Conversation Among Friends

Since the c of C has no formal structure above the local congregation, it has no official teachings like other churches have.  There are plenty of subjects about which there are standard, traditional "church of Christ" viewpoint that were commonly held when the c of C was more homogeneous (say, in the 1950's...i.e. after splits with Christian Chruch and Disciples of Christ and before the tension arised between the folks who cling to the 50's and the folks whose viewpoints have evolved).

Anyway, these verses are not ones that have been controversial in the c of C, and I don't think there is any standard, specific teaching about it.

I'll ask our minister what his view is. 

from our minister:

"Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him" (John 6:54-56).

What Jesus had been saying in the negative is now stated in the positive. Anyone who eats Christ's flesh and drinks His blood has eternal life will be raised up on the last day.

The word "eats" is a different Greek word than used previously, and it is used again in verses 56, 57, 58. This word is applied to noisy feeding, and can be translated to munch or crunch. It is the word the ancients used when denoting eating with enjoyment (i.e. Matthew 24:38). Greek scholars are somewhat startled that this word is used by Jesus in this context. Catholic scholars point to this word and context and say it is referring to the sacrament of eating the literal body and blood of Christ.

Most scholars, however, render a different view because of the context and structure of the wording. The verb usage does not denote a literal eating. It would have been understood as being symbolic. When Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper, He referred to the bread as His body and told His disciples to eat, and the same with the fruit of the vine. The way it was presented was symbolic in nature. When He said these words, He was still in the flesh. To be consistent, we would have to say that when He instituted the supper, the bread and wine were also literally His body and His blood.

Jesus was attempting to direct His disciples to see that Christ Himself was the true source of their sustenance. His teaching is an emphatic statement that true food and drink for our deepest needs are to be found in Christ, and by implication in Him alone.

Christians never had the understanding of the doctrine of transubstantiation until several centuries after Roman Catholicism had taken root. In fact, it wasn't until after the Council of Constance (AD 1415) that Catholicism settled on the doctrine, which included at that time the eating only of the bread, but not partaking of the wine. The Council of Constance stated that the laity could not partake of the wine. The early church did not know of any such practice.

The Lord's Supper was/is a memorial, not an eating of Jesus.

Sure, though I fear I'm putting my life in danger if my stack of "to read" books ever gets out of balance and falls over and crushes me.

Eventually I'll get back to taking a look at this and also the infallibility material from way back