John's Story 6:34-59 / Part B

Let's keep unpacking the 9 Interactions in John chapter 6. This is a long post but hey, no one's forcing you to read it. In our discussion on this chapter we dug into some great thoughts concerning everything from historical context, God's sovereignty, language type and the early Church fathers thoughts and traditions.

What I like about this section is the reality that if the audience had genuinely understood Jesus' point on 'belief in Him' without their human expectations...the rest of the chapter would never have taken place.


SIX / 52-59
The Jews began to argue saying, 'How can this guy give us his flesh to eat?'
This is where interpretation really gets divided up among the Church today. We know that the 12 sum up Jesus' teaching with 'belief in the Holy One' so let's keep that frame of reference.

If Jesus is talking figuratively he really gets gritty. By the time this passage wraps up He's said 'eat' some 13x. He stresses both eating and chewing (:57) on His flesh (:51). But he also says the words believe and life a bunch of times and the key phrase throughout is 'Truly truly, believe and receive eternal life'.

As we read think about this: is it more likely that Jesus is always talking about literally eating Him for salvation OR that eating Him is analogous to belief and salvation?  Keep this floating around as we unpack it all.

So how does Jesus respond to their argument over eating Him? He get's gritty.

'I tell you the truth (truly, truly)...' Another way of saying, 'Listen up, this is important' and he says this 4x in this passage. What He follows up with is a continuation of what he's said earlier, only building on the analogy intensely.

• 26 - you're motives are wrong, you should seek spiritual life.
• 32 - you give Moses credit for Gods spiritual work - true bread comes from Him, I am that bread.
• 47 - believe for eternal life (positive).
• 53 - unless you eat and drink me, you have no life (negative)

...again, what is Jesus addressing here? Their motives and understanding are wrong and He really, really wants them to get it. They don't get it when He is direct (:47), so He takes the analogy to the extreme (:53), and they still don't get it.

'...this is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.'
He already said this in :35-36. Eating and drinking are analogous to 'come' and 'believe'. Come to Me to be spiritually satisfied Jesus says. Believe in me and be eternally quenched. Figurative language. He said this to Nicodemus. He said this to the woman at the well. He say's this to the crowds at the festival in chapter 7.

Typology: a form of prophecy where an OT image/action is expressive of a NT teaching - particularly fulfilled in Jesus.

Why is Jesus talking about manna and bread and eating? Well, we're not there yet but let's crack it open since this passage is all about eating Jesus.

The crowd challenges Jesus to display His true power by surpassing Moses' miracle of manna (Exodus 16:35). Manna was a picture or symbol or sign of a greater and more permanent source of sustenance to come. The manna in the desert was like the bronze snake (John 3:14-15), a tangible need met by a temporary salvation. People ate manna for 40 years in order to stay alive - just as people looked at the weird snake and were kept safe from the deadly vipers.

The literal manna was a prophetic picture (symbol) of the spiritual Bread of Life to come. And what does Jesus say? Read :33, 35. Jesus is the bread, come and believe in Him, sound familiar? This is for eternal life. The manna was great BUT, 'Your forefathers ate manna and died.' Not cool.

Jesus IS the greater fulfillment of the manna. He did not bring it. He was not preparing an eternal tangible food source. He IS the eternally spiritual source of life in faith. Totally surpassing their expectations of tangible sustenance.

Side Note: This passage is a historical source of division in the Church, particularly when this passage is assigned to Communion. Even more so when this passage is assigned to Salvation through Communion. However, what if the context isn't about communion? Then some of the confusion dissipates right. A couple of thoughts:

• 'Passover was near' 6:4 - in the synoptics Jesus' taught on the night of His arrest during the Passover feast. This is not that.
• In the synoptics Jesus used the analogy of the sacrificial lamb in Exodus. Here it's about manna.
• In the Communion meal Jesus was holding bread and wine, He was attaching His words to those symbols. Here there are no tangible symbols, He doesn't even appear to mention wine.
• 'teaching in a synagogue in Capernaum' 6:59 - not at the temple, not in a home for the meal, not in Jerusalem...Jesus is teaching on manna but like usual steering it towards true belief and life and the sovereignty of God the Father. Spiritual acts, not physical.

One final thought. Erwin Luther summed up the thought of a theologian noting the historical connect of this passage in connection with Communion I think is worth noting:

"no orthodox father of whom we have record declared the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist to be only symbolic (though Clement and Origen came close...), nor were there any who specified that the elements were substantially changed (though Ignatius and Justin came close...). 'Within the limits of these two extremes'" we find spiritual connection to Christ in Communion.

FIVE / 41-51

The Jews began to grumble, 'We know Jesus' parents, how can be the divine bread from heaven?'
Whatever Jesus said before this did a couple of things:

• Revealed His divine origin and true Sonship to the Father.
• Furthered the analogy of Bread / Flesh / Belief.

Notice what they get hung up on though? It's not cannibalism, this isn't even on their radar. In fact, had they accepted Jesus' previous and simple teaching, the coming discussion wouldn't have been necessary. Jesus has already made His point. They get hung up on his origin. Bethlehem or Heaven?

Understand that their question on the authenticity of Jesus' origin isn't wrong. In fact this is important. The question isn't wrong. Their closed mind, false expectations, hard hearts are wrong. They focus on the wrong point that Jesus is making. I think we do to.

Again Jesus knows their hearts and hang-ups, so He addresses the real issue.
'No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.'
They want a miracle. They want a king. They want immediate and temporary satisfaction. Jesus wants to give them eternal life, life that only the Father can give and He gives to those He draws or pulls into Himself first.

Jesus is NOT toning down His teaching as they miss the point and complain. Instead He goes deeper towards offending them (:61). He goes on to say that they would believe Jesus if:

• they truly knew the Father (:45)
• if the Father wanted to reveal Himself to them (:65)

Think about it. The chosen people of God, Israel, and Jesus is telling this crowd (who only the night before wanted to initiate a coupe with Jesus as the Lead) that they don't truly know their Father and their Father must not have chosen them do to their profession of unbelief.

What does Jesus do next? He hits the same note again. Clearly and concisely, 'he who believes has everlasting life. I am the bread of life...I am the living bread from heaven. Eat this bread and live forever.'
He doesn't hand them bread to eat and confuse the analogy. In fact He clarifies the point, belief is Him is greater than eating food (manna, bread etc.).

Do you know how Jesus transitions to the next conversation?
'This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.'
He goes to the cross. He changes the analogy doesn't he. He bounces around with His concepts and symbols and pictures and truths.

Read 3:16, a passage always noted for it's picture of the cross. Jesus is tossing this in the mix. The flesh he gives on the cross as a sacrifice, is the same flesh we're to believe in for salvation. No eating at the moment, only looking to, only believing. This flesh is greater than our flesh (:63b).

'I tell you the truth, he who believes has eternal life.'

FOUR / 34-40
'Sir, keep giving us this bread!'
Ahhhh, before their unbelief takes root they think Jesus is going to tangibly feed them miraculously like He had the day before (:1-15). Their expectations are out of line. Jesus is speaking spiritually and they are eager to make Him king 'by force' (:15) and so if He just performs the way they expect the Messiah to perform then all is said and done, Israel will be back on top!

'I am the bread of life.'
The first of the I Am statements. Jesus is equating Himself with God the Father. In this context He's taking away all tangible symbols or expressions of 'bread' and simply saying, without misunderstanding that HE is the source of life. The crowd wants divine bread to eat forever and Jesus is giving them the opportunity to believe in Him instead.

'He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.'
Jesus clarifies His meaning of 'bread'. Come and Believe - this is the eating of the true manna that leads to eternal life.

Manna = tangible and temporary
Jesus = spiritual and eternal

It's not about eating is it? He's already said that He is the bread and that hunger is quenched in Him so why don't they begin grumbling about cannibalism in the FIFTH interaction above (:41-42)? Because they knew the point was Jesus' divine descension and unity in Him and they were beginning to doubt the technicalities of this claim (even after the miracle the day before).

Literal eating and drinking aren't the focus. His divinity is! Jesus's incarnation (putting on the flesh) was ironically about the fulfillment (thus canceling) of all tangible actions man could participate in to earn or maintain salvation. Jesus fulfilled the entire Law in this way. Now anything works related is simply a response to our love for and honoring of Christ.

'I have come down from Heaven' - Divine descension from heaven.
'And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that I shall lose none of all that He has given Me' - Divine sovereignty of God the Father.


CHALLENGE /
Alright. That's enough for now. We'll wrap up the chapter in the next post but here are a few questions to sit on.

1. What is it about the context of the passage that really helps us understand what Jesus is teaching about His role? What does the author want us to understand about Jesus' teaching here?
2. What does this challenge about your current view of the passage? Are there new ideas here? How is this different than your previous interpretations?
3. What are you going to do about it? Is there anything to change in how you engage Jesus? What might the Lord be opening your heart and mind to regarding Him and His work of belief and salvation?

Resources:
Lutzer, Doctrines that Divide #103

Johns Story 6:60-71 / Part A

It's pretty wild that the same mob of 'disciples' who attempted to propel Jesus into a coup by force are the ones who soon after abandon him.

The same mob who are convinced of His Prophethood after a miraculous meal are also the ones who find His teachings too hard to adhere to and abandon their coup d'etat. Abandon their discipleship.

This little ditty, this chapter, sums it up though doesn't it? This teaching tells us all we need to know about engaging Jesus on His terms. Good stuff.

Since you can find commentary on this passage anywhere these days I want to work through this passage a little differently. I want to roll through it in reverse (like that Seinfeld episode in Season 9). It seems to me that Jesus' sums up this passage at the beginning but by the time most of us reach the end we've already begun to interpret it in an entirely different context.

So let's work these 9 Interactions between Jesus and the disciples in reverse and see what we find at the beginning.

NINE / 68-71

'You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know you're the Holy One of God.'

That's it. After all that talk of eating and blood and flesh and bread and manna and works and hometowns and divine origins and decision and Spirit...Belief. (Read 8:23-24 - Jesus is wildly clear on this)

The 12 (minus Judas I.) get it. They cut through the symbolism, they cut through the figurative language, they go past the fringe prophetical concepts and get to the heart.

Belief in Jesus as the Christ for eternal salvation.

'I chose you, the 12'

Jesus has been reiterating the sovereignty of God in drawing people to Himself (5:19-21, 6:39, 44). Here Jesus has the last word - He (and the Father) are in control of it all.

EIGHT / 66-67

Disciples (crowds) stop following Jesus. What pushes them over the edge beyond belief?

Jesus responds in the negative to the 12. 'Are you also going to leave?' But they get it. They have the flavor of actual faith in them.

SEVEN / 60-65

'This is a hard teaching, who could accept it?'

In 1:11 John preempts this. He tells us that many won't receive or accept Jesus.

Jesus goes on to clarify His point. In fact, He builds on :29, the very foundation of this entire interaction.

'Spirit gives life...the words I have spoken are spirit and life. Yet some of you don't believe.'

Sound familiar? In 4:21-26 Jesus tells the woman that worshipping God is a truth filled-spiritual interaction that happens beyond any tangible attachments. This happens though Himself, the Christ.

Now Jesus is following up with His key point of 'belief' only in the negative. He knows this crowd won't believe and so He pushes them to their breaking point.

'flesh counts for nothing.'

Not His own flesh. Obviously His flesh is important, He gives it for the life of the world! (3:16-17, Philippians 2:5-11, Hebrews 10)

Our flesh, our bodies, actions, works can never achieve salvation. Read 1:13 again. Read 3:13-21, outside of belief we're condemned and a condemned person can do nothing on his own, no word or work, to earn freedom. Belief is stressed in this simple phrase.

'Does this offend you? What if I ascend to my home?'

Oh yeah, Jesus also calls out their unwarranted offense. He knows what they're really hung up on and so He nails it. It's not cannibalism - against the Law. It's not drinking His blood - against the Law. The crowd wouldn't have taken these ideas literally. So then, what was it?

They understood He was speaking of total unity with Him. They understood that total consumption of Jesus meant total unity, faith and adherence to Him and His teachings. What's worse, they knew this meant that He truly was claiming to come to from Heaven and they absolutely couldn't accept this idea that He was God's actual Son (:41-42). What's even worse is that Jesus went on to say that they never really knew the Father anyhow (:45-46, 65). They were spiritually blind and dead and groping the dark for tangible fulfillment, not spiritual (:27).

As for the 'ascension' point, some theologians who claim this passage is about the literal body and blood of Jesus use this as a proof text. How? Well, the idea is that if Jesus were talking figuratively the whole time about his body as flesh then why would He begin talking literally about His ascension. He wouldn't bounce between figurative and literal to prove His point. So if the ascension is literal, so must the talk of eating Him.

Well, I'm not sure that's what's happening here.

The ascension is literal, yes (Acts 1:10). So was His descension (:33). The crowds missed the point. They were still hung up on His claim of divinity (:41-42) and couldn't even fathom total unity and faith in Him. So Jesus calls it out and simply says, 'look, I came from heaven and you don't believe Me. Will you believe if I return from where I came? Probably not.'

On a technical note, bouncing between figurative and literal language isn't strange or out of place. Read 7:37-38, yes we literally must believe in Jesus for salvation, no we don't literally drink Him.

CHALLENGE /

Yeah, that's enough for now. We'll unpack a few more pieces of the conversation in another post. A couple thoughts:

1. How important is engaging Jesus in Spirit and belief? Why is He stressing this reality to this Jewish audience?
2. Why don't the 12 sum up Jesus' point with a tangible action, such as eating and drinking bread and wine? Did they miss the point? Again, how important is belief, faith, trust and spiritual-intangible-unity with Jesus for salvation?
3. In the previous chapters and in the following Jesus stresses simple belief (3:36, 5:24, 9:35-38, 14:6) - is there more to coming to a point of salvation? If so, what and why doesn't Jesus address it? If not then have put your faith / trust in Christ alone for your eternal rescue from sin and death?

Resources:Erwin Lutzer, The Doctrines That Divide
Brant Pitre, Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist
Elmer Towns, John (commentary)
Jewish NT Commentary