To take John 6:53 as Jesus telling the disciples to literally eat of His flesh and blood is a grave mistake. The interpreter should assume that a passage uses non-figurative language unless this assumption creates an absurdity or the general context indicates otherwise (Gibbs 2004, 261). The belief that Jesus was condoning cannibalism is quite an absurdity, and in effect violates the general context of what Jesus was teaching his disciples. God’s laws from the Old Testament state that we should not murder in Deuteronomy 5:17, and the prophecies of the Messiah’s death are clearly in the Scriptures and cannibalism does not fit into the gospel plan. There is nowhere in the Bible where we here of cannibalism being acceptable to God, or even a necessary evil to survive. This all stands to support that this belief would be an obvious absurdity
Jesus teaches it plainly in John 6:63 when He says that the words He spoke of are spirit not of flesh. The disciples up to that point were much more numerous, but these words seemed to confuse the majority of them, so many disciples left, all except the chosen twelve. Jesus states that He specifically chose them, and most likely made the teaching hard to imagine or understand, to fulfill the purpose of filtering down His followers. If only the doubters stayed to hear an explanation rather than leaving His presence, which is similar to an interpreter who would look at verse 53 in total isolation and not continue reading on. The easiest way to clear up this belief would be to study the immediate context, and continue reading the complete thought of the author.
The author is writing a narrative and what we should remember is that Scripture interprets Scripture. The Bible cannot contradict itself, nor should a single passage somehow bring a new teaching all by itself, but rather a belief or doctrine should include multiple passages. The proper interpretation would be that Jesus is saying you must be willing to follow even to the death, and possibly a foreshadowing of the believers partaking in communion in the early church to come.
The interpreter must know that the meaning of a phrase must be consistent with the sense of it’s immediate context, and must be consistent with the book’s general flow of thought. In order for a believer to interpret passages about living in the spirit and having freedom in Christ as being permission to disobey direct New Testament commands would have had to ignore this rule. Take Galatians 5:18 for instance, this verse does not imply that we are somehow free to ignore New Testament commands. The actual immediate context would ask the opposite of its readers. The book of Galatians itself is a decree of spiritual freedom from the Old Testament laws and rituals of the Jews whereby the Apostle Paul states clearly to walk in the Holy Spirit and not the flesh or law. To regard this command of the Apostle Paul and disregard the rest of the New Testament would be an apparent oxymoron in itself, and it would suppose that somehow the Holy Spirit is now taking a new direction from the original plan He set in place.
First, considering the rule of allowing scripture to interpret scripture, we must pay close attention to what the New Testament includes and excludes from its text. Hebrews 7:18, 19 states, “The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.” If we choose to wear only one blend of fabric per outfit (Lev 19:19) because we believe it to be mandatory, then we open the door to rules of slavery that apply in Leviticus 19:20 which most Christians would agree to be absurd, especially in our culture. The ceremonial and civil laws of the Old Testament were in place to provide the nation of Israel a temporary method of keeping the peace, health, and overall well-being of the nation in an orderly fashion. The interpreter that believes sacrifices are still mandatory is rejecting the sacrifice of Christ, whom appeared once for all sins as the only true and acceptable atonement. (Heb. 9:26)
This glimpse into the beginnings of the early church does not imply that the apostles required the believers to sell all they had acquired like that of a communistic government. This passage of scripture simply states that the believers were of the same heart and mind, meaning that they were spiritually unified by the power of the Holy Spirit. Because of the transforming power of the Holy Spirit, the early church sold their own possessions to help others in need. If this were a model of communism being displayed by the early church we would have not seen a full voluntary surge of generosity and unselfishness, but rather a requirement being imposed upon the believers by the apostles. In verse 36 we see that Joseph (called Barnabas), simply sold a field he owned, he did not sell everything he had. While in verse 35 we are told that the distributions of the goods were needs based, and not based on a pay scale set forth by the church.
