John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word “phago” nine times. “Phago” literally means “to eat” or “physically consume.” Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus’ literal usage of “eat.” So Jesus does what?
Help me understand why “phago” has to always be taken literally, especially when Jesus himself tells us that those who come to him shall not hunger (v.35). It seems, given the context, that “eating flesh” is equivalent to “coming to” Jesus. You seem to be saying that because “phago” means “physically consume,” then we must therefore take the word literally. But why? All kinds of physical things can be used metaphorically, especially in John’s gospel: The temple, water, doors, bread, shepherds, etc., --these are all physical things. Yet they all function as metaphors for Jesus. Why can’t “eating flesh” and “drinking blood” also be metaphorical?
John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as “trogo,” which means to gnaw or chew or crunch.
Yes and no. Trogo used to have the precise meaning of “chew,” but by the time of the New Testament, it had simply taken on the meaning of “to eat.” In other words, it could be used interchangeably with “phago.” So nothing about the word itself requires us to take it as “chew,” unless we have reason to believe that John was consciously evoking an older meaning of the word. There are other, more plausible explanations for the switch in terminology. Consider what he says to Peter. Do you “love” me? He uses the word agape and phileo. Many-a-sermon have been written on the distinction between these two verbs. But once again, at the time of John’s writing, it isn’t at all clear that one word had the meaning of “unconditional love” (agape) and the other “love between friends” (phileo); rather both words could carry both meanings. Another example: Jesus charges Peter to feed his sheep twice and tend his lambs. Is there a theological difference between feeding and tending? I’d say probably not. Both commands use pastoral imagery to give Peter pastoral responsibility. So why, then, does John sometimes change up his terminology? I’m going to go with stylistic variance. John is nearly poetic in his presentation of the gospel. So too, it is possible (if not likely) that there is no real distinction in meaning between phago/trogo.
But let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that there was an intended change in meaning. Let’s suppose that by the switch from “eat” to the more graphic, “chew,” John was emphasizing something. What would that added emphasis be? Catholics argue that John is calling attention to the Eucharist. (Odd, since it became customary not to chew the wafer, but rather to let it melt in your mouth. One would think the exact opposite custom would have arisen, for those committed beforehand to the notion that “chew” = “therefore, real presence.” But I digress.) Would the switch from “eat” to “chew” require us to adopt a literal interpretation? Not at all. John/Jesus could simply be using a more graphic metaphor. Metaphors do not cease to be metaphors simply because they’re graphic. When Jesus tells the Samaritan woman at the well that he is “living water,” that’s a fairly graphic metaphor and so is the requirement to “drink” him in. But that graphicness does NOT mean we have to take Jesus literally. So too, “chewing” does not have to be taken any more literally than “dinking.”
He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, “trogo” is never used metaphorically in Greek.
This begs the question because the issue at hand is whether or not “trogo” is being used literally or metaphorically. You’ve decided ahead of time that it must be literal. But that’s precisely the question. Also, even if trogo has no prior metaphorical uses, you’re overlooking the possibility that this could be the first time. How many passages are required before we have proof? (Answer: 1).
John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says “For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed.” This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus’ flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed.
You’re just being dogmatic here. Consider these counter examples in John’s gospel: Jesus is the “true light” (John 1:9). If this has to be taken literally, then if put Jesus through a prism, he’d turn into a rainbow. Jesus is also the “true vine” (15:1). If taken literally, we can pick grapes off of him. Likewise, there’s no reason in principle why “true food” and “true drink” must be literal.
in Scripture where “sarx” means flesh. It is always literal.
Always? Is it literal in Matthew 16:17? “Flesh and blood” seems to be a metaphor for “human being.” The same is true of Matthew 19:5. Here the man and women who become “one flesh” seems to be metaphorical for “married.” Then Jesus says the spirit is willing, but “the flesh” is weak (Matthew 26:41). Here “flesh” stands for fallen human nature. I’m not even out of the book of Matthew and I’ve already found three NON-LITERAL uses of sarx.
