Skip to main content

True Food, and True Drink (John 6:52-59)

 The leadership was stunned by what Jesus had just previously said: he's going to give himself as bread for the life of the world. But it is more than just the oddity of what he said. We'll see as we go along here that what Jesus says is downright shocking and offensive to the hearers in this culture.

He starts off with, "Truly, truly…" to indicate that he's going to teach something new with authority. And then he tells us that we have to eat his flesh, and drink his blood. The children of Israel were commanded not to eat any meat that contained the blood of an animal. Human cannibalism is even worse. Jesus knows exactly how offensive this sounds to the people who heard him. Not only does he say it, but he doubles down, so to speak.

I think we have to deal with the question of whether Jesus is speaking figuratively. In a sense it's obvious that he is, but we should not think that belief in Jesus is somehow opposed to eating his flesh, and drinking his blood. This text is about the Eucharist, in my opinion. Scholars note that this is the only one of the four Gospels which does not contain a narrative of Jesus instituting the Lord's Supper, or Eucharist. Therefore, it has been traditionally believed that this so-called, "Bread of Life discourse" replaces the institution narratives in the other Gospels.

The straightforward reading of this whole section would be that if we receive Jesus in the Eucharist, we will have eternal life. The theology surrounding the Eucharist is somewhat technical, but I think we can know that believing that we are receiving the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist is exactly what he wanted us to believe. And it is not somehow opposed to believing in Jesus as our Savior, because he is giving himself to us. If he were not God, he could not do this. Back in verse 54, that word for, "eats" is pretty graphic, more like "gnaws."

He wraps this section up by saying that his power to give eternal life comes from the Father who sent him. We can look back at the episode of the Israelites receiving the manna in the desert, (Exodus 16) and know that it was a great gift, but it was pointing to this greater Gift.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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
17 comments
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more
My wheelchair was nearly destroyed by a car last night. That's a bit melodramatic, I suppose, because it is intact and undamaged. But we'd left my power chair ("Red Sam" in the official designation) in-between the maze of cars parked out front of Chris Yee's house for Bible Study. [Isn't that a Protestant Bible study?--ed.] They are good friends, and it is not under any official auspices. [Not BSF?--ed.] They're BSF guys, but it's not a BSF study. Anyway, I wasn't worried; I made a joke about calling the vendor the next day: "What seems to be the problem, sir?" 'Well, it was destroyed by a car.' As it happened, a guy bumped into it at slow speed. His car got the worst of it. And this only reinforces what I've said for a solid 13 years [Quickie commercial coming] If you want a power wheelchair that lasts, get a Quickie. They're fast, obviously, and they're tanks. Heck, my old one still would work, but the batteries ar
13 comments
Read more