From: Busy Person’s Guide to John 1 to 10 Return to Home
By
Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2019
All reproduction of
text in paper, electronic, or computer
form both permitted and encouraged so long as
authorial
credit is given and the text is not altered.
Busy Person’s Guide to the
New Testament:
Quickly Understanding John
(Volume 1: Chapter 6)
Chapter Six
On the Other Side of the Sea of Galilee with the Passover
Near, Jesus Miraculously Feeds 5,000 from Only Small Remnants of Food (John
6:1-6:13): 1 After this Jesus went
away to the other side of the Sea of Galilee (also called the Sea of Tiberias). 2 A large crowd was
following him because they were observing the miraculous signs he was
performing on the sick. 3 So Jesus went on up
the mountainside and sat down there with his disciples. 4 (Now the Jewish feast of the Passover was near.)
5 Then Jesus, when he
looked up and saw that a large crowd was coming to him, said to Philip, “Where
can we buy bread so that these people may eat?” 6 (Now Jesus said this to test him, for he knew what he was going to do.) 7 Philip replied, “Two hundred silver coins worth of bread would not be
enough for them, for each one to get a little.”
8 One of Jesus’
disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, said to him, 9 “Here is a boy who has five barley loaves and two fish, but what good
are these for so many people?”
10 Jesus said, “Have the
people sit down.” (Now there was a lot
of grass in that place.) So the men sat
down, about five thousand in number. 11 Then Jesus took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed
the bread to those who were seated. He
then did the same with the fish, as much as they wanted.
12 When they were all
satisfied, Jesus said to his disciples, “Gather up the broken pieces that are
left over, so that nothing is wasted.” 13 So they gathered them up and filled twelve baskets with broken pieces
from the five barley loaves left over by the people who had eaten. --New English
Translation (for comparison)
6:1 After these things Jesus went
over the
Sidebar on
the sea and city of
6:2 Then a great multitude
followed Him, because they saw His signs which He performed on those who were
diseased. Because His
miracles had so impressed them, a very large crowd followed to where Jesus had
gone. If a person performed such
impossible things, what else might He do or say that they should be present
for? Indeed what course might they be
able to convince Him to follow? That
their dreams (temporal kingship:
Sidebar: “Better [translation:] were following . . . were beholding .
. . was doing. The verbs express a continuance of the
actions. It does not mean simply that
they saw these miracles on the west of the lake, and followed Him across it;
but that He kept on healing the sick, and that the crowds kept on
following Him. The usual caravan-road
for the northern pilgrims [to the annual Feasts in
6:3 And Jesus went up on the mountain, and there He sat with His disciples. The choice of a mountain side permitted those in the crowd to easily see Him and hear anything He had to say.
6:4 Now the Passover, a feast of
the Jews, was near. Since the time setting was near the Feast of
Passover, this was an excellent opportunity to stir up the enthusiasm of the
disciples—if He wished to launch a coup or revolt . . . if He
wished to claim the crown of
By describing this as “a feast of the Jews” John indirectly tells us that his targeted audience for the gospel was mainly Gentiles who would be unacquainted with the various Feast names.
6:5 Then Jesus lifted up His eyes, and seeing a great multitude coming toward Him, He said to Philip, “Where shall we buy bread, that these may eat?” However He would ultimately deal with their nationalistic dreams--referred to below and not referred to in the Synoptics--there was still the more immediate problem of food for the gathering: They either were hungry or soon would be so. So Jesus turned to the apostle Philip and enquired where they should buy “bread” to eat. (Bread was the fundamental food of life; everything else was supplemental, however desirable.)
Jesus’
words with Philip were clearly before the teaching had begun: “seeing a great multitude coming toward
Him.” The actual feeding, however,
occurred only after a day of teaching and healing according to the
gospel of Luke (
6:6 But this He said to test him, for He Himself knew what He would do. Jesus did this not for information purposes but in order to determine Philip’s reaction: the Lord had already determined what would be done. Hence this was a practical test to see how well the apostles had adjusted to His way of thinking.
This was
happening near
The response also seems to imply that it was utterly
impractical to attempt it--even if they had the money--which tells us just how
scattered and modest the readily available food resources would be: One might find enough for a family in numerous
places scattered here and there, but this large an amount readily available and
in one location, was something totally different. What was available would have to be
searched out. Luke 9:12: “Send the multitude away, that they may go
into the surrounding towns and country, and lodge and get provisions; for we
are in a deserted place here.”
That Jesus could do something about the food
problem, if He chose to, does not enter Philip’s mind. He was certainly aware of His miracles, but
would that immediately cause the apostle to think of a different application of
Jesus’ past miracle working power? Of
course if he was at the wedding feast at
6:7 Philip answered Him, “Two hundred denarii worth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may have a little.” Philip despaired at Jesus’ question because the cost of giving each even “a little” would be immense--the equivalent of a year’s wages or better to cover the cost of less than one good meal. Economically they probably didn’t have the money and even if they had it, even that large a sum would barely make a dent in what was needed.
Sidebar: The final questions surrounding what to do
for the crowd’s hunger come when “the hour is
already late” (Matthew
6:8 One of His disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, said to Him, 9 “There is a lad here who has five barley loaves and two small fish, but what are they among so many?” The only other alternative beyond sending everyone away was if there were enough food scattered among the crowd. Andrew (and presumably others among the apostles) had already investigated the matter and discovered that--though the crowd numbered in the thousands--there seemed to be no more than a mere two fish and five loaves of barley scattered among them; they could find no hint of a large amount of food anywhere.
Sidebar: Barley bread was the cheaper type that
the poorer classes could afford. A mark
of climbing up the “economic totem pole” was the financial “where with all” to
afford something better. “Pliny and some of the Jewish writers describe barley
as food fit for beasts. Suetonius speaks of a turgid
rhetorician as a barley orator, inflated like barley in moisture: and Livy relates how
cohorts which had lost their standards were ordered barley for food.” (Vincent’s Word Studies)
The word used for “fish:” “The
use of this word is peculiar to our Gospel. . . . This opsarion
mostly consisted of small fishes caught in the lake, which were dried, salted
as ‘sardines’ or ‘anchovies’ are with ourselves for a
similar purpose. This habit belonged
locally to the neighborhood of the lake, and reveals the Galilean origin or
associations of the writer. . . . Edersheim reminds us that the fish laid on the charcoal
fire (John 21:9, 10, 13) was opsarion,
and that of this the risen Lord, on the shore of this very lake, gave to His
disciples to eat, though he guided them at that time to a shoal of ‘great fishes,’ ἰχθύων μεγάλων,
and bade them add some of these to the ὀψάρια, which He was
content to use still. The use of this
word on these two occasions shows that, at the last, our Lord [implicitly]
reminds His disciples of the miraculous feeding by the shore of the lake; and
both narratives breathe the air of the northern parts of
“It is futile to ask whether the multiplication took
place in Christ’s hands only: the manner of the miracle eludes us, as in the
turning of the water into wine. That was
a change of quality, this of quantity.
This is a literal fulfillment of Matthew 6:33.” (
6:13 Therefore they gathered them up, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves which were left over by those who had eaten. The fact that there had been enough in the first place was amazing; the fact that there were large leftovers was almost as much so.
Sidebar: “All four
accounts have the same word for basket, cophinus, i.e. the [container] which every Jew
carried when on a journey, to keep himself independent of Gentile food, which
would be unclean. . . . Each of the
Twelve gathered into his own and filled it full. Moreover in referring to the miracle the
word cophinus is
used (Matthew 16:9). In the feeding of
the 4,000 (Matthew
Sidebar on efforts to make what happened non-miraculous: “The
expedients to evade the obvious meaning of the narrative are worth mentioning,
as showing how some readers are willing to ‘violate all the canons of
historical evidence,’ rather than admit the possibility of a miracle: (1) that food had been brought over and
concealed in the boat; (2) that some among the multitude were abundantly
supplied with food and were induced by Christ’s example to share their supply
with others; (3) that the whole is an allegorical illustration of Matthew
6:33. How could either (1) or (2) excite
even a suspicion that He was the Messiah, much less kindle such an enthusiasm
as is recorded in John 6:15? And if
the whole is an illustration of Matthew
The Crowd’s Hyper-Enthusiastic Reaction to the Miracle
Causes Jesus to Remove Himself from Their Presence For They Had Decided to
Force Kingship on Him Whether He Wanted It Or Not (John 6:14-15): 14 Now when the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus performed, they
began to say to one another, “This is certainly the Prophet who is to
come into the world.” 15 Then Jesus, because he knew they were going to come and seize him by
force to make him king, withdrew again up the mountainside alone.” --New English Translation (for comparison)
John the
Baptist had publicly and explicitly rejected that description and text as
applying to himself (John
Both of
these factors could be linked together in the popular mind with Moses as
prophet. The miraculous “food making”
could be easily read as the contemporary equivalent of the Israelites under
Moses’ leadership being provided with manna for forty years in the wilderness
(Exodus
Hence Jesus was going to have no part in this
foolishness. It would be an utter
departure from His own goals and purposes. One can’t help but suspect that the
“unthinkable” teaching He gives later in this chapter--which caused “many of
His disciples” to no longer have anything to do with Him (verse 66)--was
intentionally motivated in large part to remove such unwise and
overzealous souls from the ranks (6:53-66).
He wanted to rid His movement of those who wished to graft on Him their
agenda rather than grafting themselves onto His agenda.
Jesus Meets the Apostles in Their Boat During a Storm on the
Sea of Galilee (John 6:16-21): 16 Now when evening came,
his disciples went down to the lake, 17 got into a boat, and started to cross the lake to Capernaum. (It had already become dark, and Jesus had
not yet come to them.)
18 By now a strong wind
was blowing and the sea was getting rough. 19 Then, when they had rowed about three or four miles, they caught sight
of Jesus walking on the lake, approaching the boat, and they were frightened.
20 But he said to them,
“It is I. Do not be afraid.” 21 Then they wanted to
take him into the boat, and immediately the boat came to the land where they
had been heading. --New English Translation (for comparison)
But into the boat they went. And waited to see whether Jesus would rejoin them. When it was dark they set sail--presumably upon the orders He had given earlier since they were hardly likely to leave Him behind unless they knew it was acceptable to do so. It would have been flagrant discourtesy and disrespect for their leader.
Sidebar: “This must
have been the ‘second evening;’ for the miracle itself was said to he wrought
when the day began to decline (Matthew
Sidebar: One of the more amusing unbelieving bendings of scripture is sometimes made here: Jesus was really walking on the sea shore and not on the sea near enough to be seen by them; they simply misunderstood how far they were apart and how close the shore actually was. (Remember those on board include individuals intimately familiar with the lake and sailing on it and weren’t “landlubbers” like you and me.) And somehow they managed to get Jesus aboard non-miraculously (for getting rid of the miraculous is the purpose of this “interpretation”) and they manage to do it without wrecking the boat in the middle of a powerful storm. With a sufficient amount of vodka I have no doubt that this can make total sense.
Yet we should still be able to understand their fear: They had been fighting the tumult for hours; they were wet and tired; they were surely fearful--and then suddenly there is Jesus seemingly walking near them without the slightest sign of discomfort. How would you have reacted?
Or perhaps
the language is intended to convey the more ambiguous idea of “promptly,
quickly, with no delay:”
It has been noted that the same Greek word is used in Mark
1:29: “Now as soon as they had
come out of the synagogue, they entered the house of Simon and Andrew, with
James and John.” Obviously
“immediately/as soon as” does not mean “instantaneously” in the Markian text.
Nor in the parable of the sower where we
read--again with the same Greek word--that “some
[seed] fell on stony places, where they did not have much earth; and they immediately
sprang up because they had no depth of earth” (Matthew 13:5). A fair amount of time had passed but comparatively
speaking it was “immediately,” i.e., “promptly, with no delay.”
The Next Day, When the Crowds He Had Fed Realized Jesus Was
Not Returning, They Sought Him in Capernaum (John 6:22-24): 22 The next day the crowd that remained on the other side of the lake
realized that only one small boat had been there, and that Jesus had not
boarded it with his disciples, but that his disciples had gone away alone. 23 Other boats from Tiberias came to shore near
the place where they had eaten the bread after the Lord had given thanks. 24 So when the crowd realized that neither Jesus nor his disciples were
there, they got into the boats and came to
6:22 On the following day, when the people who were standing on the other side of the sea saw that there was no other boat there, except that one which His disciples had entered, and that Jesus had not entered the boat with His disciples, but His disciples had gone away alone— The crowd that had been left behind had kept an eye on the apostles and knew full well that Jesus had not crossed over with them. Indeed, those who had noticed Jesus discretely parting their company, would surely have reasoned that so long as the apostles remained He was going to return where the crowd (and apostles) were. Especially since they were his “transportation.”
Nor would
He leaving into the mountains alone have startled them. They knew He was a deeply religious man. What more natural thing to do than to seek
time alone for meditation and prayer (Mark
6:23 however, other boats came from Tiberias, near the place where they ate bread after the Lord had given thanks— The sea was a busy place and other boats would be regularly transiting it to the area where the mass feeding of thousands had occurred. For that matter, they may well have thought that many would be ready to return by now and would reimburse them a reasonable fee for not having to travel the distance around the lake by foot. However it should not be forgotten that night time fishing was quite common so some/many of these could have arrived due to the storm of the previous night (verses 16-21).
Our text does not claim that “all got into boats” for the crowd had been over 5,000 strong--though multiple trips might well have been made if the crews thought they were going to make enough for the effort. That a large percentage did do so would be argued from the revolutionary enthusiasm they had had the previous day and the grim determination whereby Jesus now intentionally words His teaching to drive away all but those most spiritually (rather than temporally/revolutionarily) orientated.
The Crowds Were Still Concentrating on Physical Food to Eat
While Jesus Was Concerned With Them Receiving the Spiritual “Food” That Would
Produce Salvation (John 6:25-34): 25 When they found him on
the other side of the lake, they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you get here?” 26 Jesus replied, “I tell you the solemn truth, you are looking for me not
because you saw miraculous signs, but because you ate all the loaves of bread
you wanted. 27 Do not work for the
food that disappears, but for the food that remains to eternal life—the food
which the Son of Man will give to you. For God the Father has put his seal of
approval on him.”
28 So then they said to
him, “What must we do to accomplish the deeds God requires?” 29 Jesus replied, “This is the deed God requires—to believe in the one whom
he sent.”
30 So they said to him,
“Then what miraculous sign will you perform, so that we may see it and believe
you? What will you do? 31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, just as it is written, ‘He
gave them bread from heaven to eat.’ ”
32 Then Jesus told them,
“I tell you the solemn truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from
heaven, but my Father is giving you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God
is the one who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” 34 So they said to him,
“Sir, give us this bread all the time!”
--New English Translation (for comparison)
Sidebar: This conversation takes place in
He begins His calculated disappointment of the crowd by accusing them of having the wrong motive. They now sought Him out not because of His supernatural “signs” but because His miracle had provided them a meal to eat. (A King, but a King who could provide free and unworked for daily bread as well--an appealing combination both for the poor and the lazy . . . and, truth be told, for many not in those categories.)
Sidebar: The rendering “signs” (rather than “miracles”) is not only far more accurate, it also reflects the reality Jesus is facing: They had seen the outward shell of the event--the “miracle”--but they had not seen the inner “sign” (i.e., the lesson and message) it was meant to convey. “You did not see in them tokens of My divine power and mission.” (Vincent’s Word Studies). Nor of how His teaching which they had heard the same day was not only something for them to hear but for them to “consume” and assimilate into their hearts for spiritual nourishment . . . just as the physical food was consumed for physical well being.
Sidebar: Jesus is not dismissing the need to earn a
living, but wishes to stress that there is far more than mere physical
survival that we need to seek. Or, as
Jesus asks in a different context, “what profit
is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?” (Matthew
16:26). In His conversation with
the Samaritan woman at the well, He had spoken of the spiritual “water” that
would provide ongoing spiritual life; to this Jewish audience, He speaks of the
spiritual “bread” to make the same basic point.
Commentators typically think that Jesus is asserting His Messiahship without using the term (verse 29) and that they are responding to that implicit claim. If so then they are arguing that He had only fed them for a mere one day; to be the Messianic successor to Moses that was far too little to match what Moses could do, who did far far more.
The transition of thought from “King” to “Messiah” may be true, but wasn’t the Messiah inherently expected to be king as well? Furthermore Jesus conspicuously does not use the language of either “Messiah” or “king”--both terms fraught with political overtones and ease of misinterpretation and misapplication--but simply as the one “whom He (God) sent.” In effect He is arguing: No matter what language you want to use to describe My “position” (king, messiah, prophet) are you willing to do what I say? If they weren’t willing to do that, the exact definition of His role was irrelevant.
Sidebar: Psalms 78:24, Psalms 105:40,
and Nehemiah 9:15 make such statements as the one quoted and one or more is
likely in their minds.
In contrast to those days, through the ministry of Jesus the Father was willing to give them bread that “truly” came down from heaven in a way that Moses’ never had. Ultimately that had still been of this earth; in contrast the “bread” that did come down from “heaven” (where God resides) was only now available--the spiritual bread of redemptive knowledge through Jesus. Since He provides it, by logical extension He can rightly picture Himself as being that bread.
The roots of this concept of teaching as spiritual bread can be found in the other gospels: In a physical sense Jesus uses “bread” as a “catch term” to describe all that one needs to satisfy one’s hunger and to survive (Luke 15:17). From this principle a spiritual application would be fully logical and appropriate. Furthermore Jesus described “the leaven of bread” as “the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees” (Matthew 16:11-12) and He did this specifically in the context of making a spiritual application of His two mass feedings of 5,000 and 4,000 (verses 8-10)--the former of which is under discussion here.
This usage of “bread” makes the further development of the concept quite logical in this chapter of John. Here it is stressed that eating Moses’ bread you still died (verse 49) while eating the bread of Jesus and His teaching will keep one from ever dying (verse 58). Jesus is literally the bread of heaven in that He came down from heaven (verse 41) and literally--but non-physically--provides the spiritual strength and nourishment for all of us to be saved (verse 50). That teaching is designed to be so filling and satisfying that we need nothing else (verse 35). It produces eternal salvation by its consumption (verses 51, 58).
Sidebar: Just as Jesus, in the current context, is making Himself the “bread” that is so essential to human life, in talking with the Samaritan woman two chapters earlier He had compared Himself to the “water” that is also essential (John 4:10-14).
The Spiritual
“Bread” They Needed Was Readily Available by Accepting and Embracing What Jesus
Taught (John
39 “Now this is the will
of the one who sent me—that I should not lose one person of every one he has
given me, but raise them all up at the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father—for everyone who looks on the Son and
believes in him to have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”
--New English
Translation (for comparison)
Note the
double “never.” The most glorious meal
soon disappears from the memory and one is hungry again. The thirsty body has drunk freely yet not
that many hours later there is the need to drink again. These things are inevitable. But on the spiritual level neither is
the case, for Jesus provides an inexhaustible supply of truth that even a
lifetime of extended study will never use up.
Sidebar: The “I said to you” carries the clear intent
of, “I previously said to you” and “I’ve said this to you before.” Those specific words are clearly missing, but
the point underlying them had been taught previously to these very
people: “Most
assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you
saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled” (
Once one is part of Christ’s flock there is absolutely no danger of being “cast out.” Jesus is not one of those hard hearted, self-centered egotists who acts in an arbitrary manner. You are fully and permanently accepted--if you “play by the rules (principles)” that Jesus lays down. If you don’t, then Jesus hasn’t arbitrarily “cast you out;” rather, it is more like you have walked out and deserted Him . . . something profoundly different.
Sidebar: The concept behind these words of loyalty to
the Father’s will echoes the thought Jesus had stressed in the preceding
chapter: “I can of Myself do
nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but
the will of the Father who sent Me” (John
6:39 This is the will of the
Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but
should raise it up at the last day. He
would cast out no one. Human rulers are
often fickle as to who remains in their favor, but all Jesus demands is
continued commitment and faithfulness to His will. He won’t stop you from deserting Him, but so
far as His own part goes, He will never do such a thing to you.
6:40 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” The fundamental principle was simple: God was determined that everyone who “believed” in Jesus would gain “everlasting life.” One of the great dangers of scriptural interpretation is to take one thing it says on a subject and ignore all the other things that are also said--the failure to weave it all into a synthesis rather than building a theology solely on one of the truths that is presented.
Verse 37’s promise that “all that the Father gives Me will come to Me” can be read as predestination--irrevocable and inescapable even if the redeemed person were to foolishly wish it were otherwise. But verse 40 warns us that we must also blend into this the fact “everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him [will] have everlasting life.” The synthesis of these two facts would be that unless the person has chosen to accept Jesus and His teaching, God has not given that person to the Lord. In other words, faith is the means to accept God’s wish for you to be joined to the Lord: He gives you the opportunity by and through your faith. The Father will refuse none that opportunity if they but embrace it. On the other hand, He will force no one to accept it either.
By Eating the Spiritual “Bread” That Was Jesus and His
Teaching, They Could Readily Have “Eternal Life” (John 6:41-51): 41 Then the Jews who were hostile to Jesus began complaining about him
because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven,” 42 and they said, “Isn’t this Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and
mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I
have come down from heaven’?”
43 Jesus replied, “Do not complain about me to one another. 44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I
will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who hears and learns from the Father
comes to me.
46 (Not that anyone has
seen the Father except the one who is from God—he has seen the Father.) 47 I tell you the solemn truth, the one who
believes has eternal life.
48 “I am the bread of
life. 49 Your ancestors ate the
manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that
has come down from heaven, so that a person may eat from it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats from
this bread he will live forever. The
bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” --New English Translation (for comparison)
On the
other hand, these objectors may simply represent elements of the religious leadership who
recognized an opportunity to turn the masses against Him. Hence they may be protesting both their own
annoyance at the teaching and, recognizing that the language would be
disturbing to quite a few others as well, taking the opportunity to use it to
stir up the crowd against Him. Verse 59
tells us that this discussion occurred in the
Sidebar: Inserting into the text, as the NET does, the presumption that they were already hostile to Jesus prior to His efforts to disillusion misplaced enthusiasms about Him, is legitimate interpretation but not translation. One would be hard pressed to find other major translations that act in a similar manner.
Sidebar: The reference to knowing Jesus’ earthly
father could mean he was still alive, but if that were the case it is strange
that there is no explicit mention of his actions during Jesus’ ministry. In casual conversation they would hardly say,
“we know His mother and used to know His
father.” Instead they would simply use
the present tense to keep their words short and to the point. The core point in their thinking is: “Jesus can’t be bread come down from
heaven because we are well aware of His parents!” Anything about the life or death of either is
purely coincidental to making that point.
This
non-violent, non-coercive “drawing” expresses God convincing us of the need to
volunteer our service. Or as the Old
Testament put its: “The Lord has appeared of
old to me, saying: ‘Yes, I
have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore with loving-kindness
I have drawn you”--not “forced you” or “compelled you”
(Jeremiah 31:3). “I drew them with
gentle cords, with bands of love. . . “ (Hosea
11:41).
Martin
Luther on this verse: “The drawing is not like that of the executioner, who
draws the thief up the ladder to the gallows; but it is a gracious allurement,
such as that of the man whom everybody loves, and to whom everybody willingly
goes.”
Sidebar: Jeremiah 31:31-34 describes the then future covenant God would make with His people: Of all of them and not just the religious leaders, it is said “I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people” (verse 33). They will not need a religious elite to teach them any more--doing the learning for them and having to rely upon them for all knowledge; instead, all of them will be educated in the ways of the Lord (verse 34).
Sidebar for
thought: “That
the reference is not exclusively, nor even directly, to the Eucharist
[Communion / Lord’s Supper] is shown from the use of ‘flesh’ (sarx) and not ‘body’ (sôma). In all places where the Eucharist is
mentioned in the New Testament, we have ‘body,’ not ‘flesh:’ Matthew
26:26; Mark
Those “Who Eat [Jesus’] Flesh and Drinks My Blood”--Through
Consuming His Teaching and Making It the Core of Their Lives--“Will Live Forever”
(John 6:52-58): 52 Then the Jews who were
hostile to Jesus began to argue with one another, “How can this man give us his
flesh to eat?” 53 Jesus said to them, “I
tell you the solemn truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink
his blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54 The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I
will raise him up on the last day.
55 “For my flesh is true
food, and my blood is true drink. 56 The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood resides in me, and I in
him. 57 Just as the living
Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so the one who consumes me
will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that
came down from heaven; it is not like the bread your ancestors ate, but then
later died. The one who eats this bread
will live forever.” --New English
Translation (for comparison)
Actually He hadn’t quite said He was “giving us His flesh to eat” but it was very easy to gloss the words with this understanding when listening to them. He had spoken of how He was the “bread of life” (verse 48) and how eating of this “bread” (verse 50)--this “living bread” (verse 51)--was essential to eternal life. At first glance, verse 51 does seem to make the linkage they made: “the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.” But even here the command is not actually to eat this flesh; instead He asserts that He Himself will give this flesh to produce salvation for the world. Only in our next verse does He take that final step and it is in response to them already having done so--since even then the language still fits well with what He is driving at.
As to Jesus’ argument, on a literalistic basis it makes full sense: If the flesh must be eaten, then it would not be illogical to say that the “blood”—which coexists with the flesh and keeps it alive—must also be consumed. Without that, only “part” of Him and not “all” would be consumed. However the language also worked well on a spiritual basis as well: Whatever you “consume” becomes part of you. Shapes you, changes you, is that which causes you to live and act. Likewise absorbing all of Christ’s example and ethics transforms one and keeps one spiritually and morally alive.
The core idea is that all that Jesus is must be incorporated into ourselves. We become transformed into the spiritual image of Jesus by partaking fully of His teaching and, as the result, acting in the manner that His flesh and blood did while on earth.
The idea of
“eating” spiritual instruction was far from unknown in those days. Isaiah 55:2 conveys it most concisely: “Listen
carefully to Me, and eat what is good,”
i.e., eat and consume My teaching, incorporating it into your life. At greater length notice the image of eating
God’s word in Ezekiel 3:1-3, “
‘Son of man, eat what you find; eat
this scroll, and go, speak to the house of
In
effect these verses speak as if of bread to eat. The image shifts to Wisdom providing the
intellectual and spiritual food and drink that causes one to
alter behavior in Proverbs 9:4-6: “As for him who lacks
understanding, she says to him, ‘Come, eat of my bread
and drink of the wine
I have mixed. Forsake foolishness and live,
and go in the way of understanding. For they eat the bread of
wickedness, and drink the wine of violence.”
In Proverbs
But Jesus has no intention of
providing more than the most gentle of hints that such things are on His
mind. He is intent on permanently
bursting apart any serious mass movement to make Him King.
The
substitution of that word “true” is far clearer and more emphatic however: the
substitution more clearly indicates that Jesus is contrasting reality
with appearance: they are thinking on
one level; He on another. If physically
intended, indignation was appropriate and proper but when Jesus transforms
Himself into the bodily source of all spirituality then one moves onto a
different level and a different way of thinking.
Sidebar: If “flesh” and “blood” are literal, then we
must somehow literally dwell “in” Jesus as well for that is also
stressed in this verse. If the bread and
wine of communion is literally flesh and blood, then somehow we should
be physically incorporated into the body of Jesus as well. Would someone like to suggest how this
would be done? The New Testament is clear
that we do dwell “in” Christ but it is by being faithful to Him . . .
being part of His people and movement (Romans 16:7; Galatians
The Teaching Above Occurred That
Day in the
61 When Jesus was aware
that his disciples were complaining about this, he said to them, “Does this
cause you to be offended? 62 Then what if you see
the Son of Man ascending where he was before?
63 The Spirit is the one
who gives life; human nature is of no help!
The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.”
(For Jesus had already known from the beginning who those were who did
not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65 So Jesus added, “Because of this I told you that no one can come to me
unless the Father has allowed him to come.”
--New English Translation (for comparison)
Of
course, the use of the synagogue argues that the local religious
officials were also present as well and, presumably, played a significant role
in what was happening. (Cf. our
discussion in verse 41.) For cases of
the synagogue being used as a place for religious discussion see the cases of
Paul in
Sidebar: Oddly enough we know that this synagogue was
paid for by a centurion serving under the regional rule of Herod Antipas (Luke
7:1-5). Described as one “who loves our
nation,” he was probably a proselyte (non-circumcised Gentile) who had attached
himself to their religion. Otherwise the
generosity is far harder to understand.
It was claimed that
6:60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This is a hard saying; who can understand it?” This teaching startled and worried “many of His disciples”--it wasn’t just the concern of a handful. They rightly considered it “hard” and wondered who could hope to comprehend its meaning. The words seem to imply that they recognized that Jesus had to be driving at something different than what He appeared to be saying on the surface. They weren’t sure what; just that they themselves did not yet know what it was. This is close to an admission of defeat--but if you ever stop trying you are doomed to failure.
Others
take the expression “hard” not as a reference to “understandability” but as to
“impossible to accept:” “The word for ‘hard’ means originally ‘dry,’ and so
‘rough;’ and then in a moral sense, ‘rough, harsh, offensive.’ . . . Here the meaning is: ‘This is a repulsive
speech; who can listen to it?” (
6:61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you? Jesus recognized their discontent not because they loudly argued among themselves but because of His supernatural grasp of what was going on around Him: “Jesus knew in Himself.” To which, of course, must be added the fact that He had set out to “disillusion” and get rid of even the fantasy of making Him a revolutionary King. The bulk were only “disciples” in the most superficial sense since they had crossed the Sea because of the food and revolutionary potential of Jesus. To those with only a minimal attachment to His cause He proceeds to show in the next verse that if the preceding words upset them, “they hadn’t heard anything yet”--and proceeded to tell them it. . . .
6:62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? If they had a problem with what had just been said, what in the world were they going to do if they saw Him “ascend” back to heaven? If they could not grasp earthly teaching, how were they going to handle an awesome visual miracle that took Him back to where He originated?
Sidebar: This future event refers to the eleven remaining apostles seeing Jesus return to heaven in Acts 1. Verses 12-13 of that chapter lists their names and how they reported what had happened to the earthly mother of Jesus and the other women in their traveling party (verse 14). His point is that if the current teaching seems impossible, how in the world would they react “if” (note that word) His various listeners were among those who saw it? Interestingly John himself provides no description of the Ascension though this verse surely shows that he was well aware of it.
6:63 It is the Spirit who gives
life; the flesh profits nothing. The
words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. At least in comparison to what our
spirit can do, the outward flesh is of no value. The “spirit” refers to our inner person
(Ecclesiastes 12:7; Zechariah 12:1; Acts
If we capitalize the “s”--making the Holy Spirit under consideration in the first half of the verse as the bulk of translations do that utilize capitalization for Deity--then the idea is that obeying the teaching of the Spirit produces life while relying upon what our own flesh prefers gains us nothing. The words from that Spirit are themselves spiritual in nature and purpose, conveying spiritual life to those who embrace and cherish it.
The contrast between “flesh” and “spirit” also warned His listeners to look at the inward point and not the outward appearance of His words--at the “spirit” / intent of them and not merely the outward “body” of words the concept was being framed in.
6:64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. At this point Jesus pointedly observed that even among His followers there were some who did not adequately “believe.” Jesus had recognized this weakness and lack of faith among a number of them “from the beginning” of His ministry and even in the one who would ultimately betray Him. They “believed” and were “disciples” (verse 66) in the sense of being part of His movement and respecting and following Him, but lacked the depth of commitment that we would normally associate with the terms. Perhaps because we connect full dedication to both terms, we tend to overlook that many may “fly by that label” but be only veneer deep in true loyalty.
The fact that it was a plural number who did not fully believe--“they were” and not “he was”--shows that there were more than one who had the potential for betrayal. That the betrayal was predicted is a fundamental fact, but there were others beside Judas who could have carried out the foul deed under a different set of circumstances. This shows that he was not involuntarily locked into a predestined act.
In other
words, it would be done; the only question was by whom. By this point Judas had become so bent that
he was going to be the one that performed the fatal act (verse 70), but there
were others among the broader band of disciples potentially susceptible to the
charms of the Devil as well.
6:65 And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.” Those that lacked adequate faith in Him (6:64) could not come to Him because full confidence was the means God had “granted” to the human race to come to meaningful knowledge and acceptance of Jesus. God “granted” the opportunity and the evidence; it was up to the individual whether to seize it or not.
Having Driven Away
by This Teaching the Large Numbers Who Were Interested Only in the Food and
Physical Blessings They Might Get, the Apostles Refused to Follow Their Example
of Unbelief (John 6:66-71): 66 After this many of his
disciples quit following him and did not accompany him any longer. 67 So Jesus said to the twelve, “You don’t want to go away too, do you?”
68 Simon Peter answered
him, “Lord, to whom would we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God!”
70 Jesus replied, “Didn’t
I choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is the devil?” 71 (Now he said this about Judas son of Simon Iscariot, for Judas, one of
the twelve, was going to betray him.) --New English Translation (for comparison)
6:66 From that time many
of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more. This day of radical and startling
teaching broke the back of support for an insurrection to make Him King. It also alienated “many” of His other less
committed disciples as well and they also refused to have anything more to do
with Him. We see here “not a gradual
thinning down or departure of some disciples, one today and another tomorrow,
but a kind of rush and stampede took place.
Those who a few hours before were ready to call Him their Messianic
King, were entirely disenchanted” (Pulpit Commentary)--not only by what
He was refusing to do but also by His teaching what was totally alien to their
ears. True, He had retained control of a
movement ready to spin out of His control, but how it must have hurt His own
inner spirit to see so many desert when they could not
get their way!
6:67 Then Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also want to go away?” Jesus pointedly asked the innermost cadre their intentions. These are the ones He had given the most trust to. And from them He wants a direct and verbal response, not just that of “disappearing” as the others were doing.
Sidebar: In this gospel this is “the first mention of them; John speaks of them
familiarly as a well-known body, assuming that his readers are well acquainted
with the expression.” (
Because 6:13 refers to “twelve” baskets of leftovers from
the feeding of the 5,000, it is natural to suspect that this is because there
were that number of people doing the gathering--each with their own
basket. On the other hand, without this
verse we would simply regard verse 13 as an incidental, passing remark and
nothing more.
6:68 But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. Peter summarized their sentiment: Where else did they have to go? Only Jesus had “the words of eternal life”--the words, the message, that showed them how to gain it and how to live to continue to be worthy of it.
One wonders whether this was the ringing affirmation of faith it sounds to our ears so many centuries later or whether it was tinged with a touch of despair: Yes, they would continue to believe and obey, even when their own minds did not understand and even when their own preferences were rejected. In its own way, perhaps that is an even greater profession of faith--faith in spite of uncertainty and having an excuse to do otherwise.
6:69 Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Note the plural “we”--he is speaking the opinion of the entire group: they had come to a consensus that Jesus was indeed the promised Messiah and uniquely the “Son of the living God.” Whatever their disappointments, they could find neither anywhere else.
Sidebar: Virtually all other translations work from the “critical text” that reads “you are the Holy One of God.” This emphasis on Jesus’ historical uniqueness surely requires, however, the implication found in “the Christ, the Son of the living God.” How could He be that unique without being this?
6:70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” Their conviction was good and commendable but they needed to be given a warning: one of their number had cast his loyalties with the other side, the devil. At what point Judas began his fatal alienation from the Lord we do not know nor at what point he started abusing his position as group treasurer (John 12:6)--although the two ideas are virtually “flip sides” of the same coin. However it would not be irrational to speculate that one or both began with this chapter’s emphatic decision to drive away those who saw in Him a revolutionary King.
It rejected
the popular scenario--in which Judas, and for that matter, the rest of the
apostles--may well have shared.
Furthermore it guaranteed that Judas’ role of money handler would never
grow in importance as much as it otherwise could have. People have been alienated in religious
movements for far less.
6:71 He spoke of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, for it was he who would betray Him, being one of the twelve. The one He had known and worked with closely but would still ultimately betray Him (6:64 also) is now identified. Not merely a disciple but one of the inner twelve selected to be apostles and leaders of the movement. Jesus was well aware of the identity but not the others. Perhaps at this point not even Judas himself realized just how far his alienation would ultimately carry him. Could the open accusation be intended as a “red flag” of warning and caution for him--giving him, so to speak, an additional opportunity to change?