Evangelical Answers

Note: It is asserted by Rome’s apologists—both amateurs and those with holy orders—that St. John’s use of the verb τρώγω (trōgō) strongly, if not necessarily, militates in favor of the medieval Roman Catholic dogma of transubstantiation—i.e. that the ‘eating’ spoken of in John 6 is to be understood carnally (somatically) or corporeally.

Raymond E. Brown, S.S. (Roman Catholic Theologian):

…it seems more likely that the use of trōgein is part of John’s attempt to emphasize the realism of the eucharistic flesh and blood.

(Raymond E. Brown, S.S., The Gospel According to John: (i-xii), The Anchor Bible: Volume 29, [Garden City: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1980], p. 283.)

Francis J. Moloney, S.D.B. (Roman Catholic Theologian):

Unless they eat the flesh and drink the blood (ean mē phagēte . . . kai piēte) of the Son of Man they have no life (v. 53); whoever eats the flesh and drinks the blood (ho trōgōn . . . kai pinōn) of Jesus has eternal life (v. 54). The shift from the more respectable verb “to eat” (phagein) to another verb that indicates the physical crunching with the teeth (trōgein) accentuates that Jesus refers to a real experience of eating. Hints of the Eucharist continue to insinuate themselves into the words of Jesus…

(Francis J. Moloney, S.D.B., The Gospel of John, Sacra Pagina Series: Volume 4, ed. Daniel J. Harrington, S.J., [Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1998], p. 221.)

Scott Hahn, Curtis Mitch (Roman Catholic Lay-Theologians):

Trōgō (Gk.): A verb meaning “chew” or “gnaw”. It is used five times in the Fourth Gospel and only once elsewhere in the NT. Greek literature used it to describe the feeding of animals such as mules, pigs, and cattle, and in some cases for human eating. In John the verb is used four times in the second half of the Bread of Life discourse (Jn 6:54, 56, 57, 58). This marks a noticeable shift in Jesus’ teaching, which up until 6:54 made use of a more common verb for eating (Gk. esthiō, 6:49, 50, 51, 53). The change in vocabulary marks a change of focus and emphasis, from the necessity of faith to the consumption of the Eucharist. The graphic and almost crude connotation of this verb thus adds greater force to the repetition of his words: he demands we express our faith by eating, in a real and physical way, his life-giving flesh in the sacrament.

(Scott Hahn, Curtis Mitch, The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: The Gospel of John, [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2003], p. 31.)

Robert A. Sungenis (Roman Catholic Lay-Apologist):

…the exchange of verbs for “eat” is highly significant and probably the most important feature leading to the conclusion that Jesus is referring to a literal eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood. This is evident in John’s rendering of Jesus’ words such that the more specific Greek word for chewing, “trôgô,” is chosen in place of the more generic Greek word for eating, “phagô.” …there is simply no logical reason for Jesus to switch from the more generic phagô to the more graphic trôgô, unless it is His desire to make an explicit point about physical consumption and confirm the Jews’ suspicion that He is indeed commanding them, literally, to eat His flesh.

(Robert A. Sungenis, Not by Bread Alone: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Catholic Mass: Second Edition, [Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2009], pp. 154, 155.)

II. Reply: The Primary Use of τρώγω is Grammatical Necessity. Return to Outline.

Note: The numbers in bold correspond (essentially) to the sections below—i.e. source documentation.

(1.) St. John does not appear to make any meaningful theological, or contextual, distinction between his use of ἐφαγον—John 6:26, 31[x2], 49-53, 58—and τρώγω—verses 54, 56-58. It is highly improbable that his decision to switch from φάγητε (John 6:53) to τρώγων (John 6:54) was primarily motivated by anything other than grammatical necessity. There is no present form of the aorist stem φαγ-, leaving St. John with only two options: ἐσθίειν (ὁ ἐσθιών), which is never used in his Gospel, or τρώγειν (ὁ τρώγων, cf. verses 54, 56-58; and 13:18)—cf. The Epistle of Barnabas, 10:1-2. Hence in John 13:18 he renders the present participle ἐσθίων in Psalm 41:9 [LXX 40:10] with the present participle τρώγων (note that the “one who ate [ὁ τρώγων] my bread” is not a eucharistic reference, it is an idiomatic expression denoting comradery and closeness of relationship—cf. Mark 14:18; Polybius, Histories, 31.23.9). Likewise, in narrating the feeding of the five thousand St. John eschews the present-tense verbal form of ἐσθίω, employing instead the older, literary (arguably archaizing) βιβρώσκω (John 6:13—βεβρωκόσιν). By contrast, St. Matthew renders the same event with the present participial form of ἐσθίω (Matthew 14:21—οἱ δὲ ἐσθίοντες). The difference between φαγών and τρώγων may be illustrated by the distinction between πιών and πίνων—the difference being that of the perfective and imperfective aspect, as expressed by the aorist and present stems. It does not represent a variation in lexical meaning. Hence we observe the aspect shift from the aorist subjunctive πίητε/φάγητε in verse 53 to the present participle πίνων/τρώγων in verse 54—the same aspect shift occurs from the imperfect indicative ἤσθιον/ἔπινον in Luke 17:27 to the present participle τρώγοντες/πίνοντες in Matthew 24:38—cf. Demosthenes, De Falsa Legatione, 197; Plutarch, Moralia (Quaestiones Convivales), 613b, 645b, 716e; Irenaeus of Lyons, Adversus Haereses, 4.38.1. See also the shift from the aorist indicative ἔφαγον in verse 58b to the present participle τρώγων in verse 58c.

(2.) At this point in history the verbs ἐσθίω and τρώγω were evidently synonymous, as seen in their Scriptural usage—cf. Matthew 24:38 with Luke 17:27 and John 13:18 with Psalm 41:9 [LXX 40:10], where the terms are used interchangeably, and John 6:58, where the verbs are employed in synonymous parallelism. This semantic interchangeability is further evidenced by the contemporaneous extra-Biblical literature—both Christian (cf. Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor (Pædagogi), 1.6; Eusebius of Cæsarea, Ecclesiastical Theology, 3.12; Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 22.4.) and non-Christian (cf. “A Saying Attributed to Diogenes the Cynic”; “Letter of a Praefect”)—where the two words are used interchangeably.

(3.) That the two terms had become synonymous by this point in history is widely attested to by lexicographers, grammarians, and exegetes alike—and is similarly reflected by modern vernacular translations.

(4.) Furthermore, in verse 53, we are told that we must both “eat” (φάγητε) the flesh of the Son of Man and “drink” (πίητε) His blood. That there is no special significance in the change to τρώγων in verse 54 is further evidenced by the repetition of the same verb for drinking (πίνων, verse 54) as in verse 53. This observation is reinforced by the comparison of Luke 17:27 with Matthew 24:38, in which the verb for eating switches from ἐσθίω to τρώγω (just as in John 6:53-54) while the verb for drinking (πίνω) remains unchanged.

(5.) As a brief aside, it is worth observing that verb τρώγω is regularly used in contemporaneous extra-Biblical literature—both Christian (cf. The Shepherd of Hermas, 5.3.7; Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 4.38.1-2; Basil the Great, Letter 8.4.) and non-Christian (cf. Polybius, Histories, 31.23.9; Aristophanes, The Knights, 1075-1077; Aristophanes, Clouds, 920-924: Herodotus, Histories, 1.71)—to denote metaphorical (or spiritual)—i.e. non-corporeal—realities.

(6.) Additionally, it is noteworthy that the early Church Fathers, seemingly with one voice, rejected any sort of corporeal manducation in John 6. The modern Roman Catholic interpretation is wildly out of step with both historic Christian and historic (pre-Tridentine) Roman Catholic thought on this point.

(7.) Finally, it should also be observed that the verb τρώγω does not occur in any of the eucharistic discourses, and ἐσθίω appears only once, in Matthew 26:26—cf. φάγετε (eat) in Matthew 26:26; λάβετε (take) in Mark 14:22; and ποιεῖτε (do) in Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24. This strongly suggests that τρώγω is not being employed with any specific liturgical connotation—it is highly improbable that St. John would change an established liturgical formulation if his primary intent were to discourse upon the nature of the, as of yet uninitiated, eucharistic elements. It seems, therefore, highly implausible to interpret such language as uniquely, or intentionally, sacramental language (i.e. in a formal sense. It is imperative that we differentiate between interpretation—how the original audience would have understood the discourse—and application—how the discourse may be applied to other theological concepts).

For those who object that both words could theoretically translate the Aramaic Jesus would have spoken—this is wildly speculative. The Divinely inspired Scriptures were written in Greek not Aramaic—and the word choice must, therefore, be intentional. Furthermore, there is a substantial, and still growing, body of evidence which suggests that Jews, in the time of Jesus, would have spoken Greek with one another (in addition to Aramaic).

For Further Study.

Note: See further: David S. Hasselbrook, Studies in New Testament Lexicography: Advancing Toward a Full Diachronic Approach with the Greek Language, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2, Reihe 303, [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011], 3.1.2 Τρώγω, pp. 130-144. Preview.

1. No Present Form of the Aorist Stem φαγ—The Biblical Literature. Return to Outline.

John 6:58:

This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate [ἔφαγον], and they died. But the one who eats [ὁ τρώγων] this bread will live for ever.’

(New Revised Standard Version: Anglicised.)

Note: ἔφαγον, first person singular, aorist of the verb ἐσθίω. The aorist tense indicates a completed action in the past. τρώγων, the present participle form of the verb τρώγω. A present participle describes an ongoing action (present).

John 6:53:

So Jesus said to them, ‘Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat [φάγητε] the flesh of the Son of Man and drink [πίητε] his blood, you have no life in you.

(New Revised Standard Version: Anglicised.)

Cf. John 6:54:

Those who eat [ὁ τρώγων] my flesh and drink [πίνων] my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day;

(New Revised Standard Version: Anglicised.)

Note: φάγητε is the second person plural form of the verb ἐσθίω in the aorist subjunctive (it expresses a potential or hypothetical action). τρώγων, the present participle form of the verb τρώγω. A present participle describes an ongoing action (present).

J. H. Bernard:

Besides the present passage, we have it again at 1318 (where see note) as a quotation from Ps. 419, ἐσθίων of the LXX being altered by Jn. to τρώγων. That is, Jn. always uses this verb of “eating” . . . although Mk. and Mt. have ἐσθίειν in their narratives . . . The Synoptists use the verb ἐσθίειν 34 times in all, but it never appears in Jn.

(J. H. Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John, The International Critical Commentary, ed. A. H. McNeile: (In Two Volumes) Vol. I, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1929], p. 210.)

1.1. Early Non-Biblical Christian Literature. Return to Outline.

The Epistle of Barnabas (c. 70/132 A.D.):

Now when Moses said, “You shall not eat [φάγεσθε] a pig, or an eagle or a hawk or a crow, or any fish that has no scales,” he received, according to the correct understanding, three precepts. Furthermore, he says to them in Deuteronomy, “I will set forth as a covenant to this people my righteous requirements.” “Therefore it is not God’s commandment that they should not eat [τρώγειν]; rather Moses spoke spiritually. [Ὅτι δὲ Μωϋσῆς εἶπεν· Οὐ φάγεσθε χοῖρον οὔτε ἀετὸν οὔτε ὀξύπτερον οὔτε κόρακα, οὔτε πάντα ἰχθὺν ὃς οὐκ ἔχει λεπίδα ἐν ἑαυτῷ, τρία ἔλαβεν ἐν τῇ συνέσει δόγματα. πέρας γέ τοι λέγει αὐτοῖς ἐν τῷ Δευτερονομίῳ· Καὶ διαθήσομαι πρὸς τὸν λαὸν τοῦτον τὰ δικαιώματά μου. ἄρα οὖν οὐκ ἔστιν ἐντολὴ θεοῦ τὸ μὴ τρώγειν, Μωϋσῆς δὲ ἐν πνεύματι ἐλάλησεν.]

(The Epistle of Barnabas, 10:1-2; trans. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations: 3rd Edition, ed. & trans. Michael W. Holmes, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007], pp. 410, 411.)

Note: φάγεσθε, the second person plural form of the verb ἐσθίω (aorist middle/passive, expressing a command). τρώγειν, the infinitive form of the verb τρώγω (present tense, indicating the action itself, without specifying when it will happen, unlike a future tense form).

Cf. David S. Hasselbrook:

Here it can be seen that the author indicates that the οὐ φάγεσθε spoken by Moses does not literally mean τὸ μὴ τρώγειν. This passage supports the idea that τρώγω is serving as the present tense form for ἔφαγον around the time of the New Testament writings and is to be taken in the general sense of “eat.”

(David S. Hasselbrook, Studies in New Testament Lexicography: Advancing Toward a Full Diachronic Approach with the Greek Language, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2, Reihe 303, [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011], p. 144.) Preview.

Cf. David S. Hasselbrook:

A significant feature of Hermas and Barnabas, writings that are considered to be more oral than literary in nature, is that neither use ἐσθίω, while both use τρώγω and ἔφαγον.”[fn. 9: Based on a search of the TLG.]

1.2. Excursus: τρώγειν καὶ πίνειν. Return to Outline.

Demosthenes (384-322 B.C.):

At first, I believe, they only tried to make her drink quietly and eat dessert [πίνειν ἡσυχῇ κα τρώγειν]; so Iatrocles told me the following day.

(Demosthenes, De Falsa Legatione, 197; trans. LCL, 155:371.)

Plutarch (c. 40-120 A.D.):

…if, like Orestes and his hosts, we were about to eat and drink [τρώγειν καὶ πίνειν] in silence at the Thesmotheteum, this circumstance would be a rather happy remedy for stupidity…

(Plutarch, Moralia (Quaestiones Convivales), 613b; trans. LCL, 424:11.)

Cf. Plutarch (c. 40-120 A.D.):

The fact is there is no way of getting to know a man who eats and drinks in silence [τρωγόντων σιωπῇ καὶ πινόντων]…

(Plutarch, Moralia (Quaestiones Convivales), 645b; trans. LCL, 424:201.)

Cf. Plutarch (c. 40-120 A.D.):

Still, one who permits conversation in a drinking-party, but makes no move to see that the conversation is orderly and profitable, is much more ridiculous than the man who approves of serving wine and dessert [τοῦ πίνειν μὲν οἰομένου δεῖν καὶ τρώγειν] at dinner, but pours the wine unmixed and sets on food unseasoned and uncleaned.

(Plutarch, Moralia (Quaestiones Convivales), 716e; trans. LCL, 425:109.)

Irenaeus of Lyon (c. 130-202 A.D.):

He might easily have come to us in His immortal glory, but in that case we could never have endured the greatness of the glory; and therefore it was that He, who was the perfect bread of the Father, offered Himself to us as milk, [because we were] as infants. He did this when He appeared as a man, that we, being nourished, as it were, from the breast of His flesh, and having, by such a course of milk nourishment, become accustomed to eat and drink the Word of God [τρώγειν καὶ πίνειν τὸν Λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ], may be able also to contain in ourselves the Bread of immortality, which is the Spirit of the Father.

(Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 4.38.1; PG, 7:1105-1106; trans. ANF, 1:521.) See also: ccel.org.

Note: The context is undeniable, τρώγειν is used of spiritual, not corporeal, “eating”—cf. 4.38.2.

2. ἐσθίω and τρώγω are Interchangeable—The Biblical Literature. Return to Outline.

Luke 17:27:

They were eating [ἤσθιον] and drinking, and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed all of them.

(New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised.)

Cf. Matthew 24:38:

For as in those days before the flood they were eating [τρώγοντες] and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark,

(New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised.)

LXX Psalm 40:10 [MT 41:9]:

For even the man of my peace, in whom I trusted, who ate [ἐσθίων] my bread, lifted up his heel against me.

(Brenton’s English Translation of the Septuagint.)

Note: Psalm 40:9 in BETS.

Cf. John 13:18:

I am not speaking of all of you; I know whom I have chosen. But it is to fulfil the scripture, “The one who ate [ὁ τρώγων] my bread has lifted his heel against me.”

(New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised.)

Note: Other ancient authorities read ate bread with me (NRSVA).

John 6:58:

This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate [ἔφαγον], and they died. But the one who eats [ὁ τρώγων] this bread will live for ever.’

(New Revised Standard Version: Anglicised.)

2.A. Excursus: The Context of John 13:18 is Not the Eucharistic Elements. Return to Outline.

John 13:18:

I am not speaking of all of you; I know whom I have chosen. But it is to fulfil the scripture, “The one who ate [ὁ τρώγων] my bread has lifted his heel against me.”

(New Revised Standard Version: Anglicised.)

Note: Other ancient authorities read ate bread with me (NRSVA).

Cf. Mark 14:18:

And when they had taken their places and were eating, Jesus said, ‘Truly I tell you, one of you will betray me, one who is eating [ὁ ἐσθίων] with me.’

(New Revised Standard Version: Anglicised.)

Note: The context is not the eucharistic elements, “one who ate [ὁ τρώγων] my bread” is a reference to comradery and closeness of relationship. (E.g. δύο τρώγομεν ἀδελφοί—Polybius, Histories, 31.23.9; LCL, 161:230, 231.)

Cf. Bincy Mathew:

…eating with someone implies intimacy and τρώγειν τινός τὸν ἄρτον, which literally means ‘eat someone’s bread’ and metaphorically implies ‘be a close companion.’[fn. 124: Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg, and Neva F. Miller, “τρώγω,” in ANLEX (Victoria: Trafford, 2005), 385; Sabbe, “Footwashing,” 291. Culpepper, The Gospel and Letters of John, says that ‘“eating” the bread means receiving Jesus and the life he offers.’ For John Painter, The Quest for the Messiah: The History, Literature and Theology of the Johannine Community (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991), 239, eating and drinking are symbols for coming to and believing in Jesus. Peter Maritz and Gilbert Van Belle, “The Imagery of Eating and Drinking in John 6:35,” in Imagery in the Gospel of John: Terms, Forms, Themes, and Theology of Johannine Figurative Language, ed. Jörg Frey, Jan G. van der Watt, and Ruben Zimmermann, WUNT 200 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 332-352, argue that bread and water metaphorically point to Jesus as the one who quenches the human desire for eternal life.] Jesus’ foreknowledge of Judas’ action and his offering of bread to Judas contrast sharply with the action of raising the heel (ἐπῆρεν ἐπ᾿ ἐμὲ τὴν πτέρναν αὐτου). This instance immediately links back to 13:26-30. Jesus’ final expression of love towards Judas is the most evocative and deeply meaningful representation of friendship: offering a piece of bread after dipping it as a sign identifying the one who will hand him over (Jn 13:27). John emphasises Judas receiving of the bread from Jesus (μετὰ τὸ ψωμίον 13:27, cf. v. 26).

(Bincy Mathew, The Johannine Footwashing as the Sign of Perfect Love: An Exegetical Study of John 13:1-20, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe, [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018], p. 308.) Preview.

Cf. Bincy Mathew:

In ancient custom, eating and drinking point to (i) life’s sustenance and (ii) the establishment of mutual bonds. These basic actions of eating and drinking have become metaphorical expressions for mutual human relationships. Bread, a basic necessity of life, acquired symbolical overtones such that eating of bread symbolically denotes eating an entire meal. Eating together is seen as a sign of communion and trust (Ps 41:9). In the OT, covenants were sealed in the context of a shared meal. The covenantal partners are then considered family members. In the NT, eating and drinking encompasses the idea of a communal gathering, in which communal values are often highlighted. Therefore, any discourteous action at a shared meal was a serious breach of communion and friendship between the two parties dining.

Note: Cf. Alan W. Jenks, “Eating and Drinking in the Old Testament;” In: The Anchor Bible Dictionary: Volume 2: D-G, [New York: Doubleday, 1992], pp. 250-254; Esther Kobel, Dining with John: Communal Meals and Identity Formation in the Fourth Gospel and its Historical and Cultural Context, [Leiden: Brill, 2011]. Preview.

Cf. Alan W. Jenks:

The act of eating together implies a relationship of closeness and trust (Ps 41:9). Conversely, people who do not wish to be intimately related do not eat together (Gen 43:32). The social bonding function of eating together, which is widespread if not universal in human cultures, probably originates in the shared meals of families, or even more elementally in the experience of being suckled by one’s mother. After infancy, the image of the father as food provider complements the mother-child imagery (cf. Ps 128:2-3).

(Alan W. Jenks, “Eating and Drinking in the Old Testament;” In: The Anchor Bible Dictionary: Volume 2: D-G, [New York: Doubleday, 1992], p. 252.)

Cf. Patrick Chatelion Counet:

My conclusion is that Jesus’ flesh has no eucharistic meaning in John 6. One can perhaps say that according to John 13, Jesus hands himself over to Judas by giving him his body (flesh) in a piece of bread 13, However, while the synoptics see the eating of the bread-body as a memorial and sign of covenant or forgiveness of sins, John takes away that meaning by incorporating the bread-body in the last supper as a sign of betrayal. In this respect, there is a deconstructive shift. In the synoptics, the eating of the bread and the drinking of the wine represent a meal of love (as Hegel calls it) which creates a covenant; in John, the meaning of eating bread shifts from love to hatred, from covenant to betrayal, from friendship to enmity: “As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him” (13,27). If the other disciples had understood the importance of Jesus’ offer of bread-body-flesh to Judas (“...but none of the others at the table understood why Jesus said this to him” 13,28), they would perhaps have held their breath at the giving of the traitor’s bread until it became clear that it had stopped with Judas.

(Patrick Chatelion Counet, John, a Postmodern Gospel: Introduction to Deconstructive Exegesis Applied to the Fourth Gospel, [Leiden: Brill, 2000], p. 207.)

Cf. Rudolf Bultmann:

V. 18 makes a further reference to the betrayer, and again the intention is to warn the disciple against any false assurance and thus to strengthen the exhortation to ποιεῖν (ν. 17). Here the prophecy is made in the form of a quotation from Ps. 40.10. And in this context, the words are not used primarily to stress the fact that the dreadful event had been foreseen or pre-determined by God, but to state the incredible fact that the betrayer eats at the same table as Jesus,[fn. 2: The table fellowship is described by ὁ τρώγων μου τὸν ἄρτον (LXX: ὁ ἐσθίων ἄρτους μου), just as in Mk. 14.18 by ὁ ἐσθίων μετ’ ἐμοῦ; cp. Mk. 14.20 and par. s: ὁ ἐμβαπτόμενος μετ᾿ ἐμοῦ εἰς τὸ τρύβλιον and Lk. 22.21: ἡ χεὶρ τοῦ παραδιδόντος με μετ' ἐμοῦ ἐπὶ τῆς τραπέζης. The fact that John reads τὸν ἄρτον instead of the LXX’s ἄρτους is no proof that he was thinking of the Lord’s supper, because the Heb. also has the singular.] and belongs to the circle of his friends.

(Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray, gen. eds. R. W. N. Hoare, J. K. Riches, [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1976], pp. 477-478.)

Cf. Edward W. Klink III:

The use of the more aggressive Greek word for “eats” (τρώγων) highlights their shared intimacy and hospitality (see comments on 6:54). But this disciple “has lifted up his heel against me” (ἐπῆρεν ἐπ’ ἐμὲ τὴν πτέρναν αὐτοῦ), implying rejection and rebellion, a shocking betrayal between intimate friends and colleagues.[fn. 64: See J. Ramsey Michaels, “Betrayal and the Betrayer: The Uses of Scripture in John 13.18-19,” in The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel, ed. Craig A. Evans and W. Richard Stegner, JSNT 104/SSEJC 3 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 459-74.] The specific image in the psalm that Jesus quotes might be that or a horse or mule kicking the person feeding it (cf. Ps 32:9); or a person showing another the bottom of one’s foot as an expression of contempt (cf. Mk. 6:11).

(Edward W. Klink III, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: John, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2016], p. 586.) Preview.

Cf. Herman N. Ridderbos:

The first agrees with Psalm 41 and could refer to Jesus as the host who hands out the bread. Some take “has lifted his heel against me” to mean “has shown the bottom of his foot as a gesture of contempt”; others take it to mean simply “has kicked me.” The citation not only confirms that what Judas was about to do was foretold in Scripture but no less brings out the treacherous and faithless nature of his deed: he was about to abandon one whose bread he ate and in whose intimate fellowship he had spent time.

(Herman N. Ridderbos, The Gospel according to John: A Theological Commentary, trans. John Vriend, [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1997], p. 467.) Preview.

Cf. J. Ramsey Michaels:

It is likely that the two expressions for “the one who eats” (ὁ τρώγων in Jn 13:18 and ὁ ἐσθίων in Mk 14:18 and in the LXX) are interchangeable in meaning.

(J. Ramsey Michaels, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel of John, [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2010], p. 740 fn. 94.)

Cf. D. A. Carson:

Near-Eastern notions of hospitality and courtesy meant that betrayal by one who is sharing bread is especially heinous.

(D. A. Carson, The Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Gospel According to John, [Nottingham: Apollos, 2006], p. 470.)

Cf. Leon Morris:

The eating of bread together signifies close fellowship.

(Leon Morris, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel According to John: Revised Edition, [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1995], p. 553.)

2.B. Excursus: ἐσθίω and τρώγω—Equally Realistic. Return to Outline.

David S. Hasselbrook:

Turning now to BDAG (2000), the literal sense of ἐσθίω is defined as “to take someth. in through the mouth, usually solids, but also liquids, eat.” Here, the gloss of BAGD (1979) has been beefed up with a definition that indicates the accusative object that the verb can take, while leaving the manner of “eating” unspecified. Looking at the usage of ἐσθίω in the New Testament, however, reveals that, with perhaps one exception, the accusative object taken by the word consists of types of food that would involve chewing in order to be eaten. Such food, when used of men, includes heads of grain (Matt 12:1, Luke 6:1), crumbs (Matt 15:27, Mark 7:28), bread (Mark 7:2, 5; Luke 7:33; Acts 27:35; 2 Thess 3:12), locusts and wild honey (Mark 1:6), the bread/body of Christ (1 Cor. 11:26, 27, 28), vegetables (Rom 14:23), food (βρώμα, Rom 14:20), meat offered to an idol (1 Cor 8:7), the fruit of the vineyard (1 Cor 9:7), the things of the temple (1 Cor 9:13), the sacrifices of the altar (1 Cor 10:18), and the things sold at the meat/food market (1 Cor 10:25). If, as seems appropriate for all but perhaps the Johanine writings and possibly some of Matthew, ἔφαγον is taken as the aorist of ἐσθίω, then the list expands to include fish (Matt 14:20; 15:37; Mark 6:42; 8:8; Luke 9:17; 24:43), the Passover (Matt 26:17; Mark 14:12, 14; Luke 22:8, 11, 15, 16), the fatted calf (Luke 15:23), animals, birds, and reptiles (Acts 10:13, 14; 11:7), meat (Rom 14:21), the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:20), supper (1 Cor 11:21), and the food of the altar (Heb 13:10). The only place where ἐσθίω may take a pure liquid for its accusative object occurs in 1 Cor 9:7. Here we read “ἢ τίς ποιμαίνει ποίμνην καὶ ἐκ τοῦ γάλακτος τῆς ποίμνης οὐκ ἐσθίει;” While eating ἐκ τοῦ γάλακτος τῆς ποίμνης may refer to partaking of the milk of the flock itself, it could perhaps also refer to partaking of the things associated with the milk, such as cheese made from it. An example of such a usage is found in Heb 13:10, where “ἔχομεν θυσιαστήριον ἐξ οὐ φαγεῖν” does not refer to eating parts of the altar, but to eating food associated with it.

The purpose of the preceding two paragraphs was to demonstrate that the verb ἐσθίω, when used in its literal sense in the New Testament and applied to men, typically signifies a type of eating that involves the action of chewing. This fact suggests that defining ἐσθίω in terms of “eating” and τρώγω in terms of “chewing” (e.g., as BDAG (2000) does) can be misleading, especially when both terms refer to the consumption of food. This is perhaps why some Western lexicons choose to define the ancient usage of τρώγω in terms of what was eaten rather than how it was eaten when it was used of men (e.g., || LSJ (1940)). This is not to say that τρώγω did not initially focus on the chewing dimension of eating in Ancient Greek usage, perhaps when applied to animals and possibly in its initial application to men. The fact remains, however, that somewhere along the line, the word lost this focus. The following paragraphs will seek to demonstrate that this had happened already by the time of the New Testament.

2.1. Early Non-Biblical Christian Literature. Return to Outline.

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215 A.D.):

Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols [συμβολων], when He said: “Eat [Φάγεσθέ] ye my flesh, and drink my blood;” describing distinctly by metaphor [ἀλληγορῶν] the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,—of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.

(Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor (Pædagogi), 1.6; PG, 8:296; trans. ANF, 2:219.) See also: ccel.org.

Note: The quotation “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood” [Φάγεσθέ μου τὰς σάρκας, εἰπὼν, καὶ πίεσθε μου τὸ αἷμα.] is a combination of John 6:53 and 54, drawing most heavily from verse 54 with the exception of Φάγεσθέ from verse 53 rather than τρώγων from verse 54. Compare:

Pædagogi, 1.6:

Φάγεσθέ μου τὰς σάρκας, εἰπὼν, καὶ πίεσθε μου τὸ αἷμα. (PG, 8:296)

John 6:54:

ὁ τρώγων μου τὴν σάρκα καὶ πίνων μου τὸ αἷμα… (NA28)

John 6:53:

…φάγητε τὴν σάρκα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ πίητε αὐτοῦ τὸ αἷμα… (NA28)

The quotation is nearly an exact replication of John 6:54 with the exception of Φάγεσθέ instead of τρώγων. This indicates that Clement understood the two verbs to be interchangeable (synonymous).

Note: Further, observe that the interpretation of John 6:53-54 is clearly of spiritual, not corporeal, manducation. (Cf. Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor (Pædagogi), 1.6; PG, 8:301, 304, 305; ANF, 2:220, 220-221, 221; Idem, 2.2; PG, 8:409, 412; ANF, 2:242; The Stromata, or Miscellanies, 5.10; PG, 9:100-101; ANF, 2:460.)

Cf. Daniel Waterland:

…he does indeed speak of receiving faith and the promise; but then he owns it to be an allegorical or anagogical view of the text; from whence one may infer that he intended it not for the primary sense, or for strict interpretation.

(Daniel Waterland, A Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist, ed. Van Mildert, [Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1896], p. 116.)

Cf. Samuel H. Turner:

It can hardly be doubted that in this passage the author had in view a spiritual eating and drinking, and not merely, if at all, a sacramental one. And this must be still farther evident to any who will take the trouble candidly to examine the whole context.

(Samuel H. Turner, Essay on Our Lord’s Discourse at Capernaum: Third Edition, [New York: Anson D. F. Randolph, 1860], pp. 121-122.)

Cf. John Kaye:

Clement gives various interpretations of Christ’s expressions in the sixth chapter of St. John’s Gospel respecting his flesh and blood; but in no instance does he interpret them literally.

(John Kaye, Some Account of the Writings and Opinions of Clement of Alexandria, [London: J. G. & F. Rivington, 1835], p. 447.)

Cf. William Goode:

But not a word is here about the Eucharist, and from the explanation which had been given but just before of the words of St. John, it is clear that no reference is even implied. The words “stretching out his flesh and pouring forth his blood” clearly refer to his sacrifice of himself on the cross. Nay more, he follows it up with other remarks which still further manifest his meaning; for after some further remarks on Christ as our food, he adds,—“Thus the Word is allegorically described in various ways, both as food, and flesh, and nourishment, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is everything, to minister to the enjoyment of us who believe in him.” And then he proceeds to say that his blood is allegorically called wine, referring for proof to Gen. xlix. 11. “Washing his robe in wine, and his garment in the blood of the grape,” still without any reference to the Eucharist; and finally adds that blood as well as milk is “a symbol of the passion and doctrine of our Lord.”

(William Goode, The Nature of Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist: Vol. I, [London: T. Hatchard, 1856], pp. 109-110.)

Cf. E. O. Phinney:

These several passages I have produced from the writings of this author, who is regarded as one the most pious, learned, and orthodox of the earlier Christian Fathers, not because they comprise any very lucid exposition of our Lord’s discourse, but because, of the various interpretations given by him, in no one instance does he explain the terms, flesh and blood used in John vi, literally. And to me the testimony of this great philosopher and master of the Alexandrian school, at the close of the second century, is instead of a myriad modern witnesses for a literal interpretation of our Saviour’s discourse.

(E. O. Phinney, Letters on the Eucharist: Addressed to a Member of the Church of Rome, [Baltimore: D. H. Carroll, 1880], p. 61.)

Cf. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215 A.D.):

If, then, “the milk” is said by the apostle to belong to the babes, and “meat” to be the food of the full-grown, milk will be understood to be catechetical instruction—the first food, as it were, of the soul. And meat is the mystic contemplation; for this is the flesh and the blood of the Word, that is, the comprehension of the divine power and essence. “Taste and see that the Lord is Christ,” it is said. For so He imparts of Himself to those who partake of such food in a more spiritual manner…

(Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, or Miscellanies, 5.10; PG, 9:100-101; trans. ANF, 2:460.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215 A.D.):

The Word is all to the child, both father and mother and tutor and nurse. “Eat ye my flesh,” He says, “and drink my blood.” Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood, and nothing is wanting for the children’s growth. O amazing mystery! We are enjoined to cast off the old and carnal corruption, as also the old nutriment, receiving in exchange another new regimen, that of Christ, receiving Him if we can, to hide Him within; and that, enshrining the Saviour in our souls, we may correct the affections of our flesh.

(Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor (Pædagogi), 1.6; PG, 8:301; trans. ANF, 2:220.) See also: ccel.org.

Note: Cf. William Goode, The Nature of Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist: Vol. I, [London: T. Hatchard, 1856], pp. 109-110.

Full Text. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215 A.D.):

But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes—the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food—that is, the Lord Jesus—that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified. . . . “I,” says the Lord, “have meat to eat that ye know not of. My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me.” You see another kind of food which, similarly with milk, represents figuratively the will of God. . . . Further, the Word declares Himself to be the bread of heaven. “For Moses,” He says, “gave you not that bread from heaven, but My Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is He that cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world. And the bread which I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” Here is to be noted the mystery of the bread, inasmuch as He speaks of it as flesh, and as flesh, consequently, that has risen through fire, as the wheat springs up from decay and germination; and, in truth, it has risen through fire for the joy of the Church, as bread baked. But this will be shown by and by more clearly in the chapter on the resurrection. But since He said, “And the bread which I will give is My flesh,” and since flesh is moistened with blood, and blood is figuratively termed wine, we are bidden to know that, as bread, crumbled into a mixture of wine and water, seizes on the wine and leaves the watery portion, so also the flesh of Christ, the bread of heaven absorbs the blood; that is, those among men who are heavenly, nourishing them up to immortality, and leaving only to destruction the lusts of the flesh.

Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord’s blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented as wine? “Who washes,” it is said, “His garment in wine, His robe in the blood of the grape.” In His own Spirit He says He will deck the body of the Word; as certainly by His own Spirit He will nourish those who hunger for the Word.

(Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor (Pædagogi), 1.6; PG, 8:301, 304, 305; trans. ANF, 2:220, 220-221, 221.) See also: ccel.org.

Eusebius, Bishop of Cæsarea (c. 260/5-339/40 A.D.):

And again he adds, “Truly, truly I say to you, unless you eat [φάγητε] the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats [τρώγων] my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. He who eats [τρώγων] my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.” …he taught them to hear in a spiritual sense what had been said about his flesh and blood. For [he says], “Do not think that I am speaking about the flesh, which I bear, [saying] that it is necessary to eat [ἐσθίειν] it, nor suppose that I command [you] to drink sensible and corporeal blood, but know well that ‘the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life,’ so that the words themselves and the statements themselves are the flesh and blood; he who partakes of them always, feeding as it were on heavenly bread, will have a share in the life of heaven.” …these things are ‘of no avail’ when they are heard sensibly, but the Spirit is that which gives life to those who are able to hear spiritually.”

(Eusebius of Cæsarea, Ecclesiastical Theology, 3.12; PG, 24:1021, 1024; trans. FC, 135:319-320.)

Note: Note Eusebius’ interchangeable use of ἐσθίω and τρώγω.

Note: Note also that the eating is not corporeal.

Full Text. Eusebius, Bishop of Cæsarea (c. 260/5-339/40 A.D.):

But you, having taken up the gospel text, see the whole teaching of our Savior [and] how he did not speak about the flesh that he assumed, but about the mystical body and blood. For when he fed the multitudes with the five loaves and provided this great miracle to those who were watching, many Jews, disparaging the deed, said to him, “Then, what sign do you do, that we may see, and believe you?” Then they made a comparison with the manna in the desert, saying, “Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it has been written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” (2) To these remarks the Savior answered, “Truly, truly I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.” Then he continues, “I am the bread of life,” and again, “I am the bread that came down from heaven,” and again, “The bread which I shall give is my body.” And again he adds, “Truly, truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you (3) have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood (4) is true drink. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.” And when he had recounted all these sorts of things in a more mystical way, certain of his disciples said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”—to which the Savior replied, saying, “Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see (5) the Son of Man ascending where he was before? It is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” Through these remarks he taught them to hear in a spiritual sense what had been said about his flesh and blood. For [he says], “Do not think that I am speaking about the flesh, which I bear, [saying] that it is necessary to eat it, nor suppose that I command [you] to drink sensible and corporeal blood, but know well that ‘the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life,’ so that the words themselves and the statements themselves are the flesh and blood; he who partakes of them always, feeding as it were on heavenly bread, (6) will have a share in the life of heaven.” Therefore, he [Christ] says, “Take no offense at what I have said to you about the food of my flesh and the drink of my blood, nor let what I have said about the flesh and blood trouble you when at first you hear it. For these things are ‘of no avail’ when they are heard sensibly, but the Spirit is that which gives life to those (7) who are able to hear spiritually.”

(Eusebius of Cæsarea, Ecclesiastical Theology, 3.12; PG, 24:1021, 1024; trans. FC, 135:319-320.)

Cf. William Goode:

Whether this is a strictly correct interpretation of the passage, or not, is not now the question. We are merely inquiring what interpretation was given to it by the Fathers; and here again, where it cannot be pretended that there is any attempt at allegorizing the words, they are formally interpreted as referring to spiritual acts of the soul.

(William Goode, The Nature of Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist: Vol. I, [London: T. Hatchard, 1856], p. 116.)

Cf. Daniel Waterland:

Eusebius, in another place, interprets flesh and blood in John vi. of our Lord’s mystical body and blood, as opposed to natural. And when he comes afterwards to explain this mystical body and blood, he interprets the same of words and doctrines…

(Daniel Waterland, A Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist, ed. Van Mildert, [Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1896], p. 126.)

Cf. Eusebius, Bishop of Cæsarea (c. 260/5-339/40 A.D.):

By this truly saving sacrifice, by the one who saved the entire human race with His own blood, being nourished by rational flesh — that is, by teachings and words proclaiming the kingdom of heaven — let us rightly enjoy the delight according to God. [Τούτου δὴ τοῦ σωτηρίου θύματος τοῦ τῷ ἰδίῳ αἵματι τὸ πάντων ἀνθρώπων γένος ἀνασωσαμένου ταῖς λογικαῖς σαρξὶ τρεφόμενοι, μαθήμασι δηλαδὴ καὶ λόγοις βασιλείας οὐρανῶν καταγγελτικοῖς, τὴν κατὰ Θεὸν εἰκότως τρυφῶμεν τρυφήν.]

(Eusebii Cæsariensis, De Solemnitate Paschali, §. 2; PG, 24:696.)

Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem (c. 313-386 A.D.):

Christ on a certain occasion discoursing with the Jews said, Except ye eat [φάγητε] My flesh and drink [πίητε] My blood, ye have no life in you. They not having heard His saying in a spiritual sense were offended, and went back, supposing that He was inviting them to eat flesh [σφαγίαν].

(Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 22.4; PG, 33:1100; trans. NPNF2, 7:151-152.) See also: ccel.org.

Note: Cyril has spliced together three words from John 6:53 with with seven words from verse 54, almost verbatim, which strongly implies that Cyril considered ἐσθίω and τρώγω to be interchangeable. Compare:

Catechetical Lectures, 22.4:

Ἐὰν μὴ φάγητε μου τὴν σάρκα, καὶ πίητε μου τὸ αἷμα… (PG, 33:1100)

John 6:54:

ὁ τρώγων μου τὴν σάρκα καὶ πίνων μου τὸ αἷμα… (NA28)

John 6:53:

…ἐὰν μὴ φάγητε τὴν σάρκα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ πίητε αὐτοῦ τὸ αἷμα… (NA28)

Cf. E. O. Phinney:

Observe: the offence of the Jews and their departure from Christ, is attributed to their “not spiritually understanding” our Lord’s words.

(E. O. Phinney, Letters on the Eucharist: Addressed to a Member of the Church of Rome, [Baltimore: D. H. Carroll, 1880], p. 67.)

Note: But rather assuming, incorrectly, that He was speaking of corporeal manducation.

Cf. William Goode:

He merely applies these words of Christ to that spiritual communion with his flesh and blood that takes place in the Eucharist.

(William Goode, The Nature of Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist: Vol. I, [London: T. Hatchard, 1856], p. 111.)

Note: It should further be observed that Cyril does not interpret the six the chapter of John to be a eucharistic discourse, rather he applies the discourse to his previous eucharistic discussion—Cf. Daniel Waterland, A Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist, ed. Van Mildert, [Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1896], pp. 101-144.

2.2. Early Non-Christian Literature. Return to Outline.

A Saying Attributed to Diogenes the Cynic (c. 3rd-5th Century A.D.):

Diogenes the Cynic philosopher, when asked by someone who saw an Ethiopian eating [ἔσθοντα] a clean meal [i.e. white bread], said, “The night eats [τρώγει] the day.” [Διογένης ὁ κυνικός φιλό σόφος ἐρωτηθεὶς ὑπό τινος ἰδὼν αἰτίοπα καθάριον ἔσθοντα εἶπεν ἡ νὺξ τὴν ἡμέραν τρώγει.]

(Sir Herbert Thompson, “A Greek Ostracon,” Plate XXII; In: Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology: January to December 1912: Vol. XXXIV: Forty-Second Session, [London: The Offices of the Society, 1912], p. 197.)

Cf. Sir Herbert Thompson:

The text is written on the common brown ribbed pottery characteristic of the later Roman and Coptic periods, and I suppose the hand is of the third or fourth century, A.D.

Cf. James Hope Moulton, George Milligan:

There seems no good reason for assuming the survival of any difference in meaning between the two verbs that supplied a present stem of φαγεῖν...

Papyri Oxyrhynchi 1185 (c. 200 A.D.):

The small child must eat [ἐσθίειν] bread, nibble on [or, eat, ἐπιτρώγειν] salt [or, salted food], not touch fish, and if he asks for wine, he should fear (your) knuckles. [ον παῖδα τὸν μεικρὸν δεῖ ἄρτον ἐσθίειν, ἅλας ἐπιτρώγειν, ὀψαρίου μὴ θιγγάνειν, ἂν δὲ καὶ οἶνον αἰτῇ, κονδύλους αὐτῷ δείδι.]

(Papyri Oxyrhynchi 1185 (c. 200 A.D.), “Letter of a Praefect, Etc.” In: The Oxyrhynchus Papyri: Part IX, ed. Arthur S. Hunt, [London: The Offices of the Egypt Exploration Fund, 1912], p. 199.)

Cf. N. D. Coleman:

Who ever nibbled salt? ἅλας in this context requires the meaning salted fish or salted food. We should translate ἅλας ἐπιτρώγειν ‘and eat (or munch, though in the late vernacular τρώγω simply = ἐσθίω) salted food with it’ regarding ἅλας as neuter singular.

Moulton and Milligan (N.T. Vocab.) quote ἐμβαλοῦ εἰς τὸ πλοῖον άλας καὶ λωτόν from Hibeh Pap. i 152 dated about 250 B.C. But even here both ἅλας and λωτόν are best interpreted as food: ‘Put some salted food and lotus bread into the boat for yourself’ it continues όπως ἔχωσιν οἱ ναυπηγοί, καὶ περὶ τῶν ξύλων ὧν . . . where it breaks off. The rations for the foreman and shipwrights seem to be distinguished from the timber (? for repairs) which is defined by the def. art. The same interpretation can apply to P. Par. 551.29 of the second century B.C. καὶ ἄρτοι καὶ ἄλας.

(N. D. Coleman, “Notes and Studies: Note on Mark IX 49, 50: A New Meaning for ἅλας;” In: The Journal of Theological Studies: Volume XXIII, [Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1922], p. 392.)

Note: The terms are clearly being used interchangeably.

3. Secondary Sources—The Testimony of Grammarians. Return to Outline.

F. Blass, A. Debrunner:

Τρώγειν is the popular substitution for ἐσθίειν.

(F. Blass, A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature: A Translation and Revision of the Ninth-Tenth German Edition Incorporating Supplementary Notes of A. Debrunner, trans. & ed. Robert W. Funk, [Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1961], §. 101, “ἐσθίειν,” p. 51.)

James Hope Moulton:

Ἔσθω (whence ἐσθίω by addition of a further suffix) is as old as Homer: it appears five times in ptc. and once (Lk 2230) in subj. The suppletive τρώγω is used in present stem.

(James Hope Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek: Vol. II, ed. Wilbert Francis Howard, [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1919], §. 95, p. 238.)

Jerker Blomqvist, Karin Blomqvist:

In ancient Greek, τρώγω is attested from Homer onwards. In its earliest occurrences it seems to denote a particular way of eating – gnawing or nibbling – typical of rodents and similar small animals. In the Hellenistic period it becomes fully synonymous with ἐσθίω. The synonymy is apparent in passages where τρώγω refers to humans eating food prepared precisely for human consumption, such as bread, and when there is no indication that the food was consumed in any other way than what is normal for humans, e.g., John 13.18 ὁ τρώγων μετ’ ἐμοῦ τὸν ἄρτον ‘he who eats the bread with me’ or Hermas, Similitude 56(V.3).7 ἐκ τῶν ἐδεσμάτων σου ὧν ἔμελλες τρώγειν ‘out of the food stuff that you would have eaten’. The equivalence of the two verbs also becomes clear when the combination τρώγειν καὶ πίνειν is used as a set phrase just as ἐσθίειν καὶ πίνειν and when John, in his quotation from LXX, substitutes τρώγων for ἐσθίων. This shows that the two verbs are interchangeable. John never uses the present ἐσθίω and, when Matthew speaks of those who experienced the feeding of the five thousand as οἱ ἐσθίοντες (14.21), John refers to the same persons as τοῖς βεβρωκόσιν (6.13), avoiding ἐσθίω as in the LXX quotation. Thus, John’s preferred verb for ‘eat’ in the present tense was τρώγω. This inference is important for the interpretation of Jesus’ discourse on the bread of life in John 6.53-58. In v. 53 aorist forms of verbs for ‘eat’ and ‘drink’ are used: ἐὰν μὴ φάγητε τὴν σάρκα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ πίητε αὐτοῦ τὸ αἷμα κτλ. ‘unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood’, etc. In the following verses John chooses the present instead: ὁ τρώγων μου τὴν σάρκα καὶ πίνων μου τὸ αἷμα (twice) ... ὁ τρώγων με ... ὁ τρώγων τοῦτον τὸν ἄρτον ‘eats my flesh and drinks my blood … eats me … eats this bread’. Possibly mislead by school grammars that represent ἐσθίω as the only proper present form corresponding to the aorist ἔφαγον, some commentators have believed that John, when using the present form τρώγων in the following verses, introduced a verb with a meaning different from that of ἐσθίω/ἔφαγον. That is not the case. The difference in sense between φαγών and τρώγων is the same as between πιών and πίνων, i.e., a difference between perfective and imperfective aspect, expressed by the aorist and present stems, respectively. It is not a difference in lexical meaning. There is no linguistic reason for supposing that τρώγων in this passage refers to an action different from the one referred to by φάγητε, etc. For a full understanding of what exactly is meant by “eating my flesh”, “eating me” and “eating this bread” of life, philology offers no definite clue.

(Jerker Blomqvist, Karin Blomqvist, “Eucharist Terminology in Early Christian Literature: Philological and Semantic Aspects”; In: The Eucharist — Its Origins and Contexts: Sacred Meal, Communal Meal, Table Fellowship in Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, eds. David Hellholm, Dieter Sänger, [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017], pp. 404-405.)

Randolph O. Yeager:

Why Jesus should employ τρώγω here and in vss. 56, 57 and 68, after having used ἐσθίω previously in this discourse is not clear. Cf. #1516 for the original meaning of τρώγω, though by New Testament times ἐσθίω and τρώγω had become synonymous. In Patristic Greek (A.D. 4th/5th century) a song of Diogenes “. . . who, when he saw a certain man eating (ἔσθοντα) remarked - ή νύξ τὴν ἡμέραν τρωγει - (“the night is eating up the day” our translation). There seems no good reason for assuming the survival of any difference in meaning between the two verbs that supplied a present stem of φαγεῖν, but see Haussleiter in Archiv. für lat. Lexicographie ix. (1896), p.300ff. In MGr τρώ(γ)ω is the usual word for “eat.” (Moulton and Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, 644).

(Randolph O. Yeager, The Renaissance New Testament: Volume Five, [Gretna: Pelican Publishing Company, 1998], pp. 497-498.) Preview.

Henry Alford:

τρώγων. It is not necessary to see any more literal ‘eating’ in the word than in φαγών:—it expresses the present of φαγών, which must be either τρώγων or ἐσθίων,—and the real sense conveyed is, that by the very act of inward realization, which is the ‘manducatio,’ the possession of eternal life is certified.

(Henry Alford, The Greek Testament: In Two Volumes: Vol. I, [London: Francis & John Rivington, 1849], p. 551.)

J. B. Lightfoot:

ὁ τρώγων Αs φαγεῖν has no present, some other word was necessary. ὁ ἐσθιών might have been used, but ὁ τρώγων is more expressive as it implies eating with satisfaction. Hence τράρηματα, see Philotus esp. in Steph. Thess. s.v. τρώγω. Besides this passage (vss. 54-58) the word occurs in the New Testament only at Matt 24:38 πρὸ τοῦ κατακλυσμοῦ τρώγοντες καὶ πίνοντες. Here the idea of living delicately is implied, and in John 8:18 where (in a quotation from Ps 41 (40):10) St. John has Ὁ τρώγων μου τὸν ἄρτον ἐπῆρεν ἐπ᾿ ἐμὲ τὴν πτέρναν αὐτοῦ, from the LXX, καὶ γὰρ ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς εἰρήνης μου, ἐφ᾿ ὃν ἤλπισα, ὁ ἐσθίων ἄρτους μου, ἐμεγάλυνεν ἐπ᾿ ἐμὲ. The Hebrew (of Ps 41:9) has אוֹכֵל לַחְמִי See references in Steph. Anti. Bekk. p. 114, 115.

(J. B. Lightfoot, The Gospel of St. John: A Newly Discovered Commentary, eds. Ben Witherington III, Todd D. Still, [Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2015], p. 153.) Preview.

Note: τρώγων occurs in John 13:18 not 8:18 (which appears to be a typographical error).

Cf. B. F. Westcott:

The verb used here (τρώγειν) expresses not only the simple fact of eating but the process as that which is dwelt upon with pleasure (Matt. xxiv. 38. Comp. ch. xiii. 18). So also the tense (ὁ τρώγων, contrast v. 45, ὁ ἀκούσας) marks an action which must be continuous and not completed once for all.

(B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to St John, [London: John Murray, 1892], p. 107.)

Cf. J. H. Bernard:

The verb τρώγειν challenges attention. In ordinary Greek, it is used of men eating fruit or vegetables, but no instance has been produced of its use for the eating of flesh (Abbott, Diat. 1710h). It seems to connote eating of delicacies, or eating with enjoyment . . . (the whole phrase is repeated verbatim in v. 56) seems to mean, “he who continually feeds with enjoyment upon my Flesh and continually drinks my Blood,” or “he who is in the habit of feeding, etc.,” for the present participles must be given their force. See above on v. 29.

Note: See also: Edwin A. Abbott, Johannine Vocabulary; A Comparison of the Words of the Fourth Gospel with Those of the Three, [London: Adam and Charles Black, 1905], §. 1710h, p. 200.

Archibald Thomas Robertson:

54. He that eateth (ho trōgōn). Present active participle for continual or habitual eating like pisteuete in verse 29. The verb trōgō is an old one for eating fruit or vegetables and the feeding of animals. In the N.T. it occurs only in John 6:54, 56, 58; 13:18; Matt. 24:38. Elsewhere in the Gospels always esthiō or ephagon (defective verb with esthiō). No distinction is made here between ephagon (48, 50, 52, 53, 58) and trōgō (54, 56, 57, 58). Some men understand Jesus here to be speaking of the Lord’s Supper by prophetic forecast or rather they think that John has put into the mouth of Jesus the sacramental conception of Christianity by making participation in the bread and wine the means of securing eternal life. To me that is a violent misinterpretation of the Gospel and an utter misrepresentation of Christ. It is a grossly literal interpretation of the mystical symbolism of the language of Jesus…

(Archibald Thomas Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament: Volume V, [New York: Harper & Brothers, 1932], pp. 111-112.)

Edwin A. Abbott:

Φαγεῖν is freq. in the Synoptists and fairly freq. in Jn, but Jn never uses ἐσθίαν. The difference between ἐσθίειν and φαγείν is often simply a difference of tense, i.e. of time, ἐσθίειν having no aorist, and φαγείν no present or imperfect.

(Edwin A. Abbott, The Fourfold Gospel: Section IV: The Law of the New Kingdom, Diatessarica, Part X, Section IV, [Cambridge: At the University Press, 1916], p. 345 fn. 1.)

Albert Thumb:

Through the dropping of a γ (§ 22) in some verbs, vowel sounds come together and are contracted… Likewise νὰ (θὰ) φάω beside φάγω, etc. (aor. subj. of. τρώγω “I eat”)...

(Albert Thumb, Handbook of the Modern Greek Vernacular: Grammar, Texts, Glossary, trans. S. Angus, [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912], §. 252, p. 177. Cf. Idem, p. 359.)

3.1. The Testimony of Lexicographers. Return to Outline.

James Hope Moulton, George Milligan:

…cf. Syll 805 (=31171)10 ἔδωκεν εὔζωμον νήστῃ τρώγειν. Other exx. are P Lond 12177 (iii/A.D.) (= Ι. p. 89) ψυχρὰ τρώγοντα κατακαίεσθαι, and Preisigke 57305 (= P Bouriant I160) a school-exercise of iv/v A.D. containing a saying of Diogenes who, when he saw a certain man eating (ἔσθοντα), remarked—ἡ νὺξ τὴν ἡμέραν τρώγει. There seems no good reason for assuming the survival of any difference in meaning between the two verbs that supplied a present stem for φαγεῖν: but see Haussleiter in Archiv für lat. Lexicographie ix. (1896), p. 300 ff. In MGr τρώ(γ)ω is the usual word for “eat.”

In one of the Klepht ballads edited by Abbott Songs p. 22, the verb is used to denote security. The famous Andritsos, besieged in the great Monastery, 11ἔτρωγε κ᾿ ἔπινε, while his enemies stormed at the gate. For the compd. ἐπιτρώγω cf. P Oxy IX. 118511 (c. Α.D. 200) παῖδα τὸν μεικρὸν δεῖ ἄρτον ἐσθίειν, ἅλας ἐπιτρώγειν, ὀψαρίου μὴ θινγάνειν, “a little boy must eat bread, nibble besides some salt, and not touch the sauce” (Ed.). For τραγήματα = “the dessert” or δευτέρα τράπεζα (secunda mensa, bellaria), see Cagnat IV. 10006 (іі/в.с.).

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, Sir Henry Stuart Jones, Roderick Mckenzie, et al.:

III. Later simply eat, serving as pres, to ἔφαγον instead of ἐσθίω, ὁ τρώγων μου τὴν σάρκα καὶ πίνων μου τὸ αἷμα Εv.Jo.6.54 (cf. aor. φάγητε . . . πίητε ib.53); τρώγοντες καὶ πίνοντες Εv.Matt.24.38; never in Lxx (ὁ ἐσθίων ἄρτους μου LxxPs.40(41).10 becomes ὁ τρώγων μου τὸν ἄρτον when cited in Ev.Jo.13.18); δύο τρώγομεν ἀδελφοί is dub. 1. in Plb.31.23.9; ἔδωκεν εὔζωμον νήστῃ τρώγειν SIG1171.9 (Crete, perh. i B. c.); ἡ νὺξ τὴν ἡμέραν τ. (of a black man eating white bread) Diog.Cyn.ap.Sammelb.5730 (iv/v Α.D.); ψυχρὰ τρώγοντα κατακαίεσθαι PMag.Lond.121.177; ἔμοιγε, ὅσσα παρ᾿ ἀνθρώποις, τρώγειν ἔθος Batr.34; this usage is mentioned by AB114, censured by Phot.

(Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon: With a Revised Supplement, revised and augmented by, Sir Henry Stuart Jones, with Roderick Mckenzie, et al., [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996], “τρώγω,” p. 1832.)

S. T. Bloomfield:

Τρώγω . . . In N. T. gener. equiv. to ἐσθίω.

(S. T. Bloomfield, A Greek and English Lexicon to the New Testament, [London: Longman, Orme, Brown, Green, & Longmans, 1840], “τρώγω,” p. 445.)

Alexander Souter:

τρώγω (originally I munch, I eat audibly), I eat. (This word was displacing ἐσθίω in ordinary use.)

(Alexander Souter, A Pocket Lexicon to the Greek New Testament, [Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1917], “τρώγω,” p. 265.)

David S. Hasselbrook:

The first occurrence of τρώγω in the New Testament is found at Matt 24:38. This verse reads, “ὡς γὰρ ἦσαν ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις ταῖς πρὸ τοῦ κατακλυσμοῦ τρώγοντες καὶ πίνοντες, γαμοῦντες καὶ γαμίζοντες, ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας εἰσῆλθεν Νῶε εἰς τὴν κιβωτόν.” There seems to be no good reason to insist that Matthew is trying to emphasize that the people of Noah’s time where “chewing and drinking” or “eating vegetables/raw foods and drinking.” Such a conclusion finds support from the parallel passage in Luke 17:27, which reads, “ἤσθιον, ἔπινον, ἐγάμουν, ἐγαμίζοντο, ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας εἰσῆλθεν Νῶε εἰς τὴν κιβωτόν . . . ." In the Lukan passage, Matthew’s imperfect periphrastic construction with the present partic[i]ple of τρώγω is replaced with the bare imperfect form of ἐσθίω.

The only other writing in which τρώγω occurs is the Gospel of John. We will first look at the occurrence of the word at John 13:18. Here, Jesus quotes Psalm 41:10 עָלֵי עָקֵב אוֹכֵל לַחְמִי הִגְדִּיל as “ὁ τρώγων μου τὸν ἄρτον ἐπῆρεν ἐπ’ ἐμὲ τὴν πτέρναν αὐτοῦ.” The Septuagint translates this verse as “ὁ ἐσθίων ἄρτους μου, ἐμεγάλυνεν ἐπ᾿ ἐμὲ πτερνισμόν.” Again, there seems to be no good reason to insist that John is trying to focus on the act of chewing in this passage. It is more likely that John is merely using τρώγω because it was, or was in the process of becoming, the common word for eating in the oral speech of his time. This idea gains further support from John’s Gospel itself, where ἐσθίω does not occur at all. In this Gospel, we find that τρώγω occurs five times and the aorist forms of ἔφαγον occur fifteen times. However, rather than viewing the aorist forms of ἔφαγον as aorist forms of ἔσθίω, John’s usage and the full diachronic history of τρώγω itself suggest that in John's Gospel ἔφαγον is very likely serving as his aorist form of τρώγω. Or, to put it another way, for John, τρώγω is serving as the present tense form of ἔφαγον, α verb that held and continues to hold the dominant position as the past tense verb for “eating.”

This latter point is relevant for John’s other uses τρώγω, all of which occur in the Bread of Life Discourse in chapter 6 (6:25-59). After using ἔφαγον in verses 26, 31 (two times), 49, 50, 51, 52, and 53, he switches to τρώγω in verses 54, 56, 57, and 58, and then finally ends again with ἔφαγον in the latter half of verse 58. One who looks at the pre-New Testament usage of τρώγω will probably find this shift to be significant in terms of meaning of verb forms. However, one who looks at the post-New Testament oral history of τρώγω will find this shift to be necessary due to changes in aspectual focus or usage, such as is the case with the interchange of ἐσθίω and ἔφαγον in other writings of the New Testament (e.g., Matt 14:16, 20, 21; 15:32, 37, 38; Rom 14:2, 3, 6, 20, 21, 23; 1 Cor 8:7, 8, 10, 13; 9:4, 7, 7, 13; 11:20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 33, 34). The latter position seems to gain support especially in John 6:58, where the past tense eating of the manna by the fathers (which, by the way, involved some kind of chewing and was done on a regular basis) and their subsequent past tense death is contrasted with an ongoing eating of Christ and the ongoing life it brings. The con[t]rast here is not between a general eating and an eating that involves more chewing. The signif[ic]ance lies, rather, in what was/is eaten and the need for the ongoing eating of Christ.

W. E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger, William White, Jr.:

The use of trōgō in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18 is a witness against pressing into the meaning of the word the sense of munching or gnawing; it had largely lost this sense in its common usage.

(W. E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger, William White, Jr., An Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, [Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984], “trōgō (τρώγω),” p. 346.)

Leonhard Goppelt:

The usage suggests that in Jn. 6:51c-58 the transition from ἔφαγον (6:52 f.) to τρώγω (6:54, 56 ff.) should be understood primarily as a grammatically based alternation between verbal forms.[fn. 6: We find the same alternation between the aor. which denotes the single act in the conditional clause and the iterative pres. part. in par. statements with πιστεύω too, cf. Jn. 6:54: ὁ τρώγων . . . ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον and 6:47: ὁ πιστεύων ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον, also 6:53: ἐὰν μὴ φάγητε and 8:24: ἐὰν . . . μὴ πιστεύσητε, cf. 11:25, 40.]

(Leonhard Goppelt, “τρώγω”; In: Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: Volume VIII, ed. Gerhard Friedrich, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1995], p. 236.) Preview.

3.2. The Testimony of Exegetes. Return to Outline.

C. K. Barrett:

τρώγειν . . . It is very improbable that John saw any special meaning in the word and distinguished it from other words for eating. Up to this point he has used the aorist stem √φαγ; he now requires a present participle, and instead of using ἐσθίειν, the usual supplement of the defective √φαγ, he uses τρώγειν, ἐσθίειν is never used in John, though √φαγ is quite common. τρώγειν occurs four times in this paragraph, and at 13.18 (where it is substituted for the ἐσθίειν of Ps. 41.10).

(C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St John, [London: S.P.C.K, 1962], on John 6:54, p. 247.)

D. A. Carson:

In v. 54 and again in v. 56, 57, 58, the verb for ‘to eat’ becomes trōgō (as opposed to esthiō, or more precisely its aorist stem phag-, the customary verb found elsewhere in this passage). In earlier Greek, trōgō was used for the munching of (especially herbivorous) animals; from the classical period on, the verb was also used of human beings. Some have taken its presence here as a sign of the literalness of ‘eating’ that occurs in the eucharist. It is far more likely that John injects no new meaning by selecting this verb, but prefers this verb when he opts for the Greek present tense (similarly in 13:18).

(D. A. Carson, The Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Gospel According to John, [Nottingham: Apollos, 2006], on John 6:53-54, p. 296.)

J. Ramsey Michaels:

Much has been written about Jesus’ abrupt use of a different verb for “eat” here,[fn. 50. Gr. ὁ τρώγων.]

and again in verses 56, 57, and 58. This verb is said to mean “to bite or chew food, eat (audibly),” and to be used “to offset any tendencies to ‘spiritualize’ the concept so that nothing physical remains in it, in what many hold to be the language of the Lord’s Supper.”[fn. 51: BDAG, 1019. So too Bultmann, 236: “It is a matter of real eating and not simply of some sort of spiritual participation”; also Moloney, 224. Morris, however, comments, “Some suggest that it points to a literal feeding and therefore to the sacrament. But this does not follow. There is no logic in saying: ‘The verb is used of literal eating. Therefore eating the flesh of Jesus must mean eating the communion bread’” (336). As we have seen (n. 44), eucharistic language is apt to be less literal or physical than that of John’s Gospel, not more.] Consequently, Raymond Brown translates the verb used in verse 53 as “eats,” and the verb here as “feeds on.”[fn. 52: Brown, 1.281-82; so too Anderson, Christology of the Fourth Gospel, 208: “‘to feed upon,’ or ‘to draw nourishment from’”; others, in a different vein, read it as the “eating of delicacies, or eating with enjoyment” (Bernard, 1.210; see Abbott, Johannine Vocabulary, 200). But more likely, the verbs are interchangeable in meaning.[fn. 53: That is, in the aorist indicative or subjunctive the Gospel writer prefers φαγεῖν, and in the present tense the verb τρώγειν (in addition to 6:54, 56-58, see 13:18; the “normal” present tense ἐσθίειν never occurs in this Gospel). To the Gospel writer, φαγείν and τρώγειν are the same verb, just as to most ancient writers φαγεῖν and ἐσθίειν are the same verb. BDF, §101 identifies τρώγειν as simply “a popular substitution for ἐσθίειν” (so Barrett, 299; Lindars, 269; Beasley-Murray, 95; Morris, 336). Schnackenburg (2.62) straddles the fence.] Therefore we have translated the two verbs identically.

(J. Ramsey Michaels, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel of John, [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2010], pp. 397-398. Cf. Idem, pp. 395-397.)

Leon Morris:

Flesh and blood in separation point to death. The words, then, are a cryptic allusion to the atoning death that Jesus would die, together with a challenge to enter the closest and most intimate relation with him.[fn. 134: Cf. Westcott, “To ‘eat’ and to ‘drink’ is to take to oneself by a voluntary act that which is external to oneself, and then to assimilate it and make it part of oneself. It is, as it were, faith regarded in its converse action. Faith throws the believer upon and into its object; this spiritual eating and drinking brings the object of faith into the believer.” The midrash on Eccl. 2:24, “A man can do nothing better than to eat and drink . . . .,” says, “All the references to eating and drinking in this Book signify Torah and good deeds” (Soncino edn., p. 71; so also on Eccl. 8:15).] They are to be interpreted in the light of verse 47.

54 What has been put negatively is now stated positively in a way typical of this Gospel. Anyone who eats Christ’s flesh and drinks his blood has eternal life, and he will be raised up by Christ at the last day. The word for “eats” is different[fn. 136: The tense is different, too. The present ὁ τρώγων points to a continuing appropriation. Indeed, Ryle sees the whole point of the verb in this. He cites Leigh, that the word “noteth a continuance of eating, as brute beasts will eat all day, and some part of the night” and adds, “our Lord meant the habit of continually feeding on Him all day long by faith. He did not mean the occasional eating of material food in an ordinance.”] from that used previously, and it is used again in the following verses (56, 57, 58; elsewhere in the New Testament only in Matt. 24:38; John 13:18). It properly applies to somewhat noisy feeding (like “munch” or “crunch”). There is often the notion of eating with enjoyment (so in Matt. 24:38). It is a startling word in this context, and stresses the actuality of the partaking of Christ that is in mind. Some suggest that it points to a literal feeding and therefore to the sacrament. But this does not follow. There is no logic in saying: “The verb is used of literal eating. Therefore eating the flesh of Christ must mean eating the communion bread.”[137. That τρώγω does not differ significantly from ἐσθίω is indicated by the fact that in their reports of the activity of the people of Noah’s generation Matthew uses the former (Matt. 24:38) and Luke the latter (Luke 17:27). Similarly, in the quotation from Ps. 41:9 in John 13:18 we find τρώγω, but the LXX has ἐσθίω.] On any showing there is a symbolic element in the “eating,” and it is better to understand it, as in the earlier reference, to receiving Christ. The continuing reference to Christ’s raising up the believer at the last day is interesting. There may be more to eternal life than life in the age to come, but life in that age is certainly prominent.

(Leon Morris, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel According to John: Revised Edition, [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1995], pp. 335-336.)

George R. Beasley-Murray:

54 The term τρώγω is often used of animals gnawing, nibbling, or munching food, but it is used also of ordinary human eating. It is common to view the use of the term here as emphasizing a genuine eating of the flesh of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, in conscious opposition to the Docetists, who denied that such was possible. (Schnackenburg cites Ignatius on his Docetist opponents: “They keep away from the Eucharist and prayers because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Redeemer Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins,” Smyrn. 7:1.) The anti-Docetist slant of the passage is apparent, but is not the supposed meaning of τρώγω. It has been noted frequently that the term ἐσθίω occurs in none of the Johannine writings: its place, as frequently in other writings, is taken by τρώγω as the present tense of the aorist ἔφαγον. So we find in John 13:18 that the citation from Ps 40:10, ὁ ἐσθίων ἄρτους μου is replaced by ὁ τρώγων μου τὸν ἄρτον, where no more than a symbol of friendship is in view. An insistence therefore on the eucharistic emphasis of τρώγω here does not accord with the linguistic evidence. (Note that in v 58 ἔφαγον and τρώγων are set in synonymous parallelism.)

(George R. Beasley-Murray, Word Biblical Commentary: Volume 36 (Second Edition): John, [Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999], p. 95.)

Colin G. Kruse:

Here in 6:54 a different word for eating is introduced. Previously the word esthiō was used, but here, and also in 6:56, 57, 58, the word trōgō is used. Often it is said that trōgō carries the idea of chewing or gnawing on Jesus’ flesh, which would make his statement even more repulsive. However, trōgō does appear to be used as a simple synonym for esthiō elsewhere (13:18; Matt. 24:38), as it is in 6:54, where both words are found.

(Colin G. Kruse, John: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: Volume 4, [Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press, 2008], p. 175 fn. 43.)

W. F. Howard:

A warning should be given against the emphasis still laid in some modern commentaries on the use of the word τρώγειν. In late Greek this was often used instead of ἐσθίειν as a suppletive to φαγεῖν in the present tense. Thus: (a) Matt. xxiv. 38 uses τρώγειν where Luke xvii. 27 has ἐσθίειν in his form of the same logion; (b) John xiii. 18 reads ὁ τρώγων μου τὸν ἄρτον, where the LXX of Ps. xl. 10 (E. V. xli. 9) has ὁ ἐσθίων ἄρτους μου; (c) in mod. Greek τρώγειν is the ordinary word for “eat.” See Moulton, Gr. of N.T. Greek, ii. p. 238; Moulton-Milligan, Vocab. p. 644; Thumb, Handb. of Mod. Gr. Vernacular, pp. 177, 359.

(W. F. Howard, Christianity According to St. John, [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1946], pp. 209-210.)

Cf. The New American Bible: (From the Official Vatican Website)

Eats: the verb used in these verses is not the classical Greek verb used of human eating, but that of animal eating: “munch,” “gnaw.” This may be part of John’s emphasis on the reality of the flesh and blood of Jesus (cf 55), but the same verb eventually became the ordinary verb in Greek meaning “eat.”

(The New American Bible, [Iowa Falls: World Bible Publishers, 1986], on John 6:54-58, p. 1147.) See also: vatican.va.

Cf. Raymond E. Brown, S.S.:

In secular Greek this verb trōgein was originally used of animals; but, at least from the time of Herodotus, it was used of human eating as well.

(Raymond E. Brown, S.S., The Gospel According to John: (i-xii), The Anchor Bible: Volume 29, [Garden City: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1980], p. 283.)

Cf. Carl Ludwig Wilibald Grimm, Christian Gottlob Wilke Joseph Henry Thayer:

τρώγω . . . also of men fr. Hdt. down…

(Carl Ludwig Wilibald Grimm, Christian Gottlob Wilke Joseph Henry Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Being Grimm’s Wilke’s Clavis Novi Testamenti, translated, revised and enlarged By Joseph Henry Thayer, [New York: American Book Company, 1989], “τρώγω,” p. 631.)

Rudolf Schnackenburg:

(Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St John: Volume Two: Commentary on Chapters 5-12, [New York: Crossroad, 1987], p. 62.)

Note: “Vulgar,” vulgaris, i.e. “common” not “crude”.

Cf. F. Blass, A. Debrunner:

Τρώγειν is the popular substitution for ἐσθίειν.

Barnabas Lindars:

54. eats: here, and in 56-8, John uses a different word. So far he has used the aorist phagein throughout; now he uses the present tense, and, instead of the usual root employed for this tense (esthiein), he chooses trōgein, which properly means ‘to munch, or nibble’. There are two reasons why he may have done this. Trōgein could be chosen to press the point home by its greater realism in the most uncompromising way, even at the risk of suggesting a ‘carnal’ view of the eucharistic meal. It would then very likely have a polemical motive, against the Docetists. Hoskyns and Brown take this view. Or it may be simply due to the limitations of John’s Greek vocabulary. He must have known esthiein, for it is frequent both in the LXX and in the traditional Gospel material he has at his disposal, but trōgein is the word he finds most natural to use. He never uses esthiein, but he has trōgein again in a quotation in 13.18 (where LXX has esthiein). Elsewhere in the NT trōgein only occurs in Mt. 24.38, where it has no special meaning (Lk. 17.27 has esthiein in the parallel passage). This view, which is strongly argued by Sanders, seems to me to be more likely. As the next words show, the whole point of the verse is to correlate the eucharistic feeding with both present possession of eternal life, and participation in it after the general resurrection, exactly as in verse 40. The thought is moving away from the nature of the food (i.e. the incarnate and crucified Lord) to the effect of it, which is first put in the already familiar words of verse 40, and then has a new formulation in verse 56.

(Barnabas Lindars, The Gospel of John, [London: Oliphants, 1972], pp. 268-269.)

J. N. Sanders, B. A. Mastin:

ὁ τρώγων (as in vi. 56, 57, 58; xiii. 18). In later Greek (cf. Matt. xxiv. 38) τρώγω replaces the classical ἐσθίω as the present tense of the aorist ἔφαγον. ἐσθίω does not occur in the Johannine literature (see LS9). This would seem to dispose of E. C. Hoskyns’ attempt (The Fourth Gospel (ed. F. N. Davey, 1940), I, pp. 336 f.) to find some special meaning in τρώγω in the FG. But see Bauer5, s.v.; Bauer, p. 98.

(J. N. Sanders, B. A. Mastin, A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John, Black’s New Testament Commentaries, [London: Adam & Charles Black, 1968], p. 194 fn. 11.)

Paul N. Anderson:

The move from phagein to trōgein in vs. 54 is not necessarily a clear reference to the coarse munching sound made by animals as they feed (munching, gnawing, etc.), inserted to highlight the physicality of the eucharistic meal. Rather, trōgein is equally well associated with ‘feeding upon’ — as it relates to the internalization of the Bread which Jesus is. The phrase used by Mateos and Barretos is ‘asimilar su realidad humana’ (to assimilate his human reality, p. 343), and the word simply means ‘to feed upon’, or ‘to draw nourishment from’.

(Paul N. Anderson, The Christology of the Fourth Gospel, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament. 2. Reihe 78, [Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1996], p. 208.)

Andrew T. Lincoln:

54-5 Up to this point the verb φάγειν has been used for ‘to eat’ but now there is a shift to the verb τρώγειν, which can have the force of ‘to chew’ or ‘to munch’ (cf. also vv. 56-8). Some see the employment of a verb which emphasizes the physical activity of eating as pointing to the actual eating involved in the eucharistic meal. But to make this a major ground for holding that this verse is now saying that participation in the sacrament is necessary for experiencing eternal life appears dubious. The two verbs can be used synonymously, and even if τρώγειν has more intimate or more down-to-earth connotations, its primary function here remains metaphorical. In any case, Jesus’ promise for the one who eats his flesh and drinks his blood is the same as for those who believe (cf. v. 40) – the person has eternal life and I will raise that person up at the last day.

(Andrew T. Lincoln, Black’s New Testament Commentaries: The Gospel According to Saint John, [London: Continuum, 2005], pp. 232-233.)

Note: See further: ‘The Meaning of “Eating” and “Drinking” in the Sixth Chapter of John.’

Andreas J. Köstenberger:

John’s use of τρώγω (trōgō, chew, eat) in 6:54 may be intended to heighten the vividness of Jesus’ words (Ridderbos 1997: 242 n. 163; cf. Moloney 1998: 221; Bultmann 1971: 236), though it may merely be the evangelist’s preferred verb for “eating” in the present tense (Carson 1991: 296; cf. Beasley-Murray 1999; 95; Barrett 1978: 299).

(Andreas J. Köstenberger, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: John, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004], p. 216 fn. 77.) Preview.

Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer:

ὁ τρώγων] Previously the word was φάγητε, but there is in the change no special intention as if to use a stronger term (to chew, to crunch), as the repetition of πίνων shows. Comp. Dem. 402. 21: τρώγειν καὶ πίνειν. Plut. Μor. p. 613 B; Polyb. xxxii. 9.9. Comp. also xiii. 18; Matt. xxiv. 38.

(Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Gospel of John: Vol. I, trans. William Urwick, ed. Frederick Crombie, [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1874], p. 297.)

Marvin R. Vincent:

54. Eateth (τρώγων). Another verb for eating is used. With the exception of Matt. xxiv. 38, it is found only in John, and always in connection with Christ. No special significance can be fairly attached to its use here. It seems to be taken as a current word, and ἔφayov is resumed in ver. 58.

(Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament: Volume II, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1906], p. 153.)

Craig S. Keener:

The term τρώγω is not peculiarly eucharistic, being John’s stylistic preference even in 13:18, where he alters the LXX (Beasley-Murray, John, 95).

(Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary: Volume 1, [Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003], p. 690 fn. 264.) Preview.

Eric Svendsen:

…there are two Greek words used for “eating” in John 6: esthiô (ἐσθίω) and trôgô (τρώγω). . . . Jesus . . . uses these terms interchangeably (since he uses each one independently to make the same point). Moreover, esthiô is used in all of the Last Supper passages (“take and eat, this is my body”), not trôgô.

(Eric Svendsen, Evangelical Answers: A Critique of Current Roman Catholic Apologists, [Lindenhurst: Reformation Press, 1999], p. 182.)

3.2.A. Other Possible (Less Probable) Interpretations. Return to Outline.

F. F. Bruce:

It is doubtful, however, if much significance can be read into the use of the one verb or the other in the present context; it may be a further instance of the Evangelist’s predilection for ringing the changes on synonyms.

(F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John, [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1983], p. 159.)

Herman N. Ridderbos:

…the idea that such a more or less colloquial word should function in John 6 specifically as liturgical language seems most implausible (“Never, until St. John, was τρώγειν utilized in a religious text” — so even Spicq). This realism seems rather to belong to the “hard” language of “eating and drinking Jesus’ body and blood.” But it remains an open question whether one has to ascribe a deeper significance to the use of τρώγειν in place of φαγείν.

(Herman N. Ridderbos, The Gospel according to John: A Theological Commentary, trans. John Vriend, [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1997], p. 243 fn. 163.) Preview.

3.3. The Testimony of Translators. Return to Outline.

Note: Most Bible translations, including most Roman Catholic translations, do not distinguish between τρώγω and ἐσθίω when translating John 6:53-54. E.g. American Standard Version; Christian Standard Bible; Common English Bible; Contemporary English Version; Douay-Rheims (1899 American Edition); Geneva Bible (1599); God’s Word Translation, Good News Translation; Jerusalem Bible; King James Version; Lexham English Bible; New American Bible; New American Bible (Revised Edition); New American Standard Bible; New English Translation; New International Version; New Living Translation; New Revised Standard Version (Anglicised); New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition; Revised Standard Version; Vulgate (Latin); World English Bible; Young’s Literal Translation.

4. Eating and Drinking. Return to Outline.

John 6:53:

So Jesus said to them, ‘Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat [φάγητε] the flesh of the Son of Man and drink [πίητε] his blood, you have no life in you.

(New Revised Standard Version: Anglicised.)

Cf. John 6:54:

Those who eat [ὁ τρώγων] my flesh and drink [πίνων] my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day;

(New Revised Standard Version: Anglicised.)

Luke 17:27:

They were eating [ἤσθιον] and drinking [ἔπινον], and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed all of them.

(New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised.)

Cf. Matthew 24:38:

For as in those days before the flood they were eating [τρώγοντες] and drinking [πίνοντες], marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark,

(New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised.)

Cf. John 6:58:

This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate [ἔφαγον], and they died. But the one who eats [ὁ τρώγων] this bread will live for ever.’

(New Revised Standard Version: Anglicised.)

5. Metaphorical (Non-Literal) Uses of τρώγω—In Early Extra-Biblical Christian Literature. Return to Outline.

The Shepherd of Hermas (c. 1st/2nd Century A.D.):

And this is what you must do: when you have completed what has been written, you must taste nothing except bread and water on that day on which you fast. Then you must estimate the cost of the food [ἐδεσμάτων] you would have eaten [τρώγειν] on that day on which you intend to fast, and give it to a widow or an orphan or someone in need. In this way you will become humble-minded, so that as a result of your humble-mindedness the one who receives may satisfy his own soul and pray to the Lord on your behalf. [οὕτω δὲ ποιήσεις· συντελέσας τὰ γεγραμμένα, ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ᾗ νηστεύεις μηδὲν γεύσῃ εἰ μὴ ἄρτον καὶ ὕδωρ, καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἐδεσμάτων σου ὧν ἔμελλες τρώγειν συνοψίσας τὴν ποσότητα τῆς δαπάνης ἐκείνης τῆς ἡμέρας ἧς ἔμελλες ποιεῖν, δώσεις αὐτὸ χήρα ἢ ὀρφανῷ ἢ ὑστερουμένῳ, καὶ οὕτω ταπεινοφρονήσεις, ἵν᾿ ἐκ τῆς ταπει νοφροσύνης σου ὁ εἰληφὼς ἐμπλήσῃ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ψυχὴν καὶ εὔξηται ὑπὲρ σοῦ πρὸς τὸν κύριον.]

(The Shepherd of Hermas, 5.3.7; trans. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations: 3rd Edition, ed. & trans. Michael W. Holmes, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007], pp. 474, 475.)

Cf. David S. Hasselbrook:

In this passage τρώγω is used in reference to eating food (έδεσμα) that one was going to eat if one did not fast. No emphasis on chewing this food is being made here. Neither is the focus on a certain type of food to be consumed.

Cf. David S. Hasselbrook:

Irenaeus of Lyon (c. 130-202 A.D.):

He might easily have come to us in His immortal glory, but in that case we could never have endured the greatness of the glory; and therefore it was that He, who was the perfect bread of the Father [ὁ ἄρτος ὁ τέλειος τοῦ Πατρὸς], offered Himself to us as milk, [because we were] as infants. He did this when He appeared as a man, that we, being nourished, as it were, from the breast of His flesh, and having, by such a course of milk nourishment, become accustomed to eat and drink the Word of God [τρώγειν καὶ πίνειν τὸν Λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ], may be able also to contain in ourselves the Bread of immortality [τὸν τῆς ἀθανασίας ἄρτον], which is the Spirit of the Father [ὅπερ ἐστὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα τοῦ Πατρὸς].

And on this account does Paul declare to the Corinthians, “I have fed you with milk, not with meat, for hitherto ye were not able to bear it.” That is, ye have indeed learned the advent of our Lord as a man; nevertheless, because of your infirmity, the Spirit of the Father has not as yet rested upon you. “For when envying and strife,” he says, “and dissensions are among you, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?” That is, that the Spirit of the Father was not yet with them, on account of their imperfection and shortcomings of their walk in life. As, therefore, the apostle had the power to give them strong meat—for those upon whom the apostles laid hands received the Holy Spirit, who is the food of life [eternal]—but they were not capable of receiving it, because they had the sentient faculties of the soul still feeble and undisciplined in the practice of things pertaining to God…

(Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 4.38.1-2; PG, 7:1105-1106; trans. ANF, 1:521.) See also: ccel.org.

Note: The context is undeniable, τρώγειν is used of spiritual, not corporeal, manducation.

Cf. J. H. Bernard:

τρώγειν is used of spiritual feeding in a remarkable sentence of Irenæus (Hær. IV. xxxviii. 1) which seems to be reminiscent of the present passage. He is speaking of Christ, ὁ ἄρτος ὁ τέλειος τοῦ πατρός, and of His gradual revelation of Himself. First, He offered Himself to us as milk is offered to infants, in order that being thus nourished from the breast of His flesh (ὑπὸ μασθοῦ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ), “we might become accustomed to eat and drink the Word of God (τρώγειν καὶ πίνειν τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ), and contain within ourselves the Bread of immortality (τὸν τῆς ἀθανασίας ἄρτον), which is the Spirit of the Father.”

Note: Additionally, observe the Johannine language Irenaeus uses, and the unequivocally spiritual interpretation of John 6. (Cf. Irenaeus of Lyon, Fragments, 13; PG, 7:1236; ANF, 1:570.)

Cf. E. O. Phinney:

There is a passage in IRENÆUS, which may be thought to allude to the discourse recorded in the sixth chapter of St. John. He says that our Lord did not come to us, as he might have done, in his incorruptible glory, which we could not have borne; but “the perfect bread of the Father supplied us with himself, as babes with milk, which was his advent according to man, that we, nourished, as it were, by the breast of his flesh, and accustomed by such lactation to eat and drink the Word of God, might be able to retain in ourselves the bread of immortality, which is the Spirit of the Father.” If this be an allusion to John vi, it is evident, that the author does not consider the discourse there recorded, as relating directly to the Eucharist, for he is speaking of the incarnation of Christ, by which are effected the eating and drinking of which he speaks. Indeed his language plainly teaches that it is a spiritual union with Christ that is intended by the expression, “to eat and drink the Word of God.”

(E. O. Phinney, Letters on the Eucharist: Addressed to a Member of the Church of Rome, [Baltimore: D. H. Carroll, 1880], pp. 54-55.)

Cf. David Milne:

To be fed with milk is, therefore, to learn the (historical) presence of our Lord as Man, that is, to be instructed in the Gospel history, and in such elementary lessons as are easily received and not easily perverted. But the strong meat belongs to the full-grown or spiritual man, whose well-balanced mind harmonises the various utterances of the prophetic Word into one consistent system, based on the Apostolic Faith…

(David Milne, The Early Doctrinal System of the Church: Or, Philosophical Tradition of the First Two Centuries, [London: Spottiswoode & Co., 1883], pp. cxxiv-cxxv.)

Cf. J. H. Bernard:

The equation, Milk = Word, meets us again in a different sequence of thought in Irenaeus: Christ came to earth in such manner as we could receive Him. He could have come in His glory, but we could not have borne it.

(J. H. Bernard, The Odes of Solomon; In: Texts and Studies: Contributions to Biblical and Patristic Literature: Vol. VIII. No. 3. The Odes of Solomon, ed. J. Armitage Robinson, [Cambridge: At the University Press, 1912], pp. 67-68. Cf. R. H. Connolly, The Liturgical Homilies of Narsai; In: Texts and Studies: Contributions to Biblical and Patristic Literature: Vol. VIII. No. 1. The Liturgical Homilies of Narsai, ed. J. Armitage Robinson, [Cambridge: At the University Press, 1909], p. 88.)

Cf. Samuel H. Turner:

If the Bishop of Lyons does refer to John, vi., he evidently does not consider the discourse as relating directly to the eucharist, as he is discoursing of Christ's incarnation, by which the eating and drinking which he speaks of are effected. A spiritual union and incorporation with the Word is certainly intended.

(Samuel H. Turner, Essay on Our Lord’s Discourse at Capernaum: Third Edition, [New York: Anson D. F. Randolph, 1860], p. 115.)

Cf. Daniel Waterland:

There is one place in Irenaeus which seems to carry some remote and obscure allusion to John vi. The Logos, the Divine nature of our Lord, according to him, is the perfect bread of the Father, and bread of immortality; and he talks of eating and drinking the same Logos, or Word. If he had John vi. then in his eye, (which is not improbable,) he interpreted it, we see, not of sacramental manducation, but of spiritual; not of the signs, but of the things signified, apart from the signs. Only it is observable, that while he speaks of our feeding upon the Logos, he explains it as done through the medium of the flesh: it is the human nature, by which we are brought to feast upon the Divine. St. Chrysostom gives the like construction of bread of life in John vi., interpreting it, so far, of our Lord’s Divine nature.

(Daniel Waterland, A Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist, ed. Van Mildert, [Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1896], p. 115.)

Cf. Irenæus, Bishop of Lyon [Lugdunum] (c. 130-202 A.D.):

For when the Greeks, having arrested the slaves of Christian catechumens, then used force against them, in order to learn from them some secret thing [practised] among Christians, these slaves, having nothing to say that would meet the wishes of their tormentors, except that they had heard from their masters that the divine communion was the body and blood of Christ, and imagining that it was actually flesh and blood, gave their inquisitors answer to that effect.

(Irenæus, Fragments, 13; PG, 7:1236; trans. ANF, 1:570.) See also: ccel.org.

Basil the Great, Bishop of Cæsarea Mazaca (c. 329/30-379 A.D.):

“He that eateth [ὁ τρώγων] me,” He says, “he also shall live because of me;” for we eat [τρώγομεν] His flesh, and drink [πίνομεν] His blood, being made through His incarnation and His visible life partakers of His Word and of His Wisdom. For all His mystic sojourn among us He called flesh and blood, and set forth the teaching consisting of practical science, of physics, and of theology, whereby our soul is nourished and is meanwhile trained for the contemplation of actual realities. This is perhaps the intended meaning of what He says.

(Basil the Great, Letter 8.4 [To the Cæsareans. A defence of his withdrawal, and concerning the faith]; PG, 32:253; trans. NPNF2, 8:118.) See also: ccel.org.

Note: Basil explicitly uses τρώγω to denote spiritual, not corporeal, manducation.

Cf. William Goode:

…as showing his notion of the nature of the act described as eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ, namely, that it is a spiritual act, an act of the soul.

(William Goode, The Nature of Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist: Vol. I, [London: T. Hatchard, 1856], p. 348.)

5.1. In Early Non-Christian Literature. Return to Outline.

Polybius (c. 200-118 B.C.):

Why, Polybius, since there are two of us [δύο τρώγομεν ἀδελφοί], do you constantly converse with my brother and address to him all your questions and explanations, but ignore me? [ὦ Πολύβιε, δύο τρώγομεν ἀδελφοί, καὶ διαλέγει συνεχῶς καὶ πάσας τὰς ἐρωτήσεις καὶ τὰς ἀποφάσεις ποιεῖ πρὸς ἐκεῖνον, ἐμὲ δὲ παραπέμπεις.]

(Polybius, Histories, 31.23.9; trans. LCL, 161:230, 231.) See also: loebclassics.com.

Note: δύο τρώγομεν ἀδελφοί, lit. “two brothers are eating”. The phrase is intended to convey a close personal relationship and camaraderie, not corporeal manducation.

Aristophanes (446-386 B.C.):

Why, then, does the oracle not say dog instead of dog-fox? Because he compares the soldiers to young foxes, who, like them, eat [τρώγουσιν] the grapes in the fields. [πῶς οὖν ἀλώπηξ προσετέθη πρὸς τῷ κυνί; ἀλωπεκίοισι τοὺς στρατιώτας ἔκασεν, ὁτιὴ βότρυς τρώγουσιν ἐν τοῖς χωρίοις.]

(Aristophanes, The Knights, 1075-1077; Fredericus H. M. Blaydes, Aristophanis Equites: Annotatione Critica, Commentario Exegetico, Et Scholiis Graecis, [Halis Saxonum: In Orphanotrophei Libraria, 1891], p. 131; trans. Aristophanes: The Eleven Comedies: The First of Two Volumes, [London: Printed for the Athenian Society, 1912], p. 79.)

Note: The context indicates that τρώγουσιν is metaphorical—i.e. taking advantage of resources or opportunities, indicative of a cunning and perhaps an opportunistic nature (their ability to seize what they desire).

Aristophanes (c. 446-386 B.C.):

And you’re prospering, though you used to go begging, claiming to be the Mysian Telephus and living on [τρώγων] Pendeletean bon mots from a little bag. [σὺ δὲ γ’ εὖ πράττεις. καίτοι πρότερόν γ’ ἐπτώχευες, Τήλεφος εἶναι Μυσὸς φάσκων ἐκ πηριδίου γνώμας τρώγων Πανδελετείους.]

(Aristophanes, Clouds, 920-924; trans. LCL, 488:134-137.) See also: loebclassics.com.

Note: Note The context, τρώγων denotes general sustenance, not literal corporeal manducation—ἐκ πηριδίου γνώμας τρώγων Πανδελετείους, literally “eating opinions [or sayings] from a little wallet, all of them Pandletean”.

Herodotus (c. 484-425 B.C.):

Ο King, you are making ready to march against men who wear breeches of leather and their other garments of the same, and whose fare is not what they desire but what they have; for their land is stony. Further they use no wine, but are water-drinkers, nor have they figs to eat [τρώγειν], nor aught else that is good [πρὸς δὲ οὐκ οἴνῳ διαχρέωνται ἀλλὰ ὑδροποτέουσι, οὐ σύκα δὲ ἔχουσι τρώγειν, οὐκ ἄλλο ἀγαθὸν οὐδέν]. Now if you conquer them, of what will you deprive them, seeing that they have nothing? But if on the other hand you are conquered, then see how many good things you will lose; for once they have tasted of our blessings they will cling so close to them that nothing will thrust them away.

(Herodotus, Histories, 1.71; trans. LCL, 117:86, 87.) See also: loebclassics.com.

Note: The context clearly indicates that τρώγειν is metaphorical (i.e. of good things generally).

James Hope Moulton, George Milligan:

(James Hope Moulton, George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament: Illustrated From the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources, [London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1929], “τρώγω,” p. 644. Cf. Songs of Modern Greece, ed. & trans. G. F. Abbott, [Cambridge: At the University Press, 1900], pp. 22, 23.)

6. The Early Church and John 6. Return to Outline.

Note: The early Church Fathers, seemingly with one voice, rejected any sort of corporeal manducation in John 6 (for extensive primary source documentation see: Transubstantiation and John 6: A Comprehensive Historical Refutation). Additionally, while the Fathers are almost unanimous in their application of John 6 to the eucharist (broadly speaking) it is equally true that they do not interpret John 6 as being about the eucharist. It is imperative that we, as Daniel Waterland observes, “distinguish between interpreting and applying” for “application does not amount to interpreting that chapter of the Eucharist”. (Daniel Waterland, A Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist, ed. Van Mildert, [Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1896], p. 110.) For an in-depth examination see: Idem, pp. 101-144.

Tertullian of Carthage (c. 155-220 A.D.):

He says, it is true, that “the flesh profiteth nothing;” but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, “It is the spirit that quickeneth;” and then added, “The flesh profiteth nothing,”—meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” …we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith.

(Tertullian of Carthage, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 37; trans. ANF, 3:572.) See also: ccel.org.

Origen of Alexandria (c. 184-253 A.D.):

Acknowledge that they are figures, which are written in the sacred volumes; therefore as spiritual, not carnal, examine and understand what is said. For, if as carnal you receive them, they hurt, not nourish you. Not only in the old Testament is there a letter which killeth; but also in the new there is a letter which killeth him who does not spiritually consider it. For, if according to the letter you receive this saying, Except ye eat My Flesh and drink My Blood, that letter killeth.

(Origenis, In Leviticum, Homilia VII, §. 5; PG, 12:487; trans. Edward Harold Browne, An Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles: Historical and Doctrinal: The Tenth Edition, [London: Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer, 1874], p. 691. Cf. FC, 83:146.)

Eusebius, Bishop of Cæsarea (c. 260/5-339/40 A.D.):

Do you, receiving the Scriptures of the Gospels, perceive the whole teaching of our Saviour, that He did not speak concerning the flesh which He had taken, but concerning His mystic body and blood. . . . He instructed them to understand spiritually (πνευματικῶς) the words which He had spoken concerning His flesh and His blood; for, He says, you must not consider Me to speak of the flesh which I wear (ἣν περίκειμαι), as if you were able to eat that, nor suppose that I command you to drink perceptible and corporal (σωματικὸν) blood. . . . These things profit nothing, if they are understood according to sense (αἰσθητῶς); but the Spirit is the Life, given to those who are able to understand spiritually.

(Eusebii Cæsariensis, De Ecclesiastica Theologia, Lib. III, Cap. XII; PG, 24:1021, 1024; trans. Lucius Waterman, The Primitive Tradition of the Eucharistic Body and Blood, [New York: Longmans, Green and Co, 1919], p. 99. Cf. FC, 135:319-320.)

Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria (c. 296/8-373 A.D.):

Our Lord made a difference betwixt the flesh and the spirit, that we might understand that what He said was not carnal, but spiritual [ὅτι καὶ ἃ λέγει οὐκ ἔστι σαρκικὰ, ἀλλὰ πνευματικά]. For how many men could His body have fed, that the whole world should be nourished by it? But therefore He mentioned His ascension into heaven, that they might not take what He said in a corporal sense, but might understand that His flesh whereof He spake is a spiritual and heavenly food, given by Himself from on high; for the words that I spake unto you, they are spirit and they are life; as if he should say, My body which is shewn and given for the world shall be given in food, that it might be distributed spiritually to everyone, and preserve them all to the resurrection to eternal life.

(S. Athanasii, Epistola ad Serapionem (Epistola IV: Eiusdem ad Eumdem Serapionem Εpistola Item de Sancto Spiritu), §. 19; PG, 26:665, 668; trans. John Cosin, The History of Popish Transubstantiation, ed. John Sherren Brewer, [London: J. Leslie, 1840], pp. 90-91.)

Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem (c. 313-386 A.D.):

Christ on a certain occasion discoursing with the Jews said, Except ye eat My flesh and drink My blood, ye have no life in you. They not having heard His saying in a spiritual sense were offended, and went back, supposing that He was inviting them to eat flesh.

(Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 22.4; PG, 33:1100; trans. NPNF2, 7:151-152.) See also: ccel.org.

John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 349-407 A.D.):

“It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing.” His meaning is, “Ye must hear spiritually what relateth to Me, for he who heareth carnally is not profited, nor gathereth any advantage.” It was carnal to question how He came down from heaven, to deem that He was the son of Joseph, to ask, “How can he give us His flesh to eat?” All this was carnal, when they ought to have understood the matter in a mystical and spiritual sense. …“The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.” That is, they are divine and spiritual, have nothing carnal about them… How then doth “the flesh profit nothing,” if without it we cannot live? Seest thou that the words, “the flesh profiteth nothing,” are spoken not of His own flesh, but of carnal hearing?

(John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 47 [on John 6:63]; trans. NPNF1, 14:169-170.) See also: ccel.org.

Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia (c. 350-428 A.D.):

…the Jews argued again with each other, saying, [6:52] How can this man give us his flesh to eat? when nature itself does not allow this. And they opposed what he was saying as something difficult and sinful as though he were asking them to really eat human flesh.

(Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on the Gospel of John, on John 6:52; trans. Ancient Christian Texts: Commentary on the Gospel of John: Theodore of Mopsuestia, trans. Marco Conti, ed. Joel C. Elowsky, [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2010], on John 6:52, p. 69.)

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

It seemed unto them hard that He said, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, ye have no life in you:” they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; …But He instructed them, and saith unto them, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood.

(Augustine, On the Psalms, Psalm 99.8 [98.9 in Migne, PL, 37:1264-1265]; trans. NPNF1, 8:485-486. Cf. WSA, III/18:475.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

But the apostle says, and says what is true, “To be carnally-minded is death.” The Lord gives us His flesh to eat, and yet to understand it according to the flesh is death; while yet He says of His flesh, that therein is eternal life. Therefore we ought not to understand the flesh carnally. …What means “are spirit and life”? They are to be understood spiritually. Hast thou understood spiritually? “They are spirit and life.” Hast thou understood carnally? So also “are they spirit and life,” but are not so to thee.

(Augustine, Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel of John, 27.1, 6; trans. NPNF1, 7:174, 176.) See also: ccel.org.

Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria (c. 378-444 A.D.):

From an exceedingly great ignorance, some of those taught by Christ the Savior were offended by this statement of his. When they heard him saying, “Truely, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you,” they understood themselves to be invited to some savage cruelty, as though they were being told inhumanly to eat flesh and gulp blood and were being compelled to commit acts that are horrible even to hear.

(Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John, 4.3 [on John 6:62]; PG, 73:600; trans. Ancient Christian Texts: Commentary on John: Cyril of Alexandria: Volume 1, trans. David Maxwell, ed. Joel C. Elowsky, [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2013], 4.3, on John 6:61-62, p. 245.)

Nestorius, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 386-451 A.D.):

Yea, I will speak those words of offence: The Lord Christ was speaking with them of His Own Flesh, ‘Except ye eat,’ He saith, ‘the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His Blood, ye have no life in you;’ they who heard could not bear the loftiness of the saying, they thought, in their folly, that He was bringing in cannibalism [ἀνθρωποφαγίαν, lit. man-eating].

(S. Cyrilli, Alexandrie Archiepiscopi, Adversus Nestorii Blasphemias, Lib. IV, Cap. IV; PG, 76:189; trans. Edward Bouverie Pusey, The Doctrine of the Real Presence, [Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1855], pp. 654-655.)

6.1. Historical (Pre-Tridentine) Roman Catholic Interpretations of John 6. Return to Outline.

Pope Innocent III [Lotario dei Conti di Segni] (c. 1161-1216 A.D.):

The Lord saying, except ye eat of the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have no life in you, speaketh of the spiritual manducation: in this manner the good only do eat the body of Christ. [De spirituali comestione Dominus ait: Nisi manducaveritis carnem Filii hominis, et biberitis ejus sanguinem, non habebitis vitam in vobis (Joan. vi) Hoc modo corpus Christi soli boni comedunt.]

(Innocentii III, Mysteriorum Evangelicæ Legis et Sacramenti Eucharistiæ: Libri Sex: Ordo Missæ, Lib. IV, Cap. XIV; PL, 217:866; trans. Gideon Ouseley, Old Christianity Against Papal Novelties, [Philadelphia: Leary & Getz, 1854], p. 202. Cf. E. O. Phinney, Letters on the Eucharist: Addressed to a Member of the Church of Rome, [Baltimore: D. H. Carroll, 1880], pp. 71-72.)

Full Text. Alt. Trans. Pope Innocent III [Lotario dei Conti di Segni] (c. 1161-1216 A.D.):

Concerning spiritual eating, the Lord says: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you will not have life in you”. In this way, only the good eat the body of Christ. Hence: “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him”. For he who remains in love remains in God, and God in him. Hence: Why do you prepare your teeth and stomach? Believe, and you have eaten. He who believes in God eats Him; he who is incorporated into Christ through faith becomes a member of Him, or is more firmly strengthened in the unity of His body. [De spirituali comestione Dominus ait: Nisi manducaveritis carnem Filii hominis, et biberitis ejus sanguinem, non habebitis vitam in vobis (Joan. vi) Hoc modo corpus Christi soli boni comedunt. Unde: Qui manducat carnem meam et bibit sanguinem meum, in me manet et ego in eo (Joan. vi). Nam qui manet in charitate, in Deo manet, et Deus in eo (I Joan. iv). Unde: Quid paras dentem et ventrem? Crede et manducasti. Qui credit in Deum, comedit ipsum; qui incorporatur Christo per fidem, id est membrum ejus efficitur, vel in unitate corporis ejus firmius solidatur.]

(Innocentii III, Mysteriorum Evangelicæ Legis et Sacramenti Eucharistiæ: Libri Sex: Ordo Missæ, Lib. IV, Cap. XIV; PL, 217:866.)

Note: Note on context, according to Innocent III, passages such as 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 and Luke 22:18-20 speak of sacramental (corporeal) eating while John 6 speaks of spiritual eating (not corporeal eating—e.g. “In this way, only the good eat the body of Christ.”).

Pope Pius II [Aeneas Silvius Bartholomeus] (1405-1464 A.D.):

That is not the sense of the Gospel of John which you ascribe to it; for there is no injunction given there to drink of the Sacrament; but a spiritual manner of drinking is there taught. . . . The Lord there makes known, by these words, the secret mysteries of spiritual drinking, and not of carnal, when he says, It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing. And again, The words that I speak unto you are spirit and life. Do you wish to know certainly whether the Evangelist speaks of the spiritual manducation, which is performed by faith? Consider what the Lord says in these words, He that eats and drinks; these words are of the present and not of the future tense. Therefore, ever since the Lord spake them, there have been persons who have eaten and drunk; and, nevertheless, the Lord had not yet suffered, nor was the Sacrament yet instituted. [Sed non est in Evangelio Ioannis, quem sibi sensus ascribitis, Non bibitio sacramentalis illic præcipitur, sed spiritualis insinuatur. . . . Declarat Dominus his verbis, non carnalis esus aut potus illic, sed spiritualis arcana mysteria contineri, dum ait, Spiritus est qui vivificat, caro non prodest quicquam. Et iterum, Verba qua locutus sum vobis, spiritus & vita sunt. Vis aperte cognoscere quoniam de spirituali manducatione, quæ fit per fidem, loquitur Evangelista, aduerte quæ dicit Dominus: Qui manducat & bibit, instantis non futuri temporis sunt verba. Erat igitur dum sic loqueretur Dominus, qui manducabant, & qui bibebant eum. Nondum passus Dominus erat, nec adhuc institutum fuit sacramentum.]

(Æneæ Sylvii, “Reverendissimo in Christo, Et Colendissimo Patri, Domino Iohanni de Carvaial, SS. Romanæ Ecclesiæ S. Angeli Diacono Cardinali,” [Epistola CXXX, “Dialogus Contra Bohemos et Taboritas De Sacra Communione Sub Una Specie,”]; In: Balthasaris Lydii M. F. Palatini, Waldensia: Id Est, Conservatio Verae Ecclesiae, [Roterodami: Ioannem Leonardi Berewout, 1616], pp. 397, 398; trans. Peter [Pierre] Du Moulin, The Anatomy of the Mass, [Edinburgh: Waugh and Innes, 1833], p. 280. Cf. Pius II [Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini], Epistolae Familiares. De Duobus Amantibus Euryalo et Lucretia. Descriptio Urbis Viennensis. ed. Nicolaus de Wyle, [Nuremberg: Anton Koberger, 1481], Epistola CXXX.) https://data.cerl.org/istc/ip00717000

Full Text. Alt. Trans. Pope Pius II [Aeneas Silvius Bartholomeus] (1405-1464 A.D.):

But it is not in the Gospel of John, to which you attribute this meaning. There, sacramental drinking is not commanded, but spiritual drinking is indicated. . . . The Lord declares by these words, that not physical eating or drinking is contained there, but spiritual mysteries are hidden, when He says, “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing.” And again, “The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” Do you want to clearly understand that the Evangelist is speaking about spiritual eating, which is done through faith? Pay attention to what the Lord says: “He who eats and drinks,” these are words of the present, not of the future time. Therefore, at the time the Lord spoke in this way, there were those who were eating and drinking Him. The Lord had not yet suffered, nor had the sacrament been instituted. How, then, did they eat and drink Christ, except spiritually through faith and love, believing in Him and doing His works? For He had also said earlier: “I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.” Those who believed in Him and followed His works were the ones eating His flesh, and they were the ones drinking His blood. And this is the truer meaning of the Gospel, because in no other way could the flesh be eaten or the blood of Christ be drunk. For the Lord’s speech was figurative, just as He said to the Samaritan woman, and on the cross said He thirsted, because He thirsted for her faith and our salvation. [Sed non est in Evangelio Ioannis, quem sibi sensus ascribitis, Non bibitio sacramentalis illic præcipitur, sed spiritualis insinuatur. . . . Declarat Dominus his verbis, non carnalis esus aut potus illic, sed spiritualis arcana mysteria contineri, dum ait, Spiritus est qui vivificat, caro non prodest quicquam. Et iterum, Verba qua locutus sum vobis, spiritus & vita sunt. Vis aperte cognoscere quoniam de spirituali manducatione, quæ fit per fidem, loquitur Evangelista, aduerte quæ dicit Dominus: Qui manducat & bibit, instantis non futuri temporis sunt verba. Erat igitur dum sic loqueretur Dominus, qui manducabant, & qui bibebant eum. Nondum passus Dominus erat, nec adhuc institutum fuit sacramentum. Quomodo ergo manducabat bibebant que Christum, nisi spiritualiter per fidem & charitatem, credentes in eum & facientes opera eius? Nam & prius dixerat? Ego sum panis vitæ, qui venit ad me, non esuriet, & qui credit in me non sitiet unquam. Qui credebant in eum, & opera sectabatur eius, hi carnem edebant eius, hi potabant sanguinem. Atque hic verior est Evangelii sensus, quia aliter edi caro, aut bibi Christi sanguis non poterat. Fuit enim figurata locutio Domini, sicut & Samaritanæ, & in cruce sitire se dixit, quia fidem illius & nostram salute sitiebat.]

(Æneæ Sylvii, “Reverendissimo in Christo, Et Colendissimo Patri, Domino Iohanni de Carvaial, SS. Romanæ Ecclesiæ S. Angeli Diacono Cardinali,” [Epistola CXXX, “Dialogus Contra Bohemos et Taboritas De Sacra Communione Sub Una Specie,”]; In: Balthasaris Lydii M. F. Palatini, Waldensia: Id Est, Conservatio Verae Ecclesiae, [Roterodami: Ioannem Leonardi Berewout, 1616], pp. 397, 398-399. Cf. Pius II [Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini], Epistolae Familiares. De Duobus Amantibus Euryalo et Lucretia. Descriptio Urbis Viennensis. ed. Nicolaus de Wyle, [Nuremberg: Anton Koberger, 1481], Epistola CXXX.) https://data.cerl.org/istc/ip00717000

Note: The context in which Pius II is writing is that of the Bohemian Reformation, specifically regarding the Bohemian assertion that the laity should be permitted to partake of the cup (and not only the bread) during the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. In 1415, at the Council of Constance, Communion under both kinds was officially abolished by the Roman Catholic Church. It was not until the 1960s (more than 500 years later), at the Second Vatican Council, that it was restored. The Bohemians argue that the Lord, in John 6, commands Christians to both “eat His flesh” and “drink His blood,” and therefore the Roman Church cannot forbid the laity from the cup (blood). Pius II argues against the Bohemians by asserting that the sixth chapter of John refers only to spiritual manducation (believing) and not to sacramental manducation (the eucharistic elements), and therefore has no bearing upon the question. Pius II clearly has a theological agenda (as do we all); however, he presents a compelling argument (especially if we are employing a grammatical-historical method of exegesis as our primary methodological framework). If Jesus is speaking sacramentally (in a narrow sense—i.e. of the eucharistic elements), the Bread of Life discourse would have been meaningless to all those present, as the sacrament had not yet been instituted. Thus, those present would have been unable to “eat His flesh” at that moment as He commanded.

Thomas Cardinal Cajetan, O.P. [Tommaso de Vio] (1469-1534 A.D.): (The Papal legate who opposed Martin Luther at Augsburg)

For he does not say that “whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood worthily,” but “whoever eats and drinks:” so we understand that he speaks of eating and drinking without the need for a “worthy” modification, which is not common to worthily or unworthily. Therefore, it is clear that the discourse is not literally about eating and drinking the sacrament of the eucharist, but about eating and drinking the death of Jesus. [Non enim dicit qui manducat digne carnem meam & bibit digne sanguinem meum, sed qui ma[n]ducat & bibit: ut intelligamus ȹ de ipso maducare & bibere loquitur quod non eget modificatio[n]e digne, quod non est commune ad digne vel indigne. Clare igitur apparet ȹ non est ad literam sermo de manducare & bibere sacramentum eucharisti[a]e, sed de manducare & bibere mortem Iesu.]

(Thomae de Vio Caietani, Evangelia cum Commentariis Reuerendissimi Domini Domini Thomae de Vio Caietani, [Parisiis: Excussum parisis in officina Guilielmi Bossozeli, 1543], p. 205G) See also: 1532 Edition.

Note: Cajetan is arguing against the Utraquists who were using the sixth chapter of John to argue against the Roman Catholic practice which forbade the laity from partaking of the cup in the Lord’s Supper.

Johann Wild [Ferus] (1497-1554): (Franciscan Priest and Theologian)

What it is to eat spiritually Christ’s Body, that is to say, when He is offered in the Word, He hath Himself explained, when He saith, “He that cometh to me shall not hunger, and he that believeth in me shall not thirst.” Therefore to eat His Body spiritually is from thy heart to believe that Christ was made Man, and transferred thy sins upon Himself, and for thee shed His Blood, and overcame hell, and reconciled thee to God. He who thus believeth, by faith, in a certain manner, he seizeth Christ, and passeth Christ into himself (Christum in se trajicit) and becometh one body with Him; whereby it cometh about that he hungereth not in his sins, because he hath Christ’s righteousness, nor in death, because he hath Christ’s life, nor in curse, because he hath Christ’s blessing, nor in affliction, because through Christ he seeth deliverance.

This spiritual eating is necessary for all; without this no man is saved. For unless we have part in Christ’s righteousness and His life, what do we but remain in our sins? Wherefore Christ saith, “Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, ye shall not have life in you.” He speaketh not there of the Sacrament; for not all are condemned who take not the Sacrament, or have not taken it. He speaketh of spiritual eating, that is, of faith in Christ, without which no man shall see God. In this manner even the fathers of the Old Testament did eat the Body of Christ; for Christ was offered to them also in the Word and promises.

(Johann Wild [Ferus], Commentary on St Matthew, xxvi; trans. Nicholas Ridley, A Brief Declaration of the Lord’s Supper, ed. H. C. G. Moule, [London: Seeley and Co., 1895], pp. 297-298.)

Historical Overview.

Pierre [Peter] Du Moulin:

In this controversy, we have the Popes, and also a great multitude of Doctors of the Romish Church, who hold, as we do, that there is not a word in the sixth chapter of John concerning the Eucharist, nor the corporal manducation of Christ’s body, but that Jesus speaks there of spiritual manducation, by faith in his own death. Such is the opinion of Pope Innocent III., and Pope Pius II., called Æneas Sylvius, before his elevation to the Popedom; likewise, of Cardinals Bonaventura, Cajetan, Cusanus, De Alliaco; also, of Durand, bishop of Mende, Gabriel Biel, Hesselius, one of the Doctors of the Council of Trent, Lindanus, bishop of Ruremond, Ruard Tapper, Jansenius, bishop of Ghent, Ferus, a divine of Mentz, Valdensis, and many more.[fn. *: Bonaventura in 4 Dist. art. 1, quest. 2; Cajetanus in 6 Johannis; Cusanus epist. 7, ad Bohemos; Petrus de Alliaco in 4 sent. q. 2, art. 3; Durant Rationali Div. Off. 1. 4, c. 41, n. 40; Lindanus Panopliac, 1. 4, c. 58; Tapper in explic. articulorum 15; Lovanensium. Jansen. Concord. c. 59; Ferus in 26 Mathaei et 6 Johannis; Valdensis, tom. 2 de Sacr. c. 91; Hessel. de communione sub utraque specie.] Amongst others, Gabriel Biel, in the thirty-sixth Lesson on the Canon of the Mass, says, that the Doctors, with one common consent, hold “that the sixth chapter of John relates to spiritual manducation only.” But, for brevity’s sake, let it suffice to cite the two forenamed Popes.

Pope Innocent III. expresses himself in these words: “The Lord speaks of spiritual manducation, saying, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. In this way the righteous alone eat of the body of Christ.”[fn. *: De Myst. Miss. lib. iv. c. xiv.]

A learned Pope is a very rare personage; nevertheless, it may be said of Pope Pius II. that he was one of the most learned men of his age. Arguing against the Bohemians, in his 130th epistle to Cardinal de Carvial, he writes thus: “That is not the sense of the Gospel of John which you ascribe to it; for there is no injunction given there to drink of the Sacrament; but a spiritual manner of drinking is there taught.”And shortly after: “the Lord there makes known, by these words, the secret mysteries of spiritual drinking, and not of carnal, when he says, It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing. And again, The words that I speak unto you are spirit and life. Do you wish to know certainly whether the Evangelist speaks of the spiritual manducation, which is performed by faith? Consider what the Lord says in these words, He that eats and drinks; these words are of the present and not of the future tense. Therefore, ever since the Lord spake them, there have been persons who have eaten and drunk; and, nevertheless, the Lord had not yet suffered, nor was the Sacrament yet instituted.”

On these words, “Except ye eat my flesh, ye have no life in you,” Thomas Aquinas says, “If this refers to spiritual manducation, the sentence is free from all ambiguity. For he who is a partaker in the unity of the Church, as it is affected by charity, &c., does spiritually eat the flesh of Christ, and drink his blood. But if it relates to sacramental manducation, there is ambiguity in this saying, Except ye eat my flesh, ye have no life in you.” But the modern Doctors and Jesuits have renounced this opinion, contemn the authority of the Popes now cited, and teach, that Jesus begins, John vi. 51, to speak of sacramental manducation, but that all before that relates to spiritual manducation. For example, when Jesus Christ says, (verses 33, 35, and 50,) that “he is the bread come down from heaven; that he is the bread of life; that whosoever believeth in him shall never thirst; and that he is the bread come down from heaven, of which whoso eateth shall never die,—they admit that, in all these passages, he speaks of a spiritual manner of eating and drinking, and deny that he speaks of the Eucharistic bread; and therefore they understand these expressions figuratively. This doctrine is full of absurdity, and destroys itself. How audacious to teach two kinds of manducation in the sequel of the same discourse, and to pronounce, with magisterial authority, that one part of the chapter is to be taken figuratively and the other literally, seeing that the same mode of speech is used in both, and the same exposition is equally applicable to both?

The Council of Trent was very much embarrassed with this matter, it being long agitated and controverted in that Assembly. The Prelates seeing the new Doctors opposed to the old, and even to the Popes, and likewise discording among themselves, would determine nothing upon the subject, but left it undecided, as the Jesuit Salmeron, who was present at the Council, assures us: “The Synod (says he) would not expressly determine at that time what was the most proper and natural sense of the words of Christ in John vi. on account of the various interpretations of the holy Fathers, and of the Doctors, which were brought forward on each side. However it was there especially that that attribute of perfection—the infallibility of the Pope and of the Council—ought to have displayed itself, it being a question of very great importance. The Popes have not determined any thing on the subject even yet, nor have they condemned those who hold an opinion opposite to that of the Jesuits.”[fn. *: It was urged in the Council of Trent, that the sixth chapter of John should be declared to refer to Sacramental eating; but this proposal gave much offence, because it tended to establish the necessity of the communion of the cup, which had already been taken away. Besides, if it were determined that John vi. referred to Sacramental eating, it was apprehended that the Council might be reproached with depriving the people of salvation, by having deprived them of the cup. If the haughty and arrogant Council of Trent would not venture to determine whether John vi. referred to Sacramental and oral, or to spiritual manducation being meant, how presumptuous and unwarrantable is it in individual Romanists,—as Bossuet, Hay, Milner, &c.—to assume that that chapter relates to the Eucharist, and then to adduce it in favour of Transubstantiation.]

(Peter [Pierre] Du Moulin, The Anatomy of the Mass, [Edinburgh: Waugh and Innes, 1833], pp. 279-282.)

7. Excursus: Did Jesus Speak Greek? Return to Outline.

Daniel B. Wallace:

An increasing number of scholars are arguing that Greek was the primary language spoken in Palestine in the time of, and perhaps even in the ministry of Jesus.

(Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996], p. 24.)

Cf. Stanley E. Porter:

The arguments for this position rest firmly on the role of Greek as the lingua franca of the Roman Empire, the linguistic and cultural character of lower Galilee during the first century, the linguistic fact that the New Testament has been transmitted in Greek from its earliest documents, a diversity of epigraphic evidence, significant literary evidence, and several significant contexts in the Gospels that give plausibility to this hypothesis. Whereas no contemporary scholar would probably argue that Jesus spoke only Greek, a number of scholars have argued in various ways that Greek was in widespread use by upwards of a majority of Jews in the multilingual society of first-century Palestine and, therefore, may well have been a language of Jesus at least on occasion.

(Stanley E. Porter, “Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek?” In: Tyndale Bulletin, 44.2, [1993], p. 204.)

Note: For an in-depth examination see: Idem, pp. 195-235.

1. Jesus Plausibly Spoke Greek.

Stanley E. Porter:

Those emphasizing that Jesus may have spoken Greek include Roberts, Greek, passim; idem, A Short Proof that Greek was the Language of Christ (Paisley: Alexander Gardner, 1893); S.W. Patterson, ‘What Language Did Jesus Speak?’, The Classical Outlook 23 (1946), pp. 65-67; G. Bardy, La question des langues dans l’église ancienne (Etudes de théologie historique, 1; Paris: Beauchesne, 1948); T. Nicklin, Gospel Gleanings: Critical and Historical Notes on the Gospels (London: Longmans, Green, 1950), pp. 290-300; A.W. Argyle, ‘Did Jesus speak Greek?’, ExpTim 67 (1955-56), pp. 92-93, 383; idem, ‘Greek among the Jews of Palestine in New Testament Times’, NTS 20 (1974), pp. 87-89; N. Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1965), pp. 174-88; idem, ‘The Language of the New Testament’, in M. Black and H.H. Rowley (eds.), Peake’s Commentary on the Bible (London: Nelson, 1962), pp. 659-62; among his other writings; P.E. Hughes, ‘The Languages Spoken by Jesus’, in R.N. Longenecker and M.C. Tenney (eds.), New Dimensions in New Testament Study (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), pp. 127-43; Selby, Jesus, Aramaic and Greek, passim; J.M. Ross, ‘Jesus’s Knowledge of Greek’, IBS 12 (1990), pp. 41-47.

(Stanley E. Porter, Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 191, [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000], p. 166, fn. 106.)

Stanley E. Porter:

I originally suggested that Mark 13 was one such possible passage, and I have come to the point of positing that such a passage as the Sermon on the Mount was delivered—at least on the occasion as it is recorded in Matthew’s gospel—in Greek.

(Stanley E Porter, “The Role of Greek Language Criteria in Historical Jesus Research”; In: Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus: Volume 1, eds. Tom Holmén, Stanley E. Porter, [Leiden: Brill, 2011], p. 362.)

Stanley E. Porter:

I later extended this research, and became convinced that even the eastern Mediterranean, including Palestine and the Galilee region, were linguistically integrated with the complex multilingualism of the eastern Roman Empire, to the point that many inhabitants of the time, including Jews and especially a Jewish teacher, would have been functionally bilingual, to the point of using Greek for simple communication, and even possibly for extended discourse.

2. Greek Inscriptions in Israel.

Martin Hengel:

In Palestine, the triumphal progress of Greek makes an impressive showing in inscriptions. It is no coincidence that if we disregard later Nabatean inscriptions in Transjordania and the typically Jewish tomb, ossuary and synagogue inscriptions, which rest upon a certain national self-awareness, from the third century BC we find almost exclusively Greek inscriptions in Palestine.

(Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period: Volume One, trans. John Bowden, [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974], p. 58.)

Martin Hengel:

If one proceeds on the basis that it would make sense for only those ossuaries to be inscribed in Greek in the case of which the dead or their families used Greek as the vernacular or their mother tongue, we may put the proportion of the population as a whole at around 10-20% as a minimum.

(Martin Hengel, The ‘Hellenization’ of Judea in the First Century after Christ, trans. John Bowden, [London: SCM Press, 1989], p. 10.)

3. Jews with Greek Names.

E.g. Philip [Φίλιππος] and Andrew [Ἀνδρέας]—cf. Matthew 10:2-4.

Martin Hengel:

At any rate, two of the twelve, Andrew and Philip, had Greek names (Mark 3.18), and Simon Cephas-Peter, Andrew’s brother, later undertook extensive missionary journeys among the Jewish Diaspora of the West, which spoke only Greek.

(Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period: Volume One, trans. John Bowden, [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974], p. 105.)

Note: See also Saul-Paul (Acts 13:9).

4. The Essenes.

Martin Hengel:

On the other hand, even the Essenes, who had a very critical attitude towards the Greek world, could not get by without the Greek language, as is shown by the Greek papyrus fragments found in Qumran, which include fragments of the Septuagint.

(Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period: Volume One, trans. John Bowden, [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974], pp. 60-61.)

5. The Septuagint.

The Hebrew bible was translated into Greek inorder to make it accessible to the Jews of that time. Additionally, most of the New Testament quotations from the Old Testament appear to be drawn from the Greek Septuagint.

6. The Letter of Aristeas.

Martin Hengel:

The author of the Letter of Aristeas, writing in Alexandria, takes it for granted around 140 BCE that the seventy-two translators who came from Palestine had all had a solid Greek education, and conversely the Talmudic literature also knows the Septuagint legends in their more developed form, corresponding to that in Philo, in which each individual translator was inspired.

(Martin Hengel, The ‘Hellenization’ of Judea in the First Century after Christ, trans. John Bowden, [London: SCM Press, 1989], p. 21.)

7. Maccabees.

Martin Hengel:

Moreover, the books of Maccabees clearly show that not only the members of the Hellenistic party but also many supporters of Judas and his brothers had a command of Greek: this is the only way in which the embassies to Rome and Sparta and the tedious negotiations with the Syrian rulers are conceivable. There was no stopping the penetration of the Greek language even in Jewish Palestine, and the young Jew who wanted to rise a stage above the mass of the simple people had to learn it.

(Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period: Volume One, trans. John Bowden, [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974], p. 60.)

8. Zeno Correspondence.

Martin Hengel:

The final establishment and dissemination of the koinē was probably the most valuable and the most permanent fruit of Alexander’s expedition. The way in which it dominated public and economic life in Egypt as virtually the only written language is shown by the Zeno correspondence. Among its approximately two thousand items, very few are in Demotic, and there is not one single piece of writing in Aramaic, although Jews, Idumeans, Syrians and Arabs (= Nabateans) are mentioned often enough; we have hardly two or three Aramaic or Hebrew writings from Jews in Egypt between 300 BC and AD 300.

(Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period: Volume One, trans. John Bowden, [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974], p. 58.)

III. Objection: Is τρώγω Used to Emphasize Corporeal Eucharistic Eating? (In Opposition to the Docetists?) Return to Outline.

Note: There is a school of thought within the Protestant interpretive tradition which argues that St. John’s use of the verb τρώγω (trōgō) is intended to combat the gnostic heresy. Proponents of this position assert that St. John’s language is intended to depict the necessity of sacramental eating. However, proponents of this position emphatically deny that any form of carnal or corporeal change (transubstantiation) regarding the elements themselves is implied by the passage.

Cf. Udo Schnelle, Antidocetic Christology in the Gospel of John, trans. Linda M. Maloney, [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990], pp. 204-205.

Rudolf Bultmann:

…the offence is heightened in v. 54 by the substitution of the stronger τρώγειν for φαγεῖν. It is a matter of real eating and not simply of some sort of spiritual participation.

(Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray, gen. eds. R. W. N. Hoare, J. K. Riches, [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1976], p. 236.)

Cf. Oscar Cullmann:

…the material side of this sacrament is here exaggerated almost to the point of giving offence. In line with this the verb in v. 54 is not the simple verb ‘eat’, ἐσθίειν, φαγεῖν, as in the previous verse, but the crudely concrete τρώγειν to bite in pieces. We understand this only when we consider that the main thing even in the first part is to stress that the life element which has come down from heaven is the completely incarnate Christ, whose father and mother the Jews know (v. 42). …This offence belongs now to the Sacrament just as the human body belongs to the Logos. The Johannine Christ wants to ‘scandalize’ his hearers with the discourse in order that they will attend to what is important in every revelation in Christ.

(Oscar Cullmann, Studies in Biblical Theology: Early Christian Worship, trans. A. Stewart Todd, James B. Torrance, [London: SCM Press Ltd, 1953], pp. 99, 100.)

Note: Both Bultmann and Cullmann rejected the Roman Catholic dogma of transubstantiation, however both see the Bread of Life discourse as sacramental (in a narrow sense—i.e. of the eucharistic elements) and John’s use of τρώγειν as emphasizing this.

Cf. Walter Bauer:

54, where the thought from 53 is turned positively, John replaces φαγείν with τρώγειν (literally to chew, to audibly eat; missing in the LXX, in the NT except for John 6:54-58, also 13:18 and Matthew 24:38), probably not just to change the vocabulary (see EbNestle, Theological Literature Journal, 1903, column 314), but to prevent any dilution of the concept of real eating. [54, wo der Gedanke von 53 positiv gewendet wird, vertauscht Jo φαγείν mit τρώγειν (eigentlich kauen, hörbar essen; fehlt in LXX, im NT außer Jo 6 54-58 noch 13 18 Mt 24 38), wohl nicht nur, um die Vokabel zu wechseln (EbNestle Theol. Literaturblatt 1903 Sp. 314), sondern um jede Verflüchtigung der Vorstellung eines wirklichen Essens hintanzuhalten.]

(D. Walter Bauer, Das Johannesevangelium, Handbuch Zum Neuen Testament: 6, [Tübingen, J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1933], p. 98.)

Cf. Ernst Haenchen:

…τρώγω is used for “to eat.” BDF §101 designates this verb as the colloquial replacement for ἐσθίω; it does not yet appear in the Septuagint. In Ps 40:10 (LXX) the Hebrew phrase אוֹכַל לַחְמִי is translated by ὁ ἐσθίων ἄρτου μου (“the one eating my bread”). Bauer may be right that an expression closer to chewing, crunching (of morsels of bread) is deliberately chosen here. As Ps 40:10 shows, ἐσθίω is possible throughout. Since the expression in John 13:18 is ὁ τρώγων μου τὸν ἄρτον (“he who ate my bread”), this raises the suspicion that verses 13:18f. are an insertion of the redactor; these verses are not suitable precursors of verse 21.

(Ernst Haenchen, John: 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of John: Chapters 1-6, trans. Robert W. Funk, [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984], p. 295.)

Cf. Andreas J. Köstenberger:

There is no reason to assume, as Bultmann (1971: 218-19) does, that these verses (starting with 6:51c) are the work of an “ecclesiastical redactor.” See also the discussion in Schnackenburg 1990: 2.56-59

(Andreas J. Köstenberger, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: John, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004], p. 215 fn. 74.) Preview.

Note: See further: Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St John: Volume Two: Commentary on Chapters 5-12, [New York: Crossroad, 1987], pp. 56-59.

Cf. Christopher Baker:

In contrast to the otherwise theologically exalted language of John’s Gospel, in John 6:54, Christ bluntly underscores for his audience the fact of his truly human nature, thus countering any possible Gnostic or Docetic views of himself; he is a physical man, not merely some spiritual phantom. Yet, as Calvin and other reformers had (following Augustine) emphasized, though Christ is truly present his truth can be apprehended only by a faithful eating and not by a mere physical gratification alone…

(Christopher Baker, ‘“Greedily she ingorg’d”: Eve and the Bread of Life;’ In: Milton Studies: Volume 52, ed. Laura L. Knoppers, [Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 2011], p. 102.)

Cf. Robert H. Mounce:

That both verbs in the conditional clause of v.53 (“eat,” “drink”) are aorist points to once-for-all actions. Eating and drinking the Son of Man is a vivid way of presenting the truth that in order to have eternal life, people must take Christ into their inner being. It is interesting that in v.54 Jesus uses a different word for eating. Instead of the more common esthiō (GK 2266; or more accurately, the aorist stem phag-; fifteen times in the fourth gospel), Jesus chooses a word that in classical Greek was used of eating by animals. Trōgō (GK 5592) means to “gnaw, nibble, munch, eat (audibly)” (BDAG, 1019). This relatively crude term presses home the literal picture that Jesus wants to stress. Some think he uses it to counter docetic attempts to spiritualize what he is saying. He wants his listeners to understand that they must assimilate him if they desire eternal life.

(Robert H. Mounce, “John,” on John 6:53-54; In: The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Revised Edition: Luke ~ Acts, gen. eds. Tremper Longman III, David E. Garland, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007], p. 449.)

Cf. James H. Charlesworth:

I am convinced the verb was chosen in John not only to declare oneness with Jesus but also to claim that the Eucharist was intended by Jesus to celebrate his whole life and not just his death as appears to be the case in Paul. The apparent vulgar use of the verb is to remove any Docetic leanings and to harmonize with 1:14.

(James H. Charlesworth, Jesus as Mirrored in John: The Genius in the New Testament, [London: T&T Clark, 2019], p. 12 n. 5.) Preview.

Cf. Edward W. Klink III:

There is no reason to deny a distinction between the two terms, even if it is minute. The change suggests a rhetorical thrust, a forceful explication of the reality of the eating being depicted.

(Edward W. Klink III, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: John, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2016], pp. 339-340.) Preview.

IV. Reply: John 6 is Not Primarily Sacramental in Nature. Return to Outline.

Note: The vast preponderance of evidence—including the lexical evidence discussed above—militates strongly in favor of the idea that John 6 is not, in a primary sense, about the sacraments at all. Alexander Balmain Bruce correctly writes,

“...it is incorrect to say that the sermon delivered in the Capernaum synagogue refers to the sacrament of the Supper. The true state of the case is, that both refer to a third thing, viz, the death of Christ, and both declare, in different ways, the same thing concerning it. The sermon says in symbolic words what the Supper says in a symbolic act: that Christ crucified is the life of men, the world’s hope of salvation. The sermon says more than this, for it speaks of Christ’s ascension as well as of His death; but it says this for one thing.” (Alexander Balmain Bruce, The Training of the Twelve; Or, Passages out of the Gospels: Sixth Edition, [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1906], pp. 139-140.)

For an in-depth examination see: Transubstantiation and John 6: The Sixth Chapter of John is Not Primarily About the Eucharist.

1. Secondary Meaning of τρώγω? Return to Outline.

Leonhard Goppelt:

The usage suggests that in Jn. 6:51c-58 the transition from ἔφαγον (6:52 f.) to τρώγω (6:54, 56 ff.) should be understood primarily as a grammatically based alternation between verbal forms. But the alteration of the verbal form can also throw light on the intention of the section. From 6:51c “to eat” no longer has, as in 6:51b, the metaphorical sense of appropriating the self-proffering of Jesus in the word by faith, 6:35. It now means receiving His self-proffering in the eucharist by physical eating.

Rudolf Schnackenburg:

The word used in the Greek for ‘eat’ (τρώγειν) does not have to be understood in an extreme realistic sense (‘chew’), a sense which is equally absent in 13:8, a quotation from Ps 41:9, where the Septuagint translates ὁ ἐσθίων cf. also Mt 24:38 (paired with πίω). The word, abundantly attested in secular writing, is ‘a vulgar substitute for ἐσθίειν’ (Blass-Debr. §101, p. 63). At most, it could have been used in Jn 6:54-58 ‘to prevent any attempt at dilution’ (Bauer. Wörterbuch, p. 1641, s.v.). The evangelist may also be influenced by a desire to distinguish the symbolic eating of the heavenly bread (φαγεῖν ἐκ, 51b) from real sacramental eating; φαγεῖν in 53 is to be explained as a repetition from 52.

(Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St John: Volume Two Commentary on Chapters 5-12, [New York: Crossroad, 1987], p. 62.)

Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich:

τρώγω (Hom. +; Dit., Syll.³ 1171, 9; PGM 7, 177; Sb 5730, 5. Not found in LXX, Ep. Arist., Philo or Joseph. Bl-D. §101 s.v. ἐσθίειν; 169, 2; Rob. 351; JHaussleiter, Archiv für lat. Lexikographie 9, ’96, 300-2) gnaw, nibble, munch, eat (audibly), of animals (Hom. +) B 10: 3.—Of human beings (Hdt. + and so in Mod. Gk.) τὶ someth. (Hdt. 1, 71 σῦκα; Aristoph., Equ. 1077) Β 7: 8. ὁ τρώγων μου τὸν ἄρτον as a symbol of close comradeship (Polyb. 31, 23, 9 δύο τρώγομεν ἀδελφοί) J 13:18 (cf. Ps 40: 10[41: 9] ὁ ἐσθίων ἄρτους μου, which is the basis for this pass.). W. gen. (Athen. 8 р. 334 в τῶν σύκων) Hs 5, 3, 7. Abs. B 10: 2. W. πίνειν (Demosth. 19, 197; Plut., Mor. 613в; 716E) Mt 24:38. J uses it, in order to offset any Docetic tendencies to ‘spiritualize’ the concept so that nothing physical remains in it, in what many hold to be the language of the Lord’s Supper ὁ τρώγων τοῦτον τὸν ἄρτον 6: 58. ὁ τρώγων με ν8. 57. ὁ τρώγων μου τὴν σάρκα (w. πίνων μου τὸ αἷμα) vss. 54, 56. М-М. В. 327.*

(Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, and Other Early Christian Literature: Fourth Revised and Augmented Edition, 1952, [Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1959], “τρώγω,” pp. 836-837.)

2. A More Probable Secondary Meaning. Return to Outline.

Once-For-All.

Leon Morris: (John 6:53)

Both “eat” and “drink” are aorists, denoting once-for-all action, not a repeated eating and drinking, such as would be appropriate to the sacrament. And this eating and drinking are absolutely necessary for eternal life. Those who do not eat and drink in the way Jesus says have no life. Eating and drinking Christ’s flesh and blood thus appears to be a very graphic way of saying that people must take Christ into their innermost being. …What has been put negatively is now stated positively in a way typical of this Gospel. Anyone who eats Christ’s flesh and drinks his blood has eternal life, and he will be raised up by Christ at the last day. The word for “eats” is different[fn. 136: The tense is different, too. The present ὁ τρώγων points to a continuing appropriation. Indeed, Ryle sees the whole point of the verb in this. He cites Leigh, that the word “noteth a continuance of eating, as brute beasts will eat all day, and some part of the night” and adds, “our Lord meant the habit of continually feeding on Him all day long by faith. He did not mean the occasional eating of material food in an ordinance.”]…

(Leon Morris, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel According to John: Revised Edition, [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1995], p. 335.)

Cf. Robert H. Mounce:

Arthur W. Pink: (John 6:54)

“Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day” (6:54). Notice the change in the tense of the verb. In the previous verse it is, “Except ye eat”; here it is “whoso eateth.” In the former, the verb is in the aorist tense, implying a single act, an act done once for all. In the latter, the verb is in the perfect tense, denoting that which is continuous and characteristic. V. 53 defines the difference between one who is lost and one who is saved. In order to be saved, I must “eat” the flesh and “drink” the blood of the Son of man; that is, I must appropriate Him, make Him mine by an act of faith. This act of receiving Christ is done once for all. I cannot receive Him a second time, for He never leaves me! But, having received Him to the saving of my soul, I now feed on Him constantly, daily, as the Food of my soul. Ex. 12 supplies us with an illustration. First, the Israelite was to apply the shed blood of the slain lamb. Then, as protected by that blood, he was to feed on the lamb itself.

(Arthur W. Pink, Exposition of the Gospel of John: Three Volumes Complete and Unabridged in One, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975], on John 6:54, p. 347.)

Leonhard Goppelt:

Andreas J. Köstenberger:

There is no reason to conclude, on the basis of the present tense participles in this verse, that this partaking is an act to be repeated… The logic of this section rather seems to demand that partaking of Jesus’ flesh and blood is to be understood as an action that takes place once for all. Mutual indwelling ought not to be understood in egalitarian terms, as if Jesus and the believer were fulfilling equal roles. Jesus’ sacrifice is foundational, and the believer’s responsibility is the appropriation of this gift (Carson 1991: 298). Moreover, contrary to what might be expected, such mutual indwelling does not imply surrender of personality (Schnackenburg 1990: 2.63-64).

(Andreas J. Köstenberger, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: John, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004], p. 216, fn. 79.) Preview.

Continuous.

Herman N. Ridderbos:

56 In this eating and drinking of his flesh and blood lies the secret of the enduring fellowship between Jesus and his own, which is here described as a mutual “remaining in” one another, an expression that recurs in the Gospel in a variety of ways.[fn. 164: Cf., e.g., 5:38 (of the Word of God); 6:27 (of the food that abides); 15:4, 7 (of remaining in Jesus); 8:31 (of remaining in his, word); 15:9, 10 (in his love); 15:4, 5 (of Jesus in his own); 14:10 (of the Father in the Son); 14:17 (of the Spirit's indwelling of the disciples).] For this “eating” and “drinking” are not a one-time event but a repeated activity of faith.[fn. 165: As is also evident from present tense ὁ τρώγων . . . καὶ πίνων in vss. 54, 55, 57, 58.] It remains an eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood, for the spring of all life continues to be his self-offering in death. But it works itself out as a lasting fellowship between him and those who believe in him on their part as a continual centering on him who gave himself for them, on his part as his indwelling in them with all his gifts and power (cf., e.g., 7:37, 38).

(Herman N. Ridderbos, The Gospel according to John: A Theological Commentary, trans. John Vriend, [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1997], p. 243.) Preview.

Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer:

ὁ τρώγων με] This sufficed to denote the relation, and is in keeping with the transition to ver. 58; whereas, if the discourse referred to the Lord’s Supper, the eating and drinking of the flesh and blood should again have been mentioned, as in vv. 53-56. Note also that ὁ τρώγων με expresses a permanent, continuous relation, not one taking place from time to time, as in the Lord’s Supper. — ζήσει] in contrast with spiritual and eternal death. — δι᾿ ἐμέ] on account of me, because he thus takes up my life into himself.

(Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Gospel of John: Vol. I, trans. William Urwick, ed. Frederick Crombie, [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1874], pp. 298-299.)

B. F. Westcott:

(B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to St John, [London: John Murray, 1892], p. 107.)

Cf. J. H. Bernard:

Note: See also: Edwin A. Abbott, Johannine Vocabulary; A Comparison of the Words of the Fourth Gospel with Those of the Three, [London: Adam and Charles Black, 1905], §. 1710h, p. 200.

Paul N. Anderson:

(Paul N. Anderson, The Christology of the Fourth Gospel, Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament. 2. Reihe 78, [Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1996], p. 208.)

Archibald Thomas Robertson:

54. He that eateth (ho trōgōn). Present active participle for continual or habitual eating like pisteuete in verse 29.

(Archibald Thomas Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament: Volume V, [New York: Harper & Brothers, 1932], p. 111.)

J. C. Ryle:

Leigh, Parkhurst, and Schleusner, all agree that the Greek word used in this verse ordinarily denotes the eating of an animal, in contradistinction to that of a man. Leigh observes that the word “noteth a continuance of eating, as brute beasts will eat all day, and some part of the night.” I venture to suggest that the word is purposely used, in order to show that our Lord meant the habit of continually feeding on Him all day long by faith. He did not mean the occasional eating of material food in an ordinance.

(J. C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels: St. John: Vol. I, [New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1866], p. 402.)

Cf. Edward Leigh:

…the Hebrew phrase of eating being in the present time, noteth a continuance of eating, as brute beasts will eat all day, & some part of the night…

(Edward Leigh, Critica Sacra: In Two Parts: The Fourth Edition, [London: Abraham Miller and Roger Daniel, 1662], Part Two, “τρώγω,” p. 266.)

καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν ~ Soli Deo Gloria

Evangelical Answers

Thursday, July 31, 2025

Transubstantiation and John 6: τρώγω, trōgō, (John 6:54) Does Not Imply Physical Eating.

The Patristic Understanding of the Sixth Chapter of the Gospel According to John as Spiritual not Carnal/Corporeal

Transubstantiation Refuted From Church History (By Individual, In Chronological Order)