Evangelical Answers : Transubstantiation and John 6: The Sixth Chapter of John is Not Primarily About the Eucharist.

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.

2. John 6 is Not Primarily about the Lord’s Supper (Eucharist). Return to Outline.

Note: The Bread of Life Discourse and the Last Supper are about the same thing (one is not “about” the other, rather both are about Christ—His life, death, resurrection and ascension).

Henry Alford:

The question whether there is here any reference to the ORDINANCE OF THE LORD’S SUPPER, has been inaccurately put. When cleared of inaccuracy in terms, it will mean, Is the subject here dwelt upon, the same as that which is set forth in the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper? And of this there can surely be no doubt. To the ordinance itself, there is here no reference; nor could there well have been any. But the spiritual verity which underlies the ordinance is one and the same with that here insisted on; and so considered, the discourse is, as generally treated, most important towards a right understanding of the ordinance.

(Henry Alford, The Greek Testament: In Four Volumes: Vol. I, Sixth Edition, [London: Rivingtons, 1868], p. 766.)

Thomas R. Schreiner, Matthew R. Crawford:

Though this text is not about the Lord’s Supper per se, it does shed light on what the Supper is about: namely, believing in Jesus for forgiveness of sin and the gift of eternal life. Eternal life comes through the crucifixion of Jesus, and those who believe in Him will gain it.

(Thomas R. Schreiner, Matthew R. Crawford, The Lord’s Supper: Remembering and Proclaiming Christ Until He Comes, [Nashville: B&H, 2010], p. 335.) Preview.

Thomas Whitelaw:

The truth seems to be that the idea here expressed of inward, believing, spiritual fellowship with the crucified and risen Christ was afterwards embodied by our Lord in the Holy Supper, but whether at the time of announcing it He had before His mind the institution of that supper (Bengel, Hofmann, Luthardt, Hengstenberg, Godet, Tholuck, and others), or whether this was an after-thought, ‘the product of the hour of the supper itself’ (Meyer, Brückner), cannot be determined.

(Thomas Whitelaw, Commentary on John, [Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1993], p. 159.)

E. W. Hengstenberg:

But always where flesh and blood occur in connection in the New Testament, they constitute the living organism. So here in i. 13; Matt. xvi. 17; 1 Cor. xv. 50; Gal. i. 16; Eph. vi. 12, where the human nature is denoted by flesh and blood. In Heb. ii. 14, flesh and blood occurs of the human personality of Christ. Flesh and blood everywhere stands only where flesh merely might have stood, by which is commonly designated the whole human being. …When Jesus speaks of the eating of His flesh and the drinking of His blood, He understands primarily by this, a relation which may at once be formed, the giving up of one’s own natural life and being, and unconditional consecration to the Son of man, so that His holy flesh and blood take the place of that which is natural and unholy, and His theanthropic personality penetrates and ennobles that of the ordinary man, so that he can say, “I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.” We can obtain a clear conception of this in the case of the disciple whom Jesus loved, and who rested in His bosom. He had already truly eaten, before the atoning death of Jesus Christ, with the mouth of the Spirit, and had drunk His blood, and had become a different person, as one alive from the dead,—he had obtained different inclinations and impulses, different features, a different look, and a different step. But there were further developments before him, in which the eating of the flesh and drinking of the blood received a deeper meaning; and Christ had these developments already in view, when He with so much emphasis made all salvation dependent on the eating of His flesh and the drinking of His blood. After Christ had offered up His flesh upon the cross, and had thus earned new power of life for our flesh, which was pervaded with death, and after His sacred blood had there taken away sin, He became in a still higher degree the food of the soul. And this is the third stage in the Holy Supper: His “body, for us wounded,” and His sacred blood, were made, by an adorable mystery, and an ever-repeated miracle, the central-point of the Church. The enjoyment in the Supper forms no opposition to the purely spiritual enjoyment, as it is primarily taught here, but rather its highest degree—the condition of efficacious and lifelong realization of the demand, which Christ here expresses.

(E. W. Hengstenberg, Commentary on the Gospel of St. John: Volume I, Clark’s Foreign Theological Library: Fourth Series: Vol. V., [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1865], pp. 350-351, 352-353.)

Charles Frederick Nolloth:

It was enough for the Fourth Evangelist to have reported the teaching at Capernaum, in which our Lord, a year before, had laid down the meaning and necessity of that union with Himself of which the Sacrament was to be the chief effectual sign and means.

(Charles Frederick Nolloth, The Fourth Evangelist: His Place in the Development of Religious Thought, [London: John Murray, 1925], p. 120.)

Frederick Denison Maurice:

If you ask me, then, whether he is speaking of the Eucharist here, I should say, ‘No.’ If you ask me where I can learn the meaning of the Eucharist, I should say, ‘Nowhere so well as here; for here I find the very signification of the sign. Here I may discover what the Eucharist has been to Christendom—what it has been to each man who has desired to be one of the great Christendom family—what it may be as a means of binding that family together—how it may become a bond to nations which are as yet lying beyond the circle of that family.’

(Frederick Denison Maurice, The Gospel of St. John, [London: Macmillan and Co., 1888], pp. 195-196.)

P. C. Ingrouille:

No doubt when our Lord appointed the Lord’s Supper, He had in view the doctrine of this passage, and used words intended to remind His Disciples of it. The truth seems to lie here. The Lord’s Supper (as one means of spiritual feeding upon Christ) referred back to the discourse, rather than that the discourse was anticipatory and prophetic of the Supper: or perhaps better still, they do not refer so much the one to the other as that both refer to the same thing. The great lesson of both one and the other is that only by a personal appropriation of the Lord’s atoning death can the sinner obtain eternal life in Him.

(P. C. Ingrouille, Our Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving, [London: Chas. J. Thynne, 1909], p. 44.)

Cf. J. B. Lightfoot:

Vs. 53 ἐὰν μὴ φάγητε τὴν σάρκα τοῦ Υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ πίητε αὐτοῦ τὸ αἷμα, οὐκ ἔχετε ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς. It is obvious there is a reference to the sacrament here again, not solely to the Eucharist, but chiefly to that which the Eucharist gives expression to and is a means to obtaining. Comp. especially 1 Cor 10:16, comp. vss. 3, 4. One finds repeatedly with St. John various means to convey the same idea as St. Paul, but using other words to convey it—the communion of the body, the communion of the blood. The first idea is explained by St. Paul, the second from Matt 26:28; comp. with Heb 9:22. Cf. Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25, where however the idea is not so distinctly expressed. The communion of the body is therefore the realization of the membership in the body of Christ, the communion of the blood is the appropriation of the atoning sacrifice of Christ, confirming the consummating act of the new covenant. This realization, this appropriation is extended over the whole Christian life.

But it is intensified, it is concentrated so to speak in the faithful receiving of the holy Eucharist. Because this is the one specially ordained means, the one vivid representative act, whereby we may realize, may appropriate by faith the spiritual truths which it brings before our minds, which it offers for our acceptance.

This is the most remarkable instance of the sacramental teaching of St. John’s Gospel, the presentation of the unseen through the seen. But even here, though the lesson is conveyed through the outward ceremonial of the holy Eucharist, prophetically anticipated here, it does not stop with this. The Eucharistic Supper only intensifies the truth, which is the daily and normal food of the Christian life.

(J. B. Lightfoot, The Gospel of St. John: A Newly Discovered Commentary, eds. Ben Witherington III, Todd D. Still, [Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2015], pp. 152-153.) Preview.

Cf. J. B. Lightfoot:

The reference here is not to the eucharist itself but to the union with Christ which is symbolized and pledged in the eucharist. Obviously any limitation to the actual reception of the eucharistic elements and the blessings attendant on such reception, would be inadequate; for Ignatius is contemplating the consummation of his union with Christ through martyrdom. The indirect reference to the eucharistic elements is analogous to that which our Lord makes in John vi.

(J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers: Part II: Vol. II: Sect. I, [London: Macmillan and Co., 1885], p. 226.)

B. F. Westcott:

It follows that what is spoken of “eating φαγεῖν) of the bread which cometh down from heaven” (v. 51), “eating (φαγεῖν) the flesh of the Son of man” (v. 53), “eating (τρώγειν) His flesh, and drinking His blood” (vv. 54, 56), “eating (τρώγειν) Him” (v. 57), “eating (τρώγειν) the bread which came down from heaven” (v. 58)—the succession of phrases is most remarkable—cannot refer primarily to the Holy Communion; nor again can it be simply prophetic of that Sacrament. The teaching has a full and consistent meaning in connexion with the actual circumstances, and it treats essentially of spiritual realities with which no external act, as such, can be co-extensive. The well-known words of Augustine, crede et manducasti, “believe and thou hast eaten,” give the sum of the thoughts in a luminous and pregnant sentence.

But, on the other hand, there can be no doubt that the truth which is presented in its absolute form in these discourses is presented in a specific act and in a concrete form in the Holy Communion; and yet further that the Holy Communion is the divinely appointed means whereby men may realise the truth. Nor can there be a difficulty to any one who acknowledges a divine fitness in the ordinances of the Church, an eternal correspondence in the parts of the one counsel of God, in believing that the Lord, while speaking intelligibly to those who heard Him at the time, gave by anticipation a commentary, so to speak, on the Sacrament which He afterwards instituted. But that which He deals with is not the outward rite, but the spiritual fact which underlies it. To attempt to transfer the words of the discourse with their consequences to the Sacrament is not only to involve the history in hopeless confusion but to introduce overwhelming difficulties into their interpretation, which can only be removed by the arbitrary and untenable interpolation of qualifying sentences.

(B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to St John, [London: John Murray, 1892], p. 113.)

Eric Svendsen:

What are we to make of these claims? Is this passage referring to the Eucharist? It must be pointed out at the start that the episode recorded in John 6 happened before the institution of the Eucharist in the other gospels. Therefore, none of the original hearers would have understood Jesus to be referring to the Eucharist. Instead, when Jesus did finally speak the eucharistic words “this is my body” the hearers would naturally have recalled Jesus’ words in John 6. The significance of this is that the Eucharist must then be seen as symbolizing Jesus teaching in John 6, not the other way around.

(Eric Svendsen, Evangelical Answers: A Critique of Current Roman Catholic Apologists, [Lindenhurst: Reformation Press, 1999], p. 178.)

J. C. Ryle:

The opinion which many hold, that although our Lord did not directly mean the Lord’s supper in this text, He did refer to it indirectly, and had it in view, seems to me very vague and unsatisfactory, and only calculated to confuse our minds.—Our Lord is speaking of something which He says is absolutely and indispensably necessary to eternal life. Where is the use of dragging in an ordinance which is not absolutely necessary, and insisting that He had it in view?—The truth of the matter, I believe, lies precisely in the opposite direction. I believe that afterwards, when our Lord appointed the Lord’s supper, He had in view the doctrine of this text, and used words intended to remind the disciples of the doctrine. But here, I believe, He was speaking of something far higher and greater than the Lord’s supper.—When He spoke of the lesser thing, I have no doubt that He intended to refer to the greater, and to turn the disciples’ minds back to it. But when He spoke as He did here of the greater thing, I am quite unable to believe that He intended to refer to the lesser.

(J. C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels: St. John: Vol. I, [New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1866], pp. 400-401.)

John Marsh:

It has often been claimed that the discourse in ch. 6 is really a ‘eucharistic discourse’. There is certainly a good deal which a Christian worshipper will find speaking to him in terms of his own eucharistic experience; but it is very doubtful if the discourse is about the eucharist as such. Certainly John is writing here, as elsewhere, from what has been called an ‘end-perspective’ which in this chapter includes the eucharist as well as the crucifixion, the resurrection and the bestowal of the Spirit. But the end-perspective is used to look at an actual historical situation, an occasion when Jesus fed five thousand people miraculously. It is this historical situation that is being examined and exposed, partly through a deft use of synoptic material, and partly through the addition of material from another tradition associated with the same historical situation. The result is to present the occasion in, as it were, a three-dimensional perspective: one perspective is from the past, and the events of the day recorded are set out in terms of the feeding on manna by the Israelites under Moses in the wilderness; another perspective is from the (then) present, and the occasion is set out as over against the contemporary celebration of the Jewish Passover; and the last perspective is the Christian ‘end-perspective’ which includes the cross, the resurrection, the ascension, the gift of the Spirit, and the celebration of the eucharist in the Church at Ephesus. Thus John is able to give ‘body’ and ‘depth’ to the synoptic narrative, and expose for his readers those deeper truths about the historic occasion that they might well have missed had they not been privileged to read his richly annotated description of the feeding and the walking on the water. John, as has been said, ‘stays with his historical situation’ (Introduction, p. 57); but he stays with it as focused under the triple perspective of past, present and future. And that is possible, and in the end necessary, because Jesus Christ is the Word who was in the beginning with God (11), who has been incarnate in the flesh (114), and is now returned to that glory which he shared with the Father before the foundation of the world (1724). No single perspective, no one dimension, is adequate to portray the deeds and words of him who was the Word incarnate in human flesh in historic time. In setting the deed and the words of Jesus in this triple perspective John has provided a most discerning and valuable commentary on the synoptic record.

(John Marsh, The Gospel of St John, The Pelican Gospel Commentaries, [Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1968], pp. 281-282.)

Michael F. Bird:

On top of that, one can grant the clearly eucharistic subtext to John 6, with its references to eating Jesus’s flesh and drinking his blood (John 6:51-58). However, John’s Gospel is decidedly a-sacramental since Jesus is never baptized and never institutes the Eucharist in the narrative. Instead, the Fourth Gospel emphasizes faith, believing, and trusting in the Father and the Son (e.g., John 5:24; 20:31). The discourse in John 6 is largely metaphorical for believing in Jesus Christ as the one who takes away the sins of the world.

Still, it is hard not to think about the Eucharist when one reads John 6. Calvin saw an “intimation” of the Eucharist in the passage because it teaches that Christ is the bread of life, that we believe in him for that, and that we express our faith in him by feeding on him at the Eucharist. For Calvin, Jesus is teaching that our salvation is treasured up in our faith, but there is also a real communication of him that takes place in his body and blood. So I would say that John 6 is not about the Eucharist but nonetheless foreshadows it. Consequently, “This means that if John 6 is not about the eucharist, the eucharist is undoubtedly about John 6.”

(Michael F. Bird, Evangelical Theology: Second Edition, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2020], §. 8.6.2.6, pp. 892-893. Cf. Michael F. Bird, Evangelical Theology, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013], §. 8.6.2.6, p. 788.)

David Gibson:

…even if John 6 uses eucharistic terminology like ‘flesh’ and ‘blood’ the issue which the text raises is how the terminology is used, and to show that it is used to point to the significance of Jesus’ death, not the sacramental elements. …the discourse functions to show that eating is a metaphor for believing and in this sense the metaphor is perhaps better inverted: in John 6 believing is eating. …in using eucharistic terminology in chapter 6:53ff., the evangelist is not emphasising the importance of the eucharist but pointing to an abiding belief in the ‘flesh and bloodness’ of the incarnation, which is the true end of all eucharistic rites and Christian discipleship’.45 This means that if John 6 is not about the eucharist, the eucharist is undoubtedly about John 6.

(David Gibson, “Eating Is Believing? On Midrash and the Mixing of Metaphors in John 6;” In: Themelios 27.2, [2002], p. 15.) See also: thegospelcoalition.org.

Thomas B. Strong:

We have insisted upon the historical circumstances out of which this discourse has arisen. It is obvious that it lies in such close connexion with them, that it would be manifestly wrong to affirm that the discourse is directly to be referred to the Eucharist. This Sacrament was not at the time in existence, and it is inconceivable that our Lord should have referred to it in these words. But it is equally true that to those who had listened to this discourse, and refrained from following those other many disciples, who from this time went away back, and no longer walked with Him, the Institution of the Sacrament cannot have been wholly without a context. The words, This is My Body, this is My Blood, cannot have sounded altogether strangely in the ears of men who had already heard from the same lips, He that eateth My Flesh, and drinketh My Blood dwelleth in Me, and I in Him. Even if in the sorrow of the parting the connexion was not seen at the time, it could not have failed to suggest itself, under the influence of the Holy Spirit’s power to recall Christ’s words. And we cannot hold the two scenes entirely apart. The account of them that seems to meet the requirements of the case is this, that the discourse at Capernaum lays down the vital principles of which the Eucharist is an actual embodiment.

(Thomas B. Strong, The Doctrine of the Real Presence, [London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1899], pp. 28-29.)

W. H. Griffith Thomas:

3. All this shows the importance of distinguishing between the primary meaning and any secondary use made of it. The sixth chapter of John really refers to the atonement, and the Lord’s Supper is only one out of several ways of appropriating by faith the efficacy of our Lord’s sacrifice. Besides, it is clear that in this chapter Christ refers solely to spiritual eating, while in the Lord’s Supper everything He said had reference to bodily acts.

4. We must, therefore, take the greatest possible care not to urge the Lord’s Supper from this chapter, but to insist in every way in our power that men participate by faith in the sacrifice of Christ, without which it is impossible for them to have eternal life now or a blessed resurrection hereafter.

(W. H. Griffith Thomas, The Apostle John: Studies in His Life and Writings, [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1946], p. 203.)

Cf. W. H. Griffith Thomas:

…a direct interpretation of the chapter in relation to the Holy Communion is obviously impossible, as the leading commentators agree. The relation is really one of universal to particular. It is not that the chapter refers to the Holy Communion, but the Holy Communion refers to it, or still better, both refer in different ways to the Cross. If the chapter is interpreted primarily of the Holy Communion, then the universal terms imply and require the necessity of participation in the Holy Communion by everyone for the purpose of receiving eternal life. As this is manifestly impossible and unthinkable, the interpretation which meets all the necessities of the case is the absolute requirement of participation in the Atoning Sacrifice of Christ. This admits of no exception or qualification, and there can be no doubt that the passage has in view the Atoning Sacrifice for the life of the world, and the necessity of individual and universal participation therein.

(W. H. Griffith Thomas, The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty-Nine Articles, [London: Church Book Room Press, 1963], p. 390.)

Henry C. Sheldon:

No unequivocal reference to the eucharist is found in the Johannine writings. It may be granted that at the time the evangelist penned the sixth chapter of the Gospel it was natural that some of its terms should suggest to his mind the sacrament of Christ’s body and blood. But the discourse of this chapter has no direct bearing on the subject of the eucharist. In the first part of the discourse the same office precisely is ascribed to faith which in the second part is ascribed to the eating of Christ’s flesh and the drinking of His blood. Moreover, the concluding declaration (verse 63) takes the acts described as eating and drinking entirely out of the category of material transactions, and identifies them with a spiritual function. It is necessary therefore to regard the discourse as a figurative and graphic means of enforcing the spiritual appropriation of the whole message of divine truth in Christ.

(Henry C. Sheldon, New Testament Theology: Second Edition, [New York: The Macmillan Company, 1922], pp. 353-354.)

Alfred Plummer:

But while it is incredible that there is no reference to the Eucharist in this discourse, it is equally incredible that the reference is solely or primarily to the Eucharist. The wording of the larger portion of the discourse is against any such exclusive interpretation; not until v. 51 does the reference to the Eucharist become clear and direct. Rather the discourse refers to all the various channels of grace by means of which Christ imparts Himself to the believing soul: and to limit these in number or efficacy?

(A. Plummer, The Gospel According to S. John, ed. J. J. S. Perowne, [Cambridge: At the University Press, 1892], p. 146.)

Herman Bavinck:

The objections mentioned above further carry weight in that they clearly show that a “Capernaitic” eating and drinking of the body of Christ [cf. John 6:51-59] is definitely ruled out. The Lord’s Supper, which Christ himself instituted at the Passover table, is the same meal as that which since his death has been celebrated in the Christian church up until the present. Bread and wine do not relate to the person of Christ in general but specifically to Christ as crucified. In it he depicts his sacrifice before our eyes but also has us enjoy it. And that enjoyment is definitely what the Lord’s Supper is about. Jesus gave us the signs of bread and wine. He did not keep them in his hands but distributed them and told his disciples to take and eat them, adding according to Luke (only with the distribution of the bread) and Paul (also in passing the cup) the words: “Do this in remembrance of me.”

(Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Volume Four: Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008], §. 540, pp. 548-549.)

Cf. Herman Bavinck:

…though John 6 may be used to illustrate the Lord’s Supper, it does not deal with it directly. This chapter further teaches only that those who by faith, also apart from the Lord’s Supper, eat Christ's flesh and drink his blood have eternal life and will be raised on the last day (cf. John 6:40). It is therefore definitely not by a literal eating but by faith in general that humans become partakers of eternal life and receive the hope of the resurrection. The Holy Spirit, who dwells in believers, is the surest pledge of the resurrection of the body and the day of redemption (Rom. 8:11; Eph. 1:13-14; 4:30).

(Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Volume Four: Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008], §. 546, p. 580.)

Cf. Herman Bavinck:

…in the Lord’s Supper we indeed do not receive any other or any more benefits than we do in the Word, but also no fewer. Now in John 6:47-58 Jesus expressly states that, in the Word and by faith, we eat his flesh and drink his blood and so receive eternal life. Now, though in John 6 there is no direct reference to the Lord’s Supper, this pericope may still serve to explain the second sacrament. By the Word and by faith we enter into an intimate communion with Christ, his body and blood, such as exists between the food a person eats and the person who eats it. This is not only the teaching of John 6 but also that of all the Scriptures. Neither the Word nor faith literally imparts that communion, but God has obligated himself to impart to those who believe his Word his fellowship in Christ and all the benefits associated with it.

(Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Volume Four: Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008], §. 544, p. 567.)

Charles Hodge:

Our Lord in John vi. 53-58, expressly and solemnly declares that except a man eat of his flesh, and drink his blood, he has no life in him; and that whoso eateth his flesh and drinketh his blood, hath eternal life. It is here taught that the eating spoken of is necessary to salvation. He who does not eat of the flesh of the Son of Man, has no life in him. He who does thus eat, shall live forever. Now as no Christian Church, not even the Roman, maintains that a participation of the Lord’s Supper is essential to salvation, it is plain that no such Church can consistently believe that the eating spoken of is that which is peculiar to that ordinance. Again, the Scriptures so clearly and variously teach that those who believe in Christ; who receive the record God has given of his Son; who receive Him; who flee to IIim for refuge; who lay hold of Him as their God and Saviour, shall never perish but have eternal life; it is plain that what is expressed in John vi. by eating the flesh of Christ and drinking his blood, must be the same thing that is elsewhere expressed in the various ways just referred to. When we eat our food we receive and appropriate it to the nourishment of our bodies; so to eat the flesh of Christ, is to receive and appropriate Him and his sacrificial work for the life of our souls. Without this appropriation of Christ to ourselves we have no life; with it, we have life eternal, for He is our life. As this appropriation is an act of faith, it is by believing that we eat his flesh and drink his blood. We accordingly find that this is recognized in all the leading Confessions of the Reformed Church. Thus in the Zurich Confession it is said, “Eating is believing, and believing is eating.” The Helvetic Confession, as quoted above, says, that this eating takes place as often as and wherever a man believes in Christ. The Belgie Confession says, “God sent Christ as the true bread from heaven which nourishes and sustains the spiritual life of believers, if it be eaten, that is, if it be applied and received by the Spirit through faith.” Faith, as shown above, is, in all these Confessions, declared to be the hand and the mouth by which this reception and appropriation are effected. A distinction may be, and often is, made between spiritual and sacramental manducation. But the difference between them is merely circumstantial. In the former the believer feeds on Christ to his spiritual nourishment, without the intervention and use of the elements of bread and wine; in the latter, he does the same thing in the use of those elements as the divinely appointed sign and seal of the truth and promise of God. …The Reformed understood that “eating and drinking,” as used in John vi. 51-58, must be understood “figuratively of the spiritual appropriation of Christ by faith,” because our Lord makes such eating and drinking essential to salvation. On this point the Lutherans are of one mind with the Reformed, in so far as their leading theologians understand all that is said in John vi. of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, of the appropriation of his sacrificial death by the act of believing.

(Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology: Vol. III, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1884], pp. 643-644, 645.)

Barnabas Lindars:

The object of these verses is thus, not to relate the discourse to the eucharist, but to exploit the eucharistic words for the needs of the discourse. Those who feed on Jesus as the Bread of Life must accept the fact that they feed on the one who was bound to die in order to accomplish the divine purpose. This is the ‘hard saying’ (verse 60) which gives offence (skandalizei, verse 61; cf. 1 Cor. 1:18-24).

(Barnabas Lindars, Essays on John, Volume 17 of Studiorum Novi Testamenti Auxilia, ed. C. M. Tuckett, [Leuven: University Press, 1992], p. 62.) Preview.

Leon Morris:

The third line of interpretation (which seems preferable) is a mediating one. It sees in the words primarily teaching about spiritual realities (as outlined in the preceding paragraph), but does not deny that there may be a secondary reference to the sacrament.[fn. 57: C. F. Nolloth speaks of Jesus as having in this discourse “laid down the meaning and necessity of that union with Himself of which the Sacrament was to be the chief effectual sign and means” (The Fourth Evangelist [London, 1925), p. 120).] This teaching about spiritual feeding on Christ must be seen to have its primary reference to something other than any liturgical observance. It refers to the spiritual appropriation of Christ, however that takes place, whether in sacraments or in any other way. But in a secondary sense the discourse may well show us how we should receive the Holy Communion.[fn. 58: Wright cites F. D. Maurice: “If you ask me, then, whether he is speaking of the Eucharist here, I should say, ‘No.’ If you ask me where I can learn the meaning of the eucharist, I should say, ‘Nowhere so well as here’” (р. 180).] It is not impossible that Christ should have had some thought of the sacrament in his mind. He certainly did not institute it on the spur of the moment, and we have no means of knowing how long he premeditated it.[fn. 59: “Are we to suppose that just a year before the Eucharist was instituted, the Founder of this, the most distinctive element of Christian worship, had no thought of it in His mind? . . . That the audience at Capernaum could not thus understand Christ’s words is nothing to the point: He was speaking less to them than to Christians throughout all ages” (Plummer). This writer goes on to say, however, “But while it is incredible that there is no reference to the Eucharist in this discourse, it is equally incredible that the reference is solely or primarily to the Eucharist. . . . Rather the discourse refers to all the various channels of grace by means of which Christ imparts Himself to the believing soul: and who will dare to limit these in number or efficacy?” Bailey argues for the historicity of the discourse: “if we believe that Jesus often spoke words which He knew were too deep for all His hearers, or even for any of them at the time of utterance (see xvi.13), and if we believe, with S. John, that the whole divine plan of salvation lay open to His thoughts from the beginning, we cannot categorically deny that we are given the discourse just as it was first delivered.”] John, moreover, may have had in mind some who gave undue emphasis to the externals of sacramental religion. So he left out all formal mention of Holy Communion, which would certainly discourage overemphasis. But communion is important, so he included a discourse of the Lord Jesus that sets forth the principles governing worthy reception.[fn. 60: “Without minimizing the value of the Sacrament, the Evangelist rejects a conception of it that would isolate the presence of Christ in the Sacrament from His presence in the everyday life of the believer” (Strachan).] But to agree with this is not to see the main thrust of the passage in sacramental teaching. It lies elsewhere.[fn. 61: It is often said that the Fathers unanimously interpret this chapter of the sacrament. But long ago Daniel Waterland conducted a thorough examination of the teaching of the Fathers on John 6 (A Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist [Oxford, 1880]. ch. 6). His conclusion is that, while there is some variety, “what prevailed most, and was the general sentiment wherein they united, was, that Christ himself is properly and primarily our bread of life, considered as the Word made flesh, as God incarnate, and dying for us” (p. 123). Any reference to “sacraments, or doctrines or any holy service” he finds to be of secondary importance. See also the discussion in chapter II of A. J. MacDonald (ed.), The Evangelical Doctrine of Holy Communion (London, 1936).]

(Leon Morris, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel According to John: Revised Edition, [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1995], pp. 313-314.)

J. Ramsey Michaels:

(J. Ramsey Michaels, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel of John, [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2010], pp. 396.)

D. A. Carson:

None of this means there is no allusion in these verses to the Lord’s table. But such allusions as exist prompt the thoughtful reader to look behind the eucharist, to that to which the eucharist itself points. In other words, eucharistic allusions are set in the broader framework of Jesus’ saving work, in particular his cross-work. Moreover, by the repeated stress in this discourse on Jesus’ initiative, no room is left for a magical understanding of the Lord’s table that would place God under constraint: submit to the rite, and win eternal life! Both the feeding miracle and the Lord’s table, rightly understood, parabolically set out what it means to receive Jesus Christ by faith. Both Augustine and Cranmer have it right. The former sees in this passage ‘a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us’. The latter maintains that ‘figuratively he [Christ] is in the bread and wine, and spiritually he is in them that worthily eat and drink the bread and wine; but really, carnally, and corporally he is only in heaven, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead’.

(D. A. Carson, The Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Gospel According to John, [Nottingham: Apollos, 2006], on John 6:53-54, pp. 297-298.)

Andreas J. Köstenberger:

Against a sacramental understanding are further that (1) the Jews would not have understood Jesus’ words in a sacramental sense; (2) the term “flesh” is never used in the NT to refer to the Lord’s Supper; and (3) to do so would attribute inappropriate significance to such a practice (Ridderbos 1997: 240-41). On a secondary level, however, John may expect his readers to read Jesus’ words in light of the church’s observance of the Lord’s Supper, though not necessarily in a sacramental sense (Carson 1991: 296-97; Beasley-Murray 1999: 95).

(Andreas J. Köstenberger, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: John, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004], p. 217.) Preview.

George R. Beasley-Murray:

The saying in v 53 expresses the thought of v 51 in a negative form (Barrett, 298), but it advances on the former by paralleling eating the flesh of Jesus with drinking his blood. This may be viewed as a development of v 35 in the light of v 51: he who “comes” never hungers, and he who “believes” never thirsts. Coming and believing are replaced by eating and drinking, and the satisfaction of hunger and thirst with possession of life within, for the object of faith is Christ in his sacrificial offering of body and blood for the life of the world. So interpreted the saying is strictly in line with the development perceptible in vv 35, 40, 50, 51, the image of eating the bread of life increasing in intensity. Accordingly it is not necessary to interpret the statement exclusively in terms of the body and blood of the Lord’s Supper. Nevertheless it is evident that neither the Evangelist nor the Christian readers could have written or read the saying without conscious reference to the Eucharist;

(George R. Beasley-Murray, Word Biblical Commentary: Volume 36 (Second Edition): John, [Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999], pp. 94-95.)

Herman N. Ridderbos:

If from this it may be evident that even on terminological grounds vss. 51cff. must be understood completely within the context of the preceding bread discourse and that there is no transition to a sacramental semantics, much more serious are the material objections, advanced from of old—see Calvin, above!—and increasingly in more recent scholarship, against the sacramental interpretation of vss. 51c-58 (and, in consequence, of the whole of ch. 6). At issue specifically is the absolute salvific significance accorded in these verses to “eating the flesh” and “drinking the blood” of the Son of man. This absolute and exclusive meaning cannot have been intended for the—still to be instituted—sacrament and participation in it, but only for Jesus’ self-offering in death as the food and drink of eternal life given by Jesus for the life of the world and taken with the mouth of faith. At no point in this Gospel or any part of the New Testament is such an absolute value accorded to the sacrament—however important it is—as though in it the great redemptive event of Jesus’ self-sacrifice was realized; and nowhere is there such an unbreakable and exclusive link between the eating and drinking of the eucharist and participation in eternal life, as there would have to be in vs. 54 in the sacramental interpretation, as though only those who received the eucharist had the guarantee of eternal life. It is therefore correct to say, with Schlatter, for example, that John does not describe Jesus as the founder of a sacrament but as the one who feeds his church with life by means of his body offered up in death. Or in the words of Strathmann: “He [the Evangelist] linked the acquisition of life, which occupies him throughout his entire Gospel, not to a—here, once, ambiguously treated—ritual act but to the act of coming to Jesus, the crucified Son of God, and believing in him.”

(Herman N. Ridderbos, The Gospel according to John: A Theological Commentary, trans. John Vriend, [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1997], p. 241.)

Robert H. Mounce:

So Jesus in his “bread of life” discourse is not speaking directly of the Lord’s Supper. It does not follow, however, that what he is saying has no relevance to Holy Communion. Bruce, 161, writes that Jesus “does expound the truth which the Lord’s Supper conveys.” Carson, 298, arrives at the same conclusion: “In short, John 6 does not directly speak of the eucharist; it does expose the true meaning of the Lord’s Supper as clearly as any passage in Scripture.”

(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.)

Joel R. Beeke, Paul M. Smalley:

Therefore, John 6 is about eating Christ by faith, not the Lord’s Supper, but the Lord’s Supper is about eating Christ by faith as depicted in John 6. The vivid image of eating Christ shows that, as Thomas Watson (c. 1620-1686) said, believers have “near mystic union,” “delight,” and spiritual “nourishment” in him.

(Joel R. Beeke, Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology: Volume 4: Church and Last Things, [Wheaton: Crossway, 2024], Chapter 21—The Lord’s Supper, Part 1; §.—The Giving of the Bread: This Is My Body.) Preview.

Paul N. Anderson:

…John nowhere mentions the institutionalization of the sacraments nor their being ordained by Jesus. The central ‘sacramental’ concern of the Fourth Evangelist is the incarnation, as God’s Son is portrayed as being sent by—and yet returning to—the Father for the purpose of uniting humanity with God. Given also that John even seems to counteract any institutionalizing trends attributing baptism and the eucharist to ‘ordinances’ of Jesus (Jn. 4:2 and ch. 13), it seems highly unlikely that the evangelist’s references to ingesting the flesh and blood of the Son of Man (vss. 53ff.) may be interpreted as pro-eucharistic statements in the ritualistic sense. Rather, just as Ignatius borrowed from the popular authority of Mystery Religions and Paul, so the evangelist has borrowed from the authority of emerging sacramentalism within first-century Christianity. The evangelist has done the same regarding the authority of the scriptures, John the Baptist, the law of Moses, etc. in order to emphasize the ultimate place of the Son—in whom the love of the Father is revealed fully. In using eucharistic terminology in 6:53ff., the evangelist is not emphasizing the importance of the eucharist but pointing to an abiding belief in the ‘flesh and bloodness’ of the incarnation, which is the true end of all eucharistic rites and Christian discipleship. Thus, in this passage the incarnation is not used to emphasize participation in the eucharist. Rather, the emerging authority of eucharistic imagery in the late first century (vss. 53-58) has been co-opted in order to call for faithful solidarity with Jesus and the community of his followers, which is for the evangelist the only means of attaining abundant and eternal life.

(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], pp. 133-134.)

Bruce J. Malina, Richard L. Rohrbaugh:

Jesus’ insistence in John’s Gospel that Israelites eat his flesh and blood in order to have the life that befits children of God is antilanguage at its most obvious. The context is entirely different from that of the Synoptic Last Supper, at which Jesus offers bread and wine as his body and blood (Matt. 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:15-20; see also 1 Cor. 10:16; 11:23-27). John has no prophetic symbolic action with bread and wine as in the Synoptics (and Paul), just straightforward antilanguage, which made good sense to the members of John’s antisociety.

(Bruce J. Malina, Richard L. Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel of John, [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998], p. 135.)

2.1. Interpretation vs. Application. Return to Outline.

Note: 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.

Edward Arthur Litton:

(Edward Arthur Litton, Introduction to Dogmatic Theology: New Edition, ed. Philip E. Hughes, [London: James Clarke & Co., Ltd., 1960], p. 484.)

John James Stewart Perowne:

(John James Stewart Perowne, The Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper: Cleared from Certain Misconceptions, [London: Elliot Stock, 1898], p. 14.)

Daniel Waterland:

There have been two extremes in the accounts given of the Fathers, and both of them owing, as I conceive, to a neglect of proper distinctions. They who judge that the Fathers in general, or almost universally, do interpret John vi. of the Eucharist, appear not to distinguish between interpreting and applying: it was right to apply the general doctrine of John vi. to the particular case of the Eucharist, considered as worthily received; because the spiritual feeding there mentioned is the thing signified in the Eucharist, yea and performed likewise. After we have sufficiently proved, from other Scriptures, that in and by the Eucharist, ordinarily, such spiritual food is conveyed, it is then right to apply all that our Lord, by St. John, says in the general, to that particular case: and this indeed the Fathers commonly did. But such application does not amount to interpreting that chapter of the Eucharist. For example; the words, ‘except ye eat the flesh of Christ, &c., you have no life in you,’ do not mean directly, that you have no life without the Eucharist, but that you have no life without participating of our Lord’s passion: nevertheless, since the Eucharist is one way of participating of the passion, and a very considerable one, it was very pertinent and proper to urge the doctrine of that chapter, both for the clearer understanding the beneficial nature of the Eucharist, and for the exciting Christians to a frequent and devout reception of it. Such was the use which some early Fathers made of John vi. (as our Church also does at this day, and that very justly,) though I will not say that some of the later Fathers did not extend it further: as we shall see in due place.

(Daniel Waterland, A Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist, ed. Van Mildert, [Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1896], p. 110.)

Cf. Daniel Waterland:

The sum then of Archbishop Cranmer’s doctrine on this head is: 1. That John vi. is not to be interpreted of oral manducation in the Sacrament, nor of spiritual manducation as confined to the Eucharist, but of spiritual manducation at large, in that or any other sacrament, or out of the Sacraments. 2. That spiritual manducation, in that chapter, means the feeding upon Christ’s death and passion, as the price of our redemption and salvation. 3. That in so feeding we have a spiritual or mystical union with his human nature, and by that with his Godhead, to which his humanity is joined in an unity of Person. 4. That such spiritual manducation is a privilege belonging to the Eucharist, and therefore John vi. is not foreign to the Eucharist, but has such relation to it as the inward thing signified bears to the outward signs.

To Archbishop Cranmer I may subjoin Peter Martyr, who about ten years after engaged in the same cause, in a large Latin treatise printed A.D. 1562. No man has more clearly shewn, in few words, how far John vi. belongs not to the Eucharist, and how far it does. He considers the general principles there taught as being preparatory to the institution of the Eucharist, which was to come after. Our Lord in that chapter gave intimation of spiritual food, with the use and necessity of it: afterwards, in the institution, he added external symbols, for the notifying one particular act or instance of spiritual manducation, to make it the more solemn and the more affecting. Therefore John vi., though not directly spoken of the Eucharist, yet is by no means foreign, but rather looks forward towards it, bears a tacit allusion to it, and serves to reflect light upon it: for which reason the ancient Fathers are to be commended for connecting the account of inward grace with the outward symbols, the thing signified with the signs afterwards added, and so applying the discourse of that chapter to the case of the Eucharist.

(Daniel Waterland, A Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist, ed. Van Mildert, [Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1896], pp. 141-142.)

Cf. Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499-1562 A.D.):

We respond as follows to the question of whether John chapter six pertains to the Eucharist: The discourse there does not concern the institution of the sacrament of the Supper. For the Supper, along with its symbols, is not established there. For neither bread, nor cup, nor thanksgiving, nor breaking, nor distribution, nor testament, nor remembrance, nor the proclamation of the death of Christ is mentioned at all in that place. Those who said that this chapter does not pertain to the Eucharist had this in view. However, since the matter itself, that is, the spiritual eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ, is clearly taught there, to which the Evangelists later declare that Christ added the external symbols of bread and wine at the end of the history, we therefore do not think that this chapter is unrelated to the sacrament of the Eucharist. Indeed, we gladly accept those Fathers who applied those words to this matter. For what else do the bread and wine, which were later added in the Supper, mean except that we might be more stirred up to partake of the body and blood of the Lord, which had been very thoroughly discussed in many words in John chapter six? It is therefore sufficiently clear how we join these things together. [De sexto capite Iohannis an ad Eucharistiam pertineat, nos ita respondemus: Sermonem ibi de Sacramento Cœnæ non institui. Ibi enim Cæna cum symbolis non ordinatur. Nam nec panis, nec calicis, nec gratiaru[m] actionis, nec fractionis, nec distributionis,nec testamenti, nec memoriæ, nec annunciationis mortis Christi mentio ulla eo loco instituitur. Huc spectabant illi, qui dixerunt, illud caput ad Eucharistiam non pertinere. Quoniam tamen res ipsa, id est, corporis & sanguinis Christi spiritualis manducatio & potus ibi luculenter traditur, ad quam postea Euangelist[æ] ad finem historiæ suæ declarant Christum adiunxisse symbola externa panis & vini, idcirco nos caput illud à sacramento Eucharistiæ non putamus esse alienum: imò patres illos libenter recipimus, qui illa verba ad hoc negotiu[m] transtulerunt. Quid enim aliud sibi volunt panis & vinum, quæ postea addita sunt in cœna, nisi ve magis excitemur ad manducationem illa corporis & sanguinis Domini, quæ multis verbis diligentissime tractata fuerat in sexto Ioannis. Satis ergo apparet, quemadmodum nos ista coniungamus.]

(D. Petri Martyris Vermilii Florentini, Defensionis ad Gardinerum de Eucharistia, Locus I. In Ordine Præcedentium VII; Obiectum XXXII; In: Petri Martyris Vermilii, Locorum Communium Theologicorum: Ex Ipsius Diversis Opusculis Collectorum: Tomus Secundus, [Basileae: Ad Perneam Lecythum, 1581], p. 355.)

Cf. J. H. Bernard:

For the sacramental bearing of vv. 51-58, see Waterland, Doctrine of the Eucharist, c. vi.

(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. 208, fn. 2.)

W. H. Griffith Thomas:

Further, the discourse was addressed mainly to the multitude outside, while the Supper was instituted for the disciples. The relation, then, between the discourse and the Supper is that of a universal truth to a particular application. The discourse teaches the universal truth of Christ for the world as Sacrifice and Life. The Supper is one particular means whereby disciples of Christ may appropriate and commemorate that death. It is not that the discourse refers to or explains the Supper, but that the Supper refers to and amplifies the discourse; or, better still, they do not so much refer directly to each other, as that both refer to the same thing, the Cross. As with the Passover, the feast referred to the deliverance and not the deliverance to the feast; so, here, the feast refers to the Sacrifice of Deliverance, not the Sacrifice to the feast.

…As Archbishop Cranmer taught, John vi. does not treat of oral feeding in the Sacrament nor spiritual feeding confined to the Sacrament, but spiritual feeding in and out of the Sacrament.

(W. H. Griffith Thomas, A Sacrament of Our Redemption: Second Edition, Revised, [London: The Church Book Room, 1920], pp. 11-12, 12.)

Johann Albrecht Bengel:

Jesus deliberately formed His words in such a way that immediately and always, indeed, they properly dealt with the spiritual enjoyment of Himself; but thereafter, the same words would consequently also fit the most august mystery of the Holy Supper, when it was instituted. For He applied the very matter set forth in this discourse to the Holy Supper… [Jesus verba sua scienter ita formavit, ut statim et semper illa quidem de spirituali fruitione sui agerent proprie; sed posthac eadem consequenter etiam in augustissimum S. Coenae mysterium, quum id institutum foret, convenirent. Etenim ipsam rem hoc sermone propositam in S. Coenam contulit…].

(Joh. Alberti Bengelii, Gnomon Novi Testamenti: Editio Tertia: Tomus I, [Tubingae, Sumtibus Ludov. Frid. Fues., 1835], pp. 400-401.)

Alt. Trans. Johann Albrecht Bengel:

Jesus framed His words so skilfully, that immediately at the time, and at all times subsequently, they would indeed apply in their strict literal sense to the spiritual enjoyment of Himself: and yet that afterwards the same words should by consequence be appropriate to express the most august mystery of the Holy Supper, when that should be instituted. For He applied to the Holy Supper the thing itself which is set forth in this discourse…

(John Albert Bengel, Gnomon of the New Testament: Vol. II, ed. Andrew R. Fausset, [Philadelphia: Smith, English, and Co., 1860], p. 327.)

Cf. E. W. Hengstenberg:

The essentially correct view is to be found already in Bengel…

(E. W. Hengstenberg, Commentary on the Gospel of St. John: Volume I, Clark’s Foreign Theological Library: Fourth Series: Vol. V., [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1865], p. 353 fn. 1.)

Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer:

Had John been speaking of the Lord’s Supper, he must have spoken in harmony with the N. T. view and mode of expression, and must have made Jesus speak of it in the same way. But the discourse, as it lies before us, if taken as referring to the Lord’s Supper, would be an unexampled and utterly inconceivable ὕστερον πρότερον; and therefore even the assumption that at least the same idea which lay at the root of the Lord’s Supper, and out of which it sprang, is here expressed (Olshausen, Kling, Lange, Tholuck, etc.; comp. Kahnis, Keim, Luthardt, Hengstenberg, Ewald, Godet), is only admissible so far as the appropriation of Christ’s life, brought about by faith in His death, which here is enjoined with such concrete vividness as absolutely necessary, likewise constitutes the sacred and fundamental basis presupposed in the institution of the Supper and forms the condition of its blessedness; and therefore the application of the passage to the Lord’s Supper (but at the same time to baptism and to the efficacy of the word) justly, nay necessarily, arises.

(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. 295-296.)

2.2. The Same Truth—Word and Action. Return to Outline.

Kaiser, Davids, ‎Bruce & Brauch:

In the discourse of John 6 Jesus is not making a direct reference to Holy Communion, but this discourse conveys the same truth in words as Holy Communion conveys in action. This truth is summed up in the invitation extended to the communicant in the Book of Common Prayer: “Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving.” To feed on Christ in one’s heart by faith with thanksgiving is to “eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood” and so have eternal life.

(Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., ‎Peter H. Davids, ‎F. F. Bruce, Manfred T. Brauch, Hard Sayings of the Bible, [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1996], p. 500.)

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

…it is therefore a figure [figura], enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.

(Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3.16.24; PL, 34:75; trans. NPNF1, 2:563.) See also: ccel.org.

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

Why are you getting your teeth and stomachs ready? Believe and you have eaten. [Utquid paras dentes et ventrem? crede, et manducasti.]

(Augustine of Hippo, Homilies on the Gospel of John, 25.12; PL, 35:1602; trans. WSA, I/12:439. Cf. NPNF1, 7:164.) See also: ccel.org.

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

To believe in him, in fact, is to eat the living bread. The one who believes, eats; he is invisibly filled, because he is invisibly reborn [Credere enim in eum, hoc est manducare panem vivum. Qui credit, manducat: invisibiliter saginatur, quia invisibiliter renascitur]...

(Augustine of Hippo, Homilies on the Gospel of John, 26.1; PL, 35:1607; trans. WSA, I/12:450. Cf. NPNF1, 7:168.) See also: ccel.org.

F. F. Bruce:

This raises the question of the relation of the present discourse to the Lord’s Supper, in which the communicants participate by faith in the blood and body of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16). The Fourth Evangelist has no record of the institution of the Lord’s Supper in the upper room. Where the other Evangelists record the institution, he gives us the account of the footwashing (John 13:2 ff.). But if he gives no record of the institution, he does give us in this discourse of Jesus something which fills the Lord’s Supper with a deep wealth of meaning for the believer. Our Lord in this discourse is not indeed speaking directly of the Lord’s Supper, but he does expound the truth which the Lord’s Supper conveys. That truth is well summed up in the words which accompany the handing of the bread to the communicant in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer: ‘Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving.’

(F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John, [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1983], p. 161.)

Alexander Balmain Bruce:

While the sermon on the bread of life continues to be mixed up with sacramentarian controversies, agreement in its interpretation is altogether hopeless. Meantime, till a better day dawn on a divided and distracted church, every man must endeavour to be fully persuaded in his own mind. Three things are clear to our mind. First, 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.)

Hercules Henry Dickinson:

The need of such a living union with our Saviour Christ—through faith—as shall hold our souls in life and make Him be to us “our daily—living—bread,” is (you remember) the doctrine set forth by Him in the sixth chapter of St. John’s Gospel. And the sacrament which He instituted afterwards was a teaching by action of the same great truth. The doctrine which at Capernaum our Saviour taught by words, He afterwards embodied in a perpetual ordinance; and teaches us now by symbol “as often as we eat this bread and drink this cup.”

(Hercules Henry Dickinson, Lectures on the Book of Common Prayer: Second Edition, [London: Parker, Son, and Bourn, 1863], p. 180.)

Frédéric Louis Godet:

The expressions: to eat and drink, are figurative; but the corporeal side of communion with Him is real: “We are of His body,” says the apostle who is least to be suspected of religious materialism (Eph. v. 30); and to show us clearly that there is no question here of a metaphor intelligible to the first chance scholar, he adds: “This mystery is great, I speak in respect to Christ and the Church” (ver. 32). This mystery of our complete union with His person, which in this discourse is expressed in words, is precisely that which Jesus desired to express by an act, when He instituted the rite of the Lord’s Supper. We need not say, therefore, that this discourse alludes to the Lord’s Supper, but we must say that the Lord’s Supper and this discourse refer to one and the same divine fact, expressed here by a metaphor, there by an emblem. From this point of view, we understand why Jesus makes use here of the word flesh and in the institution of the Lord’s Supper, of the word body. When He instituted the ceremony, He held a loaf in His hand and broke it; now, that which corresponds with this broken bread, was His body as an organism (σώμα) broken. In the discourse at Capernaum where the question is only of nourishment, according to the analogy of the multiplication of the loaves, Jesus was obliged rather to present His body as substance (σάρξ) than as an organism. This perfect propriety of the terms shows the originality and authenticity of the two forms.

(F. Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John: Vol. II, trans. Timothy Dwight, [New York:Funk & Wagnalls, 1893], p. 41.)

2.3. The Sacramental and Symbolical. Return to Outline.

Note: See further: “The Historical Understanding of Sacraments.”

Stephen S. Smalley:

…the fourth evangelist is not preoccupied with the sacraments of either baptism or the eucharist as such. While there is no need to exclude entirely references to these sacraments in such places as John 3 and 6, there is no need either to regard them as central to John’s theological concern. The evangelist is more interested in what we shall be calling the ‘sacramental dimension’ of Christian experience than in the ritual expression of that dimension.

(Stephen S. Smalley, John: Evangelist and Interpreter, [London: Paternoster Press, 1992], p. 130.)

Stephen S. Smalley:

In any case, the importance of symbolism to John cannot be doubted. He uses his own symbols in his own way; and he uses them to express and illuminate his particular theological understanding. But John does not stop with the symbolic; he also thinks in terms of the ‘sacramental’. The difference between these two concepts is important. A symbol, within the Christian context, evokes and represents that which is spiritual and divine; whereas a sacrament actually conveys, through the material elements involved, what is spiritual and divine. For example, when Jesus says, ‘whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst’ (Jn 4:14), this may be described as a symbol of the life-giving power available to the believer through the living Christ. But when Jesus says, ‘I am the resurrection’ (Jn 11:25), and demonstrates this both by raising Lazarus from the dead, and by being himself raised from the tomb, this may be described as a part of the sacramental dimension to John’s Gospel.

…If we say, as we are doing, that John is a sacramentalist, this does not mean that he is concerned only about the two Sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist Rather, he is concerned more generally about ‘the sacramental’ — the fact that since the incarnation there can be a new dimension to life, and that as in the time of Jesus, so now, the spirit can give life to matter in a qualitatively new way. John focuses this understanding in the miracles of Jesus which he selects for our consideration, and which he treats sacramentally in association with the discourses. Symbolism is still involved, of course, in John’s over-all sacramental thought; so that when Jesus speaks of ‘eating the flesh of the Son of man and drinking his blood’, for example, we must assume (unless an exegesis is followed in this passage which interprets these words in terms of eucharistic transubstantiation) that he is using a symbol. However, the symbolic and the sacramental are obviously inter-related. But whereas the sacramental in John is always symbolic, not every symbol is sacramental.

(Stephen S. Smalley, John: Evangelist and Interpreter, [London: Paternoster Press, 1992], pp. 207, 208-209.)

Note: It should be observed that—at least in some limited sense—all symbols are sacramental.

Note: In Patristic literature the concepts are often used interchangeably.

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

The sacraments [sacramenta] are things in which, not what they are, but what they show, is always attended to, since signs [signa] exist as one thing and signify another.

(S. Augustini, Contra Maximinum Arianorum Episcopum, Liber Secundus (II), Caput XXII, §. 3; PL, 42:794; trans. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology: Volume Three, trans. George M. Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., [Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 1997], 19.3.2, p. 345. Cf. WSA, I/18:307.)

Cf. Samuel Taylor Coleridge:

…a symbol (ὁ ἔστιν ἀεὶ ταυτηγόρικον) is characterized by a translucence of the special in the individual, or of the general in the special, or of the universal in the general; above all by the translucence of the eternal through and in the temporal. It always partakes of the reality which it renders intelligible; and while it enunciates the whole, abides itself as a living part in that unity of which it is the representative.

(Samuel Taylor Coleridge, The Complete Works of Samuel Taylor Coleridge: In Seven Volumes: Vol. I, ed. Professor Shedd, [New York: Harper & Brothers, 1854], The Statesman’s Manual, “A Lay Sermon,” pp. 437-438.)

Note: See further: “The Historical Understanding of Sacraments.”

C. J. Wright:

The sacramental principle, in the truest sense of that much-abused phrase, pervades this whole Gospel. To the author, the visible is ever the medium of the invisible—for those who have eyes to see. No one has seen God at any time, but Jesus, the Word has declared Him—to those who have ears to hear. Everywhere in the Gospel there is this emphasis; and all human experience corroborates it. The physical is sacramental of the spiritual, but on spiritual conditions. The external will touch the spirit, but only through the spirit. The material will reach the centre of man’s spiritual being, but never of itself. Always and everywhere there is the condition of faith, of insight, of obedience. Without one’s five senses physical contacts mean nothing, and convey nothing. To a blind man a sunset is not sacramental. To a deaf man, a symphony is not sacramental—unless, like Beethoven, he has written it himself. Incense means nothing, conveys nothing, to one who has no sense of sight or of smell. The mind is reached through the body, but it is only in so far as the physical that is without can in some way speak to the consciousness that is within, that the outward can be sacramental. Nothing, in other words, is sacramental in and by itself. Grace is a spiritual gift, and requires spiritual conditions for its reception. If it were otherwise, both the Giver and the Gift were degraded—as also the receiver.

The sacramental principle, so understood, dominates this passage. What is this ‘flesh’ of Jesus which is given to man to eat? What this ‘blood’ of Jesus, without which His hearers have no light in themselves? There is, without doubt, a eucharistic reference. But what does the reference mean? For ourselves, we agree with the late F. D. Maurice who said, speaking of this passage: ‘If you ask me, then, whether he is speaking of the Eucharist here, I should say, “No.” If you ask me where I can learn the meaning of the eucharist, I should say, “Nowhere so well as here.”’

…What the Evangelist is seeking to do here is to express, in the vivid, realistic language that was becoming hallowed in the Church, the truth that the historic Jesus is the mediator—and supremely in His death—of that Divine sustenance required by the spirit of man if he is to know eternal life. When the author says ‘flesh’ and ‘blood,’ he no more means the physical realities which these denote than when he says that Jesus is ‘light,’ or ‘door,’ or ‘vine,’ or ‘bread’ or ‘water.’ The ‘flesh and blood’ represent in vivid, realistic manner Jesus Himself in His essential, and human, spirit of unique faith and of perfect obedience—which faith and obedience were supremely manifest in the Cross. There He gave His ‘flesh’ and ‘blood’; that is, there He dedicated His whole human self to God and to His fellows. To eat His flesh and to drink His blood is, therefore, to partake of His essential spirit: it is to ‘abide in him,’ and to have Him abiding in us (v. 56). This figure of ‘abiding’ in Him, and He in us, and He Himself in God, is found frequently in the later chapters of the Gospel, where it means what it here means. It signifies identification in moral and spiritual purpose. It is not something physical, or temporal, or local; it is unique something spiritual and eternal. Ignatius had understood this language when he wrote: ‘Do ye therefore arm yourselves with gentleness and be renewed in faith, which is the flesh of the Lord, and in love, which is the blood of Jesus Christ.’ Elsewhere the same Ignatius said that the Gospel is ‘the flesh of Jesus.’ Augustine in his moments of insight had seen this as when he said, in words which might have been spoken by the author of this Gospel: ‘Crede et manducasti,’ ‘believe, and thou hast eaten.’

(C. J. Wright, “Jesus: The Revelation of God;” In: The Mission and Message of Jesus: An Exposition of the Gospels in the Light of Modern Research, [New York, E. P. Dutton and Co., Inc., 1938], pp. 775-776, 776.)

Ben Witherington III:

The dialogue with the crowd begins with a question about the time of Jesus’ arrival in Capernaum. Jesus does not respond to their spoken question, but rather to what he knows is on their heart: “You are looking for me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves.” Jesus is pursued as the ultimate provider of a free lunch! In other words, the reason for pursuing him was purely material and selfish; there was no altruism or spiritual seeking really involved. Apparently they hadn’t even discerned that Jesus was performing symbolic acts that pointed to a larger reality and meaning than mere physical sustenance. Since Jesus did, after all, perform the miracle of the e loaves and fish, it is not as if he is despising physical things or food, but rather that he wishes to use them to point to a food that is more sustaining, crucial, indeed, a food that endures to eternal life. The two-level discussion once more comes into play, but Jesus is portrayed as being willing to provide both physical and spiritual food, not just the latter. It is not, then, very helpful to talk about the Johannine Christ as being purely interested in spiritual things, nor is it helpful to simply call this the “spiritual” Gospel, not the least reason being because it is the Gospel that most clearly focuses on the incarnation. Rather the physical is meant to be seen as an icon of the spiritual, a window on a larger truth, a means to a greater end. No doubt this is a difficult lesson to learn for poor and hungry people who do not know the source of their next meal.

(Ben Witherington III, John’s Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel, [Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995], p. 155.)

Note: See further: Sacraments and Symbols.

2.4. John 3 and 6—Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Return to Outline.

John Peter Lange:

The Lord does not speak here of the Supper itself, but expresses the idea on which the Supper is founded. (Here Meyer names Olshausen, Kling, Lange). . . . As the specific ordinance of baptism is, in chap. iii., lodged in germ in the general idea of baptism as already known to history, so the specific ordinance of the Lord’s Supper is here present in germ under the general idea and historical forms of the evening meal.

The hearers of Jesus were on their way to eat the paschal lamb; He says to them: Ye must eat Me, the real paschal lamb now offered in the history of the world. This then unquestionably contains a prophecy of the holy Supper, though it is not the Supper itself that is directly described. The emphasizing of the person is the decisive point. Personal reception of the historical person of Christ in its communication and sacrifice of itself (through the medium of the word and sacrament) is the fundamental condition of personal eternal life.

(John Peter Lange, A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical: Vol. III. Of the New Testament: Containing the Gospel of John, trans. Philip Schaff, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1884], p. 224.)

Hercules Henry Dickinson:

It is remarkable that the Apostle John, who does not historically record the institution either of Baptism or the Eucharist, exhibits the most fully those important truths which the Sacraments involve and represent. Thus in the third chapter he gives our Lord’s description of that great change—that birth into a new and spiritual life—of which our Baptism is (as the 27th article affirms) “A SIGN.” And in the sixth chapter he records the doctrine which our Lord subsequently embodied in the Eucharist; for in that institution Christ teaches still by action the same thing which He taught first in words; this, namely, how the true, everlasting life of our souls and bodies depends upon the death of Christ—appropriated to ourselves by faith; and on the life of Christ communicated to us. Verbum visibile [the visible word] was an expression used by Augustin of the Sacraments.

(Hercules Henry Dickinson, Lectures on the Book of Common Prayer: Second Edition, [London: Parker, Son, and Bourn, 1863], pp. 180-181.)

William Milligan, William F. Moulton:

On the one hand, the words of Jesus in this discourse can belong to no rite or ordinance, however exalted and however precious to His people. The act of which He speaks is continuous, not occasional,—spiritual, not external; every term that He employs is a symbol of trust in Him. But on the other hand, if alike in this chapter and in the records of the Last Supper the Paschal meal is presented to our thought, and if John specially connects this feast with the death of Christ, whilst all the other Evangelists bring into relief the relation of the Last Supper to the same death, it is impossible to say that the sacrament is altogether alien to this discourse. The relation of the Lord’s Supper to the teaching of this chapter is very nearly the same as the relation of Christian baptism to our Lord’s discourse to Nicodemus (see note on chap. iii. 5). In neither case is the sacrament as such brought before us; in both we must certainly recognise the presence of its fundamental idea. This discourse is occupied with that lasting, continuous act of which afterwards the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was made a symbol; and the sacrament is still a symbol of the unchanging truth so fully set forth in this discourse,—the believer’s union with his Lord, his complete dependence upon Him for life, his continued appropriation by faith of His very self, his feeding on Him, living on Him, his experience that Jesus in giving Himself satisfies every want of the soul.

(William Milligan, William F. Moulton, The Gospel of John; In: The International Illustrated Commentary on the New Testament: In Four Volumes: Vol. II, ed. Philip Schaff, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1888], pp. 85-86.)

Christoph Ernst Luthardt:

The eating of the bread, which is his flesh, takes place in belief on him. To this extent the Formula of Concord is right in the sentence: ‘manducatio est credere,’ or, more correctly, ‘credentis’ (‘eating is to believe,’ or, ‘is the right of the believer’). Belief itself is not the eating of this bread, that is, of his flesh, but the Lord gives it to belief to enjoy. Belief is not a merely rational relation to Christ, but constitutes a relation of communion, and Christ became flesh so that belief should enter into communion with him in his human nature, and thereby obtain a share in the eternal life. This, however, is not a single act, like the Lord’s supper, but a constant relation, like the unio mystica (‘mystic union’).

The words, nevertheless, do involuntarily recall the Lord’s supper. Hence Bengel says: ‘Jesu verba sua scienter ita formavit, ut statim et semper illa quidem de spirituali fruitione sui agerent proprie, sed posthac eadem consequenter etiam in augustissimum s. coenae mysterium, quum id institutum foret, convenirent’ (‘Jesus wittingly so shaped his words, that at once and ever they should properly treat of the spiritual enjoyment of him, but after this that the same should naturally fit also the most august mystery of the holy supper, when it should be instituted’). As Jesus, in the conversation with Nicodemus in the third chapter, does not speak of Christian baptism, but of that influence of the Spirit which forms the presupposition of the institution of baptism, so here in the sixth chapter he does not speak of the Lord’s supper, but of that personal communion with the incarnate One in belief, which communion forms the presupposition of the Lord’s supper. Thus, therefore, the evangelist could dispense with an account of the institution of baptism and of the Lord’s supper, just as he dispenses with telling about Gethsemane by giving the scene in xii. 27 ff.

(Christoph Ernst Luthardt, St. John’s Gospel: Described and Explained According to Its Peculiar Character: Vol. II, Clark’s Foreign Theological Library: New Series: Vol. LV., trans. Caspar René Gregory, [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1877], pp. 177-178.)

William Milligan, William F. Moulton:

Andrew T. Lincoln:

The drinking of blood was strictly prohibited according to the law (cf. Lev. 17.10-14). To imagine that Jesus’ words were to be taken in any literal cannibalistic sense would be to remain on the purely earthly level of understanding, in the same way that Nicodemus had earlier understood the language of being born again as having to enter the womb a second time (3.4)! Clearly the force is metaphorical and in basic continuity with the previous metaphorical use of language in the discourse, where the verbs ‘to see’, ‘to work’ and ‘to come’ all signify ‘to believe’. ‘To eat’ has already been introduced with this sense in vv. 50-1. The object of such belief to this point has been Jesus as the revelation from God, the bread of heaven, who provides life. But this section of the discourse takes the thought a step further by specifying that the object of belief is Jesus in his flesh-and-blood manifestation. So at a fundamental level the language underlines that the belief which results in life is belief in the incarnation. At the same time, however, there is no escaping the implication that eating the flesh and drinking the blood entail that the flesh has been broken and the blood shed. In other words, this is belief in an incarnate Christ who has given his life in a violent death.

For Christians it was precisely this belief that was vividly represented in the eucharist…

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

Hugo Odeberg:

The conception of the ‘Bread from Heaven’ is to be understood as parallel to that of the ‘Water’, i.e. it falls under the category of the conceptions of the Divine, spiritual efflux. This is so self-evident that it hardly needs demonstration. It is immediately apparent that the present section, with regard to the conception of the ‘Celestial Bread’ moves in exactly the same sphere as chh. 3 and 4 with regard to the conceptions of the ‘Birth from above’, the Spiritual σπέρμα and the ‘Water of Life’: the antithesis between the celestial-spiritual reality and the terrestial, the descent of the Divine into the realm of earthly men, the comprising of every Divine efflux or gift in the Son of Man (=»I am the bread that descends from heaven»). The parallel with the Divine Birth and the Celestial Water goes even further, viz. to the realistic emphasis. Just as ch 3 wants to impress that the birth from above is a real birth into the celestial world, in every sense as real as the birth into earthly existence, so the bread from heaven is no mere symbol, or simile, say for ‘doctrine’ or ‘teaching’, but the Spiritual Bread is quite as real a food (βρώσις), nota bene: within the Spiritual world, — as earthly bread, or earthly food. The transition to the conception of the consumption of the flesh and blood of the Son of Man is quite natural. Since the Son of Man is the Celestial Bread, He himself must really be »eaten» — nota bene: in the world of the spririt, — i.e. He must enter into and be assimilated with the spiritual organism of the believer; it is quite in keeping with the strong realistic emphasis of the discourse on the birth from above, if this eating of the spiritual bread is put realistically as eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the Son of Man, i.e. in order to impress strongly that the acquisition of the heavenly bread, the ‘imperishable food’, was no mere allegory. But with this understanding of the meaning of the discourse it is obvious, that no part of the discourse, — still less the whole of it — can primarily refer to the sacrament of the Eucharist. In fact, one who understands the words of the eating and drinking of the flesh and blood to refer to the bread and wine of the Eucharist takes exactly the mistaken view of which Nicodemus in ch 3 and the ‘Jews’ here are made the exponents, viz. that J’s realistic expressions refer to objects of the terrestrial world instead of to objects of the celestial world.

(Hugo Odeberg, The Fourth Gospel: Interpreted in its Relation to Contemporaneous Religious Currents in Palestine and the Hellenistic-Oriental World, [Uppsala och Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksells Boktryckeri, 1929], pp. 238-239.)

2.5. General Context—Feeding the Five-Thousand and the Similarities Between John 4 and 6—The Woman at the Well. Return to Outline.

Eric Svendsen:

It must also be insisted that this passage is to be interpreted in light of the surrounding context. Jesus had just fed the five thousand (6:5-14). …Bread was considered a staple (as it is today), and Moses’ provision of “bread from heaven” meant that Moses provided that which was necessary to sustain life. Jesus picks up on that idea and says in essence: “You think Moses provided you with the necessities of life? He provided the sustenance for mere physical life. I will provide you with all the necessities to sustain eternal life!” Jesus uses the analogy of bread . . . because that is what the crowd was interested in at that moment.

(Eric Svendsen, Evangelical Answers: A Critique of Current Roman Catholic Apologists, [Lindenhurst: Reformation Press, 1999], p. 179.)

Cf. Alexander Balmain Bruce:

It was natural and seasonable that Jesus should speak to the people of the meat that endureth unto everlasting life after miraculously providing perishable food to supply their physical wants.

(Alexander Balmain Bruce, The Training of the Twelve; Or, Passages out of the Gospels: Sixth Edition, [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1906], p. 131.)

Cf. Albert Barnes:

He uses the figure of eating and drinking, because that was the subject of discourse; because the Jews prided themselves much on the fact that their fathers had eaten manna; and because as he had said that he was the bread of life, it was natural and easy, especially in the language which he used, to carry out the figure, and say that bread must be eaten in order to be of any avail in supporting and saving men. To eat and to drink, among the Jews, was also expressive of sharing in, or partaking of, the privileges of friendship. The happiness of heaven and all spiritual blessings are often represented under this image. Matt. viii. 11 ; xxvi. 29. Luke xiv. 15, &c.

(Albert Barnes, Notes, Explanatory and Practical, on the Gospels: In Two Volumes: Vol. II, [New York: Harper and Brothers, 1850], on John 6:53-55, p. 259.)

Cf. John 4:13-14, 34: Jesus answered and said to her, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again; but whoever drinks the water I shall give will never thirst; the water I shall give will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” . . . Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of the one who sent me and to finish his work. (NAB).

Cf. Eric Svendsen:

This passage has many remarkable similarities to the John 6 passage. In John 6, Jesus picks up on the crowd’s interest in bread: in John 4, Jesus picks up on the woman’s interest in water. In both cases eternal life is in view. In both cases a metaphor of consumption is used to illustrate belief in Jesus. In both cases Jesus’ audience mistakenly takes the metaphor literally.

(Eric Svendsen, Evangelical Answers: A Critique of Current Roman Catholic Apologists, [Lindenhurst: Reformation Press, 1999], p. 181.)

J. C. Ryle:

[How can this man give…flesh to eat.] The likeness should be observed between this question and that of Nicodemus (John 3:4), and that of the Samaritan woman. (John 4:11.)

(J. C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels: St. John: Vol. I, [New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1866], p. 397.)

Note: John 6:52: The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?” (NAB); John 3:4: Nicodemus said to him, “How can a person once grown old be born again? Surely he cannot reenter his mother’s womb and be born again, can he?” (NAB); John 4:11: (The woman) said to him, “Sir, you do not even have a bucket and the cistern is deep; where then can you get this living water? (NAB).

2.6. Excursus: Misunderstandings in St. John’s Gospel. Return to Outline.

Note: John’s Gospel is full of instances in which our Lord’s words are incorrectly understood by those who hear them. Usually that misunderstanding is born out of interpreting spiritual truths in an overly literal manner. Regarding the sixth chapter of John’s Gospel, I am inclined to agree with J. C. Ryle when he observed that: “To a Jewish ear . . . there would be nothing so entirely new and strange in the sentence as at first sight may appear to us. The thing that would startle them no doubt would be our Lord’s assertion that eating His flesh and drinking His blood could be the means of life to their souls”. I suspect that the misunderstanding may have been primarily Christological in nature. It seems highly unlikely that any the original hearers would have understood this to mean the “literal eating of His corporeal flesh”. See further, ‘Appendix: “Eating” and “Drinking” in Jewish Literature’ (below).

Cf. Frédéric Louis Godet:

The Lord sought thus to make clear to the Jews what appeared to them incredible: that one man could be for all others the source of life.

(F. Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John: Vol. II, trans. Timothy Dwight, [New York:Funk & Wagnalls, 1893], p. 39.)

D. A. Carson:

…what is really scandalous is not the ostensibly ‘cannibalistic’ metaphor, but the cross to which it points.

(D. A. Carson, The Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Gospel According to John, [Nottingham: Apollos, 2006], on John 6:53-54, p. 297.)

Barnabas Lindars:

his flesh to eat: most Mss. omit his, though it is supported by P66 B Old Latin, Syriac and Coptic versions. If the omission is original, there may well be an allusion to the ‘murmuring’ of the Israelites in Exod. 16.8, where Moses replies: ‘When the Lord gives you in the evening flesh to eat and in the morning bread to the full . . .’ If this is correct, the problem is not the scandal of a carnal view of feeding on Jesus, but another example of literal misunderstanding. The people cannot understand how Jesus is going to provide yet another foodstuff.

(Barnabas Lindars, ed., New Century Bible: The Gospel of John, [London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972], p. 267.)

Kaiser, Davids, ‎Bruce & Brauch:

…it is John’s practice when recording Jesus’ discourses or conversations to quote words which have a spiritual meaning and then make the hearers show by their response that they have failed to grasp that meaning…

(Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., ‎Peter H. Davids, ‎F. F. Bruce, Manfred T. Brauch, Hard Sayings of the Bible, [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1996], p. 499.)

Gary M. Burge:

If Jesus’ audience was amazed that he miraculously fed the multitudes, they were startled when he described himself as the heavenly bread from God. Now they are aghast as he makes the next step. Earthly bread—heavenly bread—Jesus as bread—Jesus as bread to eat—Jesus as sacrifice. It is all too much, and so their grumbling turns to argument (6:52). Once again, the traditional form of the Johannine discourse comes into play and the crowd misunderstands what Jesus is saying: “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Of course, Jesus is not proposing religious cannibalism. Earthly symbols must be converted into spiritual truths.

(Gary M. Burge, The NIV Application Commentary: John, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000], p. 202.)

Examples.

John 2:19-22:

Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews said, “This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and you will raise it up in three days?” But he was speaking about the temple of his body. Therefore, when he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they came to believe the scripture and the word Jesus had spoken.

(New American Bible.)

John 3:3-4:

Jesus answered and said to him, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a person once grown old be born again? Surely he cannot reenter his mother’s womb and be born again, can he?”

(New American Bible.)

Note: This particular instance is most likely not an example of hearing literally what must be understood spiritually, but rather merely Nicodemus’ sardonic humor.

E.g. D. A. Carson:

A more realistic view is that Nicodemus did not understand what Jesus was talking about at all. At this point he could not believe (v. 12) that new birth was a requirement for entrance into the kingdom and was amazed (v. 7) by the very category. His response in v. 4 is therefore marked with incredulousness, which prompts him to reply with a crassly literalistic interpretation of what Jesus said, as a way of expressing a certain degree of scorn. Even his decision to take anōthen (v. 3) to mean ‘again’ or a second time may be part of that determined literalism.

(D. A. Carson, The Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Gospel According to John, [Nottingham: Apollos, 2006], pp. 190-191.)

Cf. D. A. Carson:

Nicodemus replies with a bit of a sneer: “How can anyone be born when they are old? . . . Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother's womb to be born!” (3:4). Some have tried to argue that Nicodemus here shows himself to be a rather thick professor of divinity. Does he really imagine that Jesus is seriously suggesting that you have to crawl back into your mother’s tummy and start all over again? This reading means that he cannot see a metaphor when it is leaping out to strike him. He is just slow and literalistic. But that does not make any sense either. Nicodemus was not a stupid man. You do not get to be the teacher of Israel without being able to discern the odd metaphor that comes your way. I think that he is simply replying to Jesus in Jesus’s own terms. It is as if Nicodemus is saying, “It is easy to promise a lot of things. You can promise that some will turn over a new leaf; you can promise fulfillment in marriage; you could say, ‘If you want to get wealthy, follow me.’ You can promise all kinds of things, but what you are promising is frankly over the top. You are promising too much. A new beginning? A new birth? How can anyone possibly start over? Time does not run backwards except in some sci-fi stories. You can’t crawl back into your mother's womb and have another go at life. You are promising too much. How can any man be born again?”

(D. A. Carson, The God Who Is There: Finding Your Place In God’s Story, [Grand Rapids, Baker Books, 2010], p. 128.)

John 4:10-11:

Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God and who is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.” (The woman) said to him, “Sir, you do not even have a bucket and the cistern is deep; where then can you get this living water?

(New American Bible.)

John 4:31-34:

Meanwhile, the disciples urged him, “Rabbi, eat.” But he said to them, “I have food to eat of which you do not know.” So the disciples said to one another, “Could someone have brought him something to eat?” Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of the one who sent me and to finish his work.

(New American Bible.)

John 7:33-35:

So Jesus said, “I will be with you only a little while longer, and then I will go to the one who sent me. You will look for me but not find (me), and where I am you cannot come.” So the Jews said to one another, “Where is he going that we will not find him? Surely he is not going to the dispersion among the Greeks to teach the Greeks, is he?

(New American Bible.)

John 8:21-22:

He said to them again, “I am going away and you will look for me, but you will die in your sin. Where I am going you cannot come.” So the Jews said, “He is not going to kill himself, is he, because he said, ‘Where I am going you cannot come’?”

(New American Bible.)

John 8:26-27:

I have much to say about you in condemnation. But the one who sent me is true, and what I heard from him I tell the world.” They did not realize that he was speaking to them of the Father.

(New American Bible.)

John 8:32-33:

and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” They answered him, “We are descendants of Abraham and have never been enslaved to anyone. How can you say, ‘You will become free’?”

(New American Bible.)

John 8:44-48:

You belong to your father the devil and you willingly carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks in character, because he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I speak the truth, you do not believe me. Can any of you charge me with sin? If I am telling the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever belongs to God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not listen, because you do not belong to God.” The Jews answered and said to him, “Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and are possessed?”

(New American Bible.)

John 8:51-52:

Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever keeps my word will never see death.” (So) the Jews said to him, “Now we are sure that you are possessed. Abraham died, as did the prophets, yet you say, ‘Whoever keeps my word will never taste death.’

(New American Bible.)

John 10:7-20:

So Jesus said again, “Amen, amen, I say to you, I am the gate for the sheep. All who came [before me] are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. I am the gate. Whoever enters through me will be saved, and will come in and go out and find pasture. A thief comes only to steal and slaughter and destroy; I came so that they might have life and have it more abundantly. I am the good shepherd. A good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. A hired man, who is not a shepherd and whose sheep are not his own, sees a wolf coming and leaves the sheep and runs away, and the wolf catches and scatters them. This is because he works for pay and has no concern for the sheep. I am the good shepherd, and I know mine and mine know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I will lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. These also I must lead, and they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock, one shepherd. This is why the Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down on my own. I have power to lay it down, and power to take it up again. This command I have received from my Father.” Again there was a division among the Jews because of these words. Many of them said, “He is possessed and out of his mind; why listen to him?”

(New American Bible.)

John 11:11-13:

He said this, and then told them, “Our friend Lazarus is asleep, but I am going to awaken him.” So the disciples said to him, "Master, if he is asleep, he will be saved.” But Jesus was talking about his death, while they thought that he meant ordinary sleep.

(New American Bible.)

John 21: 21-23:

When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about him?” Jesus said to him, “What if I want him to remain until I come? What concern is it of yours? You follow me.” So the word spread among the brothers that that disciple would not die. But Jesus had not told him that he would not die, just “What if I want him to remain until I come? (What concern is it of yours?)”

(New American Bible.)

3. Some In-Depth Arguments in Favor of a Primarily Non-Sacramental Understanding. Return to Outline.

John Lightfoot:

But what sense did they take it in that did understand it? Not in a sacramental sense surely, unless they were then instructed in the death and passion of our Saviour; for the sacrament hath a relation to his death: but it sufficiently appears elsewhere that they knew or expected nothing of that. Much less did they take it in a Jewish sense; for the Jewish conceits were about the mighty advantages that should accrue to them from the Messiah, and those merely earthly and sensual. But to partake of the Messiah truly is to partake of himself, his pure nature, his righteousness, his spirit; and to live and grow and receive nourishment from that participation of him. Things which the Jewish schools heard little of, did not believe, did not think; but things which our blessed Saviour expresseth lively and comprehensively enough, by that of eating his flesh and drinking his blood.

(John Lightfoot, Horæ Hebraicæ et Talmudicæ: Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations: In Four Volumes: Vol. III, [Oxford: At The University Press, 1859], p. 309.)

Joel R. Beeke, Paul M. Smalley:

In the Supper, Christ alluded to both the Passover lamb and the manna. The Passover lamb was a sacrifice that turned away God’s judgment (Ex. 12:12-13, 27). Manna was the heavenly “bread” by which God miraculously fed his people in the wilderness after the exodus (16:4, 15; Ps. 78:24-25). For Christ to give his disciples bread and say, “This is my body,” would have stirred their memory of his teaching when he said, “Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. . . . I am the bread of life” (John 6:32-33, 35). Christ is both the true sacrificial lamb and the true manna that nourishes eternal life in his people while they journey as pilgrims through this world’s wilderness to the Promised Land.

Since the Supper did not yet exist when Christ gave that teaching in John 6, he was not referring directly to the sacrament. Furthermore, “eating” of Christ is not seen as a physical act in John 6, for as Augustine observed, it would have been a crime to literally eat Christ’s flesh and blood; therefore, his expression is “figurative.” Eating symbolizes the spiritual reception of Christ by faith, for he continued, “He that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst” (v. 35). In particular, it is faith in Christ crucified, for Christ said, “The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world” (v. 51). Hence, when Christ said, “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him” (v. 56), he referred to receiving the crucified Savior and his saving grace by faith in the heart, not by the mouth. Christ said, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you” (v. 53), but only faith, not eating the Supper, is necessary for eternal life.

However, when Christ later instituted the ordinance of eating the bread and drinking of the cup—of which he said, “This is my body,” and, “This is my blood”—those physical acts with the mouth become signs of faith that feeds spiritually on Christ crucified. Therefore, John 6 is about eating Christ by faith, not the Lord’s Supper, but the Lord’s Supper is about eating Christ by faith as depicted in John 6. The vivid image of eating Christ shows that, as Thomas Watson (c. 1620-1686) said, believers have “near mystic union,” “delight,” and spiritual “nourishment” in him.

Leon Morris:

But there are some strong reasons against it. First of all, there is the setting. Jesus is speaking in the synagogue at Capernaum to a crowd that includes opponents and lukewarm disciples. It is difficult to hold that John wants us to think that to such an audience Jesus gave teaching about a sacrament whose institution lay well in the future. References to such a sacrament could not possibly have been discerned by this audience, and the only result could have been profound mystification. Second, there is the strength of the language used. Take as an example verse 53: “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” This language is absolute. There is no reference to repentance or conversion or believing. There is no qualification of any sort. No loophole is left. But it is impossible to think that Jesus (or for that matter the Evangelist) should have taught that the one thing necessary for eternal life is to receive the sacrament. Those who think of the discourse as referring to Holy Communion usually do not face the logic of their position at this point, but introduce some qualification.[fn. 51: The Eastern Church, showing an unexpectedly logical attitude at this point, has carried on the practice of infant communion. But I do not think that even that Church goes as far as to say that no one who has not received communion can be saved. But Jesus says bluntly that, apart from the eating and drinking of which he speaks, there is no salvation. Richardson is one who does carry to its logical conclusion the view that the chapter refers to the sacrament, saying that the eucharist “is the indispensable means of salvation (John 6.53; 15.4f.). It is constitutive of the Christian community itself, and where there is no Eucharist there is no Church of Christ” (An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament, p. 377); “In the Eucharist, St John is saying, the life-giving Spirit of Christ is received; that is why the Eucharist is necessary to salvation” (p. 372). This is more than difficult to reconcile with the testimony of the New Testament (e.g., John 3:16). And it excludes from salvation infants and whole Christian communions like the Salvation Army and the Quakers. It is a pity that Richardson does not examine the catastrophic implications of his position.] Third, the consequences of the eating and drinking spoken of here are also said by John, both elsewhere and in this very context (see vv. 35, 40, 47) to follow from receiving Christ and believing in him. Fourth, the words, considered as the utterance of a first-century Jew, would most naturally have quite a different meaning. The metaphor of eating and drinking was quite common among the Jews, as Odeberg, for example, has shown. It points to a taking within one’s innermost being. Westcott can say that language like that used here “cannot refer primarily to the Holy Communion; nor again can it be simply prophetic of that Sacrament. The teaching has a full and consistent meaning in connexion with the actual circumstances, and it treats essentially of spiritual realities with which no external act, as such, can be co-extensive.”

(Leon Morris, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel According to John: Revised Edition, [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1995], pp. 311-312.)

Herman N. Ridderbos:

However one construes the sequel, there is in any case no reason to interpret vs. 51c in a sacramental sense. What is remarkable about the shift in vs. 51c is that now Jesus suddenly speaks of his flesh as the bread that he will give for the life of the world. But this only means, in keeping with the line of thought followed in the discourse thus far (and in the entire Gospel), that the vivifying power of the bread (that he both is and gives) consists in that he gives himself for the world, by his self-surrender in death. The idea that this self-surrender should occur especially in the sacrament is, in general, totally foreign to the Fourth Gospel (cf. 10:11, 15; 11:51-52; 15:13; 18:14, where each time the reference is to Jesus’ death); nor is it in any way expressed or suggested in vs. 51c. The words “bread,” “give,” and “for the life of the world” all echo what has been said earlier (cf. vss. 27, 32, 33) and have nothing to do there with the Eucharist. And as far as the core word “flesh” is concerned, in the argument that has been followed until now there is no reason to understand it any differently from the way it is used elsewhere in the Gospel, namely, as a reference to the human as such (sometimes in combination with “blood” [cf. 1:13; 3:6]) — above all, as the most characteristic christological qualification of the earthly-human existence of the one who descended from heaven. Accordingly, what comes to expression in the shift in vs. 51c is nothing other and nothing less than that he who is true bread given by God not only descended from heaven and became flesh but also surrendered himself to death in that flesh, that is, in the totality of his earthly-human existence, in order thus to give his life to the world. In vs. 53 this flesh is referred to as “the flesh (and blood) of the Son of man” (cf. vs. 27!), which makes it all the more clear that in this expression we are not dealing with a “shift to the sacramental” but with a new explication of the pregnant pronouncement in 3:13: only by “descending” will the Son of man “be exalted.” What is described there (3:14), on the analogy of Nu. 21:8ff., as the necessity that “the Son of man be lifted up, as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness,” namely on the cross, is here referred to in the language of the bread discourse as the gift of Jesus’ flesh: the true bread descended from heaven for the life of the world. In the increasing clarity with which — in this last great dialogue in Galilee — Jesus announces his death, we have before us the Johannine version of the same paradoxical shift in Jesus’ self-revelation as occurs in the Synoptics, where Jesus announces to his disciples that the Son of man “must suffer many things” (Mk. 8:31; 9:31 par.).

52 To the Jews Jesus’ statement was not only totally obscure but also highly offensive. Again, as in vss. 41ff., they avoid a direct confrontation with Jesus himself. It seemed to them increasingly clear that common ground for conversation with him was lacking. That they “disputed among themselves” (cf. vs. 43) does not mean that some were for and others against Jesus but that in vehement mutual discussion they gave vent to their astonishment and displeasure. Earlier already they had expressed these feelings when he called himself the bread descended from heaven (vs. 41), adding that only those who ate of that bread would never die but have life (vss. 50, 51a); now they had to hear that this bread consisted in his flesh. As so often in the Fourth Gospel (cf. 3:3; 4:11; 6:7), so here, the natural person’s utter incomprehension is expressed in questions that disregard the deeper meaning of Jesus' words but cling to the sound, here in a question calculated to bring out as clearly as possible the absurdity of Jesus’ pronouncements: “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” After all, they were not cannibals!

53 Jesus’ reply makes no concession to their misunderstanding. Rather, he takes over their own words in all their offensiveness, making them his own with all the authority at his disposal and posing what they repudiate among themselves as utterly offensive and foolish as the absolute and exclusive condition (“Truly, truly, I say to you, that unless . . .”) for receiving eternal life. Here that life is called “to have life in you,” a phrase that is not of course meant in the sense of 5:26 but of 6:57 (cf. 4:14; 7:37). Nor does he tone down their words as though they were too strong. He does introduce some new nuances by speaking not only of “eating the flesh” but also of “drinking the blood” more — as though to accentuate the “hardness” (vs. 60) of the whole even — and by referring not to “my” flesh but to the flesh and blood “of the Son of man.” Thus, in continuing agreement with what he has already said about the Son of man (cf. vs. 27 and the comments on vs. 51c), he again and now even more dramatically brings out the paradoxical unity of the highest authority with the deepest self-surrender. Here, too, it is evident that the sacramental interpretation of this pericope bypasses the actual point at issue, namely, that which is unintelligible and offensive for those who judge “according to the flesh” (the “skandalon,” vs. 61) of Jesus’ pronouncements. This skandalon, after all, is not that Jesus gives his flesh to eat and blood to drink in a figurative sense, as in the Lord’s Supper. If that were the case, the whole misunderstanding would only arise from the fact that the Jews did not (yet!) understand sacramental language and the entire issue could have been cleared up with a word! What Jesus maintains here with the greatest possible force, both vis-à-vis “the Jews” and somewhat later vis-à-vis the disciples who can no longer follow him in this respect (vss. 60ff.), is nothing less than the surrender to death of the flesh and blood of the Son of man and the (believing) “eating” and “drinking” of it as the bread that came down from heaven by which alone a human being can live (vs. 50).

(Herman N. Ridderbos, The Gospel according to John: A Theological Commentary, trans. John Vriend, [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1997], pp. 238-240.)

Cf. Herman N. Ridderbos:

It is precisely to these pronouncements, however, that the advocates of the eucharistic interpretation always appeal. The argument goes like this: whereas one could still understand “my flesh” in vs. 51c to refer to Jesus’ self-offering in death, the addition “his (my) blood” in vss. 53 and 54 makes it undeniably clear that the reference is to the Lord’s Supper. Moreover, in this context the words “eat flesh” and “drink blood” are totally unintelligible—except in a sacramental sense. When these expressions occur elsewhere, they either describe bitter hostility (cf. Ps. 27:2; Zc. 11:9) or “some horrendous thing forbidden in God’s law” (cf. Gn. 9:4; Lv. 17:10; Dt. 12:23; Ac. 15:20, etc.). “Thus, if Jesus’ words in VI 53 are to have a favorable meaning, they must refer to the Eucharist.”

However, this argument cannot be maintained on either terminological or material grounds. As for terminology, however much at first sight these words remind one of the words of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, on closer scrutiny they deviate from them in a way that is very characteristic for John: “Flesh” does not occur anywhere in the New Testament terminology of the eucharist and, as stated earlier in connection with vs. 51c, must rather be understood in terms of the incarnation. Accordingly, the addition in vs. 53 of “blood” must not be understood, as it would be with “body,” as sacrifice language (“my blood of the covenant, poured out for many,” Mt. 26:28 par.); with “flesh,” as here, it constitutes the usual designation of that which is human per se (cf. Mt. 16:17; 1 Co. 15:50; Jn. 1:13) and thus reinforces the incarnation motif here. Therefore it cannot be accidental that mention is made here of “the flesh and blood” of “the Son of man,” a combination that occurs nowhere in the communion texts and is not intrinsically connected with them, whereas here it clearly links up both with what has already been said about the Son of man’s authority over the food that endures (vs. 27) and with the full meaning of his “descent from heaven” (see the comments on vs. 51c). Furthermore, the argument that the “hard” expressions (“eat his flesh” and “drink his blood”) can only have a favorable meaning if this eating and drinking is understood sacramentally completely disregards the skandalon expressed in the passage (see the comments on vss. 52, 53).

Authors such as Schnackenburg and Bultmann who proceed from the sacramental view have encountered the difficulty that such exclusive significance is apparently attributed here to the eucharist. Schnackenburg sees a possible explanation in the idea that the Evangelist was opposing a Gnostic-docetic group that rejected the reception of the eucharist. Accordingly, the audience of the bread-discourse is said to shift here from “unbelieving Judaism” to a much later sect in the church. Even apart from the forced character of such a “digression” in the discourse, there is the remaining objection that the Fourth Gospel, which otherwise does not mention the institution of the Lord’s Supper, should suddenly proclaim here with the greatest possible emphasis that participation in it is the indispensable condition for, and infallible guarantee of, eternal life.

Bultmann, therefore, wants to see in the connection made here between the Supper and eternal life a later view of the Lord’s Supper as “the medicine of immortality” (pharmakon athanasias). According to this view, “those who participate in the sacramental meal bear within them the power that guarantees their resurrection.” For Bultmann this is just one more argument for the utter strangeness of this pericope in the Gospel. He therefore attributes the pericope to a later ecclesiastical editor.

Still somewhat different is the explanation that Brown offers for the absolutizing of the sacramental eating and drinking. In his opinion, we are dealing here with a typically Johannine “contribution to eucharistic theology.” Whereas the Synoptics and Paul still link the words of institution tightly to the remembrance of Jesus’ death, John is said to have detached the eucharist from the context of the Last Supper and its interpretation as food and drink that imparts eternal life. John “has launched Christianity on the road to a distinctive sacramental theology whereby visible elements are signs communicating divine realities.” Here too — in order to interpret the absoluteness of the statements in vss. 53 and 54 “eucharistically” — a search is made for a link with later ecclesiastical developments or deviations in the doctrine of the sacraments.

But these forced solutions are the — perhaps inevitable — result of the sacramental interpretation of this pericope. They become irrelevant the moment one sees that “eating Jesus’ flesh” and “drinking his blood” are the specific description not of the physical eating and drinking that take place at the Lord’s Supper but of the believing appropriation — by the mouth of faith — of Jesus’ self-offering in death.

(Herman N. Ridderbos, The Gospel according to John: A Theological Commentary, trans. John Vriend, [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1997], pp. 240-242.)

George R. Beasley-Murray:

(George R. Beasley-Murray, Word Biblical Commentary: Volume 36 (Second Edition): John, [Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999], pp. 94-95.)

Andreas J. Köstenberger:

Employing another solemn, authoritative ἀμὴν ἀμήν introduction, Jesus reiterates his earlier claims: stated negatively, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you”; stated positively, “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” Jesus’ use of the title “Son of Man” (see commentary at 1:51; in this discourse also in 6:27, 62) rules out a sacramental understanding. Jesus here speaks of the surrender of his “flesh and blood”—a Hebrew idiom referring to the whole person (cf. Matt. 16:17; 1 Cor. 15:50; Gal. 1:16; Eph. 6:12; Heb. 2:14)—unto death and of believers “eating and drinking” of it as the bread that came down from heaven and by which alone a human being can live. John 6:55, harking back to 6:27 and 6:32, emphatically states that Jesus’ flesh and blood are real—that is, spiritual—food and drink. In Johannine parlance, “real” also carries the connotations of eschatological, typological fulfillment in relation to OT precursors.

John 6:56 adds the result of a believer’s partaking of Jesus’ flesh and blood: mutual indwelling. This anticipates the fuller treatment of this phenomenon in John 15. John 6:57 makes clear that the basis for believers’ union with Jesus is Jesus’ union with the Father. The ground of Jesus’ own being is the “living Father” (cf. 5:26); likewise, Jesus is the ground of believers’ spiritual existence (Carson 1991: 299; Moloney 1998: 222). The personal pronoun με (me, me) instead of “my flesh/blood” further seems to suggest that sacramental overtones are at best secondary (Carson 1991: 299). . . . Against a sacramental understanding are further that (1) the Jews would not have understood Jesus’ words in a sacramental sense; (2) the term “flesh” is never used in the NT to refer to the Lord’s Supper; and (3) to do so would attribute inappropriate significance to such a practice (Ridderbos 1997: 240-41). On a secondary level, however, John may expect his readers to read Jesus’ words in light of the church’s observance of the Lord’s Supper, though not necessarily in a sacramental sense (Carson 1991: 296-97; Beasley-Murray 1999: 95).

(Andreas J. Köstenberger, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: John, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004], pp. 216-217, 217.) Preview.

Cf. Andreas Köstenberger:

Jesus meant for his words to be taken neither in a literal nor in a sacramental sense. The expression “flesh and blood” constitutes a Hebrew idiom referring to the whole person (cf. Matt 16:17; 1 Cor 15:50; Gal 1:16; Eph 6:12; Heb 2:14). John 6:55, in line with 6:27 and 6:32, stresses that Jesus’ flesh and blood are real—that is, spiritual—food and drink. The result of a believer’s partaking of Jesus’ flesh and blood is mutual indwelling (6:56). This anticipates the fuller explanation of this notion in chapter 15.

In Johannine idiom, “real” or “true” also carries the connotation of eschatological, typological fulfillment in relation to OT precursors. This interpretation is further validated in 6:58 as Jesus returns to the events of the exodus account that he introduced a few verses earlier in proclaiming himself the “bread of life” (6:48-51). Although later rabbinic teaching speaks (figuratively) of “eating the Messiah” (b. Sanhedrin 99a; see Talbert 1992, 138), a literal understanding of Jesus’ words here militates against people’s scruples against the drinking of blood and the eating of meat containing blood, both of which were proscribed by the Hebrew Scriptures, in particular the Mosaic law.

Against a sacramental understanding are five lines of evidence: (1) Jesus’ use of the title “Son of Man”; (2) the personal pronoun me (“me”) instead of “my flesh/blood” in 6:57 (Carson 1991, 299); (3) the fact that the Jews would not have understood Jesus’ words in a sacramental sense; (4) the term “flesh” is never used in the NT to refer to the Lord’s Supper; and (5) to do so would attribute inappropriate significance to such a practice (Ridderbos 1997, 240-41). On a secondary level, however, John may expect his readers to read Jesus’ words in light of the church’s observance of the Lord’s Supper, though not necessarily in a sacramental sense (Carson 1991, 296-97; Beasley-Murray 1999, 95).

(Jeremy Royal Howard, gen. ed., The Holman Apologetics Commentary on the Bible: The Gospels and Acts, [Nashville: Holman Reference, 2013], p. 546.) Preview.

J. Ramsey Michaels:

Whatever else it may mean, the mention of “blood” confirms the notion that by his “flesh” (v. 51) Jesus meant his death, and a violent death at that. While “flesh and blood” can simply refer to humanity, the “eating” of flesh presupposes killing, and “drinking” blood presupposes the shedding of blood. The notion of eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Jesus inevitably calls to mind the Christian Eucharist, and the various forms of the words of institution found in the synoptic Gospels and Paul. It has become almost commonplace to describe John's language as “eucharistic,” but this judgment must be qualified at least to some degree. In Matthew, for example, Jesus says, “Take, eat. This is my body” (Mt 26:26), and “drink of it, for this is my blood of the covenant poured out for the forgiveness of sins” (vv. 27-28). That is about as close as the words of institution come to Jesus’ words in the Gospel of John. The other Gospels (and Paul) lack the specific blunt commands to “eat” and to “drink,” preferring the more general “take” (Mk 14:22), or “do this” (Lk 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24, 25). In all of the accounts, moreover, the bread is Jesus’ “body,” never his “flesh,” as in this chapter. John’s language is actually more “eucharistic” earlier in describing how Jesus “took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he gave them out” (v. 11), and much later, by the same lake with his disciples, when the risen Jesus “takes the bread and gives to them, and the fish as well” (21:13, my italics).[fn. 43: Strictly speaking, even the language of verse 51, “the bread I will give,” is more explicitly “eucharistic” than that of verses 53-58.] Still, it is difficult to read the pronouncement about “eating the flesh” and “drinking the blood” of the Son of man without the Eucharist coming to mind, and through the centuries the passage has been read and reread in that light. The tendency begins even within the manuscript tradition.[fn. 44: See, for example, the English translation of verses 53-59 in the bilingual Codex Bezae (D) from the sixth century (with variants shown in italics): “So Jesus said to them, ‘Amen, amen, I say to you, Unless you receive [λαβητε] the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you do not have life in yourselves. The person who eats his flesh and drinks his blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food [omitting “and my blood is real drink”]. The person who eats my flesh and drinks my blood dwells in me and I in him, just as the Father is in me and I in the Father. Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you receive [λαβητε] the body [το σωμα] of the Son of man as the bread of life, you do not have life in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the person who receives me [ὁ λαμβανων με], even that person lives because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not as your fathers ate and died, the person who eats this bread will live forever.’ These things he said in the synagogue, teaching in Capernaum on a Sabbath” (for the Greek and Latin, see F. H. Scrivener, Bezae Codex Cantabrigiensis [Cambridge: Deighton, Bell, 1864], 112-13). The repeated substitution of “receive” (or “take”) for “eat,” the omission of “and my blood is real drink,” and the addition of a new “Amen, amen” pronouncement about receiving “the body of the Son of man as the bread of life,” all point to a softening, or domestication, of John’s harsh language in the interest of adapting it to the language of the Eucharist.]

While the eucharistic interpretation makes some sense for even the earliest readers of the Gospel (who may have known and practiced the Lord’s Supper), it makes no sense at all in the literary setting of the discourse at Capernaum. “The Jews” are confused by Jesus’ reference to “eating” him, and their confusion is hardly to be allayed by referring to a Christian ritual that did not yet exist. More likely, the sacramental or eucharistic interpretation of the text belongs to the “reception history” of the text rather than to the Gospel writer’s intention (much less the intention of Jesus within the story!). The text should be read if possible from within the horizons of the dramatic confrontation being described at Capernaum, so as to speak both to “the Jews” on the scene (even if it gives offense) and to Christian readers after the fact. The theme of the discourse so far has been Jesus’ claim to give “life” or “eternal life” (see vv. 27, 33, 35, 40, 47, 51), and that to receive that life a person must “come to him” (vv. 35, 37, 44, 45) and “believe” (vv. 29, 30, 35, 36, 40, 47). Now the shocking truth emerges that the “life” he promises comes through death, and only through death. To “believe” means to accept fully the reality of death, a violent death at that, as the only way to “eternal life.” In short, the “Amen, amen” saying in verse 53, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you do not have life in yourselves,” defines the “Amen, amen” saying in verse 47, “whoever believes has eternal life.” As we have seen, “to have life in yourselves” or “in oneself” is simply to have eternal life as an assured present possession.[fn. 45: See 5:26, where, in the case of both the Father and the Son, to have “life in oneself” is simply to have life.] That is what Jesus promises, but only the prospect of death makes life possible.

Whose death? His own surely, but is that the full extent of it? Quite possibly Jesus is hinting that “coming to him” and “believing” may cost the believer something as well. In biblical language, “eating flesh” and “drinking blood” evoked images of slaughter and utter desolation,[fn. 46: See Ezekiel 39:17-18, where birds and wild animals are summoned to a “sacrificial feast” and told, “you shall eat flesh and drink blood. You shall eat the flesh of the mighty, and drink the blood of the princes of the earth” (NRSV; compare Rev 19:17-18); also Isaiah 49:26 (NRSV): “I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh, and they shall be drunk with their own blood as with wine” (compare Rev 16:6).] and it may be that to eat Jesus’ flesh and to drink his blood implies not only benefiting from his death but to some degree sharing or participating in that death. He says as much in the other three Gospels (see Mt 10:38-39; 16:24-25; Mk 8:34-35; Lk 9:23-24; 14:27; 17:33), and later in this Gospel he will make a similar point in illustrating the principle that “unless the grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains alone, but if it dies it bears much fruit” (see 12:24-25). Ignatius of Antioch, on the way to Rome and longing for martyrdom, seems to have read it that way, for he wrote, “Alive, I write to you desiring death. . . . I want the ‘bread of God,’ which is the flesh of Jesus Christ . . . and for drink I want his blood, which is incorruptible love” (To the Romans 7.2-3).[fn. 47: For modern interpretations along this line, see P. Minear, John: The Martyr’s Gospel, 77 (“To drink his blood, therefore, is to receive life from him and to share in his vicarious dying”), and P. Anderson, Christology of the Fourth Gospel, 213 (“Jesus was sent to give his ‘flesh for the life of the world’ . . . and solidarity with him implies the same for his followers”); also Michaels, John, 115-17.] Yet at this point in the narrative it is impossible to be certain. Jesus’ words remain a mystery. All we know is that he is calling for a radical acceptance of his death as the only way to eternal life.[fn. 48: Paul seems to express a similar notion in connection with Christian baptism: “For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, so we shall be in that of his resurrection” (Rom 6:5).] How radical that acceptance must be has yet to be determined.

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

Edward Arthur Litton:

As to John vi. 51-63, it has never yet been satisfactorily made out that it refers directly to the Eucharist at all. Most modern commentators of note agree with the result of Waterland’s exhaustive discussion, that, though it may be applied to the Eucharist, it cannot be interpreted thereof. It is not in itself likely that our Lord should have alluded, at so early a period of His ministry, to the sacraments of the Church; a remark which, notwithstanding Hooker’s dictum,[Eccl. Pol., bk. v.] may occasion doubt whether John iii. 5 is to be literally interpreted of Christian baptism. And yet there is more to be said for this latter passage than for that in John vi, for both John’s and Christ’s baptism had, from the identity of the visible symbol in either, to some extent anticipated the Christian rite, whereas no such anticipation of the Eucharist is to be discovered. In either case, the supposition of a direct reference to sacraments would involve the doctrine that no one can be saved without being baptized and partaking of the Lord’s Supper; and in the case of the latter sacrament, that every one who does partake of it will be saved: ‘Whosoever eateth my flesh and drinketh My blood hath eternal life’ (ver. 54).

To escape from this conclusion, various exceptions are allowed, as of infants or idiots, of those who lived before the sacrament was instituted, of those who desired to receive it but were prevented by unavoidable circumstances. The necessity of such reservations shows that the words cannot be taken in their literal sense. Briefly, the leading truth unfolded in this discourse of Christ is not His presence in the Eucharist, or in any other rite of the Church, but His incarnation and death. In reply to the request of the Capernaites for material bread, He announces Himself as the Bread of Life, the bread which cometh down from heaven, of which, if any man eats, he shall live for ever. This plainly contained a mystery; and instead of expressing Himself more plainly, our Lord exchanges the term ‘bread’ for ‘flesh’; and, as if to increase the perplexity of His hearers, adds the word ‘blood’: ‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of God and drink His blood, ye have no life in you’; an idea most repugnant to the Jewish mind.

Now His flesh and blood combined, considered in themselves simply, seem to signify what they do in the words of institution, viz., the body of His humiliation, and if it be asked why He should insist on the fact of the incarnation, we have only to remember that one of the most pernicious heresies of the early Church consisted in the denial of the fact. ‘Flesh and blood’ signify what the eternal Son became when He entered the womb of the Virgin; and to eat and drink of His flesh and His blood is to accept in faith that incomprehensible mystery. But the incarnation was with a view to the atonement, and our Lord completes His present disclosure of the mystery with a reference thereto: ‘The bread that I will give is My flesh (with the blood), which I will give for the life of the world.’ There is here clearly a gradation of thought the Son becomes incarnate (σάρξ καὶ αἰμα); and then, in that human nature, gives Himself, in some unexplained sense, for the life of men. The full meaning is not disclosed, and yet the additional clause connects the passage with the Eucharist. For what is here obscurely hinted at is brought to light in the words of institution: the life of the world is to be purchased not merely by Christ’s giving, in some sense, His flesh for it, but specifically by giving His body to be broken and His blood to be shed, by His passion and death, for the remission of sins; and the sacrament is a perpetual memorial of that death. The ideas of incarnation and atonement are common, both to the discourse in John vi and to the Eucharist; more dimly intimated in the one, more explicitly in the other; and so far, but no further, the former is anticipatory of the latter.

The presence of the glorified humanity of Christ, alleged to be intended in the discourse and fulfilled in the appointment of the sacrament, and a quasi-physical incorporation of the recipient into that glorified humanity, are ideas foreign both to the passage in St. John and to the words of institution. ‘There is one construction’ (of John vi), says the writer already referred to, as distinguished for his learning as for his candour, ‘which will completely answer in point of universality, and it is this all that shall finally share in the death, passion, and atonement of Christ are safe, and all that have not a part in it are lost. All that are saved owe their salvation to the salutary passion of Christ; and their partaking thereof (which is feeding on His flesh and His blood) is their life. Our Lord’s general doctrine in this chapter seems to abstract from all particularities and to resolve into this that whether with faith, or without (explicit, he must mean), ‘whether in the sacraments or out of the sacraments, whether before Christ or since, whether in covenant or out of covenant, whether here or hereafter—no man ever was, is, or will be accepted, but in and through the grand propitiation made by the blood of Christ.’[Waterland, Eucharist, c. vi.] That this is the true meaning of the passage few will doubt the only point in which the learned writer may be thought to have erred, is in introducing into the discourse what it needed the fuller revelation of Christ in the words of institution, and of the Apostles after the descent of the Holy Ghost, to explain.

It has been urged that the use of such unusual language (in the discourse at Capernaum) points to some great mystery expressed by it; something far deeper and more sublime than the incarnation and the atonement, which are comparatively simple doctrines, and could be expounded in simple and intelligible language.[Bp. Browne on Art. xxviii.] We apprehend that these two doctrines, which form the very foundation of the Gospel, are quite as mysterious as a supposed presence of Christ in His glorified body… The language, indeed, in which the incarnation and the atonement are stated is simple enough; but the facts themselves, in their various relations, no finite mind has comprehended, or can comprehend. When St. Paul speaks of the ‘mystery of godliness’ (1 Tim. iii. 16), the first particular of it which he mentioned is the manifestation of God in the flesh; on union with Christ’s glorified body he is silent.

(Edward Arthur Litton, Introduction to Dogmatic Theology: New Edition, ed. Philip E. Hughes, [London: James Clarke & Co., Ltd., 1960], pp. 484-486.)

Gregg R. Allison:

As he did in the first part of his discourse (“I am the bread of life”; vv. 35, 48), Jesus presents himself in the second part as “the living bread” (vv. 50–51). He further explains what he means by the metaphor of bread: “And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh” (v. 51). Whereas this expression may recall his words of institution (“This is my body”; Matt. 26:26), Jesus uses the word “flesh” (Gk. σαρξ; sarx), not the word “body” (Gk. σωμα; sōma) as is found in the institutional narrative.

A better association, therefore, is from the prologue of John’s Gospel: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14). The Word of God (John 1:1–2), the eternally existing Son, became incarnate, taking on human flesh (the whole of human nature, not just a body); as the incarnate God-man, “Jesus is able to give his ‘flesh’ for the life of the world.” This is Jesus’s sacrifice: not his body present in the bread of the Eucharist, but his incarnate self on the cross. Yet, he does insist, negatively, that without eating this flesh, no one has eternal life (6:53), and, positively, that whoever does eat his flesh, has eternal life (v. 54).

(Gregg R. Allison, Roman Catholic Theology and Practice: An Evangelical Assessment, [Wheaton: Crossway, 2014], pp. 313-314.) Preview.

Francis Turretin:

X. (b) All these are confirmed by Jn. 6, whence various arguments are drawn for spiritual eating against oral and Capernaitic (whatever our opponents may bring forward to the contrary). (i) It treats of the eating which gives eternal life: “Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead” (v. 49*). “This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die” (v. 50); “Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood . . . dwelleth in me, and I in him” (vv. 54, 56). (ii) Of an eating which is absolutely necessary for the gaining of life: “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you” (v. 53). (iii) Of that which answers to spiritual hunger and thirst and which is performed by faith: “I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst” (v. 35). Here coming to Christ and believing on him are put for the true means of allaying hunger and slaking thirst (i.e., for the true eating, which Christ means). (iv) Of that for which faith alone is required. For since Christ had commanded the Jews to labor for enduring food, and the Jews had asked what they were to do that they might enjoy that food, he answers that faith alone is required: “This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent” (v. 29). (v) He speaks of the eating which could be done at that time because he speaks not in the future, but in the present and urges its perpetual necessity. And yet oral manducation had not as yet been instituted nor could it have had a place. (vi) Of the eating which should be done through the Spirit, “because the flesh profiteth nothing, but it is the Spirit which giveth life” (v. 63). (vii) Many of our opponents confess that Christ treats in this chapter of spiritual manducation alone, among whom Bellarmine mentions Gabriel Biel (Canonis Misse Expositio 84 [ed. H. Oberman and W. Courtenay, 1967], 4:77-95), Cusanus, Cajetan, Tapper, Hessel, Cornelius Jansen (“De Sacramento Eucharistiae,” 1.5 Opera, 3:255-57). To these must be added Aeneas Sylvius (or Pius II), who urging against the Taborites the restitution of the cup from these words, “except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood” (v. 53), copiously teaches that Christ speaks only of a spiritual manducation. However, they who urge the oral manducation confess that the discourse of Christ up to v. 51 is figurative and is to be understood of spiritual manducation (as Bellarmine, Salmeron, Maldonatus). But in vain is this distinction employed, since Christ uses the same words and treats of the same thing; nor is there any reason for a change in the discourse.

(Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology: Volume Three: Eighteenth Through Twentieth Topics, trans. George M. Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., [Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 1997], 19.28.10, pp. 510-511.)

Cf. Francis Turretin:

XI. If anyone seeks further for what purpose Christ employs this metaphorical kind of speaking in this whole chapter, representing communion with him by manducation, various reasons can be given. (1) This figurative manner of speaking is most familiar in the Scriptures and was often employed by Christ. It is his custom to adumbrate spiritual mysteries and his blessings under the covering of corporeal things and actions. As elsewhere he describes the grace of conversion by regeneration and the production of the new man; thus to this new man he attributes a new life and food by which he may be nourished and sustained. (2) It is the fittest mode of speaking to designate our communion with Christ, as is evident from a manifold analogy. (3) Christ had a special occasion in this place for using such a metaphor from the miracle performed and a regard for the crowd which followed him. For as he had filled them with the loaves miraculously multiplied, so they came to him again to be fed by him. Hence he seized the opportunity of turning their minds away from earthly thoughts about material and corporeal bread and carrying them to the thought of and desire for his grace. This he designates under the same idea which then occupied their senses (namely, under the idea of meat and drink). “Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you” (Jn. 6:26, 27*). Nothing is more usual with Christ than to use the occasions offered for setting forth his mysteries. As from the occasion of the water to which the Samaritan woman approached, he represents his grace under the symbol of water (Jn. 4:10). From the occasion of his disciples exhorting him to take food, on which he speaks of doing the will of his Father as of food: “My meat is to do the will of him that sent me” (Jn. 4:34*). What wonder, therefore, if Christ, on the occasion of the miracle of the loaves, describes union with him under the symbol of eating? And for this reason the more, that he was drawing the answer of the crowd necessarily to that very thing (Jn. 6:30-32). When they speak of the manna given to their fathers, on that account he shows that he is the true celestial bread who gives life to the world and not the corruptible manna of the Israelites. (4) In this way, Christ also wished to contrast his body with the legal victims and especially with those which were offered for the expiation of sin, upon which it was not lawful to feed, neither as to the flesh, nor as to the blood. Assuredly this was not done without a mystery to designate the imperfection and insufficiency of such victims because they were so involved in the fire of divine justice that nothing could remain from them for the nourishment of the people. This was a sign that there was no power in them to appease the divinity and to fill with consolation the conscience of the offerer. But Christ wishes to teach that this would not be the case with his sacrifice. So far from its being consumed and absorbed by the fire of the divine wrath, that, a most full satisfaction having been rendered to his justice, we can be nourished by his body and blood (i.e., feel its efficacy in consoling and pacifying the soul). Thus while the Israelites had communion with the victims only in death (drawing them to the altar that they might die in their place), Christ wished not only to share in our death by receiving our sins upon himself, but he wishes that we may have communion of life with him and to that end gives us his flesh and blood for spiritual aliment.

XII. Our opponents can find nothing in this chapter which favors oral manducation. (1) Not what is said in v. 55: “My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” For he is the true food; but of the mind, not of the stomach; of the heart and of faith, not of the mouth. Thus it denotes the truth of the similitude between corporeal food and spiritual and celestial food as to the efficacy of nutrition, but not as to the mode of eating. As “Why do you prepare teeth and stomach, believe and thou hast eaten,” as Augustine says on John 6* (Tractate 25, On the Gospel of John* [NPNF1, 7:164; PL 35.1602]). Thus he is called “the true light” (Jn. 1:9), i.e., far truer than the visible light. Therefore he is called the true food, but spiritually, not corporeally; for his truth consists in spiritual no less than in corporeal things; yea, on this account, the more sure because they are wont to be more perfect than the latter. In this sense, Christ is called “the true vine” (Jn. 15:1). “Truly the people is grass” (Isa. 40:7). Thus Cajetan observes on the passage: “To signify that his flesh, not deceptively, not by opinion, but according to the truth nourishes the soul, he says my flesh is truly meat” (“Commentarii in Evangelium secundum Ioannem,” Quotquot in Sacrae Scripturae [1639], 4:335 on Jn. 6:53). So also Gabriel Biel: “My flesh is truly meat” (i.e., undoubtedly) “refreshing meat” (Canonis Misse Expositio 86 [ed. H. Oberman and W. Courtenay, 1967], 4:135). (2) Not that Christ “distinguishes eating and drinking by which each species is most clearly distinguished; since in spiritual manducation by faith, to drink is the same as to eat.” Christ uses that twofold word, not for the reason that the one ought to be the act of spritual eating, the other of spritual drinking; but to signify that Christ is not our life and food except as he is dead and that we obtain full spiritual nourishment in his death and in communion with him, as full nutrition is attained by meat and drink. (3) Nor that he says, “I will give in the future and not I give in the present, because eating by faith belongs to all times.” For the verb “to give” in the future denotes his deliverance unto death (which was as yet future) not the giving at the feast (which is in the Eucharist). Thus to give the power of food to the body of Christ implies nothing but the sacrifice by which he was made the meat of our soul (which cannot be eaten except as a victim).

John James Stewart Perowne:

St. John vi. 52-65. There is yet another passage, the well-known passage in the sixth chapter of St. John’s Gospel, which has a bearing, though not a direct bearing, on the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. It has been constantly misunderstood, and requires careful consideration. As Waterland reminds us, the difference between ‘interpretation’ and ‘application’ must be borne in mind. We cannot interpret St. John vi. of the Holy Communion, though much that our Lord says there may find its application in that sacrament. That our Lord’s words could not refer primarily to the Holy Communion is obvious, How could they so refer when the Sacrament was not yet instituted? How could they so refer when we remember to whom our Lord was speaking? He was speaking in the synagogue at Capernaum to the gross and carnal multitudes who followed Him because He had fed them with the loaves and fishes. They wanted an earthly captain, who would provide for their earthly needs; and He laid down for ever the necessity of the spiritual partaking and the spiritual food for all who would have everlasting life. The people had eaten of the loaves: their highest blessing would be to eat the Son of man. He was the true bread: they that ate Him should live by Him. Without this eating there was no life, and no resurrection (v. 53). And further, this eating leads necessarily to life. Observe, there is no qualification, there is nothing about eating ‘worthily’ or ‘unworthily.’ It is absolutely and always true, ‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, ye have no life in you’; ‘he that eateth Me shall live by Me.’ But if those words referred to the Holy Communion, and the partaking of Christ in that ordinance, then it must follow that no patriarch, prophet, or saint of old had eternal life, then our Lord’s own disciples had no life in them before the institution of the Sacrament. But our Lord has nowhere said, Scripture has nowhere said, ‘Except ye partake of the Holy Communion, ye have no life in you.’ All that is spoken in that chapter of St. John of ‘eating the bread which came down from heaven, eating the flesh of the Son of man, eating His flesh and drinking His blood, of eating Him, eating the bread which cometh down from heaven,’ has no direct reference to the Holy Communion, and cannot be prophetic of that Sacrament. They are spiritual realities which our Lord sets forth, ‘with which no external act as such can be co-extensive.’

(John James Stewart Perowne, The Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper: Cleared from Certain Misconceptions, [London: Elliot Stock, 1898], pp. 14-16.)

William Goode:

But that the words were not spoken with any reference to eating and drinking the Body and Blood of Christ in any other way than figuratively, through the exercise of faith in him, is evident from the fact that there was then no rite in which anything of the kind could take place. For the Eucharistic rite had not then been ordained, and the words speak of the time then present. “I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger, and he that believeth on me shall never thirst”—“He that believeth on me HATH everlasting life”—“Whoso eateth my flesh…HATH eternal life”—&c. They had not to stop till the institution of the Eucharist to feed on Christ. They were called upon to do so at that time. If our Lord had been speaking of the Eucharist, he would have said, “Whoso shall eat my flesh, &c, shall have everlasting life.”

The reply made by Archdeacon Wilberforce to this argument is utterly and obviously untenable. He is driven to the position that the words are “a prophetic statement” respecting a truth subsequently to be fulfilled, “a prophetical allusion to the Holy Eucharist.” But the words themselves completely negative this notion. They clearly apply to the time at which they were spoken. There is not the shadow of an excuse for calling them prophetical. And it is by an examination of the words themselves, that we must judge whether there is any foundation for this argument.

(William Goode, The Nature of Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist: Volume I, [London: T. Hatchard, 1856], pp. 94-95.)

Note: In John 6:54 the English word “eat” is a translation of the Greek τρώγων, which is the present active participle of τρώγω. If we interpret this text in a strictly literal fashion, the Lord would have been commanding His hearers to “eat” His flesh in the present moment (i.e. right then and there as He spoke the words). However, as the Lord’s Supper had not yet been initiated—and the Lord had not yet died and risen again—this seems a strange thing to say. If the Jews were to follow this command according to the letter (i.e. literally), they would have had to do so immediately (i.e. right then and there).

W. H. Griffith Thomas:

But the main question is as to the interpretation of the great passage in St. John vi., which is often associated with the Holy Communion. What is the precise relation of this passage to the ordinance? The following points need consideration:—

(1) The discourse was spoken to unbelievers, not disciples, and at least a year before our Lord’s death.

(2) The references to His death are all in absolutely universal terms, emphasising the necessity of participation by all without the slightest qualification (vv. 51, 53, 54, 56, 58).

(3) Our various bodily functions are treated as the best means of explaining our spiritual functions. These are not merely figures, but analogies, like birth, sustenance, assimilation of food. We are taught that it is not sufficient merely to trust Christ, but there must be something in the spirit which corresponds to eating in the body, a reception of Him in our inmost soul until His will and nature become a part of ours, and, like food, strengthen all our faculties. There is nothing in our nature that so closely corresponds to this assimilation of Christ and our union with Him as eating and drinking, and it is, therefore, used here. If, then, we would feed on the Saviour and be in union with Him it is not enough to regard Him as our Teacher, or Master, or God; we must accept Him in the great act of His sacrifice as well. So that in the reception of Christ is included every part of His work for us. Primarily, it means spiritual feeding on the Atonement, since we must first be reconciled before we can do anything else. The result, fruit, or effect of our participation in the Atonement is fellowship with Him in union with His Body, and the outcome is a gracious vital presence of His Divine nature abiding in us. This general view is held by most of the ancient writers, however differently they may express it. They taught that Christ was primarily and properly our Bread of Life.[fn. 1: For the Fathers on St. John vi., see Waterland, On the Eucharist.] Of the Reformers Cranmer is the best representative, and he taught that the passage is not to be interpreted of oral eating in the Eucharist or of spiritual eating confined thereto, but of spiritual eating, whether in or out of the Eucharist. It means feeding on Christ’s death and passion with the result that we have a mystical union with Him. Such spiritual eating is a privilege belonging to the Eucharist, so that the chapter is not foreign to the ordinance, but bears the same relation to it as the outward sign to the inward reality.

(4) In view of these facts a direct interpretation of the chapter in relation to the Holy Communion is obviously impossible, as the leading commentators agree. The relation is really one of universal to particular. It is not that the chapter refers to the Holy Communion, but the Holy Communion refers to it, or still better, both refer in different ways to the Cross. If the chapter is interpreted primarily of the Holy Communion, then the universal terms imply and require the necessity of participation in the Holy Communion by everyone for the purpose of receiving eternal life. As this is manifestly impossible and unthinkable, the interpretation which meets all the necessities of the case is the absolute requirement of participation in the Atoning Sacrifice of Christ. This admits of no exception or qualification, and there can be no doubt that the passage has in view the Atoning Sacrifice for the life of the world, and the necessity of individual and universal participation therein.

(W. H. Griffith Thomas, The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty-Nine Articles, [London: Church Book Room Press, 1963], pp. 389-390.)

Arthur W. Pink:

This passage in John 6 is a favorite one with Ritualists, who understand it to refer to the Lord’s Supper. But this is certainly a mistake, and that for the following reasons. First, the Lord’s Supper had not been instituted when Christ delivered this discourse. Second, Christ was here addressing Himself to unbelievers, and the Lord’s Supper is for saints, not unregenerate sinners. Third, the eating and drinking here spoken of are in order to salvation; but eating and drinking at the Lord’s table are for those who have been saved.

(Arthur W. Pink, Exposition of the Gospel of John: Three Volumes Complete and Unabridged in One, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975], on John 6:54, pp. 347-348.)

D. A. Carson:

(1) Verses 54 and 40 are closely parallel: ‘Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day’ (v. 54); ‘. . . everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day’ (v. 40). The only substantial difference is that one speaks of eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking Jesus’ blood, while the other, in precisely the same conceptual location, speaks of looking to the Son and believing in him. The conclusion is obvious: the former is the metaphorical way of referring to the latter. Indeed, we have seen that this link is supported by the structure of the entire discourse. Small wonder that Augustine of Hippo wrote, Crede, et manducasti (‘Believe, and you have eaten’).

(2) Moreover, the language of vv. 53-54 is so completely unqualified that if its primary reference is to the eucharist we must conclude that the one thing necessary to eternal life is participation at the Lord’s table. This interpretation of course actually contradicts the earlier parts of the discourse, not least v. 40. The only reasonable alternative is to understand these verses as a repetition of the earlier truth, but now in metaphorical form.

(3) The passage goes on to insist that ‘the flesh counts for nothing’ (v. 63). The verse is not self-evident, but its meaning becomes clear when it is carefully read in its context (cf. notes on vv. 61-63, below). Then what is really scandalous is not the ostensibly ‘cannibalistic’ metaphor, but the cross to which it points.

(4) That John must still add and I will raise him up at the last day (v. 54) proves he does not think that eating the flesh and drinking the blood themselves immediately confer resurrection/immortality. ‘The eater still has to be raised up at the last day; the Eucharist, indeed the spiritual communion also to which it points, is not a recipe for immortality’ (Barrett, Essays, p. 43).

…None of this means there is no allusion in these verses to the Lord’s table. But such allusions as exist prompt the thoughtful reader to look behind the eucharist, to that to which the eucharist itself points. In other words, eucharistic allusions are set in the broader framework of Jesus’ saving work, in particular his cross-work. Moreover, by the repeated stress in this discourse on Jesus’ initiative, no room is left for a magical understanding of the Lord’s table that would place God under constraint: submit to the rite, and win eternal life! Both the feeding miracle and the Lord’s table, rightly understood, parabolically set out what it means to receive Jesus Christ by faith. Both Augustine and Cranmer have it right. The former sees in this passage ‘a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us’. The latter maintains that ‘figuratively he [Christ] is in the bread and wine, and spiritually he is in them that worthily eat and drink the bread and wine; but really, carnally, and corporally he is only in heaven, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead’.

If we assume that the first intended readers of this Gospel were Jews and Jewish proselytes in touch with Christians (cf. Introduction, § VI), this interpretation makes particularly good sense.

(D. A. Carson, The Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Gospel According to John, [Nottingham: Apollos, 2006], on John 6:53-54, pp. 297, 297-298.)

Thomas Whitelaw:

Did Christ in the use of the peculiar phraseology of this verse allude to the Lord’s Supper? and if so, in what sense? 1. It has been maintained that He did . . . chiefly on the following grounds :—(1) That the terms ‘flesh and blood,’ ‘eating and drinking,’ correspond with those used by Christ in the institution of the Supper. (2) That as already Christian baptism had been referred to in the conversation with Nicodemus, so now it is natural to suppose Christ intended an allusion to the Lord’s Supper. (3) That otherwise John betrays no acquaintance with the institution of the Supper. 2. Against this however it has been contended (Calvin, Luther, Meyer, Luthardt, Brückner, Godet, and others) — (1) That the term ‘flesh’ employed in this discourse is not the same as that of ‘body’ which occurs in the institution formula of the Lord’s Supper. (2) That the ‘eating and drinking’ spoken of in this discourse describe not isolated and external acts, but inward and continuous spiritual processes. (3) That, according to ver. 53, on this assumption eternal life would be made to depend on a corporeal operation and ceremonial observance rather than on faith, which throughout this sermon and Scripture generally is represented as the sole condition of a sinner’s justification and salvation. (4) That a direct reference at this stage to the Lord’s Supper must have been devoid of meaning to even the apostles, and therefore much more to the Jews. 3. The truth seems to be that the idea here expressed of inward, believing, spiritual fellowship with the crucified and risen Christ was afterwards embodied by our Lord in the Holy Supper…

(Thomas Whitelaw, Commentary on John, [Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1993], p. 159.)

Colin G. Kruse:

To understand properly what Jesus was saying in highly metaphorical language, readers must remember that he said the same thing in more straightforward terms in 6:40: ‘everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day’. Placing these two verses side by side, it is clear that eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood is a metaphor for believing in him. Continuing the metaphor, Jesus said, For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. When this metaphor is unpacked, it means that Jesus is the source of true satisfaction; belief in him who gave his life for the world is the only way to satisfy human hunger and thirst for God.

…while later Christians might detect what they think are sacramental allusions, it is hard to demonstrate that the evangelist’s intention was sacramental in the passages concerned…

…Some today interpret Jesus’ words about eating his flesh and drinking his blood in 6:51-58 as a reference to the Lord’s Supper/Eucharist. It is understandable how people might make this connection after the institution of the Lord’s Supper, but Jesus’ words here must be interpreted in their own context, which clearly indicates that eating his flesh and drinking his blood is a striking metaphor for believing in him. Those who believe in him benefit from his death on their behalf.

(Colin G. Kruse, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: Volume 4: John, [Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press, 2008], pp. 175, 24, 176.)

Henry Burgess:

The same idea, it is true, underlies the words, “This is My Body,” etc., and those now referred to, namely, that by the rending of our Lord’s flesh and the shedding of His blood eternal life was to be secured to those who by faith appropriate the great and perfect sacrifice. But that our Lord taught the doctrine of the Supper before it was instituted, and blamed the Jews for not comprehending His meaning, is a violence done to His words which we can by no means assent to.

(Henry Burgess, The Reformed Church of England, In its Principles and Their Legitimate Development, [London: William Macintosh, 1869], p. 133.)

Robert Louis Dabney:

…it applies not to the Lord’s Supper, but to the spiritual actings of faith on Christ figuratively described. For the Lord’s Supper was not yet instituted; and it is absurd to suppose that our Saviour would use language necessarily unintelligible to all His followers, the subject never having been divulged to them. On the contrary, in Jn. 6:35, we find that the coming and eating is defined as the actings of faith. If the chapter be forced into an application to the Supper, then Jn. 6:53, 54 explicitly teach that every one who eats the Supper goes to heaven, and that no one who fails to eat it does; neither of which Rome admits: And in verse Jn. 6:63, our Saviour fixes a figurative and spiritual interpretation of His words, beyond all question.

(R. L. Dabney, Syllabus and Notes of the Course of Systematic and Polemic Theology, [Richmond, Shepperson & Graves, 1871], p. 251.)

Note: It might be objected that Jesus is intentionally speaking proleptically about the, not yet instituted, Lord’s Supper. After all, he elsewhere speaks proleptically of his forthcoming death and resurrection in a cryptic manner (John 2:19-22). Several points ought to be observed.

(1.) Jesus’ impending death is repeatedly alluded to in St. John’s Gospel—John 3:14-15; 6:51; 10:11; 12:23-24; 12:32-33; 13:31-32; 15:13. Some of which are quite explicit (e.g. John 10:11), while others are directly explained by St. John (John 2:21-22). Whereas the Lord’s supper is never mentioned.

(2.) Throughout John’s Gospel, Jesus repeatedly employs metaphors to reveal spiritual truths about Himself and His kingdom: “new birth” (John 3:3-4), “living water” John (4:10-11), “eating/food” (John 4:31-34), “light of the world” (John 8:12), “good shepherd” (John 10:11), “true vine” (John 15:1). In John 6, the “bread of life” is another metaphor, pointing to Jesus as the sustainer of spiritual life through faith.

(3.) More importantly, John 2:19-22 is in the indicative, whereas John 6 is in the imperative. This is to say that Jesus’ proleptic description of his impending death (John 2:19-22) is just that—a description. Whereas, the Bread of Life discourse is imperative. “Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you” (John 6:27). Furthermore, In John 6:54 the English word “eat” is a translation of the Greek τρώγων, which is the present active participle of τρώγω. The Lord was commanding His hearers to “eat” His flesh in the present moment (i.e. right then and there as He spoke the words). Which strongly implies that his hearers would have been able to do as he said, when he said it. Jesus’ words demand immediate action. He expects his hearers to respond right then—i.e. through faith—not to await an uninitiated future ritual. As Pope Pius II [Aeneas Silvius Bartholomeus] rightly observed: ‘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.’

W. H. Griffith Thomas:

In view of the foregoing reference to our Lord’s death we can readily understand the institution of the Holy Supper on the eve of His Passion and in the presence of and with reference to His disciples. We can at the same time perceive the true relation of the discourse at Capernaum to the Lord’s Supper. This discourse was delivered at least a year before the institution of the Supper, and was in direct connection with events and discussions immediately preceding it. It is necessary to emphasise this historical connection of our Lord’s words because it clearly indicates that the primary interpretation of the discourse cannot be of the Lord’s Supper.

(W. H. Griffith Thomas, A Sacrament of Our Redemption: Second Edition, Revised, [London: The Church Book Room, 1920], p. 11.)

Archibald Thomas Robertson:

Christ uses bold imagery to picture spiritual appropriation of himself who is to give his life-blood for the life of the world (51). It would have been hopeless confusion for these Jews if Jesus had used the symbolism of the Lord’s Supper. . . . The language of Jesus can only have a spiritual meaning as he unfolds himself as the true manna.

(Archibald Thomas Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament: Volume V, [New York and London: Harper Brothers Publishers, 1932], p. 112.)

John Peter Lange:

The Lord’s Supper itself cannot be the subject. (Heubner quotes the Lutheran church as denying this hypothesis, especially Luther. Yet it is plain from the foregoing that this exegetical antagonism is not confessional.) (a) The discourse would anticipate too much, and be unintelligible. (b) Ver. 53 would teach the absolute necessity of taking the communion rather than of evangelical saving faith. (“Even the Lutherans consider the Supper not absolute but only ordinarie necessary.”) (c) The expression σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα is not equivalent to σῶμα καὶ αἷμα. (d) A manducatio spiritualis is here intended; for the partaker is assured of eternal life, which is only conditionally the case in the fruitio oralis. (e) The eating here described is perpetual.

E. W. Hengstenberg:

Ver. 54. “Whoso eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” Cf. ver. 40, where believing occupies the same position as the eating of the flesh and blood here.

(E. W. Hengstenberg, Commentary on the Gospel of St. John: Volume I, Clark’s Foreign Theological Library: Fourth Series: Vol. V., [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1865], p. 354.)

F. F. Bruce:

In verse 54 it is the person who eats the flesh of the Son of Man and drinks his blood that will be raised up by him at the last day; in verse 40 the same promise is held out to ‘every one who sees the Son and believes in him’. So, those who ‘eat his flesh’ and ‘drink his blood’ are those who see him and believe in him: it is they who have eternal life; it is they whom he will raise up at the last day. In his strange words, then, we recognize a powerful and vivid metaphor to denote coming to him, believing in him (cf. verse 35), appropriating him by faith.

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

Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer:

This explanation has already this against it, that the eating and drinking is regarded as continuous (ver. 56); and, moreover, it can be maintained only by surrendering the authenticity of John. But if this be assumed, and the discourse be regarded as historical, Jesus could not Himself speak in the manner in which He here does of the Lord’s Supper. Had this been His reference, He would have spoken inappropriately, and in terms which differ essentially from His own mode of expression at the institution of the holy meal, irrespective of the fact that a discourse upon the Lord’s Supper at this time would have been utterly incomprehensible to His hearers, especially to the Ἰουδαίοι who were addressed. Moreover, there nowhere occurs in the Gospels a hint given beforehand of the Supper which was to be instituted; and therefore, that this institution was not now already in the thoughts of Jesus (as Godet, following Bengel and others, maintains), but was the product of the hour of the Supper itself, appears all the more likely, seeing how utterly groundless is the assumption based on ver. 4, that Jesus, in the feeding of the multitude, improvised a paschal feast. To this it must be added, that the promise of life which is attached to the eating and drinking could apply only to the case of those who worthily partake. We would therefore have to assume that the reporter John (see especially Kaeuffer, l.c.; comp. also Weisse, B. Crusius, Köstlin, etc.) had put this discourse concerning the Lord’s Supper into the mouth of Christ; and against this it tells in general, that thus there would be on John’s part a misconception, or rather an arbitrariness, which, granting the genuineness of the Gospel, cannot be attributed to this most trusted disciple and his vivid recollections; and in particular, that the drinking of the blood, if it were, as in the Lord’s Supper, a special and essential part, would not have remained unmentioned at the very end of the discourse, vv. 57, 58; and that, again, the evangelist would make Jesus speak of the Lord’s Supper in terms which lie quite beyond the range of the N. T., and which belong to the mode of representation and language of the apostolic Fathers and still later writers (see the passages in Kaeuffer, p. 77 ff.; Rückert, p. 274 f.; Hilgenfeld, Evang. p. 278). This is specially true of the word σάρξ, for which all places in the N. T. referring to the Lord’s Supper (Matt. xxvi. 26 ff.; Mark xiv. 22 ff.; Luke xxiv. 24 ff.; 1 Cor. xi. 23 ff.) have σώμα; so that here accordingly there ought to have been stated the identity, not of the bread and the flesh (which Baur in particular urges), but of the bread and the body; while with reference to the blood, the element identified (the wine) ought also to have been mentioned. Further, the passage thus taken would speak of the literal “eating and drinking” of the flesh and blood, which is a much later materializing of the N. T. κοινωνία in the Lord’s Supper; and lastly, the absolute necessity of this ordinance, which ver. 53 ff. would thus assert, is not once mentioned thus directly by the Fathers of the first centuries; whereas the N. T., and John in particular, make faith alone the absolutely necessary condition of salvation. Had John been speaking of the Lord’s Supper, he must have spoken in harmony with the N. T. view and mode of expression, and must have made Jesus speak of it in the same way. But the discourse, as it lies before us, if taken as referring to the Lord’s Supper, would be an unexampled and utterly inconceivable ὕστερον πρότερον; and therefore even the assumption that at least the same idea which lay at the root of the Lord’s Supper, and out of which it sprang, is here expressed (Olshausen, Kling, Lange, Tholuck, etc.; comp. Kahnis, Keim, Luthardt, Hengstenberg, Ewald, Godet), is only admissible so far as the appropriation of Christ’s life, brought about by faith in His death, which here is enjoined with such concrete vividness as absolutely necessary, likewise constitutes the sacred and fundamental basis presupposed in the institution of the Supper and forms the condition of its blessedness; and therefore the application of the passage to the Lord’s Supper (but at the same time to baptism and to the efficacy of the word) justly, nay necessarily, arises.

(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. 294-296.)

Cf. 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.)

William Milligan, William F. Moulton:

As to the general meaning of this important passage there can be little or no doubt. There are some new expressions, but on the whole the imagery agrees with that employed in the earlier part of the chapter, and the blessings offered by Jesus are described again in identical language. Here, as before, life, eternal life, is promised; again ‘eating’ is the figure which describes the mode of receiving life; as in vers. 35, 48, and 51, Jesus identifies Himself with that which when eaten gives life; and, as in ver. 44 (compare vers. 39 and 40), He promises that He will raise up at the last day every one who has thus received eternal life. The agreement then between these verses and the earlier part of the discourse is so marked that there can be no change in the general sense: all the expressions in previous verses in which figure is wholly or partially set aside may be brought in here also to elucidate the meaning. Our Lord therefore still teaches in regard to all who come to Him, who believe in Him, who are intimately joined to Him in the union of faith and, receiving all from Him, may be said to appropriate to themselves Himself, and to feed on Him,—that these and these alone have eternal life. There is nothing here that alters this foundation truth. The phraseology of these verses (and ver. 51) is new in the following respects: (1) Instead of the one metaphor of eating we have two, ‘eating’ and ‘drinking;’ (2) The figure of bread is dropped, giving place to ‘flesh,’ ‘the flesh of the Son of man,’ which flesh is given by Him for the life of the world. (3) For the the first time Jesus makes mention of His ‘blood,’—the drinking of this blood gives life. The introduction of the second metaphor, ‘drinking,’ at once recalls ver. 35, where ‘thirst’ is as suddenly brought in. As in that verse, so here, one purpose answered is the more complete realisation of a feast: the Paschal meal is always present in the symbols of this chapter. Whether this is to be taken as the only purpose will depend on the answer given to other questions which must now be asked. Does Jesus, in speaking of His flesh given for the life of the world, expressly refer to His death, His atoning death? Is it in order to point more clearly to that truth that He here brings in the mention of His blood? Are we to understand that there is a strict and real difference between the things signified by eating His flesh and drinking His blood? The last question may easily be answered: there is certainly no such difference. In ver. 35 there is a very beautiful and rapid change of aspect, but no substantial change of thought coming to Christ is believing in Him, and the result is the satisfaction of every want, whether represented as hunger or as thirst. When the ‘flesh’ is first mentioned (ver. 51) it stands alone, as the Saviour's gift for the life of the world; and below (ver. 57) ‘eating’ alone is spoken of, yet the result is life. As a rule, indeed, flesh is contrasted with blood in biblical language, and the two are joined together to express the physical being of man; but it is not uncommon to find flesh used by itself in this sense. Thus in the first chapter of this Gospel we read that ‘the Word was made flesh,’ whereas in Heb. ii. 14 we are taught that the Son took part in flesh and blood. It is therefore quite in accordance with the usage of Scripture that the same idea should be expressed now by the one term and now by the two combined; and the context (as we have seen) shows that this is the case here. The two expressions of these verses are thus substantially equivalent to the one expression of ver. 57. But it does not follow from this that our Lord had no special motive for thus varying His language. The cardinal thought is most simply expressed in ver. 57, ‘he that eateth me;’ and we may well believe that He would have so spoken in these verses also had He not intended to suggest special thoughts by the use of other words. In asking now what these special thoughts are, it is scarcely possible for us, in the light of events that followed, to dissociate the last clause of ver. 51 from the thought of death, or the mention of the blood of the Son of man from the thought of the blood shed upon the cross. The words, indeed, would not at that time suggest such thoughts: they were rather a secret prophecy, like the mysterious sayings of chap. ii. 19 (‘Destroy this Temple’) and chap. iii. 14 (‘even so must the Son of man be lifted up’), and that saying so often repeated in the earlier Gospels, the command to ‘take up’ and to ‘bear’ ‘the cross.’ But this Gospel shows most plainly that the end was ever present to Jesus from the very beginning; and many of His words can only receive their proper interpretation by the application of this principle. There is another consideration which removes all doubt in this place, if the general view which has been taken of the chapter is correct. The figurative acts and language have been suggested by the Paschal meal which has just been (or is just about to be) celebrated in Jerusalem. The later chapters of the Gospel set forth Jesus as the fulfilment of the Passover, Jesus on the cross as the antitype and reality of the Paschal meal. This chapter in pointing to the type points continually to the fulfilment; but the Paschal lamb died, and the death of Jesus must therefore be regarded as part of the thought before us. Nor would it be safe to deny that mention of the blood here may even be connected, as some have supposed, with the command that the blood of the Paschal lamb should be sprinkled on the dwellings of the Israelites. So many are the links between symbol and reality which the Evangelist apprehends both in his own teaching and in the discourses recorded by him, that it is less hazardous to admit than to deny the possibility of such a connection. But even then the thought of blood shed upon the cross must not be kept separate and distinct from all else that Jesus was and did. The central thought of the chapter is undoubtedly that of a meal, a feast, an experimental reception of a living Christ which is symbolized by ‘eating’ and ‘drinking;’ and to that the whole interpretation must be subordinated. It cannot therefore be Jesus in His death, looked at as a distinct and separate act, that is before us in the mention of the blood. It must still be Jesus in the whole of His manifestation of Himself, living, dying, glorified; so that, if we may so speak, the death is to be viewed only as a pervading element of the life, only as one of the characteristics of that Christ who, not as divided but in all the combined elements of His humiliation and His glory, is from first to last the object of our faith and the satisfaction of our need. The main point, in short, to be kept in view is this, that we are here dealing with the actual nourishment, with the sustenance, with the life of the soul; with the believer, not as having only certain relations altered in which he stands to God, but as in fellowship and communion of spirit with Him in whom he believes. To maintain by faith that fellowship with Jesus in all that He was, is to eat His flesh and to drink His blood.

It may be accepted as an additional proof of the correctness of what has been said, if we observe that: the very same blessings now connected with eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus have been already connected with ‘coming to Him,’ with ‘believing in Him,’ and with ‘beholding Him.’ Thus, for the first of these, comp. vers. 35 and 55; for the second, vers. 47 and 54; for the third, vers. 40 and 54. It is clear, therefore, that the spiritual appropriation of the life and death of Jesus is described under all the different figures of this passage. All tell us of communion, of fellowship, of a feast,—of the Lamb of God not only as the Paschal sacrifice, but as the Paschal feast.

Leon Morris:

Now comes one of Jesus’ “hard” sayings: “the bread that I will give is my flesh” (v. 51). It would have been easier for the Jews (and for us) if the bread of which Jesus is speaking were to be understood in a purely “spiritual” way. Then we could think that Jesus is claiming to be a prophet, one who comes with a heavenly message, such that those who receive it will have a profound spiritual experience and find themselves alive with a vibrant new form of existence. There is, of course, a measure of truth in this, but it is not what Jesus is saying. He uses the harsh, strongly physical word flesh. He could have said “my body,” as he did when he began the service of Holy Communion. He could have said “myself.” But he chose to use the word flesh, which puts a strong emphasis on this physical corporeality. It was this body of flesh that Jesus would give for the life of the world.

Some see a reference to the Holy Communion here, but it is not easy to see this in the words Jesus used. As we will see a little later, this is not the way the early church referred to that sacrament. Jesus is referring to Calvary, not to any liturgical service, no matter how solemn.

…This passage is held by many to refer to the Holy Communion. John has no account of the institution of this service, but his language in this part of the Gospel, with its references to eating the flesh and drinking the blood, seems to many people to be so much like the language of the communion service that this must be the equivalent. They think that for reasons of his own John has omitted the institution but has given his teaching about the sacrament in this chapter. Usually no evidence is cited for this. It is taken as axiomatic; the language is held to apply obviously to the communion service, and that is all there is to it.

But there are difficulties with this position. One is that, despite the confident assertions, the language is not that of the Holy Communion. There one reads of eating the body, here of eating the flesh. The difference may not be great but it is real. The early church did not speak of “flesh” in the communion service, but of the “body.” It is sometimes said that Ignatius used “flesh” in this connection, but not much can be made of this because of the way this gentleman used language. Thus he says, “I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Christ,” which many take to refer to the communion. But Ignatius goes on immediately, “and for a draught I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible.” The language looks like the communion at first, but the context is concerned with martyrdom, not liturgy, and in any case the ending shows that Ignatius is simply using metaphors to bring out spiritual truth.

There is a similar problem with his statement that “the eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ,” which looks explicit enough. But then Ignatius says, “. . . which flesh suffered for our sins, and which the Father of his goodness raised up.” He also speaks of the gospel as “the flesh of Jesus” and of faith as “the flesh of the Lord.” It is clear that Ignatius does not use “flesh” as a way of referring to the communion. He uses it in a wide variety of ways, most of which are metaphorical.

The Christian writers of antiquity tend to use “flesh” as a way of referring to the incarnation, as when Justin Martyr spoke of Christ as “having been made flesh by the Word of God.” When they refer to the Holy Communion they speak of the “body” of Christ. I do not mean that no example at all can be found of the use of “flesh” in this connection. I mean that such usages are very hard to find and must be thought of as distinctly exceptional. We cannot take the use of “flesh” in John 6 as obviously a reference to the communion. It would be a most unusual way of referring to the sacrament, one completely without parallel in the New Testament and extremely hard to document in the early church.

Even more significant is the strength of Jesus’ language. He says that without the eating and drinking of which he speaks “you have no life.” It is very difficult indeed to think that Jesus is saying that the one thing necessary for eternal life is to receive the Holy Communion. That would be out of harmony with his teaching in all four Gospels. But here his language is unqualified in any way. He allows of no exception. This is the one way into life. To take the sacramental view of this passage is to say something very serious, for it would disqualify from eternal life whole communities like the Salvation Army and the Quakers and a significant proportion of Christian families, and children who have not yet been admitted to Holy Communion. Those who accept the view I am criticizing should examine the calamitous consequences of their interpretation.

They should also bear in mind that the Jews of that day often used the language of eating and drinking when they wanted to refer to taking teaching into their innermost being. It is easy to listen to a teacher’s words in a superficial way. We may say, “What a fine teacher!” but take no notice of what he says. We may perhaps say of someone who profits from the teaching that he takes to heart what he has heard: the Jews of the day spoke of eating or drinking the teaching (do we not sometimes also speak of “drinking in every word”?). For example, there is a rabbinic treatment of Proverbs 25:21: “If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; if he is thirsty, give him water to drink.” This is said to mean: Resist your enemy “with the bread of the Torah [i.e., the Law of God), as you read ‘Come, eat of my bread’ (Prov. 9:5); and ‘if he be thirsty, give him water to drink’—the water of the Torah, as in the verse, ‘Ho, everyone that thirsteth, come ye for water’ (Isa. 55:1).” Such statements could be multiplied. The word of God is often likened to food or drink, which must be taken within oneself.

Jesus is then using language that people would appreciate and understand as something quite different from Holy Communion. He has already spoken in this discourse of people coming to him as the bread of life (v. 35) and of believing in him (vv. 40, 47), and he is saying much the same when he invites his hearers to take him into their innermost being. There is the addition in this part of his address that the separation of flesh and blood points to his death, as do different words in 3:16. He is saying that he will die for the people and inviting people to feed on him in a heavenly and spiritual manner.

Those who here see a reference to Holy Communion do not explain why Jesus should have given teaching about that sacrament to a group of Jews who were largely antagonistic to him, and moreover why he should have given it long before he instituted the service. They could not possibly have understood him, and Jesus surely intended his audience to understand what he was saying.

(Leon Morris, Reflections on the Gospel of John, [Peabody: Hendrickson, 2000], pp. 236, 237-239.)

Note: Regarding the possible connection between John 6 and John 3—it should be observed that unlike the audience of the Bread of Life discourse, Nicodemus was not antagonistic towards Jesus. Additionally, there was a connection between John’s baptism and Christian baptism.

Note: The hypothetically anti-Docetic nature of John’s Gospel would be emphasized in his use of ‘flesh’ rather than ‘body’ to emphasize the reality of Christ’s physical body which was crucified for sinners—not the corporeal nature of manducation.

Note: Typically, ‘flesh’ (on its own), in reference to Christ, denotes the incarnation—both in the Scriptures and in patristic writings.

John Peter Lange:

The σάρκα φαγεῖν of Ignatius and Justin can prove nothing. It has its origin here.

Colin G. Kruse:

…while there is a stress on Jesus’ incarnation and real humanity that could serve to combat Gnosticism, those places where Jesus’ real humanity is implied do not appear to be polemically intended, as corresponding passages in the Letters of John are (1 John 4:2; 2 John 7)...

(Colin G. Kruse, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: Volume 4: John, [Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press, 2008], p. 23.)

Note: Even if St. John’s Gospel had been intended as an anti-Gnostic polemic, the anti-Gnostic thrust would be the ‘flesh’ not ‘eating’.

Edward Harold Browne:

…our Lord tells us, that whosoever eats of the bread of life shall ‘not die’ (ver. 51), ‘shall live for ever’ (ver. 58): that ‘he who eateth His Flesh and drinketh His Blood, hath eternal life’ (ver. 54). Now, if the bread and wine in the communion are changed into the substance of the Body and Blood; then every unworthy partaker, notwithstanding his unworthiness, partakes of Christ’s Body and Blood; and hence, according to this chapter, eating the bread of life shall ‘not die’— ‘shall live for ever’—‘hath eternal life.’ He cannot eat, as St. Paul says, to condemnation, but must eat to salvation.

(Edward Harold Browne, An Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles: Historical and Doctrinal: The Tenth Edition, [London: Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer, 1874], p. 720.)

C. K. Barrett:

It is true that John says, ‘He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life’; but precisely by adding, ‘And I will raise him up at the last day’, he denies that the eating and drinking confer immortality. The eater still has to be raised up at the last day; the Eucharist, indeed the spiritual communion also to which it points, is not a recipe for immortality.

(C. K. Barrett, Essays on John, [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1982], “The Flesh of the Son of Man”, John 6.53, p. 43.)

Cf. C. K. Barrett:

First, it must be remembered that John is not explicitly writing about the Eucharist at all. He is not even describing the Last Supper. Had he wished to represent the sacred meal as a lifegiving drug, he could have made his point much clearer by putting his teaching in the traditional place. Secondly, in verse 58 he goes out of his way to distinguish between the eating he is speaking of and the eating, that is, the physical eating, by the fathers in the wilderness, who ate the manna, which, though given miraculously by God, was nevertheless material food: οὐ καθὼς ἔφαγον οἱ πατέρες. Not as the fathers ate are men now invited to eat. Theirs was a literal eating, this is not; at least, it is not only a literal, physical eating. Thirdly, we should note the last clause in verse 54, κἀγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ. When this clause occurs in verses 39, 40, 44, Bultmann treats it as an ecclesiastical interpolation, designed to introduce conventional eschatology into a work that lacked it; as I have said, he regards the whole of verses 51c-58 as such an interpolation, designed to introduce conventional sacrmentalism into a work that lacked it. What we must note is that, whether the material be interpolated or not, the same person who was dealing with eschatology and the Eucharist qualified the latter by the former. Eucharistic communion does not confer immortality in such a way as to make the recipient himself immortal. If he is to live at the last day it will be because he is raised up. True, in the eating and drinking he is given (in some sense) life. This is a constant theme of the Gospel, expressed in one image after another. But he is never the source of his own life, and never ceases to be utterly dependent upon God.

(C. K. Barrett, Essays on John, [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1982], “Sacraments”, pp. 85-86.)

William Milligan, William F. Moulton:

Vers. 53, 54, 55. Jesus therefore said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye have eaten the flesh of the Son of man, and drunk his blood, ye have not life in yourselves. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. As to the general meaning of this important passage there can be little or no doubt. There are some new expressions, but on the whole the imagery agrees with that employed in the earlier part of the chapter, and the blessings offered by Jesus are described again in identical language. Here, as before, life, eternal life, is promised; again ‘eating’ is the figure which describes the mode of receiving life; as in vers. 35, 48, and 51, Jesus identifies Himself with that which when eaten gives life; and, as in ver. 44 (compare vers. 39 and 40), He promises that He will raise up at the last day every one who has thus received eternal life. The agreement then between these verses and the earlier part of the discourse is so marked that there can be no change in the general sense: all the expressions in previous verses in which figure is wholly or partially set aside may be brought in here also to elucidate the meaning. Our Lord therefore still teaches in regard to all who come to Him, who believe in Him, who are intimately joined to Him in the union of faith and, receiving all from Him, may be said to appropriate to themselves Himself, and to feed on Him,—that these and these alone have eternal life. There is nothing here that alters this foundation truth. The phraseology of these verses (and ver. 51) is new in the following respects: (1) Instead of the one metaphor of eating we have two, ‘eating’ and ‘drinking;’ (2) The figure of bread is dropped, giving place to ‘flesh, the flesh of the Son of man,’ which flesh is given by Him for the life of the world. (3) For the first time Jesus makes mention of His ‘blood,’—the drinking of this blood gives life. The introduction of the second metaphor, ‘drinking,’ at once recalls ver. 35, where ‘thirst’ is as suddenly brought in. As in that verse, so here, one purpose answered is the more complete realisation of a feast: the Paschal meal is always present in the symbols of this chapter. Whether this is to be taken as the only purpose will depend on the answer given to other questions which must now be asked. Does Jesus, in speaking of His flesh given for the life of the world, expressly refer to His death, His atoning death? Is it in order to point more clearly to that truth that He here brings in the mention of His blood? Are we to understand that there is a strict and real difference between the things signified by eating His flesh and drinking His blood? The last question may easily be answered: there is certainly no such difference. In ver. 35 there is a very beautiful and rapid change of aspect, but no substantial change of thought: coming to Christ is believing in Him, and the result is the satisfaction of every want, whether represented as hunger or as thirst. When the ‘flesh’ is first mentioned (ver. 51) it stands alone, as the Saviour’s gift for the life of the world; and below (ver. 57) ‘eating’ alone is spoken of, yet the result is life. As a rule, indeed, flesh is contrasted with blood in biblical language, and the two are joined together to express the physical being of man; but it is not uncommon to find flesh used by itself in this sense. Thus in the first chapter of this Gospel we read that ‘the Word was made flesh,’ whereas in Heb. ii. 14 we are taught that the Son took part in flesh and blood. It is therefore quite in accordance with the usage of Scripture that the same idea should be expressed now by the one term and now by the two combined; and the context (as we have seen) shows that this is the case here. The two expressions of these verses are thus substantially equivalent to the one expression of ver. 57. But it does not follow from this that our Lord had no special motive for thus varying His language. The cardinal thought is most simply expressed in ver. 57, he that eateth me; and we may well believe that He would have so spoken in these verses also had He not intended to suggest special thoughts by the use of other words. In asking now what these special thoughts are, it is scarcely possible for us, in the light of events that followed, to dissociate the last clause of ver. 51 from the thought of death, or the mention of ‘the blood’ of the Son of man from the thought of the blood shed upon the cross. The words, indeed, would not at that time suggest such thoughts: they were rather a secret prophecy, like the mysterious sayings of chap. ii. 19 (‘Destroy this Temple’) and chap. iii. 14 (‘even so must the Son of man be lifted up’), and that saying so often repeated in the earlier Gospels, the command to ‘take up’ and to ‘bear’ ‘the cross.’ But this Gospel shows most plainly that the end was ever present to Jesus from the very beginning; and many of His words can only receive their proper interpretation by the application of this principle. There is another consideration which removes all doubt in this place, if the general view which has been taken of the chapter is correct. The figurative acts and language have been suggested by the Paschal meal which has just been (or is just about to be) celebrated in Jerusalem. The later chapters of the Gospel set forth Jesus as the fulfilment of the Passover, Jesus on the cross as the antitype and reality of the Paschal meal. This chapter in pointing to the type points continually to the fulfilment; but the Paschal lamb died, and the death of Jesus must therefore be regarded as part of the thought before us. Nor would it be safe to deny that mention of the blood here may even be connected, as some have supposed, with the command that the blood of the Paschal lamb should be sprinkled on the dwellings of the Israelites. So many are the links between symbol and reality which the Evangelist apprehends both in his own teaching and in the discourses recorded by him, that it is less hazardous to admit than to deny the possibility of such a connection. But even then the thought of blood shed upon the cross must not be kept separate and distinct from all else that Jesus was and did. The central thought of the chapter is undoubtedly that of a meal, a feast, an experimental reception of a living Christ which is symbolized by ‘eating’ and ‘drinking;’ and to that the whole interpretation must be subordinated. It cannot therefore be Jesus in His death, looked at as a distinct and separate act, that is before us in the mention of the blood. It must still be Jesus in the whole of His manifestation of Himself, living, dying, glorified; so that, if we may so speak, the death is to be viewed only as a pervading element of the life, only as one of the characteristics of that Christ who, not as divided but in all the combined elements of His humiliation and His glory, is from first to last the object of our faith and the satisfaction of our need. The main point, in short, to be kept in view is this, that we are here dealing with the actual nourishment, with the sustenance, with the life of the soul; with the believer, not as having only certain relations altered in which he stands to God, but as in fellowship and communion of spirit with Him in whom he believes. To maintain by faith that fellowship with Jesus in all that He was, is to eat His flesh and to drink His blood.

It may be accepted as an additional proof of the correctness of what has been said, if we observe that the very same blessings now connected with eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus have been already connected with ‘coming to Him,’ with ‘believing in Him,’ and with ‘beholding Him.’ Thus, for the first of these, comp. vers. 35 and 55; for the second, vers. 47 and 54; for the third, vers. 40 and 54. It is clear, therefore, that the spiritual appropriation of the life and death of Jesus is described under all the different figures of this passage. All tell us of communion, of fellowship, of a feast,—of the Lamb of God not only as the Paschal sacrifice, but as the Paschal feast.

The question now considered leads at once to another. What is the relation of these verses and this whole discourse to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper? Many have held that the doctrine of the sacrament (not yet instituted, but present to the Redeemer’s mind) is the very substance of this chapter; whilst others have denied that there is any connection whatever between the two. We can adopt neither of these extreme views. On the one hand, the words of Jesus in this discourse can belong to no rite or ordinance, however exalted and however precious to His people. The act of which He speaks is continuous, not occasional,—spiritual, not external; every term that He employs is a symbol of trust in Him. But on the other hand, if alike in this chapter and in the records of the Last Supper the Paschal meal is presented to our thought, and if John specially connects this feast with the death of Christ, whilst all the other Evangelists bring into relief the relation of the Last Supper to the same death, it is impossible to say that the sacrament is altogether alien to this discourse. The relation of the Lord’s Supper to the teaching of this chapter is very nearly the same as the relation of Christian baptism to our Lord’s discourse to Nicodemus (see note on chap. iii. 5). In neither case is the sacrament as such brought before us; in both we must certainly recognise the presence of its fundamental idea. This discourse is occupied with that lasting, continuous act of which afterwards the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was made a symbol; and the sacrament is still a symbol of the unchanging truth so fully set forth in this discourse, the believer’s union with his Lord, his complete dependence upon Him for life, his continued appropriation by faith of His very self, his feeding on Him, living on Him, his experience that Jesus in giving Himself satisfies every want of the soul.

There is not much in the particular expressions of these three verses that calls for further remark. It will be observed that there are two links connecting them with our Lord’s first address to the multitude (ver. 26): He again speaks of the ‘Son of man,’ and the words ‘food indeed’ (literally ‘true eating’) at once recall ‘the eating that abideth.’ One expression in ver. 53 is very forcible, ‘Ye have not life in yourselves,’ implying, as it does, that they who have so eaten and drunk have life in themselves. These are words which our Lord could not use without intending a special emphasis (comp. chap. v. 26): so complete is the believer’s appropriation of the Son, who hath life in Himself, that the same exalted language may be used of the believer also, whilst he abides in fellowship with his Lord. Then he has life in himself, but not of himself. This fellowship is the substance of the next verse.

(William Milligan, William F. Moulton, The Gospel of John, John 6:53-55; In: Popular Commentary on the New Testament: Vol. II: The Gospel of John and The Acts, ed. Philip Schaff, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1880], pp. 84-86.)

4. Some General Objections and Answers. Return to Outline.

Objection 1.

Raymond E. Brown, S.S.:

The Meaning of “the Living Bread” in vss. 51-58

In this section the eucharistic theme which was only secondary in vss. 35-50 comes to the fore and becomes the exclusive theme. No longer are we told that eternal life is the result of believing in Jesus; it comes from feeding on his flesh and drinking his blood (54). The Father’s role in bringing men to Jesus or giving them to him is no longer in the limelight; Jesus himself dominates as the agent and source of salvation. Even though the verses in 51-58 are remarkably like those of 35-50, a new vocabulary runs through them: “eat,” “feed,” “drink,” “flesh,” “blood.”

…We wish to propose here the hypothesis that the backbone of vss. 51-58 is made up of material from the Johannine narrative of the institution of the Eucharist which originally was located in the Last Supper scene and that this material has been recast into a duplicate of the Bread of Life Discourse.

(Raymond E. Brown, S.S., The Anchor Bible: Volume 29: The Gospel According to John (i-xii), [Garden City: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1987], pp. 284, 287.)

Reply 1.

Robert H. Mounce:

Before looking at specific items, it will serve us well to discuss the approach that understands these verses in terms of the Eucharist. Roman Catholic scholar Raymond Brown, 284, holds that while the eucharistic theme was secondary in vv.35-50, it now (vv.51-58) “comes to the fore and becomes the exclusive theme.” He proposes, 287, the hypothesis that “the backbone of vv.51-58 is made up of material from the Johannine narrative of the institution of the Eucharist which originally was located in the Last Supper scene and that this material has been recast into a duplicate of the Bread of Life Discourse.” It was then added to vv.35-50 when the fourth gospel was in its final redaction.

Several objections have been raised to this sacramental interpretation. Verse 54 states in an unqualified manner that it is those who eat Jesus’ flesh and drink his blood who have eternal life. If taken sacramentally, this would mean that the only requirement for salvation is to partake of the Eucharist, a position at odds with NT teaching as a whole. Second, the word that Jesus uses for flesh is sarx, while in every NT text that uses the words of institution (Mt 26:26; Mk 14:22; Lk 22:19; 1Co 11:24) the word is sōma (“body”). Variation in a ritual formula would be highly unlikely. Third, the parallel relationship between v.54 and v.40 indicates that eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood is a metaphorical way of expressing looking to the Son and believing in him. Carson, 297, writes that this “conclusion is obvious” and quotes Augustine’s famous dictum, “Believe, and you have eaten.” Finally, in v.63 we will learn that the things Jesus has been telling them “are spiritual and are life” (Phillips); “the flesh confers no benefit whatever” (Weymouth). So Jesus in his “bread of life” discourse is not speaking directly of the Lord’s Supper. It does not follow, however, that what he is saying has no relevance to Holy Communion. Bruce, 161, writes that Jesus “does expound the truth which the Lord’s Supper conveys.” Carson, 298, arrives at the same conclusion: “In short, John 6 does not directly speak of the eucharist; it does expose the true meaning of the Lord’s Supper as clearly as any passage in Scripture.”

Several specific items in vv.53-54 call for attention. As noted earlier (in connection with 1:51; 3:13, 14; 5:27), “Son of Man” is Jesus’ favorite self-designation. It emphasizes his role as the one through whom God reveals himself to humanity. He is the “eternal contact between heaven and earth” (Barrett, 187). 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.

Dwight Moody Smith, Jr.:

Thus it seems that 6:51c is not just an appendage, or a transition to the introduction of an alien sacramental idea, but rather a fitting culmination to what has preceded. In fact, if the allusion to Jesus’ death were omitted, the preceding discourse would be deprived of a very important historical point of reference. In death, Jesus becomes the bread of life (conversely, for raising Lazarus to life he is condemned to death). In no other relationship can the heavenly bread be understood or received.

(Dwight Moody Smith, Jr., The Composition and Order of the Fourth Gospel: Bultmann’s Literary Theory, [New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1965], p. 146.)

Objection 2.

Robert Letham:

Jesus refers to many things in advance of when they happen, including his death and resurrection, the existence and discipline of the church, the future destruction of the temple, his return, and the final judgment…

(Robert Letham, Systematic Theology, [Wheaton: Crossway, 2019], 23.2.3, p. 663.)

Cf. Robert Letham:

…there are other instances in the Gospels where Jesus mentions events before they actually occur. Frequently he refers to his coming death and resurrection, although his disciples had not the faintest idea what he was talking about. Moreover, he discusses the persecution the church was to face, the impending destruction of Jerusalem, the discipline the church was to exercise over its members, and the very existence of the church itself long before those things came to be. In view of this, there is no reason why he could not have done the same in connection with the Supper.

(Robert Letham, The Lord’s Supper: Eternal Word in Broken Bread, [Phillipsburg: P&R, 2001], p. 9.)

Cf. Edward Harold Browne, An Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles: Historical and Doctrinal: The Tenth Edition, [London: Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer, 1874], pp. 717-718.

Reply 2.

(1.) This is true, however, all of Letham’s examples are indicative—describing future events. On the other hand, Jesus’ imperatives in the Bread of Life discourse, are in the present tense—that is to say that His commands to those listening to His discourse were that they should come to Him and eat His flesh and drink His blood in that very moment in which He was speaking. The implication being that they could (i.e. they possessed the ability to) do so. Cf. William Goode, The Nature of Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist: Volume I, [London: T. Hatchard, 1856], pp. 94-95. See also Pope Pius II [Aeneas Silvius Bartholomeus]—quoted above in the prolegomena.

(2.) It is also worth noting, in passing, the length of the Bread of Life discourse. All of the examples listed by Letham—and all those which might be put forward—are made by Jesus in short offhand statements. While it is true that Jesus made cryptic proleptic statements—a statement and an extended discourse are two very different things. It would seem inexplicable for our Lord to have delivered, what was clearly a long and extended dialogue, upon a subject which would have been absolutely and totally unintelligible—as well as meaningless—to all those in attendance.

Objection 3.

Robert Letham:

…while the institution of the Lord’s Supper did not occur until after the events described here, nevertheless from John’s perspective (as the compiler of the Fourth Gospel), looking back on the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus as a whole, he saw Jesus’ speech as directly connected to the later introduction of the sacrament. From his later authorial standpoint the two were in effect part of the same reality.

(Robert Letham, The Lord’s Supper: Eternal Word in Broken Bread, [Phillipsburg: P&R, 2001], pp. 8-9.)

Reply 3.

(1.) Letham here commits the informal logical fallacy know as petitio principii—i.e. “begging the question” or “assuming the premise”. The question we are attempting to discern is precisely what relationship St. John envisioned—if any—between the Bread of Life discourse and the Lord’s supper. It is logically indefensible to simply assume a priori—as Letham does—that which must be proven.

(2.) Letham fails to distinguish between interpretation—how the original audience would have understood the discourse—and application—how the discourse may be applied to other theological concepts. “As to John vi. 51-63, it has never yet been satisfactorily made out that it refers directly to the Eucharist at all. Most modern commentators of note agree with the result of Waterland’s exhaustive discussion, that, though it may be applied to the Eucharist, it cannot be interpreted thereof.” (Edward Arthur Litton, Introduction to Dogmatic Theology: New Edition, ed. Philip E. Hughes, [London: James Clarke & Co., Ltd., 1960], p. 484.)

Objection 4.

Robert Letham:

…the only way to make sense of the hard saying on eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood is to see it in the light of the eucharist. Indeed, the early church was accused, among other things, of cannibalism and incest since they often spoke of eating Christ’s flesh and drinking his blood in the context of love-feasts at which they were all brothers and sisters. In the first few centuries of the church this passage was generally understood to refer to the eucharist.

(Robert Letham, The Lord’s Supper: Eternal Word in Broken Bread, [Phillipsburg: P&R, 2001], pp. 9-10.)

Reply 4.

(1.) “…what is really scandalous is not the ostensibly ‘cannibalistic’ metaphor, but the cross to which it points.” (D. A. Carson, The Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Gospel According to John, [Nottingham: Apollos, 2006], on John 6:53-54, p. 297.)

“To a Jewish ear . . . there would be nothing so entirely new and strange in the sentence as at first sight may appear to us. The thing that would startle them no doubt would be our Lord’s assertion that eating His flesh and drinking His blood could be the means of life to their souls, as the flesh and blood of the passover lamb had been to their fathers the salvation of their bodies.” (J. C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels: St. John: Vol. I, [New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1866], p. 398.)

“The Lord sought thus to make clear to the Jews what appeared to them incredible: that one man could be for all others the source of life.” (F. Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John: Vol. II, trans. Timothy Dwight, [New York:Funk & Wagnalls, 1893], p. 39.) This point is defended at length below, see: ‘“Eating” and “Drinking” in Jewish Literature.’

(2.) 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.)

(3.) 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.

Objection 5.

Robert Letham:

From John 6:54 there is a remarkable change of verb. Hitherto John has used phagō, which means simply to eat. Now, however, he switches to trōgō, a crude and vulgar word meaning to chew, gnaw, or bite audibly. He uses this verb exclusively throughout the rest of the passage. By choosing it, he draws attention to the physical process of chewing and swallowing and to the audible accompaniments that go with it. This is so in verses 54, 56, and 57, where the verb is used.

(Robert Letham, The Lord’s Supper: Eternal Word in Broken Bread, [Phillipsburg: P&R, 2001], p. 12.)

Reply 5.

(1.) This statement: “He uses this verb exclusively throughout the rest of the passage” is factually inaccurate. Both verbs appear in verse 58—set in synonymous parallelism no less.

(2.) For an extensive refutation of Letham’s lexical assertions, see: “The Primary Use of τρώγω is Grammatical Necessity.”

(a.) 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.

(b.) 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.

(c.) 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.

(d.) 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.

(e.) 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.

(f.) Additionally, it is noteworthy that the early Church Fathers, seemingly with one voice, rejected any sort of corporeal manducation in John 6.

(g.) 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).

Objection 6.

Bruce Vawter, C.M.:

John’s Eucharistic word is “flesh” (sarx), whereas in Paul and the Synoptic Gospels it is the “body” (sōma) of Christ; in the early patristic Church both terms were used indifferently. The Johannine formula is probably closer to the Semitic expression employed by Jesus. For the significance of “flesh,” see above on Jn 1:14 in Chapter 2.

(Bruce Vawter, C.M., The Four Gospels: An Introduction, [Garden City: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1967], p. 180.)

Reply 6.

(1.) Vawter here—‘John’s Eucharistic word is “flesh” (sarx)’—commits the informal logical fallacy know as petitio principii—i.e. “begging the question” or “assuming the premise”. It is logically indefensible to simply assume a priori—as Vawter does—that which must be proven.

(2.) ‘...the word “flesh” . . . is not found in the narratives of the institution, nor in 1 Corinthians 10 or 11 in connection with the sacrament. Nor is it common in the Fathers in this sense. The usual word in sacramental usage is “body.” The last words of the verse bring before us once more the truth that the mission of Jesus is universal. He did not come to minister to the Jews only. When he gave his flesh it would be “for the life of the world.” . . . This is another expression not easy to reconcile with the sacramental reference. On Calvary Christ gave himself “for the life of the world,” but in the sacrament his gift is to the communicants there present, not to the world. It is perhaps not impossible to apply the words in some sense to the sacrament, but they refer much more naturally to the cross.’ (Leon Morris, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel According to John: Revised Edition, [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1995], pp. 331-332.)

‘…the word that Jesus uses for flesh is sarx, while in every NT text that uses the words of institution (Mt 26:26; Mk 14:22; Lk 22:19; 1Co 11:24) the word is sōma (“body”). Variation in a ritual formula would be highly unlikely.’ (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.)

(3.) An in-depth examination of Ignatius’ use of the term may be found below, see: ‘Excursus: “Flesh” and Ignatius.’

(4.) Regarding the Semitic ‘original’.

(a.) “when referring to the Eucharist, the custom was to use σώμα (whatever the original Aramaic may have been), so that the occurrence of σάρξ in itself cannot be held to point to the sacrament.” (Leon Morris, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel According to John: Revised Edition, [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1995], p. 332.)

(b.) This is wildly speculative. The Divinely inspired Scriptures were written in Greek not Aramaic—and the word choice must, therefore, be intentional.

(c.) 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 documentation, see: “Did Jesus Speak Greek?”

5. 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.):

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.)

6. Historical Protestant Interpretations of John 6. Return to Outline.

Martin Luther (1483-1546 A.D.):

In the first place, John vi is to be entirely excluded from this discussion, since it does not refer in a single syllable to the sacrament. For not only was the sacrament not yet instituted, but the whole context plainly shows that Christ is speaking of faith in the Word made flesh…

(Martin Luther, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520), trans. A. T. W. Steinhaeuser; In: Works of Martin Luther: Volume II, [Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company, 1915], p. 178.)

Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531 A.D.):

…when Christ referred to eating his flesh and drinking his blood he simply meant believing in him as the one who has given his flesh and blood for our redemption and the cleansing of our sins. In this passage he is not speaking of the sacrament, but preaching the Gospel under the figure of eating and drinking his flesh and blood.

(Ulrich Zwingli, On the Lord’s Supper, The Second Article; trans. LCC, 24:199.)

Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556 A.D.):

…Christ, in that place of John, spake not of the material and sacramental bread, nor of the sacramental eating, (for that was spoken two or three years before the sacrament was first ordained,) but he spake of spiritual bread (many times repeating, “I am the bread of life, which came from heaven,”) and of spiritual eating by faith, after which sort he was at the same present time eaten of as many as believed on him, although the sacrament was not at that time made and instituted. And therefore he said, “Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and died; but he that eateth this bread shall live for ever.” Therefore this place of St. John can in no wise be understood of the sacramental bread, which neither came from heaven, neither giveth life to all that eat it. Nor of such bread Christ could have then presently said, This is my flesh, except they will say that Christ did then consecrate, so many years before the institution of his Holy Supper.

(Thomas Cranmer, A Defence of the True and Catholick Doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ, [London: J. Rivington, 1825], Book II, Chapter X, pp. 77-78.)

Cf. Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556 A.D.):

I marvel here not a little of Master Smith’s either dulness or maliciousness, that cannot or will not see, that Christ in this chapter of St John spake not of sacramental bread, but of heavenly bread; nor of his flesh only, but also of his blood and of his Godhead, calling them heavenly bread that giveth everlasting life. So that he spake of himself wholly, saying: “I am the bread of life. He that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall not thirst for ever.” And neither spake he of common bread, nor yet of sacramental bread: for neither of them was given upon the cross for the life of the world.

And there can be nothing more manifest than that, in this sixth chapter of John, Christ spake not of the sacrament of his flesh, but of his very flesh; and that, as well for that the sacrament was not then instituted, as also that Christ said not in the future tense, “The bread which I will give shall be my flesh,” but in the present tense, “The bread which I will give is my flesh;” which sacramental bread was neither then his flesh, nor was then instituted for a sacrament, nor was after given to death for the life of the world.

But as Christ, when he said unto the woman of Samaria, “The water which I will give shall spring into everlasting life,” he meant neither of material water, nor of the accidents of water, but of the Holy Ghost, which is the heavenly fountain, that springeth unto eternal life; so likewise when he said, “The bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world,” he meant neither of the material bread, neither of the accidents of bread, but of his own flesh. Which although of itself it availeth nothing, yet (being in unity of person joined unto his divinity) it is the same heavenly bread that he gave to death upon the cross for the life of the world.

(Thomas Cranmer, “Answer to Smith’s Preface;” In: Writings and Disputations of Thomas Cranmer: Relative to the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, ed. John Edmund Cox, [Cambridge: Printed at the University Press, 1844], p. 372.)

Cf. Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556 A.D.):

The spiritual eating of his flesh, and drinking of his blood by faith, by digesting his death in our minds, as our only price, ransom, and redemption from eternal damnation, is the cause wherefore Christ said: “That if we eat not his flesh, and drink not his blood, we have not life in us; and if we eat his flesh, and drink his blood, we have everlasting life.” And if Christ had never ordained the sacrament, yet should we have eaten his flesh, and drunken his blood, and have had thereby everlasting life; as all the faithful did before the sacrament was ordained, and do daily when they receive not the sacrament. And so did the holy men that wandered in the wilderness, and in all their life-time very seldom received the sacrament; and many holy martyrs, either exiled, or kept in prison, did daily feed of the food of Christ’s body, and drank daily the blood that sprang out of his side, or else they could not have had everlasting life, as Christ himself said in the gospel of St John, and yet they were not suffered with other christian people to have the use of the sacrament. And therefore your argument in this place is but a fallax a non causa, ut causa, which is another trick of the devil’s sophistry.

And that in the sixth of John Christ spake neither of corporal nor sacramental eating of his flesh, the time manifestly sheweth. For Christ spake of the same present time that was then, saying: “The bread which I will give is my flesh,” and, “Не that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him, and hath everlasting life:” at which time the sacramental bread was not yet Christ’s flesh. For the sacrament was not then yet ordained; and yet at that time all that believed in Christ, did eat his flesh, and drink his blood, or else they could not have dwelled in Christ, nor Christ in them.

(Thomas Cranmer, An Answer to a Crafty and Sophistical Cavillation Devised by Stephen Gardiner, Book I: Of the Sacrament; In: Writings and Disputations of Thomas Cranmer: Relative to the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, ed. John Edmund Cox, [Cambridge: Printed at the University Press, 1844], p. 25.)

Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499-1562 A.D.):

John Calvin (1509-1564 A.D.):

Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man. …this discourse does not relate to the Lord’s Supper, but to the uninterrupted communication of the flesh of Christ, which we obtain apart from the use of the Lord’s Supper.

…And I will raise him up at the last day. It ought to be observed, that Christ so frequently connects the resurrection with eternal life, because our salvation will be hidden till that day. No man, therefore, can perceive what Christ bestows on us, unless, rising above the world, he places before his eyes the last resurrection. From these words, it plainly appears that the whole of this passage is improperly explained, as applied to the Lord’s Supper. For if it were true that all who present themselves at the holy table of the Lord are made partakers of his flesh and blood, all will, in like manner, obtain life; but we know that there are many who partake of it to their condemnation. And indeed it would have been foolish and unreasonable to discourse about the Lord’s Supper, before he had instituted it. It is certain, then, that he now speaks of the perpetual and ordinary manner of eating the flesh of Christ, which is done by faith only. And yet, at the same time, I acknowledge that there is nothing said here that is not figuratively represented, and actually bestowed on believers, in the Lord’s Supper; and Christ even intended that the holy Supper should be, as it were, a seal and confirmation of this sermon.

(John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel According to John: Volume First, trans. William Pringle, [Edinburgh: Printed for the Calvin Translation Society, 1847], on John 6:53, 54, pp. 265, 266.) See also: Calvin’s Commentaries.

Martin Chemnitz (1522-1586 A.D.):

This distinction of the ancients, that the body and blood of Christ is eaten and drunk in three ways, I approve as true, fitting, and useful.

First, it is received spiritually only, by those who also apart from the use of the Lord’s Supper apprehend and apply to themselves the merit of the offered body and the shed blood of Christ by true faith in the promise of the Gospel. Of this eating Christ preaches particularly in John 6.

…

Now, in John 6 Christ describes one mode of eating His flesh, apart from the action and use of His Supper. However, He instituted and described another mode, which is to take place in the action and use of His Supper, namely, that together with the bread and wine His body and blood be offered, taken with the mouth, eaten and drunk, and that in remembrance of Him, that is, that to the sacramental eating there come the spiritual.

…

Furthermore, it is evident that Christ in John 6 is not treating of eating and drinking which is done with the physical mouth, nor of material bread. For when the Jews were pressing the sign, “Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness,” Christ replies: Indeed, My heavenly Father sent you, not bodily food but another bread, namely, His incarnate Son. “I,” says He, “am that bread of life.” So, when the crowds who had eaten of the five loaves returned to Him to be satisfied once more with bodily eating, Christ opposes to material bread and bodily eating another food, a spiritual, and spiritual eating, which takes place by faith, even as He repeats a number of times: “Whoever believes in Me has eternal life.”

(Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent: Part II, trans. Fred Kramer, [St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1978], II.4.9.1, 3, II.5.6.15, pp. 326, 327-328, 409-410.)

The Book of Common Prayer (1559 A.D.):

…take and eat this, in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith, with thanksgiving.

(“The Order for the Administration of the Lord’s Supper, or Holy Communion”; In: The Book of Common Prayer: 1559, ed. John E. Booty, [Charlottesville: The University Press of Virginia, 1976], p. 264.)

William Perkins (1558-1602 A.D.):

The chapter must be understood of a spiritual eating of Christ: his body is meat indeed but spiritual meat, and his blood spiritual drink, to be received not by the mouth, but by faith. This is the very point that Christ here intends to prove, namely that to believe in him is to eat his flesh and to drink his blood are all one. Again, this chapter must not be understood of that special eating of Christ in the sacrament: for it is said generally, v. 53. Except ye eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood, ye have no life in you: and if these very words (which are the substance of the chapter) must be understood of a sacramental eating, no man before the coming of Christ was saved: for none did bodily eat or drink his body or blood, considering it was not then existing in nature, but only was present to the believing heart by faith.

(William Perkins, A Reformed Catholike, [Cambridge: Printed by John Legat, 1598], 10. Of Real-presence, p. 199.) [spelling modernized]

Johann Gerhard (1582-1637 A.D.):

In the sixth chapter of John, how effective, how sweet are the promises contained concerning the spiritual eating of the body and drinking of the blood of Christ! John 6:54: “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” Verse 55: “For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.” Verse 56: “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him,” etc. Although we deny that sacramental eating and the institution of the Eucharist are contained in this chapter 6 of John, we do not, however, absolutely exclude it from the doctrine concerning the sacred supper. Instead, we teach that spiritual eating and the fruit of this Lord’s Supper are proposed in it. [In capite sexto Johannis quam efficaces, quam suaves continentur promissiones de spirituali manducatione corporis et bibitione sanguinis Christi! v. 54: Qui manducat carnem meam et bibit sanguinem meum, habet vitam aeternam, et ego resuscitabo eum in novissimo die, v. 55: Caro mea vere est cibus et sanguis meus vere est potus. v. 56: Qui manducat meam carnem et bibit meum sanguinem, in me manet, et ego in illo etc. Quamvis vero manducationem sacramentalem et institutionem eucharistiae negemus in hoc c. 6. Johannis contineri, non tamen simpliciter illud a doctrina de sacra coena excludimus, sed manducationem spiritualem et fructum hujus coenae dominicae in eo proponi docemus.]

(Ioannis Gerhardi, Loci Theologici: Tomus Quartus, [Berolini: Sumtibus Gust. Schlawitz, 1866], Locus Decimus Octavus: De Sacramentis, §. 17, p. 144.)

Cf. Johann Gerhard (1582-1637 A.D.):

Christ speaks of that bread which is simply and absolutely necessary for all under the penalty of eternal salvation (John 6:53), and which always nourishes unto eternal life (verses 51 and 54). But the sacramental bread and cup are not absolutely and universally necessary, since without them all in the Old Testament and many in the New Testament were saved, nor is the sacramental bread always salutary, but is taken accidentally unto judgment. [De illo pane Christus loquitur, qui simpliciter et absolute omnibus est necessarius sub aeternae salutis dispendio v. 53. quique semper pascit ad vitam aeternam v. 51. et 54. Jam vero panis et calix sacramentalis non est absolute et omnibus necessarius, quippe absque quo omnes in V. T. et plurimi in N. T. sunt salvati, neque panis sacramentalis semper est salutaris, sed sumitur per accidens ad judicium.]

(Ioannis Gerhardi, Loci Theologici: Tomus Quintus, [Berolini: Sumtibus Gust. Schlawitz, 1867], Locus Vicesimus Primus: De Sacra Coena, §. 56, p. 56.)

Cf. Johann Gerhard (1582-1637 A.D.):

Chamierus, Panstratia, volume 4, book 8, chapter 5, §. 21, p. 292: “We are most fully persuaded that in this entire chapter of John 6, the discussion is abstractly about the thing signified by the sacrament of the Eucharist, that is, the eating and drinking spiritually of the flesh and blood of Christ.” Therefore, we do not approve of the Bohemians directly arguing from those words (in favor of communion under both species). See the same volume of the same author, book 11, chapter 3, where he discusses this matter at length. . . . Therefore, although in John 6 the salutary use of the supper, consisting in the spiritual eating of the body of Christ and the drinking of His blood, can be declared—in which sense and respect the pious ancients refer this chapter to the doctrine of the supper—we nevertheless say that what sacramental eating is and in what the essence of the sacred supper consists cannot and ought not to be sought from John 6, because John 6 deals with spiritual eating, while the institution of the sacred supper treats of sacramental eating, which even the adversaries are compelled to concede. . . . Any doctrine must be judged from its proper locus according to the theological rule. Now, the proper locus of the doctrine of the supper is not the sixth chapter of John, since the supper was instituted only a full year after that discourse, but rather Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, 1 Corinthians 10, and 11. Therefore, the doctrine of the sacred supper must be sought from those places. Where a complete description of the sacred supper is not found, its essence cannot be sought. But a complete description of the sacred supper is not found in John 6, because neither of the external symbols, namely bread and wine, nor of sacramental eating and drinking, is there any mention. Therefore, where bread and eating in the proper sense are not mentioned, the essence of the sacred supper is not described. But in John 6, bread and eating in the proper sense are not mentioned, but only metaphorical and spiritual eating. [Chamierus tom. 4. panstrat. lib. 8. c. 5. §. 21. p. 292: Persuasissimum nobis est, hoc toto capite Joh. 6. agi abstracte de re per sacramentum eucharistiae significata, id est esu potuque spirituali carnis ac sanguinis Christi. Itaque non probamus Bohemos directe ab iis verbis (pro communione sub utraque specie) argumentantes. Vide eundem tom. ejusd. lib. 11. c. 3. ubi multis hac de re disputat. . . . Quamvis igitur ex c. 6. Johann. salutaris usus coenae in spirituali corporis Christi manducatione et sanguinis bibitione consistens declarari possit, quo sensu et respectu pii veteres hoc caput ad doctrinam de coena referunt, tamen quae sit sacramentalis manducatio et in quo ipsa essentia sacrae coenae consistat, id ex c. 6. Joh. peti nec posse nec debere dicimus, quia c. 6. Joh. agit de manducatione spirituali, sed institutio sacrae coenae tractat de manducatione sacramentali, quod ipsi etiam adversarii concedere coguntur. . . . De quolibet dogmate judicandum est ex propria sede juxta regulam theologicam. Jam vero propria sedes doctrinae de coena non est caput sextum Johannis, quippe quae post illam concionem integro demum anno elapso fuit instituta, sed Matth. 26. Marc. 14. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 10. et 11. Ergo ex illis locis petenda est doctrina de sacra coena. Ubi non habet locum integra descriptio sacrae coenae, ibi non potest quaeri ejus essentia. Atqui integra descriptio sacrae coenae non habet locum in c. 6. Joh. quia nec externorum symbolorum, panis scilicet et vini, nec sacramentalis manducationis et bibitionis ibidem fit mentio. Ergo ubi non fit mentio panis et manducationis proprie acceptae, ibi non describitur essentia sacrae coenae, quia verba panis et manducandi in verbis institutionis accipiuntur proprie, ut superius fuit confirmatum. Jam vero Joh. 6. non fit mentio panis et manducationis proprie acceptae, sed tantum metaphoricae et spiritualis manducationis.]

(Ioannis Gerhardi, Loci Theologici: Tomus Quintus, [Berolini: Sumtibus Gust. Schlawitz, 1867], Locus Vicesimus Primus: De Sacra Coena, §. 179, pp. 171-172.)

Cf. Johann Gerhard (1582-1637 A.D.):

John is said to have wished to omit the description of the Lord’s Supper because in chapter 6 he had already explained the very substance of the Supper; this is an error of reasoning. Rather, John omitted the description of the institution for the following reasons: first, because it had already been most diligently recorded by the other evangelists, whose writings were already in existence at that time. For Eusebius testifies in Ecclesiastical History, book 3, chapter 21, “that when the writings of the three evangelists had reached everyone and even John himself, he approved them and bore witness to their truth. However, he also desired in their writings an account of those things that were done by Christ at the beginning of His ministry.” And later: “For this reason, not without cause, he passed over in silence the genealogy of the Savior according to the flesh, as it had already been described by Matthew and Luke.” The same judgment applies to the description of the sacred Supper. Seelmatterus Calvinianus, in the preface to his Harmony of the Gospels, states: “John therefore omitted the description of the institution of the Supper because he considered that the celebration and institution of the sacred Supper had already been fully committed by the other evangelists to serve as a perpetual rite for the Church.” Second, because John wished not so much to include events performed by Christ—among which the institution of the Supper must be included—but rather the most delightful discourses of Christ, especially those omitted by the other evangelists, in his evangelical narrative. Third, because, having returned from Patmos to Asia and hearing the blasphemies of Ebion and Cerinthus, who were attacking the divinity of Christ, he wished to refute the same errors in his Gospel. Irenaeus, in Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 11, page 184, writes: “John, the disciple of the Lord, desiring by the proclamation of the Gospel to remove that error which had been sown among men by Cerinthus, and long before by those who are called Nicolaitans, so that he might confound them and establish the rule of truth in the Church, thus began his Gospel,” etc. Jerome testifies to the same in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers. Fourth, because in his epistle he had taught that the blood of Christ testifies on earth and is the medium through which Christ comes to us (1 John 5:6, 8). [Johannem ideo praetermittere voluisse coenae Dominicae descriptionem, quia in c. 6. ipsam coenae substantiam exposuerit, causae est fallacia; ideo vero Johannes institutionis descriptionem praetermisit, primo quia a reliquis evangelistis, quorum scripta jam tum exstabant, erat diligentissime annotata, testatur enim Eusebius lib. 3. hist. eccles. c. 21. cum trium evangelistarum scripta ad cunctos et jam ad ipsum (Johannem) quoque pervenissent, probasse quidem et veritatis testimonium illis dedisse, solam tamen in horum scriptis desiderasse narrationem eorum, quae initio praedicationis gesta sunt a Christo. Et postea: Ideo non abs re genealogiam quidem Servatoris secundum carnem tanquam a Matthaeo et Luca jam ante descriptam silentio transit. Idem vero de sacrae coenae descriptione judicium. **Seelmatterus Calvinianus in praef. symphoniae evangelicae: Johannes ideo descriptionem institutionis coenae praetermisit, quia expendit, a reliquis evangelistis sacrae coenae tum celebrationem tum institutionem in perpetuum ecclesiae ritum plene consignatum.** Secundo quia non tam res a Christo gestas, inter quas etiam coenae institutio referenda est, quam dulcissimas conciones Christi, praesertim a reliquis evangelistis praetermissas, narratione evangelica complecti voluit. Tertio quia ex Patmo in Asiam reversus, Ebionis et Cerinthi divinitatem Christi oppugnantium blasphemias audiens, easdem suo refutare voluit evangelio. Irenaeus lib. 3. c. 11. p. 184: Johannes Domini discipulus volens per evangelii annuntiationem auferre eum, qui a Cerintho inseminatus erat hominibus, errorem et multo prius ab his, qui dicuntur Nicolaitae, ut confunderet eos et regulam veritatis in ecclesia constitueret, sic inchoavit evangelium etc. Idem testatur Hieronymus in catal. script. eccles. Quarto quia in epistola sua docuerat, sanguinem Christi in terris testari atque esse medium, per quod Christus ad nos venit, 1. Joh. 5, v. 6. et 8.]

(Ioannis Gerhardi, Loci Theologici: Tomus Quintus, [Berolini: Sumtibus Gust. Schlawitz, 1867], Locus Vicesimus Primus: De Sacra Coena, §. 179, p. 172.)

Herbert Thorndike (1598-1672 A.D.):

I will here allege the discourse of our Lord to them that followed Him to Capernaum (John vi. 26-63), upon occasion of having been fed by the miracle of five loaves and a few little fishes: supposing that, which any man of common sense must grant,—that it signifies no more than they that heard it could understand by it; and that, the sacrament of the eucharist not being then ordained, they could not understand that He spake of it, but ought to understand Him to speak of believing the Gospel and becoming Christians, under the allegory of eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood. But when the eucharist was instituted, the correspondence of the ceremony thereof with the allegory which here He discourseth, is evidence enough, that as well the promise which He tendereth, as the duty which He requireth, have their effect and accomplishment in and by the receiving of it.

I must here call you to mind that which I said of the sacrament of baptism; that, when our Lord discoursed with Nicodemus of regeneration by “water and the Holy Ghost,” John iii. (not having yet instituted the sacrament of baptism in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, nor declared the promise of giving the Holy Ghost to them that should receive the same), it must needs be thought, that He made way thereby to the introducing of that ordinance, the condition and promise whereof He meant, by the process of His own and His apostles’ doctrine, further to limit and determine. In like manner I must here insist, and suppose, that He speaks not here immediately of eating and drinking His Flesh and Blood in the eucharist (which His hearers could not then foretell that He meant to ordain); but that, the action thereof being instituted with such correspondence to this discourse, the intent of it may be and is to be argued from the same.

(Herbert Thorndike, Of the Laws of the Church, Book 3, Chapter 2, Sections 11-12; In: The Theological Works of Herbert Thorndike: Vol. IV, [Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1852], pp. 13-14.)

John Lightfoot (1602-1675 A.D.):

(John Lightfoot, Horæ Hebraicæ et Talmudicæ: Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations: In Four Volumes: Vol. III, [Oxford: At The University Press, 1859], p. 309.)

Matthew Poole (1624-1679 A.D.):

Whether this and the following verses spake any thing about the eating of the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ in the sacrament. All protestants deny it, both Lutherans and Calvinists. The papists most absurdly affirm it, to maintain their most absurd doctrine of transubstantiation. The vanity of their assertion, as to this text, appears, 1. Because it was a year and upwards after this before the sacrament of the Lord’s supper was instituted; and it is very absurd to think that our Saviour should speak of an institution not in being, his doctrine about it being what it was impossible people should understand. Nor, 2. Is the proposition true, of sacramental eating; for many may have never sacramentally eaten the flesh and drank the blood of Christ, and yet be spiritually alive, and be saved eternally. Besides that mere sacramental eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ will not give life; but the eating here spoken of giveth life, eternal life, ver. 56, 58. 3. Besides, it is plain from ver. 29, that the eating here spoken of is believing; but it is plain, that eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ in the sacrament is not believing. By all which, it is apparent, that our Saviour saith nothing in this text of a sacramental eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ.

(Matthew Pool[e], Annotations Upon the Holy Bible: In Three Volumes: Vol. III, [New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1852], p. 311.)

7. Excursus: Patristics—Interpretation vs. Application. 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.

Note: The Fathers are certainly correct in applying the Bread of Life discourse to the Lord’s Supper. Both are about the same thing (one is not “about” the other, rather both are about Christ—His life, death, resurrection and ascension).

Daniel Waterland:

(Daniel Waterland, A Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist, ed. Van Mildert, [Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1896], p. 110.)

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

So they said to him then, What shall we do, to work the works of God? For he had said to them, Work not for the food which perishes but for that which abides to eternal life. What shall we do? they say. “What observances must we keep, if we are to comply with this instruction?” Jesus answered and said to them, This is the work of God, to believe in the one whom he has sent. (Jn 6:27-29) So this is to eat the food which does not perish, but which abides to eternal life. Why are you getting your teeth and stomachs ready? Believe and you have eaten. [Utquid paras dentes et ventrem? crede, et manducasti.]

(Augustine of Hippo, Homilies on the Gospel of John, 25.12; PL, 35:1602; trans. WSA, I/12:439. Cf. NPNF1, 7:164.) See also: ccel.org.

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

Let us listen to him: The charity of God, he says, has been poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us (Rom 5:5). So then, the Lord, who was going to give the Holy Spirit, said he was himself the bread who came down from heaven, urging us to believe in him. To believe in him, in fact, is to eat the living bread. The one who believes, eats; he is invisibly filled, because he is invisibly reborn; [Credere enim in eum, hoc est manducare panem vivum. Qui credit, manducat: invisibiliter saginatur, quia invisibiliter renascitur.] inside, he is an infant; inside he is new; where he is newly planted, that is where he is filled up.

(Augustine of Hippo, Homilies on the Gospel of John, 26.1; PL, 35:1607; trans. WSA, I/12:450. Cf. NPNF1, 7:168.) See also: ccel.org.

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

Finally, he explains how what he is talking about happens and what it means to eat his body and to drink his blood. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him (Jn 6:56). This, therefore, is eating that food and drinking that drink: abiding in Christ and having him abide in oneself. [Hoc est ergo manducare illam escam, et illum bibere potum, in Christo manere, et illum manentem in se habere.] And thus if someone does not abide in Christ and Christ does not abide in him, there can be no doubt that he does not eat his flesh or drink his blood, but rather he is eating and drinking the sacrament of such a great reality to his own condemnation, because he had the presumption to approach the sacraments of Christ in an unclean state…

(Augustine of Hippo, Homilies on the Gospel of John, 26.18; PL, 35:1614; trans. WSA, I/12:464. Cf. NPNF1, 7:173.) See also: ccel.org.

Note: See further, Transubstantiation and John 6: A Comprehensive Historical Refutation.

Daniel Waterland:

From this summary view of the ancients it may be observed, that they varied sometimes in their constructions of John vi. or of some parts of it: but what prevailed most, and was the general sentiment wherein they united, was, that Christ himself is properly and primarily our bread of life, considered as the Word made flesh, as God incarnate, and dying for us; and that whatever else might, in a secondary sense, be called heavenly bread, (whether sacraments, or doctrines, or any holy service,) it was considered but as an antepast to the other, or as the same thing in the main, under a different form of expression.

(Daniel Waterland, A Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist, ed. Van Mildert, [Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1896], p. 137.)

For Further Study.

Note: For an in-depth examination, see: Daniel Waterland, A Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist, ed. Van Mildert, [Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1896], Chapter VI, pp. 109-137; Samuel H. Turner, Essay on Our Lord’s Discourse at Capernaum: Third Edition, [New York: Anson D. F. Randolph, 1860], Part III, pp. 103-149; A. J. Macdonald, “Formulation of Sacramental Doctrine: The Greek and Latin Fathers;” In: The Evangelical Doctrine of Holy Communion, ed. A. J. Macdonald, [Cambridge: W. Heffer & Sons, 1930], pp. 40-84; William Goode, The Nature of Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist: Vol. I, [London: T. Hatchard, 1856], pp. 91-129; George Stanley Faber, Christ’s Discourse at Capernaum: Fatal to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, [London: R. B. Seeley and W. Burnside, 1840], pp. 108-170; E. O. Phinney, Letters on the Eucharist: Addressed to a Member of the Church of Rome, [Baltimore: D. H. Carroll, 1880], pp. 52-73.

8. “Eating” and “Drinking” in Jewish Literature. Return to Outline.

Marcus Tullius Cicero (c. 106-46 B.C.):

When we speak of corn as Ceres and wine as Liber, we employ a familiar figure of speech, but do you suppose that anybody can be so insane as to believe that the food he eats is a god?

(Marcus Tullius Cicero, De Natura Deorum, 3.16.41; trans. LCL, 268:325.) See also: loebclassics.com.

John Lightfoot:

As to this whole passage of eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ, it will be necessary to premise that of Mark iv. 11, 12: “I speak by parables; and all these things are done in parables; that seeing they may see, and not perceive,” &c. Ver. 34: “Without a parable spake he not unto them and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.”

And what can we suppose in this place but parable wholly?

I. There was nothing more common in the schools of the Jews than the phrases of ‘eating and drinking’ in a metaphorical sense. And surely it would sound very harsh, if not to be understood here metaphorically, but literally. What! to drink blood? a thing so severely interdicted the Jews once and again. What! to eat man’s flesh? a thing abhorrent to human nature; but above all abhorrent to the Jews, to whom it was not lawful to eat אבר מן החי a member of a living beast, nor touch אבר מן המת the member of a dead man.

כל אכילה ושתיה וגו [Midras Coheleth, fol. 88. 4.]“Every eating and drinking of which we find mention in the book of Ecclesiastes is to be understood of the Law and good works,” i. e. by way of parable and metaphor. By the Capernaite’s leave, therefore, and the Romanist’s too, we will understand the eating and drinking in this place figuratively and parabolically.

II. Bread is very frequently used in the Jewish writers for doctrine. So that when Christ talks of eating his flesh, he might perhaps hint to them that he would feed his followers not only with his doctrines, but with himself too.

כָּל־מִשְׁעַן לֶחֶם [Chagigah, fol. 14. 1.]The whole stay of bread, Isa. iii. 1. אילו בעלי תלמוד “These are the masters of doctrine; as it is written, ‘Come, eat of my bread,’ Prov. ix. 5.” האכילהו לחם [Gloss. in Succah, fol. 52.]“Feed him with bread, that is, Make him take pains in the warfare of the Law, as it is written, ‘Come, eat of my bread.’”

Moses fed you with doctrine and manna, but I feed you with doctrine and my flesh.

III. There is mention, even amongst the Talmudists themselves, of eating the Messiah. “Rabh saith,[Sanhedr. fol. 98. 2.] עתידין ישראל דאכלי שני משיח Israel shall eat the years of Messiah.” [The Gloss is, “The plenty and satiety that shall be in the days of the Messiah shall belong to the Israelites.”] “Rabh Joseph saith, ‘True, indeed: but who shall eat thereof? חילק ובילק אכלי לה Shall Chillek and Billek [two judges in Sodom] eat of it?’ We must except against that of R. Hillel, who saith, אין משיח להם לישראל שכבר אכלוהו בימי חזקיה Messiah is not likely to come to Israel, for they have already devoured him in the days of Hezekiah.” Those words of Hillel are repeated, fol. 99. 1.

Behold, here is mention of eating the Messiah, and none quarrel the phraseology. They excepted against Hillel, indeed, that he should say that the Messiah was so eaten in the days of Hezekiah, that he was not like to appear again in Israel; but they made no scruple of the scheme and manner of speech at all. For they plainly enough understood what was meant by eating the Messiah; that is, that in the days of Hezekiah they so much partook of the Messiah, they received him so greedily, embraced him so gladly, and in a manner devoured him, that they must look for him no more in the ages to come. Gloss upon the place; “Messiah will come no more to Israel, for Hezekiah was the Messiah.”

IV. But the expression seems very harsh, when he speaks of “eating his flesh” and “drinking his blood.” He tells us, therefore, that these things must be taken in a spiritual sense: “Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?” That is, “When you shall have seen me ascending into heaven, you will then find how impossible a thing it is to eat my flesh and drink my blood bodily: for how can you eat the flesh of one that is in heaven? You may know, therefore, that I mean eating me spiritually: ‘for the words that I speak to you, they are spirit, and they are life.’”

V. But what sense did they take it in that did understand it? Not in a sacramental sense surely, unless they were then instructed in the death and passion of our Saviour; for the sacrament hath a relation to his death: but it sufficiently appears elsewhere that they knew or expected nothing of that. Much less did they take it in a Jewish sense; for the Jewish conceits were about the mighty advantages that should accrue to them from the Messiah, and those merely earthly and sensual. But to partake of the Messiah truly is to partake of himself, his pure nature, his righteousness, his spirit; and to live and grow and receive nourishment from that participation of him. Things which the Jewish schools heard little of, did not believe, did not think; but things which our blessed Saviour expresseth lively and comprehensively enough, by that of eating his flesh and drinking his blood.

(John Lightfoot, Horæ Hebraicæ et Talmudicæ: Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations: In Four Volumes: Vol. III, [Oxford: At The University Press, 1859], pp. 307-309.)

Note: Cf. Mark 4:11-12, 34; cf. Luke 8:10; Matthew 13:10-11.

Samuel H. Turner:

It is hardly necessary to remark, that words denoting food and beverage, and freely partaking thereof, have in all ages and nations been employed to signify an ardent attention to learning, a reception of doctrine, particularly when it engages the whole mind, and interests the affections. This is admitted on all hands, and Dr. Wiseman, among other writers, has given some very apposite quotations to this effect. The reason of the figure is evident. As the food is taken into the system, combines with the substance, nourishes and strengthens it, and thus becomes a natural cause of its continued vitality; so does the learning or the doctrine embraced influence the intellectual or moral character of the recipient. Hence he is commonly said to imbibe its excellence, to taste and enjoy its sweetness, to devour the truth with greediness, or to swallow error with avidity. Perhaps no people were more accustomed to an extreme use of this figure than the Hebrews. It occurs very often in the New Testament, and abounds in the Old. Illustration may be unnecessary, yet I will cite a few passages. “If any man hear my voice, I will sup with him and he with me:[Rev., iii., 30] I have fed you with milk, and not with meat:[1 Cor., iii., 2.] I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey: I have drunk my wine with my milk: eat, O friends, drink, yea, drink abundantly, O beloved:[Sol. Song, v., 1.] the Lord of Hosts shall make a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees; of fat things full of marrow.”[Isa., xxv., 6.] The same class of expressions is used to convey the idea of enjoying and delighting in anything. Thus, for instance, “Thy words were found and I did eat them, and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of my heart.”[Jer., xv., 16.] Also, for a hearty reception in contradistinction to an unwillingness to see and admit the truth: “Thou son of man, be not thou rebellious like that rebellious house; open thy mouth, and eat that I give thee. Eat that thou findest, eat this roll. So I opened my mouth, and he caused me to eat that roll; and he said unto me, son of man, cause thy belly to eat, and fill thy bowels with this roll that I give thee. Then did I eat it; and it was in my mouth as honey for sweetness.”[Ezek., ii, 8; iii, 1-3.] Here the figure of eating is carried out; the food is to be taken freely, so as to pervade the whole system; it also communicates pleasure to the prophet who obeys the command. Wisdom personified employs similar language: “They that eat me shall yet be hungry, and they that drink me shall yet be thirsty,”[Ecclus., xxiv., 21.] that is, shall be desirous of more. Attention to these particulars may assist in showing the connexion between certain Hebrew words expressive of feeding and satisfaction, as רָעָה and רָצָה and may also explain the fact that the former is used to denote association and union.

The same figure is employed by later Jewish writers. Thus the Rabbis say, that “every eating and drinking mentioned in the book of Ecclesiastes refers to the law and to good works;”[Midrash Koheleth] and MAIMONIDES employs similar language when he speaks of “filling the stomach with bread and meat,” while he means to express the idea of “knowing what is lawful or unlawful.”[Jad Hazakah, Grounds of the Law, chap. iv., ad fin., fol. 7, vol. i, Amsterdam edition.] Passages have also been cited from the Talmud, in illustration of our Lord’s language, and to them I must now request the reader’s attention, and the more particularly, as they are commented on by Dr. Wiseman, who quotes them from Lightfoot.

As the portion of the Talmud in connexion with which the passages occur is curious, and may serve to illustrate opinions of the ancient Jews in reference to certain prophecies respecting the Messiah, which their descendants of the Middle Ages and since have generally applied to some other object, and chiefly to the body of the nation personified, I shall not hesitate to make a larger quotation than is absolutely necessary merely to throw light on the phraseology in St. John. I shall give as literal a translation as the idioms of the two languages will allow, inserting the original words no farther than is required, in order to show the allusions of the Talmudist, and what may be called his play upon the words cited from Scripture. He has just given certain comments of the Rabbis on Jer., xxx., 6, a small part of which is here introduced, simply because it serves to illustrate the language every family, πᾶσα πατρία, in Eph., iii., 15. “And what (means) all faces are turned into paleness? Rabbi Johanan says, the family which is above and the family which is below (פמליא של מעלה ופמליא של מטה) in the time when, the holy one, blessed be he, will say, these are the work of my hands, and these are the work of my hands: how shall I destroy the one before the other?” The Jewish comment, printed in the margin, explains, “the family which is above and the family which is below,” of “the angels and Israel.” The Talmudical writer proceeds as follows: “Rab says Israel are about to eat the years of the Messiah. Says Rabbi Joseph, true, but who eats of him? Do Hillek and Billek eat of him?[Hillek and Billek are the names of certain judges in Sodom, according to Rabbi SOLOMON JARCHI, followed by LIGHTFOOT, Works, vol. ii., p. 554, fol., London, 1684. BUXTORF considers them as fictitious persons.—Lex. Talmud., p. 777.] in opposition to the words of Hillel, who said, there is no Messiah for Israel, for a long time ago they ate him, in the days of Hezekiah. Says Rav, he did not create the world except for David; and Samuel says, for Moses; and Rabbi Johanan says, for Messiah. What is his name? They of the house of Rabbi Shiloh say, that Shiloh is his name, as it is said, until Shiloh come.—Gen., xlix., 10. They of the house of Yenoi say, that Yenon is his name, as it is said, his name shall live forever, with the sun his name shall be perpetuated (ינון, yeon, Ps. lxxii., 17). He who is of the house of Rabbi Chaninah says, Chaninah is his name, as it is said, because he will not show you mercy (חנינה, chaninah, Jer., xvi., 13). And some say that Menachem, the son of Hezekiah, is his name, as it is said, for the comforter (מנחם, menachem) who should restore my soul is far from me—Lam., i., 16. And our Rabbis say, leprous of the house of the Rabbi is his name, as it is said, but he bore our sickness, and our sorrows he sustained them, and we regarded him smitten (נגוע, the original for smitten, is sometimes used of leprosy), stricken by God and afflicted.”—Isa., liii., 4. BABYLONIAN TALMUD, treatise SANHEDRIM, fol. 98, 2, towards the bottom. Then, after a very preposterous application of several other texts to the Messiah, the writer remarks: “Rabbi Hillel says, not for them, for Israel is Messiah, for a long time ago they ate him, in the days of Hezekiah.” He proceeds, then, to introduce Rabbi Joseph, refuting Hillel by saying, that Hezekiah died under the first temple, and that under the second Zechariah prophesies of the Messiah, and says, “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion, shout, O daughter of Jerusalem, behold, thy king cometh unto thee,” &c. (ix., 9).

(Samuel H. Turner, Essay on Our Lord’s Discourse at Capernaum: Third Edition, [New York: Anson D. F. Randolph, 1860], pp. 83-88.)

Note: For a refutation of Dr. Wiseman’s criticisms of Dr. Lightfoot, see: Samuel H. Turner, Essay on Our Lord’s Discourse at Capernaum: Third Edition, [New York: Anson D. F. Randolph, 1860], pp. 88ff.

Alan W. Jenks:

Humans share the earth with a multitude of other creatures and forces which unremittingly pursue their own appetites, often at human expense (TDOT 1:236-46). Fire eats houses, cities, and fortresses (Num 21:28; Amos 1:4, 7, 10, 12). Cold and heat eat people (Gen 21:40). Invading armies eat up territory (Isa 1:7). In war, the sword eats first one soldier and then another (2 Sam 11:25). Death is hungry too, and its hunger is never satisfied, nor is the hunger of the barren womb, earth, and fire (Prov 21:15-16). Even famine is said to “eat,” as if it were a force that gets to the food before people do (Ezek 7:15).

No Bible translation can succeed in conveying the prevalence of “eating” and “drinking” in the Hebrew. After all, the semantic range of the words is much broader in Hebrew than in English. As a result, translators must constantly employ milder or more oblique words such as “use,” “burn,” “consume,” and “devour.” The same happens in translations of Akkadian texts, which use the Akkadian cognate akālu to describe all kinds of destructive and consumptive activities, especially those of fire and warfare. Here as in the biblical translations, however, some of the nuance of the original text is lost.

With šth and šqh, “drink” and “give drink,” we find much the same range of metaphorical meanings in the Bible and much the same problem for translators. Just as the sword eats, it also drinks blood until it is sated (Jer 46:10). The thirsty earth drinks water provided by God (Deut 11:11; Gen 2:6). Trees drink water from the earth (Ezek 31:14). A person not only drinks wine and water, but also “drinks” iniquity, derision, and violence (Job 15:16; 34:7; Prov 4:17).

In all these various metaphorical usages there are certain threads of continuity. In addition to their literal meanings of ingesting solids and liquids, “eat” and “drink” mean “to assimilate,” “to internalize,” “to make a part of oneself.” This is what is meant when Jeremiah says he “ate” the word of Yahweh when it came to him (Jer 15:16; cf. Ezek 31:1-3). Similarly, a wicked person can internalize evil, making it habitual (Job 15:16; Prov 4:17), while a psalmist can express people’s daily diet of pain and grief as being given “tears to drink” and “the bread of tears” to eat (Ps 80:5).

Secondly, “eat” can mean “use,” “enjoy the use of,” and even “enjoy” (Gen 3:17; Eccl 5:10). Thirdly, since “use” can imply “use up,” ʾkl can also mean “to destroy,” “lay waste,” as by fire, pestilence, famine, and especially warfare. All of these meanings are paralleled in Akkadian and Ugaritic.

What still strikes the modern reader as odd is that no distinction is made between animate and inanimate forces. Not only do people and animals eat and drink, but so do things and abstractions. This suggests that there may be some truth to Johannes Pedersen’s observation that the Hebrews did not firmly distinguish between living creatures and “lifeless” nature. Everything which has its own special peculiarities and faculties is thought of as “living,” whether a stone or the earth itself (PI 1: 155). And all of these other creatures compete with humans in consuming.

(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.)

Eating and Drinking: A Common Jewish Idiom.

J. C. Ryle:

To a Jewish ear therefore there would be nothing so entirely new and strange in the sentence as at first sight may appear to us. The thing that would startle them no doubt would be our Lord’s assertion that eating His flesh and drinking His blood could be the means of life to their souls, as the flesh and blood of the passover lamb had been to their fathers the salvation of their bodies.

(J. C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels: St. John: Vol. I, [New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1866], p. 398.)

Cf. Frédéric Louis Godet:

The Lord sought thus to make clear to the Jews what appeared to them incredible: that one man could be for all others the source of life.

(F. Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John: Vol. II, trans. Timothy Dwight, [New York:Funk & Wagnalls, 1893], p. 39.)

Cf. D. A. Carson:

…what is really scandalous is not the ostensibly ‘cannibalistic’ metaphor, but the cross to which it points.

(D. A. Carson, The Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Gospel According to John, [Nottingham: Apollos, 2006], on John 6:53-54, p. 297.)

Charles H. Talbert:

Its language is understandable in light of a saying of R. Hillel, son of Gamaliel III: “There shall be no Messiah for Israel, because they have already eaten him in the days of Hezekiah” (b. Sanhedrin 99a). Just as one may devour books, drink in a lecture, swallow a story, stomach a lie, and eat one’s own words, so one may eat the living bread, Jesus, the incarnate Word.

(Charles H. Talbert, Reading John: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Fourth Gospel and the Johannine Epistles, [New York: Crossroad, 1992], p. 138.)

Cunningham Geikie:

The idea of eating, as a metaphor for receiving spiritual benefit, was familiar to Christ’s hearers, and was as readily understood as our expressions of “devouring a book,” or “drinking in” instruction. In Isaiah iii. 1, the words “the whole stay of bread,” were explained by the Rabbis as referring to their own teaching, and they laid it down as a rule, that wherever, in Ecclesiastes, allusion was made to food or drink, it meant study of the Law, and the practice of good works. It was a saying among them—“In the time of the Messiah the Israelites will be fed by Him.” Nothing was more common in the schools and synagogues than the phrases of eating and drinking, in a metaphorical sense. “Messiah is not likely to come to Israel,” said Hillel, “for they have already eaten Him”—that is, greedily received His words— “in the days of Hezekiah.” A current conventionalism in the synagogues was that the just would “eat the Shecliinah.” It was peculiar to the Jews to be taught in such metaphorical language. Their Rabbis never spoke in plain words, and it is expressly said that Jesus submitted to the popular taste, for “without a parable spake He not unto them.”

(Cunningham Geikie, The Life and Words of Christ: In Two Volumes: Vol. II, [London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1883], p. 184.)

David Smith:

Such language would sound less strange in Jewish than in modern ears, since, alike in the Scriptures and in the Rabbinical literature, sacred instruction is called bread and those who eagerly absorb it are said to eat it. “Thy words,” says the prophet Jeremiah, “were found, and I did eat them.” And it is written in the Talmud: “‘Feed him with bread,’ that is, Make him labour in the warfare of the Law, as it is said: ‘Come, eat of my bread.’” Yet stronger and closely similar to the language of our Lord is the Talmudic figure of “eating the Messiah,” which meant receiving Him joyfully and, as it were, devouring His instruction. Nevertheless it was impossible that any of His hearers, even the Twelve at that stage, should understand the Lord’s mystic discourse, Nor indeed did He mean that they should understand it. He designed it as a test of their faith. Would their loyalty stand the shock of disillusionment?

(David Smith, The Days of His Flesh: The Earthly Life of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ: Tenth Edition, [London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1914], pp. 241-242.)

Cf. David Smith:

“I,” said He, “am the bread of life.” What did this mean? It was a Jewish phrase. The Rabbis spoke of “eating the Messiah” in the sense of eagerly receiving Him, welcoming His grace, assimilating His doctrine, and imbibing His spirit. Our Lord was the Messiah. He is “the bread of life”; and even as we nourish our bodies by eating “perishing food,” so we nourish our souls by eating Him—by coming to Him and believing in Him. “He who comes to me shall never hunger and he who believes in Me shall never thirst any more.” He will have eternal life within him, and there will be no death for him. “I will raise him at the last day.”

Thus far the conversation had been between our Lord and those enthusiasts who were leading the popular movement; but here interposed “the Jews,” that is, in St. John’s phraseology, the Jewish rulers, the Scribes who occupied the front seats in the synagogue and had been listening to the discussion. His language seemed to them sheer blasphemy. “Is not this,” said they, “Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?” He took up their challenge, and first, quoting from the scriptures, whereof they were the official guardians and interpreters, that prophetic word “They shall all be taught of God,” He told them that the reason of their blindness to His claim was their lack of that heavenly teaching. And then He reiterated His claim in more emphatic terms. “I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. I am the true manna, the living bread: if one eat of this bread, he will live for ever. And,” He added, “the bread which I will give is My flesh for the life of the world.” Here is an intimation of His sacrificial death. The Rabbis spoke of “eating the Messiah,” which signified merely feeding upon His teaching; but here our Lord declares that “the enduring food which nourishes eternal life” is more than His teaching; it is His atoning sacrifice, “His flesh for the life of the world.”

(David Smith, Our Lord’s Earthly Life, [New York: George H. Doran], pp. 179-180.)

J. W. Shepard:

The idea of eating, as a metaphor for receiving spiritual food and the benefits flowing therefrom, was familiar to the Jews. “In the Rabbinical literature, sacred instruction was called bread and those who eagerly absorb it were said to eat it.” “Thy words were found and I did eat them (Jer. 15:16).” In the Talmud Hillel says: “The Messiah is not likely to come to Israel, for they have already eaten Him in the days of Hezekiah.” The Rabbis spoke of their instruction as “the whole stay of bread.” It was a common saying among the Jews: “In the time of the Messiah the Israelites will be fed by Him.”

(J. W. Shepard, The Christ of the Gospels: An Exegetical Study, [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1939], p. 275.)

E. O. Phinney:

From the foregoing, it is evident, that the Jews were accustomed to the use of such figures of speech, used to express a reception of truth in the mind and heart; and it is quite reasonable to suppose, that they might have understood our Lord to speak figuratively, had they been candidly disposed to learn of him, especially as they had, in the former part of his address, repeatedly listened to this kind of metaphorical discourse. It was, doubtless, their ignorance of the spiritual design of the Saviour’s mission, their unjust prejudice, and worldly expectations, which prevented them from properly understanding him as teaching the sublime doctrine of faith in him as relating to the sacrificial death, or atoning sacrifice which he would make for the world; which death he had already symbolically predicted by, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up,” (John, ii: 19,) and which was prefigured through a long catalogue of generations by continued sacrifices. ST. AUGUSTINE attaches to the murmuring disciples the fault of their own unbelief. “If it be inquired of me wherefore they could not believe, I quickly reply, because they would not.”[Quare non poterunt credere, si a me quæratur, cito respondeo, quia nolebant.—Tract. liii in Joan.]

(E. O. Phinney, Letters on the Eucharist Addressed to a Member of the Church of Rome, [Baltimore: D. H. Carroll, 1880], pp. 47-48.)

8.1. Examples In Extra-Biblical Jewish Literature. Return to Outline.

Midras Coheleth, fol. 88. 4.:

כל אכילה ושתיה וגו “Every eating and drinking of which we find mention in the book of Ecclesiastes is to be understood of the Law and good works,”

(Midras Coheleth, fol. 88. 4; trans. John Lightfoot, Horæ Hebraicæ et Talmudicæ: Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations: In Four Volumes: Vol. III, [Oxford: At The University Press, 1859], p. 307.)

Midrash Rabbah: Ecclesiastes, 2.24.1:

THERE IS NOTHING BETTER FOR A MAN THAN THAT HE SHOULD EAT AND DRINK (II, 24). R. Tanhuma in the name of R. Nahman, the son of R. Samuel b. Nahman, and R. Menahma said (another version: R. Jeremiah and R. Meyasha said in the name of R. Samuel b. R. Isaac): All the references to eating and drinking in this Book signify Torah and good deeds. R. Jonah said: The most clear proof of them all is, A man hath no better thing under the sun than to eat and drink, and to be merry, and that this should accompany him in his labour—‘amalo (Eccl. VIII, 15). The last word should be read as ‘olamo (his world)—in this world; All the days of his life (ib.) alludes to the grave. Are there, then, food and drink in the grave which accompany a man to the grave? It must then mean Torah and good deeds.

(Midrash Rabbah: Ecclesiastes II.24.I; trans. Midrash Rabbah: Ruth, Ecclesiastes, trans. L. Rabinowitz, A. Cohen, eds. H. Freedman, Maurice Simon, [London: Soncino Press, 1939], pp. 71-72.)

Cf. Midrash Rabbah: Ecclesiastes, 8.15.1:

SO I COMMENDED MIRTH (VIII, 15). R. Tanhuma in the name of R. Nahman, the son of R. Samuel b. Nahman, and R. Menahma said (another version: R. Jeremiah and R. Meyasha said in the name of R. Samuel b. R. Isaac): All the eating and drinking mentioned in this Book signify Torah and good deeds. R. Jonah said: The most clear proof of them all is, AND THAT THIS SHOULD ACCOMPANY HIM IN HIS LABOUR (‘AMALO). The last word should be read as ‘olamo (his world)—in this world: ALL THE DAYS OF HIS LIFE alludes to the grave. Are there, then, food and drink in the grave which accompany a man to the grave! It means in fact Torah and good deeds which a man performs.

Midrash Rabbah: Ecclesiastes VIII.15.I; trans. Midrash Rabbah: Ruth, Ecclesiastes, trans. L. Rabinowitz, A. Cohen, eds. H. Freedman, Maurice Simon, [London: Soncino Press, 1939], p. 224.)

Midrash Rabbah: Genesis, 54.1:

R. Aha observed: Is there a greater despoiler than he [the Tempter]? And of him Solomon said: If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat, etc. (Prov. xxv, 21): [resist him] with the bread of the Torah, as you read, Come, eat of my bread (ib. IX, 5); And if he be thirsty, give him water to drink (ib. 25)—the water of the Torah, as in the verse, Ho, everyone that thirsteth, come ye for water (Isa. LV, 1).

(Midrash Rabbah: Genesis LIV.1; trans. Midrash Rabbah: Genesis: In Two Volumes: I, trans. H. Freedman, [London: Sonico Press, 1939], pp. 475-476.)

Gloss. in Succah, fol. 52.:

האכילהו לחם “Feed him with bread, that is, Make him take pains in the warfare of the Law, as it is written, ‘Come, eat of my bread.’”

(Gloss. in Succah, fol. 52; trans. John Lightfoot, Horæ Hebraicæ et Talmudicæ: Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations: In Four Volumes: Vol. III, [Oxford: At The University Press, 1859], p. 308.)

Chagigah, fol. 14. 1.:

כָּל־מִשְׁעַן לֶחֶם The whole stay of bread, Isa. iii. 1. אילו בעלי תלמוד “These are the masters of doctrine; as it is written, ‘Come, eat of my bread,’ Prov. ix. 5.”

(Chagigah, fol. 14. 1; trans. John Lightfoot, Horæ Hebraicæ et Talmudicæ: Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations: In Four Volumes: Vol. III, [Oxford: At The University Press, 1859], p. 308.)

Sanhedr. fol. 98. 2.:

“Rabh saith, עתידין ישראל דאכלי שני משיח Israel shall eat the years of Messiah.” [The Gloss is, “The plenty and satiety that shall be in the days of the Messiah shall belong to the Israelites.”] “Rabh Joseph saith, ‘True, indeed: but who shall eat thereof? חילק ובילק אכלי לה Shall Chillek and Billek [two judges in Sodom] eat of it?’ We must except against that of R. Hillel, who saith, אין משיח להם לישראל שכבר אכלוהו בימי חזקיה Messiah is not likely to come to Israel, for they have already devoured him in the days of Hezekiah.”

(Sanhedr. fol. 98. 2., cf. fol. 99. 1; trans. John Lightfoot, Horæ Hebraicæ et Talmudicæ: Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations: In Four Volumes: Vol. III, [Oxford: At The University Press, 1859], p. 308.)

Sirach 24:1, 19-22:

Wisdom sings her own praises, before her own people she proclaims her glory; . . . Come to me, all you that yearn for me, and be filled with my fruits; You will remember me as sweeter than honey, better to have than the honeycomb. He who eats of me will hunger still, he who drinks of me will thirst for more; He who obeys me will not be put to shame, he who serves me will never fail.” All this is true of the book of the Most High’s covenant, the law which Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the community of Jacob.

(New American Bible.)

Flavius Josephus [Yosef ben Mattityahu] (c. 37-100 A.D.):

For it was still possible to feed upon the public miseries and to drink of the city’s life-blood [ἔτι γαρ παρῆν ἐσθίειν ἐκ τῶν δημοσίων κακῶν καὶ τὸ τῆς πόλεως αἷμα πίνειν]; but honest men had long since felt the pinch of want, and many were already failing for lack of necessaries.

(Josephus, The Jewish War, 5.344; trans. LCL, 210:108, 109.) See also: loebclassics.com and archive.org (old edition).

8.2. Examples In Biblical Literature. Return to Outline.

(1.) “Eating” and “drinking” are common Biblical metaphors used to convey the concept of participation, partaking of, sharing in, etc. either for good (2 Samuel 12:3; Psalm 16:5; 23:5; 116:13) or for bad (1 Kings 18:19; Jeremiah 16:7; Psalm 11:6; 73:10; 75:8; Isaiah 51:17, 22; 25:15-17, 28; 49:12; 51:7; Lamentations 4:21; Ezekiel 23:31-33; Habakkuk 2:16; Zechariah 12:2; Revelation 14:10; 16:19; 17:4; 18:6; John 18:11; Matthew 20:22-23; 26:39, 42; cf. Mark 10:38-39; 14:36; Luke 22:42). Consuming the life of (Leviticus 26:29; Deuteronomy 28:53; Jeremiah 19:9; Isaiah 9:20-21; 49:26; Micah 3:3; Revelation 16:6; 19:17-18).

Cf. 1 Corinthians 10:16-18, 20-21 (Cf. 1 Corinthians 11:26):

The cup [ποτήριον] of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation [κοινωνία] in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation [κοινωνία] in the body of Christ? Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake [μετέχομεν] of the one loaf [ἄρτου]. Look at Israel according to the flesh; are not those who eat the sacrifices participants [κοινωνοὶ] in the altar? So what am I saying? That meat sacrificed to idols is anything? Or that an idol is anything? No, I mean that what they sacrifice, (they sacrifice) to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to become participants [κοινωνοὺς] with demons. You cannot drink the cup [ποτήριον] of the Lord and also the cup [ποτήριον] of demons. You cannot partake [μετέχειν] of the table [τραπέζης] of the Lord and of the table [τραπέζης] of demons.

(New American Bible. Cf. 1 Corinthians 11:26.)

Notice the clear parallel between participating in Christ through the bread and wine (cup) of the Lord’s table and the pagan participation with demons though similar sacrifices (in which no carnal/corporeal transubstantiation occurs).

Cf. Edward Harold Browne:

In juxtaposition then, and immediate comparison with these feasts on Jewish and heathen offerings, St. Paul places the Christian festival of the Eucharist; and as he tells the Corinthians, that the Israelites in their feasts were partakers of the altar, and the heathen partook of the table of devils, so he says, Christians partake of the Lord’s table. But more than this, he asks, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a joint partaking (κοινωνία) of the Blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a joint partaking of the Body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread” (vv. 16, 17). The natural signification of the word κοινωνία, and the sense deducible from the context, require that it should be rendered, as above, joint partaking or joint participation. The parallel is between partaking of idol sacrifices, partaking of Jewish sacrifices, and partaking of the Christian Sacrifice, i.e. Christ. And the 17th verse is added to show, that by such participation there is a joint fellowship, not only with Christ, the Head, but with His whole Body the Church.

Now, what must we infer from this teaching? Does it not plainly tell us, that the feeding at the Lord’s table corresponds with the feeding at the Jewish altar and the heathen idol-feasts. That, as the latter gave them participation in their sacrifices and their demon-gods, so the former gives us participation of Christ’s Body and Blood! This much we cannot, and we would not deny. The bread and wine are to us means or instruments, whereby, through God’s grace, we become partakers of the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ. But, on the other hand, must we therefore infer, that we partake of Christ’s Body, naturally and materially? The very words appear to teach us otherwise. If there were a real change of the elements into Christ’s natural Flesh and Blood, it seems altogether unaccountable, that the force of the argument should have been weakened by the introduction of the word κοινωνία participation. If the bread be literally and substantially the Body, it would have been more natural to say, “Is not the bread which we break, Christ’s Body?” And the inference would be immediate; Can we eat Christ’s Body and demon-sacrifices together? The word κοινωνία, on which the peculiar strength of the passage depends, whilst it clearly points to the Eucharistic elements as ordained means to enable us to partake of the Body and Blood of Christ, yet shows too that they are means of partaking, not themselves changed into the substance of that which they represent. They are ordained, that we may partake of Christ; but they are not Christ themselves.

(Edward Harold Browne, An Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles: Historical and Doctrinal: The Tenth Edition, [London: Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer, 1874], pp. 728-729.)

(2.) The concept of “tasting” is similarly used to convey the idea of participation, partaking of, sharing in, etc. (1 Peter 2:3; Psalm 34:8; Hebrews 6:4-5: Matthew 16:28; Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27; John 8:52).

(3.) “Drinking” (lit. cup) is used metaphorically to denote covenants (Luke 22:20) as well as individuals (Matthew 23:25-26; Luke 11:39).

(4.) “Eating” is used to denote the appropriation and internalization of the Word of God (Ezekiel 2:8-9; 3:1-4; Jeremiah 15:16; Revelation 10:8-10). The Scriptures provide nourishment (Deuteronomy 8:3; Isaiah 55:1-3); their absence is a famine (Amos 8:11).

(5.) “Eating” and “drinking” are used to convey the idea of obtaining wisdom and understanding (Proverbs 9:1-6; cf. Sirach 24:19-22).

(6.) “Eating” and “drinking” are used metaphorically of “enjoying” (Ecclesiastes 5:19; 6:2; Exodus 24:9-11).

(7.) “Eating” and “drinking” are common metaphors for spiritual contentment (1 Corinthians 10:1-4; 12:13; Matthew 8:11: 26:29; Luke 14:15; 22:30; Revelation 2:17; 7:15-17).

(8.) “Eating” and “drinking” are common metaphors for life (Deuteronomy 8:3; Jeremiah 17:13; Isaiah 55:1-3; Psalm 81:10, 16; Matthew 4:4; Luke 4:4; John 4:13-14, 31-34; 6:27-29, 35; 7:37-39; Revelation 2:7; 21:6-8). The Psalmist “thirsts for God” (Psalm 42:2; 63:1; 143:6). Jesus’ “food” is to do the will of His Father (John 4:34); and Just as Christ lives by ‘eating’ the Father, so too we live by eating Christ (John 6:58)—i.e. by Faith (John 6:35).

(9.) Similarly, there is a strong Biblical connection between the concepts of “blood” and “life” (Leviticus 17:11, 14; Genesis 3:21; 9:4; 37:26; Deuteronomy 12:23; 19:10; 21:7; Numbers 35:19ff; 2 Samuel 14:11; 23:17; 2 Kings 24:4; 1 Chronicles 11:19; 28:3; Deuteronomy 32:42; Ezekiel 39:17-18; Psalm 9:12; 30:9; 72:14; Isaiah 59:7; Jeremiah 22:17; Hebrews 9:22).

Cf. 1 Chronicles 11:16-19 (Cf. 2 Samuel 23:14-17):

David was then in the stronghold, and a Philistine garrison was at Bethlehem. David expressed a desire: “Oh, that someone would give me a drink from the cistern that is by the gate at Bethlehem!” Thereupon the Three broke through the encampment of the Philistines, drew water from the cistern by the gate at Bethlehem, and carried it back to David. But David refused to drink it. Instead, he poured it out as a libation to the LORD, saying, “God forbid that I should do such a thing! Could I drink the blood of these men who risked their lives?” For at the risk of their lives they brought it; and so he refused to drink it. Such deeds as these the Three warriors performed.

(New American Bible. Cf. Deuteronomy 32:42; Ezekiel 39:17-18)

Cf. N. T. Wright:

One of the most moving, and often forgotten, stories about King David concerns the time when he was fighting the Philistines, who had occupied his native town of Bethlehem. Among David’s fiercely loyal fighting men he had three in particular who were renowned for their bravery and their readiness to do whatever the king might ask. When he and his men were pinned down one day, David longed for a drink, and said out loud how much he would like to have water from the well at Bethlehem – which was of course inaccessible due to the Philistines. But that didn’t stop his three heroes. Off they went, broke through the Philistine army, got water from the well at Bethlehem and brought it back to David.

But David didn’t drink it. His shrewd sense of political judgment was even sharper than his thirst.

‘God forbid’, he said, ‘that I should drink the blood of these men, who went at the risk of their lives’.(2 Samuel 23.17; 1 Chronicles 11.19). He didn’t want to be seen to profit from their readiness to put their lives on the line for him. He poured the water out on the ground.

Fancy a Jew talking about drinking blood! One of the best-known of the many Jewish regulations about food and drink was that blood was absolutely forbidden (Leviticus 17.10-14 is the central statement of the principle). Indeed, the complex system of kosher butchering has this among its chief aims, that no blood should remain in the animal and so risk being eaten or drunk. And this, of course, was why David used the phrase. To drink this water would be the equivalent of drinking blood. He wouldn’t – he shouldn’t – he couldn’t do it.

But the fact that Jesus speaks of ‘drinking his blood’ in this setting gives us an all-important clue to what he means in this extraordinary passage. If you want to profit from what I’m doing, he says, you must ‘eat my flesh’ and ‘drink my blood’. If you do this, you’ll live for ever; I will raise you up on the last day. In the light of the David story, we can confidently say that the deep meaning of the passage is not that those who believe in him should become cannibals, still less that they should, in ‘eating’ and ‘drinking’ him, break the Jewish law against consuming blood. What he means is what David meant. He refused to ‘drink the blood’ of his comrades – that is, to profit from the risk of their lives. Jesus, as the true Messiah, is going one better again. He will put his own life at risk – indeed, he will actually lose it; and his comrades will profit from that death. They will ‘drink his blood’. They will have their thirst quenched by his death and all that it means.

(Tom Wright, John for Everyone: Part 1: Chapters 1-10, [London: SPCK, 2014], pp. 85-86.)

(10.) The Old Covenant, which forbade the drinking of blood, was still in effect (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 3:17; 7:26-27; 17:10-14; 19:26; Deuteronomy 12:16, 23-24; 15:23; 1 Samuel 14:32-34; Ezekiel 33:25).

(11.) The New Covenant also forbids the consumption of blood (Acts 15:29).

Sources.

Adam Clarke:

Verse 53. Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man] Unless ye be made partakers of the blessings about to be purchased by my blood, passion, and violent death, ye cannot be saved. As a man must eat bread and flesh, in order to be nourished by them, so a man must receive the grace and Spirit of Christ, in order to his salvation. As food in a rich man’s store does not nourish the poor man that needs it, unless it be given him, and he receive it into his stomach, so the whole fountain of mercy existing in the bosom of God, and uncommunicated, does not save a soul: he who is saved by it must be made a partaker of it. Our Lord’s meaning appears to be, that, unless they were made partakers of the grace of that atonement which he was about to make by his death, they could not possibly be saved. Bishop Pearce justly observes that the ideas of eating and drinking are here borrowed to express partaking of, and sharing in. Thus spiritual happiness on earth, and even in heaven, is expressed by eating and drinking; instances of which may be seen, Matt. viii. 11; xxvi. 29; Luke xiv. 15; xxii. 30; and Rev. ii. 17. Those who were made partakers of the Holy Spirit are said by St. Paul, 1 Cor. xii. 13, to be made to drink into (or of) one Spirit. This, indeed, was a very common mode of expression among the Jews.

(Adam Clarke, The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ: Authorized Translation: Including the Marginal Readings and Parallel Texts, With a Commentary and Critical Notes: Volume I: Matthew to the Acts, [New York: G. Lane & C. B. Tippett, 1846], on John 6:53, p. 563.)

Cf. Michael P. V. Barrett:

To interpret this instruction literally would be linguistically absurd and theologically aberrant. The Lord is obviously making a comparison between eating physically and eating spiritually. Eating Christ is a spiritual act of faith, not a physical act of chewing and swallowing. The point of correspondence is not in the mechanics of the eating process, but in the consequence. Eating is a fitting figure of appropriating to oneself what is necessary for life. As we believe Christ and His gospel we receive life and enter into a mutual bond with Christ: ‘He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him’ (emphasis mine).

(Joel R. Beeke, Michael P. V. Barrett, A Radical, Comprehensive Call to Holiness, [Glasgow: Bell & Bain, 2021], p. 43.)

Ethelbert William Bullinger:

53 eat . . . drink, &c. The Hebrews used this expression with reference to knowledge by the Fig. Metonomy (of the Subject), Ap. 6, as in Ex. 24.11, where it is put for being alive; so eating and drinking denoted the operation of the mind in receiving and “inwardly digesting” truth or the words of God. See Deut. 8.3, and cp. Jer. 15.16. Eze. 2.8. No idiom was more common in the days of our Lord. With them as with us, eating included the meaning of enjoyment, as in Ecc. 5.19; 6.2; for “riches” cannot be eaten; and the Talmud actually speaks of eating (i.e. enjoying) “the years of Messiah”, and instead of finding any difficulty in the figure they said that the days of Hezekiah were so good that “Messiah will come no more to Israel; for they have already devoured Him in the days of Hezekiah” (Lightfoot, vol. xii, pp 296, 297). Even where eating is used of the devouring of enemies, it is the enjoyment of victory that is included. The Lord’s words could be understood thus by hearers, for they knew the idiom; but of “the eucharist” they knew nothing, and could not have thus understood them. By comparing vv. 47 and 48 with vv. 53 and 54, we see that believing on Christ was exactly the same thing as eating and drinking Him.

flesh . . . blood. By the Fig. of speech Synecdoche (of the Part), Ap. 6, this idiom is put for the whole Person. See note on “flesh”, 1.13, and cp. Matt. 16.17. 1Cor. 15.50. Gal. 1:16, Eph. 6.12. Hebr. 2:14.

(Ethelbert William Bullinger, The Companion Bible: Being the Authorized Version of 1611 with the Structures and Notes, Critical, Explanatory and Suggestive and with 198 Appendixes, [London: Samuel Bagster and Sons Limited, reprinted 1972], on John 6:53, p. 1532.)

Note: Regarding “enjoyment/participation” cf. 1 Chronicles 11:16-19; 2 Samuel 23:14-17.

Thomas Coke:

Ver. 53. Then Jesus said, &c.] Our Lord, knowing how unreasonable his hearers in general were, did not think fit to explain himself more particularly at this time; but persisting in the same figurative way of expressing himself, he repeated and affirmed more earnestly what he had asserted before. His meaning appears to be, “Except you be entirely united to me, by a hearty belief, experience, and practice of my doctrine, and partake of the merit of that sacrifice which I shall offer for the sins of the world, continue in the communion of my religion, and receive spiritual nourishment by the continual participation of those means of grace which I shall purchase for you by my death, and bless to you by the communication of my Spirit,—you can never attain eternal life.” The flesh of Christ seems to be put here for the whole of his human nature; see ver. 51 as it is elsewhere in scripture; Ch. i. 14. Rom. i. 3. Wherefore, by eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, is not meant any corporeal action, but men’s receiving with thankfulness those spiritual blessings, to confer which our Lord assumed the human nature, and, consequently, their believing, with the heart unto righteousness, the revelation that he came to make concerning the merciful counsels of God; or, as he himself expresses it, very. 63. the words that he spake unto them; especially concerning his incarnation, and his dying to make atonement for sin. These articles of the Christian faith being particularly understood here, give peculiar propriety to the metaphors of eating Christ’s flesh, and drinking his blood, by which the whole of that faith, with all its divine fruits, is denominated. The reason is, of all the discoveries made by Christ, those concerning his incarnation, and the nature and ends of his own death, received and meditated upon by a lively faith, afford sovereign and salutary nourishment to the minds of sinners. They are as effectual for sustaining the spiritual life in the soul, as flesh, fitly prepared, is for nourishing the animal life in the body. Dr. Doddridge observes, that the phrase before us, except ye eat, &c. naturally expresses a lively and habitual regard to Christ as the great support of the spiritual life. The mention of his blood as naturally leads to the thought of his atonement; for we are elsewhere told, that we have redemption through his blood, Ephes. i.7. and boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, Heb. x. 19.

(Thomas Coke, A Commentary on the New Testament: Volume the First, [London: Printed for the Author, 1803], on John 6:53, p. 769.)

H. W. Watkins, Charles John Ellicott:

(53) Then Jesus said unto them.—This is hardly strong enough for the original. It is rather, Jesus therefore said unto them. The words follow upon those he has heard from them.

Some of them have spoken of eating His flesh. Others may even have pressed this to the reductio ad horribile. Eat His flesh? Shall we, then, drink His blood too? In no less than seven passages of the Pentateuch had the eating of blood been forbidden (Gen. ix. 4; Lev. iii. 17; vii. 26, 27; xvii. 10-14; xix. 26; Deut. xii. 16, 23, 24; xv. 23); and we find in later times the strength of the feeling of abhorrence, as in 1 Sam. xiv. 32, and Ezek. xxxiii. 25, and in the decree of the first Judæo-Christian Council (Acts xv. 29). In the fullest of these passages (Lev. xvii. 10-14), the prohibition is grounded upon the facts that the blood is the physical seat of animal life, and that the blood maketh atonement for the soul. It was the life-element poured out before God instead of the life of the soul that sinned. Such would be the thoughts of those who strove among themselves as to what His words could mean; and to these thoughts He speaks with the “Verily, verily,” which ever expresses a spiritual truth that He alone could reveal.

Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man.—The words point more definitely than those which have gone before to His death. The blood is spoken of as distinct from the flesh, and in this is involved physical death. The eating the flesh would itself involve, as we have seen above, the thoughts of sacrifice and of sustenance, the removal of the death-penalty attached to sin, and the strength of life sustained by food. But the spiritual truth is fuller and deeper than this; and the true element of life in the soul depends upon such communion with Christ as is expressed by drinking the blood itself: that is, by receiving into the human spirit the atonement represented by it. and with this the very principle of life. They may not receive into the human frame the principle of animal life, but no man really has spiritual life who does not receive into the inmost source of his being the life-principle revealed in the person of Christ. This is to pass through and through his moral frame, like the blood which traverses the body—hidden from sight, but passing from the central heart through artery and vein, bearing life in its course to muscle, and nerve, and tissue. It is to traverse the soul, passing from the Eternal Life and Love, which is the heart of the universe, through the humanity of Christ, and carrying in its course life and energy for every child of man.

Life in you.—More exactly, life in yourselves. This is more fully expressed in verses 56 and 57.

(Charles John Ellicott, ed., The Gospel According to St. John: With Commentary by the Venerable H. W. Watkins, [London: Cassell and Company, Limited, 1910], on John 6:53, pp. 149-150.)

9. The Meaning of “Eating” and “Drinking” in the Sixth Chapter of John. Return to Outline.

B. F. Westcott:

To “eat” and to “drink” is to take to oneself by a voluntary act that which is without, 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.

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

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

(Augustine of Hippo, Homilies on the Gospel of John, 25.12; PL, 35:1602; trans. WSA, I/12:439. Cf. NPNF1, 7:164.) See also: ccel.org.

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

(Augustine of Hippo, Homilies on the Gospel of John, 26.1; PL, 35:1607; trans. WSA, I/12:450. Cf. NPNF1, 7:168.) See also: ccel.org.

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

(Augustine of Hippo, Homilies on the Gospel of John, 26.18; PL, 35:1614; trans. WSA, I/12:464. Cf. NPNF1, 7:173.) See also: ccel.org.

D. A. Carson:

Verses 54 and 40 are closely parallel: ‘Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day’ (v. 54); ‘. . . everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day’ (v. 40). The only substantial difference is that one speaks of eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking Jesus’ blood, while the other, in precisely the same conceptual location, speaks of looking to the Son and believing in him. The conclusion is obvious: the former is the metaphorical way of referring to the latter. Indeed, we have seen that this link is supported by the structure of the entire discourse. Small wonder that Augustine of Hippo wrote, Crede, et manducasti (‘Believe, and you have eaten’).

(D. A. Carson, The Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Gospel According to John, [Nottingham: Apollos, 2006], on John 6:53-54, p. 297.)

Note: John 6:40: …ἵνα πᾶς ὁ θεωρῶν τὸν υἱὸν καὶ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον, καὶ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν ἐγὼ [ἐν] τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ. Cf. John 6:54: ὁ τρώγων μου τὴν σάρκα καὶ πίνων μου τὸ αἷμα ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον, κἀγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ.

Alexander Balmain Bruce:

This mention by Jesus of His flesh as the bread from heaven gave rise to a new outburst of murmuring among His hearers. “They strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” Jesus had not yet said that His flesh must be eaten, but they took for granted that such was His meaning. They were right; and accordingly He went on to say, with the greatest solemnity and emphasis, that they must even eat His flesh and drink His blood. Unless they did that, they should have no life in them; if they did that, they should have life in all its fulness—life eternal both in body and in soul. For His flesh was the true food, and His blood was the true drink. They who partook of these would share in His own life. He should dwell in them, incorporated with their very being; and they should dwell in Him as the ground of their being. They should live as secure against death by Him, as He lived from everlasting to everlasting by the Father. “This, therefore,” said the Speaker, reverting in conclusion to the proposition with which He started, “this (even My flesh) is that bread which came down from heaven; not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.”

…And how, then, is this wondrous bread to be appropriated that one may experience its vitalizing influences? Bread, of course, is eaten; but what does eating in this case mean? It means, in one word, faith. “He that cometh to Me shall never hunger, and he that believeth in Me shall never thirst.”[fn. 1: John vi. 35.] Eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood, and, we may add, drinking the water of which He spake to the woman by the well, all signify believing in Him as He is offered to men in the gospel: the Son of God manifested in the flesh, crucified, raised from the dead, ascended into glory; the Prophet, the Priest, the King, and the Mediator between God and man. Throughout the Capernaum discourse eating and believing are used interchangeably as equivalents. Thus, in one sentence, we find Jesus saying, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on Me hath everlasting life: I am that bread of life;”[fn. 2: Vers. 47, 48.] and shortly after remarking, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever.”[fn. 3: Ver. 51.] If any further argument were necessary to justify the identifying of eating with believing, it might be found in the instruction given by the Preacher to His hearers before He began to speak of the bread of life: “This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He hath sent.”[fn. 4: Ver. 29.] That sentence furnishes the key to the interpretation of the whole subsequent discourse. “Believe,” said Jesus, with reference to the foregoing inquiry, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?—“Believe, and thou hast done God’s work.” “Believe,” we may understand Him as saying with reference to an inquiry, How shall we eat this bread of life?—“Believe, and thou hast eaten.”

Believe, and thou hast eaten: such was the formula in which Augustine expressed his view of Christ’s meaning in the Capernaum discourse.[fn. 6: Crede et manducasti.—In Joannis Evangelium Tract. xxv. § 12.] The saying is not only terse, but true, in our judgment; but it has not been accepted by all interpreters. Many hold that eating and faith are something distinct, and would express the relation between them thus: Believe, and thou shalt eat. Even Calvin objected to the Augustinian formula. Distinguishing his own views from those held by the followers of Zwingli, he says: “To them to eat is simply to believe. I say that Christ’s flesh is eaten in believing, because it is made ours by faith, and that that eating is the fruit and effect of faith. Or more clearly: To them eating is faith, to me it seems rather to follow from faith.”[fn. 1: Calv. Institutio IV.xvii.5.]

The distinction taken by Calvin between eating and believing seems to have been verbal rather than real. With many other theologians, however, it is far otherwise. All upholders of the magical doctrines of transubstantiation and consubstantiation contend for the literal interpretation of the Capernaum discourse even in its strongest statements. Eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood are, for such, acts of the mouth, accompanied perhaps with acts of faith, but not merely acts of faith. It is assumed for the most part as a matter of course, that the discourse recorded in the sixth chapter of John’s Gospel has reference to the sacrament of the Supper, and that only on the hypothesis of such a reference can the peculiar phraseology of the discourse be explained. Christ spoke then of eating His flesh and drinking His blood, so we are given to understand, because He had in His mind that mystic rite ere long to be instituted, in which bread and wine should not merely represent, but become, the constituent elements of His crucified body.

A second point on which we are clear is, that it is quite unnecessary to assume a mental reference by anticipation to the Holy Supper, in order to account for the peculiarity of Christ’s language in this famous discourse. As we saw at the beginning, the whole discourse rose naturally out of the present situation. The mention by the people of the manna naturally led Jesus to speak of the bread of life; and from the bread He passed on as naturally to speak of the flesh and the blood, because He could not fully be bread until He had become flesh and blood dissevered, i.e. until He had endured death. All that we find here might have been said, in fact, although the sacrament of the Supper had never existed. The Supper is of use not so much for interpreting the sermon as for establishing its credibility as an authentic utterance of Jesus. There is no reason to doubt that He who instituted the mystic feast, could also have preached this mystic sermon.

(Alexander Balmain Bruce, The Training of the Twelve; Or, Passages out of the Gospels: Sixth Edition, [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1906], pp. 134-135, 138-140.)

Cf. John 6:26-29, 33-35, 40, 47-51, 53-55:

Jesus answered them and said, “Amen, amen, I say to you, you are looking for me not because you saw signs but because you ate the loaves and were filled. Do not work for food that perishes but for the food that endures for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him the Father, God, has set his seal.” So they said to him, “What can we do to accomplish the works of God?” Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent.” . . . For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” So they said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.” Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst. . . . For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him (on) the last day.” . . . Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.” . . . Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

(New American Bible.)

Gregg R. Allison:

First, the parallelism between Jesus’s affirmation, “Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day” (v. 54), and his earlier affirmation, “everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day” (v. 40), underscores that the proper interpretative approach is to understand that “the former is the metaphorical way of referring to the latter.” Accordingly, in the first part of the discourse, Jesus speaks directly about believing in him for eternal life, leading to resurrection on the last day. In the second part, he metaphorically repeats the first idea, now with feeding on his flesh and drinking his blood for eternal life, leading to resurrection. To take this metaphorical expression as a reference to the bread and cup of the Eucharist makes the sacrament necessary for salvation, thus contradicting Jesus’s emphasis on faith in the earlier part of his discourse. Second, Jesus’s point that, on the last day, he will resurrect people who consume him, “proves he does not think that eating the flesh and drinking the blood themselves immediately confer resurrection/immortality.”

(Gregg R. Allison, Roman Catholic Theology and Practice: An Evangelical Assessment, [Wheaton: Crossway, 2014], p. 314.) Preview.

R. C. Sproul:

I believe that Jesus is speaking here not about the Lord’s Supper but about the same subject He addressed in His conversation with the Samaritan woman (John 4:1-26), when He talked about the living water that He would give. In short, I believe Jesus was making the point that He is the giver of supernatural life, the living Redeemer who had been sent by the living God to impart eternal life to all who put their trust in Him. Furthermore, He was calling for a deep commitment. He told His disciples: “You have to come into Me, be united to Me, feast upon Me—not just have a casual relationship to Me.” He was calling His followers to a wholehearted pursuit of union with Him—a union without which there is no spiritual life.

To put it another way, Jesus declared that religion won’t do it. Church attendance won’t do it. Good works in and of themselves won’t do it. The only thing that gets us into the kingdom of God, by which we participate in the gift of eternal life, is union with Christ Jesus. To emphasize this, our Lord said, “You have to take all of Me, as if you were ingesting Me.”

(R. C. Sproul, John: St. Andrew’s Expositional Commentary, [Sanford: Reformation Trust, 2016], p. 124.)

Michael P. V. Barrett:

(Joel R. Beeke, Michael P. V. Barrett, A Radical, Comprehensive Call to Holiness, [Glasgow: Bell & Bain, 2021], p. 43.)

Mark Johnston:

We need only understand that Jesus is using language that points to intimate communion. Just as the shared life of the persons of the Godhead is bound up with the intimate and eternal communion they enjoy, so the new life of the believer is bound up with the profound union and communion he or she has with Christ (6:57). The life of faith then is the life of conscious recognition of what Christ is as Son of God and as Savior of the world, and conscious dependence upon him for new life in fellowship with God.

(Mark Johnston, Let’s Study John, [Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2003], p. 104.)

Note: Cf. John 4:13-14, 34: Jesus answered and said to her, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again; but whoever drinks the water I shall give will never thirst; the water I shall give will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” . . . Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of the one who sent me and to finish his work. (NAB).

Cf. Eric Svendsen:

(Eric Svendsen, Evangelical Answers: A Critique of Current Roman Catholic Apologists, [Lindenhurst: Reformation Press, 1999], p. 181.)

Cf. Francis Turretin:

John Calvin:

He who eateth my flesh. This is a repetition, but is not superfluous; for it confirms what was difficult to be believed, That souls feed on his flesh and blood, in precisely the same manner that the body is sustained by eating and drinking. Accordingly, as he lately testified that nothing but death remains for all who seek life anywhere else than in his flesh, so now he excites all believers to cherish good hope, while he promises to them life in the same flesh.

(John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel According to John: Volume First, trans. William Pringle, [Edinburgh: Printed for the Calvin Translation Society, 1847], on John 6:54, pp. 265-266.)

James Montgomery Boice:

Some well-known verses in John 6 also speak of faith in Christ and of a spiritual feeding on him, though they do not speak literally of the Lord’s Supper, since that sacrament had not yet been instituted.

…If we want synonyms for “eat” and “drink,” we find them in John 6 in such concepts as believe (vv. 29, 35, 47), come (v. 35), see (v. 40), hear and learn of (v. 45). All indicate a response to Jesus. The terms eat and drink stress that this feeding by faith is to be as real as literal eating.

(James Montgomery Boice, Foundations of the Christian Faith: A Comprehensive & Readable Theology, [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1986], p. 605.)

Marianne Meye Thompson:

In John 6, “flesh and blood” refer quite literally to Jesus portrayed as a sacrificial victim. But continuing the imagery of the earlier part of the discourse, “eating” and “drinking” refer to taking these into oneself through faith.[fn. 108: The psalmist exhorts one to “taste and see that the LORD is good” (Ps 34:8) and declares that he “thirsts for God” (Pss 42:2; 63:1; 143:6). God’s word or Torah provides nourishment (Deut 8:3; Isa 55:1-3); the failure to hear it can be described as a famine (Amos 8:11).]

(Marianne Meye Thompson, John: A Commentary, [Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2015], p. 155.)

Cf. Marianne Meye Thompson:

Jesus’ flesh, both his life and death, is “true food” and his blood “true drink” in that it accomplishes the ends of food and drink: it gives life (6:54-55). Those who do not eat do not have life within them (en heautois, 6:53). This phrasing echoes earlier statements where Jesus claims that “as the Father has life in himself, so also he has granted the Son to have life in himself” (en heautō, 5:26). Here is a parallel between Jesus and believers: the living Father has life in himself, which he grants to the Son, who may in turn give life to believers (4:14; 7:37). Those who eat the bread of life have taken life into themselves, but they do not become the source of life for others.

(Marianne Meye Thompson, John: A Commentary, [Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2015], pp. 155-156.)

Charles Hodge:

Again, the Scriptures so clearly and variously teach that those who believe in Christ; who receive the record God has given of his Son; who receive Him; who flee to Ilim for refuge; who lay hold of Him as their God and Saviour, shall never perish but have eternal life; it is plain that what is expressed in Jolin vi. by eating the flesh of Christ and drinking his blood, must be the same thing that is elsewhere expressed in the various ways just referred to. When we eat our food we receive and appropriate it to the nourishment of our bodies; so to eat the flesh of Christ, is to receive and appropriate Him and his sacrificial work for the life of our souls. Without this appropriation of Christ to ourselves we have no life; with it, we have life eternal, for He is our life. As this appropriation is an act of faith, it is by believing that we eat his flesh and drink his blood.

(Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology: Vol. III, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1884], p. 643.)

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.

(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. 307.) Preview.

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.)

C. K. Barrett:

Verse 56 insists that ‘eating and drinking’ means mutual indwelling. We have in this verse an identity, and the indwelling is as much an explanation of what ‘eating and drinking’ means as vice versa; this simply takes up the earlier part of the discourse. Verse 57 is more important still because (like, e.g., 17.18; 20.21) it draws a parallel between the relation of the believer to Christ and the relation of Christ to the Father. There is only one sense in which it can be said that Jesus the Son feeds upon the Father; this is given by the words of 4.34, ‘My food is to do the will of him that sent me.’ Jesus lives by and for the Father (διὰ τὸν Πατέρα) who sent him; the believer lives by and for Jesus (δι’ ἐμέ) and thus ‘eats and drinks’ Jesus as Jesus ‘eats and drinks’ the Father, in obedience and faith. Verse 58 makes the same point negatively: the fathers in the desert ate the manna and the flesh of the quails in a literal sense, but believers will eat οὐ καθὼς ἔφαγον οἱ πατέρες. The whole discourse is about this kind of relation between the believer and Jesus, this kind of feeding upon the bread of life. The image of feeding, however, finds a focus in the Eucharist, and John uses this, just as he uses that other focus, the miracle of the loaves, but he is careful to show that each of these is not an end in itself but points to a more significant kind of relation.

(C. K. Barrett, Essays on John, [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1982], “The Flesh of the Son of Man”, John 6.53, p. 44.)

Arthur W. Pink:

“Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” This confirms our interpretation of the previous verse. If we compare it with v. 47 it will be seen at once the “eating” is equivalent to “believing.” Note, too, that the tense of the verbs is the same: v. 47 “believeth,” v. 54 “eateth.” And observe how each of these are evidences of eternal life, already in possession of the one thus engaged: “He that believeth on me hath eternal life”; “Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life.”

(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.)

Frédéric Louis Godet:

As the infinite life of nature becomes capable of appropriation by man only so far as it is concentrated in a fruit or a piece of bread, so the divine life is only brought within our reach so far as it is incarnated in the Son of man. It is thus that He is for us the bread of life. Only, as we must take the piece of bread and assimilate it to ourselves in order to obtain physical life by its means, we must, also, in order to have the higher life, incorporate into ourselves the person of the Son of man by the inward act of faith, which is the mode of spiritual manducation. By eating Him, who lives by God, we possess the life of God. The living Father lives in One, but in this One He gives Himself to all. This is not metaphysics; it is the most practical morals, as every believer well knows. Jesus therefore reveals here at once the secret of His own life and of that of His followers. Here is the mystery of salvation, which St. Paul describes as “the summing up of all things in one” (Eph. i. 10). The Lord sought thus to make clear to the Jews what appeared to them incredible: that one man could be for all others the source of life. The formula here given by Christ is of course that of His earthly life; that of His divine life was given in ver. 26. It follows from these words that no other even miraculous food can give life.

(F. Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John: Vol. II, trans. Timothy Dwight, [New York:Funk & Wagnalls, 1893], p. 39. Cf. 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], pp. 213-214.)

William Barclay:

Jesus said we must drink his blood. In Jewish thought the blood stands for the life. It is easy to understand why. As the blood flows from a wound, life ebbs away; and to the Jew, the blood belonged to God. That is why to this day a true Jew will never eat any meat which has not been completely drained of blood. “Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood” (Genesis 9: 4). “Only you shall not eat its blood” (Deuteronomy 15: 23). Now see what Jesus is saying—“You must drink my blood—you must take my life into the very centre of your being—and that life of mine is the life which belongs to God.” When Jesus said we must drink his blood he meant that we must take his life into the very core of our hearts.

What does that mean? Think of it this way. Here in a bookcase is a book which a man has never read. It may be the glory and the wonder of the tragedies of Shakespeare; but so long as it remains unread upon his bookshelves it is external to him. One day he takes it down and reads it. He is thrilled and fascinated and moved. The story sticks to him; the great lines remain in his memory; now when he wants to, he can take that wonder out from inside himself and remember it and think about it and feed his mind and his heart upon it. Once the book was outside him. Now it is inside him and he can feed upon it. It is that way with any great experience in life. It remains external until we take it within ourselves.

It is so with Jesus. So long as he remains a figure in a book he is external to us; but when he enters into our hearts we can feed upon the life and the strength and the dynamic vitality that he gives to us. Jesus said that we must drink his blood. He is saying: “You must stop thinking of me as a subject for theological debate; you must take me into you, and you must come into me; and then you will have real life.” That is what Jesus meant when he spoke about us abiding in him and himself abiding in us.

(William Barclay, The Gospel of John: Volume 1: Revised Edition, [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1975], pp. 224-225.)

Matthew Poole:

…it is plain from ver. 29, that the eating here spoken of is believing…

(Matthew Pool[e], Annotations Upon the Holy Bible: In Three Volumes: Vol. III, [London: James Nisbet and Co., 1852], on John 6:53, p. 311.)

9.1. Some Objections and Answers. Return to Outline.

Objection 1.

Raymond E. Brown, S.S.:

The Meaning of “the Living Bread” in vss. 51-58

(Raymond E. Brown, S.S., The Anchor Bible: Volume 29: The Gospel According to John (i-xii), [Garden City: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1987], pp. 284, 287.)

Reply 1.

Robert H. Mounce:

Several objections have been raised to this sacramental interpretation. Verse 54 states in an unqualified manner that it is those who eat Jesus’ flesh and drink his blood who have eternal life. If taken sacramentally, this would mean that the only requirement for salvation is to partake of the Eucharist, a position at odds with NT teaching as a whole. Second, the word that Jesus uses for flesh is sarx, while in every NT text that uses the words of institution (Mt 26:26; Mk 14:22; Lk 22:19; 1Co 11:24) the word is sōma (“body”). Variation in a ritual formula would be highly unlikely. Third, the parallel relationship between v.54 and v.40 indicates that eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood is a metaphorical way of expressing looking to the Son and believing in him. Carson, 297, writes that this “conclusion is obvious” and quotes Augustine’s famous dictum, “Believe, and you have eaten.” Finally, in v.63 we will learn that the things Jesus has been telling them “are spiritual and are life” (Phillips); “the flesh confers no benefit whatever” (Weymouth). So Jesus in his “bread of life” discourse is not speaking directly of the Lord's Supper. It does not follow, however, that what he is saying has no relevance to Holy Communion. Bruce, 161, writes that Jesus “does expound the truth which the Lord’s Supper conveys.” Carson, 298, arrives at the same conclusion: “In short, John 6 does not directly speak of the eucharist; it does expose the true meaning of the Lord’s Supper as clearly as any passage in Scripture.”

9.2. Once-For-All or Ongoing Action? 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.)

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.

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:

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.

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.

Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer:

(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:

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.)

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.

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.)

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.)

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.

10. The Meaning of “Flesh” and “Blood” in the Old and New Testaments. Return to Outline.

(1.) Whenever both the words “flesh” and “blood” occur paired together in the Old Testament in the context of both “eating” and “drinking” (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 17:11, 14; Deuteronomy 12:23; 32:42; Isaiah 49:26; Ezekiel 39:17-18) they constitute an idiomatic expression for “the totality of life, vitality and strength”. The only exception being Psalm 50:13, in which God, speaking through the Psalmist, poses the rhetorical question: “Do I eat the flesh of bulls or drink the blood of he-goats?” (New American Bible: Revised Edition), which underscores that He does not literally need or consume these offerings. The essence of what God seeks from His people is not the physical act of sacrifice but the intention, obedience, and heart behind it (cf. 1 Samuel 15:22; Hosea 6:6; Psalm 51:16-17; Proverbs 21:3; Isaiah 1:11-17; Micah 6:6-8; Matthew 9:13; 12:7; etc.)

(2.) Whenever the words “flesh” and “blood” occur paired together in the New Testament (Matthew 16:17; 1 Corinthians 15:50; Galatians 1:16; Ephesians 6:12; Hebrews 2:14), outside of John 6, they constitute an idiomatic expression for “the whole person”. This consistent usage across both Testaments establishes a linguistic and theological pattern that should inform our interpretation of John 6. (The use of the pronoun “me” [με] in place of “my flesh” and “my blood” in John 6:57 further emphasizes that the entire person of Christ is being referred to—the totality of His life (death, resurrection and ascension), vitality and strength.)

(3.) Given this pattern, there is very little exegetical basis for assigning a different meaning to “flesh” and “blood” in John 6—particularly since the word “flesh” is absent from all accounts of the institution of the Lord’s Supper (Matthew 26:17-30; Mark 14:12-26; Luke 22:7-23) and from Paul’s discussion in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26. This omission underscores the spiritual, rather than somatic, significance of these terms in relation to Jesus’ teaching.—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 documentation, see: “Did Jesus Speak Greek?”

(4.) Moreover, John 6:56 states: “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains [μένει, or abides] in me and I in him” (New American Bible). Here, “eating” and “drinking” flesh and blood signify mutual indwelling [μένω]—a profound spiritual unity between Christ and the believer. Our “abiding” in Christ is no more a process of somatic (corporeal) transubstantiation than His abiding in us (cf. John 15:4-8). Hence St. Augustine’s succinct assessment of John 6: “Why do you prepare your teeth and stomach? Believe, and you have eaten [Utquid paras dentes et ventrem? crede, et manducasti].” (In Joannis Evangelium Tractatus, 25.12; PL, 35:1602.)

(5.) For an in-depth discussion of St. John’s use of and τρώγω, see: Transubstantiation and John 6: τρώγω, trōgō, (John 6:54) Does Not Imply Physical Eating.

(6.) The Bread of Life discourse, through symbolic (spiritual) language, conveys the same truth that the Last Supper expresses through symbolic (spiritual) action—that the crucified Christ is the source of life for humanity and our only hope of salvation.

(a.) Symbols are vehicles which participate (or abide) in the reality which they convey (and make intelligible), while remaining distinct from the reality itself—St. Augustine emphasized this distinction when he observed: “to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage” [ut autem litteram sequi, et signa pro rebus quæ iis significantur accipere, servilis infirmitatis est]. (De Doctrina Christiana, 3.9.13; PL, 34:71.) This understanding does not diminish the sacramental significance of the Eucharist (or the reality of Christ’s presence) but rather emphasizes its role as a sign pointing to the reality and efficacy of Christ’s atoning sacrifice.

Sources.

E. W. Hengstenberg:

(E. W. Hengstenberg, Commentary on the Gospel of St. John: Volume I, Clark’s Foreign Theological Library: Fourth Series: Vol. V., [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1865], pp. 350-351, 352-353.)

Ethelbert William Bullinger:

flesh . . . blood. By the Fig. of speech Synecdoche (of the Part), Ap. 6, this idiom is put for the whole Person. . . . cp. Matt. 16.17. 1Cor. 15.50. Gal. 1:16, Eph. 6.12. Hebr. 2:14.

Albert Kirk, Robert E. Obach:

Flesh and blood were a Semitic way of speaking about the whole person. Eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood is a way of describing the intimate relationship of the believer with the risen Jesus.

(Albert Kirk, Robert E. Obach, A Commentary on the Gospel of John, [New York/Ramsey/Toronto: Paulist Press, 1981], p. 105.)

D. A. Carson:

The Father sent Jesus (cf. notes on 3:17; 20:21), and he is the living Father, the God who has life-in-himself (as in 5:26). This living God, in sending the Son, established that he would also have life-in-himself: the argument is a compressed form of 5:21, 24-27. In an analogous way, Jesus says, the one who feeds (trōgō; cf. notes on vv. 53-54) on me (the use of the pronoun me, replacing ‘my flesh’ and ‘my blood’ in v. 56, confirms that the whole person of Christ is in view, not merely eucharistic elements) will live because of me. Jesus lives because of the Father, i.e. because of the Father’s determination that Jesus should have life-in-himself (5:26); those who feed on Jesus live (Jesus says) because of me: there is both parallelism and breach of parallelism. Clearly, they live because of the Son’s determination, but unlike him they never have life-in-themselves, but only in him. For the Christian, eternal life is always mediated through Jesus. However mystical the language of the Fourth Gospel, John cannot imagine any genuine spiritual life that is independent of Jesus.

(D. A. Carson, The Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Gospel According to John, [Nottingham: Apollos, 2006], on John 6:53-54, pp. 298-299.)

Andreas J. Köstenberger:

John 6:56 adds the result of a believer’s partaking of Jesus’ flesh and blood: mutual indwelling. This anticipates the fuller treatment of this phenomenon in John 15. . . . The personal pronoun με (me, me) instead of “my flesh/blood” further seems to suggest that sacramental overtones are at best secondary (Carson 1991: 299).

(Andreas J. Köstenberger, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: John, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004], pp. 216, 216-217.) Preview.

Cf. Andreas J. Köstenberger:

“Flesh and blood” is a Hebrew idiom referring to the whole person (cf. Matt. 16:17; 1 Cor. 15:50; Gal. 1:16; Eph. 6:12; Heb. 2:14).

(G. K. Beale, D. A. Carson, eds., Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007], p. 451.)

Cf. Andreas Köstenberger:

(Jeremy Royal Howard, gen. ed., The Holman Apologetics Commentary on the Bible: The Gospels and Acts, [Nashville: Holman Reference, 2013], p. 546.) Preview.

Barnabas Lindars:

The choice of phrase is . . . intended to draw attention to the Incarnation and the Passion. . . . Flesh and blood denote the real humanity of Jesus (cf. Mt. 16.17). It is the actual, historical Jesus who is to be taken and assimilated by the believer. According to 1 C. 11.26, in the Eucharist the Christians ‘proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes’. It is Christ, who lived and died and rose again, who is to be received as the revelation of the Father.

. . .

abides in me: this is the climax of the discourse. All the metaphors are dropped, and the whole thing is put into terms of personal relationship. The mutual indwelling of Jesus and the disciples will be elaborated in the allegory of the Vine—again a eucharistic theme—in chapter 15. John’s thought never moves in ontological or quasi-magical categories. As the mode of receiving Jesus is to ‘come to’ him and to ‘believe in’ him, so the effect must be put into terms of personal, ethical, relationship. It is this relationship which persists beyond the present age to the time of the general resurrection.

(Barnabas Lindars, ed., New Century Bible: The Gospel of John, [London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972], pp. 268, 269.)

Alternate Meaning?

John Marsh:

But two points may be noted: first, that John tells of no Jewish reply to this statement of Jesus; it may well be that John thus distinguishes that part of his discourse which he reckoned to represent words offered to the Jews from that which he reckoned as putting the same words more explicitly for Christian readers of the gospel. Second, that in Jewish thinking the twin terms ‘flesh and blood’ constitute a pair used in reference to the sacrificial giving and taking of life. [fn. *: For a most useful and erudite discussion of this point see the valuable work of Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, pp. 103-7.]

(John Marsh, The Gospel of St John, The Pelican Gospel Commentaries, [Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1968], p. 306.)

10.1. Excursus: The “Bread” of Life. Return to Outline.

Kenneth E. Bailey:

Middle Eastern villagers eat their meals by breaking off small pieces of bread, one at a time, and dipping them into the common dish and eating them. The very word bread has strong emotional overtones missing in English. The villager says, “We are a people who eat bread.” He means, “We are poor and have very little else to eat.” A man does not work to “make a living.” Rather he works to “eat bread.” Middle Eastern speech is full of idiomatic references to bread. Life itself is called “the eating of bread.” These attitudes toward bread are embedded throughout the Old and New Testaments. In the book of Job the wicked person is described as one who “wanders abroad for bread, saying, ‘Where it is?’” (Job 15:23), and Judas is referred to by Jesus as “He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me” (John 13:18). In the Lord’s Prayer we ask for bread, not food.

(Kenneth E. Bailey, The Cross & the Prodigal: Luke 15 Through the Eyes of Middle Eastern Peasants: Revised and Expanded, [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2005], p. 60.)

Cf. Exodus 16:4, 15, 31-32; Deuteronomy 8:3; Psalm 78:24‑25; 104:14‑15; 105:40; Isaiah 55:1-3; Matthew 4:4; 6:11; Luke 4:4; 11:3; John 6:35, 48-50.

10.2. Excursus: The OT Saints Ate the Same Flesh and Drank the Same Blood as the NT Saints. Return to Outline.

Note: For the Patristic consensus see: “Appendix: The OT Saints Ate the Same Flesh and Drank the Same Blood as the NT Saints—Historical Testimony.”

1 Corinthians 10:1-4:

I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea, and all of them were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. All ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink [καὶ πάντες τὸ αὐτὸ πνευματικὸν βρῶμα ἔφαγον καὶ πάντες τὸ αὐτὸ πνευματικὸν ἔπιον πόμα], for they drank from a spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was the Christ.

(New American Bible.)

Didache (c. 2nd Century A.D.):

You, almighty Master, created all things for your name’s sake, and gave food and drink to humans to enjoy, so that they might give you thanks; but to us you have graciously given spiritual food and drink [ἡμῖν δὲ ἐχαρίσω πνευματικὴν τροφὴν καὶ ποτόν], and eternal life through your servant.

(Didache, 10.3; trans. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations: 3rd Edition, ed. & trans. Michael W. Holmes, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007], p. 359.)

John Calvin:

Farther, when he says that the fathers ate the same spiritual meat, he shows, first, what is the virtue and efficacy of the Sacraments, and, secondly, he declares, that the ancient Sacraments of the Law had the same virtue as ours have at this day. For, if the manna was spiritual food, it follows, that it is not bare emblems that are presented to us in the Sacraments, but that the thing represented is at the same time truly imparted, for God is not a deceiver to feed us with empty fancies. A sign, it is true, is a sign, and retains its essence, but, as Papists act a ridiculous part, who dream of transformations, (I know not of what sort,) so it is not for us to separate between the reality and the emblem which God has conjoined. Papists confound the reality and the sign: profane men, as, for example, Suenckfeldius, and the like, separate the signs from the realities. Let us maintain a middle course, or, in other words, let us observe the connection appointed by the Lord, but still keep them distinct, that we may not mistakingly transfer to the one what belongs to the other.

It remains that we speak of the second point—the resemblance between the ancient signs and ours. It is a well-known dogma of the schoolmen—that the Sacraments of the ancient law were emblems of grace, but ours confer it. This passage is admirably suited for refuting that error, for it shows that the reality of the Sacrament was presented to the ancient people of God no less than to us. It is therefore a base fancy of the Sorbonists, that the holy fathers under the law had the signs without the reality. I grant, indeed, that the efficacy of the signs is furnished to us at once more clearly and more abundantly from the time of Christ’s manifestation in the flesh than it was possessed by the fathers. Thus there is a difference between us and them only in degree, or, (as they commonly say,) of “more and less,” for we receive more fully what they received in a smaller measure. It is not as if they had had bare emblems, while we enjoy the reality.

(John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians: Volume First, trans. John Pringle, [Edinburgh: Printed for the Calvin Translation Society, 1848], pp. 316-317.)

Anthony Tyrrell Hanson:

Christ’s real presence was common to both OT and NT sacraments. …It is a mistake to suggest that in Paul’s thought the pillar of cloud “prefigures” Christ. He believed that it was Christ in the same way that the Rock was Christ. …In fact Paul says that the Rock was Christ, not that it prefigured or prophesied Christ. K. J. Woollcombe seems to be getting nearer to the point when he says: “The events which the Fathers experienced in the Exodus directly corresponded to the events which he (Paul) and his contemporaries were experiencing, because Christ was the prime mover in both.” Unfortunately, however, he says in the same passage that in 1 Corinthians 10.4 Paul interpreted the Rock allegorically. Whatever Paul is doing here, he is not using allegory, and, I would add, he is not using typology either. In our review of English commentators we should make an honourable exception of T. C. Edwards. Of the words “the same” in verse 3 he makes the acute remark that it means “the same which we Christians eat”, not “the same for all Israelites”. This in itself would make the use of the word “type” inappropriate to these incidents. O. Cullmann, though he claims that the incident has a “typological significance”, explains it more in terms of real presence: “Paul does not intend absolutely to identify the following Rock with Christ, as if he had assumed the appearance of the Rock. The Messiah remains a spiritual reality.” But he adds that Christ is all the same not to be divorced from the actual Rock then or from the eucharistic gift now. “He is the same Christ, standing over both old and new covenant in his existence both before and after the incarnation, whose faithfulness to his people then as to-day Paul has emphasized by the words ‘which followed them’.”

(Anthony Tyrrell Hanson, Jesus Christ in the Old Testament, [Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2011; Previously published by SPCK, 1965], pp. 18-19.) Preview.

Francis Turretin:

V. The reasons are: first, Paul ascribes to the ancients our baptism and Supper in their mode, not certainly with regard to the signs (which were diverse), but with regard to the thing signified because the clouds and the passage through the sea signified and sealed to them what baptism does to us; and the manna and the water from the rock, what the Supper does to us (1 Cor. 10:1-4). Hence they are said “to have eaten the same spiritual meat, and to have drunk the same spiritual drink, for they drank of the Rock that followed them; and that Rock was Christ.” So that in the thing signified and in their effect they evidently agree with ours; nor have ours any prerogative above them. Now although those sacraments were not ordinary, but extraordinary (which were to continue for a short time), the argument is no less strong; yea, it is stronger. For if the same efficacy is ascribed to them which were instituted for a time (as to the new), much more must it be ascribed to the ordinary, which were to continue as long as the economy of the ancient church. Nor can it be said that they were not sacraments because they were common to brutes. Thus the baptism of Christ and the baptism of the eunuch would not be a sacrament because brutes also could drink of the waters of the Jordan. But distinguish the common use of the signs, according to which they are things purely natural (which beasts can use); and the peculiar or sacred use, according to which these are sacraments. Thus the manna and water according to the common use could be common to the brutes, but not as to the sacred use (of which we speak here). Hence Paul does not say spiritual manna and spiritual water, but spiritual meat and drink because the manna as manna and the water as water were corporeal things in the way of all beasts also; but they are only called spiritual inasmuch as the meat and drink were such (i.e., spiritually) as our sacraments are spiritual.

Cf. Francis Turretin:

VI. It is falsely added by Bellarmine that this “meat and drink” is called “spiritual,” not on account of their effect, but on account of the cause because each was produced miraculously by the help of angels. Hence the manna is called the food of angels. As if he who discourses concerning the use or abuse of sacraments should consider it sufficient to indicate the efficient cause (about which there was no controversy), the end and effect being passed over (which is what the principal question is about). Again, it is gratuitously supposed that the meat is called spiritual from the cause, since it is evident from the following words that it is so called from the effect or the signification of Christ when he adds “the Rock was Christ.” Not that Christ caused the streams to flow from the rock, but the rock itself was Christ. This cannot be said otherwise than spiritually, nor be understood otherwise than significatively (which is the effect of all sacraments). Otherwise Paul could not have said that the Israelites drank of that rock, which was Christ, if Christ was not set forth in it to be drunk symbolically. Therefore it is called spiritual meat and drink because it was not only to be perceived bodily with the mouth, but also spiritually by faith. This end is so much more excellent than the familiar and low one of nourishing the body as divine things are more excellent than earthly. Because many of the Israelites regarded it no more than brutes, on this account God most severely punished their contempt. Nor is it to be replied—if it is called spiritual food because it is spiritually understood—that the righteous only were to eat it, contrary to Paul, who asserts that all the fathers, even those who were not approved of God, eat the same food. It is one thing for food to be understood spiritually; another that it should be spiritually understood. The food is indeed called spiritual because it was to be spiritually understood according to the institution of God, but not as if it was forthwith spiritually understood by all, so that it could be eaten promiscuously by the good and bad (but by the former indeed according to the understood institution of God and by the latter through an abuse not understood).

VII. Bellarmine frivolously objects that Paul does not say, “the Israelites eat the same spiritual food with us, but with and among themselves.” (1) The design of the apostle is repugnant to it, which is to show that the Corinthians ought not to despise the judgments of God through confidence in external symbols by the example of the Israelites, who although they were equal to us as to the pledges of salvation and had the same sacraments with us as to the thing signified, could not escape the judgments of God (which would be plainly no argument at all, unless a comparison were instituted between the old and new sacraments). (2) The words cannot suffer this gloss, both because the name baptism is given to the passage through the sea (which would be done without reason, unless they agreed as to the thing signified and the effect) and the names manna and water from the rock to Christ (who is the signified thing of the Supper). Finally, no occasion was given to Paul for admonishing them so seriously that the fathers had eaten and drunk the same manna and the same water among themselves, since no one ever even in his dreams has thought that a varied and manifold kind of manna and water was exhibited to the Israelites. The passage which Bellarmine adduces to establish his opinion (Jn. 6:58) does not overthrow ours, but distinguishes the external symbol or the sacrament from the thing of the sacrament. For Christ means this—that the fathers who rested in that external shell and regarded in the manna nothing else than corporeal food did not draw from it spiritual life, but were dead; in like manner, they (among the Corinthians) who did not discern the Lord’s body and did not approach with greater reverence to the sacred than to a common table were punished by God and visited with diseases and death (1 Cor. 11:30). Nor can Christ thus speaking be said to have fostered the error of the Jews; rather he recalled them from the signs to the thing signified (i.e., to himself, in whom is life), teaching that a sacrament is nothing when (the spiritual food being secluded) the symbols alone are perceived.

C. K. Barrett:

Not only did the ancient Israelites have their own version of baptism, they also had a sacred meal analogous with the eucharist. They all ate the same . . . spiritual food (the manna, Exod. xvi. 4, 14-18), and they all drank the same . . . spiritual drink (Exod. xvii. 6; Num. xx. 7-13). It is hardly likely that Paul would have denied that the manna eaten and the water drunk by the Israelites were material food and drink; by spiritual he may mean that (like the bread and wine of the eucharist) they had a further significance in addition to their material function as food and drink for the body, or that they were symbolical, or typical, of the Christian sacrament. The word (πνευματικός) is usually employed by Paul to denote some thing (or person) that is the bearer or agent of the Holy Spirit (ix. 11; xii. 1; xiv. 1; xv. 44, 46; Rom. i. 11; vii. 14; xv. 27). If this is so here, both interpretations are possible: the food and drink actually conveyed spiritual (as well as material) sustenance to the Israelites, and at the same time were used by the Spirit as visible prophecies of what was still to be established.

(C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, [New York, Harper & Row, 1968], pp. 221-222.)

David E. Garland:

The emphasis instead is on the people’s unity: they all received the same spiritual blessings (Barrett 1968: 221- 22; Héring 1962: 86; Fee 1987: 446 n. 28). This affirmation prevents anyone from quibbling that some fell in the wilderness because they had somehow been left out of these privileges. All who died in the wilderness (10:5) had been recipients of God’s blessings.

(David E. Garland, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: 1 Corinthians, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003], p. 452.)

Pheme Perkins:

By speaking of spiritual food and spiritual drink Paul equates the wilderness sustenance with the bread and wine of the Christian meal. One should not attribute the apostasy of the Israelite ancestors to some inferiority in God’s presence, in Moses, or in the food. Paul contrasts the privileges that Israel had enjoyed: (a) under the cloud and through the sea (baptism), (b) eating and drinking spiritual food) and (c) accompanied by the spiritual rock (10:1b-4). That sharpens the tragedy of the desert veneration (10:5). Instances in which the Israelites angered God follow: (a) idolatry, (b) sexual immorality, (c) challenging the Lord, and (d) grumbling (10:6-10).

Lest his audience fall into the trap of thinking that being in Christ renders them immune to divine judgment, Paul discovers the presence of Christ with the Israelites: Now the rock was Christ (10:4).

(Pheme Perkins, First Corinthians, ΠΑΙΔΕΙΑ - Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012], p. 123.)

Albrecht Oepke:

In 1C. 10:1-13 Paul energetically combats a materialistic and superstitious estimation of baptism and the Lord’s Supper which would have it that their recipients are set free from every possibility of the divine wrath a view which differs essentially from the objective and genuinely sacramental understanding.

(Albrecht Oepke, “βάπτω, βαπτίζω, βαπτισμός βάπτισμα, βαπτιστής;” In: Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: Volume I, ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. & ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1969], p. 542.)

N. T. Wright:

No early Christian would have had much trouble decoding what Paul was saying. In case they did, he describes what happened like this, in verse 2: they were all ‘baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea’. People didn’t normally speak of the Exodus as a ‘baptism’; Paul is clearly telling the story so as to make his own point. And then we get the message: the cloud and the sea for the children of Israel are like the spirit and the baptism-water for Christians. Just as Jesus in John’s gospel spoke of being born again ‘by water and spirit’ (John 3.5), so Paul can speak in this letter of the washing and the spirit (6.11) or baptism in the spirit (12.13). What he wants to say is that Christians are enacting the same drama as the children of Israel did.

It isn’t just a parallel, as though similar events happen over and over again. It is also a sequence. The first Exodus established Israel as God’s people, but Israel’s story led to the decisive, one-off events concerning the Messiah, Jesus. Now Jesus’ people are God’s renewed Israel, and all those previous events are coming true in a new way in and through them. Or at least, they are supposed to be; but nothing happens automatically in the Christian life. Part of the way the fulfilment will be worked out is by the Christians realizing what part they are supposed to be playing and making sure they play it properly.

The children of Israel, then, were ‘baptized into Moses’, as Christians are ‘baptized into the Messiah’. The foundational events of the cloud and the water, the presence of God and the crossing of the Red Sea, made the Israelites ‘Moses’s people’, somewhat as baptism and the spirit make Christians ‘the Messiah’s people’. But then Paul adds the obvious third and fourth elements: they all ate the same food and drank the same drink — the ‘spiritual’ food and drink that God provided for them in the wilderness. This doesn’t of course mean that the food and drink weren’t real. Rather, it means that they were provided by God through the spirit. They didn’t just ‘occur naturally’. And once we realize that Paul, in verse 2, is drawing the parallel between the crossing of the Red Sea and Christian baptism, we should have no difficulty in realizing that in verse 3 he is making the similar parallel between God’s provision of special food for his people on the journey to their inheritance and God’s provision of the food and drink of the special Christian meal, the ‘Lord’s supper’, the eucharist.

The point Paul is working towards then comes into view. All the Israelites had these experiences, just as all you Corinthians have had. But God was displeased with most of them. It is a terrible warning not to presume on God’s kindness.

…Paul speaks in verse 4 of the ‘spiritual rock’ that followed the Israelites in the wilderness, and declares that ‘the rock was the Messiah’. Although the biblical story only records two incidents where water came out of the rock for the people to drink, some Jewish writers imagined that a rock, filled with water, had followed the people all the way. Paul, simply in order to make his point, that Christians are those who share in the food and drink which is the Messiah’s gift of his own self, goes along with this fanciful reading of the text, but insists that what was really going on was the hidden presence of the Messiah himself, the goal of all Israel’s wanderings, and their refreshment on the way.

(Tom Wright, Paul For Everyone: 1 Corinthians, [London: SPCK, 2004], pp. 122-123, 125.)

10.3. Excursus: “Flesh” and Ignatius. Return to Outline.

Leon Morris:

Many commentators speak as though the word “flesh” self-evidently marked a reference to Holy Communion. It, of course, does nothing of the sort. The word is not found in the narratives of the institution, nor in 1 Corinthians 10 or 11 in connection with the sacrament. Nor is it common in the Fathers in this sense. The usual word in sacramental usage is “body.” The last words of the verse bring before us once more the truth that the mission of Jesus is universal. He did not come to minister to the Jews only. When he gave his flesh it would be “for the life of the world.”[fn. 126: This is another expression not easy to reconcile with the sacramental reference. On Calvary Christ gave himself “for the life of the world,” but in the sacrament his gift is to the communicants there present, not to the world. It is perhaps not impossible to apply the words in some sense to the sacrament, but they refer much more naturally to the cross.]

(Leon Morris, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel According to John: Revised Edition, [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1995], pp. 331-332.)

Cf. Leon Morris:

125. Ignatius is usually said to use σάρξ in this way, but his words should be looked at very carefully. In Rom. 7:3 he says, “I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Christ who was of the seed of David.” This might be understood of the sacrament except that he immediately adds, “and for a draught I desire His blood, which is love incorruptible” (the blood is love also in Trall. 8:1). Moreover, the words occur in a passage in which Ignatius is seeking martyrdom (“I write to you in the midst of life, yet lusting after death”). He appears to be using a highly colored way of referring to death, when he would enter heavenly blessing. To refer the words to the sacrament, besides ignoring the context, is to make them a commonplace, scarcely worth saying. What Christian does not desire to receive the sacrament? Philad. 4:1 is clear enough, “Be ye careful therefore to observe one eucharist (for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ . . .),” but Philad. 11:2 (which Hoskyns, for example, cites) has nothing to do with the sacrament, the words being, “Jesus Christ, on whom their hope is set in flesh and soul and spirit.” Smyrn. 6:2 speaks of allowing that “the eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ,” but immediately goes on to say, “which flesh suffered for our sins, and which the Father of His goodness raised up.” Ignatius, moreover, refers to the gospel as “the flesh of Jesus” (Philad. 5:1), and again of faith as “the flesh of the Lord” (Trall. 8:1). It is clear that “flesh” for him is far from being a technical term pointing to the sacrament. In any case, we must bear in mind the verdict of such scholars as Helmut Koester, “Σάρξ does not mean the same to John and Ignatius” (“The Bultmann School of Biblical Interpretation: New Directions?” Journal for Theology and the Church, I [1965], p. 114). Justin Martyr speaks of Christ as “having been made flesh by the Word of God . . . the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh” (Apol. 1.66). But writers like Irenaeus consistently use “body,” not “flesh,” of the sacrament, and so do ancient liturgies like those of Hippolytus, Serapion, St. James, etc. J. Jeremias suggests that the Aramaic behind the words of institution in the Gospels was הֵן בְּשְׂרִי, which might readily be rendered in Greek by σάρξ. He regards John 6:51c as “the Johannine tradition of the word of interpretation over the bread” (The Eucharistic Words, p. 141 and n. 13). The possibility that Jesus used the Aramaic בִּשְׂרָא and that this might readily be rendered in Greek by σάρξ is undoubted. All that I am contending is that in point of fact, when referring to the Eucharist, the custom was to use σώμα (whatever the original Aramaic may have been), so that the occurrence of σάρξ in itself cannot be held to point to the sacrament.

(Leon Morris, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel According to John: Revised Edition, [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1995], p. 332.)

Note: The context of Ignatius is union with Christ and his impending martyrdom, not the eucharistic elements.

Note: For the argument against, see: 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], pp. clxvii-clxix.

Helmut Koester:

Yet this unanimity is only an apparent one. Σάρξ does not mean the same to John and Ignatius.

For Ignatius σάρξ is a sphere which corresponds to the other sphere πνεῦμα. Therefore the statement of the fleshly appearance of Jesus always appears together with the other statement of his pneumatic existence:

Eph. 7:2: εἰς ἰατρὸς ἐστιν, σαρκικός τε καὶ πνευματικός, γεννητὸς καὶ ἀγέννητος, ἐν σαρκὶ γενόμενος θεός, ἐν θανάτῳ ζωὴ ἀληθινή, καὶ ἐκ Μαρίας καὶ ἐκ θεοῦ, πρῶτον παθητὸς καὶ τότε ἀπαθής, Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν.

Smyrn. 3:3: . . . συνέφαγεν αὐτοῖς καὶ συνέπιεν ὡς σαρκικός, καὶπερ πνευματικῶς ἡνωμένος τῷ πατρί.

Even if this terminology is dualistic in origin, the examples presented here (they can easily be multiplied) | show that Ignatius’ thought is not essentially dualistic, but rather a soteriological “monism.” Two spheres, flesh and spirit, things procreated and things unbegotten, man and God, are made a unity in Christ. There is no irreconcilable antagonism like that which is characteristic of genuine dualism where the battle is to the end and the battlecry is irreversible separation. In Ignatius the theme is synthesis and unity which is present in perfection with the person of the Redeemer who is both flesh and spirit at once. The presupposition for this description of the Redeemer and his work is the Hellenistic concept of substances, which makes possible the thought of a unification of two spheres, if they are conceived of as substances. According to Ignatius, this unification has been accomplished in Christ who, being spirit, took on flesh also.

In the Gospel of John, especially in the prologue, a truly dualistic concept seems to appear: The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it (Jn. 1:5). The statement “light and darkness” is impossible for the Gospel of John. The opposites are irreconcilable. Yet the statement about the Logos becoming flesh neither belongs in the categories of such an antithetical dualism nor does it intend to describe the accomplishment of a synthesis as it does in Ignatius.

The term σάρξ, rare in the Gospel of John anyway, as a rule is neutral and simply designates the world in terms of the things which are in existence, in terms of that which belongs to man and to history, but never the world as hostile to God (Jn. 1:14; also 8:15; 17:21). Σάρξ is used in contrast to πνεῦμα only twice: Jn. 3:6 and 6:63. Both times, however, we are not dealing with a dualistic statement, but with a general maxim about the impossibility of taking possession of the divine by means of natural criteria: It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is useless.

If σάρξ, therefore, is the neutral sphere of that which belongs to man and history, the fundamental assertion Jn. 1:14: ὁ λόγος σάρξ ἐγένετο, says that the divine Logos comes into the historical realm of human existence, not in order to bring about a uniting of metaphysical substances, but in order to work as the historical word of a historical man.

(Helmut Koester, “History and Cult in the Gospel of John and in Ignatius of Antioch;” In: The Bultmann School of Biblical Interpretation: New Directions? Journal for Theology and the Church: 1, ed. Robert W. Funk, [Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1965], pp. 114-115.)

J. B. Lightfoot:

(J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers: Part II: Vol. II: Sect. I, [London: Macmillan and Co., 1885], p. 226.)

Cf. Walter Bauer:

It is quite clear that the expressions used here are taken from the language of the Eucharist. Equally certain, however, is that we are not prepared for any exposition of Ignatius’ stance on the Eucharist in this context. Rather, we expect to hear that he, instead of indulging in the pleasures of this world, wishes to reach Christ through martyrdom. We may therefore assume that the experience of communion with Christ, which martyrdom makes possible, is described using imagery borrowed from the Eucharistic language. [Es ist ohne weiteres klar, daß die hier verwendeten Ausdrücke dem Abendmahlssprachgebrauch entnommen sind. Ebenso gewiß aber ist, daß wir in unserem Zusammenhang auf keine Darlegung der Stellung des Ign. zur Eucharistie gefaßt sind. Wir erwarten vielmehr zu hören, daß er, statt sich den Freuden dieser Welt hinzugeben, durch den Zeugentod zu Christus zu gelangen wünscht. Wir dürfen also wohl annehmen, daß der Genuß der Gemeinschaft mit Christus, die das Martyrium ermöglicht, mit Bildern, die dem Abendmahlsgebrauch entlehnt sind, geschildert wird.]

(Walter Bauer, Die Apostolischen Väter II: Die Briefe des Ignatius von Antiochia und der Polykarpbrief, Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, Ergänzungs-Band, [Tübingen: Verlag von J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1920], p. 252.)

Cf. Franciscus Xaverius Funk:

The context shows that Ignatius is speaking about union with Christ or the enjoyment of God in heaven, of whose martyrdom he hopes to become a participant; however, the images he uses are taken from the Eucharist. [Contextus docet, Ignatium de unione cum Christo vel de Dei fruitione in caelo loqui, cuius martyrio se participem fieri sperat; imagines autem, quibus utitur, de eucharistia desumptae sunt.]

(Franciscus Xaverius Funk, Patres Apostolici: Volumem I: Editio II, Adaucta et Emendata, [Tübingen: In Libraria Henrici Laupp, 1901], p. 261.)

Cf. William R. Schoedel:

Opposed to such food is the “bread of God” (cf. Eph. 5.2; Rom. 4.1) which is Christ’s flesh and the drink, Christ’s blood, which is “incorruptible love.” There is a curious lack of symmetry in the statement. We expect a comparison between bread and flesh and between drink and blood (John 6:51, 55) or a comparison between flesh and faith and between blood and love (Tr. 8.1). Zahn thought the lack of symmetry significant and argued that the expression “which is incorruptible love” must refer to both the bread and drink and thus represent a reference to ἀγάπη as the “love-feast” (cf. Sm. 7.1; 8.2). But Ignatius’ use of the linking formula “which is” is against this solution (see on Eph. 20.2). It is more likely that the two sets of comparisons referred to above simply became conflated in the course of Ignatius’ dictation of the passage. What Ignatius basically “wants,” of course, is Jesus Christ who died and rose for us (cf. 6.1). The bread and drink (and all the rest) are simply specifications of that fundamental wish. The closest parallel here is Tr. 8.1, where the use of eucharistic language apparently echoes Ignatius’ concern to emphasize the reality of Christ’s death and thereby also the importance of the concrete requirements of faith and love. The reference in the passage before us to Christ being “of the seed of David” probably functions similarly to underscore the reality of the Lord’s earthly ministry (cf. Eph. 18.2; 20.2; Tr. 9.1; Sm. 1.1). All of this is relevant to Ignatius himself who longs for death (7.2) and elsewhere makes the meaningfulness of his martyrdom dependent on the reality of Christ’s passion (Tr. 10). It is likely, then, that the reference here to Christ’s flesh and blood marks a reaffirmation of the bishop’s desire to authenticate his Christianity in martyrdom.

(William R. Schoedel, Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible: Ignatius of Antioch: A Commentary on the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch, ed. Helmut Koester, [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985], on Ignatius, Romans, 7.3, pp. 185-186.)

Cf. William R. Schoedel:

…there is no clear evidence of literary dependence on John here or elsewhere (Paulsen, Studien, 36-37).

Daniel Waterland:

Here we may take notice of heavenly bread, bread of God, bread of life, our Lord’s own phrases in John vi. And Ignatius understands them of spiritual food, of feeding upon the flesh of Christ, the Son of God incarnate. Drink of God, he interprets in like manner, of the blood of Christ; which is the noblest feast, and life eternal. Learned men have disputed whether he intended what he said of sacramental food, or of celestial; whether of enjoying Christ in the Eucharist, or in heaven. To me it appears a clear point, that he thought not of communicating, but of dying: and the Eucharist was not the thing which he so earnestly begged to have, (for who would refuse it?) but martyrdom, over-officious care for a life so precious.

(Daniel Waterland, A Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist, ed. Van Mildert, [Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1896], pp. 112-113.)

Cf. Samuel H. Turner:

It is evident that Ignatius alludes to our Lord’s discourse at Capernaum; and it is equally evident from his language itself, from the connexion in which it stands, and from the circumstances under which the epistle was written, that the holy man has in mind, not a participation of the eucharist, but a spiritual enjoyment of Christ, and that principally after his martyrdom.

(Samuel H. Turner, Essay on Our Lord’s Discourse at Capernaum: Third Edition, [New York: Anson D. F. Randolph, 1860], p. 109.)

Cf. E. O. Phinney:

…from the circumstances under which it was written, from the connection in which it was found, as well as from the language itself, it is obvious that this spiritually-minded bishop has in mind, not a participation of the Eucharist, but a spiritual and eternal enjoyment of Christ after his martyrdom.

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

J. W. Hunkin:

In justice to Ignatius himself it should be added that he probably did not intend that his language should be tied down to its literal meaning. Elsewhere he speaks of the Gospel as the “flesh of Jesus,” faith as the “flesh of Christ,” and love as “His blood.”

(J. W. Hunkin, “The Origin of Eucharistic Doctrine”; In: The Evangelical Doctrine of Holy Communion, ed. A. J. Macdonald, [Cambridge: W. Heffer & Sons Limited, 1930], p. 34.)

Leon Morris:

…the language is not that of the Holy Communion. There one reads of eating the body, here of eating the flesh. The difference may not be great but it is real. The early church did not speak of “flesh” in the communion service, but of the “body.” It is sometimes said that Ignatius used “flesh” in this connection, but not much can be made of this because of the way this gentleman used language. Thus he says, “I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Christ,” which many take to refer to the communion. But Ignatius goes on immediately, “and for a draught I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible.” The language looks like the communion at first, but the context is concerned with martyrdom, not liturgy, and in any case the ending shows that Ignatius is simply using metaphors to bring out spiritual truth.

(Leon Morris, Reflections on the Gospel of John, [Peabody: Hendrickson, 2000], p. 238.)

C. J. Wright:

Paul N. Anderson:

(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], pp. 133-134.)

J. Ramsey Michaels:

(J. Ramsey Michaels, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel of John, [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2010], pp. 396-397.)

John Peter Lange:

The σάρκα φαγεῖν of Ignatius and Justin can prove nothing. It has its origin here.

σάρξ and σώμα.

Leon Morris:

(Leon Morris, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel According to John: Revised Edition, [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1995], pp. 331-332.)

Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer:

…the evangelist would make Jesus speak of the Lord’s Supper in terms which lie quite beyond the range of the N. T., and which belong to the mode of representation and language of the apostolic Fathers and still later writers (see the passages in Kaeuffer, p. 77 ff.; Rückert, p. 274 f.; Hilgenfeld, Evang. p. 278). This is specially true of the word σάρξ, for which all places in the N. T. referring to the Lord’s Supper (Matt. xxvi. 26 ff.; Mark xiv. 22 ff.; Luke xxiv. 24 ff.; 1 Cor. xi. 23 ff.) have σώμα; so that here accordingly there ought to have been stated the identity, not of the bread and the flesh (which Baur in particular urges), but of the bread and the body; while with reference to the blood, the element identified (the wine) ought also to have been mentioned.

(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. 295.)

Robert H. Mounce:

…the word that Jesus uses for flesh is sarx, while in every NT text that uses the words of institution (Mt 26:26; Mk 14:22; Lk 22:19; 1Co 11:24) the word is sōma (“body”). Variation in a ritual formula would be highly unlikely.

Gregg R. Allison:

(Gregg R. Allison, Roman Catholic Theology and Practice: An Evangelical Assessment, [Wheaton: Crossway, 2014], pp. 313-314.) Preview.

Eric Svendsen:

…the Greek word used in John 6 to designate that which we are to eat is sarx (σάρξ; translated “flesh”), while the Greek word used in the Last Supper texts is always sôma (σώμα; translated “body”). The differences between these words suggests that if a connection between John 6 and the Eucharist is made, it must at best be a loose one. This fits well with the symbolic understanding of John 6.

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

Frédéric Louis Godet:

(F. Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John: Vol. II, trans. Timothy Dwight, [New York:Funk & Wagnalls, 1893], p. 41.)

Hugo Odeberg:

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

Evangelical Answers

Wednesday, July 30, 2025

Transubstantiation and John 6: The Sixth Chapter of John is Not Primarily About the Eucharist.

No comments:

Post a Comment