Skip to main content

The Living Bread From Heaven (John 6:41-51)

 This first statement made by Jesus in this section sounds crazy. If any other person said this, we would think they had lost their mind. The opponents of Jesus then say basically, "We know who you are, and we know who your family is. You didn't come from anywhere special."

In fact, Jesus is saying that he became incarnate by the Virgin Mary, and became man. We should remember that Jesus did not become God, but he is God, and became man.

Here in verse 44, Jesus is letting us know about a great mystery: no one can believe in Jesus unless God the Father draws him or her, and makes it possible. Some people throughout history have made the mistake of thinking that we can do things in our own power to earn God's favor. The truth is, though, that we wouldn't have God's favor unless he gave it to us. Grace is God's favor, but also his presence and power in our lives. Grace makes it possible for us to be sons and daughters of God. Jesus ends this verse by saying that he will raise us up--his brothers and sisters--at the resurrection of the just on the last day.

When Jesus quotes the prophecy, "And they shall all be taught by God," he is talking about the enlightening power of God the Holy Spirit. This is one of the promises of the new covenant that the prophet Jeremiah spoke about, hundreds of years earlier.

Jesus continues to teach that God the Father makes it possible for us to believe in Jesus. To believe in Jesus is to have eternal life. Jesus says he is the Bread of Life. Then he draws a contrast between God's gift of the manna in the desert, and the gift of the Bread of Life. Jesus says that if we eat Him, we won't die. In the end, our bodies may die, but our souls will live.

Jesus is talking about the Eucharist, or the Lord's Supper. He has more to say about this, and so do we.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un