I was reading over these verses:

John 6:51-52
I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And this bread, which I will give for the life of the world, is My flesh.”

At this, the J.ews began to argue among themselves, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”

John 6:53-55
So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, you have no life in you. 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."

The controversy here has continuously come up for as long as I've been paying attention to debates within/against Christianity. One side attempts to make the words of Christ into something sinister. As in, a literal interpretation of eating flesh and drinking blood.

Still, most others (even non-believers) explain the words of Christ as symbolic, and detail what the symbolism is meant to represent. They usually draw from other passages to make their arguments.

But, as I re-read the following verses, it seems traversing beyond this passage isn't necessary.

John 6:61
Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you?

John 6:63
The Spirit gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.

He just got through saying "this bread, which I will give for the life of the world, is My flesh" only a moment ago. Now, He's clarifying that "the flesh profits nothing"?

Only one reading makes sense here. The point where He clarifies himself to His begrudging disciples, this is where He tells them what His words actually meant.

Before, I thought He was just telling them not not to doubt His words as they are full of spirit and life.

Now, I think He was actually interpreting His symbolism. "The Spirit gives life; the flesh profits nothing." He first lays this out there to show they should've caught onto His veiled language from the start. "The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life." He's telling them the words 'flesh' and 'blood' were stand-ins for the words 'spirit' and 'life'.

Not too monumental a notion. But is He then saying His flesh is not actually flesh, but rather spirit in the form of flesh?

I came to this reading after looking at the various ways Jesus tries to engage His disciples in symbolic teachings only to have to explain everything because they don't get it. Like when He warns them about the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees:

Matthew 16:5-8, 11-12
5 When they crossed to the other side, the disciples forgot to take bread. 6 “Watch out!” Jesus told them. “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”

7 They discussed this among themselves and concluded, “It is because we did not bring any bread.”

8 Aware of their conversation, Jesus said, “You of little faith, why are you debating among yourselves about having no bread?

11 How do you not understand that I was not telling you about bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”

12 Then they understood that He was not telling them to beware of the leaven used in bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Anyway, all this and my main takeaway is probably just that Jesus was telling us something about His 'flesh' being different than our flesh. This resonates as I've been contemplating the incarnation and how Jesus was likely only human in form but not in His true nature.