Eat my flesh symbolic meaning Believe in Christ

[KDoerr]

Les Richardson:

I was raised a protestant and one of the major and wonderful revelations I had when becoming Catholic was just this issue of the real presence.

The protestant separated brethren are the product of rebellion. Its right there in the name “protestant”, and although the originators are long dead, the spirit lives on, that rebellious spirit, which is why there are so many denominations. Most don’t even realize it. One of the aspects of evangelical protestantism is a tendency towards gnosticism where the body and soul are separated; body bad, soul good. The beauty of the original Christianity that we practice in the Catholic Church is that it flows from the original Jewish old covenant understanding of humanity as body and soul by the intention of the creator. When we recite the Creed we say we believe in the “resurrection of the body” and that is a critical understanding, not only that Christ rose from the dead which makes our faith possible in the first place, but that we will be raised from the dead in the last day. In other words we are incomplete as human beings without the joining of body and soul, that initial creation that God makes in the woman’s womb each time a baby is conceived.

There is a wholeness to the Catholic faith that is not there in most evangelical protestantism, whereby physicality and corporeal reality have a place. So much flows from that, including our clear understanding from day one of the real presence, the power of binding and loosing given to the apostles and their successors, the clear doctrines on contraception and abortion, the use of sacramentals. All of these are a recognition that Jesus Christ incarnated, took on physicality, became one of us body and soul, and used physical aids throughout His ministry, such as spitting in the dust and making mud to put on the blind man’s eyes.

This completeness will ultimately be fully realized in the new heaven and new earth God has promised, and Jesus will be there, with us in the flesh.

You are right, the implication for an evangelical protestant to accept the straightforward doctrine of the real presence is that he must become Catholic, for the only ones who can confect the bread and wine to become the body and blood of Christ are the successors of the apostles, who are given that power. A protestant minister could not do it even if he wanted to, so there is a great deal of theological credibility tied up in interpreting the passages of John 6 into symbolism. For them it can only be symbolic, for there is nobody who can effect the change through the Eucharistic prayer.

I think of the place of incompleteness where they are, from the point of view of having crossed over, and I pray with all my heart that they could do likewise, because seen from this side, the whole of Gospel comes together and makes sense in a way that it never can from the other side.

So beautifully said

 

[ahimsaman72]

Dear Let’s Obey Christ,
I am a protestant converting to Catholicism and I must tell you that the “real presence” was hard for me at first. I’m nowhere near the theological plateau where you are - so I have only a few words for you - receive what the early church fathers handed down - believe it. Believe that someone besides yourself might have some answers. What’s wrong with drinking His blood and eating His flesh anway? I’d rather that than eat a dead diseased animal any day. Just my two cents. God bless you my brother - Peace to you and your home.
Woody

 

[GoodME]

Gerry Hunter:

Well, now you’ve got another problem. :banghead:

If the phrase “eat the flesh and drink the blood” is being used figuratively, then it had an idiomatic meaning among the Jews of the time, just as it has for Arabs (also a Semetic people) today. The phrase, figuratively used, means to inflict a serious injury upon someone, particularly through a defamatory lie, or some kind of false accusation.

So to take it figuratively (and may I note in passing how strange I find it that John 6 is almost the only biblical passage that, along with the words of institution at the last supper, that sola scriptura advocates take figuratively ), one would have to conclude that Jesus was saying, to use the modern idiom, that to have eternal life in him, they had to trash him. Not a very satfying interpretation, I’d suggest.

The more replies you post, the clearer it becomes that you are undertaking an exercise in eisegesis, not exegesis.

Blessings,

Gerry

There is OT support for this in Micah 3:2-5 for example. Plenty of uses of what the Jews would have understood “gnawing” to be figuratively.

 

[Fiat]

LetsObeyChrist:

I have run across many Protestants who criticize the sacramental nature of my Catholic faith. Whenever I discuss the sacraments with them, they immediately dismiss the discussion by stating that all we have to do for our salvation is BELIEVE IN CHRIST. They usually then quote John 3:16 from the KJV. My question for them is what they mean by “believe in Christ”? Is believing saying a sinner’s prayer? Is believing just confessing with your mouth that Jesus is Lord? Does believing involve baptism? Does believing involve repentance for sin? Mormons believe in Christ. Are they saved? Muslims believe in Christ. Are they saved? Demons believe in Christ. Are they saved? Just telling someone that all he needs to do to be saved is believe in Christ is well and good, but I honestly have no idea what that means, except that it seems to me that believing in Christ means believing in all that He said, in all that He did, in all that He taught, in all that He is. I often wonder how someone can say he “believes in Christ,” but yet ignores Christ’s clearest commands. Some Christians don’t believe in the necessity of baptism, even though Christ clearly commanded it. As a further example, some Christians don’t believe we must consume Christ’s flesh and blood, in spite of clear language. However, I can accept that you may not find that command as clearly as we Catholics do. Just explain for us then what believing in Christ means. A good friend of mine once told me precisely what you are telling us Catholics here. She said that all we need to do to receive Christ’s blessings and salvation is believe. I wonder what advice this same friend of mine, and if you, for that matter, would have given the blind man whom Christ healed in John 9:6-7. Would you have stopped the blind man on the way to the pool and said, “Hey, you don’t need to do what Christ told you to do by washing in the pool. All you need to do is believe that you’ve received His miracle and you’ll be fine.” Essentially, that is what you are telling us Catholics. I pray that the Lord will someday reveal to you what he revealed to the disciples on the way to Emmaus.

 

[Count_Chocula]

It must also be noted that there are two possibilities present here,

1. That Christ was indeed speaking literaly and wants us to partake of his flesh.
2. That he was speaking figuratively and just wants us to follow his teaching.

If the Presence is merely symbolic then Catholics are just in slight error of faith. In which case we follow what we believe Jesus to be said, even if we don’t accurately believe what he said, also because we follow the rest of his teachings as well, so if he his symbollically speaking we still win.

If the Presence is real then Protestants screw themselves over for not taking it. Catholics in this matter DEFINATELY err on the side of caution. When dealing with my salvation I would prefer to err on that side.

 

[st_julie]

Although not recorded there must have been a big sigh of relief from the apostles at the last supper when Jesus said that his body would be bread.

st. julie

 

[Mr.Ruggerio]

The way I see it–if Jesus really loves us, really loves me, then his presence must be really in the Eucharist. For a relationship as intimate and loving as that it can be no other way. Kinda reminds me of the Carlos Santana song–“make it real or forget about it.”

Those Protestants who argue that the Eucharist is symbolic, or that Baptism is symbolic, really are just watering down Christianity.

 

[BobCatholic]

st julie:

Although not recorded there must have been a big sigh of relief from the apostles at the last supper when Jesus said that his body would be bread.

and His Blood would be Wine.



Amen to that!

 

[Mystagogy]

LetsObeyChrist:

The parsimonous interpretation of “eating (flesh; bread; ME)… drinking blood…” in John 6:26ff is provided by the context.

It is elementary: Eating Christ results in life; Believing in Christ results in life therefore Eating=Believing.

Well, seems to me that Peter had something to say about personal interpretation, but skipping over to the “symbolic meaning” of "eat my flesh, check out (for example) Psalms 27:2 where David is talking about evildoers assailing him. There are two common translations, “uttering slanders against me” (the MEANING of the phrase) and “to eat up my flesh” the word for word, or ‘literal’ translation.

A literalist might point to persons really gnawing on the meat from King David, but we don’t see that or any evidence of that in the Bible, we really should rely on ‘what the author meant’ – and in those days, we know that “eat my flesh” was an expression meaning “slander me” just like today, “raining cats and dogs” mean “a heavy downpour of rain.”

I don’t see in any of my Bibles where Jesus said that this expression has a NEW meaning.

One would think that he’d have the courtesy to explain that to persons that he expected to pass that information on for 60 years until the books which would eventually be put into the Bible were all written. Or at least, we would expect that information to be passed on by faithful men teaching faithfully if all that Jesus said and did could not be contained in all the libraries of the world.

 

[Little_Mary]

John 6:54: *Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. *

John 1:14 : ***And the Word became flesh **and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth. *
NAB

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

St. Paul the Apostle took the Eucharist quite seriously – too seriously for a mere symbol.

In 1 Corinthians 11, after recounting the events of the institution at the last supper, he wrote:

27 Therefore, if anyone eats of the bread or drinks from the cup of the Lord unworthily, he sins against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let each one, then, examine himself before eating of the bread and drinking from the cup. 29 Otherwise, he eats and drinks his own condemnation in not recognizing the Body.

Consider two people who have had a falling out. Now, let’s assume one is so angry that he rips the head off a picture of the other, and trashes it. Compare that with the case where he might have literally torn the head off the other person. In the second case, that would be murder, a clear sin against the body of the person for sure. In the first case, the head is also torn off, but torn off a picture – a symbol. No third party would get too worked up over that.

But St. Paul is talking about sinning against the body and blood of the Lord, and eating and drinking one’s own condemnation. He can’t have been talking about a symbol. :nope:

The Protestant reformers did more than throw out the baby with the bathwater when they rejected the Eucharist and real presence. They threw out baby, water, tub, and all.

But for those who desire to partake in this most exquisite gift, it is still available, in the Catholic Church.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

quintessential5:

Note how in this case when the disciples clearly misunderstood, Matthew makes it clear to the reader:

…How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees." Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Matt 16:6-12

The passage is witness to Christ’s symbolic language where ‘eating Bread’ = believing doctrine and that usage is a direct parallel to John 6 where again Bread is being eaten.

quintessential5:

I also want to put this discussion in the context of the early church fathers (from

http://www.catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp):

Ignatius of Antioch:

“… They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]). You are reading into Ignatius transubstantiation when in fact he speaks no differently that would a Protestant Pastor, who understood these symbols to be Christ’s flesh and blood spiritually speaking.

That Ignatius may very well be saying this as Protestants pastors do is clear from the following:

…there is no fire in me desiring to be fed; but there is within me a water that liveth and speaketh, saying to me inwardly, Come to the Father. I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.

Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans, VII

Figurative language abounds, “fire desiring to be fed, water that lives and speaks, heavenly bread, blood which is love and eternal life.”

Rather than transubstantiated flesh, it seems to me Ignatius would consider it requires “discernment” to believe the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ, because these are so spiritually speaking and not in reality.

As for Justin Martyr I concede he does speak of transmutation that could be considered a forerunner of transubstantiation.

However Christ’s words are above these men and He is emphatic in His rejection of the idea flesh is the antidote for mortality:

John 6:64 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Rather it is the Spirit who quickens and flesh profits nothing in this regard. Therefore Christ’s words are not about literal flesh and blood, they are spirit and life = symbols the bring the Spirit and Eternal Life to those who ingest Christ in truth, by believing in His Person and Work.

 

[metal1633]

Irenaeus

“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (*Against Heresies *4:33–32 ).

“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).

Cyril of Jerusalem

“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (*Catechetical Lectures *19:7 ).

“Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid., 22:6, 9).

Theodore of Mopsuestia

“When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit” (*Catechetical Homilies *5:1).

Aphraahat the Persian Sage

“After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink” (Treatises 12:6 ).

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

metal1633:

Irenaeus

“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (*Against Heresies *4:33–32 ).

“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).

Cyril of Jerusalem

“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (*Catechetical Lectures *19:7 ).

“Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid., 22:6, 9).

Theodore of Mopsuestia

“When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit” (*Catechetical Homilies *5:1).

Aphraahat the Persian Sage

“After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink” (Treatises 12:6 ).

Christ’s words are above any men you may cite and He is emphatic in His rejection of any idea flesh is the antidote for mortality:

John 6:64 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Rather it is the Spirit who quickens and flesh profits nothing in this regard. Therefore Christ’s words are not about literal flesh and blood, they are spirit and life = symbols the bring the Spirit and Eternal Life to those who ingest Christ in truth, by believing in His Person and Work.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

Sirach14:

John 6:55 " For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. In other words, my blood is real, and my flesh is real.

John 6:63- " It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."

The point Jesus trying to make is that we cannot accept this mystery if we think of it in too human a way. Only a person who listens to Christs words and receives them as God’s true revelation, which is “spirit and life” can accept them.

That definitely is not Jesus’ point.

To their idea Christ said eating His flesh quickens and so profits unto eternal life Christ says:

Jn 6:64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

For Christ’s words “eat my flesh…drink my blood” to be “spirit and life” they cannot be speaking of literal flesh as Christ emphatically says the flesh does not quicken, the Spirit does.

That means His words are not literal.

 

[metal1633]

LetsObeyChrist:

Christ’s words are above any men you may cite and He is emphatic in His rejection of any idea flesh is the antidote for mortality:

John 6:64 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Rather it is the Spirit who quickens and flesh profits nothing in this regard. Therefore Christ’s words are not about literal flesh and blood, they are spirit and life = symbols the bring the Spirit and Eternal Life to those who ingest Christ in truth, by believing in His Person and Work.

Again you assume your own conclusion, placeing your interpretation in the mouth of the Lord. In spite of the fact that the metaphor is BREAD and Jesus Himself eplains the metaphor as meaning His FLESH. “I am the Bread from Heaven.”=Metaphor. “The Bread I give is my Flesh”= metaphor explained.

Its REAL Simple. No grammatical gymnatics involved

 

[porthos11]

As far as I’m concerned, taking all cultural and historical facts:

Think like a Jew:

Eating flesh != believing

Eating flesh is NEVER associated with believing in teachings; it is a violent expression of inflicting physical harm, as already cited several times.

Spirit != symbolic

Nowhere in the NT does spirit ever equal symbolic. In fact, “the words I spoke to you are spirit and life” for a Catholic only serves to REINFORCE the literalness of Jesus’ words. The flesh that “profits nothing” is not HIS flesh, it’s our flesh. It means that in our own human understanding, we cannot grasp the mystery, we need to see it with spiritual understanding. Jesus said of his flesh that is is “food indeed” that we should eat lest we be deprived of eternal life. Then he goes on to say that HIS flesh actually profits nothing?

So how do we understand that Jesus’ words are spirit and life? He has given us a teaching that enables us to spiritually understand how his flesh will give us life. This not reading in any interpretation, THIS is what the entire context says.

No Jesus was not talking symbolically. Jesus was a Jewish rabbi, rabbis were obligated to correct misunderstandings. Jesus was no exception. In fact, he had to correct his dimwitted disciples on several occasions (the yeast of the Pharisees and of Herod; “our friend Lazarus is sleeping,” incidentally, also in John’s Gospel). He did not do so in this case.

PLUS, the witness of the early Church, especially Ignatius who was already a bishop when at least one apostle was STILL ALIVE!

I myself once lost my faith in the Eucharist and tried to get around this solid teaching and justify my erroneous belief that is was only a symbol. I knew these objections, but upon studying John 6 and 1 Cor 11 in their proper historical, liguistic, and cultural contexts, I could not dispute its reality. http://forums.catholic-questions.org./images/smilies/ani/bowdown.gif

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

LetsObeyChrist:

That definitely is not Jesus’ point.

To their idea Christ said eating His flesh quickens and so profits unto eternal life Christ says:

Jn 6:64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

For Christ’s words “eat my flesh…drink my blood” to be “spirit and life” they cannot be speaking of literal flesh as Christ emphatically says the flesh does not quicken, the Spirit does.

That means His words are not literal.

The assertion “that means His words are not literal” have been shown to be at variance with the exegesis of the Church and Church Fathers from the beginning of the Church. The assertion is a change introduced into the faith. In response to that change, to protect the faith, the doctrines were set down by the Magisterium, many centuries after they had been received and accepted.

The Church has always taken the matter as seriously as did St. Paul in 1 Cor. 11, and he took it seriously because it was already being taken seriously when he wrote that letter.

When the Church Fathers wrote about the real presence, they were writing about it not because it was in St. Paul’s letter, but because it was an accepted doctrine of the faith from the beginning. Most wrote about it before the canon of the New Testament was even set (by the Church, of course) in the 4th century at Hippo and Carthage.

It is one thing, today, to look at the words in Holy Scripture and surmise what they mean. It is quite another to examine them in the light of the history of the teaching of the church – a teaching unchanged since the time of Jesus.

Why else, to reiterate, would St. Paul, an Apostle, have written in terms of eating and drinking one’s condemnation?

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

martino:

In the Aramaic language that our Lord spoke, to symbolically “eath the flesh” or “drink the blood” of someone meant to persecute or assault them. Let me demonstrate:

***IS 9:19;***49:26 ;"Micah 3:3;2 Sam 23:16, ***17;***Rev 17:5, ***6,16

***So according to your “elementary” interpretation of John 6, what Jesus is really saying is this:

He who ‘persecutes and assaults’ me has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day"

Nice work handling Sacred Scripture!

The Aramaic Scriptures are found in Dan. 2:4-7:28; Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26; Jer. 10:11, not in the passages you cited.

It is a fact Jesus is using OT figurative symbol of “eating God’s Word” to mean making that teaching part of one’s being. That is, Living it.

Jer 15:16 Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.(KJV)

Only the saved are called by God’s name hence the prophet attributes his eating the Word of God with having given him life.

Its not hard to see why Christ, the incarnate Word of God applied this to Himself.

Eating is assimilation into one’s being and is not unique to John 6

Matthew 16:5 And when his disciples were come over the water, they had forgotten to take bread. 6 Who said to them: Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. 7 But they thought within themselves, saying: Because we have taken no bread. 8 And Jesus knowing it, said: Why do you think within yourselves, O ye of little faith, for that you have no bread? 9 Do you not yet understand, neither do you remember the five loaves among five thousand men, and how many baskets you took up? 10 Nor the seven loaves, among four thousand men, and how many baskets you took up? 11 Why do you not understand that it was not concerning bread I said to you: Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees? 12 Then they understood that he said not that they should beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

All who ingest Christ shall live. As only those who believe in Christ have life it is elementary this ingesting Christ is symbolic of true believe.

The flesh is the Person and Work of Christ, the blood is the Spirit of His Gospel itself that one receives when they believe.

Christ directly refutes any idea flesh quickens or profits the spirit:

John 6:64 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

The only way Christ’s words are not self contradiction is that He is using flesh in a non literal way, His words are “spirit and life” not flesh.

Then there is no contradiction, while eating literal flesh profits not, eating the Word of God does quicken, not because of His flesh, but because of the Spirit one receives when they believe in the Person and Work of Jesus.

 

[porthos11]

We are not talking about “eating”, the phrase in question is “eating flesh”.

Eating can indeed be a metaphor for believing or accepting (e.g. a teaching).

Eating FLESH nowhere means this. Interpreting it as believing in teachings is an artificial understanding and is not consistent with Jewish linguistics, since the phrase has a cultural metaphorical meaning attached to it.

Your quotation from Jeremiah nowhere refers to eating flesh. Micah 3:3 does.

As I said, eating flesh==believing does not cut it. Jewish language and culture defy your interpretation.