As we come to the gospel lectionary reading for Trinity 13, we reach the last of five consecutive Sundays (since Trinity 9) working through John 6, and have the final verses (including an overlap with last week’s reading) of John 6.56–69. If you have continued to follow the lectionary through the summer, you might be have been struggling with the repetition of the ideas around Jesus as bread or food. But in this reading, in a typically Johannine fashion, Jesus weaves in fresh ideas around this, including reference to his ‘living Father’, the Spirit, and life, which not only locate this episode within wider themes of the gospel, but also unlock what Jesus as bread of life really means.
Our reading starts with verse 56 in John 6, which is odd in at least three ways. First, it is halfway through Jesus’ response to the questions of the ‘disputing Jews’ of verse 52; secondly, it is actually halfway through part of Jesus’ explanation, so that verse 56 really belongs with verse 55; and thirdly, it overlaps with last week’s reading. I concluded my commentary last week with the quotation from Colin Kruse on the overall importance of the image of Jesus as the bread of life:
The saying [‘whoever eats my flesh…drinks my blood…] must be understood as a graphic metaphor meaning to believe in him. When it is unpacked it means that Jesus is the source of eternal life, and belief in him is the only way humans can satisfy the hunger and thirst for God. These sayings may remind modern readers of Jesus’ words of institution of the Lord’s supper, but in their Johannine context they are to be understood as a striking, even a confronting, way of speaking about faith in him (Colin Kruse, TNTC p 204).
Jo-Ann Brant also draws out the rhetorical power of Jesus’ sayings here:
The paradox that Jesus will bring life through his death becomes the polemical edge of the discourse (Jo-Ann Brant, Paideia p 129).
Many readers and hearers continue to struggle with listening to the language of Jesus as bread without reading through the lens of Communion (the Eucharist). But it does help to recognise how powerful these metaphors about eating and drinking are—and how often we use very similar metaphors without feeling any need to literalise them.
Quite apart from common metaphors about food as an object (such as humble pie, piece of cake, feast or famine, a kettle of fish, a dog’s dinner, apple of your eye, couch potato, icing on the cake, food for thought—and so on!), we make use of many metaphors drawing on the actions of eating or drinking: swallow it hole, take the bait, news feed, intellectual diet, to chew something over, devour a book, rate of consumption, hunger for more, thirst for righteousness, drink it all in, starved of affection, feast for the eyes, make a meal of it, risk appetite, taste and see, choking on his words, eat the meat and spit out the bones, it makes me sick, giving feedback—and many more!
These arise because eating and drinking are such basic human actions—our life literally depends on them! And therefore the need to eat and drink are associated with primal desires. Jesus’ discourse here is not about pointing to a religious rite, but claiming that he and his teaching meet the most fundament of human needs.
In the opening verses of our reading, we begin to see the weaving in of other key ideas the run through this gospel’s narrative.
The language of ‘abiding’ (or ‘remaining’) in Jesus in verse 56 is part of a thread of this term that is woven through the fabric of this gospel. In John the Baptist’s account of Jesus’ baptism (which is not mentioned!) the Spirit ‘abides’ on Jesus (John 1.32); the first disciples ask Jesus where he ‘abides’ (John 1.38); earlier in this chapter, we are not to work for food that perishes, but that ‘abides’ to eternal life (two ideas again linked here) (John 6.27); true discipleship means ‘abiding in my words’ (John 8.31); the Father ‘abides’ in Jesus (John 14.10); the Spirit of truth ‘abides’ in Jesus’ disciples; and of course, just as fruitful branches (or vines) abide in the vine (or the vineyard), so the disciples must abide in Jesus (John 15.4). And abiding in Jesus meaning remaining in his love by obeying his commandments (John 15.10).
It is rather startling that Jesus describes God as ‘the living Father’, a phrase found nowhere else in the New Testament—or indeed in the whole of Scripture. It links Jesus as ‘the living bread’ with Jesus as the one who both is alive and gives life to those who ‘eat’ him. The verb here, the participle τρώγων, has a striking, physical sense, as we might say ‘I will chew it over’. Jesus then goes on to repeat the contrast between the (non-living) bread, the manna in the desert, which could not bring spiritual life, since ‘the fathers’ (ie, our ancestors) ate and died, with the living bread of Jesus, who brings eternal life to all who feed on him.
The mention of this taking place ‘in the synagogue as he taught in Capernaum’ is a fascinating detail. On the one hand, it ties in with the descriptions of his ministry in the Synoptics. But it is also an example of the way, in the Fourth Gospel, we often get these retrospective explanations, since the change of scene has not previously been made explicit in the earlier narrative. And for those who are familiar with Mark’s gospel (which this one repeatedly assumes), we will remember Jesus’ encounter with the man possessed by the unclean spirit (Mark 1.21–26).
The mention of ‘many of his disciples’ in verse 60 is unusual, since it clearly means those beyond the Twelve, and again corresponds to the impression in Mark not only of crowds following him, but many people coming to believe in him. We might think at first that they are addressing their question to Jesus, but it becomes clear from the next verse, ‘Jesus, knowing in himself that they were grumbling’, that they are talking amongst themselves.
It has been common to assume that it is the language of ‘eating Jesus’ that they find difficult. But the previous verses involve Jesus making radical claims about himself—that he is the one that comes from the Father, that in him alone is the life that people need, and that his life is bound to the life of the Father. It is the Christology, not the metaphor, that they find difficult.
This becomes even clearer in Jesus’ response to them. The depth of their difficulty is made clear by Jesus’ language of ‘offense’; the verb σκανδαλίζω (from which we take ‘scandalize’) describes the reaction of his kinsfolk in Nazareth in Matt 13.57 and Mark 6.3. The σκάνδαλον is the rock of offense that God has placed in Zion (Is 8 and 24) cited by Paul in Rom 9.33 and Peter in 1 Peter 2.8.
We now get the folding in of further ideas which intrude into the ‘bread of life’ narrative from other parts of the gospel, but again point us to the central issue in Jesus’ teaching. Jesus talks of himself as the Son of Man when he meets Nathanael in John 1.51, and in the Nicodemus discourse, the Son of Man will be lifted up as was the snake in the desert (John 3.14). Earlier in this chapter, the Son of Man is not only the food we need, but the one who gives it to us (John 6.27, 53). The background to this image is the ‘one like a Son of Man’ whom Daniel sees ‘coming with the clouds of heaven’ to the Ancient of Days on his throne, which Jesus draws on in the Synoptics to describe his anticipated ascension to the Father after the resurrection. So here we have the claim that Jesus is the true Israel (just as Jesus had claimed to be the true temple in John 2.19–21) who will sit at God’s right hand and inherit from him an eternal kingdom.
We might be surprised to now hear the sudden mention of the Spirit, but the Spirit has already been associated with the idea of (new, eternal) life in John 3, since it is the Spirit who brings about spiritual birth, fulfilling the promise of John 1.13, that those who believe in Jesus (here, the Word become flesh, who has come to his own but not been received by them) will be born of God. The linking of the Spirit with life is a strong theme in Paul; ‘if we live by the Spirit, let us walk in step with the Spirit’ (Gal 5.25).
And it is startling here that Jesus now uses the term ‘flesh’ in quite a negative sense—again, almost Pauline. This language again makes the claim that this passage is ‘Eucharistic’ quite problematic. Flesh here is associated with death, in contrast to the Spirit who brings life. Thus Jesus ‘giving his flesh’ for the life of the world in John 6.51 is a reference to giving himself up to death on the cross for our sake. Jesus dies that we might live.
The contrast with receiving this life, eating Jesus’ flesh, is to believe in him, which offers the final key to unlocking the meaning of this extended metaphor. ‘Eating Jesus’ flesh’ means abiding in him by chewing on his words and teaching, believing in him as the Son of Man who was with the Father in the beginning and returns to reign with him. We now have another characteristically Johannine parenthetical comment, once more pointing to Jesus’ divine knowledge of who would believe and who would not. And alongside the challenge to trust in him, Jesus sets the sovereignty of the Father, a reiteration of what he has already said in John 6.44, where it is also juxtaposed with language of Jesus ‘coming down’.
The mention of the ‘many’ who turned back is significant at multiple levels. It contributes to the characterisation of Jesus in this gospel as a ‘lonely hero’ figure, who mostly acts alone, often acting and teaching with just one other person, whilst (in contrast the the Synoptics) the disciples have almost no contribution to make to Jesus ministry. Within the narrative, it contributes to the complexity of conflict with Jesus, since this group appear to be the ‘Jews who had believed’ but now do not in John 8.31. And here we have the only occurrence of the language of ‘walking with him’ in this gospel as a metaphor for discipleship, something we do find in the synoptics, not least in the central section of Luke, in which Jesus’ travelling and others travelling with him is a repeated image of discipleship.
We now get two of the three unexplained mentions of The Twelve, referring to the twelve apostles chosen by Jesus (the third mention is in John 20.24). Once more, to make sense of this, the gospel writer is assuming we are familiar with the Synoptic gospels to understand this reference without explanation.
To Jesus’ poignant and somewhat ironic question ‘Will you, too, desert me?’ we get an equally poignant response from Simon Peter (who else?!): ‘Well, your teaching might be difficult to the point of impossible—but where else shall we go? There is no-one to compare with you!’ And once more, we have further unlocking of the meaning of Jesus’ metaphors of bread, feeding, and life: it is Jesus’ words which bring eternal life, and they can only be received by believing in him and receiving this gift of life. And, remarkably, it is Peter, here in the synagogue at Capernaum, who describes Jesus as the ‘Holy One of God’, just as the spirit-possessed man had in Mark 1.24.
At this climactic moment, our reading ends. But the chapter continues another two verses to the end of this natural narrative break, by including reference to the fact that even amongst the Twelve who remain with him, whilst others turn away, there is one who will betray him (combined with a narrative explanation). Even at this high point of affirmation that Jesus is the one who gives life, there is still the dark shadow of the one who will betray him to his death.
And so, in the conclusion to this chapter, we are offered much to chew over and digest, with plenty of food for thought—enough for us to lay out a feast for those who will take in these words of life.
You can join James and Ian as they discuss all these issues here:
Buy me a Coffee
Heaven knows where you find the oomph to blog about the bread of life at the end of a six weeks’ marathon about it in the pulpit, Ian. I am in awe.
Thank you! Because there are such riches in the text!
Is the ‘Living Father’ a contrast at the literal level with Jesus’ dead human ‘Father’ Joseph, whom the interlocutors claim to know earlier in Jn 6? As well as a reference to the Eternal Father whose life Jesus participates in himself, and shares with others in himself the bread. Thanks as ever for a very stimulating and helpful exegesis.
That is an interesting observation! Perhaps! But in the context of the current narrative, it seems to run more strongly in parallel with Jesus as the living bread.
There is no indication in the text as to what verses are covered by the Lectionary.
However the final words of the exchange refers to “ “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” He spoke of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, for it was he who would betray Him, being one of the twelve.
One of them was a diabolos – the Greek word means a ‘slanderer’ or ‘calumniator’ or ‘false accuser’, but it is probably used here as the counterpart to the Hebrew satan, ‘adversary’.” (Bruce)
This puts me in mind of Cain,If you do not do well, sin lies at the door:
God warned Cain about the destructive power of sin. Cain could resist sin and find blessing, or he could give in to sin and be devoured.
And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it: We prevent sin from ruling over us by allowing God to master us first.
Without God as our master, we will be slaves to sin.
Interestingly at the final supper the disciples use the term Lord in addressing Jesus but Judas only calls Him master or mentor.
In preaching on Eternal [authentic]Life, it is well that we should mention that in receiving this Life there will be adversaries both without and within the Church.
“John 16:33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.
Those who think overcoming Christians do not suffer do not really know God or His Word.
Suffering in the lives of believers is not always the result of sin.
Christ was sinless, yet He suffered. And in His suffering, He set an example for us.
“For even hereunto ye are called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: who did no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth” (1 Peter 2:21,22).
Receivers of Eternal Life are, as Jesus, immediately engaged in great warfare.
In this warfare pious practice is not sufficient but overcoming faith will enjoy the victory.
Ian claims Jesus is speaking metaphorically in John 6. But is He?
In John’s Gospel there is a pattern of people having difficulties with the Lord’s teachings by taking Him too literally. There are parallels between John 2:19-21, John 3:4, John 4:11-12, and John 8:33 on the one hand, and John 6:52 on the other. In all these cases, we have crowds taking Jesus’ comments literally
However, there are important differences between John 6 and these other cases.
In John 2, John 3, John 4, and John 8, Jesus uses imagery that His audience immediately take literally. We see the overly-literal confusion. That’s not the case in John 6. Here, the crowd do not initially take Jesus’ comment literally. He must use this image three separate times before they do so.
The first time, in John 6:32-33, the people think that He is referring to literal bread, but they do not think that He is referring to Himself.
The second time, He explains that He is referring to Himself. The crowd still doesn’t take Him to literally mean that His flesh is bread. They take the saying figuratively, and their shock is at the implication that He is saying that He came from Heaven. The reframe it; they’ve disregarded the “bread” reference entirely, assuming it to be metaphorical.
Jesus then addresses it a third time. He emphasizes explicitly the Eucharistic aspect in a way that is unavoidable (John 6:48-51). It’s only at this point that they take Him literally.
So, this is the first difference in John’s gospel. We do not have an overly-literal crowd assuming that Jesus must mean everything literally. We have Jesus repeating His point until the people finally take Him at His word.
The second difference is how He responds to them taking Him literally. In John 6, there’s no correction. In John 2, John 3, John 4, and John 8, the audience takes Jesus literally. In each of these cases, Jesus clarifies that this is not what He meant. As a result, nobody takes the overly-literal position of Nicodemus, the woman at the well, or the crowds in John 2 or John 8, because Jesus clarified His meaning.
Jesus’ response in John 6 is the opposite. Instead of getting the people to take Him less literally, He keeps pushing them to take Him more literally. Finally, the people come to take Him literally and are shocked.(John 6:52) And here, if it was like John 2, John 3, John 4, and John 8, we should see Jesus clarifying His meaning to show that He doesn’t mean it literally.
He does clarify His meaning, but He does so by doubling down on the literalism (John 6:53-58).
His language is more strongly literal after He’s challenged. After Jesus has emphasized (for the fourth time) that He means this literally, His disciples say, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” (John 6:60). Jesus then presses them on it again, and John 6:66 says that “After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.” Then, Jesus confronts the Twelve, and presses them on it (John 6:67): “Will you also go away?”
He could scarcely have made it clearer that He meant this literally, and that it is an essential part of Christianity, such that rejection of it is rejection of Him.
Except that Jesus doesnt say that he means it literally. Youre putting words into his mouth, rooted in your interpretation. If people truly understood him literally, and he meant it literally, then they would have literally started to physically eat on his flesh, because that would give them eternal life. They didnt, because they rightly did not understand him to be telling them to literally eat his physical body.
PC1 – thanks for this. Since it is part of the same discourse, we have to take John 6:28,29 seriously: Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
So if we take John 6:53 to mean a literal eating of his flesh, then ‘believe in the one he has sent’ must be a metaphor for eating his flesh ….. (which doesn’t really make much sense).
John 3:16 was not one of the verses quoted in the piece, but is important in this context (especially John 6:29 which informs us about how to take the later parts of the discourse). John 3:16 makes it clear that when we have come to believe in him, we have passed from death to life – i.e. eternal life – and eternal means what it says; our salvation is assured. In the context of the later parts of John 6, it means that when we have come to believe, we have the assurance he will continue to nourish us with all the spiritual nourishment that we need.
There is nothing there saying ‘because if, having come to believe, you don’t feed on me, your eternal life will be lost’. This would be a moral impossibility for someone who has come to believe in Him.
This “Bread of Life” discourse doesn’t stand alone in scripture. Remember, Jesus hasn’t instituted the Eucharist yet. He confused the crowd and His own disciples by presenting a 2cannibalistic” teaching. He’s inviting them into a shocking, controversial, counterintuitive belief.
This point of the antagonism of the”enemies within” has endured since the days of Christ,and before Him in the Prophets.
Heinrich Schmid, a Lutheran theologian explained that the Church Militant derives her name from spiritual warfare …
A Soldier breed, a people that have “put on the whole armour of God”
In a recently discovered sermon given by M. Lloyd Jones he reviews an aspect
of Church history which have a great bearing on our current situation especially of the Church Militant before whom God goes before as a pestilence Hab 3:5 [pestilence is a great word study bye the way]
http://www.mljtrust.org/sermons/other-sermons/the-mayflower-pilgrims/
It is a veritable toure de force, and a call to arms. Shalom.
Sorry a late entry, ‘You are what you eat’.
Just been looking at the theory that chemical isotopes leave a record in tooth enamel. This can help archaeologists trace a person’s origin and life journey. The process begins in early childhood. By believing in Jesus, he abiding in us and we in him, the distinction between his life and our life is blurred, they ‘bleed’ into one another.