Goood question. Has come up before and I forget the rebuttal answer. How about this, how would you answer those that would say it apparently is against tradition and law (eating flesh and blood), and that is why many of His disciples left him just after the "you must eat me "discourse (John 6) ? What possible interpretation of the discourse was a “hard saying” if not this literal eating ?
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever.” 59 He said these things while he was teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum.
The Words of Eternal Life
60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?” 61 But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But among you there are some who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who were the ones that did not believe, and who was the one that would betray him. 65 And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father.”
66 Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him.
Sorry for the large chunk of text but I’ve always thought this passage incredibly clear. This was one of the first doctrinal differences I discovered in my Baptists days and it still rings true to me now.
He made what were offensive statements, regarding the consumption of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, to his disciples and never backed off of them. He took it to the point where many of his disciples abandoned him and he even questioned the Apostles whether they would leave too. That makes me think he wasn’t willing to back off one single inch.
Jesus preached love. In my mind, if what he said wasn’t meant to be taken literally, then it was cruel to use words that would drive others away from him. It was a hard teaching and that’s why many left. If it was just a symbol, wouldn’t the Christ that preached love and gave himself in love have said, “Wait, don’t leave, It’s just a symbol”, or something to that extent?
If it was just a symbol, then why would Saint Paul have warned against consuming it unworthily? Some of the teachings of Catholicism that many converts have difficulty accepting, came easily to me. This was one of those. Even as a Baptist, I didn’t think it was meant to be a symbol.
