Bible Groups - Gospel and Letters of John - navigation>
Gospel of John - Chapter 6
- Chap 6 focusses on Jesus as the Bread of God which gives eternal life to those who believe on Jesus. It
can be read as referring to the Eucharist, with many phrases used in the Eucharist: "took" the bread,
"gave thanks" (eucharisteo - only in John), and "distributed". Obviously the multiplication of bread
important, as the only miracle in all 4 Gospels. But chap 6, especially vv 32-50, can also be read as
parallel to chap 4: Jesus gives the living water, and feeds us with the bread of life, his words and his
spirit which sustain us and dwell and well up within us. This "sapiential" theme and the following
sacramental theme have formed the basis of Christian celebrations ever since. Some verbs (eg 6:27, 51)
point to a future single event in which Jesus "will give" us the bread of life: perhaps we need to be able
to "stomach" Jesus' sordid death, in which his flesh was indeed given in sacrifice, to be able to accept
God's love. The gift of Jesus' flesh is costly, and he gave it "for the life of the world". We are required to
eat (munch, browse) Jesus' "flesh" (not "body" as used in some narratives of the institution of the
Eucharist: 1 Cor 10-11; but Aramaic has only one word). The words of chap 6 may be seen as referring to
the sacrament, but perhaps the earlier verses point more naturally towards calvary. This causes us to
think deeply about the Eucharist: not a simple magic ritual which mechanically gives us salvation if it is
performed correctly, as the Jews approached their rituals, but a deeper aligning ourselves with and
trusting on God, who suffered a violent death to draw us to him. The Eucharist is a re-presentation, a
memorial of the sacrifice of Calvary, and it is also a Sacrament in which we feed - browse - on the Spirit-filled flesh and blood of the heavenly - resurrected - Son of Man, which feeds and sustains our spiritual
life.
- 1 Theology more important than geography. Chap 6 illustrates that Moses and scripture refer to Jesus
(5:46-47). The Jewish feasts and institutions are addressed in order: Temple, Sabbath, Passover
(Unleavened bread and Passover lamb, 1st month), Tabernacles (7th month), Dedication (9th month).
Chaps 5 & 6 in same order as in the Eucharist: Word then Bread. Tiberias founded about 20 AD - name
for sea may not have been in use in Jesus' lifetime.
- 2 Crowd kept on following because Jesus kept on doing signs - healing the sick (5:3). They follow only
because of the earthly sign.
- 3 "The mountain" suggests Moses going up the mountain.
- 4 We need not read Eucharist into this chapter: the bread Jesus offers to believers compares to the living
water offered to the Samaritan woman. It represents more than the Passover. And perhaps it was near
Passover, the combined feast which commemorated both killing the Passover lamb and eating the
unleavened bread of the barley harvest.
- 5 We see later how large the approaching crowd was. Similar question to Moses' (Num 11:13). Philip
came from nearby Bethsaida, so a test for him: how to feed them. Did he believe in Jesus enough to trust
him to solve the problem?
- 6 The narrator reminds us that Jesus had extra knowledge and knew what was to happen.
- 7 200 denarii - 8 months' wages - not enough. Philip has not understood what Jesus said earlier (4:32-34).
- 8 As usual Andrew has been exploring and brings a little boy to Jesus. Described again as Simon Peter's
brother.
- 9 Barley bread is cheap; little fishes would make it more palatable.
- 10 Jesus asks that the people recline, as for a meal (not sit down).
- 11 We are left to assume that the disciples took part in the distribution, after Jesus had given thanks.
Each received as much as they wanted.
- 12 Abundance but no waste: the fragments were gathered up and kept. In the desert any manna that was
kept overnight went rotten. This bread will not. This is bread which 'abides'. The believers the Father
gives to (6:39) Jesus will never be lost. The disciples will keep this bread for all believers, and keep it in
good condition.
- 13 Twelve is a good number, showing a large quantity, completeness, but perhaps reminds us of the 12
tribes of Israel (or the 12 disciples?). May be hampers, of hemp or cloth, rather than baskets: travellers
would carry food in such, especially Jews taking care of the need for purity. The barley loaves reminds us
of Elisha (2 Kings 4:42-44).
- 14 The sign generates some belief, but only that Jesus is the expected prophet (Deut 18:15; Ps 23). No
mention of messiah.
- 15 Their understanding is incomplete and based on their own expectations and wants. It is not enough,
they are still thinking in earthly kingdom terms, using Jesus for their own ends, so Jesus goes away. He
who is already King has come to bring his kingdom to men; but (some) men try to force Jesus to be the
sort of king they want, thus losing both.
- 16 Another sign: in each case there is an introduction, description of problem, outcome, and results. In
this case John draws no moral from it - presumably it happened at this point. But it may be intended to
recall: (i) water from a rock; (ii) the crossing of the Reed Sea; (iii) Jesus as life-giver and protector from
storm. The sequence of loaves then walking on water must be very old: it is the same in Mk & Matt.
- 17 Dark and Light are significant in this Gospel: the crowd are in the dark - are the disciples? Jesus "had
not yet come to them" - spiritually? But he is to come.
- 18 Winds from the Golan heights often cause storms to blow up quickly. They are crossing near the north
end, not the widest part, which was about 61 stadia.
- 19 25-30 'stadia', about 5-6 km. Hard work in the storm. John uses present tense to indicate their terror at
seeing Jesus - the synoptics tell us this was because they thought he was a phantom.
- 20 "It is I (ego eimi)" - reassuring to hear his voice, and with a hint of deity. (Cf Is 41:10; 43:10; Exod
3:14;)
- 21 Suddenly with Jesus' coming to them, and their wanting to take him in, to receive him, their journey is
over - surely a spiritual meaning! Accepting Jesus' word brings a peaceful journey's end. (Or did the wind
drop?) The disciples have willingly accepted Jesus' self-revelation. But the crowd have not seen this and
is still separated from Jesus.
- 22 The crowd is not to be denied making its miracle-man its king, so they follow Jesus, probably
catching up with him on the shore at Capernaum, although the later part of the discourse seems to have
been in the synagogue there. The next day has brought us closer to Passover.
- 23 The sign is described fully again: "where they had eaten bread after the Lord had given thanks".
Unusual use of "the Lord".
- 24 Clearly the crowd could see no way Jesus could have crossed the lake.
- Vv 25-59: a Midrash or exegesis with v 31 as central text, demonstrating 5:39, 45-47 that the Scriptures
point to the person of Jesus. (Cf Ex 16:4; Neh 9:15; Ps 78:24; Ps 105:40). Much discussed chap: vv 25-50
not overtly sacramental; vv 51-58 widely accepted as sacramental, Eucharistic, with v 51c perhaps
reflecting the Eucharistic formula in the Johannine community.
- Each phrase treated separately:
- ‘He gave’, vv 26-34;
- ‘bread from heaven’, vv 35-50;
- ‘to eat’, vv 51-59.
- Interruptions by other speakers not only keep interest but show the difficulties felt both by the Jews at the
time and by Jews when the Gospel was written - and therefore arguments being met by the Johannine
community.
- 25 ‘He gave’.
- ‘other side of the sea’ - suggests some unfamiliarity with the area? They greet him as Rabbi, not king, but
still think of him in earthly terms. Strange their question is "When" not "How" which we know is the
significant question: how did the Son of God become man?
- 26 Crowd’s question ‘when’ is ignored - addresses ambiguity in the crowd’s motivation: instead of
responding to signs (6:2, 14), crowd now merely want full stomachs. Had they been responding to the
miracles it would at least be something - better than no faith at all. Materialists: instead of seeing the sign
in the bread, they had seen only bread in the sign. Moved by full bellies, not full hearts. Jesus tells them
to search for the food that endures.
- 27 Implications of this v 27 occupy rest of chap 6. Crowd seeks an end to daily labour Cf 4:15. From
4:31-38 reader - and disciples - realise that ‘working for food that remains’ refers to Jesus’ mission.
- ‘the food that endures’: Cf 4:14, doing the will of him who sent me (4:32-34). The gathered fragments
will endure, unlike the manna. If you fail to see the symbolism of the feeding miracle, or focus on earthly
facts about Jesus, you will not receive Jesus as the bread of life - distinguish between ‘seeing the sign’
and concern with the material elements. If we seek the food Jesus offers, we will get eternal life, but
eternal life is not a reward for, it is always a gift. V 27 refers to Jesus’ word of revelation. Cf 3:33:
whoever accepts the testimony of the one from above sets his seal on the truthfulness of God: it is God
who attests to Jesus’ role, so we may have more confidence in seeking Jesus. The Father has set his seal
of approval on the Son, and the promise of eternal food is firm, though veiled at present. Jesus will give
not as Moses gave but as the Father gives. The food that endures "will be given to you" - when: when the
revelation of God in the is lifting up of the Son of Man on Calvary will provide a food that will endure
for eternal life.
- 28 ‘The works of God’: what God does and requires. Now they have turned from earthly concerns (full
bellies, making him a prophet), accept his challenge and ask the ‘right’ question. But they have not
understood that eternal life is gift. ‘Works’ implies good deeds, the Law which the Jews believed gave
direct access to God, and is very specific as to what one must do. Heavenly food was often taken by the
Jews to symbolise the Torah. Perhaps expecting new commandments?
- 29 Only one ‘work’ is necessary: they must believe (continuously, not once for all decision) on the one
sent by God. IE re-orient one's life to base it on a personal relationship with God. Works of the Law
inadequate. Access to God is only through the Son who reveals - makes known - God. In view of
controversy over faith or works, here Jesus describes faith as work: God requires us to trust him. The act
of faith is itself a work of God. Doing godly work is to do what God requires of us. There is a sense in
which believing is an - or the all important - work of God. Working to possess this nourishment,
believing in the One whom God has sent, will lead to eternal life. This summarises the whole discourse,
which links closely to the themes of Passover: bread and the Law.
- 30 Back to sign-faith: what will you do before we do God’s work? (4:48 Gen 9:12-17; Exod 4:8-9; Isa
7:11-14). They recognise that Jesus' words in v 29 mean they must believe in him. So they ask him to
prove he is who he says he is by signs - defined in their terms. The Jews expected that the Messiah would
renew the miracle of the manna. Jesus seeks to raise their minds to heaven and to the eternal life he can
give. He seeks to show (a) that Christ is the true bread, which will not perish; (b) He came down from the
true heaven, not like the earthly manna that came from the sky.
- The Jews have just seen one sign, which they have not understood, but demand more. They dare to
dictate to God the sign they want. They demand something they can see, rather than faith understanding,
but do not expect Jesus can perform.
- This back-sliding makes no sense in story-world - they have already accepted he is prophet. But refers to
evangelist-world: Galileans followed Jesus expecting release from Romans: that has not happened, and
Galileans less willing to follow the Jesus of John’s community. How can the Johannine community
prove that its eucharistic meal is from God, like Moses manna? Rest of chap 6 expresses Galileans
objections to Johannine claim.
- 31 Moses gave manna for 40 years, perishable food of mortality, and also brought the Law to them, so
the Jews identified in their Wisdom and midrash literature the never-failing nourishment from God
(manna) with the gift of the Law. The Passover recalled this gift of the Law as the ongoing presence of
manna.
- Crowd asking for the very sign they have just seen, if they had recognised it, trying to force Jesus into
their Mosaic model, as the sign that would confirm to them that Jesus is ‘the one who is to come’. (Cf Ex
16:4; 15; 32-34; Ps 78:24; Wis 16:20). Manna thought to have been hidden by Jeremiah, was expected to
reappear at the Passover in the last days (2 Mac 2:5-8). They seem to want a sign 'from heaven'. The
manna confirmed Moses as creditworthy, believable.
- 32 Again Jesus emphasises the importance of what he is saying. Both: it was not Moses gift but God's;
and it was an earthly, material type of bread to sustain mortal lives, not "true bread from heaven"
(Echoes Exod 16:4; 15; Neh 9:15; Ps 78:24).
- Jesus is superior to Moses - gives food of eternal life.
- Jesus insists:
- not Moses, my Father;
- not gave, is giving, continually gives;
- the true bread from heaven, not earthly bread.
- Vv 31-50: arguments over meaning of crucial phrase ‘bread from heaven: contrasts Pharisaic Judaism
with Johannine Christianity. Cf Deut 8:3 - Like their ancestors, the crowd is missing the point: not live
by bread alone, but by every word from God.
- 33 Shifted from ‘bread from heaven’ to ‘bread of God’. The true, authentic bread that gives life to the
whole world, not just the Jews. Not just from God, but it is his bread. It is "He who comes down from
heaven" (rather than "that which").
- 34 Like the Samaritan woman, they take Jesus' words literally (4:15). Do the Galileans understand? Do
they mean ‘Sir’ - respect for one who can help them, or ‘Lord’ to whom they owe allegiance? They are
requesting new instructions (Word can mean commandment or instruction - see Ex 34:28). They ask for
this bread "always", like the manna. (Cf "Give us our daily bread"). Jesus responds with "I am" - as
always not describing who he is but what he does - nourishes life with the perfect gift of himself. Again
this is in the future - when will this never-perishing food be given?
- 35 ‘Bread from Heaven’.
- Now shifted again to ‘bread of life’, an innovation by John’s Gospel, not in Hebrew bible, therefore new
idea. Not like manna, the bread Jesus offers is himself. Bread of life links life to Christ in closest
possible way. He himself is the food which nourishes spiritual life. In OT Wisdom is depicted as giving
nourishment (Sir 24:21; Isa 49:10), but Jesus perfects ans surpasses both Wisdom and the Torah. But we
must "come to him". Then our spiritual hunger and thirst will never be unsatisfied. A direct appeal to
come to Jesus and to believe on him.
- And apparent cannibalism. First time ‘I AM’ linked to metaphor.
- Suggests Wisdom Ecclus 15:3; 24:21 - the self-disclosure of God which nourishes eternal life. But that
refers to the Law as not ultimately satisfying. Repeats "whoever believes in me will never be thirsty" -
because Jesus offers "living water": need not interpret in terms of Eucharist.
- The Samaritans had nowhere to go to join Jesus - he came to them. The Galileans must leave the Torah
and synagogue and come to Jesus through John’s community - in vv 65-66 will they come, or go back?
- 36 Believing is essential to accepting and consuming Jesus as bread - sapiential feeding - the bread of
wisdom and revelation - word, just as wisdom nourished all who accepted it (Prov9:1-5). Jesus replaces
the manna and the Law, but they have not believed. Unfortunately the Jews here have seen but have not
believed (v 26).
- Vv 36-40 pick up the condemnation of the audience for their unbelief (v 30). Also point to division to
come: Only those given by the Father come to Jesus, but none of them are lost. Therefore those who are
offended and leave do not belong to those given by the Father; nor does Judas.
- 37 Expresses struggles Johannine community had with continuing question: Why won’t fellow Jews
believe in Jesus? Perhaps because the Father has not given them to Jesus? God is sovereign: people do
not come to God from their sinful state of their own accord, but only after God has given them to Jesus.
And Jesus will then "never, no never" abandon them.
- Jesus will not drive away those who come to him, as the Jews cast out of the synagogue members of
John’s community - who were given to the Jewish authorities by God.
- 38 Contrasts Jesus’ obedience to God’s will with disobedience of those who cast out Johannine
believers. Like the Law, Jesus is a reflection of the will of the Father. As the Law was to lead a chosen
people to God, so Jesus, replacing the Law, is to lead all to God, and the Father wills that not one will be
lost from those given by the Father to the Son.
- 39 God’s will is to raise up on the last day, but the will of those who oppose Jesus is to destroy.
- Also new theme: Jesus does God’s will on the last day, as well as in the beginning. A claim much greater
than Moses would make. Not only eternal life now, but after death too. Believers' comfort is based not on
their feeble hold on Christ, but on his sure grip on them. Only John mentions the "last day" - he looked
for Jesus to bring in the final state - future eschatology.
- 40 ‘raise them up on the last day’ the dual eschatology of ‘having eternal life’ and ‘being raised on the
last day’ Cf Jn 5. Present possession of eternal life does not exclude future resurrection, which cannot be
omitted from how John sees things: unthinkable that death should blot out the life that Christ brings.
Present perfection of eternal life must be continued after death.
- Completes homily on ‘he gave them bread from heaven’.
- 41 Not ‘the crowd’ but now 'the Jews' ‘murmured’ against Jesus, just as they did against Moses. Ex
15:24; Ex 16:2,7,12 - an example of unbelief. Jesus' claims can only be understood in terms of origins -
is he from his Father above? Once people reject Jesus they are classified as ‘Jews’, wherever they come
from. (Literally ‘murmured the Jews’). Galileans (mentioned only ever in 4:45) are those who accept
Jesus. The crowd is ‘them’ until they choose. The Jews’ misquotation of Jesus suggests they were not
really listening to him and do not believe he does the will of God. They focus on where he came from,
instead of on the life-giving bread he offers. Presumably they accept the idea of this as similar to OT
Wisdom that nourished (Prov 9:1-5) - 'sapiential' feeding. But how can an ordinary man make such an
offer, unless he is from God - and they know where he comes from.
- Also their focus is on vv 33-35 - perhaps they have been too busy murmuring to hear the later verses! Cf
Ex 16:2,7-8. This discourse seems to reflect many aspects of the readings in the synagogues around
Passover at that time, which are believed to include Gen 1-8 in year 1, Exod 11-16 in year 2, and Num 6-14 in year 3 of a 3 year cycle. Some parallels with Gen: Don't eat of this tree lest you die (Gen 2:17) - if
you eat this bread you will never die (Jn 6:50); he drove man out of the garden (Gen 3:24) - I will never
drive out anyone who comes to me (Jn 6:37).
- 42 Cf Lk 4:22; Mk 6:3; Mt 13:53-57. Son of Joseph, therefore cannot be from heaven. ‘his father and
mother’: no evidence that John knew any traditions about Jesus birth in Bethlehem; irrelevant in any case
since Jesus came from heaven. Knowing mother implies close contact with the family - even some
disciples were murmuring. Johannine irony - we know where Jesus is really from.
- 43 Jesus stops their murmuring and repeats bits they’ve missed.
- 44 Stronger than v 37: the only way to Jesus is by being drawn by the Father - the need for divine
initiative in salvation is an important teaching in this Gospel. We like to be independent and feel we can
come to faith if we choose - we can't - it is impossible, made explicit here. Jesus brings those who
believe in him to God. His answer to the Jews' question of his origin is that he has come from God. God
sets the process, a person's encounter with Jesus will determine life or death. Only those ‘drawn by God’
believe in Jesus - if they will but cease their murmuring. They could be both drawn towards Jesus and
pashed by what God has put in their hearts. ‘Drawn’ usually implies resistance - we prefer to go our own
way. Cf Jer 31:3; Jn 21:6,11.
- Implies some may not be drawn to Jesus - further explanation for the community’s partial failure in
mission.
- 45 Cf Is 54:13-15, 55:1-3; Jer 31:34: Anyone who has really listened to God will believe in Jesus. Only
those taught by God in their hearts can come to Jesus. We are not free to be among those drawn to Jesus
by God - it is always God's choice. God is responsible for the faith of those who believe in Jesus. 'All
peoples' shall be taught by God through Jesus - not just Israel through the law. You have heard all this
before - pay attention and live.
- 46 Cf 5:19,37. We can all hear God, but only Jesus has seen him. However great Moses is, he did not see
God. Jesus has, which gives him unique authority to reveal God. One cannot ‘be taught by God’ except
by listening to the word of Jesus. Our approach to God is through hearing and believing, but God works
on us first to make this possible.
- 47 Jesus emphasise how we are to obtain life: by believing in Jesus who has come from God, and
believing in him gives eternal life, surpassing the former gift of the Law.
- 48 Now a very clear statement standing on its own: Jesus is the bread of life.
- 49 Ancestors died - manna was earthly food for the mortal body. Jesus offers spiritual food for the spirit,
and it provides nourishing and satisfying food for ever. @From heaven' therefore indicates not just where
the bread of life comes from, but also the quality of life that it gives, ie the quality of the life of the age to
come.
- 50 Vv 48-50 repeats vv 32-33: not Moses, your fathers died; the bread from heaven leads to eternal life.
Now the vocabulary changes markedly to include: flesh; blood; eat/munch; drink. 'Believe' is replaced by
'eat': sacramental element more to the fore, if not primary.
- 51 ‘To eat’.
- Note: Many think that vv 51-58 were part of a later redaction: they seem to repeat much of vv 35-50, but
more sacramentally, and vv 59-60 would follow naturally after v 50. Some even suggest that they were
added to introduce a Eucharistic theme. But Brown considers that vv 35-50 to be Eucharistic anyway,
even without vv 51-58, and that vv 51-58, if added later, were added to bring out more clearly the
Eucharistic elements that were already there. But he agrees that the Eucharistic focus is not primary in vv
51-58. He thinks it almost impossible that the Eucharistic ideas in vv 51-58 could have been understood
by either Jews or disciples at the time Jesus was speaking, and that these vv were added at a fairly late
stage in the final redaction, and may be based on a very early form of the institution at the Last Supper
(John otherwise has no record of the institution of the Eucharist). But Brown thinks that both versions
may record various forms of preaching, and concludes that the 2 forms of this discourse represent Jesus'
twofold presence to believers in the preached word and in the sacrament, and it has thus formed the dual
basis of all Christian liturgies ever since. Moloney (1998) sees this section as primarily explaining the
phrase 'to eat' (v 31), rather than eucharistic, while using rich eucharistic language. We must accept that
the revelation of God takes place in broken flesh and spilled blood. How do we encounter this?
Moloney's answer is that the insinuation of eucharistic language into this section of the discourse
provides the answer: one encounters the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ in the eucharistic celebration.
The gathered fragments point to the bread consigned to his disciples. The Eucharist is a place where one
comes to eternal life, inviting the believer to make a decision for or against the revelation of God, and so
gaining or losing life. In the context of a Passover talking about flesh and blood is consistent with eating
the lamb's flesh (hurriedly) and smearing its blood on the doorposts at the 1st Passover.
- Ultimately the gift of God's life comes from a believing reception of the Sacrament (v54, v47): it cannot
come by magic by simple mechanical reception of the sacramental species.
- Emphasis shifts from Jesus as revealer of the Father specifying the bread that Jesus gives in eucharistic
terms - to ‘flesh’, ‘blood’, ‘eat’, ‘drink’. The Bread Jesus gives is his flesh given up on Calvary. It is
given for the world - for all. Indeed it is the bread that came down - at the single act of the incarnation.
‘Eat’ replaces ‘believe’ - now discussing sacramental feeding, Eucharist, although the aorist tense
implies a single act - that of appropriating Christ. ‘Bread that I give .. is my flesh’ - shocking claim: but
these may be Jesus' actual words of institution. Flesh (sarx) now used, not body (soma). No word for
body in Hebrew or Aramaic, so John may be closest to the original. When shall Jesus give it? On the
Cross: the Johannine community knew that Jesus died - John sets out to explain how Jesus' death
provides nourishment for all the world: in the very physical and historical fact of his death for all. Not all
agree that 'flesh' points to Holy Communion, where it was customary to use 'body'. Several pointers
already that Jesus will provide nourishment that will for ever satisfy the needs of believers (vv 12-13, 27,
35).
- (Note: v 51 divided into 2 verses in the Latin Vulgate, so Greek numbering one behind: eg v 54 is 55 in
Vulgate).
- 52 How can this be? Cf Nicodemus' problem with being born again. This Eucharistic meal establishes a
special relationship between Jesus and the believer: receiving eternal life is not the result just of thinking
Jesus is God’s Son: it involves an entirely new relationship with God, centred on the Eucharist. Even if
Jesus’ audience understood Jesus was speaking symbolically, they might still be horrified that Jesus
could identify himself with God so closely.
- The Jews are disputing (violently) among themselves, not with Jesus (do we sometimes omit to ask
God?): implies discussing alternative meanings as to what Jesus meant - goes to heart of meaning of the
Eucharist. Appears that some (few) were strongly in favour of what Jesus had said. Combination of
‘munching’ (as by vultures) with ‘flesh’ removes possibility that meaning is purely symbolic. Origen
refers to Jewish charges that Christians ate human flesh. But while insisting on the reality of Jesus' flesh
and blood, this Gospel does not go to the extreme of attributing magical power to receiving the
Eucharist: the necessity of belief is insisted on throughout this chapter. Morris argues that this section
does not automatically refer to Holy Communion: the eating and drinking (v 54) are unqualified - surely
we are not to understand that the one thing needed for eternal life is receiving Holy Communion? This is
to interpose a bodily act between the souls and salvation. Only faith and repentance are essential for
salvation. The gift of life comes through a believing reception of the sacrament(Cf 54, 47). If linked with
‘believing in the Son’ and ‘come to me’, could mean that eating must be real, not metaphorical, ie you
must choose to belong openly to the Christian community and show your allegiance by openly taking part
in the meal of eucharistic bread, thus risking persecution by Jews, etc. Crypto-Christians are not
accepted. This section can be applied to the sacrament, but that it is not its primary focus (Morris), which
is primarily to appropriate Christ.
- 53 Jesus repeats what he has said as being the truth, and now adds that his blood must also be drunk -
adding to the Jews' abhorrence (Gen 9:4; Lev 17:10-14). ‘Son of Man’ implies we are to eat and drink not
the flesh of the earthly Jesus, but the spiritual, Spirit-filled flesh and blood of the heavenly Son of Man.
Again 'eat' and 'drink' are aorist, ie once for all actions, not a repeated eating and drinking (Morris),
which would appear to imply very graphically that people must take Christ into their innermost being. It
is the incarnate life and very real death of the Son that are lifegiving food. Jesus gives himself, his own
flesh and blood. Flesh is to be broken and blood spilled: a violent death will be the moment of total self-giving of himself. This is the ongoing presence of Jesus in the gathered fragments (v 12-13).
- 54 Vv 54-58: ‘Eat’: literally not just ordinary eating (phagein) but the ‘munching’ (trogon) noisily with
enjoyment or ‘gnawing’ of animals - to emphasise the reality of the flesh and blood of Jesus and a real
experience of eating. Not only eternal life now but also after death - both realised and future eschatology.
- These parallel sayings about flesh and blood may represent the eucharistic formula used in John’s
community. (Cf Lk 22:19; 1 Cor 11:26). For Paul the Eucharist proclaims the death of the Lord until he
comes (final eschatology). For John the Word has become flesh and has given up his flesh and blood as
the food of life (realised eschatology). The incarnation and the blood spilt on Calvary is salvific.
Profound sacramental theology: baptism gives us the life which the Father shares with the Son, and the
Eucharist gives us food to nourish this life.
- Note: flesh, not body. Ignatius of Antioch also refers to flesh. But only the one word in Aramaic and
Hebrew - no word for body.
- 55 Jesus insists that his flesh is indeed authentic food and his blood is indeed authentic drink. Through a
total absorption (trogein) of the revelation of God made available through Jesus' bloody death, believers
will come to a mutual sharing in the life of Jesus. And only in this way.
- 56 ‘abide in me’: immanence ‘remain in me’. This mutual indwelling flows from the union between the
Father and the Son. Note that this Eucharistic both produces life and nourishes it.
- 57 The one who was sent lives because the one who sent lives: the one sent therefore has authority to
pass on life to those who accept the Son as the revelation of the Father. As Jesus lives both because of the
Father and to do his will, so those who eat Jesus - "eats me" - continuous tense - will live because of
Jesus and to do his will. Believers in the crucified Christ must stomach the thought that their new life
arises from his humiliating death. We have to share in his death in whatever way it is presented to us. If
we accept that as our meat and drink, we will live forever. Religious knowing and self-awareness are not
enough, as the gnostics would hold. Jesus' life comes from his Father because of his intimate union with
him; in a similar way our (spiritual) life comes from Jesus through our union with him in the Eucharist,
which entails both believing on Jesus and in his words, and in sacramentally eating his flesh.
Communion with Jesus is a participation in the intimate communion that exists between Father and Son -
for which reason chap 5 (vv 17-30) has to come first. V 57 is a most forceful claim that Jesus gives man
a share in God's own life - but only through Jesus, not directly. Although the synoptics record the
institution of the Eucharist, it is John who explains what the Eucharist does for Christians. Like the
"blood of the covenant" (Mk 14:24), the mutual indwelling of God and the Christian reflects the covenant
promise "You will be my people and I will be your God" (Jer 24:7; 31:33). Primary focus on Jesus'
broken body and spilled blood given over on the Cross, but it is also very Eucharistic language (Mk
14:22-25; 1 Cor 11:22-28). Chaps 13-17 suggest that being nourished by Jesus includes both the
Eucharist and other aspects of Christian life: one must ingest Jesus as one would food so that he becomes
the very heart of one's being. Passover celebrates both the manna in the desert and the blood smeared on
the doorways.
- 58 Ties back to and repeats v 31.
- Contrasts the community that possesses the ‘bread from heaven’ with the Jews whose ancestors had only
the manna and died. Throughout this discourse the singular is used for true believers - faith must be
personal.
- 59 That these things were said in synagogue (not 'the', ie suggests it was during a service) underlines the
shock they must have caused, and that Jesus is replacing the manna with new bread from heaven,
transcending the Jewish Passover tradition. Re-enacts the arguments within the Johannine community
leading to its expulsion from the synagogue.
- 60 Reactions.
- It is now apparent that this is no ordinary rabbi: his followers are now being tested - to continue
following him commitment is necessary. The ‘difficult teaching’ - hard like stone, harsh, unacceptable,
fantastic, offensive. Not necessarily hard to understand - it was the part they could understand that
bothered them - it is not only Jesus' presentation of himself as an object of faith, as bread-wisdom giving
life to those who believe in him - ie Jesus-time; but also the difficulty of sharing in Jesus’ death and of
accepting Jesus as sacramental bread of life - ie Evangelist time: the sacramental overtones would not
have been understood at the time, but express now the Johannine community's faith. But the disciples'
reactions express not only the difficulties people then had in accepting or obeying Jesus' teaching, but
also today. But note that all the reactions are about being unwilling to listen to Jesus' claim: noone refers
to refusing to eat his flesh or drink his blood. It is not intellectual challenge that stops people believing
but the moral challenge to change one's life-style.
- 61 Jesus’ words cause a division, not among the Jewish crowd, but in the Christian community. And
Jesus knows this. Cf later defections from John’s community because ‘they believed he came by water
alone, and not by water and blood’ 1Jn 5:6. Only those already committed at some level would want to
argue about it. They wanted a sign - now they have it!
- 62 Hypothetical - is not saying we will see him ascend. Will seeing him go up to heaven convince them -
or cause yet more difficulty? Ascending is not to be separated from the means of ascending, ie the Cross,
which is victory but seems like defeat. Scandal of Jesus going up (to heaven or to Jerusalem to confront
the authorities again) adds to faith difficulties: if accepting that Jesus is the bread come down from
heaven is difficult, and indeed a difficult concept, how will they react if he were to (when) He goes
(back) up to heaven, like Abraham - especially ascending to receive the Torah, Moses, Isaiah, Enoch)?
But Jesus has no need to ascend to heaven - he comes from there. The scandal of the Cross will be worse,
but the Cross and the Resurrection and Ascension will prove he was from God and give his teaching
credibility. Seeing him ascend might make Christianity more difficult to explain, but it might also
increase Jesus' authority. To 'where he was before' implies Christ's pre-existence before the incarnation.
- 3 possibilities:-
- (i) your scandal will really be great (3:61), or removed if you then believe;
- (ii) you will understand the bread of life come down from heaven (3:48-50);
- (iii) then you will judge otherwise of my flesh (3:51-58).
- 63 ‘spirit’ here contrasts with flesh, as in natural and supernatural: Extremely unlikely that "flesh" here
was ever thought to refer to Jesus' Eucharistic flesh. Not a reference to eucharistic body of Jesus. Likely
that originally vv 60-71 followed after vv 35-50, and still talking about the effects of Jesus' words on the
spirit. 'Flesh' indicates the limitations of human understanding. Cf Isa 40:6-8: "flesh is like grass. Here
Jesus stresses (the "I" is emphatic) that it is his words that give life. Perhaps contrast to the words of the
law brought by Moses.
- Only the person ‘born of the Spirit’ (3:6) will be able to accept the truth of Jesus’ words. Raise up your
minds to spiritual matters. All Jesus' teaching assumes the need for the work of the Holy Spirit within us.
Their materialistic quest for bread - flesh level, like Nicodemus - will not give life. As with Nicodemus,
Jesus mentions the Spirit immediately after referring to his Ascension. The crucifixion is a beginning of
the return to God, when the Spirit that gives life takes charge, the Spirit which was present in his words:
the words of Jesus are both spirit and life. As the living water of chap 3 refers both to Jesus words and to
the Spirit, so too here Jesus' words (v 68) and the Spirit (v 63) are mentioned side by side: John does not
seek to understand any difference between words and Spirit (as later theologians seek to do). Jesus'
words are creative, like God's at creation: they both tell about life and bring life. Here life comes from
Jesus' words - earlier it came from eating Jesus flesh: they must not be separated - his words point to
Calvary, where life was won. His words and that deed are one. Spirit and life may be John seeking to
express one complex idea, not two separate ideas.
- 64 Betrayal may come from within the group of disciples. But the word is neutral: 'hand over' - does not
imply treachery, betray not a good translation. Did Judas think he was helping bring about the kingdom
more quickly, impatient at Jesus' slow progress? Those not called by the Father turn away. Jesus' truths
are accessible only to those with faith - but hid from those like Judas: only those in whom God works can
come to Christ. Jesus knew who from the beginning of the ministry - he did not "make a mistake" in
choosing Judas.
- 65 "For this reason" - ie the lack of faith shown in v 64. Emphasis again that the initiative is with the
Father - we can do nothing of ourselves. Only those invited by the Father can come to Jesus. Conversion
always requires grace. Strong strain of predestination - Jesus knows. Not exactly what Jesus has said
earlier, but a combination of vv 44 & 37.
- 66 'For this reason' (literally 'From this'): Because of Jesus' hard saying or because God did not draw
them? Many did not continue to follow Jesus along the path towards what is coming to be, but went back
to things of the past, once they understood fully what was involved. Did some disciples leave because the
Father has not drawn them (v 65), or because of the whole difficult teaching? The experience of all
Christians is that many are unable to accept Jesus on his terms, preferring to seek a Jesus who conforms
to their ideas. It is one thing for a community to establish a theology in response to crises, such as
expulsion from the synagogues (Cf 9:22). It is another for everyone in the community to accept these
ideas and to live by them.
- 67 Now the big test. Narrowed focus from the crowd, the Jews, his disciples, now to the twelve (the first
of only 3 mentions in John). Jesus' question is phrased expecting 'No' for an answer. Do those who have
started communities in Jesus’ name really believe? 2 models offered: Peter who trusts completely,
without adequate understanding, and Judas who remains in the group of 12 but living a divided
existence, already moving into the darkness. Jesus expects their loyalty.
- 68 Peter is the model of those who take the risk of opening to Jesus. Peter is also the accepted
spokesman (Cf Mt 16:15-18; Mk 8:32-33). He shows his understanding of v 63 by saying that only Jesus
has words (not 'the') of eternal life, continuing the theme of vv 35-50, and recalling the openness to Jesus
of his Mother (2:5), the Baptist (3:29), Samaritans (4:42), royal official (4:50). Once one knows Jesus,
noone else can satisfy.
- How many times within a fragile Christian community have these words been said? Where else can we
find support except in a Christian community - certainly not anywhere in the secular world.
- 69 The disciples - and John's community - have come to believe, and now know Jesus - having
eaten/browsed on him . ‘Holy one of God’ - in John’s Gospel this title used only here. At last someone in
this Gospel believes Jesus for the right reason: he is of/from God! And speaks for all the 12. Emphatic
'We' in contrast to the disciples who have left. 'Believe' and 'know' are perfect tense: we have come to this
state and continue in it. 'Know' in biblical sense of be in 'I-thou' relations with, have personal experience
of, not just knowledge. Although 'believe' and 'know' almost mean the same, Jesus know God but does he
believe in him also? 'Holy one of God': frequent term in OT for a man consecrated to God, eg Samson
(Jdg 13:7, 16:7), Aaron (Ps106:16). Cf Jn 10:36: Jesus is one the Father made holy (also 17:19).
- 70 Unusual use of ‘the twelve’ - only here and 20:24 does John deviate from the equality of discipleship.
Yet one of those chosen is not ‘chosen’, in the full sense. Jesus chose the 12, but God's design includes
leading one to Jesus whose fragile faith responds differently. Each believer is free to accept or refuse the
gift. Why should Jesus choose one who is a devil - ie one who probes weaknesses of God’s people and
perverts the generosity of God (Cf Satan in Job 1-2)? For John, Judas is a tool of Satan (13:2, 13:27). To
show we should be willing to share the sacred meal with those who appear to be oriented differently, if
they choose to participate? Or willing to accept the costs of discipleship? How will Peter's excellent
expression of faith survive the coming events in which Jesus' lifting up will provide the food for eternal
life? The choosing of the 12 is not given in John, but there are references to Jesus having chosen them
(13:18, 15:16).
- 71 Judas is the model of those who do not believe but move away from Jesus towards evil, a
representative of all disciples who mar Jesus’ work. Clearly evangelist-time. Contrasts two Simons. (Cf
Lk 22:21-23). Iscariot could imply from Kerioth, a town in Judea - all the other apostles were Galileans.
Again the translation should be 'hand over', without the overtones of betray. There is an air of
inevitability: not denial of free will, but God's plan of salvation is inevitable.
- Summary
- Origen preserved excerpts of the oldest commentary on John’s Gospel, by a gnostic, Heracleon (160-180AD), who saw in John’s Gospel descriptions of 3 types of Christian: material, psychic, pneumatic,
corresponding to their understanding of the human person as matter (body), psyche (senses), and pneuma
(spirit). The material Christian admire Christ as historical figure who worked miracles, but fail to see the
real meaning. Psychic Christians have a faith based on rational perception, believe in Jesus as redeemer,
are devoted to the sacraments, and practise Christianity as a religion. But the images of God are made
into things, human constructions, the sacraments are understood as physical means conferring grace. All
valid at its own level. But inadequate. True, pneumatic, faith is based on spiritual insight, understanding
that all images of God fall short of reality; seeking forgiveness and the pursuit of virtue are less
important than uncritical, spontaneous faith in response to divine insight - a new spiritual relationship
with God, expressed by religious images and rites, but not limited by them. True pneumatic Christians,
guided by the Spirit, will not objectivise God but worship Him in Spirit and in Truth, will not treat
sacramental rites as magic, but realise that it is God’s Spirit that gives life and that Jesus’ message only
makes sense as spirit and life. As with Nicodemus coming by night (3:20-21), believing without making
your belief public is not enough.