” (
John 15:1
). The Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation (that the bread becomes the actual body of Christ) is without biblical or rational support for many reasons.
First, the
context
is opposed to taking this literally. All agree that when Jesus made this statement, He was referring to the bread. Luke says “He took the bread, gave thanks, and broke it ... saying, `This is My body’ ” (
Luke 22:19
). But it was obvious to all that Jesus’ actual body was holding the bread in His hands. So none of His disciples present could possibly have understood Him to mean the bread was His actual body.
Second,
common sense
is opposed to taking this literally. God created the senses, and all of life depends on our trusting the information they give us about our world. But those who believe in transubstantiation admit that the consecrated bread (host) looks, smells, and tastes like real bread. Why then would God call on us to distrust the very senses that He created and asks us to trust continually for our very life.
Third,
parallel statements by Jesus
are opposed to taking this literally. Jesus often spoke in figurative language. He said, “I am the Door” (
John 10:9
) and we should “eat the flesh of the Son of Man.” But neither Catholics nor Protestants take these literally (see comments on
John 6:53–54
). Why then should we take His statement (“This is My body”) about the communion bread literally?

.