Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 6:53

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 6:53” utilice nuestra app.

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.

53. Then said Jesus ] Better, Therefore said Jesus: see on Joh 6:45.

and drink his blood ] Christ not only accepts what they have added to His words, but still further startles them by telling them that they must drink His Blood; an amazing statement to a Jew, who was forbidden to taste even the blood of animals (Gen 9:4; Lev 17:10-16). These words point still more distinctly to His propitiatory death; for ‘the blood is the life’ which He offered up for the sins of the world. The eating and drinking are not faith, but the appropriation of His death; faith leads us to eat and drink and is the means of appropriation. Taken separately, the Flesh represents sacrifice and sustenance, the Blood represents atonement and life.

no life in you ] Literally, no life in yourselves: for the source of life is absent. The next four verses explain more fully how this is.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

In these verses Jesus repeats what he had in substance said before.

Except ye eat the flesh … – He did not mean that this should be understood literally, for it was never done, and it is absurd to suppose that it was intended to be so understood. Nothing can possibly be more absurd than to suppose that when he instituted the Supper, and gave the bread and wine to his disciples, they literally ate his flesh and drank his blood. Who can believe this? There he stood, a living man – his body yet alive, his blood flowing in his veins; and how can it be believed that this body was eaten and this blood drunk? Yet this absurdity must be held by those who hold that the bread and wine at the communion are changed into the body, blood, and divinity of our Lord. So it is taught in the decrees of the Council of Trent; and to such absurdities are men driven when they depart from the simple meaning of the Scriptures and from common sense. It may be added that if the bread and wine used in the Lords Supper were not changed into his literal body and blood when it was first instituted, they have never been since.

The Lord Jesus would institute it just as he meant it should be observed, and there is nothing now in that ordinance which there was not when the Saviour first appointed it. His body was offered on the cross, and was raised up from the dead and received into heaven. Besides, there is no evidence that he had any reference in this passage to the Lords Supper. That was not yet instituted, and in that there was no literal eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood. The plain meaning of the passage is, that by his bloody death – his body and his blood offered in sacrifice for sin – he would procure pardon and life for man; that they who partook of that, or had an interest in that, should obtain eternal life. 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, Mat 8:11; Mat 26:29; Luk 14:15, etc.

Joh 6:55

Is meat indeed – Is truly food. My doctrine is truly that which will give life to the soul.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

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, Mt 8:11; Mt 26:29; Lu 14:15; Lu 22:30; and Re 2:17. Those who were made partakers of the Holy Spirit are said by St. Paul, 1Co 12:13, to be made to drink into (or of) one Spirit. This, indeed, was a very common mode of expression among the Jews.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

The short and true sense of these words is, that without a true believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, as he who died for our sins, no man hath any thing in him of true spiritual life, nor shall ever come to eternal life. Here are two questions arise from this verse and what follows.

1. Whether the flesh of Christ, that is, his human nature, giveth life, or all our life floweth from the Divine nature? That is a question between the Lutherans and the Calvinists; the former affirming, that there is a quickening virtue in the human nature of Christ by virtue of its personal union with the Divine nature. It is a curious question, serving to up great edification; those who have a mind to be satisfied in it, and to read what is said on either side, may read Tarnovius on this text, and Zanchy, in his book Deu Incarnatione, p. 540.

2. The other is a question between the papists and us, 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 Lords 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, Joh 6:56,58.

3. Besides, it is plain from Joh 6:29, 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.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

53-58. Except ye eat the flesh . . .and drink the blood . . . no life, c.The harshest word He hadyet uttered in their ears. They asked how it was possible toeat His flesh. He answers, with great solemnity, “It isindispensable.” Yet even here a thoughtful hearer mightfind something to temper the harshness. He says they must not only”eat His flesh” but “drink His blood,“which could not but suggest the idea of His deathimplied inthe separation of one’s flesh from his blood. And as He had alreadyhinted that it was to be something very different from a naturaldeath, saying, “My flesh I will give for the life of the world”(Joh 6:51), it must have beenpretty plain to candid hearers that He meant something above thegross idea which the bare terms expressed. And farther, when He addedthat they “had no life in them unless they thus ate anddrank,” it was impossible they should think He meant that thetemporal life they were then living was dependent on theireating and drinking, in this gross sense, His flesh and blood. Yetthe whole statement was certainly confounding, and beyond doubt wasmeant to be so. Our Lord had told them that in spite of all they had”seen” in Him, they “did not believe” (Joh6:36). For their conviction therefore he does not here layHimself out but having the ear not only of them but of the morecandid and thoughtful in the crowded synagogue, and themiracle of the loaves having led up to the most exalted of all viewsof His Person and Office, He takes advantage of their verydifficulties and objections to announce, for all time, those mostprofound truths which are here expressed, regardless of the disgustof the unteachable, and the prejudices even of the most sincere,which His language would seem only designed to deepen. The truthreally conveyed here is no other than that expressed in Joh6:51, though in more emphatic termsthat He Himself, in thevirtue of His sacrificial death, is the spiritual and eternal life ofmen; and that unless men voluntarily appropriate to themselves thisdeath, in its sacrificial virtue, so as to become the very life andnourishment of their inner man, they have no spiritual and eternallife at all. Not as if His death were the only thing of value,but it is what gives all else in Christ’s Incarnate Person, Life, andOffice, their whole value to us sinners.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Then Jesus said unto them,…. The Jews, who were litigating this point among themselves:

verily, verily, I say unto you; or you may assure yourselves of the truth of what follows,

except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you: by “the son of man”, Christ means himself; under which title he often speaks of himself; because it was a title of the Messiah under the Old Testament; and was expressive of the truth of his human nature, though as attended with weakness and infirmities. The “flesh” and “blood” of Christ do not design those distinct parts of his body; much less as separate from each other; nor the whole body of Christ, but his whole human nature; or Christ, as having united a perfect human nature to him, in order to shed his blood for the remission of sin, and to offer up his soul and body a sacrifice for it: and the eating of these is not to be understood of a corporeal eating of them, as the Capernaites understood them; and since them the Papists, who affirm, that the bread and wine in the Lord’s supper are transubstantiated into the very body and blood of Christ, and so eaten: but this is not to be understood of eating and drinking in the Lord’s supper, which, as yet, was not instituted; and some, without participating of this, have spiritual life in them now, and will enjoy eternal life hereafter; and all that partake of that ordinance have not the one, nor shall have the other: and besides, having a principle of spiritual life in the soul, is previously necessary to a right eating of the supper of the Lord. These words, understood in this sense, once introduced infants to the Lord’s supper; as misinterpretation of Joh 3:5 brought in the baptism of them. But the words design a spiritual eating of Christ by faith. To eat the flesh, and drink the blood of Christ, is to believe that Christ is come in the flesh, and is truly and really man; that his flesh is given for the life of his people, and his blood is shed for their sins, and this with some view and application to themselves: it is to partake of, and enjoy the several blessings of grace procured by him, such as redemption, pardon, peace, justification, c. and such a feeding upon him as is attended with growth in grace, and in the knowledge of him, and is daily to be repeated, as our corporeal food is, otherwise persons have no life in them: without this there, is no evidence of life in them not such live as feed on sinful pleasures, or on their own righteousness; only such that believe in Christ are living souls; and without this there is nothing to support life; everything else that a man eats tends to death; but this is what will maintain and preserve a spiritual life; and without this there is no just expectation of eternal life; but where there is this, there is good reason to expect it, and such shall enjoy it: some copies and versions read, “ye shall not have life in you”; eternal life. Now, though the acts of eating and drinking do not give the right to eternal life, but the flesh, blood, and righteousness of Christ, which faith lays hold, and feeds upon; yet it is by faith the right is claimed; and between these acts of faith, and eternal life, there is an inseparable connection.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Except ye eat ( ). Negative condition of third class with second aorist active subjunctive of . Jesus repeats the statement in verses John 6:50; John 6:51. Note change of (my) in verse 51 to with same idea.

And drink his blood ( ). Same condition with second aorist active subjunctive of . This addition makes the demand of Jesus seem to these Jews more impossible than before if taken in a baldly literal sense. The only possible meaning is the spiritual appropriation of Jesus Christ by faith (verse 47), for “ye have not life in yourselves” ( ). Life is found only in Christ.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Eat the flesh. Appropriate the life. Compare Gal 2:20; Eph 3:17.

Drink His blood. Appropriate the saving merit of His death. The passover was approaching, and the reference may well have been to the flesh and blood of the paschal lamb.

Have no life in you [ ] . Not according to the Greek. Rightly, as Rev., ye have not life in yourselves. All true life must be in Christ. Compare Col 3:3.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “Then Jesus said unto them,” (eipen oun autois ho lesous) “Then Jesus responded directly to them,” to those Jews who had quarreled with one another over who Jesus really was and what He had said, Joh 6:51-52.

2) “Verily, verily, I say unto you,” (amen amen lego humin) “Truly, truly I tell you”,- in an advisory and warning way, before you reject me and perish spiritually.

3) ”Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” (ean me phagete ten sarka tou huiou tou anthropou) “Unless you all eat the flesh of the Son of man,” of the heir of mankind, or accept His sin-bearing on the cross for the satisfaction of the hunger of your souls, 1Pe 2:24; Col 1:20-22; Eph 2:14-15. The idea is much like two other “excepts,” Joh 3:31; Luk 13:3; Luk 13:5.

4) “And drink his blood,” (kai piete autou to haima) ”And you all drink his blood,” not a literal drinking of His physical blood, but an acceptance of faith, that it was to be shed for remission of their sins, and the sins of the whole world, Eph 1:7; Rom 3:24-25; Rev 5:9-10,

5) “Ye have no life in you.” (ouk echete zoen en heautois) “You all have, hold, or possess no life (eternal life) in yourselves,” eternal life that comes to one “through faith in His blood,” or “by faith in His blood,” not by good works, or reformation, or baptism, etc.; The eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood refers not to cannibalism, nor does it refer to any mysterious change of bread and wine (which are not here the subject) into any ceremonial rite that will absolve one of sin. It simply alludes to total acceptance by faith of His substitutionary death and sacrifice for one’s sins, in order for one to have eternal life, Joh 3:15-16; Joh 3:36; Joh 10:27-28; 1Jn 5:13.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

53. Verily, verily, I say to you. The just resentment which Christ felt, (159) when he saw his grace rejected with such haughty disdain, constrained him to employ this oath. For he does not now make use of simple doctrine, but likewise mingles threatenings for the purpose of striking terror. He denounces eternal perdition against all who refuse to seek life from his flesh; as if he had said, “If you hold my flesh in contempt, rest assured that there remains for you no other hope of life.” The vengeance that awaits all despisers of the grace of Christ is, that with their pride they miserably perish; and the reason why they must be urged with plainness and severity is, that they may not continue to flatter themselves. For if we threaten with death those diseased persons who refuse to take medicines, what must we do with wicked men, when they strive, as far as lies in their power, to destroy life itself?

Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man. When he says, the flesh of the Son of man, the expression is emphatic; for he reproves them for their contempt, which arose from perceiving that he resembled other men. The meaning therefore is: “Despise me as much as you please, on account of the mean and despicable appearance of my flesh, still that despicable flesh contains life; and if you are destitute of it, you will nowhere else find any thing else to quicken you.”

The ancients fell into a gross error by supposing that little children were deprived of eternal life, if they did not dispense to them the eucharist, that is, the Lord’s Supper; (160) for this discourse does not relate to the Lord’s Supper, but to the uninterrupted communication of the flesh of Christ, (161) which we obtain apart from the use of the Lord’s Supper. Nor were the Bohemians in the right, when they adduced this passage to prove that all without exception ought to be admitted to the use of the cup. With respect to young children, the ordinance of Christ forbids them to partake of the Lord’s Supper; because they are not yet able to know or to celebrate the remembrance of the death of Christ. The same ordinance makes the cup common to all, for it commands us all to drink of it, (Mat 26:27.)

(159) “ Un juste despit que Christ a conceu.”

(160) “ C’est a dire, la Cene.”

(161) “ De la chair de Christ.”

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(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. 9:4; Lev. 3:17; Lev. 7:26-27; Lev. 17:10-14; Lev. 19:26; Deu. 12:16; Deu. 12:23-24; Deu. 15:23); and we find in later times the strength of the feeling of abhorrence, as in 1Sa. 14:32, and Eze. 33:25, and in the decree of the first Judo-Christian Council (Act. 15:29). In the fullest of these passages (Lev. 17:10-14), 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 Joh. 6:56-57.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

53. Drink his blood From bread to flesh, and now from flesh we come to the blood. So far from shrinking back before the face of these Jews, Jesus presses forward with firmer face, with stronger language, and deeper mysteries. Deep mystery, indeed, this word blood contained; for even his twelve understood not until his cross explained it, and the Spirit of the Pentecost elevated their souls to take in its whole true meaning. The soul of man must by faith eat and drink in the efficacy of Christ’s slain body and shed blood, in order to its attainment of eternal life. While, then, these words drove off the clan of perverts to their own fixed affinities and their own proper place, they opened (like the parables; see our note on Mat 3:1,) to his faithful believers lessons full of increasing meaning with advancing time. These words, by their very force of parabolic language, fixed themselves upon the memory, especially of this disciple whom Jesus loved. They were spoken then by Jesus with a resistless persistence, even for us upon whom these ends of the world are come.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘Jesus therefore said to them, “In very truth I tell you, unless you do eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you do not have life in yourselves. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day”.’

Jesus now made plain that what was in mind was His death, and that all who would be saved must benefit through that death. As mentioned above His words are full of irony. You do not know it, He is saying, but in plotting to kill Me you are fulfilling God’s purposes. If you do not put Me to death (eat my flesh and drink my blood), life will not be available. He might well have added, ‘consider Isaiah 53. It is all laid out there’.

As we have seen above, ‘eating flesh’ and ‘drinking blood’ are Old Testament metaphors for putting someone to death. This comes out vividly in Isa 49:26. ‘I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh, and they will be drunk with their own blood as with wine’, referring to the oppressors turning on each other and killing each other. Such metaphors may be unusual to us, but they were an essential part of life then, as is demonstrated by the phrase ‘partakers in the blood of the prophets’ (Mat 23:30).

He then goes on to say, ‘once you have done so you will be able to eat My flesh and drink My blood by coming to Me in true faith to share in My death and receive life, that is, to partake of the advantages of what I have done for you’. Compare for this idea 2 Samuel 23 17 where David refuses to ‘drink the blood of’ his associates i.e. benefit from the risk of death of his associates.

In the end all who would be His must ‘eat His flesh and drink His blood’ in both ways. We must all firstly recognise that it was we who crucified Christ. We must acknowledge that it was our sin that nailed Him there, and that caused the intense suffering through which He went. We have ‘eaten His flesh and drunk His blood’. Then we must come to Him in confident faith and receive Him and His words, drinking them in and letting them fill our whole being, dying to the world and all its claims by being ‘crucified with Christ’ and sharing His resurrection life (see Gal 2:20, which could be seen as a commentary on Jesus’ words), thus eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood in accordance with Joh 6:35..

The idea of literally drinking blood was strictly prohibited in the Old Testament and would have been abhorrent to every Jew. It is clear therefore that Jesus would not have used this metaphor unless it meant something other than just drinking blood, even on the spiritual level, and equally clear that the Judaisers recognised the fact (they did not protest). So the Old Testament pictures of ‘killing people’ as ‘drinking blood’, and of ‘benefiting from the death of (or risk of death of)’ as ‘drinking blood’ gives us the only reasonable and satisfactory explanation. And indeed it does serve to explain why they did not react in horror at the suggestion. They knew what He meant, and that He knew their hearts. Furthermore the following chapter (chapter 7) will immediately begin with an emphasis on the fact that their aim was to put Jesus to death, and this is stressed continually throughout the chapter, which demonstrates that this was very much a thought which was on Jesus’ (and John’s) mind.

So in the end the Bread of Life would be available because of His future death which they would bring about, when He would be ‘given for the life of the world’. And all who come in faith to eat of Him and receive its benefits will have eternal life and be raised up at the last day.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Joh 6:53. 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 Joh 6:51 as it is elsewhere in scripture; Ch. Joh 1:14. Rom 1:3. 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, Joh 6:63 the words that he spake unto them; especiallyconcerning 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 thenature and ends of his own death, received and meditated upon by a lively faith, afford sovereign and salutarynourishment 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, Eph 1:7 and boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, Heb 10:19.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

DISCOURSE: 1641
THE IMPORTANCE OF LIVING BY FAITH ON CHRIST

Joh 6:53-55. 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. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

THE natural man neither does nor can understand spiritual truths [Note: 1Co 2:14.]. This inspired declaration has been verified in all ages. The Samaritan woman shewed how unapt we are to receive spiritual instruction [Note: Joh 4:14-15.]. Even Nicodemus formed the most absurd conceptions of our Lords meaning [Note: Joh 3:3-4.]: such also was the blindness of the Jews to whom our Lord addressed this discourse [Note: ver. 41, 52.]. He, however, in compassion to them, proceeded to confirm his gracious declarations. May we experience the illuminating and constraining influences of divine grace [Note: ver. 44, 45.], while we consider,

What is meant by eating the flesh of Christ, and drinking his blood

Great caution is necessary in explaining the figurative expressions of Scripture. We shall endeavour to exhibit the full scope of the metaphor, without pressing it too far. It is sufficiently obvious that the text is not to be understood in a literal sense; nor does it relate to the sacrament, that being not yet instituted; nor does it signify the giving a mere assent to our Lords doctrines.

[The doctrines of the Gospel are sometimes represented as bread and wine; and our Lord may be considered as speaking of his doctrines when he speaks of himself as the bread of life. But he could not intend a mere assent to those doctrines by the metaphor of eating. If this were all that he meant, Judas and Simon Magus were truly possessed of eternal life [Note: Act 8:23. Mar 14:21.].]

Our Lord explains the eating of him as synonymous with believing on him [Note: ver. 35.]: but to speak more particularly, the metaphor of eating the flesh of Christ, &c. implies,

An union with his person

[The doctrine of our union with Christ is set forth by a great variety of images in Scripture. It naturally arises from the metaphor in the text [Note: Eph 3:17. Col 1:27.]. It is particularly mentioned by our Lord in the two verses following [Note: From hence it appears, that as our bodily life is upheld by the invisible operation of our food within us, and as the spiritual life of Jesus was maintained by the indwelling of the Deity within him; so the eating of him is, in fact, an union with him, and shall ever be accompanied by the invisible supports of his Spirit and grace.].]

A trust in his sacrifice

[Our Lord speaks of his flesh expressly in reference to his sacrifice [Note: ver. 51.]. The words which he used at the institution of his Last Supper confirm this idea. The eating of his flesh therefore can mean no less than a trust in that sacrifice.]

A dependence on his grace

[What animal food is to the body, that the grace of Christ is to the soul. Unless we have recourse to Christ continually, we must fall and perish [Note: Joh 15:5.].]

According to this view of the metaphor, it is worthy of the deepest attention.

II.

The importance of the doctrine

This is abundantly manifest, from the words before us. There is nothing so important as a life of faith on Christ: nothing,

So necessary

[The greatest of all concerns is the salvation of the soul: but that cannot he effected by any other means. The person who does not live on Christ, has no spiritual life: he may have wealth, and honour, learning, and even morality (in some sense), but he has no life [Note: 1Jn 5:11-12.]: he may even have a name to live, but he is really dead [Note: Rev 3:1.]; and his spiritual death will issue in death eternal [Note: Rev 21:8.]. What then can be so necessary as to believe in Christ?]

So beneficial

[The possession of the whole world is not to be compared with eternal life: yet life eternal is secured by eating the flesh of Christ. As for past sins, they shall be no bar to our obtaining of this blessing [Note: Heb 8:12.]. Indeed, the believer has already eternal life in his soul. He has a title to it, confirmed by the promise and oath of Jehovah [Note: Heb 6:17-18.]. He has also the earnest of it since this communion with Christ is heaven begun on earth [Note: Eph 1:14.]: and the Saviour in whom he trusts, will raise him up at the last day to the complete and everlasting enjoyment of it.]

So excellent

[They may be said to feed on ashes, who have no higher gratifications than those which are derived from carnal indulgences: but the body and blood of Christ are meat indeed, and drink indeed. Nothing affords such unspeakable delight as the exercise of faith on Christ [Note: 1Pe 1:8.]: nor has any thing such a transforming efficacy on the soul [Note: 2Co 3:18.]. Surely, if the manna was angels food [Note: Psa 78:25.], much more is the body and blood of Christ.]

Address
1.

Those who are disregarding this heavenly banquet

[Would to God that you would consider Who it is that utters the declarations in the text! and that you would mark the energetic manner in which he utters them! Think you that his words are false, or that they shall ever be reversed? Ah! cast away the husks on which you are feeding; and live, as the Apostle did, by faith on the Son of God [Note: Gal 2:20.].]

Those who doubt whether they may partake of it

[The whole of our Lords discourse to the Jews shews that all were, not only at liberty, but bound, to feed on him; and we are commanded to invite, yea, to compel, you to come to this glorious feast [Note: Isa 25:6. with Luk 14:23.]. Indeed, to whom else will ye go? and on what else will ye feed? Come then, and eat and drink abundantly, O beloved [Note: Son 5:1.]; and rest assured, that they who come hungry, shall never be sent empty away.]

Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)

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.

Ver. 53. Except ye eat the flesh, &c. ] Fulbert, Bishop of Chartres (who lived in the eleventh century), speaking upon the eucharist, hath these words, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” &c. Facinus vel flagitium videtur iubere. Figura ergo est, praecipiens passioni Domini esse communicandum tantum, et suaviter et utiliter recondendum in memoria, quod pro nobis caro eius crucifixa et vulnerata est. Now in the year of Christ 1608, there was set out an edition of him in Paris, where we have interserted, after Figura ergo est, these words, Dicit Haereticus, to make what Fulbert spoke assertive from Augustine, to speak recitative of the heretic, as if the heretic should say, This is a figure, &c., which if admitted, then there is no transubstantiation. The words produced by Fulbert are indeed St Augustine’s. a And the publisher of Fulbert being told hereof, that the words were Augustine’s, that he had branded with heresy, he put afterwards his Dicit Haereticus among his errata, as ye may read in Bishop Ussher’s answer to the Jesuit’s challenge, page 15.

Except ye eat the flesh ] That is, except ye spiritually apprehend Christ by faith, Crede et manducasti, saith Austin, Believe and thou hast eaten. By the actuation of our faith we even lean on Christ’s bosom as that beloved disciple did; Cruci haeremus, sanguinem fugimus, et intra ipsa Redemptoris nostri vulnera fugimus linguam, saith Cyprian.

a De Doct. Christ. ii. 16.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

53. ] Our Lord not only ratifies their , but adds to it a more wonderful thing; that they must also do that against which a prohibition might seem to have existed from Noah downwards, drink His Blood . But observe, this Blood is not to be eaten in the Flesh, which was the forbidden thing (Gen 9:4 ; Lev 17:10-16 ), in its strict literal form: but to be drunk , separate from the flesh: again presupposing death . Now as the Flesh of Christ (see above) is the Resurrection-Body which He now has, and in which all things consist: so is His Blood (“the blood is the life .” Lev 17:11 ; Lev 17:14 ) the Life which He gave up, paid down, as the penalty for the sin of the world. By the shedding, pouring forth, of that Blood, is remission of sin.

It is quite impossible that these words should, as De Wette maintains, be merely an expansion of . Even had the idea of been one familiar to the Jews, the construction would not have allowed such an interpretation; but new as it was , and abhorrent from their habits and law , we must regard it as specially and purposely added.

But what is this eating and drinking? Clearly, not merely faith: for faith answers to the hand reached forth for the food , but is not the act of eating . Faith is a necessary condition of the act: so that we can hardly say with Augustine, “crede, et manducasti;” but ‘crede et manducabis.’ Inasmuch as Faith will necessarily in its energizing lead to this partaking, we sometimes incorrectly say that it is Faith: but for strict accuracy this is not enough. To eat the flesh of Christ, is to realize, in our inward life, the mystery of His Body now in heaven , to digest and assimilate our own portion in that Body .

To drink His Blood, is to realize, in our inward life, the mystery of His satisfaction for sin, to digest and assimilate our own portion in that satisfaction, the outpouring of that Blood . And both these definitions may be gathered into one, which is: The eating of His Flesh and drinking of His Blood import the making to ourselves and using as objectively real , those two great Truths of our Redemption in Him, of which our Faith subjectively convinces us.

And of this realizing of Faith He has been pleased to appoint certain symbols in the Holy Communion, which He has commanded to be received; to signify to us the spiritual process, and to assist us towards it.

. . ] ‘Ye have not in you that spring of life, which shall overcome death, and lead ( Joh 6:54 ) to the resurrection in the true sense:’ see above, Joh 6:44 , and notice again the solemn refrain .

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

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Joh 6:53-54 . . Instead of explaining the mode Jesus merely reiterates the statement. The reason of this is that their attention was thus more likely to be fixed on the necessity of using Him as the living bread. The difficulty of the statement disappears when it is perceived that the figure of speech is not to be found in the words “flesh” and “blood,” but in the words “eating” and “drinking”. The actual flesh and blood, the human life of Christ, was given for men; and men eat His flesh and drink His blood, when they use for their own advantage His sacrifice, when they assimilate to their own being all the virtue that was in Him, and that was manifested for their sakes. As Lcke points out, the form together one conception and are equivalent to the of Joh 6:57 . If stood alone it might refer especially to the death of Christ, but taken along with it is more natural to refer the double expression to the whole manifestation of Christ; and the “eating and drinking” can only mean the complete acceptance of Him and union with Him as thus manifested. [ , originally the munching of herbivorous animals, was latterly applied to ordinary human eating.]

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

eat . . . drink, &c. The Hebrews used this ex pression with reference to knowledge by the Figure of speech Me tonomy (of the Subject), App-6, as in Exo 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 Deu 8:3, and p. 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; Ecc 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 verses: Joh 6:47-48 with verses: Joh 6:53-54, we see that believing on Christ was exactly the same thing as eating and drinking Him.

flesh . . . blood. By the Figure of speech Synecdoche (of the Part), App-6, this idiom is put for the whole Person. See note on “flesh”, Joh 1:13, and compare Mat 16:17. 1Co 15:50. Gal 1:1, Gal 1:16. . Eph 6:12. Heb 2:14.

no = not. App-105.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

53.] Our Lord not only ratifies their , but adds to it a more wonderful thing; that they must also do that against which a prohibition might seem to have existed from Noah downwards,-drink His Blood. But observe, this Blood is not to be eaten in the Flesh, which was the forbidden thing (Gen 9:4; Lev 17:10-16), in its strict literal form: but to be drunk, separate from the flesh: again presupposing death. Now as the Flesh of Christ (see above) is the Resurrection-Body which He now has, and in which all things consist: so is His Blood (the blood is the life. Lev 17:11; Lev 17:14) the Life which He gave up, paid down, as the penalty for the sin of the world. By the shedding, pouring forth, of that Blood, is remission of sin.

It is quite impossible that these words should, as De Wette maintains, be merely an expansion of . Even had the idea of been one familiar to the Jews, the construction would not have allowed such an interpretation;-but new as it was, and abhorrent from their habits and law, we must regard it as specially and purposely added.

But what is this eating and drinking? Clearly, not merely faith: for faith answers to the hand reached forth for the food,-but is not the act of eating. Faith is a necessary condition of the act: so that we can hardly say with Augustine, crede, et manducasti; but crede et manducabis. Inasmuch as Faith will necessarily in its energizing lead to this partaking, we sometimes incorrectly say that it is Faith:-but for strict accuracy this is not enough. To eat the flesh of Christ, is to realize, in our inward life, the mystery of His Body now in heaven,-to digest and assimilate our own portion in that Body.

To drink His Blood, is to realize, in our inward life, the mystery of His satisfaction for sin,-to digest and assimilate our own portion in that satisfaction, the outpouring of that Blood. And both these definitions may be gathered into one, which is: The eating of His Flesh and drinking of His Blood import the making to ourselves and using as objectively real, those two great Truths of our Redemption in Him, of which our Faith subjectively convinces us.

. .] Ye have not in you that spring of life, which shall overcome death, and lead (Joh 6:54) to the resurrection in the true sense: see above, Joh 6:44, and notice again the solemn refrain.

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

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Joh 6:53. , if you do not) The Jews were questioning as to the possibility: Jesus replies as to the necessity: for in fact the latter infers the former.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Joh 6:53

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.-Insisted on the truth he had told them and that unless they made his life their life they would have no life-the life he gave-in them.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

Verily: Joh 6:26, Joh 6:47, Joh 3:3, Mat 5:18

Except: Joh 3:3, Joh 3:5, Joh 13:8, Joh 15:4, Mat 18:3, Luk 13:3, Luk 13:5

eat: Joh 6:55, Joh 3:36, Mat 26:26-28, 1Jo 5:12, Rev 2:7, Rev 2:17

Reciprocal: Exo 29:33 – eat those Exo 40:22 – he put Lev 7:26 – ye shall eat Lev 8:31 – eat it Lev 9:17 – the meat Num 5:22 – Amen 2Ch 9:4 – the meat Psa 23:5 – preparest Isa 49:9 – They shall feed Eze 3:3 – Then Mar 14:24 – This Joh 1:51 – Verily Joh 3:4 – How Rom 3:25 – through 1Co 1:23 – unto the Jews 1Co 10:16 – the communion of the blood 1Co 11:24 – eat

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

When people persist in making a literal application of some declaration, it may help them to see their error to repeat the statement, but do so in a still more unusual form. The Jews should have known that it would be impossible to drink literally of the blood of Christ. That was true for two reasons; namely, that blood was to be poured out on the ground beneath the cross and never recovered. The other reason was the fact that the blood of Christ was that of a dead man when it was shed, and such blood will produce death instead of life. (See Rev 16:3.)

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Joh 6:53-55. 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 Joh 6:35; Joh 6:48; Joh 6:51, Jesus identifies Himself with that which when eaten gives life; and, as in Joh 6:44 (compare Joh 6:39-40), 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 Joh 6:51) 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 Joh 6:35, 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 mead 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 Joh 6:35 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 (Joh 6:51) it stands alone, as the Saviours gift for the life of the world; and below (Joh 6:57) 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 2:14 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 Joh 6:57. 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 Joh 6:57, 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 Joh 6:51 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. Joh 2:19 (Destroy this Temple) and chap. Joh 3:14 (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. Joh 6:35; Joh 6:55; for the second, Joh 6:47; Joh 6:54; for the third, Joh 6:40; Joh 6:54. 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 Lords Supper? Many have held that the doctrine of the sacrament (not yet instituted, but present to the Redeemers 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 Lords Supper to the teaching of this chapter is very nearly the same as the relation of Christian baptism to our Lords discourse to Nicodemus (see note on chap. Joh 3:5). 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 Lords Supper was made a symbol; and the sacrament is still a symbol of the unchanging truth so fully set forth in this discourse,the believers 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 Lords first address to the multitude (Joh 6:26): 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 Joh 6:53 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. Joh 5:26): so complete is the believers 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.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Vv. 53-55. Jesus therefore said to them: Verily, verily, I say to you, that unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you will not have life in yourselves. 54. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55. For my flesh is truly food and my blood is truly drink.

Verily: It is so, whatever you may think of it! The Lord attests this first in the negative form (Joh 6:53), then positively (Joh 6:54). The term Son of man, recalls the notion of the incarnation, by means of which the eternal life, realized in Him in a human life, is placed within reach of the faith of man. Reuss and Keil think that the terms flesh and blood may be understood here as in the passages where the expression flesh and blood denotes a living human person, for example, Gal 1:16.

But in these cases the blood is regarded as contained in the flesh which lives by means of it, while in our passage the two elements are considered as separated. The blood is shed since it is drunk; and the flesh is broken since the blood is shed. These expressions imply that Jesus has present to His thought the type of the Paschal lamb. It was the blood of this victim which, sprinkled on the lintels of the doors, had in Egypt secured the people from the stroke of the angel of death and which, in the ceremony of the sacrifice of the lamb in the temple, was poured out on the horns of the altar, taking the place in this case of the doors of the Israelite houses; its flesh it was which formed the principal food of the Paschal supper. The shed blood represents expiation; and to drink this blood is to appropriate to oneself by faith the expiation and find in it reconciliation with God, the basis of salvation. The flesh broken represents the holy life of Christ; and to eat it, is to appropriate to oneself that life of obedience and love; it is to receive it through the action of the Spirit who makes it our life. In these two inward facts salvation is summed up. If then Jesus does not directly answer the How? of the Jews, He nevertheless does give indirectly, as He had done with Nicodemus, the desired explanation. As in chap. 3. He had substituted for the expression born anew the more explicit words born of water and Spirit, so He here completes the expression to eat His flesh by the expression to drink His blood, which was suited to recall the type of the lamb and to give these Jews, who celebrated the Paschal feast every year, a glimpse of the truth declared in this paradoxical form. The , in yourselves, recalls the word addressed to the Samaritan woman Joh 4:14. Here again is the idea of the possession in Christ of a fountain of life springing up continually within the believer.

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

Verse 53

Eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of man; in a spiritual sense; that is, become thoroughly imbued with the spiritual influences arising out of the instructions, the example, and, more than all, the dying sufferings, of the Redeemer.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

6:53 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 {s} no life in you.

(s) If Christ is present, life is present, but when Christ is absent, then death is present.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

This is the fourth and last of Jesus’ strong prefaces in this discourse (cf. Joh 6:26; Joh 6:32; Joh 6:47). It should be obvious to any reader of this discourse by now that Jesus was speaking metaphorically and not literally. By referring to His flesh and blood He was figuratively referring to His whole person. This is a figure of speech called synecdoche in which one part stands for the whole. Jesus was illustrating belief, what it means to appropriate Him by faith (Joh 6:40). He expressed the same truth negatively (Joh 6:53) and then positively (Joh 6:54 a). He referred again to resurrection because it is the inauguration of immortal eternal life (cf. Joh 6:39-40; Joh 6:44).

Jesus was again stressing His identity as the revealer of God with the title "Son of Man." Blood in the Old Testament represented violent death primarily. Thus Jesus was hinting that He would die violently. He connected the importance of belief in Him with His atoning death. The idea of eating blood was repulsive to the Jews (cf. Lev 3:17; Lev 17:10-14). Jesus’ hearers should have understood that He was speaking metaphorically, but this reference offended many of them (Joh 6:60-61).

Many interpreters of these verses have seen allusions to the Lord’s Supper in what Jesus said. Sacramentalists among them find support here for their belief that participation in the Eucharist is essential for salvation. However, Jesus had not yet said anything about the Christian communion service. Moreover He was clearly speaking of belief metaphorically, not the communion elements. Most important, the New Testament presents the Lord’s Supper as a commemoration of Jesus’ death, not a vehicle for obtaining eternal life. Nevertheless these verses help us appreciate the symbolism of the Eucharist.

"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." [Note: Carson, The Gospel . . ., p. 298.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles