Hi Kyle, I don't see why you are sure why "the flesh" of verse 63 is not a metaphor for unbelief, as it is elsewhere.

Moreover, we are saved literally by Christ's flesh, as verse 51 says, unless you want to say that both "bread" and "flesh" are metaphors, in which case the sentence is null, as are verses 52-56.

I looked at the Webster article. It is inaccurate. The basic problem is that none of the fathers argued for a purely symbolic view. They saw the symbolic aspect in the offering of the bread and wine, and the appearance of bread and wine, but also the bodily transubstantiation.

Moreover all the fathers he mentions were Catholics who held not only to Jn 6, but to numerous ideas incompatible with protestantism, the easiest to prove being the issue of baptismal regeneration and Apostolic succession. So there is not one of these fathers that could be shown to be a forerunner of modern protestantism.

The Clement of Alexandria chapter which Webster uses as evidence is evidence for Catholic belief: "’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).

I hope this provides further fruitful reflection on my part and your part.

In Jesus,
Dan Schultz