In John 6, when Jesus said we must eat his body, the word used is not the normal one for eat, but it is the word for chew. What are the implications for the doctrine of the Real Presence?

Posted on September 23, 2025 by Dr. John Oakes wrote in Bible Interpretation, General, Q & A, Theology and Doctrinal Questions.

Question:

I understand many believe that Jesus is speaking metaphorically in John 6 about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. There are two different verbs used in John 6: “phagein”: the common verb “to eat” (used broadly in Greek), and “trōgō”: a more graphic verb, meaning “to gnaw, chew, munch, crunch.” Early in the chapter, Jesus uses “phagein” (to eat) (John6:50–53). But from John 6:54 onward, He switches to “trōgō” (John6:54, 56, 57, 58). This switch is important: trōgō is never used metaphorically in Greek literature it is very physical. This word often describes animals chewing or people audibly eating. The use of these Greek words aligns with what most people who hold to “real presence” believe in. Initially Jesus uses “phagein” which can be metaphorical this explains why he has to double down as his disciples do not initially understand what he means. Jesus then makes it more clear that they must “trogo” (chew/gnaw) his flesh.

I would simply ask this: if “trogo” is not a metaphorical word in the Greek language then why would we assume Jesus is being metaphorical here… why does he need to switch words? How would I literally chew and gnaw on the flesh of Jesus? How must I do this? It seems very important considering Jesus says if I don’t do this then I have to “no life” in me.

Answer:

Let me mention two of the well-accepted “common sense” rules of interpretation that Bible interpreters (those who do hermeneutics) use. One of them is that, when asking what a passage means, we first ask what it certainly does NOT mean, and proceed to what it might mean from there. The other is in regard to symbolism/metaphorical language. One of the rules is that, in narrative literature, such as John 6, statements should be taken literally, unless to take them literally leads to an absurdity.

Let me start with the first rule. One might propose that one interpretation is to take the passage literally, which is to imply that Jesus is telling his followers that, in order to have eternal life, we MUST literally eat/chew the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus. This is absolutely and without reservation ruled out, both because it would be literally impossible for all of Jesus’ followers at that time to actually heat a piece of his flesh and drink a bit of his blood. Besides, if this were true, then for the entirety of humanity today, salvation would be literally impossible. There is no literal body for us to eat (unless, of course, we accept the rather obviously false Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation) For this reason, we know, with absolute certainty that Jesus did not intend this statement to be taken literally.

And there is the second rule regarding the assumption against taking things metaphorically. The exception is in the case of an absurdity. This applies to John 6:55-56, for which it is patently absurd to take this statement literally. No one in that audience could possibly taken this as true.

The unmistakable conclusion is that Jesus intended his statement to be taken metaphorically. This does not close out all discussion, because, in what sense, metaphorically, are we to take this passage? Might Jesus be prophetically indicating something about the Lord’s Supper? I think not, but this is not ruled out for now. Or perhaps Jesus is talking about the need for us to participate intimately with him–to associate our very selves with Jesus. This seems more likely. In fact, that is how I see this passage.

But, it is time to get to your question. You state that the Greek word troge is never taken metaphorically. I have a question. How do you know this? Has anyone read all Greek literature in the first century? I am joking here, but it surely is an overstatement, and literally not even true that the word trogo was never used metaphorically. Perhaps we could legitimately say that it was used proportionally less that phlagein as a metaphor. In fact, in Englsh, the word to eat is quite often taken metaphorically in many settings, but the word chew is less likely to be taken metaphorically, but it IS occasionally taken metaphorically. For example, we say, “chew on that one,” meaning think deeply about it.

I conclude without reservation that the word trogo is intended by Jesus to be taken metaphorically in John 6. The fact that Jesus uses a word normally taken literally as a metaphor helps him to emphasize how deeply shocking a thing he is saying. Jesus says, unless you eat/chew my flesh… Jesus was really getting the attention of the crowd, to the point that even his apostles were deeply shocked by Jesus’ statement–so much so that some were thinking of leaving him!

We will not settle in this exchange the long debate in Christian circles about the doctrine of the real presence of Jesus. Luther supported this teaching, but Zwingli denied it, and the debate has continued for many centuries. However, I believe that the change in usage from one word for eat to another in John 6 will do little if anything to change this discussion. It is doubtful that Jesus even has the Lord’s Supper in mind in his discourse in John 6. Your question is, “If trogo is not a metaphorical word in the Greek language… How must I literally chew on the flesh of Jesus?” I say that this is a moot point because the premise is simply not correct. It is a metaphorical word. If you want to delve into the doctrine of the real presence in the Lord’s Supper, that is a good thing to do, but John 6 will not be helpful toward that end.

John Oakes