Lord was obviously not talking about cannibalism when He spoke of eating His flesh. Rather, He was giving a physical illustration of a spiritual truth. Once again, however, the antagonistic Jews completely missed the significance of Jesus' statement. As a result, they began to argue with one another. Argue translates a form of the verb machomai, which means âto fight,â or âto quarrelâ (cf. Acts 7:26; 2 Tim. 2:24; James 4:2), indicating that it was a heated dispute. The discussion centered on the question, âHow can this man give us His flesh to eat?â Blinded by the ignorance of their own unbelief, they were unable to understand the spiritual significance of which Jesus spoke (cf. v. 42; 3:4, 9; 4:11â12; 9:16; 12:34).Although confronted with their willful unbelief, Jesus did not tone down, soften, or even clarify His words. Instead, He made His teaching even harder for them to swallow by adding the shocking concept of drinking His blood. To drink blood or eat meat with the blood still in it was strictly prohibited by the Old Testament law.Jesus, of course, was not speaking of literally drinking the fluid in His veins any more than He was of literally eating His flesh. Both metaphors refer to the necessity of accepting Jesus' sacrificial death. The New Testament frequently uses the term blood as a graphic metonym speaking of Christ's death on the cross as the final sacrifice for sin...