"Jesus is not using a metaphor here. When Christ said that His disciples must eat His body and drink His blood, many walked away from Him. If he was just speaking metaphorically, no one would have been shocked enough to walk out on Him. Why would the Jews scoff at Jesus for using a metaphor, unless He literally meant to eat His Flesh and to drink His Blood?"
Actually, literally or figuratively, it was a shocking statement. In effect, Jesus was claiming to be God Himself, which would stun any Jew listening. If they had interpreted him literally, they would have replied, "You want us to take knives out and cut your flesh, and eat it? Cut your throat, and drink your blood?!?!"
If meant literally, his statement WOULD have been totally mad, since they would have needed to kill him on the spot.
If meant literally, his statement WOULD have been totally mad, since they would have needed to kill him on the spot.
But they do kill Him, and they kill Him after the celebration of the Last Supper when He offers up His blood and body as the Sacrificial Lamb. In Exodus, the Jews were commanded that, if they were to survive the angel of death's justice upon the first born of Egypt, they not only had to spill the blood of the lamb, they had to eat it whole. And if they could not eat it, to share it with others so they would fully consume the flesh of the lamb.
In the Passover meal, which was celebrated at the Last Supper, four cups of wine are consumed at different points in the meal. The fourth cup is drunken before the lamb is consumed -- and, at the Last Supper, this was the point at which Christ offered Himself up as a Sacrifice. But, at the Supper table, they never drank the fourth cup nor ate the lamb, because Chirst was to become the lamb. Instead they go to Gesthemane, where Chirst is caught and then sacrificed on the cross.
Prior to His death, Christ proclaims His thirst and then drinks the wine -- the 4th cup -- and then he says, "It is finished," and dies, as the Sacrificial Lamb. The lamb is killed. But the angel of death will not pass unless the lamb is eaten -- not figuratively, but literally. The Eucharist fulfills that promise.
Note: This analysis is from Scott Hahn's book
The Lamb's Supper. Hahn was a Presbyterian minister who converted to Catholicism and is now a Professor of Religious Studies at Franciscan University. Here is a short version of this analysis in his own words:
THE EUCHARIST AS THE LAMB'S SUPPER
Also see:
THE FOURTH CUP
Hahn's analysis is mind-blowing. I have not done it justice. It is also compelling coming from a Presbyterian minister who knows the Bible better than anyone I've ever seen -- at least anyone who can write and speak as accessibly as he can.
In any case, the Biblical account does seem to be verified by Hahn's analysis -- which validates the NT by reading it through as a fulfillment of salvation history prophetically foreshadowed in Exodus.
The Early Church Fathers also believed in the Real Presence, and while it may be difficult to see in the above passages without studying them closely, some of the passages are more obvious than others, such as the one I quoted.
Here is another one that I think really is a grand slam, in terms of its clear and unambiguous endorsement of the Real Presence -- St. Ignatius. In the context of speaking out against the Docetist heretics, who denied the humanity of Jesus, he wrote this:
"They confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again" (Ignatius of Antioch,
Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, 7).
Clearly, St. Ignatius means to show that the flesh of the Eucharist is the equivalent, and not merely a symbol, of the flesh of the Cross.
Another powerful witness is Irenaeus, who was a student of Polycarp. He recalled Polycarp's stories of Apostle John -- which were first hand accounts. When others doubted the resurrection of Jesus, Irenaeus used the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist to prove it! "The Eucharist becomes the body of Chirst," he says (Irenaeus,
Against Heresies). That argument would have fallen flat if his contemporaries did not share with Him the assumptions and major premise of the Real Presence in the Eucharist.
In contrast, I invite you to name and cite a single Early Church Father who said the Eucharist should be understood metaphorically rather than literally. I assure you, none can be found.
God bless.