He was most certainly talking about exactly that. The Greek *screams* literal interpretation: First of all, the word used for eat here in verse 54 & 56 & 58 is trogo--this is not just plain old 'eat" (which is phago)--this is gnaw, munch, crunch, chew. Christ in verse literally says "Whoever chews my flesh and drinks my blood"...then later in verse 58 whoever chews on this bread will live forever.
Secondly, let's look at verse 55: for my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink....real food, real drink. And quite frankly, the English here is not even as strong as the Greek, which says "alethes brosis, alethes posis"--true food, true drink--and true in substance, not true in similarity or analogy.
These people didn't leave because they believed Jesus was talking about cannibalism...They left because of the entire message that Jesus was the 'spiritual' bread of life...
The text says straight out why they were grumbling...it is right there in plain Scripture..."How can this man give us his flesh to eat"? So why were they saying "this is a hard saying, who can listen to it"? Some inoffensive discourse about the bread from heaven? That makes zero sense, I'm sorry.
You are doing exactly what you accuse us of doing--and that is going against the plain sense of Scripture to defend a theological position which grew up many many years after the fact. Every Church father, St. Paul, everyone in the early centuries believed that Christ meant this text literally. The Christians were accused by the Roman pagans of cannibalism--now why would that be if they just meant all this in a bland, inoffensive "bread of Life" type way?
You got your bible from Jerome...Why didn't Jerome use 'knaw' or 'crunch' instead of good ole 'eat'???
The Greek used in the 'Majority Text' means eat...
φάγω
phagō
fag'-o
A primary verb (used as an alternate of G2068 in certain tenses); to eat (literally or figuratively): - eat, meat.
Secondly, let's look at verse 55: for my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink....real food, real drink. And quite frankly, the English here is not even as strong as the Greek, which says "alethes brosis, alethes posis"--true food, true drink--and true in substance, not true in similarity or analog
From your Catholic bible...
Joh 6:55 (6:56) For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
Neither your Catholic bible nor my bible, nor the Majority Greek Texts use the term 'real' or 'true' food or drink... Surely if this is the 'original' greek, Jerome would have put it in your bible...
The text says straight out why they were grumbling...it is right there in plain Scripture..."How can this man give us his flesh to eat"? So why were they saying "this is a hard saying, who can listen to it"? Some inoffensive discourse about the bread from heaven? That makes zero sense, I'm sorry.
Ya they were grumbling...But that was just the icing on the cake...Jesus says he already knew they didn't believe him before He mentioned the eating of flesh...And you'll notice they didn't pick up and leave til Jesus told them;
Joh 6:62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Joh 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
Joh 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
And then;
Joh 6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
I don't believe Paul looked at it the way you do...Or any of the apostles for that matter...They knew it was a metaphor just like I do because of verses 35, 62, 63, 69, 47, etc...
To quote that great Catholic author, Flannery O' Connor, speaking of the Eucharist :
" If it's only a symbol the hell with it"
She knew that the Eucharist is the body and blood, soul and divinity of our Lord.