Communion - Lord's Supper - Eucharist

[Philip James]

If a believer follows Christ to receive Communion, then it will be whatever Christ has made it, no matter the short comings of the believer, imo. Christ is further revealed as He Shepherds us along.

I believe that our human faculties are to be used to seek God, and I can see with my eyes that it is bread and wine. I taste with my tongue that they are bread and wine.

That is Grace that has been given to you, to start to see the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

As for what we see and taste, the teaching of the Church, in all the ancient apostolic Churches, is that despite what we see and taste, Faith in the Word of Jesus is what matters,
It really is His Body and His Blood that He gives us... Here's St. Augustine of Hippo to explain:

For what you see is simply bread and a cup - this is the information your eyes report. But your faith demands far subtler insight: the bread is Christ's body, the cup is Christ's blood. Faith can grasp the fundamentals quickly, succinctly, yet it hungers for a fuller account of the matter. As the prophet says, "Unless you believe, you will not understand.

Taken from here: Augustine Sermon 272 on The Eucharist

 

[epostle1]

THE EUCHARIST AND A SHORT STUDY OF THE BOOK OF HEBREWS
(scripture citations followed by a brief exegesis)
​

Heb. 12:22-23 – the Eucharistic liturgy brings about full union with angels in festal gathering, the just spirits, and God Himself, which takes place in the assembly or “ecclesia” (the Church).

Heb. 9:14 – Jesus offering Himself “without blemish” refers to the unblemished lamb in Exodus 12:5 which had to be consumed.

Heb. 13:15 – “sacrifice of praise” or “toda” refers to the thanksgiving offerings of Lev. 7:12-15; 22:29-30 which had to be eaten.

Heb. 9:23 – in this verse, the author writes that the Old Testament sacrifices were only copies of the heavenly things, but now heaven has better “sacrifices” than these. Why is the heavenly sacrifice called “sacrifices,” in the plural? Jesus died once. This is because, while Christ’s sacrifice is transcendent in heaven, it touches down on earth and is sacramentally re-presented over and over again from the rising of the sun to its setting around the world (Mal. 1:11) by the priests of Christ’s Church. This is because all moments to God are present in their immediacy, and when we offer the memorial sacrifice to God, we ask God to make the sacrifice that is eternally present to Him also present to us. Jesus’ sacrifice also transcends time and space because it was the sacrifice of God Himself.

Heb. 9:23 – the Eucharistic sacrifice also fulfills Jer. 33:18 that His kingdom will consist of a sacrificial priesthood forever, and fulfills Zech. 9:15 that the sons of Zion shall drink blood like wine and be saved.

Heb. 13:15 – this “sacrifice of praise” refers to the actual sacrifice or “toda” offering of Christ who, like the Old Testament toda offerings, now must be consumed. See, for example, Lev. 7:12-15; 22:29-30 which also refer to the “sacrifice of praise” in connection with animals who had to be eaten after they were sacrificed.
THE EUCHARIST - Scripture Catholic

 

[kit]

That is Grace that has been given to you, to start to see the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

As for what we see and taste, the teaching of the Church, in all the ancient apostolic Churches, is that despite what we see and taste, Faith in the Word of Jesus is what matters,
It really is His Body and His Blood that He gives us... Here's St. Augustine of Hippo to explain:

For what you see is simply bread and a cup - this is the information your eyes report. But your faith demands far subtler insight: the bread is Christ's body, the cup is Christ's blood. Faith can grasp the fundamentals quickly, succinctly, yet it hungers for a fuller account of the matter. As the prophet says, "Unless you believe, you will not understand.

Taken from here: Augustine Sermon 272 on The Eucharist

Thanks for this info shedding light on why the Church teaches that.

Personally Im comfortable with mystery and have faith I would be convicted in Spirit if i were being incurious or uncommitted to discerning the meaning of Communion. Im intrigued by theological frameworks that say 'only a Christian can understand Christianity.' So that quote resonated really well. Im not sure that Augustine is speaking to my own relationship to Communion in that sermon. But it is interesting to read.

How does the Church explain way in this case its so important to take Christ's words literally* when in so many other cases of analogy and parable, this would be the absolute wrong way to read Christ's words?

(*what the church might call 'literally' as I believe I am taking it literally myself)

 

[Philip James]

How does the Church explain way in this case its so important to take Christ's words literally* when in so many other cases of analogy and parable, this would be the absolute wrong way to read Christ's words?

The simplest answer to this question is that this is what the apostles taught those that joined them. Before the gospels and letters were even written, they were celebrating the Eucharist.
The evidence of this? that you find this teaching in every ancient apostolic church ( not just those in communion with Rome).

Here's St Ignatius of Antioch (who learned these things from the apostle John) speaking on it:

no longer take pleasure in perishable food or in the delights of this world. I want only God's bread, which is the Flesh of Jesus Christ, formed of the seed of David, and for drink I crave His Blood which is love that cannot perish."

Taken from St. Ignatius of Antioch


For me, when Jesus says ' this is the new covenant in my blood' its clear Hes talking about participation in the Bread and the Cup. And it is a marriage covenant. The groom uniting Himself with His bride... The two made one flesh...

Peace!

 

[Josiah]

That is Grace that has been given to you, to start to see the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

As for what we see and taste, the teaching of the Church, in all the ancient apostolic Churches, is that despite what we see and taste, Faith in the Word of Jesus is what matters,
It really is His Body and His Blood that He gives us... Here's St. Augustine of Hippo to explain:

For what you see is simply bread and a cup - this is the information your eyes report. But your faith demands far subtler insight: the bread is Christ's body, the cup is Christ's blood. Faith can grasp the fundamentals quickly, succinctly, yet it hungers for a fuller account of the matter. As the prophet says, "Unless you believe, you will not understand.

Taken from here: Augustine Sermon 272 on The Eucharist

An excellent affirmation of position #1 (Real Presence) and seems to reveal the weakness of position #2 (Transubstantiation) and #3 (Symbolism).


Thanks for the information


- Josiah

 

[epostle1]

How does the Church explain way in this case its so important to take Christ's words literally* when in so many other cases of analogy and parable, this would be the absolute wrong way to read Christ's words?

(*what the church might call 'literally' as I believe I am taking it literally myself)

John 10:7 Jesus did speak metaphorically about Himself in other places in Scripture. For example, here Jesus says, “I am the door.” But in this case, no one asked Jesus if He was literally made of wood. They understood him metaphorically.

John 15:1,5 – here is another example, where Jesus says, “I am the vine.” Again, no one asked Jesus if He was literally a vine. In John 6, Jesus’ disciples did ask about His literal speech (that this bread was His flesh which must be eaten). He confirmed that His flesh and blood were food and drink indeed. Many disciples understood Him and left Him.

They were standing in the presence of the greatest Teacher of all time. They understood, some just refused to believe. (John 6:66) Hmm...where have I seen those numbers before?

 

[bbyrd009]

24“Make every effort to enter through the narrow door,ao because I tell you, many will try to enter and won’t be able
25once the homeowner gets up and shuts the door.ap Then you will standaq outside and knock on the door, saying, ‘Lord, open up for us! ’ He will answer you, ‘I don’t know you or where you’re from.’
26Then you will say,ar ‘We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets! ’

 

[bbyrd009]

Many disciples understood Him and left Him.

ah, you mean misunderstood Him i guess right; no disciples, at any time, ever took a literal bite of Jesus

 

[bbyrd009]

if Communion is still a ritual to you, that can only be accomplished in a place you call "church" on selected Sundays,
then you do not know what Communion is yet
wadr

 

[epostle1]

24“Make every effort to enter through the narrow door,ao because I tell you, many will try to enter and won’t be able
25once the homeowner gets up and shuts the door.ap Then you will standaq outside and knock on the door, saying, ‘Lord, open up for us! ’ He will answer you, ‘I don’t know you or where you’re from.’
26Then you will say,ar ‘We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets! ’

Eating and drinking in His presence is meaningless without the proper disposition. Jesus is teaching a parable on salvation, He is not talking about the Eucharist in Luke 13.

ah, you mean misunderstood Him i guess right; no disciples, at any time, ever took a literal bite of Jesus

First, you are saying Jesus failed as a teacher. Second, Christians have been taking "a literal bite of Jesus" in the form of Bread and Wine for 2000 years. You are being arrogant.

if Communion is still a ritual to you, that can only be accomplished in a place you call "church" on selected Sundays,
then you do not know what Communion is yet
wadr

Jesus didn't abolish ritual, He perfected it. Holy Communion is available to Catholics EVERY DAY. I don't want to put you back on my ignore list, but I will if you continue with such insulting and childish remarks, ignoring everything I said about Communion.

"church" on the battlefield.

​

 

[bbyrd009]

Holy Communion is available to Catholics EVERY DAY.

1) then i have to wonder why you are not on a Catholic site, and prefer to instead post where you can only be perceived as judging another's servant? Wadr i won't reply to your post, as i would then be guilty of the same thing, but i hope you understand i bear you no ill will ok? I am just too unfamiliar with Catholic books and dogma.

Roman Catholic websites i got several of though
2) then if Communion is Holy to you, "as oft as ye gather" was 3 times a year, and imo the one about "making common the things that are Holy" would apply

Ps, Communion is not holy, at least not that i can see anywhere. Fwiw i'm kinda surprised too; the Law is like the last thing i would expect to be Holy, and most of the things ppl consider Holy seems to me like they should be Holy too! But as it stands that is just another neat human idea that you cannot support, except maybe with some Catholic or Roman document i am not fam with, wadr

 

[epostle1]

Jesus is a Jew, and so is His mother.

 

[bbyrd009]

so you say, but these are the appellations of the world, aren't they?
Imo that was strictly window dressing to them both, and they believed there are no Jew or Gentile
can't imagine your point there anyway, unless to illustrate how abhorrent eating human flesh and drinking blood would have come across to a Jew?
i bet Mary knew what Jesus meant

 

[Philip James]

Thanks for the information

You're welcome.

If you read the encyclical youll see where you misrepresented #2.

 

[kit]

The simplest answer to this question is that this is what the apostles taught those that joined them. Before the gospels and letters were even written, they were celebrating the Eucharist.
The evidence of this? that you find this teaching in every ancient apostolic church ( not just those in communion with Rome).

Here's St Ignatius of Antioch (who learned these things from the apostle John) speaking on it:

no longer take pleasure in perishable food or in the delights of this world. I want only God's bread, which is the Flesh of Jesus Christ, formed of the seed of David, and for drink I crave His Blood which is love that cannot perish."

Taken from St. Ignatius of Antioch


For me, when Jesus says ' this is the new covenant in my blood' its clear Hes talking about participation in the Bread and the Cup. And it is a marriage covenant. The groom uniting Himself with His bride... The two made one flesh...

Peace!

Thanks again for info. Yikes! All seriousness aside, I hope one can understand how creepy that Ignatius fellow sounds there? "...for drink I crave His Blood..." .

But then he goes directly into metaphor or real presence territory? "...His blood which is love that cannot perish."

Peace be with you as well!

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

Let's look carefully at God's Scripture here - very carefully noting what is stated and what is not. Please begin by reading both very carefully.

There cannot be anything of His Presence in communion when He said that He will not drink of the vine until He drinks it with us in our Father's kingdom. The only Presence that counts is Him dwelling within us which is the glory for what He has done on the cross for all believers.

Matthew 26:26-29

"Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take, eat, this is my body.' And he took the cup and when he had given thanks he gave it to them saying, 'Drink of it all of you, for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I will you, I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine again until I drink it with you in my father's kingdom." (see also Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20)

You cannot do communion in remembrance of Him if one believes they are receiving His Presence in communion. What honor is in that when the act of receiving Him in communion is a work of iniquity that denies Him as forver dwelling within us since our salvation that we need not receive Him again.

1 Corinthians 11:23-29

The Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, 'This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also the cup saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats or drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment upon himself."

There are three major "schools" in the West...


Real Presence: This view accepts these verses "as is" - with nothing added, deleted, substituted, ignored, explained away and with no pagan philosophies or prescience theories imposed or dogmatized. "Is" = is, every time (Real, present, exists). "Body" = body, every time. "Blood" = blood, every time. That's it. That's all. Body and blood IS... ARE..... thus present, real, there and thus received. While Real Presence technically doesn't mention the bread and wine or deal with that, it doesn't IN ANY SENSE deny such "exists" either - it's just insignificant. This view simply accepts all the words - as is, with no attempt to change some or ignore some or to impose some scientific concept or to "explain" away anything. It understands all this as "MYSTERY." It says only what Jesus and Paul says; questions are welcomed just left unanswered (dogmatically, anyway). THAT it is true is fully embraced; HOW it is true is left alone. This view is currently embraced by Lutherans, as well as some Anglicans and Methodist.


Transubstantiation: First expressed in 1134, first officially mentioned in 1214 and first made dogma exclusively in the individual RC Denomination in 1551, it holds that the word "is" should be replaced by the words "CHANGED and/or CONVERTED and/or TRANSFORMED from one reality to a completely foreign different reality." It then holds that this CHANGE happens via an alchemic transubstantiation (it's a very specific "change"). This, however, caused a problem with the texts which mentions bread and wine AFTER the Consecration (in First Corinthians, MORE than before) in EXACTLY the same way as such is mentioned BEFORE the Consecration. This view thus replaces those words, too. Instead, this view holds that "bread" and "wine" be replaced with, an Aristotelian ACCIDENT or appearance or species of bread and wine but not really or fully bread and wine - rather the 'empty shell' of what is left over after the alchemic transubstantiation. It denies that bread and wine are present in any full, literal, real sense (in spite of what the Bible says). Two pagan ideas are imposed: Transubstantiation and Accidents. Several words are deleted: "Is" "bread" and "wine" (the later two only after the Consecration). This view is the official Eucharistic dogma of the Roman Catholic Church since 1551. No other church holds to it.


Figurative/Symbolic/Memorial Presence: This view holds that the word "is" indicates a figure of speech and that there is a metaphor here. The word "is" in the texts is to be replaced with "symbolizes." It insists and the bread and wine are here made SYMBOLS or FIGURES or memorials of His Body and Blood. Christ is not "present" at all (in any sense other than He always is present), but the bread and wine are now symbols of Christ and His sacrifice. It is often compared to the Old Covenant Passover Meal - a memorial to REMIND us of things. The terms "body" and "blood" so stressed by Jesus and Paul are simply stripped of their USUAL meaning and said to be "symbols" or "figures" or "memorials" of them. "Is" doesn't mean "is" but "a figure of." This view is typically associated with Zwingli and dates back to the 16th Century (thus the newest of the 3 views). This view is now popular among modern American "Evangelicals" and frequently among modern Reformed/Calvinists. While NOT the RCC dogma, it's quite common among Catholics, too.



One might summarize the 3 common views this way:

LUTHERANS: Is.... Body..... Blood..... bread..... wine....... All are true, all are affirmed. It's mystery.

ROMAN CATHOLIC: Body.... Blood..... THEY are true and affirmed, but "is" doesn't mean that and the bread and wine actually aren't, they are Aristotelian Accidents instead. It's an alchemic transubstatiation.

EVANGELICALS: Bread.... Wine.... THEY are true and affirmed, but "is" doesn't mean that and the Body and Blood actually aren't, they are symbols instead. It's metaphor

It should be noted the Eastern Orthodox have a view somewhat between the Catholic and Lutheran views; it embraces that there is some mysterious, undefined change in the elements (not just in what is present) BUT rejects the RCC Dogma of Transubstantiation because the Orthodox leave the nature and means and character of the change entirely and completely to MYSTERY and insists that this 'change' is unimportant (rather than dogma), their emphasis (like Lutherans) is entirely on the Real Presence of the Body and Blood. Calvin himself personally held to Real Presence but his followers did not. Today, nearly all Reformed are Zwinglian on this and agree with modern Evangelicals.


Which of these "fits" with exactly what Jesus said and Paul penned?


Thank you in advance for the conversation!


- Josiah



.

One has to pay attention to even the Evangelicals when they perform communion because they sometimes add words to the performance of communion that sounds "Catholic" when they say, "We come into His Presence today..." What? Are we walking away from His Presence after communion? No. Then why say it when He is in us and is with us always? So does your church's communion really reflect your faith or not?

Jesus said His disciples, even though fruitful, will still receive pruning to be even more fruitful. A church, as well as individual believer, should be ready to be pruned at any moment so as to be more fruitful so that our words may match our faith so that our faith may shine brighter in this world of darkness.

 

[Josiah]

If you read the encyclical youll see where you misrepresented #2.

I don't think so. The dogma is pretty much all about how "is" doesn't mean "is" but rather "changed" (and that via a very specific kind of change, "transubstantiation" a very, very technical word from alchemy). And the dogma includes the idea that what "is" after the Consecration isn't fully, half of what is stated after the "is" isn't fully, HALF are Aristotelian Accidents. So I think I summerized it accurately.

What has been done here is to show that the words Jesus said and Paul penned all suggest that Jesus' body and blood ARE (the plural of is) present. Nothing about any change (by a specific, technical process or otherwise), nothing about anything NOT being fully there but rather being an Aristotelian Accident. Several other posters have pointed this out.

But my point here is not which of the 3 common views is right or wrong, but simply which echos what the texts state. Yes, I think it is the view that Christians had for well over 1000 years, position #1. The position before the two other views (both dogmatized in the mid 16th Century) came up with the "is" doesn't mean "is" and half of what follows the "is" isn't views.

Again, I REJOICE that the RCC replaced the word "is" only to justify tossing out those things that aren't so critically important (the bread and wine), whereas Zwingli tossed out the word "is" to get rid of CHRIST. Both did the same thing, but at least Catholicism kept the point of it all! IMO, the Catholic Eucharist brings Christ, and in that I rejoice. But I disagree with replacing the "IS" and tossing out half of what follows.... IMO, this eliminates any textual reason to believe that the Body and Blood "is." Here, too, I think the RCC should have left well enough alone... and stayed with what Jesus said and Paul penned - but I'm SURE we disagree there, lol.

May all Eucharistic blessings be yours!


Thank you!


- Josiah

 

[Marymog]

Hi, Mary

IMO, John 6 could be seen as a GREAT affirmation of position #1 (Real Presence) - and would seem to undermine both positions #2 (Transubstantiation) and # 3 (Metaphoric/symbolic).

My "problem" with that (and why I didn't use it in the OP) is that it is not clearly about the topic. The Sacrament is never mentioned in John at all (and certainly not in this chapter). And while John's Gospel isn't always chronological, it does SEEM that the context of John 6 is years before Communion came into existence, before Jesus established it... so IF Jesus says these words long before Communion existed, it would be odd (some would even say misleading and confusing) for Jesus to be talking about a topic in which His audience could have no possible way of remotely understanding. It would be a bit like me discussing some invention of physics that wouldn't be made for years later.

But yes, IF we accept that John 6 is a Eucharistic text (and I question that), yes, it is good support for Real Presence (position #1) and would be good to use to reject #2 (Transubstantiation) and # 3 (Symbolic).

Thank you for the conversation!

- Josiah

Hi,

You have articulated well how you have come to your opinion.

The Bread of Life discourse, according to my research, took place about 1 year before The Last Supper. However, in John 6 Jesus stated: 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. Jesus was very adamant about it by saying: 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.

In John 6 if he wasn't referring to the bread/wine of communion (something he revealed one year later) then how do we fulfill what He said in John 6 about eating His body and drinking His blood?

Jesus then SHOWS us how we can eat his body and drink His blood when He gave his Apostles bread/wine, all be it one year later, saying Take and eat/drink; this IS my body/blood.” It seems to me there is a CLEAR connection between the two events. The writings in the NT and historical documents from the 1st century Christians noticed this connection that is why they practiced communion (bread/wine) as truly being His body/blood. Paul made the connection also: For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

Respectfully, Mary

PS...bold type and underlined words don't mean I am screaming at you. I am just emphasizing my points.

 

[BreadOfLife]

There cannot be anything of His Presence in communion when He said that He will not drink of the vine until He drinks it with us in our Father's kingdom. The only Presence that counts is Him dwelling within us which is the glory for what He has done on the cross for all believers.

Matthew 26:26-29
"Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take, eat, this is my body.' And he took the cup and when he had given thanks he gave it to them saying, 'Drink of it all of you, for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I will you, I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine again until I drink it with you in my father's kingdom." (see also Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20)

You cannot do communion in remembrance of Him if one believes they are receiving His Presence in communion. What honor is in that when the act of receiving Him in communion is a work of iniquity that denies Him as forver dwelling within us since our salvation that we need not receive Him again.

1 Corinthians 11:23-29
The Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, 'This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also the cup saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats or drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment upon himself."

One has to pay attention to even the Evangelicals when they perform communion because they sometimes add words to the performance of communion that sounds "Catholic" when they say, "We come into His Presence today..." What? Are we walking away from His Presence after communion? No. Then why say it when He is in us and is with us always? So does your church's communion really reflect your faith or not?

Jesus said His disciples, even though fruitful, will still receive pruning to be even more fruitful. A church, as well as individual believer, should be ready to be pruned at any moment so as to be more fruitful so that our words may match our faith so that our faith may shine brighter in this world of darkness.

The text above in RED from Paul's 1st Letter to the Corinthians seems a bit harsh for something that is merely a "symbol" - don't you think?

The plain fact of the matter is that the Real Presence is something that was taught and believed in from the very beginning of the Church. ALL of the Early Church Father UNANIMOUSLY believed in and taught this truth. There was not ONE single exception in the Early Church. In fact - the first time we read about people rejecting this truth is AFTER the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century. WHY is that??

Why don't we read about these Protestant objections for 1600 years??

WHY did the Romans accuse the Early Christians of "cannibalism"??

Why did men like Ignatius of Antioch, who was a student of the Apostle John write that the Eucharist was the SAME flesh and blood that died for our sins and was raised from the dead (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]??

In the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6 - Jesus explains that we must EAT His flesh and DRINK His blood.
Interestingly enough - the Greek word used here for "eat" is NOT the usual word for human eating (Phagon). No - the word used here describes the way an animal rips apart his food (Trogon). This is hyperbole used to drive home an important point.

After most of the crowd leaves Him in John 6:66 - WHY didn't He explain to the Apostles in John 6:67 that He was just speaking "figuratively"?? Instead, He turns to them and asks "Do you ALSO want to leave?"

In Mark 4:33-34, we read:
With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them, as much as they could understand. He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything.

Tell me - WHY didn't Jesus tell the Apostles that He was only speaking "figuratively" in John 6 if the passage above says He explained "EVERYTHING" to His inner circle??

I eagerly await your well-researched response.

 

[bbyrd009]

"church" on the battlefield.

​

10Samuel told all the LORD’s words to the people who were asking him for a king.
11He said, “These are the rights of the king who will rule over you: He will take your sons and put them to his use in his chariots, on his horses, or running in front of his chariots.
12He can appoint them for his use as commanders of thousands or commanders of fifties, i to plow his ground or reap his harvest, or to make his weapons of war or the equipment for his chariots.
13He can take your daughters to become perfumers, cooks, and bakers.
14He can take your best fields, vineyards, and olive orchards and give them to his servants. j
15He can take a tenth of your grain and your vineyards and give them to his officials and servants.
16He can take your male servants, your female servants, your best young men,  and your donkeys and use them for his work.
17He can take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves can become his servants.
18When that day comes, you will cry out because of the king you’ve chosen for yourselves, but the LORD won’t answer you on that day.”