Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood...

[Elijah John]

The Gospel of John quotes Jesus as saying "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you."

For debate,

-Did King David, Moses, Elijah or any of the other heroes or heroines of the "Old" Testament/Hebrew Bible eat the flesh or drink the blood of the Messiah?

-If so, how so? If not, did they have any "life" in them? The kind Jesus was speaking of in John? (presumably eternal life)

[ttruscott]

The Gospel of John quotes Jesus as saying "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you."

For debate,

-Did King David, Moses, Elijah or any of the other heroes or heroines of the "Old" Testament/Hebrew Bible eat the flesh or drink the blood of the Messiah?

-If so, how so? If not, did they have any "life" in them? The kind Jesus was speaking of in John? (presumably eternal life)

John also tied "eating"metaphorically to faith in Christ:
John 6:26 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. 27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.�

28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?�

29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to have faith in the one he has sent.�

30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? 31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’ �

32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.�

Eating can also refer to understanding as a metaphor for the slow progressive realization of the meaning of a spiritual truth: Rev 10:9 And I went to the angel and said, “Give me the small scroll.� “Take it and eat it,� he said. “It will make your stomach bitter, but in your mouth it will be sweet as honey.� 10 So I took the small scroll from the angel’s hand and ate it; and it was sweet as honey in my mouth, but when I had eaten it, my stomach turned bitter.

Therefore we can see that eating His flesh is a metaphor for a full involvement with His life and teachings and drinking His blood would be complete faith (a faith perfectly internalized) in His sacrificial death for our salvation.

[Elijah John]

28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?�

29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to have faith in the one he has sent.�

Seems a reasonable interpretation, Ted, of the NT concept of eating the flesh of the Messiah, and drinking his blood. Metaphor, I get that.

Let me ask you this. Did the OT prophets, and heroes of faith "do the work that God requires"? I.e. have faith in the Messiah to come?

Even if so, was this all the work that God required? Nothing about loving God and neighbor, only believing in the Messiah to come, Jesus?

Seems we get that definition of God's work only in the outlier Gospel of John.

[bluethread]

The Gospel of John quotes Jesus as saying "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you."

For debate,

-Did King David, Moses, Elijah or any of the other heroes or heroines of the "Old" Testament/Hebrew Bible eat the flesh or drink the blood of the Messiah?

-If so, how so? If not, did they have any "life" in them? The kind Jesus was speaking of in John? (presumably eternal life)

This is one of those "hard sayings", where Yeshua stretches the cultural imagery for effect. That phrase is not an isolated statement. It is the culmination of a midrash comparing the manna to His teachings. He transitions from bread to meat, both consumed as blessings from Adonai. For a kicker, He throws in blood, traditional symbolized by wine. Thus, when they ask for "a sign", he points them to the manna, the b'ruchah recited at every meal, and Pesach. He reaffirms this at His Pesach Seder, where he states, “This is my body given for you;" and "This cup is the new covenant in my blood", referring to the Afikomen and the third cup of the Seder. The concepts are not foreign to His listeners. However, the blunt way He states it requires them to think more deeply about these things and connect the dots. This does not appear to be an uncommon practice for Yeshua. He often states things in ways designed to seperate the engaged listener from the ones who just want a quick simple answer.

Regarding the Patriarchs and Prophets, I believe they did "eat and drink" of the teachings of Yeshua. In fact, I have yet to see one of Yeshua's teachings that is "new". Everything He says is based on the Tanakh(OT).

[Wootah]

Exodus 12.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 4 by bluethread]

Mostly Tanakh, but he ventured into the knowledge of the day, also. Hillel seems to have been a major influence there.

[brianbbs67]

EJ, as to the OP, this cleary must be figurative or it defies the other teachings. No one really could believe they cannabalize at Eucherist?? Only John writes it the way. But, if we can recognize , its not a literal instruction, all could be well.

[Elijah John]

Just a clarification. The OP does not seek to understand whether the consumption of Christ's body and blood is literal or metaphorical. It is a given that Christ was speaking metaphorically. (RCC interpretation and the Eucharist is another debate/question)

Just wondering how Christ can make such a statement. In effect, he was laying down another requirement for eternal life, namely eating and drinking his body and blood. Isn't it assumed that the heroes of the OT also were partakers of eternal life? Yet they did not consume the body and blood of the Messiah, whether literally OR figuratively.

Or did they? If so, how so?

[bluethread]

Just a clarification. The OP does not seek to understand whether the consumption of Christ's body and blood is literal or metaphorical. It is a given that Christ was speaking metaphorically. (RCC interpretation and the Eucharist is another debate/question)

Just wondering how Christ can make such a statement. In effect, he was laying down another requirement for eternal life, namely eating and drinking his body and blood. Isn't it assumed that the heroes of the OT also were partakers of eternal life? Yet they did not consume the body and blood of the Messiah, whether literally OR figuratively.

Or did they? If so, how so?

To provide a shorter answer, the manna and the wine, which is what He was referring to in the passage, represent sustenance and life respectively. He is saying that those who take sustenance from HaTorah as embody by Him will live forever. This is not an add on to salvation by faith, but an explanation of the Hebraic view of what it means to have faith. It is not just a mental exercise. It is a belief that results in action.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Elijah John]

It is a given that Christ was speaking metaphorically.

I disagree that it is a given that Christ was speaking metaphorically, but am always game for hypothetical’s so I’ll play.

Just wondering how Christ can make such a statement. In effect, he was laying down another requirement for eternal life, namely eating and drinking his body and blood.

I’m not sure how your question is different from this common query, “How were those who came prior to Jesus saved?�

Didn’t Jesus’ death on the cross make it possible for all human beings to be saved and gain eternal salvation, regardless of whether they lived before, during, or after his time?

Clearly most Christians agree an All Just God is capable of judging us according to only what we could have known.

And wasn’t Jesus establishing Himself as the New Covenant. At this moment in history He was declaring He was the fulfillment.

But I think it interesting that you find it interesting that Jesus would have spoken such words, like you yourself said, laying down another requirement for eternal life. Because you’re right – why would He have had to say that? Why would He have used those words? It would be interesting indeed to think Jesus was simply speaking metaphorically because such would reduce His words to not being anything new, right? I mean if He basically already said one must believe and follow Him/ follow His ways, etc. , then why specifically would He use such a specific "image" unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, if in fact eating His flesh and drinking His Blood were just symbolic of accepting Him? According to your understanding of Jesus’ words were these words issuing another “requirement�?

Now THAT is the million dollar question. And indeed why would Christ have repeated this statement of His 4 times to be exact? And why were His followers so shocked and outraged? And why did Jesus use terms like my flesh is REAL food and my blood is REAL drink – a bit odd don’t you think for someone going for a symbolic meaning to emphasize something like REAL?

*************

When the Jews, who took him at His word, began quarreling about the problem of offering one’s flesh, Jesus said:


Let me solemnly assure you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. He who feeds [trogon in Greek] on my flesh and drinks my blood has life eternal, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood real drink. The man who feeds [trogon] on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the Father who has life sent me and I have life because of the Father so the man who feeds [trogon] on me will have life because of me. . . (John 6:53-57)


Jesus gives us his solemn assurance (some translations say “amen, amen I say to you� which is a Hebrew oath formula) that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood, but some argue this is symbolic language as when Jesus describes himself as “the door� or “the way�. But the word John uses for the Greek verb “to eat or feed� [trogon] is not the regular Greek verb for eating, phagon. Trogon means “to munch or gnaw� and is no doubt a deliberate device employed by John to underline the reality of the flesh and blood of Jesus. The tense of the verb trogon implies continuous action and a word study shows this verb is never used in a symbolic fashion in the Bible.

http://www.catholicfaithandreason.org/t ... ist-i.html

**************
Anyway, I know you didn’t want a debate about the Real Presence, but I just found it necessary to point out perhaps you are wondering why Jesus said the words He did because you aren’t understanding why/how He said those words in the first place. Because like I said, I agree if Jesus’ words were to be taken metaphorically, such would deem them superfluous – unnecessary. He wouldn’t have really been saying anything new. He wouldn’t really have been placing some new command on us. And how odd then that He lost many of His followers that day. They couldn’t accept it. Accept what? That He was the Son of God and the way to salvation? No. They didn’t have a problem with that. Up until that point they believed and accepted all that. What they had a problem with was accepting that they were to eat His Body and drink His Blood. Scripture tells us they were offended and wanted no part of it so they left. I’m not sure how symbolically referring to oneself as bread could offend someone. Do you? That simply doesn’t make sense. There had to be more to it or the Scripture account does not make sense.