Replies

We know that many of Jess' disciples turned away from Him and left Him,in John 6, when He said they must eat His flesh and drink His blood. "This is a hard saying, who can accept it?" Naurally -- with their natural-mindedness --- they would turn away. It is plainly unacceptable on natural terms. And more than, that, they were Jews and knew about blood being unkosher.

...................

6:53–54 This is the fourth and last of Jesus’ strong prefaces in this discourse (cf. vv. 26, 32, 47).
It should be obvious to any readers of this discourse by now that Jesus was speaking metaphorically and not literally.
By referring to His flesh and blood He was figuratively referring to His whole person. This is a figure of speech called synecdoche in which one part stands for the whole.
Jesus was illustrating belief, what it means to appropriate Him by faith (v. 40).
He expressed the same truth negatively (v. 53) and then positively (v. 54a).
He referred again to resurrection because it is the inauguration of immortal eternal life (cf. vv. 39, 40, 44).
Jesus was again stressing His identity as the revealer of God with the title “Son of Man.” Blood in the Old Testament represented violent death primarily. Thus Jesus was hinting that He would die violently. He connected the importance of belief in Him with His atoning death.
The idea of eating blood was repulsive to the Jews (cf. Lev. 3:17; 17:10–14).
Jesus’ hearers should have understood that He was speaking metaphorically, but this reference offended many of them (vv. 60–61).
Many interpreters of these verses have seen allusions to the Lord’s Supper in what Jesus said. Sacramentalists among them find support here for their belief that participation in the eucharist is essential for salvation. However, Jesus had not yet said anything about the Christian communion service.
Moreover He was clearly speaking of belief metaphorically, not the communion elements.
Most important, the New Testament presents the Lord’s Supper as a commemoration of Jesus’ death, not a vehicle for obtaining eternal life.
Nevertheless these verses help us appreciate the symbolism of the eucharist.
“In short, John 6 does not directly speak of the eucharist; it does expose the true meaning of the Lord’s supper as clearly as any passage in Scripture.”261
Constable, T. (2003). Tom Constable’s Expository Notes on the Bible (Jn 6:53).

"By referring to His flesh and blood He was figuratively referring to His whole person. This is a figure of speech called synecdoche in which one part stands for the whole."

This point on synechdoche is a very good one, and I'm glad that you brought it up. It *is* synechdoche, because He whom we receive is not mere flesh only (muscle-meat, carne,) in the consecrated Host, not mere blood only (a fluid tissue consisting of red blood cells, lymphocytes, serum, etc) in the consecrated Wine, but the whole, entire and living Christ, Body-Blood-Soul-Divinity, whether under the appearance of bread or of wine.

That's a point I often make when I teach the Eucharist to my students, but I didn't think to use the word synechdoche, which is perfect.

As for the rest: well, he is not thinking with the Eucharistic Lord--- but it's worth discussion.

G'night now, my brother, and God bless.