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)
'...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.
"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.
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)
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.'
'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.
- 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?
- What does this challenge about your current view of the passage? Are there new ideas here? How is this different than your previous interpretations?
- 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?
Lutzer, Doctrines that Divide #103