Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 6:52
The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?
52. strove among themselves ] Their excitement increases; they have got beyond muttering among themselves ( Joh 6:41).
give us his flesh to eat ] ‘To eat ’ is their own addition; they wish to bring out in full the strangeness of His declaration.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 52. How can this man give us his flesh to eat?] Our Lord removes this difficulty, and answers the question, in Joh 6:63.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
They will still understand spiritual things in a carnal sense; yet it is hard to conceive how they could imagine that Christ spake of giving them his flesh to eat, as men eat the flesh of oxen or sheep; but which way soever they did understand it indeed, their captious temper inclined them to conceal any other sense they had of it, and to represent what our Saviour said as exceedingly absurd.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
52. Jews strove amongthemselvesarguing the point together.
How can, &c.thatis, Give us His flesh to eat? Absurd.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
The Jews therefore strove among themselves,…. Fell to cavilling and disputing one among another; some understanding Christ, and others not; some being for him, and vindicated what he said; and others being against him, and who were the majority, objected,
saying how can this man give us his flesh to eat? which is to be understood, not physically, but as morally impossible and unlawful; since, with the Jews, it was not lawful to eat the flesh of any creature alive, and much less the flesh of man; for the Jews understood Christ of a corporeal eating of his flesh, being strangers to a figurative or spiritual eating of it by faith, in which sense he meant it.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Strove (). Imperfect (inchoative) middle of , to fight in armed combat (Ac 7:26), then to wage a war of words as here and 2Ti 2:24. They were already murmuring (41), now they began bitter strife with one another over the last words of Jesus (43-51), some probably seeing a spiritual meaning in them. There was division of opinion about Jesus in Jerusalem also later (John 7:12; John 7:40; John 9:16; John 10:19).
How can? ( ;). The very idiom used by Nicodemus in John 3:4; John 3:9. Here scornful disbelief.
This man (). Contemptuous use pictured in verse 42.
His flesh to eat ( ). As if we were cannibals! Some MSS. do not have , but the meaning is clear. The mystical appropriation of Christ by the believer (Gal 2:20; Eph 3:17) they could not comprehend, though some apparently were against this literal interpretation of “flesh” ().
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Strove [] . The murmuring (ver. 41) now breaks out into open contention among the Jews themselves.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “The Jews therefore strove,” (emachonto oun hoi loudaiou) “Therefore the Jews fought,” were in conflict one with another about the identity and claims of Jesus to be the Savior, Redeemer, or Messiah, Joh 6:48.
2) “Among themselves saying,” (pros allelous) “With one another,” among themselves (legontes) “Repeatedly saying,” as materialists or those with “natural minds” only, 1Co 2:14, Eph 4:18; blinded as they were by the god of this world order,” 2Co 4:3-4. Like snarling mad-dogs, they snapped at one another.
3) “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (pos dunatai houtos hemin dounai ten sarka phagein) How is this man able to give us his flesh to eat?” It seemed impossible to their natural, carnal minds, to those who doted on acquiring and retaining salvation through their own morality, ethics, and ceremonial deeds, much as Nicodemus once thought and questioned the Lord, Joh 3:8-9; Rom 10:1-4.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
52. The Jews therefore debated among themselves. He again mentions the Jews, not by way of honor, but to reproach them with their unbelief, because they do not receive the well known doctrine concerning eternal life, or, at least, do not inquire modestly into the subject, if it be still obscure and doubtful. For when he says that they debated, it is a sign of obstinacy and contempt; and those who dispute so keenly do, indeed, block up against themselves the road to the knowledge of the truth. And yet the blame imputed to them is not simply that they inquired into the manner; for the same blame would fall on Abraham and the blessed Virgin, (Gen 15:2; Luk 1:34.) Those persons, therefore, are either led astray through ignorance, or are deficient in candour, who, without taking into account the hardihood and eagerness to quarrel, which alone the Evangelist condemns, direct all their outcry against the word how; as if it had not been lawful for the Jews to inquire about the manner of eating the flesh of Christ (158) But it ought rather to be imputed to sloth than ascribed to the obedience of faith, if we knowingly and willingly leave unsolved those doubts and difficulties which are removed for us by the word of the Lord. Not only is it lawful, therefore, to inquire as to the manner of eating the flesh of Christ, but it is of great importance for us to understand it, so far as it is made known by the Scriptures. Away, then, with that fierce and obstinate pretense of humility, “For my part, I am satisfied with that single word of Christ, when he declares that hi s flesh is truly food: to all the rest I willingly shut my eyes.” As if heretics would not have equal plausibility on their side, if they willingly were ignorant that Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost, because, believing that he is the seed of Abraham, they make no farther inquiry. Only we ought to preserve such moderation about the secret works of God, as not to desire to know anything more than what he determines by his word.
(158) “ De manger la chair de Christ.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
THE BREAD OF LIFE, III
Text 6:52-59
52
The Jews therefore strove one with another, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53
Jesus therefore said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves.
54
He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56
He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me, and I in him.
57
As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father; so he that eateth me, he also shall live because of me.
58
This is the bread which came down out of heaven: not as the fathers ate, and died; he that eateth this bread shall live for ever.
59
These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
Queries
a.
Why did Jesus speak so emphatically of eating His flesh and drinking His blood?
b.
Where, besides Joh. 6:56, does Jesus tell how we may abide in Him, and He in us?
c.
What is a synagogue, and where in Capernaum?
Paraphrase
The Jews argued angrily with one another, saying, How can He give us His flesh to eat? Jesus replied, I assure you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you have no Life in yourselves. The one trusting wholeheartedly in the saving efficacy of My death is the one eating My flesh and drinking My blood, and he possesses eternal life. This is true, for My body and blood sacrificed for the worlds sin is the genuine food and drink for the soul of man. He who feeds on this spiritual food and drink dwells continually in Me and I also dwell in him. Just as the Father of Life sent Me, and I live by abiding in the Father, even so whoever continues to feed on Me shall live through Me. This is the Bread which came down from heaven. It is not like the manna of which your forefathers ate and died. To the contrary, he who eats the Bread from heaven shall live forever. He said these things in a synagogue while He was teaching in Capernaum.
Summary
Westcott summarizes this section in one sentence: The personal appropriation of the incarnate Son. In Joh. 6:41-51 the question of the Jews was the Personage of Jesus, Is this not the son of Joseph? Jesus answered that question. Now the question of the Jews (Joh. 6:52-59) is, How does He communicate to us this life which He claims to offer? Jesus answers in figurative language: men must take His life into the very center and core of their hearts; men must eat the spiritual dynamic which He alone is able to provide.
Comment
The crowd is a little nauseated (cf. Joh. 6:60-61) at the literal implication, which they themselves attach to His words. Their objection is open and argumentative. Unbelief always takes offense at the truth. He is demanding that every man who desires eternal life must eat His flesh, Over and over (cf. Joh. 6:53-58) He repeats the demand that men must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Why is Jesus so emphatic? What does He mean? Can it be that He means a literal eating of flesh and blood? Impossible! Yet, ever since Jesus uttered these words men have misinterpreted and wrested them to suit their purposes and schemes. The Transubstantiationists pervert this context to support their absurd doctrine of the actual presence of the flesh and the blood of Christ in the Loaf and the cup. They contend that one must literally partake of the flesh and blood of Jesus, and they, therefore, sacrifice the body of Jesus anew each week at the Mass. The book of Hebrews is plain as to the heretical nature of such a practice (cf. Heb. 10:10; Heb. 10:12). The sacrifice made of Christs body at Calvary was once for all.
The Sacramentalists also pervert this passage. According to the Sacramentalists, this passage demands unfailing observance of the Lords supper. They make the Sacrament the means of life. According to this teaching, the Christian, by absenting himself from the Lords Table, cuts himself off from any contact with the saving blood of Jesus Christ. Carried to its logical conclusion, this doctrine is equally as heretical as the Roman Catholics transubstantiation. The Sacramentalist theory comes very near the Roman system of meritorious works.
None of these false doctrines would prevail today if religious leaders would read this context and apply only the very basic rules of Hermeneutics. A first principle in the interpretation of any book is: Let an authors own explanation of his meaning take precedence over any other interpretation. Jesus Himself explains exactly what He means by eating His flesh and drinking His blood when He says, It is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, and are life. (Joh. 6:63) (Italics mine). It would profit us nothing to eat the literal flesh and blood of Jesus, even if it were possible. We appropriate the flesh and blood of Jesus (Life) when we partake of His humanity and His divinity by abiding in all the words of Jesus and His apostles.
The absolute necessity of living by abiding in Gods Word is the point of emphasis here, not the literal flesh. The message Jesus seeks to deliver here is that He is the Word of God manifest in the flesh, and that this multitude must divorce their minds from seeking only the physical bread, and turn to the heavenly Bread of Life (cf. Mat. 4:4). The great apostle Paul says it so clearly, I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me: and that life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith which is in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself up for me. (Gal. 2:20).
To eat and to drink is to assimilate something external to oneself, digest it and make it a part of ones very being. That is what Paul does by living in faith. There is much more to eating and drinking the flesh and blood of the Son of man than partaking of the Lords Supper, for even that observance, regardless of how often, may be done unto condemnation unless accompanied with proper attitudes of faith and love and obedience. Besides, as Barnes says, there is no evidence that he (Jesus) had any reference in this passage to the Lords Supper.
By assimilating His sacrificed body to our spiritual life, we abide in Him (Joh. 6:56). To abide in Him is to continue in His commandments, to participate in the benefits of His death, and to bear fruit. Check all the following references to abiding in Him:
a.
Love and obey (Joh. 14:15-17; Joh. 14:21; Joh. 14:23; Joh. 15:10).
b.
Bear fruit (Joh. 15:1-6).
c.
Dwell in unity (Joh. 17:21-23).
d.
Walk as Jesus walked (1Jn. 2:6).
e.
Love one another (1Jn. 2:10; 1Jn. 3:17-18; 1Jn. 4:12-13).
f.
Let the apostles words abide in us (1Jn. 2:24).
g.
Refrain from continuing in sin (1Jn. 3:6-9).
h.
Keep His commandments (1Jn. 3:24).
i.
Confess Jesus as the Son of God (1Jn. 4:15).
j.
Abide (continue, dwell) in love (1Jn. 4:16).
A very few early manuscripts add, at the end of Joh. 6:56, this gloss: even as the Father is in me and I in the Father. Verily, verily, I say unto you, unless ye receive the body of the Son of man as the bread of life ye have not life in him. Most of our earliest and best manuscripts (Aleph, B, etc.), however, omit this gloss, It is very interesting to note that the latest great manuscript on the Fourth Gospel (Bodmer Papyrus, P. 66) also omits this gloss: more evidence for the purity of our present text.
Joh. 6:57 reads much the same as Joh. 5:26. The Son, being One with the Father, has life in Himself. Because He has life we may be partakers of that life, if we eat Him. The food which Christ gives is His Incarnation. The bread which came down out of heaven is the humanity of Christ, The best explanation for the reason behind Jesus taking the form of flesh and blood is found in Heb. 2:14-18. Christs participation in our nature was necessary in order that He might conquer death, His Incarnation is not only the means of our salvation, but an example for our daily profession (cf. Php. 2:5-8). It is well to note here that the word trogon (the one eating) is in the present tense and must be translated the one continuing to eat me . . . etc. Assimilation of the Bread of Life must be continuous.
In Joh. 6:33; Joh. 6:35 Jesus stated that He was the genuine Bread from heaven, as contrasted with the transistory manna which was only the type. The temporal nature of the manna is emphasized again here in Joh. 6:58.
Among the ruins of Tell-Hum, one of the given sites of Capernaum, an explorer found what remains of a once elegant synagogue. Upon one of the stone blocks of the former synagogue he found an engraving of a pot of manna. Westcott remarks, This very symbol may have been before the eyes of those who heard the Lords words. Jesus taught in other synagogues in other villages and cities (cf. Luk. 4:16; Mat. 12:9).
Quiz
1.
Give some Scriptural reasons why Transubstantiation is a false doctrine.
2.
Why is the theory of the Sacramentalists wrong?
3.
How should Jesus words be interpreted?
4.
What do you think Jesus means by eating and drinking?
5.
Is there any evidence that Jesus is speaking of the Lords Supper in this passage?
6.
Name at least five ways of abiding in Christ.
7.
Why, according to Heb. 2:14-18, did Jesus take upon Himself the form of flesh and blood?
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(52) The Jews therefore strove among themselves.They have passed beyond the murmuring of Joh. 6:41. They understand that He means, though His own words have not yet expressed it, that His flesh is to be eaten, and is thus to supply the principle of life. They contend one with another as to how this can really be.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
52. Jews strove among themselves The contest is expressed in Greek by a word that signifies fought. One section (probably the low Nazarene party of Joh 6:42) would give a base, cannibal sense to his words; others (like the respectful speakers in Joh 6:34) might hold that the great feeder of the five thousand has some mysterious meaning in his words; others still (embracing perhaps some like his doubtful disciples of Joh 6:60) held that he meant, by eating his flesh, only faith in his supernatural person.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘The Judaisers thus strove the one with the other, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” ’
The Judaisers professed to be puzzled at His statement that the bread that they were being told to eat was His flesh which He would give for the life of the world, and they discussed it among themselves. ‘How can this man give us His flesh to eat?’ Regularly in John’s Gospel questions are asked so that the illuminating answer can be given.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Life through Christ’s sacrifice:
v. 52. The Jews, therefore, strove among themselves, saying, How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?
v. 53. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.
v. 54. Whoso eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
v. 55. For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.
v. 56. He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood dwelleth in Me and I in him.
v. 57. As the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father, so he that eateth Me, even he shall live by Me.
v. 58. This 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 forever.
v. 59. These things said He in the synagogue, as He taught in Capernaum. Although Jesus had been careful to explain His figure sufficiently that all might have understood Him, yet the understanding was lacking in the greater number of His hearers. There was a division, a dispute, among them. They differed in their judgment of Him. Some severely denounced Him as insane, others suggested that there might be some truth in His words. But they all thought of physical, sensual eating and partaking. Jesus therefore summarizes the lessons which He wishes to convey once more. He tells them that it is indeed essential for everyone that wishes to have eternal life that he eat His flesh and drink His blood. It is necessary for every believer to receive Jesus altogether by faith, in His full work of atonement, active and passive obedience, shedding of blood, and all. By doing so, the believer has the assurance of eternal life and will rise on the last day to see the consummation of all glories. In this way the body of Christ is the true food, and His blood the true drink. In this way, also, the wonderful union of Christ and the believers in Him is brought about. They receive Christ spiritually and are most intimately and inseparably united with Him. They dwell in the Savior and the Savior in them. And this wonderful union extends still farther. The living Father has sent the Son; the Son, in that mysterious relationship which His eternal Sonship expresses, lives through the Father; and so both persons of the Godhead are the Fountainhead of life and give to the believer the fullness of perfect life, which will last throughout eternity. He that believes on the Son places his trust, first of all, in the human nature, in the man Jesus Christ that died for the sins of the whole world. But thereby he also accepts and clings to the divine nature, to the entire, Godhead and all His gifts. Thus the human nature of Christ is like a bridge between God and man. He that believes in Jesus the Savior has the entire Christ in himself, according to both, divine and human natures, true God and man. That the Jews put their trust in the mere historical fact of the manna in the wilderness, believing that in some way they were partakers of the benefits that came upon their fathers at that time, was altogether foolish. Only by faith in Christ, the living Bread from heaven, can eternal life be obtained. John remarks, with his usual exact specification of time and place, that this wonderful sermon was held in Capernaum, in the synagogue. It is immaterial whether it was on a Sabbath or on one of the week-days when there were services, Monday or Thursday. Jesus gave a clear and unmistakable testimony concerning Himself, full of glorious comfort to the believer.
“The Flesh of the Son of Man”
Since the time of the Reformation, the Reformed sects, almost without exception, have understood the passage Joh 6:51-63 of the Lord’s Supper, in order to bolster up their false doctrine concerning a mere spiritual eating and drinking in the Eucharist. Their standpoint may be summarized in one sentence: “Even if Christ does give us His flesh in the Holy Supper, it still has no value; for everything depends upon the spirit.”
That this position is untenable is evident from the very words. For if these words of the Lord did treat of the Lord’s Supper, long before this Sacrament was instituted and known, then the real presence would certainly be taught here, a fact which all the followers of Zwingli would repudiate with the greatest severity. But the words in their connection cannot be understood but of the faith which accepts Jesus and all His works and merits. And the contrast between flesh and spirit in verse 63 has nothing whatever to do with the Eucharist, since it opposes the work of the Spirit of God to the unprofitable working of the natural condition of man. “Since, then, this is true and incontrovertible that flesh, where it is contrasted to spirit, cannot mean the body of Christ, but the old Adam, born of the flesh, it is certain, also, that here, Joh 6:63, the words ‘Flesh profited nothing’ cannot be understood of the body of Christ, because Christ there places flesh in opposition to spirit. For thus His words Bound clearly: It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profited nothing; the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. There you see plainly that He distinguishes between flesh and spirit and places the former in opposition to the latter. For He evidently teaches that life and spirit is in His words, and not in the flesh. Of the flesh He affirms that it is unprofitable. And how can it be profitable, if neither life nor spirit is found therein? If there is no life nor spirit therein, then there must be only death and sin therein. Which heretic has now been so desperate (excepting the Jews) as to understand this of the flesh of Christ? Now let the enthusiasts try themselves out; let us see what they can do; they have boasted that this was an iron wall and the certain truth; if they can make good their boast, I should like to see it. ” “The eating and drinking is nothing but believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave His flesh and blood for me, in order to deliver me from sin, death, devil, hell, and all misfortune. Such faith can never exist without life; therefore, he that believes must live and be just, as Habakkuk says, chap. 2:4: The just shall live by faith. Therefore the eating is done with the heart and not with the mouth. The eating with the heart does not deceive, but the eating with the mouth does; the eating with the mouth will have an end, the other lasts eternally without interruption. For the heart is nourished and fed by faith in Christ. There you see plainly that these words are not to be understood of the Sacrament of the Altar. Therefore to eat the flesh of the Son of God and to drink His blood, as has been said, is nothing else than that I believe His flesh was given for me and His blood was shed for me, and that for my sake He conquered sin, death, devil, hell, and all misfortune. Out of such faith there results a great and mighty confidence in Him and a scorn and bold courage against all misfortune, that I may henceforth fear nothing, neither sin nor death nor devil nor hell, since I know that my Lord cast them under His feet and conquered them for my sake.”
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Joh 6:52. The Jews therefore strove All the terms made use of by our Lord on this occasion, were such as the Jews had been accustomed to interpret figuratively; for which reason they might easily have understood them: nevertheless, taking them in a literal sense, they were astonished beyond measure, and fell into keen disputes, , about the meaning of them: they debated strongly, some being inclined to believe, others to reject this doctrine. Observe the degrees: the Jews are to be tried here, the disciples, Joh 6:60-66 the apostles, Joh 6:67, &c.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Joh 6:52-53 . The Jews rightly add , borrowing it from the preceding context; but the meaning and reference of the expression, which they certainly recognised as somehow to be taken figuratively, are to them so indistinct, that they fall into a dispute with each other (“non jam solum murmurabant uti Joh 6:41 ,” Bengel) upon the question: “ How can this man give us his flesh ( , also without the , a gloss in Lachm.) to eat? ” Not as if they had missed hearing something (Luthardt: “the futurity implied in the expression, Joh 6:51 ”), but they did not understand the enigmatical statement. Instead now of explaining the how of their question, Jesus sets before them the absolute necessity of their partaking, and in still more extreme terms lays down the requirement, which seemed so paradoxical to them; for He nows adds the drinking of His blood , in order thus to bring more prominently into view the reference to His death , and its life-giving power to be experienced by believing appropriation.
. .] This prophetic and Messianic self-designation (Joh 1:51 , Joh 3:13-14 ), which could now less easily escape the notice of His hearers than in Joh 6:27 , serves as a still more solemn expression in place of , without, however, affecting the meaning of the eating and drinking.
.] “ ye have not life in yourselves ,” “ life is foreign to and remote from your own inner nature,” death is the power that ye have in you, spiritual and eternal death; life must first, by that eating and drinking, be inwardly united with your own selves. In that appropriation of the flesh and blood of Jesus, this life flows forth from His life (Joh 6:56-57 ; Joh 5:26 ); and it is attached to faith only, not to the use of any outward element (comp. Harless, p. 124).
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
Ver. 52. Strove among themselves ] They tumultuously contradicted, murmured, mutinied, which was a sign of their obstinance and contempt. For otherwise it is not only lawful, but needful, modestly to make inquiry how we may eat Christ spiritually.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
52. ] The inference conveyed in , which first comes from the Jews themselves , is yet a right one. If He is the Bread, and that Bread is His Flesh, we must eat His Flesh , though not in the sense here meant by them. They contended against one another, probably some having more insight into the possibility of a spiritual meaning than others.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Joh 6:52 . The further explanations sprang from a fresh question put not directly to Jesus, but to one or other of the crowd. They differed in their judgment of Him. Some impatiently denounced Him as insane: others suggesting that there was truth in His words. The discussion all tended to the question . He had only spoken of “giving” His flesh for the life of the world: but they not unreasonably concluded that if so, it must be eaten. Their mistake lay in thinking of a physical eating.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Joh 6:52-59
52Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” 53So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. 58This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.” 59These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.
Joh 6:52
NASB”argue”
NKJV”quarreled”
NRSV”disputed”
TEV”an angry argument”
NJB”arguing”
The imperfect tense meant the beginning of something or the continuing of something in past time. This is a strong Greek term for fighting (cf. Act 7:26; 2Ti 2:23-24; Tit 3:9) and used metaphorically in 2Co 7:5 and Jas 4:1-2.
“How can this man give us His flesh to eat” In John Jesus speaks in metaphoric language that is regularly misunderstood in a literal sense: (1) Nicodemus, Joh 3:4; (2) Samaritan woman, Joh 4:11; (3) Jewish crowd, Joh 6:52; and (4) disciples, Joh 11:11.
Joh 6:53-57 The verbals in Joh 6:53-54 are very interesting. In Joh 6:53, “eat” and “drink” are aorist active subjunctives which speak of a volitionally potential initiating act. The verbals in Joh 6:54, “eats” and “drinks,” are Present active participles which emphasize continuing action (cf. Joh 6:56-58). It seems that this confirms the fact that one must initially respond to Jesus and continue to respond (cf. Joh 6:44).
It must be remembered that to take this passage literally is to misunderstand the Jewish horror at drinking blood (cf. Lev 17:10-14). To take Jesus’ obvious allusions to the manna in the wilderness (cf. Joh 6:58), and use them as literal phrases connected with the Eucharist is a manipulation of the historical setting and literary context for liturgical purposes.
Joh 6:54 “flesh. . .blood” This is a Jewish metaphorical way of referring to the whole person, like “heart.”
Joh 6:55 “true food. . .true drink” This is John’s characteristic use of the term true/truth (see special topic below). John, writing later than the other NT writers, had seen the development of several heresies (overemphasis on John the Baptist, overemphasis on sacramentalism, overemphasis on human knowledge-Gnosticism).
SPECIAL TOPIC: “TRUTH” (THE CONCEPT) IN JOHN’S WRITINGS
Joh 6:56 “abides in Me and I in him” This same truth is stated in Joh 15:4-7; 1Jn 2:6; 1Jn 2:27-28; 1Jn 3:6; 1Jn 3:24, see Special Topic: Abiding at 1Jn 2:10. This is the ongoing NT emphasis on the perseverance of saints (cf. Gal 6:9; Rev 2:7; Rev 2:11; Rev 2:17; Rev 2:26; Rev 3:5; Rev 3:12; Rev 3:21, see Special Topic at Joh 8:31). True response is validated by a continuing response. This emphasis on perseverance is the missing element in American evangelicalism. One must not only start in faith, but finish in faith (Hebrews 11). Jonathan Edwards said, “Sure proof of election is that one hold out to the end.” W. T. Conner said, “The salvation of a man elected to salvation is from eternity to eternity certain in the mind and purpose of God, yet it is conditioned upon faith, and a faith that perseveres and conquers.”
Joh 6:57 “the living Father” This phrase is unique, but the concept is used often in the Bible. There are several different ways to interpret the origin of this title for God.
1. the basic name of the Covenant God (cf. Exo 3:12; Exo 3:14-16; Exo 6:2-3, see Special Topic at Joh 6:20)
2. oaths by God, “as I live” or in God’s name, “as the Lord lives” (cf. Num 14:21; Num 14:28; Isa 49:18; Jer 4:2)
3. as a description of God (cf. Psa 42:2; Psa 84:2; Jos 3:10; Jer 10:10; Dan 6:20; Dan 6:26; Hos 1:10; Mat 16:16; Mat 26:63; Act 14:15; Rom 9:26; 2Co 3:3; 2Co 6:16; 1Th 1:9; 1Ti 3:15; 1Ti 4:10; Heb 3:12; Heb 9:14; Heb 10:31; Heb 12:22; Rev 7:2)
4. the statements in Joh 5:26 that the Father has life in Himself and has given it to the Son and Joh 5:21 where the Father raises the dead as does the Son.
Joh 6:58 This is a comparison of the Old Testament and the New, Moses and Jesus. (See the book of Hebrews, esp. chapters 3, 4).
“the fathers ate and died” This may also have served the theological function of denying salvation through lineage (cf. Joh 8:33-39) or through the Mosaic Law (Torah).
“forever” See Special Topic below.
SPECIAL TOPIC: FOREVER (‘OLAM)
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
strove = were contending. Greek. machomai. Only here, Act 7:26. 2Ti 2:24. Jam 4:2. An advance on “murmuring” in Joh 6:41.
among themselves = with (Greek. pros. App-104.) one another.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
52.] The inference conveyed in , which first comes from the Jews themselves, is yet a right one. If He is the Bread, and that Bread is His Flesh, we must eat His Flesh, though not in the sense here meant by them. They contended against one another, probably some having more insight into the possibility of a spiritual meaning than others.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 6:52. , began to strive) They now did not merely murmur, as at Joh 6:41.- , the Jews) The successive steps are to be observed: the Jews, in this place; the disciples, Joh 6:60; Joh 6:66, This is a hard saying; who can hear it?-Many-went back and walked no more with Him; the apostles, Joh 6:67, [Jesus to the Twelve] Will ye also go away?-, how) The How they repeat here again: comp. Joh 6:42, How is it that He saith, I came down from heaven? To neither the one nor the other how does Jesus reply, but proceeds with His own discourse, and saith, Thus it must be: Joh 6:53, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, etc., ye have no life in you.- , the flesh) Again they fasten on that statement, as being the one which seemed to them especially hard.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 6:52
Joh 6:52
The Jews therefore strove one with another, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?-The Jews in the grossness of their nature could not perceive the spiritual truths and so murmured over the impossibility of the truths.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Eat and Live
Joh 6:52-59
In Joh 6:57 our Lord gives the secret of His inner life. At the beginning of His ministry He told the tempter that man did not live by bread alone, but by Gods Word. Here He goes further and says that He lived not only by the words of God, but by God Himself. There is also this other truth, that each of us is called to exercise toward Christ the same attitude and dependence that He exercised toward the Father. It is impossible by one illustration to set forth the eternal facts of the spiritual world. Metaphor has to be heaped on metaphor. Already our Lord had dealt with the symbol of manna and bread; He now goes further in order to emphasize the truth that the power to communicate life can only be acquired through death. Our Lord, therefore, describes the bread of the soul-life as His flesh, which he would give for the life of the world. Obviously flesh is that which has passed through death. But it should always be borne in mind that the Christian soul does not dwell exclusively on the death of Jesus, but on the life of Him who died. It is the risen and ascended Christ, who died for our sins but whom God exalted to His right hand, that should fill our thoughts.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
strove: Joh 6:41, Joh 7:40-43, Joh 9:16, Joh 10:19
How: Joh 3:4, Joh 3:9, Joh 4:11, Act 17:32, 1Co 2:14
Reciprocal: Exo 12:8 – eat the 2Sa 23:17 – the blood Eze 44:7 – when Joh 6:51 – my flesh Joh 7:36 – manner Joh 10:6 – they understood not Joh 14:22 – how 2Ti 2:24 – strive
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
2
The preceding verse makes the first move toward introducing the very important matter of eating the flesh of Jesus. Of course Jesus knew the Jews would make a literal application of the statement. That would call for the true explanation of the subject, which will include several verses because of the deep spiritual significance of the topic in hand. The reader should patiently follow the comments through this interesting group of verses.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
FEW passages of Scripture have been so painfully wrested and perverted as that which we have now read. The Jews are not the only people who have striven about its meaning. A sense has been put upon it, which it was never intended to bear. Fallen man, in interpreting the Bible, has an unhappy aptitude for turning meat into poison. The things that were written for his benefit, he often makes an occasion for falling.
Let us first consider carefully, what these verses do not mean. The “eating and drinking” of which Christ speaks do not mean any literal eating and drinking. Above all, the words were not spoken with any reference to the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. We may eat the Lord’s Supper, and yet not eat and drink Christ’s body and blood. We may eat and drink Christ’s body and blood, and yet not eat the Lord’s Supper. Let this never be forgotten.
The opinion here expressed may startle some who have not looked closely into the subject. But it is an opinion which is supported by three weighty reasons.-For one thing, a literal “eating and drinking” of Christ’s body and blood would have been an idea utterly revolting to all Jews, and flatly contradictory to an often-repeated precept of their law.-For another thing, to take a literal view of “eating and drinking,” is to interpose a bodily act between the soul of man and salvation. This is a thing for which there is no precedent in Scripture. The only things without which we cannot be saved are repentance and faith.-Last, but not least, to take a literal view of “eating and drinking,” would involve most blasphemous and profane consequences. It would shut out of heaven the penitent thief. He died long after these words were spoken, without any literal eating and drinking. Will any dare to say he had “no life” in Him?-It would admit to heaven thousands of ignorant, godless communicants in the present day. They literally eat and drink, no doubt! But they have no eternal life, and will not be raised to glory at the last day. Let these reasons be carefully pondered.
The plain truth is, there is a morbid anxiety in fallen man to put a carnal sense on Scriptural expressions, wherever he possibly can. He struggles hard to make religion a matter of forms and ceremonies,-of doing and performing,-of sacraments and ordinances,-of sense and of sight. He secretly dislikes that system of Christianity which makes the state of the heart the principal thing, and labors to keep sacraments and ordinances in the second place. Happy is that Christian who remembers these things, and stands on his guard! Baptism and the Lord’s supper, no doubt, are holy sacraments, and mighty blessings, when rightly used. But it is worse than useless to drag them in everywhere, and to see them everywhere in God’s Word.
Let us next consider carefully, what these verses do mean. The expressions they contain are, no doubt, very remarkable. Let us try to get some clear notion of their meaning.
The “flesh and blood of the Son of man” mean that sacrifice of His own body, which Christ offered up on the cross, when He died for sinners. The atonement made by His death, the satisfaction made by his sufferings, as our Substitute, the redemption effected by His enduring the penalty of our sins in His own body on the tree,-this seems to be the true idea that we should set before our minds.
The “eating and drinking,” without which there is no life in us, means that reception of Christ’s sacrifice which takes place when a man believes on Christ crucified for salvation. It is an inward and spiritual act of the heart, and has nothing to do with the body. Whenever a man, feeling his own guilt and sinfulness, lays hold on Christ, and trusts in the atonement made for him by Christ’s death, at once he “eats the flesh of the Son of man, and drinks His blood.” His soul feeds on Christ’s sacrifice, by faith, just as his body would feed on bread. Believing, he is said to “eat.” Believing, he is said to “drink.” And the special thing that he eats, and drinks, and gets benefit from, is the atonement made for his sins by Christ’s death for him on Calvary.
The practical lessons which may be gathered from the whole passage are weighty and important. The point being once settled, that “the flesh and blood” in these verses means Christ’s atonement, and the “eating and drinking” mean faith, we may find in these verses great principles of truth, which lie at the very root of Christianity.
We may learn, that faith in Christ’s atonement is a thing of absolute necessity to salvation. Just as there was no safety for the Israelite in Egypt who did not eat the passover-lamb, in the night when the first-born were slain, so there is no life for the sinner who does not eat the flesh of Christ and drink His blood.
We may learn that faith in Christ’s atonement unites us by the closest possible bonds to our Savior, and entitles us to the highest privileges. Our souls shall find full satisfaction for all their wants:-“His flesh is meat indeed, and His blood is drink indeed.” All things are secured to us that we can need for time and eternity:-“Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”
Last, but not least, we may learn that faith in Christ’s atonement is a personal act, a daily act, and an act that can be felt. No one can eat and drink for us, and no one, in like manner, can believe for us.-We need food every day, and not once a week or once a month,-and, in like manner, we need to employ faith every day.-We feel benefit when we have eaten and drunk, we feel strengthened, nourished, and refreshed; and, in like manner, if we believe truly, we shall feel the better for it, by sensible hope and peace in our inward man.
Let us take heed that we use these truths, as well as know them. The food of this world, for which so many take thought, will perish in the using, and not feed our souls. He only that eats of “the bread that came down from heaven” shall live for ever.
==================
Notes-
v52.-[The Jews therefore strove among themselves.]-This expression shows an increasingly strong feeling among the Jews. When our Lord talked of “coming down from heaven” they “murmured.”-When He speaks of giving His “flesh to eat” they “strove.”-It is the word rendered “ye fight,” in Jam 4:2. In what way the Jews strove it is not very clear to see. We cannot suppose that there were two contending parties,-one favourable to our Lord, and one opposed to Him. It probably means that they began to reason and argue among themselves in an angry, violent, and excited manner, such as Paul forbids when he says, “The servant of the Lord must not strive.” (2Ti 2:24.) The same word is used there as here.
[How can this man give….flesh to eat.] The likeness should be observed between this question and that of Nicodemus (Joh 3:4), and that of the Samaritan woman. (Joh 4:11.)
There is an implied scornful sense about the expression “this man.”
Cyril in commenting on this verse, points out the unreasonableness and inconsistency of the Jews, above all men, in raising difficulties and denying the possibility of things, because they are hard to explain and preternatural. He summons the Jews to explain the miracles in Egypt, and those in the wilderness, and he concludes,-“There are innumerable things, in which if thou inquirest ‘how’ they can be, thou must overthrow the whole Scripture, and despise Moses and the Prophets.”
v53.-[Jesus said…Verily, verily, I say.] We come now to one of the most solemn and important sayings that ever fell from our Lord’s lips. Having brought the Jews step by step up to this point, He now declares to them the highest and most startling doctrine of the Gospel.
[Except ye eat the flesh…drink his blood…no life in you.] When our Lord uses this phrase “except” at the beginning of a sentence, we generally find something of more than ordinary importance in it. Thus, “Except a man be born again,”-“Except ye be converted and become as little children,”-“Except ye repent.” (Joh 3:3, Mat 18:3, Luk 13:3.) Here He tells the Jews that they “have no life,”-no spiritual life, no title to eternal life,-that they are in fact dead, legally dead, spiritually dead, and on the way to the second death, if they do not “eat the flesh and drink the blood” of the Son of man,-that is, of Himself. In a word, He lays down the principle that eating His flesh and drinking His blood is a thing not only possible but absolutely necessary to salvation-is a thing without which no man can go to heaven.
Considering that the Jewish passover was nigh at hand, and that many of our Lord’s hearers were probably on their way to Jerusalem to attend it, it seems highly probable that our Lord desired to direct the minds of those He addressed to Himself as the true passover and sacrifice for sin.
The latent idea of the sentence, I firmly believe, is that first passover in the land of Egypt, which was kept on the night when the first-born was slain. The flesh and blood of the lamb slain that night were the means of life, safety, and deliverance to the Israelites. In like manner, I believe, our Lord meant the Jews to understand that His flesh and blood were to be the means of life and deliverance from the wrath to come to sinners. 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
But what did our Lord mean when He spoke of “eating his flesh and drinking his blood,” as things indispensably necessary to life? This is a point on which wide differences of opinion prevail, have prevailed in every age of the Church, and probably will prevail as long as the world stands.
(a.) Some think that our Lord meant a literal “eating and drinking” with the mouth of our bodies, and that the “flesh and blood” mean the bread and wine in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper. This is the opinion of almost all the Fathers, though occasional passages may be pointed out in the writings of some, which seem irreconcileable with it. It is the opinion of most Roman Catholic writers, but certainly not of all. It is the opinion of some modern English divines, such as Wordsworth and Burgon.
(b.) Some think that the “eating and drinking” here mean the eating and drinking of heart and soul by faith, not of the body,-and that the “flesh and blood” mean Christ’s vicarious sacrifice of His body on the cross. They deny entirely that there is any reference whatever to the Lord’s supper in the words. They consider that our Lord meant to teach the absolute necessity of feeding by faith on His atonement for sin on the cross. Except a man’s soul lays hold by faith on Christ’s sacrifice of His body and blood as the only hope of his Salvation, he has no title to or part in eternal life. This is the opinion of Luther, Melancthon, Zwingle, Calvin, Ecolampadius, Brentius, Gualter, Bullinger, Pellican, Beza, Musculus, Flacius, Calovius, Cocceius, Gomarus, Nifanius, Poole, Cartwright, Hammond, Rollock, Hutcheson, Lightfoot, Henry, Burkitt, Whitby, Leigh, Pearce, Lampe, Gill, Tittman, A. Clarke, Barnes, and most modern divines.
Among Romanist writers, this opinion is held by Cardinal Cajetan, Ferus, and Jansenius of Ghent. Even Toletus, one of the ablest Romanist commentators on John, admits that the opinions of writers are not unanimous.
(c.) Some think that our Lord did not mean any literal eating and drinking, and that He did not refer directly to the Lord’s Supper when He spake of His flesh and blood. But they do think that our Lord had the sacrament in view and prospect, when He spoke these words, and that He did tacitly refer to that peculiar communion with His flesh and blood, which He afterwards appointed the Lord’s supper to be the means of imparting to believing communicants. This is the opinion, apparently, of Trapp, Doddridge, Olshausen, Tholuck, Stier, Bengel, Besser, Scott, Alford, and some others.
I decidedly agree with those who hold the second of these opinions. I believe that our Lord, both in this text and all through this chapter, did not, either directly or indirectly, refer to the Lord’s supper,-that by His flesh and blood He did not mean the bread and wine,-that by eating and drinking He did not mean any bodily act. I believe, that by “flesh and blood” He meant the sacrifice of His own body for us, when He offered it up as our Substitute on Calvary. I believe that by “eating and drinking,” He meant that communion and participation of the benefits of His sacrifice which faith, and faith only, conveys to the soul. I believe His meaning to be,-“Except ye believe on me as the one sacrifice for sin, and by faith receive into your hearts the redemption purchased by my blood, ye have no spiritual life, and will not be saved.” The atonement of Christ, His vicarious death and sacrifice, and faith in it,-these things are the key to the whole passage. I believe this must be kept steadily in view.
It is easy to call the opinion to which I adhere Zwinglian, and low, and irreverent. Hard words are not arguments. It is easier to make such assertions than to prove them. I have already shown that many writers, wholly unconnected with Zwingle or Zwinglianism, maintain the opinion. But I submit that the following reasons are weighty and unanswerable:-
(1.) To say that our Lord meant the Lord’s supper in this text is a most cruel and uncharitable opinion. It cuts off from eternal life all who do not receive the communion. At this rate all who die in infancy and childhood,-all who die of full age without coming to the communion,-the whole body of the Quakers in modern times,-the penitent thief on the cross, all-all are lost for ever in hell! Our Lord’s words are stringent and exclusive. Such an opinion is too monstrous to be true. In fact, it was to avoid this painful conclusion that many early Christians, in Cyprian’s time, held the doctrine of infant communion.
Ferus, the Roman Catholic commentator, who considers the eating and drinking here to be only spiritual, and not to refer to the sacrament, sees this objection clearly and puts it strongly.
(2.) To say that our Lord’ meant the Lord’s supper in this text, opens a wide door to formalism and superstition. Thousands would wish nothing better than to hear,-“He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood,-that is, eats the sacrnmental bread and drinks the sacramental wine,-has eternal life.” Here is precisely what the natural heart of man likes! He likes to go to heaven by formally using ordinances. This is the very way in which millions in the Romish Church have made and are making shipwreck of their souls.
(3.) To say that our Lord meant the Lord’s supper in the text, is to make a thing absolutely necessary to salvation which Christ never intended to be so. Our Lord commanded us to use the Lord’s supper, but He never said that all who did use it would be saved, and all who did not use it would be lost. How many hundreds repent and are converted on their death-beds, far away from ministers and sacraments, and never receive the Lord’s supper! And will any one dare to say they are all lost? A new heart and an interest in Christ’s cleansing blood are the two things needful to salvation. We must have the Blood and the Spirit, or we have no life in us. Without them no heaven! But the Scripture never puts between a sinner and salvation an outward ordinance, over which the poor sinner may have no control, and may be unable to receive it, without any fault of his own.
Archbishop Cranmer remarks, in his “Defense of the True Doctrine of the Sacrament,”-“The Romanists say that good men eat the body of Christ and drink His blood, only at that time when they receive the sacrament: we say that they eat, drink, and feed on Christ continually, so long as they are members of His body.-They say that the body of Christ which is in the sacrament, hath its own proper form and quantity; we say that Christ is there sacramentally and spiritually without form or quantity.-They say that the fathers and prophets of the Old Testament did not eat the body nor drink the blood of Christ; we say that they did eat His body and drink His blood, although He was not yet born or incarnate.”
Ferus says,-“We must take hold of Christ’s flesh and blood, not with our hands, but with our faith. He therefore that believes that Christ has given up His body for us, and has shed His blood for the remission of our sins, and through this places all his hope and confidence in Christ crucified, that man really eats the body and blood of Christ.”
Cardinal Cajetan, quoted by Ford, says,-“To eat the flesh of Christ and to drink His blood is faith in the death of Jesus Christ. So that the sense is this: if ye use not the death of the Son of God, as meat and drink, ye have not the life of the Spirit in you.”
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.
If our Lord did really refer to the Lord’s supper when He spake of eating His flesh and drinking His blood, it seems impossible to understand how Roman Catholics can deny the cup to the laity. “Drinking Christ’s blood” is distinctly said to be as necessary to eternal life as “eating Christ’s body.” Yet the Romish Church will not allow the laity to drink Christ’s blood! It is evidently the pressure of this argument which makes some Roman Catholic writers deny that this passage refers to the sacrament. It is a mistake to suppose that they are unanimous on the point.
Rollock starts the question, why our Lord did not plainly tell His hearers that by eating and drinking He meant not a bodily but a spiritual act,-viz., believing. He replies, that in this as in every case, our Lord did not strive so much to make men understand words, as to beget feeling and experimental acquaintance with things. When the heart really begins to feel, words are soon understood.
The distinction that Alford and some others draw between the “flesh” and “blood” in this text, appears to me very doubtful. They think that “eating the flesh” refers generally to participation in the benefits of Christ’s incarnation and ascension with a human body into heaven; and that “drinking the blood” refers specially to an interest in the benefits purchased by His death.-I am not satisfied that this is correct. At Joh 6:57, our Lord, speaking briefly of the truth just before enunciated, only says, “He that eateth me, even he shall live by me.” Surely “eating” there stands for participation in the benefits of Christ’s death as well as life!
My own impression is that both “flesh and blood” are mentioned here by our Lord to make it certain to the Jews that He spoke of His death, and of the offering of His whole body in sacrifice on the cross. The body of the sin-offering was just as essential a part of the sacrifice as the blood. (See Lev 4:1-12.) So also the body of the passover lamb had to be eaten, as well as the blood sprinkled. The “flesh and blood” are both mentioned here because our Lord had in view the offering of Himself as a sin-offering,-and because he would make it sure that He meant the “death” of His body to be the life of man’s soul. It is not Christ incarnate merely, but Christ crucified as our atonement and sin-offering, that man must feed upon if he would have life.
v54.-[Whoso eateth…drinketh…eternal life.] This verse is just the converse of the preceding one. As it had been said that without eating and drinking there was no life, so it is now said that he who eats and drinks has life. These words, as I have already remarked, appear to me to make it impossible to interpret the passage of the Lord’s supper. Myriads are Communicants who have no spiritual life whatever. Every one, on the other hand, who by faith feeds his soul on Christ’s sacrifice for sin, has even now everlasting life. “He that believeth on Him is not condemned.”-“He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.” (Joh 3:18; Joh 6:47.)
The word “whoso” would have been more simply and literally rendered “he that.”
The “presentness” of a true Christian’s privileges should be remarked here again:-“He hath eternal life.”
The Greek word for “eateth,” in this verse and Joh 6:56, is quite a different word from that used in Joh 6:53. The reason of the difference is not very clear, and no commentator has hitherto explained it. 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.
The word is only used in this verse, Joh 6:56-58, Mat 24:38, and Joh 13:18.
[I will raise him up at the last day.] These words are a fourth time repeated, and purposely, in my judgment, to show who they are of whom Christ is speaking. He is not speaking of all who receive the Lord’s supper, but of those persons who are “given to him by the Father,”-“who see the Son and believe on him,”-who “are drawn by the Father and come to Christ.” (Joh 6:39-40, Joh 6:44.) These are the same persons who eat His flesh and drink His blood by faith. To them belongs the privilege of a part in that first and glorious resurrection, when Christ shall call all His people from the grave at His second coming.
v55.-[For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.] The word “indeed” here would be more literally rendered “truly;” and the word “meat” answers to our word “food.” The meaning is, “My flesh is more truly food, and my blood is more truly drink, than any other food and drink can be. It is food and drink in the highest, fullest, noblest sense,-food and drink for the soul, food and drink that satisfies, food and drink that endures to everlasting life.” (See Joh 6:35.)
Rollock remarks, that the best way to understand this verse is to make trial of Christ, and to feed on Him by faith. We shall soon discover how true the words are.
Ferus suggests, that there may be a latent reference here to the forbidden fruit which Satan promised should be “meat and drink indeed” to Adam and Eve. This stands out in contrast to that food. By eating the food Satan held out, came sin and death. By eating the food Christ holds out, comes life and heaven.
v56.-[He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood.] These words are precisely the same as those at the beginning of Joh 6:54; and there is no reason why “whoso” there, should not have been “he that,” as here. In the one case, the man who eats and drinks Christ’s flesh and blood, is said to possess eternal life, and in the other, to be intimately joined to Christ. But it is the same person.
[Dwelleth in me and I in him.] This expression is meant to convey to our minds the close and intimate union that there is between Christ and a true Christian. Such a man is said to dwell, or abide in Christ, and Christ to dwell, or abide in him. Christ is the house, or home, or hiding-place, within which the believer’s soul, as it were, resides;-and Christ dwells in the believer’s heart by His Spirit, comforting, nourishing, and strengthening him. (See 1Jn 3:24, and Joh 14:16-23.) See also Joh 15:4, where “Abide in me and I in you,” might have been equally well rendered, “dwell in me and I in you.”
Just as “food and drink” received into a man’s body become part of the man’s self, and are incorporated into his system, and add to his health, comfort, and strength,-so when a man by faith feeds his soul on Christ’s sacrifice for his sins, Christ becomes as it were part of himself, and he becomes part of Christ. In a word, there is as intimate an union between Christ and the believer’s soul, as there is between a man’s food and a man’s body.
v57.-[As the living Father, etc.] This verse explains the intimate union between Christ and the true believer, by a far higher and more mysterious figure than that of the union of our food and our body. The illustration used, is drawn from that unspeakable and inexplicable union which exists between the Two First Persons in the Trinity-God the Father and God the Son.-It is as though our Lord said, “Just as the Father sent me into the world, to be born of a woman, and take the manhood into God, and yet, though I am among you as man, I live in the closest union and communion with God,-even so the man that by faith feeds his soul on my sacrifice for sin, shall live in the closest union and communion with me.”-In a word, the union between Christ and the true Christian, is as real and true and close and inseparable as the union between God the Father and God the Son.-While the Son was in the world, the carnal eye discerned little or nothing of His union with the Father. Yet it was a true thing and existed. Just so the carnal eye may see little or nothing of the union between Christ and the man who feeds by faith on Christ. Yet it is a real true union.-Just as the Son, though equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, does live, in an ineffable and inscrutable way, through and by the Father, the Son never being without the Father nor the Father without the Son,-so in like manner the man that feeds on Christ enjoys spiritual life, only through and by Christ, Is not this Paul’s thought:-“I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.”-“To me to live is Christ.” (Gal 2:20. Php 1:21.)
Whether our Lord is here speaking of His human nature or of His Divine nature, is not quite clear. I incline to think with Cyril and Chrysostom, that it is the Divine nature.
Rollock remarks, that we have three living Ones spoken of here. (1.) The living Father. (2.) The living Son. (3.) The living believer. As we are sure of the life of the Father, so we may be sure of the life of the believer. The three lives are linked together.
Hutcheson remarks, “Christ’s living by the Father, is not only a pledge of our life, but our life holds also some proportion or similitude to His. For as He hath life communicated by eternal generation, so by regeneration we are made partakers of the Divine nature.”
Winer remarks, that the Greek preposition rendered “by” in this verse, means literally “on account of;” and that the sentence means, strictly and properly; “I live owing to the Father:” that is, “I live because the Father lives.” Schleusner and Parkhurst say much the same.
The “living Father” is a remarkable phrase. It is like the “living God.” (Joh 6:69. Act 14:15. Rom 9:26. 2Co 3:3, 2Co 6:16. 1Th 1:9. 1Ti 6:17.) It must mean the Father who is the source of life, who “hath life in himself.” (Joh 5:26.)
v58.-[This is that bread, etc.] Here our Lord sums up the whole discourse. He reverts to the saying with which the Jews had begun, about the fathers eating manna in the wilderness, and repeats the main points He would have His hearers carry away. These points were as follows:-(1.) That He himself was the true bread which had come down from heaven, to feed the world by the sacrifice of Himself. (2.) That they must not cling to the idea that their fathers had ever eaten this true bread, for they all died in the wilderness, and their souls received no benefit from the manna. (3.) And that those, on the contrary, who would eat of the bread He had come down to give, should live for ever, have everlasting life, and their souls never die.-It is as though He said,-“This sacrifice of Myself is the true bread from heaven, of which I spoke at the beginning. The eaters of this bread are in far better circumstances than your fathers when they ate manna in the wilderness. Your fathers died in spite of the manna, and beside that received from it no spiritual benefit whatever. He, on the contrary, who by faith eats the bread of my sacrifice for sin, shall have everlasting life, and his soul shall never die.”-All the expressions in the verse, we should remark, have been used frequently in the discourse, and now all are grouped together, and presented in one view.
v59.-[These things said…synagogue…Capernaum.] This verse is not sufficiently noticed, I venture to think. I ask any one to compare it with the beginning of the discourse in this chapter, at Joh 6:25,-“When they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said,” etc. Are we to suppose that they found Him in the synagogue? I cannot think it. To me it seems that there must have been a slight break or pause in the discourse. It began at the landing-place, or outside the city. It was resumed after a short interval, of a few hours perhaps, in the synagogue. And as I have said before, the break appears to me to be at Joh 6:41.
Both the discourse of this chapter, and that of the preceding one, have this point in common, that they seem to have been delivered before formal assemblies of Jews.
In concluding the notes on this very important passage, I take occasion to express my entire dissent from the common opinion held by many, that the sixth chapter of John was intended to teach the true doctrine of the Lord’s supper, as the third was intended to teach the truth about baptism.-My own opinion is flatly contrary. I hold that in neither chapter are the sacraments referred to at all. I believe that the third chapter was intended to counteract erroneous views about baptism, by teaching the far higher truth of spiritual regeneration; and I believe that the sixth chapter was intended to counteract erroneous views about the Lord’s supper, by teaching the far higher truth of the necessity of feeding on Christ’s sacrifice by faith.-In fact, the true antidote to wrong views of baptism and the Lord’s supper, is a right understanding of the 3rd and 6th chapters of John’s Gospel, and the whole of John’s first Epistle. Writing, as John did, the last of all the inspired writers, I believe he was divinely inspired to record things which the Church of Christ needed most to know. And I regard it as a most striking fact, that while he altogether omits to describe the institution of the Lord’s supper, and says little or nothing about baptism in the Gospel, he dwells at the same time most strongly on these two mighty truths, which he foresaw were in danger of being forgotten,-viz.: the new birth, and faith in the Atonement.-Surely it is possible to honour baptism and the Lord’s supper, without thrusting them in everywhere in our interpretation of Scripture.
Fuente: Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on the Gospels
Joh 6:52. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? As before, the Jews take hold of those words which are most susceptible of a merely material sense. Every word that points to a spiritual meaning they ignore; but in doing so they themselves give evidence of the clearness with which our Lord had now shown that His intention had been to fix the whole thought of His hearers on Himself, and not on His gifts. The contention of the Jews became violent as they talked of the words of Jesus: the Evangelists expression, literally taken, points to fighting rather than strife (comp. Act 7:26; 2Ti 2:24; Jas 4:2).
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Observe here, How the Jews, understanding Christ after a carnal manner, were offended at what he had said: for they thought it was inhuman to eat man’s flesh, and could not understand how the body of Christ could in such a sense be food to all the world.
Hence note, That carnal persons put a carnal sense upon Christ’s spiritual words, and so occasion their own stumbling. But yet notwithstanding the Jews stumbling at our Saviour’s expression, he doth not alter his words, but presseth more and more the necessity of feeding upon him by faith, in order to eternal life; Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Learn from hence, 1. That the Lord Jesus Christ is the true spiritual food of all believers.
2. That those, and only those, who do by faith feed upon him, shall obtain a life of grace, and glory from him; if we do not by faith feed upon him, we can have no evidence for a life of grace, no title to a life of glory. This place some papists produce to countenance the doctrine of transubstantiation, a bodily eating and drinking of Christ’s flesh and blood in the sacrament. But it is evident that Christ treats not of the sacrament in this chapter, for the sacrament was not now instituted; therefore it is not a sacramental, but a spiritual, feeding upon Christ by faith, that is here meant. For this eating gives life to the eater; all that eat are saved, and all that do not eat are damned; but this is not true of a sacramental eating; besides, this eating which Christ speaks of, he makes absolutely necessary to salvation; but some are saved that never fed upon Christ in the sacrament, as John the Baptist, and the thief on the cross.
Lastly, If it be understood of the sacramental eating and drinking, woe be to the church of Rome, for denying the cup to the laity; because drinking of Christ’s blood is here made as necessary, as eating of his flesh, in order to eternal life. Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Observe farther, The close and intimate union which is betwixt Christ himself, and those that feed upon him: He that eateth me, dwelleth within me, and I in him. As meat is turned into the eater’s substance, so believers and Christ become one; and by feeding on him, that is, by believing in him, there followeth a mutual inhabitation; Christ dwelling in them, and they in him: this is true of a spiritual feeding upon Christ, but not of a sacramental eating. Nay, Christ carries it higher still, and tells us, that as there is a real union between the Father and him, and as the Father lives who sent him, having an eternal fountain of life in himself: and the Son lives by the Father, having the same life communicated to him with his essence from the Father: in like manner, says Christ, he that eateth me, the same shall live by me. All which is certainly true of our spiritual feeding upon Christ by faith; but cannot be applied to a corporal feeding on him in the sacrament, as the papists would have it.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Joh 6:52-53. The Jews therefore strove among themselves Greek, , literally, they fought, that is, they debated with great violence, some being inclined to believe, others to reject this doctrine; some, doubtless, taking his words in one sense, others in another, and some vindicating, and others deriding and censuring them, and, as if what he had advanced was to be taken in a literal sense, the generality saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? What a monstrous and unintelligible doctrine is this! Observe, reader, the effects of this discourse of Christ: the Jews are tried here; the disciples, Joh 6:60; Joh 6:66; the apostles, Joh 6:67. Then Jesus Proceeding in the same figurative language he had used before, and without condescending to make any further explication; said unto them, Verily, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, &c., ye have no life in you As if he had said, However you may censure my doctrine as unintelligible and absurd, yet nothing can be more certain than it, or more important to you. For except you be entirely united to me by a firm and lively faith in the truth and importance of my doctrine, and a cordial dependance, for acceptance with God, on the merit of the sacrifice which I shall offer for the sins of the world, thereby deriving spiritual strength and nourishment from me, through the influences of my Spirit, in the use of those means of grace which I shall institute, you can have no spiritual life in you here, nor attain eternal life hereafter. The reader will easily observe, that by eating his flesh and drinking his blood, our Lord did not mean any corporeal action whatever, but mens receiving in faith, and with gratitude, those blessings, to confer which he assumed the human nature. The expression therefore implies a true and lively faith in the revelation he came to make, concerning the merciful counsels of God for the salvation of sinners; or, as he himself expresses it, Joh 6:63, The word that he spake to them, especially concerning his incarnation, and his dying to make atonement for sin. Which articles of the Christian faith, being particularly understood here, give propriety to the metaphors of eating Christs flesh and drinking his blood, by which the whole of that faith is denominated. The reason is, of all the discoveries made by Christ, those concerning his incarnation, and the nature and ends of his death, received and meditated upon with a lively faith, afford sovereign and salutary nourishment unto 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. The sacrament of the eucharist was plainly intended to affect our minds with a sense of these important truths, and our Lord might probably think of that intended institution while he spoke: but as this was a future thing, and utterly unknown to his hearers, it would be very unwarrantable to interpret this text as chiefly referring to that ordinance. See Macknight and Doddridge.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Ver. 52. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can he give us his flesh to eat?
The term , strove, goes beyond the , murmured, of Joh 6:41; it is now a violent debate following after a whispered murmuring. The wordsamong themselves seem to contradict the appositional word saying, which apparently indicates that the saying was unanimous. But the same question might really be found on all lips, while yet there was no agreement among those who presented it. Some arrived at the conclusion: It is absurd. Others, under the impression of the miracle of the day before and of the sacred and mysterious character of Jesus’ words, maintained, in spite of everything, that He was, indeed, the Messiah. At the sight of this altercation, Jesus not only persists in His affirmation, but strengthens it by using expressions which were more and more concrete. Not only does He speak of eating His flesh and drinking His blood, but He also makes of this mysterious act the condition of life (Joh 6:53-56); He speaks of eating Himself (Joh 6:57); and finally, sums up the whole conversation in the final declaration of Joh 6:58. The evangelist closes by indicating the place of the scene (Joh 6:59). The true text says: the flesh, not: His flesh, although it is indeed the flesh of Jesus that is in question. That which is revolting to them is, that this is the flesh which must nourish them in eternal life.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Joh 6:52-65. Further Jewish Objections.Further advance is made by the use for the first time of the phrase, to eat the flesh. To their question How? Jesus answers that the gift of life can be obtained only by such means. The reference to the sacrificial death is made clearer by the addition and drink His blood. The true life can be gained only by the assimilation of the Body and the Blood, the life set free by death for wider purposes. Those who partake of this true food gain abiding union with Christ. The expressions used here are intelligible only in the light of Christian Eucharistie experience. Joh 6:60 ff. is historically important as describing the crisis in Galilee, when many even of the best disposed took offence and fell away. In place of their material expectations He offered them a spiritual conception of the kingdom. It proved a stumbling-block. What would their feelings be when He left them, His life ended without the establishment of the Messianic Kingdom? This seems to be the meaning of Joh 6:62, though possibly it may mean that the glories of the future would provide a solution of present difficulties. He knows the hollowness of the professions of man. This the author interprets as a reference to Judas. The recorded words of Jesus are of wider application; He knew how His higher teaching had alienated the crowd. Joh 6:66 ff. is sometimes regarded as a duplicate version of the crisis, the failure of disciples, the reference to Judas, the apologetic aim of showing that his treachery was foreseen. The Lords doubts as to the Twelve have not the appearance of a Christian invention. The author interprets the confession at Csarea Philippi (Mar 8:27 ff.). Perhaps the saying about Judas reflects the language of the rebuke to Peter (Mar 8:33). The view that the confession is a clinging to faith in spite of disappointment agrees with the Synoptic account of the Baptists message from prison (Mat 11:2-6, Luk 7:19-23).
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
6:52 {12} The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?
(12) Flesh cannot make a difference between fleshly eating, which is done by the help of the teeth, and spiritual eating, which consists in faith: and therefore it condemns that which it does not understand: yet nonetheless, the truth must be preached and taught.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The meaning of believing 6:52-59
Jesus introduced a new metaphor for believing on Him, namely, eating His flesh. The following pericope is highly metaphorical.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
As Jesus’ hearers had objected to what He had said about His identity (Joh 6:41-42), so they now expressed confusion about what He meant by eating flesh. An intense argument (Gr. emachonto) erupted among them. They were struggling to understand His meaning. In what sense would Jesus give His flesh as food? [Note: See Paul M. Hoskins, "Deliverance from Death by the True Passover Lamb: A Significant Aspect of the Fulfillment of the Passover in the Gospel of John," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 52:2 (June 2009):285-99.]