If Josh can declaim propositions then I don’t see why I can’t join in. So here goes:
If what you believe and teach concerning the Supper couldn’t be misinterpreted by some people as sounding like cannibalism, then your understanding and/or teaching of the Supper is deficient.
This is inspired by Martyn Lloyd-Jones’s point that I blogged last year, which can summarised as: “If your preaching of the gospel cannot be misunderstood by some people as teaching antinominianism, then you’re not preaching the gospel”.
As is made clear in my previous post, we do not eat the Lord’s body and blood in a “crude, fleshly, Capernaitic [i.e. cannibalistic] manner”. However, our strong affirmation that we truly receive the Lord’s flesh and blood in our mouths can certainly be misunderstood in that way.
Many outside observers of the early church believed that Christians were cannibals for precisely that reason. And in John 6, it was this “cannibalistic” implication that repelled Jesus’ listeners in Capernaum (hence “Capernaitic”).