First it should be noted that when the Jews quarreled over his statement, "The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world," saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?", he did not correct them and say that they were misunderstanding him by taking him to literally.
This is not the first time He did this nor the last.
He did not correct the rich young ruler. He did not always correct the Pharisees. He already knew they were misunderstanding Him.
*****
For those who would argue that our Lord is only speaking in metaphor, the idea of eating and drinking someones body and blood can only be a metaphor for the complete annihilation of a defeated enemy. His disciples took him literally many of them left. Jesus does not correct them but becomes even more graphic. Then he does something that he does nowhere else in the gospel, he challenges his apostles, "Do you also want to leave?" When Jesus speaks by way of parable, he explains its meaning to the Apostles. He does not do this here; he challenges them.
Jesus did not always explain the parables to His Apostles.
Will they leave as the others? So when John says that "Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him," it is the refusal to believe that we must eat his body and drink his blood. To believe in Jesus is not just to believe the Cross, but also to believe what he has taught us, including that we must eat his body and drink his blood which are real food and real drink. This is the true context of this passage.
No. Go back to the beginning of the passage. Jesus is talking about believing in Him.
All throughout John this is what He talks about.
IF this was essential to faith, as you are saying that it is His literal flesh and blood, He did not convey this to:
Nicodemus
John's disciples
The woman at the well
The Samaritans
The royal official with the sick son
more unbelieving Jews.
All of these were prior to the Bread of Life Discourse.
IF as you say we have to literally eat/drink His flesh and blood for salvation then Jesus omitted this in His conversation with these other people. But what He did talk about was believing in Him.
That is the clear consistent message of John, the Gospels and the New Testament.
In Romans 10:5-13 Paul does not mention the necessity of having to eat/drink the literal flesh of Christ. He does talk about believing in Him though. Just as Jesus told the unbelieving Jews...believe in Him. Again, the consistent message of the New Testament.
I always find it interesting that IF as you claim, we have to eat/drink the literal flesh and blood, why at the Passover meals did not Jesus prick His finger and allow the disciples to actually drink His literal blood?< .
At the Cross there is no record of anyone attempting to catch drops of His blood to drink later.
When they took Him down from the Cross....why did they not carve out pieces of His flesh....IF as you claim, we have to literally eat/drink His flesh? That would have been the time to do it....for it was the last time available.
Why not?
Because they understood His message correctly...we come to Him through faith. We have eternal life because we believe in Him.
Recall in this passage it is the unbelieving Jews who are thinking as the Roman Catholic does....that He is referring to literal flesh/blood. The unbelieving Jews were the ones who switched the conversation.
IF you want to say this passage in John is literal then you must never get hungry or thirsty.
35Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.
Many Roman Catholics like to switch back to a metaphorical understanding when confronted with this passage. So, you get hungry or thirsty?
*****
Jesus did not just fail to correct the crowd, He became even more emphatic. He wanted His listeners to take His words literally. And unless you want to say that Jesus deliberately mislead them, you have to accept that this is the correct understanding of what Jesus said.
Jesus did not always explain the parables to His Apostles.
But this is the only time that Jesus challenged His Apostles. Many of His disciples left because they understood our Lord's words literally. Jesus then challenges His Apostles over precisely this understanding of His words.
No. Go back to the beginning of the passage. Jesus is talking about believing in Him.
No, the controversy is over His demand that they must eat His Body and drink His Blood. And this is the point in which the disciples refused to believe in Him. To believe in Jesus is not just to accept that He is our Savior, but also to believe and accept all that He taught us, including the need to eat His Body and drink His Blood which He calls real food and real drink.
IF this was essential to faith, as you are saying that it is His literal flesh and blood, He did not convey this to:
Nicodemus
John's disciples
The woman at the well
The Samaritans
The royal official with the sick son
more unbelieving Jews.
All of these were prior to the Bread of Life Discourse.
IF as you say we have to literally eat/drink His flesh and blood for salvation then Jesus omitted this in His conversation with these other people
So He waited until the Bread of Life Discourse. Similarly he told Peter, James and John not to tell anyone about the Transfiguration until after He had been raised from the dead. God reveals His truths in His own time, not yours.
But what He did talk about was believing in Him.
To believe in Him is to believe in what He taught, i.e., that we must eat His Body and drink His Blood.
I always find it interesting that IF as you claim, we have to eat/drink the literal flesh and blood, why at the Passover meals did not Jesus prick His finger and allow the disciples to actually drink His literal blood?
At the Cross there is no record of anyone attempting to catch drops of His blood to drink later.
When they took Him down from the Cross....why did they not carve out pieces of His flesh....IF as you claim, we have to literally eat/drink His flesh? That would have been the time to do it....for it was the last time available.
Why not?
Nonsense! You are being absurd. At the Last Supper Jesus showed that the way that we are to eat His Body and Drink his Blood is through the bread and wind made into His Body and Blood. I should also point out that, although they do not share our belief in Transubstantiation, the Lutherans also believe in the Real Presence and that it is indeed the Body and Blood of our Lord that is consumed with the bread and wine. I guess sola Scriptura is not enough to settle this question even among the Protestants.
Recall in this passage it is the unbelieving Jews who are thinking as the Roman Catholic does....that He is referring to literal flesh/blood.
Rather it is the unbelieving Jews who refused to accept that we must eat His Body and drink His Blood as our Lord taught. If Jesus had simply said that it was just a metaphor they would have stayed. Why would Jesus purposely mislead them by His emphatic language and let them leave over a misunderstanding?