John 6.41-60.
Jesus pointed out he, not
It’s a metaphor, of course, for a relationship with Jesus. One the Galileans and Judeans, steeped in a culture (and a bible) full of metaphors, shoulda understood. One we should understand too… but of course not all of us do, and I’m gonna get into that a bit today.
But at this point in the story, the Galieans appeared to be tracking with Jesus so far. Their objection—the reason they
John 6.41-42 KWL - 41 So the Galileans grumbled at Jesus because he said “I’m the bread who comes from heaven,”
- 42 and said, “Isn’t this Jesus bar Joseph? Don’t we know his father and mother?
- So how does he say he’s come from heaven?”
If somebody claims, “I came from heaven,” our knee-jerk reaction is naturally, “No you didn’t.” Doesn’t matter how much you know them, how much you like them, how much anything—the only people in the highest heaven are God, the angelic beings round his throne, and those few people he raptured before the resurrection, like Elijah. (We presume a few people because only three get a mention in the bible. For all we know God might’ve raptured way more. But that’s pure speculation.) Nobody can come from heaven but those beings—and we’re quite sure our claimant isn’t among them. Likewise the Galileans and Jesus: Of course he didn’t come from heaven.
Yeah, Christians are fully aware Jesus existed before his conception,
So the Galileans had to wrap their brains around that one. But Jesus doubled down.
John 6.43-46 KWL - 43 In reply Jesus also told them, “Don’t grumble among yourselves:
- 44 Nobody can come to me unless the Father, my Sender, draws them,
- and I will resurrect them on the Last Day.
- 45 In the Prophets it’s written, ‘And they’ll all be taught by God’:
Is 54.13 - All who hear and learn from the Father, come to me.
- 46 Not that they saw the Father—
- except the one from God; this man has seen the Father.”
So not only is Jesus claiming he’s from heaven, but he’s gonna resurrect everybody. Which wasn’t at all what the Pharisees taught about the End Times prophet, nor Messiah, nor anyone. Jesus is making some mighty cosmic claims for himself.
And this, folks, is why they couldn’t believe in Jesus. Not because they mixed up his bread metaphors.
What exactly does “eating the bread” mean again?
But let’s deal with the bread metaphor too, shall we?
John 6.47-51 KWL - 47 “Amen amen! I promise you, believers in me have live in the age to come!
- 48 I’m the living bread.
- 49 Your ancestors in the wilderness ate manna—and died.
- 50 This is the bread who cames down from heaven, so one might eat of him, and might not die.
- 51
A I’m the living bread who comes down from heaven. - When one eats of this bread, they’ll live in the age to come.”
With him so far? Good. Jesus is the living bread; eating the bread represents a relationship with him. When we “eat the bread,” it’s kinda similar to “drinking the Kool-Aid” (without all the negative, cultish ideas attached): We take in his teachings,
It’s not quite what people were expecting from the End Times prophet; it’s more real, substantial, and eternal. And now, Jesus makes it hardcore. A little too hardcore for his listeners.
John 6.51-52 KWL - 51
B “And this bread, which I will give, is my body. It’s for the world’s life.” - 52 So the Galileans debated one another, saying, “How can this man give us his body to eat?”
“For the world’s life” can also be interpreted “so the world can live,” although I’m pretty sure those who believe atonement is limited only to Christians might balk at that idea. (Even though the idea of
Now I should point out these sorts of debates broke out in synagogue all the time. It has to do with how
So getting the students to debate was simply part of the lesson. But when these debates started going off in the wrong direction—students getting angry, or students coming to the wrong conclusion altogether—the rabbi was expected to step in and steer them right.
That’s where we Christians tend to misunderstand what Jesus was doing. Most of our interpreters assume Jesus was deliberately trying to outrage and confuse the Galileans, and get ’em so angry that only the true believers would stick around. That’s not what he was doing. He was trying to teach them to stop seeking material wealth and earthly bread; to seek him, the heavenly bread; to commit themselves to him so far, they’d “eat and drink Jesus.”
And like a patient teacher, once they finally understood what his metaphor meant, then he’d push ’em further. Because he really isn’t kidding about the level of commitment he expects of his followers. And still expects.
John 6.53-58 KWL - 53 So Jesus told them, “Amen amen! I promise you, you don’t have life in yourself
- unless you eat the Son of Man’s body and drink his blood.
- 54 One who eats my body and drinks my blood has life in the age to come,
- and I’ll resurrect them on the Last Day.
- 55 For my body is real food. My blood is real drink.
- 56 One who eats my body and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
- 57 Just as the living Father sends me, I also live because of the Father.
- One who eats me likewise lives because of me.
- 58 This bread who comes down from heaven is not like what your ancestors ate and died:
- One who eats this bread will live in the age to come.”
The Pharisees believed all you had to do for God to save you was be Pharisee. Much like Christians believe all we gotta do for God to save us is be Christian. But Jesus teaches there’s a commitment level to this—one which many Christians are really sloppy about. We can’t just “be Christian.” We gotta follow Jesus. Wholeheartedly. You want life in the age to come? That’s how far you gotta go.
And just like Christians who base all their Christianity
John 6.59-60 KWL - 59 Jesus said this while teaching in the Kfar Nahum synagogue.
- 60 So, many of his students who heard him said, “This word is hard. Who can listen to it?”
Like Jesus said, they didn’t trust him,
Holy communion?
For centuries,
Eating Jesus’s body and drinking his blood? We do this ritual all the time. Many of us do it every week. And when our ministers introduce communion, they even quote this very passage: “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.”
But is Jesus talking about holy communion? Yes and no.
The word
But too many Christians reduce communion to the ritual: Eat the wafer, drink the wine or juice, and that’s communion. It’s really not.
If we only practice the ritual, but don’t bother with the relationship it’s meant to represent,
Hence we have two factions of Christians: Those who recognize this is about relationship, and those who think this is only about the regular practice of holy communion. And both factions sneer at the Galileans, and claim, “Well, they didn’t understand this passage at all. They were outraged because they must’ve taken Jesus too literally, and thought he was talking about cannibalism.”
No they didn’t.
Why do we get the idea the Galileans didn’t understand him?
Why do so many Christian teachers claim this lesson went entirely over the Galileans’ heads? Bluntly, cultural bias.
Most Christians don‘t know what a synagogue was. They don’t realize it’s a school; they think it’s the Jewish equivalent of church. They think Jesus taught like their own preachers “teach”—they lecture, and the people agree and say amen. (Or don’t.) And if a sermon outrages people, not every preacher bothers to take a moment to clarify things: They just plow on forward, and people either accept the message, or leave in a huff. (Or, which is more likely, sit there and quietly reject everything they hear, ’cause ”this preacher’s an idiot.”)
We presume Jesus was as dense and impatient as our preachers, so he didn’t realize how much he was freaking out his audience. Or worse, didn’t care. We forget
And sometimes project ourselves on the audience too: This lesson goes over our heads, so it must’ve gone over their heads too. Because
Except those Galileans weren’t so ignorant. They knew exactly what Jesus meant. He walked ’em through it.
And here’s a fun exercise. Show this passage
How can pagans figure this out, but it goes over Christians’ heads? Mostly because we’ve mixed it up with holy communion instead of a relationship with Jesus, so we don’t understand it properly either. Mostly because our teachers mix it up with holy communion, so we’re getting it wrong like they are. Mostly because we’re just as uncomfortable with the level of commitment Jesus expects of his followers: All we want is a simple little ritual. All we want is bread. Nothing more.
Anybody who decides to joke, “Oh, Jesus is talking about cannibalism”—even those who insist, “He only means holy communion”—are being willfully dense. They don’t wanna deal with the bigger issue. They’re like the uncomfortable boyfriend whose girlfriend is pushing him to propose marriage, and all he wants is to have a little fun with zero commitment… so he makes a few jokes to squirm away. And like her, Jesus isn’t kidding.
That’s all this “hard to understand” talk comes from: People who don’t wanna understand Jesus. Hopefully we’re not among them.
